The Food Safety Tech’s Hazards Conference Series + CFI Think Tank, “Industry & Academia Advancing Food Safety Practices, Technology and Research,” will take place April 3-5, 2023, at Ohio State University in Columbus, Ohio.
The program brings together leading minds in industry, academia, standards and regulation to provide in-depth education and discussion on the most significant pathogenic and chemical risks facing the food industry today.
Building on the popularity of the Food Safety Tech Hazards virtual series, the in-person event will offer practical guidance and cutting-edge research on the detection, mitigation, control and regulation of the most significant foodborne illness risks.
The CFI Food Safety Think Tank on April 5 will bring food safety experts together to take a deeper look at the hazards discussed during the first two days of the conference. Participants will brainstorm in small groups to develop a roadmap on research, innovation, policy, and prevention measures that need to be taken to make our food supply safer in the future.
“Food safety hazards continue to be a challenge for all aspects of the food industry from farm to fork.” said Rick Biros, publisher of Food Safety Tech and director of the Food Safety Consortium conference and Food Safety Tech Hazards series. “The detection, mitigation and control of food safety hazards issues must be discussed among peers and best practices must be shared, something you can’t do virtually. The human connection is so important for conference attendees. Whether it’s a random connection over lunch, a one-on-one question with a speaker after a presentation or a seat next to a new friend in a learning session—connecting with others is what makes events so valuable. We are excited to bring this program, designed to help facilitate this much needed critical thinking and sharing of best practices, to OSU.”
Food Safety Tech is a digital media community for food industry professionals interested in food safety and quality. We inform, educate and connect food manufacturers and processors, retail & food service, food laboratories, growers, suppliers and vendors, and regulatory agencies with original, in-depth features and reports, curated industry news and user-contributed content, and live and virtual events that offer knowledge, perspectives, strategies and resources to facilitate an environment that fosters safer food for consumers.
About Food Safety Tech Hazards
Launched in 2020, the Food Safety Tech Hazards series brings together industry leaders, researchers and regulators to provide in-depth education and discussion on the detection, mitigation, control and regulations of the most significant pathogenic and chemical risks facing the food industry today.
Salmonella and Listeria are among the most prevalent foodborne pathogens, causing untold illnesses and a significant number of recalls each year. Experts have determined that the source of this contamination often comes from the manufacturing facility. Five years ago, the FDA published, Draft Guidance for Industry: Control of Listeria Monocytogenes in Ready-To-Eat Foods(we’ve also been promised a similar guidance document for Salmonella). The Food Safety Modernization Act’s Preventive Controls for Human Foods also contains provisions for evaluation of environmental pathogens in a ready-to-eat hazard analysis.
A product’s risk level varies based on the amount of pre-packaging exposure to the environment and direct handling by employees.
The challenge with these pathogens is that they are often found in the surrounding environment, and once they enter a facility and become entrenched, these residential pathogens can cause sporadic contamination that is very hard to pinpoint. The best way to prevent this type of contamination is to design and implement a robust Environmental Monitoring Program (EMP), and many manufacturers have added these surveillance programs to their food safety systems.
Unfortunately, many do not understand that the true purpose of EMPs is to seek and destroy residential microorganisms of concern that are living inside facilities before they have a chance to proliferate and contaminate products. This key control involves swabbing surfaces around the facility in the hopes of finding any of these residential pathogens or spoilage organisms. Having a robust, written EMP that includes clear action levels for unsatisfactory results and corresponding corrective actions will help manage pathogen positives and mitigate disaster.
Defining the EMP Scope and Balancing Resources
When designing an EMP, it’s easy to understand how expensive they can become. The question is, “How extensive does your EMP really need to be?” It’s best to start with a risk assessment to understand the program size and then estimate a realistic budget.
These programs are more necessary for ready-to-eat facilities, especially ones in which the post-processed product is exposed to the environment before being safely packaged. Risk is determined by how much pre-packaging exposure the product receives, the amount of direct handling by employees, and the condition of the equipment and surrounding facility. Use this risk analysis to determine how much sampling must be done to properly survey the facility. The scope of the program (and therefore the budget) must be balanced with the risk (severity and likelihood) of contamination.
It is then important to understand the microorganism(s) of concern for your products, facility, and processes. For example, should you stick to true pathogen testing or indicator organisms, such as Aerobic Plate Count (APC or TPC), Enterobacter, or Total Coliform tests? If you do test for pathogens, Listeria is more appropriate for wet processing environments and Salmonella better for dry processing; you might need to test for both. Sometimes its beneficial to evaluate spoilage organisms, such as yeast and mold testing, depending on the risk. For example, a ketchup facility may be less worried about residential pathogens than osmophilic yeast.
Next, one must determine the frequency and number of swabs that should be taken. Most facilities are large and contain thousands of potential hiding spots for microorganisms. For this reason, understanding your facility’s risk and available resources, and prioritizing the swabbing site selection can help maximize efforts. Will a dozen swabs every quarter be sufficient? What is your level of confidence that the sampling program is sufficient to find any hidden biological hazards? Being logical about the target microorganisms and swab frequency/number can help control the budget and allow for better use of resources to accomplish the true EMP goal, minimizing risk to your product.
Creating an Acceptable Site List
Just as important as defining the microbe of concern and the frequency/number of swabs is creating a good site list. An EMP expert once advised to, “think like Salmonella.” Where is our target pathogen/microbe of concern most likely to be hiding? Factors to consider are potential ingress points (roof leaks, employee shoes), opportunities for travel (water/air flow points like drains, foot or wheeled traffic routes), and likely niches (cracks and crevasses). Also important are areas that are often missed by the sanitation crew due to inaccessibility.
Organizing surfaces into zones is a good means of prioritizing swabbing. Zone 1 (food-contact surfaces) and Zone 2 (surfaces adjacent to food-contact surfaces) are cleaned often and not as likely to harbor hidden caches of microbes. It’s important to conduct routine verification testing of these equipment surfaces to evaluate the performance of sanitation, but this is somewhat different than the true purpose of EMP, which is to seek and destroy residential biological hazards. Zone 3 surfaces (those inside production areas but not immediately near food-contact surfaces) are the best focus for an EMP site list, and most of the surface swabbing should be concentrated in these areas.
Consider areas within the facility that could harbor microorganisms and allow biofilms to develop. Cracks, areas regularly exposed to water, and places that are very hard to reach/clean are all likely candidates. These include underneath equipment frames, inside motor casings and pumps, deep inside drains, underneath ramps and stairs and inside air vents/AC units. Cast a wide net, ensuring that all areas are rotated through the swabbing list, while prioritizing the high-risk locations.
The main stumbling block that managers face when designing EMP is challenging themselves to find problems, because once you find an issue, you must deal with the consequences.
Having a Game Plan for Unsatisfactory Results
The best way to mitigate the fear of success (finding a residential pathogen or microbial issue) is to be prepared with an action plan. This starts by defining what constitutes an unacceptable result. Pathogen results are easy (the presence of a pathogen is always unsatisfactory) but the quantitative results from indicator organisms can be tricky. How high do your Enterobacter or yeast/mold results need to be before they trigger action? What is that action?
Environmental monitoring programs are most needed in facilities that process and package ready to eat foods.
It’s all too common for unsatisfactory swabs to reemerge a few weeks after initial corrective actions because the true source of the contamination wasn’t found. Requirements for EMP corrective actions are often limited to 1) Reclean 2) Reswab and 3) Retrain. This is extremely limited and doesn’t really address the root cause. Vector swabbing is a great tool to identify root cause, as well as conduct an evaluation of variables that could spread contamination. For example, Listeria found in a drain might have originated by an unsealed wall/floor junction, a perfect microbial niche. When the crack is flooded, the biofilm periodically releases fresh contamination to spread across the floor and into the original identified drain.
Different results should trigger different responses. Certainly, reclean/retest/retrain is a smart approach, but finding the true source of the contamination and taking steps to eliminate it is vital. This might involve special cleaning, such as fogging or hiring a consultant. It might require a redesign of equipment or replace and repair of damaged or vulnerable areas. Ensure that all unsatisfactory results involve an investigation, graph results to identify trends, and communication of findings to all appropriate stakeholders.
EMP Review and Reevaluation
EMP doesn’t have to be a static program, and there’s no “one-size fits all” approach. It’s recommended to design your program based on risk and the above-mentioned variables, implement, and monitor the results. If you never find unsatisfactory results, you might need to increase your frequency/number of swabs or reevaluate your site list. Are you properly challenging yourself? Are you REALLY trying to find problems or just going through the motions to satisfy some requirement? You know your products, facility, and employees and should be able to make these determinations. Don’t be afraid to revise your EMP as a result of historical data and changing variables inside the facility. This might involve increasing your frequency/number of swabs, but the reverse might also be appropriate. Sometimes EMP can be scaled back, and those resources better used elsewhere.
The best approach to a well-written EMP is to understand the scope by considering the risk and applicable variables, employing thoughtful and risk-based logic to the design, and planning for potential unsatisfactory results with thorough corrective actions. Be mindful the true purpose of Environmental Monitoring Programs, which is to seek and destroy harmful microorganisms of concern inside your facility. A robust EMP, coupled with proper training, implementation, monitoring/trending, and communication, will go a long way towards peace of mind that your facility isn’t harboring a potential, biological hazard threat.
The USDA Food Safety and Inspection Services (FSIS) has released its 2023-2026 Strategic Plan, the foundation document for both the long range and day-to-day operations of the agency. The agency announced that the updated plan continues to emphasize the importance of science and data to implement advanced and innovative approaches to food safety.
The plan includes three strategic goals:
Goal 1: “Prevent Foodborne Illness and Protect Public Health,” which focuses directly on FSIS’ public health mission and its activities.
Goal 2: “Transform Inspection Strategies, Policies, and Scientific Approaches to Improve Public Health,” which focuses on improving how the agency conducts food safety activities.
Goal 3: “Achieve Operational Excellence,” which focuses on maintaining and improving the strong internal foundation needed to meet goals 1 and 2.
As part of the primary goal, “Prevent Foodborne Illness and Protect Public Health,” the FSIS specifically plans to:
Advance a proposed regulatory framework for its new strategy to reduce Salmonella infections attributable to poultry. FSIS is considering: (1) requiring that incoming flocks be tested for Salmonella before entering an establishment; (2) enhanced establishment process control monitoring and FSIS verification; and (3) an enforceable final product standard. This proposed strategy is aimed at moving the Agency closer to achieving the national target of a 25% reduction in Salmonella illnesses set by Healthy People 2030 and is expected to be in place by May 2024.
Strengthen compliance with food safety statutes and regulations by:
Regularly assessing domestic food safety systems to determine how well they are maintaining process control as well as leveraging data from the Public Health Information System (PHIS) to identify patterns and trends in noncompliance with FSIS regulations among establishments.
Conducting outreach, technical assistance, and information sharing with other countries to improve understanding of FSIS’ regulatory requirements and policies. This is to ensure food safety standards for imported products are equivalent to those of domestic products to reduce foodborne infections attributable to FSIS-regulated products, specifically for Salmonella illnesses attributable to poultry.
Improve food safety at in-commerce facilities by using a risk-based approach to target FSIS resources—including resources used for surveillance, investigative, and enforcement activities.
Enhance response to outbreaks by improving information sharing and collaboration with public health partners during investigations to remove contaminated product more quickly from commerce.
Sustain progress in food defense by assuring that establishments adopt and incorporate food defense practices into their day-to-day operations, and that agency personnel and industry are prepared to respond to an act of intentional contamination.
Increase public awareness of recalls, public health alerts, foodborne illness outbreaks, and consumer adoption of safe food handling practices, by identifying the best approaches to influence behavior and deploying proactive strategies based on behavioral science research.
For the past two years, Food Safety Tech, creator of the annual Food Safety Consortium conference, has been supporting FSQA professionals through its virtual Food Safety Tech Hazards Series.
Focused on the four core areas of food safety: detection, mitigation, control and regulation of risk, the series has addressed pathogens, pest control, and physical and chemical hazards facing the food industry.
The virtual conferences, which have attracted thousands of attendees, provide information on ongoing and emerging risks for both new and seasoned FSQA professionals, featuring speakers from industry, regulatory agencies and standards bodies.
In 2023, we are building on the popularity and success of these virtual events by expanding the Food Safety Tech Hazards Series to include two in-person events coming this spring and fall.
In 2022, salmonella– and listeria-related cases represented 37.4% of food and beverage product recalls, an uptick from 33.3% in 2021. “Food safety hazards continue to be a challenge for all aspects of the food industry from farm to fork.” said Rick Biros, president of Innovative Publishing Company, publisher of Food Safety Tech and director of the Food Safety Consortium conference. “The detection, mitigation and control of food safety hazards issues must be discussed among peers and best practices must be shared, something you can’t do virtually. The human connection is so important for conference attendees. Whether it’s a random connection over lunch, a one-on-one question with a speaker after a presentation or a seat next to a new friend in a learning session—connecting with others is what makes events so valuable. This year’s in-person events are designed to help facilitate this much needed critical thinking and sharing of best practices.”
“We look forward to bringing the Food Safety Tech Hazards series to an in-person audience in 2023,” said Inga Hansen, editor of Food Safety Tech. “This format will complement our virtual series and allow for the live discussion and networking that can only be achieved in person.”
Chicken producers and processors must always pay close attention to listeria and E. coli. Their regulated to-market protocols incorporate intense testing and cleaning standards that help ensure the people who buy chicken sandwiches at fast casual restaurants, chicken fingers at sporting arenas and trays of fresh chicken legs at supermarkets don’t get sick.
The companies stay on top of listeria and E. coli because the USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) has considered them “adulterants,” or substances that should not be found in meat products, for decades. The federal agency banned listeria in 1987, and in 1994 listed E. coli as an adulterant in the wake of an E. coli outbreak at Jack in the Box restaurants that sickened 700 people in four states, and led to 171 hospitalizations and four deaths.
All along, however, another prominent bacteria, Salmonella, remained unregulated, despite its proclivity for making people ill—more than a 1.3 million cases of salmonellosis appear in the U.S. every year, leading to about 26,500 hospitalizations and roughly 400 deaths. It is the No. 1 cause for foodborne illness in the U.S., and most cases stem from chicken products.
But earlier this year the USDA announced that it now plans to consider Salmonella an adulterant in some chicken products. The matter is out for public comment now; if the USDA doesn’t change its clear intention to regulate Salmonella, federal food inspectors soon will be testing for it in select chicken products.
The chicken industry opposes the measure. In a news release issued shortly after the FSIS’ August announcement, the National Chicken Council (NCC) pointed toward the 1957 Poultry Products Inspection Act, which did not include Salmonella as an adulterant, as a set of standards worth upholding today.
Well, a lot has changed in industrial agriculture during the past 65 years, and that includes a dramatic expansion of chicken farming and consumption across the country. In the 1950s, the average American ate about 16 pounds of chicken a year, compared to 56 pounds of beef and 50 pounds of pork. But by this year, Americans were eating close to 112 pounds of chicken a year, along with 56 pounds of beef and 50 pounds of pork. In terms of meat consumption, chicken now rules the roost. Regulating it might not have been necessary back when Dwight D. Eisenhower was president. But today I believe it most definitely is.
As a professional in the food safety industry, I champion the FSIS’ decision. It’s about time the agency added Salmonella to its list of adulterants; the bacteria causes far too much illness and death in the U.S. every year. Many of those cases could have been prevented through regulatory oversight.
Addressing Poultry Industry Concerns
It is true, as opponents of the proposed regulation argue, that Salmonella doesn’t always emerge in the processing plant; humans can inadvertently introduce the bacteria in their own kitchens. Why, the industry asks, should it be penalized for conditions outside of its control? In addition, proper cooking methods will kill Salmonella. If people don’t follow cooking directions on the packages of chicken they buy, and get sick from Salmonella as a result, the chicken industry believes it should not be held accountable.
On the first issue, it is unlikely that cases revolving around individual consumers introducing Salmonella to their chicken products would ever lead to penalties. Federal regulators scrutinize public health data for clusters of outbreaks, which often point toward entire product lines being infected with bacteria; isolated one-off cases, many of which indeed could be the result of human error, do not concern them.
For the second point, yes, people should read labels and closely follow cooking directions. But in my opinion, that is irrelevant; dangerous levels of Salmonella simply should not dwell in foods, and it’s the job of regulators to make sure food is safe.
Toy manufacturers, for example, must eliminate choking hazards from products designed for kids under 3 years, thanks to federal regulations. It shouldn’t be up to parents to constantly monitor their toddlers while they play with toys, to ensure they don’t gag on something potentially dangerous found on the stuffed giraffe.
Should the rule become policy, the FSIS will focus on just one category: stuffed, breaded and raw chicken products. These products, including dishes like chicken Kiev and chicken cordon bleu, often are heat-treated to set the batter or breading, but are not fully cooked. They have been associated with 14 outbreaks and about 200 illnesses since 1998.
This represents a solid start. Next, I’d like to see the FSIS pursue regulating Salmonella in other chicken products. Even if the agency doesn’t, however, many processors will have to implement new practices and testing procedures for all of their products anyway, as in many cases it won’t make sense to just incorporate new protocols within a few discrete product lines. Among other things, I would anticipate boosted commitments among producers and processors to cleaning and sanitation processes, environmental monitoring (probably the most important pursuit) and overall facility food safety measures.
Will this action by the FSIS completely eliminate Salmonella from the targeted products? Absolutely not. The rule sets a maximum threshold for Salmonella in the food the agency tests; in many cases, chicken products that contain negligible amounts of the bacteria will still make it to market. It’s just products containing dangerous amounts of Salmonella that will be subject to penalties.
Food safety serves as one of the foundations of a healthy society. It also reinforces and bolsters public trust in the products consumers buy, which nurtures and strengthens the entire food industry. With this proposed Salmonella rule by the USDA, the U.S. takes another important step toward ensuring the health of its citizens, and further enhancing consumer trust in the chicken products they buy.
A new Quantitative Risk Analysis (QRA) model using epidemic curve (EC) prediction (QRA-EC) could become a valuable new tool in root cause analyses of foodborne illness outbreaks. Researchers with the FDA Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition developed a QRA-EC model and evaluated it in a case study of a 2019 multistate Salmonella outbreak linked to melons. The study was published in Risk Analysis.
Amir Mokhtari, et al, modified the traditional QRA model to track illness timing (epidemic curves). They then compared the predicted number of illnesses and timing of illnesses identified by their model—the FDA-Melon QRA-EC—with the 2019 Salmonella melon outbreak epidemic curve.
The authors explain that QRA models are traditionally used to predict the number of illnesses associated with given food-pathogen pairs and to simulate previous foodborne illness outbreaks by comparing model estimates with observed outbreak size. The QRA-EC model extends that framework to include prediction on the timeline of illnesses associated with consumption of contaminated food products.
“This additional feature yields two-dimensional risk predictions that provide investigators with a more nuanced quantitative evaluation of potential/hypothesized illness outbreak root cause, as the shape and/or span of epidemic curves can give clues about potential sources and/or patterns of spread for an outbreak,” the authors wrote.
They found that contamination niches on the equipment were the most likely cause of the 2019 outbreak, as illnesses were linked to one processor of fresh-cut melons, while the contaminated melons (linked back to one supplier) had been sent to several processing facilities.
“Compared to the efficiency of whole melon washing, proper sanitation of contamination niches had a more pronounced impact on the predicted epidemic curves,” the authors wrote. Furthermore, the model and case study found that risk was greater when food was exposed to contamination niches on the assembly line versus in scrubbers and bins, likely due to the larger surface area of the assembly line and the potential for several contamination niches along the line.
“Using an Agent-Based Modeling approach, FDA Melon QRA-EC explicitly tracked the temporal and spatial movement of contaminated melons throughout the supply chain, which allowed us to predict both the total number and timeline of illnesses for various scenarios, which enabled us to identify conditions that can lead to an outbreak of certain magnitude and with a certain span of the epidemic curve,” the authors concluded.
While this particular model was developed specifically for Salmonella outbreaks linked to melons, the authors note that their model can be adapted for other food-pathogen pairings.
This month, the Interagency Food Safety Analytics Collaboration’s (IFSAC) released it newest annual report , “Foodborne illness source attribution estimates for 2020 for Salmonella, Escherichia coli O157, and Listeria monocytogenes using multi-year outbreak surveillance data, United States.” IFSAC is a collaboration between the CDC, FDA and USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS).
The report was developed to help shape the priorities of the FDA, inform the creation of targeted interventions to reduce foodborne illnesses caused by these pathogens, inform stakeholders and improve regulatory agency’s to assess whether prevention measures are working.
The report identified 3,749 outbreaks that occurred from 1998 through 2020 and were confirmed or suspected to be caused by Salmonella, E. coli O157, or Listeria, including 192 outbreaks that were confirmed or suspected to be caused by multiple pathogens or serotypes.
The IFSAC excluded 96 of these outbreaks according to its pathogen-exclusion criteria, leaving 3,653 outbreaks. The agency further excluded 1,524 outbreaks without a confirmed or suspected implicated food, 836 outbreaks for which the food vehicle could not be assigned to one of the 17 food categories, and six that occurred in a U.S. territory.
The resulting dataset for the report included 1,287 outbreaks in which the confirmed or suspected implicated food or foods could be assigned to a single food category. These included 960 caused or suspected to be caused by Salmonella, 272 by E. coli O157 and 55 by Listeria. Outbreaks from 2016 through 2020 provide 71% of model-estimated illnesses used to calculate attribution for Salmonella, 67% for E. coli O157 and 62% for Listeria.
Salmonella illnesses came from a wide variety of foods, with more than 75% of illnesses attributed to seven food categories: Chicken, Fruits, Pork, Seeded Vegetables (such as tomatoes), Other Produce (such as fungi, herbs, nuts, and root vegetables), Beef and Turkey.
More than 80% of E. coli O157 illnesses were linked to Vegetable Row Crops (such as leafy greens) and Beef.
More than 75% of Listeria monocytogenes illnesses were linked to Dairy products, Fruits and Vegetable Row Crops, though the IFSAC noted that “the rarity of Listeria monocytogenes outbreaks makes these estimates less reliable than those for other pathogens.”
Attribution estimates for Campylobacter outbreaks were not included in this year’s report, though they have been included in the past. IFSAC said that this was “due to continued concerns about the limitations of using outbreak data to attribute Campylobacter illnesses to sources … these concerns are largely due to the outsized influence of outbreaks in certain foods that pose a high individual risk for Campylobacter infection but do not represent the risk to the general population.” For example, 91% of reported Campylobacter outbreaks related to dairy products were associated with unpasteurized milk, while 57% majority of chicken-related outbreaks were due to chicken liver products, which are not widely consumed.
The USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced that it is preparing to publish the next establishment-specific dataset on exploratory and special program poultry sampling in January 2023.
Prior to publishing the dataset, FSIS is seeking comments on a sample dataset and data documentation. Comments can be submitted until December 22, 2022. The sample dataset and corresponding data documentation include sampling results of FSIS’ non-regulatory poultry microbiological sampling projects, including poultry establishments with a very low volume of production (≤ 1,000 lbs/day), religious-exempt chicken carcasses, comminuted or mechanically separated poultry and chicken quarter or half-carcasses and chicken parts. This dataset also includes data associated with special programs, such as a response to an outbreak or testing a new sampling methodology.
Six weeks before the first publication, FSIS will share the data via email with establishments. After the first publication, product type information from the Exploratory Sampling for Chicken Parts – Quarter and Half Carcasses project will continue to be emailed to applicable establishments six weeks before each publication. Except for results from the Exploratory Sampling for Chicken Parts – Quarter and Half Carcasses project, establishments can access their data using the “Industry Sampling Results for Primary Establishment Number Detailed” report within the Public Health Information System (PHIS).
To remain consistent with the other establishment-specific datasets, the first datasets will be posted with an archive and current file. The archive file will contain data through fiscal year (FY) 2021; the current file will contain FY2022 data. Both the archive and current files are planned to publish on January 27, 2023. Subsequent postings will follow the regular posting schedule for establishment-specific datasets. New datasets are released the first Friday of the next quarter with a quarter lag, meaning data for FY2023 Q1 (December 2022) are scheduled to be released on April 7, 2023, data for FY2023 Q2 (March 2023) are scheduled to be released July 7, 2023, and so forth. Existing datasets will be updated quarterly.
To comment on sample dataset and data documentation, visit Regulations.gov and use Docket FSIS-2014-0032.
NACMCF is an advisory committee, established by the USDA, that provides impartial, scientific advice and/or peer reviews to federal food safety agencies for use in the development of an integrated national food safety systems approach.
The meeting is intended to help the committee gain scientific insight regarding Cronobacter infections, including recommendations for how public health authorities can better protect public health, as well as recommendations for food safety management practices that the food industry can implement to enhance the safety of powdered infant formula.
The meeting will be held virtually using Zoom. Attendees must pre-register to receive a join link, dial-in number, access code and unique Attendee ID. Attendees who would like to deliver comments during the meeting must register by November 8, 2022. Attendees who do not plan to speak at the public meeting may register at any time up to the day of the meeting. The meeting agenda is available on the FSIS events page.
The USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) has released a proposed regulatory framework to control Salmonella contamination in poultry products.
In its announcement, the USDA noted that the proposed framework follows months of information-gathering and discussions with a wide range of stakeholders, researchers and scientists. It consists of three key components:
Requiring that incoming flocks be tested for Salmonella before entering an establishment
Enhancing establishment process control monitoring and FSIS verification
Implementing an enforceable final product standard.
“We know that Salmonella in poultry is a complex problem with no single solution,” said USDA Deputy Under Secretary Sandra Eskin. “However, we have identified a series of strategic actions FSIS could take that are likely to drive down Salmonella infections linked to poultry products consumption, and we are presenting those in this proposed framework.”
A copy of the proposed framework, which also addresses cross-cutting issues of testing for Salmonella, the impact on small and very small establishments and data sharing, is available online here.
Representatives from industry, consumer groups and other stakeholders are invited to provide input on the proposed regulatory framework by participating in a virtual public meeting November 3 from 10am to 4pm ET via Zoom. To view the agenda and to register to attend, visit the Meetings and Events page on the FSIS website.
Consumer groups are applauding the proposed framework. “This is a historic first step toward final product standards that are science-based, risk-based, enforceable, and effective at protecting our vulnerable loved ones,” said Amanda Craten, board member of STOP Foodborne Illness. “As a parent of a child who suffered from Salmonella illness and is left with permanent injury, I have advocated and engaged in the process to modernize poultry standards to ensure no child has to experience the devastation of a preventable, virulent Salmonella illness. I’m thankful that USDA is making the prevention of illnesses like my son Noah’s a priority.”
Dr. Craig Hedberg, a professor at University of Minnesota School of Public Health and Co-Director of the Minnesota Integrated Food Safety Center of Excellence, agrees that this framework “is an important step towards moving away from hazard-based regulation toward risk-based regulation. Focusing on levels of Salmonella and highly virulent strains of Salmonella rather than just the presence or absence of Salmonella should reduce the number of illnesses associated with poultry.”
The USDA FSIS continues to gather scientific evidence relevant to the approaches presented in the proposed framework.
FSIS is also completing a risk profile for pathogenic Salmonella subtypes in poultry and is collaborating on quantitative risk assessments for Salmonella in chicken and turkey that will address key risk management questions associated with this framework.
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.
