As of late, the problems for Chipotle have been endless. 2015 was a year of several Salmonella, norovirus and E. coli outbreaks for the restaurant chain. With the first full week of the new year wrapped up, 2016 is off to perhaps an even rockier start, with news of the company being hit with both a class action lawsuit and a federal grand jury subpoena.
Company stockholder Susie Ong filed a civil complaint against Chipotle on January 8, stating that the company made false or misleading statements and failed to disclose that its “quality controls were inadequate to safeguard consumer and employee health.” Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, the complaint calls out a norovirus outbreak that occurred in August in Simi Valley, California; a Salmonella outbreak in Minnesota that sickened 64 people; the closure of all company restaurants in Portland, Oregon and Seattle, Washington in November following an E.coli outbreak; and the highly-publicized norovirus outbreak that sickened more than 140 students from Boston College in Brighton, Massachusetts last month.
Ong’s complaint also mentions the federal grand jury subpoena, which Chipotle made public two days prior (January 6) in an SEC filing. Served in December, the subpoena is part of a criminal investigation by FDA and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Central District of California into the Simi Valley norovirus outbreak, which sickened about 100 patrons and employees (some reports state that more than 200 people fell ill). Ong’s lawsuit states that health inspectors found “dirty and inoperative equipment, equipment directly linked to the sewer, and other sanitary and health violations” at the Simi Valley restaurant.
With December’s norovirus outbreak in Brighton and the CDC’s announcement that it was further investigating five new cases of E. coli that were reported the month prior, restaurant sales were down 30% for the month, according to the SEC filing. Ong adds up all of these unfortunate events in the lawsuit, stating, “As a result of defendants’ wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company’s securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages.”
Chipotle has not yet publicly commented on the lawsuit.
Earlier in December, Chipotle called attention to improvements it was making to its food safety program by bringing in IEH Laboratories and Consulting Group to reevaluate its processes in an effort to prevent future outbreaks. Clearly that was not enough.
Food companies take heed. 2016 is off with a bang, and not in a good way. Last week industry was also buzzing about the DOJ’s investigation into Blue Bell Creameries over the deadly Listeria outbreak. FDA and the other federal powers-that-be are making it very clear that negligence will no longer be tolerated (Or should I say, alleged negligence, in this case). Compliance, accountability, and above all, ethical behavior are at the heart of the matter.
Will it all come tumbling down for Chipotle? It remains to be seen whether the company will be able to recover from these issues. And maybe an even bigger question is, who will be next?
As a result of the rising incidence of food contamination and foodborne illness outbreaks such as Listeria, Salmonella and E.coli, the North American market for food safety testing is expected to hit $6.4 billion within the next four years. According to a recent report by Markets and Markets, the 7.4% compound annual growth rate will also be fueled by the following factors:
Actions taken by food manufacturers to implement more testing at different stages of the chain in order to strengthen food safety standards
Increased concern to reduce the amount of product recalls
Increased consumer interest in ingredients and food safety
FSMA and the regulatory effort to reduce the presence of pathogens or contaminants in food
Learn more about how food laboratories are working to detect dangerous pathogens.
Update: (1/14/2016):According to a report released by Research and Markets on January 14, the global food safety testing market can expect to achieve a 7.1% CAGR over the next five years, hitting $16.2 billion by 2020.
At last the new Produce Rule is out, issued on November 13, 2015. For the first time in FDA history, the rule establishes a science-based minimum standard for growing, harvesting, packing and holding of fruits and vegetables grown for human consumption. The rule can be found in Part 112 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). It applies to both domestic and imported produce.
The new rule provides assurance that produce on the market is not adulterated under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. It will accomplish this by establishing procedures, processes and practices that are known to minimize the risks of serious adverse health consequences or death to humans, and to prevent the introduction of known biological hazards into and or on produce.
The definition for a farm, covered under the rule, includes two kinds of farming operations, primary production farm and secondary activities farm. The primary production farm operates under one management, and the secondary activities farm is an operation. Where as the primary production farm owns, or jointly owns, a majority of interest in the secondary activities farm.
During the FDA Town Hall, an audience member asks about the Produce Rule and the work being done with Mexico. Watch the video
For the most part, the new mandated FDA Produce Rules, mirror what farmers, packers and others in the farm business have been doing all along. For years now, produce buyers have required some kind of written guarantee from their suppliers such as a third-party audit certificate showing that the supplying farm or packing shed is complying with the farm food safety standards. Most farms and packing sheds have already undergone, if not one, but perhaps two or more third-party audits such as a Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) or, one of the Harmonized GAP audits, or a Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP) audit, or one of the Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI) audits such as GlobalGAP, Safe Quality Foods (SQF) or BRC Global Standards (BRC).
This means that those covered under the Produce Rule for growing, harvesting, packing and holding of fruits and vegetables grown for human consumption and have received a third-party audit should have no trouble achieving compliance with the new Produce Rule.
The above-mentioned third-party standards cover most aspects of the key requirements of the Produce Rule regarding agricultural water, biological soil amendments, domesticated and wild animals, worker training, health and hygiene, and equipment, tools, and buildings.
However, some key requirements of the new rule not noted in existing third-party standards include:
Water testing of untreated water, sample collection and survey creation for agricultural water.
Microbial standard limits for detectable amounts of microorganisms to include Listeria monocytogenes, Salmonella species, and E. coli 0157:H7 for the treatment process of soil amendments, including manure.
The final Produce Rule includes requirements to help prevent the contamination of sprouts. For example, requires testing of spent sprout irrigation water for pathogens and requires environmental monitoring for Listeria. Documentation or letters from seed and/or bean supplier for the prior treatment of seed and beans are acceptable.
The requirements of Domesticated and Wild Animals relies more on monitoring and assessing conditions during growing season. If you find evidence of potential contamination like animal excreta, you must take action and evaluate whether produce can be harvested or if there is a likelihood of contamination. The produce must not be harvested.
This rule does not apply to:
Farms that have an average annual value of produce sold during the previous three year period of $25,000/yea
Produce for personal or on-the farm consumption
If the produce is on the list of “rarely consumed raw commodities” such as sweet potatoes and
A food grain such as wheat or oats
The rule provides also for exemptions:
Produce that will receive commercial processing (kill-step) to reduce microorganisms of public health concerns.
Provides a qualified exemption and modification requirement for farms that meet certain requirements based on monetary value and direct sales to qualified end users such as consumers or restaurants. The farm must also meet associated modified requirements like establishing and maintaining certain documentation.
Under certain conditions the FDA may withdraw a farm’s qualified exemption.
The rule focuses on sources of produce contamination found in the past: Agricultural water, biological soil amendments, domesticated and wild animals, worker training, health and hygiene, and equipment, tools and buildings.
This rule and others under FSMA such as Preventive Controls for Human Food, Preventive Controls for Animal Food, and the Foreign Supplier Verification Program are a long overdue yet great achievement for FDA. The agency now shifts its gear into focusing on preventing food safety problems instead of reacting to food safety outbreaks.
FDA estimates that about 348,000 illnesses per year will be prevented by the implementation of this rule.
The compliance dates for the new rule are staggered and based on business size.
As part of a federal goal to achieve a 25% reduction in Salmonella illnesses related to meat and poultry products by 2020, USDA’s FSIS has revised and published guidelines for poultry processors. The document, “FSIS Compliance Guideline for Controlling Salmonella and Campylobacter in Raw Poultry”, intends to provide best practices based on scientific and practical considerations for minimizing pathogen levels and meeting FSIS food safety requirements.
The guidance recommends preventive measures that poultry companies can make in the following areas:
Pre-harvest (on the farm)
Sanitary dressing procedures
Further processing practices
Antimicrobial interventions
Management practices
FSIS is also seeking comment on the fourth edition of the updated document.
There has been little change in the number of confirmed Salmonella cases, which sicken more than 1 million people annually in the United States. The guidance is part of FSIS’ Salmonella Action Plan, which was announced in December 2013.
DuPont BAX System X5 PCR Assay for Salmonella detection
Today DuPont announced that the AOAC Research Institute (AOAC-RI) approved a method extension of Performance Tested Method #100201 to include the company’s BAX System X5 PCR Assay for Salmonella detection. Introduced this past July, the PCR assay provides next-day results for most sample types following a standard enrichment protocol and approximately 3.5 hours of automated processing. The lightweight system is smaller and designed to provide more flexibility in testing.
“Many customers rely on AOAC-RI and other third-party certifications as evidence that a pathogen detection method meets a well-defined set of accuracy and sensitivity requirements,” says Morgan Wallace, DuPont Nutrition & Health senior microbiologist and validations leader for diagnostics, in a company release. “Adopting a test method that has received these certifications allows them to use the method right away, minimizing a laboratory’s requirements for expensive, time-consuming in-house validation procedures before they can begin product testing.”
The validation covers a range of food types, including meat, poultry, dairy, fruits, vegetables, bakery products, pet food and environmental samples.
Data can be a very powerful tool, but only if it is used in an effective manner. It needs to be easily consumable and understood by all levels within an organization. “It’s great to collect information, but if you don’t do something with it, you’re not doing yourself, your facility or your employees any favors,” says Holly Mockus, product manager at Alchemy Systems. “It can really trip you up during a regulatory inspection to have all of this information that you haven’t looked at, tracked, trended or reacted to.”
As FSMA places more importance on documentation and record keeping, FDA-regulated facilities will need to not only capture information but also translate data into easily digestible content for management and employees in order to drive continuous improvement. In a discussion with Food Safety Tech, Mockus shares some key points on how companies can transform their data from numbers and statistics into meaningful and actionable information.
Collect meaningful data from the start. From the beginning of the data collection process, be mindful of exactly what outcome the organization wants to achieve. Having an understanding that the data will be measured and acted upon encourages facilities to avoid gathering information just for the sake of collecting it.
Involve the employees who actually collect the data. Data is more meaningful when employees understand why they’re gathering information and are involved in the process from the beginning.
React to the data. If the information reveals a good or bad trend, or that a process or procedure is out of spec, take action. In addition, document how the business reacted to the issue and the corrections that were put in place.
Close the loop for continuous improvement. Establish a closed loop for data collection, focusing on how gaps were addressed, with an emphasis on continuously improving on the process.
Really examine the data collected. Whether collected for a product, process or equipment line, sit down and take a close look at the data. This exercise is intended to reveal redundancies across departments and help reduce record keeping tasks.
Food Safety Tech: How do companies transform data into a meaningful tool for management?
Mockus: That’s such a challenge for us. It should be easily consumable, especially for management and the higher ups in organizations, because they don’t have as much time to sit down and digest a 20-page document that’s full of numbers and statistics. Work towards to summarizing the information in a way that allows executives and plant managers to look at a graph and know instantly what it means; they don’t need to get into the nitty-gritty. Simplifying the scientific data, whether environmental sampling, quality assurance data, or microtesting in general, and taking it down to base a level so that the non-scientist can understand it—I think that’s something we have to work on, especially for those coming under more regulation. Keep in mind that people who look at the tracking and trending [might not] understand graphs and scientific terms.
A lot of people put the data into a graphic format—it doesn’t have to be a line graph or pie chart, it can be a red, yellow, green [indicator] or a scale of justice. Look at the graphics that are meaningful to your specific organization and use those. Be creative, but keep it simple.
FST: When companies set metrics, how can they ensure that those metrics are taking them in the right direction from a food safety perspective?
Mockus: Especially when you have metrics that are tied to performance for a manufacturing facility, you want to be careful how you set them and how you reward them. For example, if your metric for environmental testing is very low or at zero, you’re encouraging your workforce not to find those Listeria niches or areas in which Salmonella can grow, because you’re telling them that they have to be at a zero rate to be incentivized. It’s more about measuring the outcomes of the activities—are we finding the niches and eliminating them so we don’t have those issues versus saying we want to be at “zero”? [It’s important] to work with upper management so that they understand the consequences of their expectations and the incentive programs that they put in place.
In what is being called a groundbreaking decision, a federal judge sentenced three executives from the Peanut Corporation of America (PCA) to a combined 53 years in jail for their role in the 2008-2009 Salmonella outbreak. Stewart Parnell, former CEO of the no-longer-operating PCA, has been sentenced to 28 years; his brother, Michael Parnell, was handed 20 years; and Mary Wilkerson, quality assurance manager of the plant, was given 5 years. Convicted last year on 71 counts, Stewart Parnell was facing up to 803 years in prison, but at the age of 61, 28 years is essentially a life sentence.
The culprit of the fatal 2008 Salmonella outbreak was tainted peanut butter paste manufactured by PCA. Nine Americans died, and more than 700 people across 47 states were sickened. The outbreak led to the recall of more than 2,100 products. It was one of the largest food recalls in U.S. history, and the case has garnered national attention.
During yesterday’s sentencing, victims and their families asked U.S. District Court Judge W. Louis Sands to deliver a life sentence to Stewart Parnell; his daughter, Grey Adams, addressed the room, “My dad’s heart is genuine…” and said that her father and their family are “profoundly sorry” for the deadly outbreak. As Parnell addressed the victims in the Georgia courtroom, he made mention of the problems at the plant but did not comment on the emails and company records that indicate he had knowingly shipped tainted product or tampered with any lab records.
Earlier this year STOP Foodborne Illness’ Darin Detwiler commented on the significance of the sentencing in a video interview with Food Safety Tech, stating, “His actions resulted in technically more deaths than that of Charles Manson.”
Moving forward, the bar for accountability at the executive level has been set much higher. Victims, their families, and food safety advocates are applauding the sentencing. What do you think about the decision and its impact on the industry?
From sanitation and processing to testing and analysis to transportation and imports, government requirements of companies in the food industry are changing. Many companies are already prepared for the transformation that FSMA will bring. Within food testing and analysis, expectations will be higher than ever. Companies should be able to more accurately and rapidly identify contamination in order to take immediate action. What are some of the biggest concerns in testing and analysis? What changes can we expect? In a roundtable discussion with Sample6 executives, Michael Koeris, Ph.D., founder and vice president of operations, Tim Curran, CEO, and Jim Godsey, vice president of research & development, share their perspective on the hurdles that industry is facing and how innovative technology plays an important role in the future of food safety.
Key trends:
Focus in testing shifts from not just testing and recording data, but also analyzing and communicating results. Having data analysis and reporting skills will be a critical function for the next generation of food safety professionals.
Be proactive, not reactive. If you’re finding problems at the finished product level, it’s too late.
The need for stronger partnerships between industry and government, especially relating to providing industry with the tools to effectively gather and analyze data in a timely manner.
Food Safety Tech: What are the current industry challenges, especially related to advances in pathogen detection technology?
Tim Curran, CEO of Sample6
Tim Curran: When I look at food companies and food safety managers, [their jobs] have become harder to do well, instead of easier. The environment in which they’re working is more challenging, and the pressures are increasing. There’s more regulatory scrutiny, whether we talk about FSMA or the regulatory environment [in general], and there are more testing and inspection [expectations].
Second, the nature of the foods that we need make for the U.S. population (and I think it is a trend around the world): Ready-to-eat products. We’re producing products that are more convenient for families where they won’t necessarily have a cook step down the road. The kinds of foods in demand have a higher risk profile.
Third is the globalization of food supplies. Raw materials are coming in from all different directions, and there is an increasing number of shipping points. That creates more pressure, and from a food safety perspective, that is a bad thing.
“It is okay to find positives for Listeria or Salmonella in the appropriate zones that are far away from food contact surfaces. It is inconceivable to have a plant that has no actual bacterial organisms living there.” -Michael KoerisFinally, there’s social media. There’s a lot of scrutiny from the public. Information around any kind of fear or recall is rapidly disseminated.
These factors add up to higher pressure, a higher bar, and a harder job to accomplish—and the tools and methods available to keep the plant safe and food safe are not keeping pace.
Although I think food plants want to test more at the point of contamination, it’s just not possible. Unless they have a sophisticated lab, most food companies ship out samples because enrichment is required. As a result, they’re getting feedback on the safety of their plant and food in two, three, or four days, depending on where they fall as a priority to that outside lab.
Jim Godsey: With FSMA, testing is decentralizing from the larger lab, which is typically staffed with experienced personnel, to the facility where those personnel don’t exist. Having a test with a workflow that can be easily accommodated by someone with a high school education is absolutely critical for the field.
Michael Koeris, Ph.D., founder and vice president of operations
Michael Koeris: Visibility of data is generally extremely poor, because many people touch individual data points or pockets of data. The hand-off between the different groups is usually shaky, and the timeliness of delivering data to the operators has been a huge issue. This has been an opportunity for us: Our control offering is an operating system for environmental control. It’s an open system, so it accepts both our data and other people’s data, enabling visibility across an entire corporate infrastructure. Plant managers and other [users] of these systems can generate timely reports so they can see what is happening on a daily basis.
FST: In considering professional development, what skills are necessary to ensure that employees will be well equipped to address the issues discussed here?
Godsey: The role of the food safety manager becomes a much more critical and challenging role. To support that, they need better tools; they need to know with a high degree of confidence that their facility has been tested, that the testing was done at the proper times and intervals, and that the data has been analyzed in a timely manner. It’s not just assay/analysis [or] reporting results anymore; it’s the holistic review of those results and translating that [information] into whether or not the plant is safe at that point in time.
Koeris: The persona of the food safety manager is changing. They need to see themselves as the brand protection manager. If you have food safety issues, your brand is at risk. We need to empower the food safety manager at the local level to act, remediate and change processes.
Jim Godsey, vice president of research & development
There also has to be fundamental change in the industry in how results are viewed. Not all tests are created equal. It is okay to find positives for Listeria or Salmonella in the appropriate zones that are far away from food contact surfaces. It is inconceivable to have a plant that has no actual bacterial organisms living there. This is not a pharmaceutical production facility. Setting the wrong goals at the corporate level of zero positives disincentivizes operators to not look hard enough. You have to actually understand the plant and then make sure that you’re safe with regards to your control plan.
FST: How do you expect the final FSMA rules and implementation process will impact industry?
Koeris: Most of the larger food players are already doing what FSMA mandates or will mandate. The medium and smaller processors will have to adapt and change. They have to implement better standards and more standards, more surveillance, and implement more rigorous processes. The [key] is to help them do this on a tight budget.
FSMA has increased awareness of food safety across the supply chain. It is still focused on the processors, but we know it doesn’t stop there; it doesn’t stop at the distributor or the retailer. Food safety has to be throughout that supply chain.
Having an understanding and awareness of all of the challenges that exist downstream—that will [lead to] the real innovation and increase in foods safety.
UPDATE: September 9: According to the CDC, 341 people have been reportedly infected with Salmonella from 30 states. Since September 3, the number of cases has increased by 56. Two deaths have now been reported (California and Texas). Andrew & Williamson Fresh Produce has voluntarily recalled all cucumbers sold under the “Limited Edition” label (between August 1 through September 3, 2015).
More information has been posted on the CDC website.
Across 27 states, an outbreak of Salmonella Poona linked to cucumbers grown in Mexico has led to one death and 53 reported hospitalizations, according to FDA. The agency released an update on Friday with the latest figures and information related to the outbreak and the product.
The product:
Cucumbers supplied by Andrew and William Fresh Produce of San Diego
Cucumbers grown in Baja, Mexico
Referred to as a “slicer” or “American” cucumber
Shipped in black, green, yellow cartons that read “Limited Edition Pole Grown Cucumbers”
The Salmonella outbreak (as of 9/3):
Where: Alaska (8), Arizona (60), Arkansas (6), California (51), Colorado (14), Idaho (8), Illinois (5), Kansas (1), Louisiana (3), Minnesota (12), Missouri (7), Montana (11), Nebraska (2), Nevada (7), New Mexico (15), New York (4), North Dakota (1), Ohio (2), Oklahoma (5), Oregon (3), South Carolina (6), Texas (9), Utah (30), Virginia (1), Washington (9), Wisconsin (2), and Wyoming (3)
Date range: July 3 to August 26, 2015
1 death
53 reported hospitalizations
Additional details are available on FDA’s website, and the agency will provide an update when new information is available.
As with any potential health hazard related to consumption of a food product, FDA is advising consumers not to eat the cucumbers. They are also urging restaurants to ask their suppliers what company supplied their cucumbers.
This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.
Strictly Necessary Cookies
Strictly Necessary Cookies should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for these cookie settings.
We use tracking pixels that set your arrival time at our website, this is used as part of our anti-spam and security measures. Disabling this tracking pixel would disable some of our security measures, and is therefore considered necessary for the safe operation of the website. This tracking pixel is cleared from your system when you delete files in your history.
We also use cookies to store your preferences regarding the setting of 3rd Party Cookies.
If you visit and/or use the FST Training Calendar, cookies are used to store your search terms, and keep track of which records you have seen already. Without these cookies, the Training Calendar would not work.
If you disable this cookie, we will not be able to save your preferences. This means that every time you visit this website you will need to enable or disable cookies again.
Cookie Policy
A browser cookie is a small piece of data that is stored on your device to help websites and mobile apps remember things about you. Other technologies, including Web storage and identifiers associated with your device, may be used for similar purposes. In this policy, we say “cookies” to discuss all of these technologies.
Our Privacy Policy explains how we collect and use information from and about you when you use This website and certain other Innovative Publishing Co LLC services. This policy explains more about how we use cookies and your related choices.
How We Use Cookies
Data generated from cookies and other behavioral tracking technology is not made available to any outside parties, and is only used in the aggregate to make editorial decisions for the websites. Most browsers are initially set up to accept cookies, but you can reset your browser to refuse all cookies or to indicate when a cookie is being sent by visiting this Cookies Policy page. If your cookies are disabled in the browser, neither the tracking cookie nor the preference cookie is set, and you are in effect opted-out.
In other cases, our advertisers request to use third-party tracking to verify our ad delivery, or to remarket their products and/or services to you on other websites. You may opt-out of these tracking pixels by adjusting the Do Not Track settings in your browser, or by visiting the Network Advertising Initiative Opt Out page.
You have control over whether, how, and when cookies and other tracking technologies are installed on your devices. Although each browser is different, most browsers enable their users to access and edit their cookie preferences in their browser settings. The rejection or disabling of some cookies may impact certain features of the site or to cause some of the website’s services not to function properly.
Individuals may opt-out of 3rd Party Cookies used on IPC websites by adjusting your cookie preferences through this Cookie Preferences tool, or by setting web browser settings to refuse cookies and similar tracking mechanisms. Please note that web browsers operate using different identifiers. As such, you must adjust your settings in each web browser and for each computer or device on which you would like to opt-out on. Further, if you simply delete your cookies, you will need to remove cookies from your device after every visit to the websites. You may download a browser plugin that will help you maintain your opt-out choices by visiting www.aboutads.info/pmc. You may block cookies entirely by disabling cookie use in your browser or by setting your browser to ask for your permission before setting a cookie. Blocking cookies entirely may cause some websites to work incorrectly or less effectively.
The use of online tracking mechanisms by third parties is subject to those third parties’ own privacy policies, and not this Policy. If you prefer to prevent third parties from setting and accessing cookies on your computer, you may set your browser to block all cookies. Additionally, you may remove yourself from the targeted advertising of companies within the Network Advertising Initiative by opting out here, or of companies participating in the Digital Advertising Alliance program by opting out here.
