Tag Archives: food safety

Hand hygiene is a crucial aspect of food production and processing. How can food companies reduce the risks associated with human error in hand hygiene?

Ensuring that employees maintain a proactive and responsible attitude to hand cleanliness is worth a great deal to companies in food processing and production. This can be in regards to financial aspects- a contamination of food materials could cripple a company financially, as well as the damage to reputation that may result from poor cleanliness. In addition poor hand hygiene is a significant factor in individual illness; with employee illness hampering productivity. The costs associated with employee illness and the absences associated with such are also surprisingly high. While the vast majority of food production companies have in place a proactive approach to hand hygiene, ensuring employees themselves actually abide by hand hygiene practices can be more difficult.

You’d be forgiven for thinking that workers handling food would be proactive in terms of ensuring hand hygiene, deeming hand washing initiatives and education campaigns unnecessary. Yet research from the Environmental Health Specialists Network (ESH-Net), the collaborative forum of environmental health specialists associated with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), questions whether sufficient hand hygiene compliance is as widespread as one may have thought. ESH-Net found in one study that 12 percent of food workers had been into work despite suffering from a sickness bug and/or diarrhea¹. Illnesses such as these can spread through a working environment very quickly and one sick employee can spiral into many more ill workers in a short period of time.

Other studies focusing on the economic cost of workplace absence due to sickness in the United Kingdom demonstrate the financial issues associated with avoidable illnesses. A report carried out by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development in conjunction with Simplyhealth found that the average cost of employee absence is £673 per employee, per year, with two-thirds of cases involving short-term (fewer than 7 day) absences². The British Health and Safety Executive (HSE) put the annual cost of employee illness at more than £12billion³.

The potential for the spread of infection from an ill employee coming into work is high. It is also exacerbated by the fact that a large minority of workers do not practice adequate hand hygiene. The ESH-Net found that the average worker in facilities where food is handled will carry out an activity which would require hand washing before and after nine times an hour. The same ESH-Net report discovered that only 27 percent of workers fulfilled their hand hygiene obligations in carrying out these activities. It is also true that in many cases the quality of hand washing is insufficient and not enough to properly kill germs⁴. The guidelines for proper hand washing recommend the use of hot water and soap and for the whole process to take at least 20 to 25 seconds. One recommendation is that a sufficient hand washing session should take the same amount of time as singing the Happy Birthday song twice. Despite this it is clear that many people do not wash their hands for anywhere near as long as these guidelines. A report from Michigan State University found the average time spent washing hands was barely 6 seconds⁵.

Another piece of research suggested that 95 percent of people do not wash their hands to an adequate standard⁶. In addition to insufficient time spent washing hands, the efficacy of hand washing techniques employed by many people can be questionable. The Michigan State University report detailed how more than a third of people did not use soap when washing their hands, with 1 in 10 not washing their hands at all.

Although these data outline public hand hygiene practices, not specifically the practices of food workers, the findings still paint a worrying picture of ignorance of the dangers of the spread of germs or a lack of concern afforded to hand hygiene. This is especially clear when we consider how data indicating that in the food industry 89 percent of instances where workers were the source of food contamination, such contamination originated from the spread of germs directly from the hands of workers to the food itself.⁷

Feb2015_FoodHandle Many food facilities do attempt to tackle the issue of hand hygiene amongst its workforce, with measures including hand washing ‘stations’ situated before entrances to production areas. Other measures include minimising direct hand contact with raw food by using utensils and wearing disposable gloves. However the latter measure, disposable gloves, can cause more problems than it solves with people forgetting that some germs can be spread on the gloves just the same as on bare hands. The frequency to which hands should be cleaned, and the number of different situations that warrant hand washing can also be underestimated. Workers should clean their hands whenever it is required, not merely at regular intervals.

The installation of full-compliance, non-optional hand hygiene measures has been a success for many food companies. The most significant benefit of products which provide this service is clear- they cannot be missed or bypassed, therefore helping to ensure far greater levels of hand hygiene.

Some criticize hand sanitizers, arguing that it discourages thorough hand washing. It may be argued that points such as these misunderstand the role hand sanitizers play in hand hygiene. A proactive and effective approach to hand hygiene should combine comprehensive hand washing with sanitizing. This is why hand sanitizing products in places such as corridors can be useful as they act as a clean barrier in places where hand washing is not feasible. Hand sanitizers are most effective as an addition to hand washing, and should never be regarded as a stand-alone alternative. Using sanitizers alone is insufficient but in conjunction with thorough hand washing, it makes for is an effective hand hygiene regimen. Full-compliance products are already available. Their specific function varies from specialist hygienic door handles which dispense gel upon grip, to badges and other technology that reminds workers to wash their hands and notes when they do not, as well as simple products such as specialist self-cleaning sticker material.

Any company that includes aspects of work where food is handled face a difficult task in ensuring proper hand hygiene. Human error on the part of the worker, such as forgetting to wash hands before entering sensitive areas, or failing to wash hands to an adequate standard can result in serious consequences. This is why full-compliance products are becoming far more popular. To continue to make progress in fighting contamination in the food industry there must be a culture change amongst hygiene managers in addition to food workers as a whole towards ensuring, rather than merely encouraging hand hygiene. When hand hygiene is made compulsory the risks of human error become far less significant.

References:

March 4, 2015

Top 3 Things to Know about President Obama’s FY 2016 Food Safety Budget Proposal

By Miranda Peguese

No Comments

Knowing the government’s increased focus on food safety means companies must continually be audit ready with program sustainability as a focus for management and employees alike. Commitment to food safety and a sound preparation plan is key for facilities as they navigate through the increasing food safety regulatory oversight.

Food safety funding has been a major focal point for the FY 2016 budget proposed by President Obama. Primarily due in support of the fact that all major Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) rules are scheduled to take effect by the end of FY 2016, the increased focus will impact each of the agencies governing food safety within the US and all entities which fall under their jurisdiction.

Here are three things to know about the proposed food safety funding allocation for FY 2016:

1. There will be a sizeable increase in the allocation of food safety funding.

President Obama’s $3.99 trillion FY 2016 budget proposal allocates $1.6 billion for food safety, a significant increase in food safety funding over previous years. This would include increases of $301 million for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to support new measures under the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA), resulting in a $109 million increase over the previous year as well as an additional $2.1 million increase to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) over FY 2015’s $48 million allocation going towards food safety.

USDA budget requests would decrease slightly for FY 2016, requesting $1.012 billion vs. $1.016 billion for the previous year’s budget as a result of program related cost savings and correlated efficiencies and expects that a portion of the $2.9 billion for agricultural research and extension activities would support additional food safety requirements set forth by FSMA.

2. The proposed increase in food safety funds would include a prioritized food safety spending plan.

The increases to the allocated funding for food safety do not come without guidance. The funding increase includes a detailed plan for spending to include the following allocation:

$32 million for Nation Integrated Food Safety System
$25.5 million for New Import Safety Systems
$25 million for Inspection Modernization Training
$11.5 million for Industry Education and Technical Assistance
$4.5 million for Risk Analytics and Evaluation
$4 million for Technical Staffing and Guidance Development

The top three funding allocations noted are for integration, import, and inspection. These allotments directly reflect the directives set forth in FSMA

3. The plan also includes a proposed single food safety regulatory entity.

In addition to the increase in funding, the new plan outlined by President Obama also asks for Congress to combine several programs overseeing US food safety into a single agency under the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Advocates of the plan state that the combination would provide “focused, centralized leadership, a primary voice on food safety standards and compliance with those standards, and clear lines of responsibility and accountability”, citing the current food safety system as being fragmented and outdated. Currently, a total of 12 agencies enforce 30 different laws. An alternate proposal has also been put forth by two members of congress which would suggest the formation of a new food safety agency independent of HHS.

How does this affect your facility? Knowing the government’s increased focus on food safety means companies must continually be audit ready with program sustainability as a focus for management and employees alike. Commitment to food safety and a sound preparation plan is key for facilities as they navigate through the increasing food safety regulatory oversight.

To learn more about the food safety allocations within the proposed FY 2016 budget, visit http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/FSMA/ucm432576.htm and http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?navid=BUDGET.

February 26, 2015

U.S. Needs to Rework its “Byzantine Food Safety System”

No Comments

If anything is more complicated than our food, it’s our government’s system for checking its safety, describes an LA Times editorial, supporting the recent proposal to create a single, unified Food Safety Administration.

The job of keeping our food wholesome has become more difficult as food itself has become more complicated, as more processed foods include ingredients from many sources, making it hard to trace the origin of pathogens. For instance, a package of ground beef today is no longer put together by a butcher pushing a single hunk of meat through a grinder, but includes trimmings from many cattle and multiple slaughterhouses. Thus, even a small quantity of meat contaminated with E. coli has the potential to taint tremendous amounts of hamburger meat sent out across the country, describes an editorial in the LA Times.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, food poisoning sickens more than 80 million people a year in this country, killing 5,000, sending 325,000 to the hospital and, according to a 2012 study in the Journal of Food Protection, costing $14 billion — which doesn’t take into account the cost of lawsuits and recalls.

The LA Times article criticizes the “byzantine system” for ensuring food safety: “At least 15 agencies are involved, but sorting out the responsibilities of just the two main ones — the Food and Drug Administration and the Department of Agriculture — is hard enough,” it describes, citing examples of frozen pizza (where the cheese is inspected by the USDA, while other ingredients and toppings by FDA), and eggs (USDA while responsible for eggs out of the shell — and for grading eggs in the shell for shape and uniformity, don’t fully take into account conditions of the egg product facilities).

Recently, based on recommendations, President Obama has proposed a unified Food Safety Administration within the Department of Health and Human Services, and the article describes this as a smarter, more efficient and effective way to protect American consumers.

February 25, 2015

Food Safety Agencies Introduce New Model to Better Identify Foodborne Illness Sources

No Comments

FDA, CDC and the USDA’s FSIS have jointly released a report on the new method for analyzing outbreak data to identify better foods that are responsible for illness related to four major foodborne bacteria.

Titled “Foodborne Illness Source Attribution Estimates forSalmonella, Escherichia coli O157 (E. coliO157), Listeria monocytogenes (Lm), and Campylobacter using Outbreak Surveillance Data,” the report was produced by the Interagency Food Safety Analytics Collaboration (IFSAC).

For the new model, IFSAC analyzed data from nearly 1,000 outbreaks that occurred between 1998 and 2012, excluding those that involved multiple pathogens, those for which no food vehicle was identified, and those attributed to food containing multiple ingredients, to assess which categories of foods were most responsible for making people sick with Salmonella, E. coli O157, Listeria, and Campylobacter.

The pathogens were chosen because of the frequency or severity of the illnesses they cause, and because targeted interventions can have a significant impact in reducing them. Some of the findings include:

More than 80 percent of E. coli O157 illnesses were attributed to beef and vegetable row crops, such as leafy vegetables.
Salmonella illnesses were broadly attributed across food commodities, with 77 percent of illnesses related to seeded vegetables (such as tomatoes), eggs, fruits, chicken, beef, sprouts and pork.
Nearly 75 percent of Campylobacter illnesses were attributed to dairy (66 percent) and chicken (8 percent). Most of the dairy outbreaks used in the analysis were related to raw milk or cheese produced from raw milk, such as unpasteurized queso fresco.
More than 80 percent of Listeria illnesses were attributed to fruit (50 percent) and dairy (31 percent). Data were sparse for Listeria, and the estimate for fruit reflects the impact of a single large outbreak linked to cantaloupes in 2011.

The new model using data from the resulting 952 outbreaks differs from previous methods by using a categorization of foods updated to align with the regulatory framework of FDA and FSIS. The model focuses more on recent outbreaks by giving less weight to data from 1998 through 2007, and decreasing the bias that potentially results from very large outbreaks.

“This suggests interventions designed to reduce foodborne salmonellosis need to include a variety of approaches,” IFSAC’s report states. “For [Listeria monocytogenes], the limited number of outbreaks and wide credibility intervals dictate caution in interpreting the attribution percentages for fruit and dairy,” the report notes.

The report also noted that “Lm outbreaks have been frequently linked to the Dairy category, specifically with the consumption of soft cheeses by pregnant women and persons with weakened immune systems. Although the wide credibility interval for the Fruit category substantially limits interpretation, the analysis does suggest vigilance in seeking unrecognized sources of outbreaks and illnesses in this food category.”

February 25, 2015

Top Reasons for Warning Letters

No Comments

Drug residues, inadequate food safety and HACCP programs for seafood, and nutrition content mislabeling were leading causes of FDA issuing recent warning letters.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) sent warnings to three beef producers, one pork producer, a seafood processor and a biscuit manufacturer in its latest round of warning letters.

Some of the beef producers and dairy farms received warning letters for drug residues found in their meat:

Oak Hill Farms of Seward, PA, received a warning letter for selling a bob veal calf in July 2014, testing of which revealed neomycin, a drug that has no acceptable tolerance level.
Schneider Dairy of Westphalia, MI, was found to have sold a dairy cow for slaughter in February 2014 that contained more than 10 times the tolerance level for for desfuroylceftiofur, marker residue for the drug ceftiofur. FDA also found that the dairy failed to maintain complete drug treatment records and lacked clear directions from its veterinary clinic on using the drug.
Stonegate Farms, sold a cow for slaughter in July 2014 that was found to have 13 times the tolerable level of penicillin in its kidneys and nearly 100 times the tolerable level of sulfadimethoxine in its liver. That dairy also failed to maintain complete treatment records of its cattle, according to FDA.
Poeppelman Pork of Yorkshire, OH, was also found to have sold an animal for slaughter with excessive levels of drugs in its tissues. In February 2014, the pork producer allegedly sold a pig for slaughter that was found to have penicillin in its kidneys. FDA’s letter noted there is no tolerance level of penicillin in swine.

Yamahide Shokuhin, a seafood processor and exporter in Miki-shi, Japan, was cited for having inadequate HACCP plans. The company was also found to have “significant deviations” from requirements, including a number of incomplete food safety plans for its dried shaved bonito product.

NP Foods Ltd., headquartered in Riga, Latvia, was cited for having several wafer and biscuit products that were mislabeled, all related to incomplete nutritional information. The company also failed to include the common or usual name of the foods on the labels in English.

In each letter, FDA requested that the companies provide written responses detailing steps taken to bring the facilities into compliance with food-safety laws and regulations, to correct violations cited in the letters, and to prevent their recurrence. The companies are given 15 working days from receipt to outline specific steps they have taken to come into compliance with the law.

February 25, 2015

Dietary Supplements: Verifying Label Claims “By Input” Unacceptable

By Tara Lin Couch, Ph.D.

No Comments

FDA issued more than 400 Warning Letter citations for inappropriate specifications in dietary supplement during 2013 and 2014. Many of these violations were due to a failure to have Finished Product Specifications, but recent citations have also noted that using solely the input of a dietary ingredient for verifying the strength “By Input” is unacceptable.

The FDA regulations dictated in 21 CFR 111, Current Good Manufacturing Practice (cGMP) in Manufacturing, Packaging, Labeling, or Holding Operations for Dietary Supplements, require that each batch of a finished dietary supplement product must meet quality requirements for identity, purity, strength, composition, and limits of potential contaminants.

Criteria used to establish that these requirements are met are supposed to be provided in a Finished Product Specification developed by the dietary supplement company. FDA issued more than 400 Warning Letter citations for inappropriate specifications in 2013 and 2014. Many of these violations were due to a failure to have Finished Product Specifications at all, but recent Warning Letters have also noted that using solely the input of a dietary ingredient for verifying the strength “By Input” is unacceptable.

The input of a dietary supplement alone is not a scientifically valid analytical test method for determining the strength of a dietary ingredient in a finished product. Chemical testing of the ingredient should be accomplished whenever possible. If that is not possible due to the unavailability of a scientifically valid test method, the testing may be exempted provided dietary ingredient raw material testing, in-process testing, other finished product testing, process controls, and additional information can support that the strength of the dietary ingredient can be verified without testing, as allowed in 21 CFR 111.75(d)(1).

The incoming dietary ingredient raw material must be verified to meet quality requirements for identity, purity, strength, and the lack of potential contaminants. Warehouse controls must then ensure that the material is held in a condition in which its quality is not altered. The material must be formulated at an appropriate amount, with sufficient overage, to meet the label claim while taking into account manufacturing variability. This is dictated in an approved Master Manufacturing Record (MMR). Once executed, the Batch Production Record (BPR) must document that the correct amount of the dietary ingredient was actually dispensed into the product during manufacture. Established in-process examinations and tests are then used to verify that the batch is uniformly mixed and meets the unit dosage weight and weight variation requirements. Variations on weight cannot exceed the overage amount to ensure that even the smallest dosage unit still complies with the label. In-process chemical tests can also be employed to verify the amount of a dietary ingredient. This can be particularly beneficial if the reason a dietary ingredient is exempted from testing is because of matrix interferences or instrumental quantitation limits.

Other finished product testing can also be used to support that an exempted ingredient is present in the product at the correct, labeled amount. Test results from chemically similar ingredients that are determined to be as expected suggest that the exempted ingredient is also present at expected levels because these ingredients will tend to react the same way during manufacture, especially if both ingredients are introduced and processed in the same step. Results obtained from finished product testing of other ingredients whose concentrations are associated with the exempted ingredient may also support that the exempted ingredient is present as expected.

Finally, the number of other finished product ingredient tests that are performed is important. If all other test results are determined to be within specification, it indicates that the product was manufactured according to the MMR and there is no reason to expect anything different from an exempted dietary ingredient.

Dietary supplement companies that are compliant with all parts of 21 CFR 111 will already be performing these activities. A procedure that summarizes the overall process of verifying the addition of a dietary ingredient can then be created and used as the test method reference on the Finished Product Specification. A separate document that describes the details of test exemptions per product should also be generated. The actual result obtained should be acquired from the completed batch production record.

The “By Input” approach is no longer relevant.

This article originally appeared in EAS-e-News February 2015 issue.

February 11, 2015

Canadian Poultry Products Recalled for Lack of Import Inspection

No Comments

The products subject to recall bear the establishment number “Canada 591”. These products were shipped to retail locations in Washington.

Sunrise Poultry Processors of Lethbridge, Alberta, is recalling approximately 2,705 pounds of poultry products that were not presented at the U.S. point of entry for inspection, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced today.

The following poultry items, produced on Feb. 2, 2015, are subject to recall:

40-lb. bulk cases of “Sunrise Poultry CHICKEN THIGHS.”
25-lb. cases of “Sunrise Poultry CHICKEN THIGHS BONELESS.”
25-lb. cases of “Sunrise Poultry BONELESS CHICKEN BREAST.”
2.5-lb. cases of “Sunrise Poultry CHICKEN WHOLE FRYER.”
4-lb. cases of “Sunrise Poultry CHICKEN WHOLE FRYER.”
3.25 to 3.75-lb. cases of “Sunrise Poultry CHICKEN WHOLE FRYER.”

The products subject to recall bear the establishment number “Canada 591”. These products were shipped to retail locations in Washington.

The problem was discovered when the import facility reported to FSIS that product with an estimated date of arrival of Feb. 4, 2015, had not been received at that location.

FSIS and the company have received no reports of adverse reactions due to consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about a reaction should contact a healthcare provider.

February 3, 2015

Australia Could Ban Raw Milk Sale

No Comments

While the sale of raw milk is already banned for human consumption in all states and territories in the country, raw milk is still sold as ‘bath milk’ or ‘cosmetic milk’ with a disclaimer, but it is knowingly being consumed by people who argue the bacteria in raw milk are beneficial to health. Raw milk cheese gets a pass.

A national ban on the sale of raw milk is looming after state and territory leaders agreed consumers need protection from the dangers posed by unpasteurized milk.

The Australia and New Zealand Ministerial Forum on Food Regulation, attended by ministers responsible for food regulation, raised their ‘extreme concern’ about the consumption of unpasteurized cow’s milk that is sold as ‘bath milk’ with a disclaimer ‘not for human consumption.’ The forum found urgent action was required at a national level and are asking for “a joint public health, food safety and consumer law solution that will deliver a consistent approach across all Australian jurisdictions,” Australian newspaper The Herald Sun reports.

Last month Premier Mike Baird vowed to work with other state and territory leaders to stop health food stores selling the potentially deadly product. His move followed Victoria’s tough action on producers of raw milk following the death of a Victorian child and the hospitalization of four other children in December. The children suffered severe complications as a result of food poisoning sourced to raw milk consumption.

The sale of raw milk is already banned for human consumption in all states and territories but raw milk is sold as ‘bath milk’ or ‘cosmetic milk’ with a disclaimer, but it is knowingly being consumed by people who argue the bacteria in raw milk are beneficial to health.

Now under new regulations, Victorians who give family members raw milk to drink face fines of $60,000.

As of Sunday, a strong bittering agent will be put into unpasteurized milk to deter people from consuming it, according to the state’s minister for consumer affairs, Jane Garrett. More than 100 protesters gathering outside Garrett’s Brunswick office and vowing they would continue drinking milk in what they describe as its “purest form.” Meanwhile, specialist cheese makers are welcoming a decision by the New Zealand and Australian health ministers to allow a wider range of cheeses to be made from raw milk. The decision was made at a meeting of the ministers in Auckland. The new rules require that the raw milk cheese does not support the growth of disease-causing bacteria, and that there is no rise in the level of those during processing.

January 29, 2015

Super Bowl Food Safety

By Sangita Viswanathan

No Comments

Despite all the excitement surrounding the big game, party hosts should be cognizant of potential lurking dangers in their food. No one wants to get sick off a few wings, jalapeno poppers, and mozzarella sticks – An interview with PURE Bioscience’s CEO, Hank Lambert.

With the Super Bowl this weekend, fans around the country are beginning to plan for their big parties, deciding who to invite and what food they’ll be serving. Some rough estimates predict that football fans, on an average will consume 2400 calories, just during the game.

Hank Lambert, CEO of PURE Bioscience, Inc. spoke to Food Safety Tech about how costs can keep their food safe and precautions that can be taken to prevent Super Bowl fans from getting sick from the food.

PURE Bioscience develops and commercializes proprietary antimicrobial products based on patented, stabilized ionic silver, and Silver Dihydrogen Citrate (SDC). “The product is a food contact disinfectant that is effective in killing a broad range of pathogens, including norovirus (in 60 seconds). We are non-toxic compared to others that are ammonium or chlorine based, tasteless/ odorless and non-corrosive (with an EPA level 4 toxicity or lowest toxicity label),” describes Lambert.

Lambert warns that norovirus is particularly dangerous during this season, and is a risk at home entertaining as much as it is in a public restaurant or cruise ship. Following food handling and prep guidelines is always critical and Lambert provides a few tips to ensure this:

Ensure that hands are properly cleaned between preparing and serving, between handling raw and prepared foods. Proper hand washing by itself, can help halve half the risk of any foodborne illness, he points out.
Ensure food prep surfaces are cleaned, so that any cross contamination can be avoided. For instance after prepping raw chicken, make sure you properly wash and sanitize the surface before cutting veggies or cheese on it.
Keep raw and cooked foods separate, starting at the grocery store keep your chicken wings for instance in a separate bag from the carrots or celery or dip to minimize risk of cross contamination, and follow this at home in the refrigerator and during prep.
Cook your foods thoroughly. For instance, poultry (wings or tenders), make sure it’s cooked to internal temp of 165 F to kill potential bacteria.
Keep the foods at safe temperatures, whether it’s in the refrigerator (40 F or below) when storing or serving them to ensure bacteria won’t grow. Don’t leave prepared food out for more than two hours out at a time, Lambert mentions guacamole served in large bowls, left sitting out for hours at such parties. “Serve in a small bowl, refrigerate the rest, and replenish when needed to maintain safe temperatures,” he advises.

Another rule to remember: “If you have someone at home or a guest is sick, they should not be handling food or around food. Even if you think you are feeling better, you could still be shedding norovirus or other germs when you sneeze, perspire etc., for up to three days after you feel better. So be thoughtful of other guests,” Lambert cautions.

So which traditional Super Bowl foods are the most prone to food-borne illnesses? “A common culprit is often chicken products, which, if not cooked to proper internal temperature, carry the risk of spreading Salmonella. Raw vegetables can also be a leading cause if not properly washed, or if they have been cross contaminated,” lists Lambert.

So while you are reveling in your Super Bowl Party this weekend, eat safe and may the best team win!

January 29, 2015

Lawmakers Introduce Bill for Single “Food Safety Administration”

No Comments

Food safety oversight is currently split up among 15 agencies in the Departments of Health and Human Services, Agriculture, and Commerce. The Safe Food Act of 2015 introduced in both houses of Congress on Wednesday, aims to consolidate all the authorities for food safety inspections, enforcement and labeling into the Food Safety Administration.

Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Representative Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) introduced bills in Congress yesterday with a goal to establish a single, independent federal food safety agency. The aim is to improve food safety for consumers, while also cutting back on the costs of a dispersed system with overlapping responsibilities between agencies, according to Durbin.

“What the bill does is remedy the situation,” DeLauro said. “With a single agency, we believe our country will be able to have the ability to detect relatively minor problems before they become major outbreaks.”

The Act would provide the Food Safety Administration with mandatory recall authority for unsafe food, require risk assessments and preventive control plans to reduce adulteration, authorize enforcement actions to strengthen contaminant performance standards, improve foreign food import inspections, and require full food traceability to better identify sources of outbreaks.

DeLauro said the bill builds on the improvements made in FDA’s Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA).

The federal agencies that would be incorporated into one include:

FDA’s Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN) and Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM);
The resources and facilities of FDA’s Office of Regulatory Affairs that administer and conduct inspections of food and feed facilities and imports;
The resources and facilities of the Office of the FDA Commissioner that support CFSAN, CVM and inspections;
USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service;
The part of USDA’s Agriculture Marketing Service that administers shell egg surveillance services;
The part of USDA’s Research, Education, and Economics mission area related to food and feed safety;
The part of USDA’s Animal and Plant Inspection Health Service related to the management of animals going into the food supply; and
The part of the National Marine Fisheries Service of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration of the Department of Commerce that administers the seafood inspection program.

A single food safety agency is not a new concept, and the two lawmakers have sponsored Safe Food Acts five times before, though the most recent was in 2007. In addition, the Government Accountability Office has reported on the need for better coordination of food safety activities over the years.

DeLauro mentioned eggs as an example to show how complicated the current food safety landscape was: “One agency manages the health of hens, another oversees the feed that they eat, another sets egg quality standards but does not test them for Salmonella,” she said. “While still in its shell, the egg is the responsibility of the Food and Drug Administration, but once it’s processed into an egg product, it becomes the responsibility of Food Safety and Inspection Service.”

Durbin and DeLauro are hoping to build bipartisan support for the bills. Current cosponsors of the Senate Safe Food Act include Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY). Cosponsors in the House include Reps. Barbara Lee (D-CA), Louise Slaughter (D-NY), James Langevin (D-RI), Bobby Rush (D-IL), Charles Rangel (D-NY), Jim McDermott (D-WA) and Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC).

1. There will be a sizeable increase in the allocation of food safety funding.

2. The proposed increase in food safety funds would include a prioritized food safety spending plan.

3. The plan also includes a proposed single food safety regulatory entity.

How We Use Cookies