Tag Archives: USDA

Mortadella

CDC, USDA Investigating Multistate Listeria Outbreak Linked to Italian-Style Deli Meats

By Food Safety Tech Staff
No Comments
Mortadella

On October 29,2020 attend the Food Safety Consortium Virtual episode on Listeria Detection, Mitigation and ControlThe CDC and USDA are investigating a multistate outbreak of Listeria monocytogenes that has sent 10 people to the hospital and resulted in one death. The outbreak, which as of October 22 has reported illnesses in Florida (1), Massachusetts (7) and New York (2), has been linked to Italian-style deli meats such as salami, mortadella and prosciutto. Currently no specific deli meat or common supplier has been identified.

CDC, FSIS and other public health officials are using PulseNet to identify any illnesses that could be linked to the outbreak. The following is a link to the CDC’s map of reported cases by state.

FDA

FDA Asks for Comments and Evidence to Aid in Labeling of Cultured Seafood Cells

By Food Safety Tech Staff
No Comments
FDA

FDA has issued a Request for Information in an effort to gain information and data about how to properly label foods made with cultured seafood cells. The goal is to help FDA determine next steps in ensuring that products derived from cultured seafood cells are labeled consistently and transparently. The “Request for Information: Labeling of Foods Comprised of or Containing Cultured Seafood Cells” will be published on the Federal Register on October 7, and there is a 150-day comment period.

“The FDA invites comment, particularly data and other evidence, about names or statements of identity for foods made with cultured seafood cells. The agency is also interested in information on consumer understanding of those terms and how to determine material differences between cell cultured and conventionally produced seafood,” FDA stated in an email constituent update.

The labeling of foods derived from cultured seafood cells falls under FDA jurisdiction. In March the USDA and FDA entered into a formal agreement regarding the oversight of human food made from cells of livestock and poultry.

Manuel Orozco, AIB International
FST Soapbox

Detecting Foreign Material Will Protect Your Customers and Brand

By Manuel Orozco
No Comments
Manuel Orozco, AIB International

During the production process, physical hazards can contaminate food products, making them unfit for human consumption. According to the USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), the leading cause of food recalls is foreign material contamination. This includes 20 of the top 50, and three of the top five, largest food recalls issued in 2019.

As methods for detecting foreign materials in food have improved over time, you might think that associated recalls should be declining. To the contrary, USDA FSIS and FDA recalls due to foreign material seem to be increasing. During the entire calendar year of 2018, 28 of the 382 food recalls (7.3%) in the USDA’s recall case archive were for foreign material contamination. Through 2019, this figure increased to approximately 50 of the 337 food recalls (14.8%). Each of these recalls may have had a significant negative impact on those brands and their customers, which makes foreign material detection a crucial component of any food safety system.

The FDA notes, “hard or sharp foreign materials found in food may cause traumatic injury, including laceration and perforation of tissues of the mouth, tongue, throat, stomach and intestine, as well as damage to the teeth and gums”. Metal, plastic and glass are by far the most common types of foreign materials. There are many ways foreign materials can be introduced into a product, including raw materials, employee error, maintenance and cleaning procedures, and equipment malfunction or breakage during the manufacturing and packaging processes.

The increasing use of automation and machinery to perform tasks that were once done by hand are likely driving increases in foreign matter contamination. In addition, improved manufacturer capabilities to detect particles in food could be triggering these recalls, as most of the recalls have been voluntary by the manufacturer.

To prevent foreign material recalls, it is key to first prevent foreign materials in food production facilities. A proper food safety/ HACCP plan should be introduced to prevent these contaminants from ending up in the finished food product through prevention, detection and investigation.
Food manufacturers also have a variety of options when it comes to the detection of foreign objects from entering food on production lines. In addition to metal detectors, x-ray systems, optical sorting and camera-based systems, novel methods such as infrared multi-wavelength imaging and nuclear magnetic resonance are in development to resolve the problem of detection of similar foreign materials in a complex background. Such systems are commonly identified as CCPs (Critical Control Points)/preventive controls within our food safety plans.

But what factors should you focus on when deciding between different inspection systems? Product type, flow characteristics, particle size, density and blended components are important factors in foreign material detection. Typically, food manufacturers use metal and/or x-ray inspection for foreign material detection in food production as their CCP/preventive control. While both technologies are commonly used, there are reasons why x-ray inspection is becoming more popular. Foreign objects can vary in size and material, so a detection method like an x-ray that is based on density often provides the best performance.

Regardless of which detection system you choose, keep in mind that FSMA gives FDA the power to scientifically evaluate food safety programs and preventive controls implemented in a food production facility, so validation and verification are crucial elements of any detection system.

It is also important to remember that a key element of any validation system is the equipment validation process. This process ensures that your equipment operates properly and is appropriate for its intended use. This process consists of three steps: Installation qualification, operational qualification and performance qualification.

Installation qualification is the first step of the equipment validation process, designed to ensure that the instrument is properly installed, in a suitable environment free from interference. This process takes into consideration the necessary electrical requirements such as voltage and frequency ratings, as well as other factors related with the environment, such as temperature and humidity. These requirements are generally established by the manufacturer and can be found within the installation manual.

The second step is operational qualification. This ensures that the equipment will operate according to its technical specification. In order to achieve this, the general functions of the equipment must be tested within the specified range limits. Therefore, this step focuses on the overall functionality of the instrument.

The third and last step is the performance qualification, which is focused on providing documented evidence through specific tests that the instrument will performs according to the routine specifications. These requirements could be established by internal and industry standards.

Following these three steps will allow you to provide documented evidence that the equipment will perform adequately within the work environment and for the intended process. After completion of the equipment validation process, monitoring and verification procedures must be established to guarantee the correct operation of the instrument, as well procedures to address deviations and recordkeeping. This will help you effectively control the hazards identified within our operation.

There can be massive consequences if products contaminated with foreign material are purchased and consumed by the public. That’s why the development and implementation of a strong food safety/ HACCP plan, coupled with the selection and validation of your detection equipment, are so important. These steps are each key elements in protecting your customers and your brand.

FST Soapbox

FDA Announces Inspections Will Resume…Sort Of

By Trish Wester
No Comments

FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn, M.D. recently announced that food safety inspections will resume in July, but inspectors will be given leeway to accommodate the coronavirus pandemic. Inspections will be prearranged by appointments. The agency suspended routine inspections in late March as a result of the pandemic response, which closed down much of the country.

USDA/FSIS has continued to provide inspection services for eggs, meat and poultry throughout the COVID-19 outbreak, with a significant number of establishments involved in outbreak clusters and periodic shutdowns.

The “White House Guidelines for Opening Up America Again” calls for the FDA to send out investigators for on-site inspections by the week of July 20, using the COVID-19 Advisory Rating system, which utilizes state and national data about infection rates to determine the regions where enforcement can resume.

In a July 10 FDA statement Hahn noted, “resuming prioritized domestic inspections will depend on the data about the virus’ trajectory in a given state and locality, and the rules and guidelines that are put in place by state and local governments.”

One of the most significant modifications for domestic inspections in the announcement is that they will be pre-announced to FDA-regulated businesses. “This will help assure the safety of the investigator and the firm’s employees, providing the safest possible environment to accomplish our regulatory activities, while also ensuring the appropriate staff is on-site to assist FDA staff with inspection activities,” Hahn said. Previously, most inspections were unannounced.

It’s not entirely clear how FDA will use the White House guidelines to determine where they can schedule inspections. There is mention of a prioritization mechanism that will identify high-risk operations, but that has traditionally been part of FDA’s approach to inspections.

The CDC published phased guidelines for states to follow in reopening, which are referred to in the announcement. The guidelines document outlines the gating criteria for states, but published versions do not mention inspection requirements. Many states began reopening without meeting all of the gateway criteria for Phase 1, and continued to accelerate reopening activities in a way that makes it unclear which phase criteria they may have actually met when compared to the phase under which they claim to be operating.

Further complicating the safety issue is the recent rising number of COVID-19 cases that is causing some states to pause or rollback reopening activities. Since publishing the announcement, several states have emerged as new COVID-19 hot spots, including Texas, Arizona and Florida; In addition, Florida has surpassed New York in total cases. California, another food producing state heavily affected by the pandemic, is seeing a significant increase in cases and is considering issuing new shelter-in-place orders. It was recently reported that CDC has identified 21 states as “Red Zones”, with at least 11 states on the verge of surging cases.

In other words, with the virus on the rise, there may not be a significant number of inspections actually performed, regardless of whether or not inspections have technically resumed, simply because there just isn’t a safe way to send inspectors out.

The FDA has also published the “New Era of Smarter Food Safety Blueprint”, which includes ways the agency could use technology to support compliance activities. There may be an opportunity for the FDA to implement new tools such as remote verification in lieu of onsite inspections, but that remains to be seen. Among such tools, remote audit pilots were recently completed and those results will be available for public presentation at the end of August.

In the short term, should FDA determine you are an inspection candidate, you will contacted in advance to schedule a day and time.

Alex Kinne, Thermo Fisher Scientific
In the Food Lab

Ensuring Food Safety in Meat Processing Through Foreign Object Detection

By Alex Kinne
No Comments
Alex Kinne, Thermo Fisher Scientific

The USDA estimates that foodborne illnesses cost more than $15.6 billion each year. However, biological contamination isn’t the only risk to the safety and quality of food. Food safety can also be compromised by foreign objects at virtually any stage in the production process, from contaminants in raw materials to metal shavings from the wear of equipment on the line, and even from human error. While the risk of foreign object contamination may seem easy to avoid, in 2019 alone the USDA reported 34 food recalls, impacting 17 million pounds of food due to ‘extraneous material’ which can include metal, plastic and even glass.

When FSMA went into effect, the focus shifted to preventing food safety problems, necessitating that food processors implement preventive controls to shift the focus from recovery and quarantine to proactive risk mitigation. Food producers developed Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) plans focused on identifying potential areas of risk and placement of appropriate inspection equipment at these key locations within the processing line.

Metal detection is the most common detection technology used to find ferrous, non-ferrous, and stainless steel foreign objects in food. In order to increase levels of food safety and better protect brand reputation, food processors need detection technologies that can find increasingly smaller metal foreign objects. Leading retailers are echoing that need and more often stipulate specific detection performance in their codes of practice, which processors must meet in order to sell them product.

As food processors face increased consumer demand and continued price-per-unit pressures, they must meet the challenges of greater throughput demands while concurrently driving out waste to ensure maximum operational efficiencies.

Challenges Inherent in Meat Metal Detection

While some food products are easier to inspect, such as dry, inert products like pasta or grains, metal foreign object detection in meat is particularly challenging. This is due to the high moisture and salt content common in ready-to-eat, frozen and processed, often spicy, meat products that have high “product effect.” Bloody whole muscle cuts can also create high product effect.

The conductive properties of meat can mimic a foreign object and cause metal detectors to incorrectly signal the presence of a physical contaminant even when it is nonexistent. Food metal detectors must be intelligent enough to ignore these signals and recognize them as product effect to avoid false rejection. Otherwise, they can signal metal when it is not present, thus rejecting good product and thereby increasing costs through scrap or re-work.

Equipping for Success

When evaluating metal detection technologies, food processors should request a product test, which allows the processor to see how various options perform for their application. The gold standard is for the food processor to send in samples of their product and provide information about the processing environment so that the companies under consideration can as closely as possible simulate the manufacturing environment. These tests are typically provided at no charge, but care should be taken upfront to fully understand the comprehensiveness of the testing methodologies and reporting.

Among the options to explore are new technologies such as multiscan metal detection, which enables meat processors to achieve a new level of food safety and quality. This technology utilizes five user-adjustable frequencies at once, essentially doing the work of five metal detectors back-to-back in the production line and yielding the highest probability of detecting metal foreign objects in food. When running, multiscan technology allows inspectors to view all the selected frequencies in real time and pull up a report of the last 20 rejects to see what caused them, allowing them to quickly make appropriate adjustments to the production line.

Such innovations are designed for ease of use and to meet even the most rigorous retailer codes of practice. Brands, their retail and wholesale customers, and consumers all benefit from carefully considered, application-specific, food safety inspection.

Ensuring Safety

The food processing industry is necessarily highly regulated. Implementing the right food safety program needs to be a top priority to ensure consumer safety and brand protection. Innovative new approaches address these safety concerns for regulatory requirements and at the same time are designed to support increased productivity and operational efficiency.

USDA Logo

Pilgrim’s Pride Recalls Nearly 60,000 Pounds of Chicken Nuggets

By Food Safety Tech Staff
No Comments
USDA Logo

Yesterday Pilgrim’s Pride Corp. recalled about 59,800 pounds of fully cooked chicken breast nuggets over concern that they could be contaminated with flexible rubber. The Class II recall affects frozen ready-to-eat chicken nuggets that were produced on May 6, 2020 and bear the establishment number P-20728. The products were shipped to retail stores in Arizona, Idaho, Oregon and Texas.

The issue was uncovered after a consumer complained about rubber pieces in the chicken nuggets. Thus far there are no reported adverse reactions related to consumption of the nuggets.

Marketside Ground Beef

Nearly 43,000 Pounds of Ground Beef Recalled Due to Potential E. Coli Contamination

By Food Safety Tech Staff
No Comments
Marketside Ground Beef

Swedesboro, NJ-based Lakeside Refrigerated Services recalled about 42,922 pounds of ground beef products over concern of potential E. coli O157:H7 contamination. The Class I recall involves raw ground beef products that were produced on June 1.

The issue was uncovered during routine FSIS testing. The products were reportedly distributed to retailers, including Walmart, nationwide. Thus far there are no reports of adverse reactions due to consumption of the affect products.

A full list of the recalled products are available on the USDA’s website.

Recall

Undeclared Allergens, Bacterial Contamination Top Q1 2020 Recalls

By Food Safety Tech Staff
No Comments
Recall

The COVID-19 crisis has led to supply chain management challenges for food manufacturers and processors, ingredient suppliers and vendors, and regulators. In its Q1 2020 Recall Index, experts from Stericycle advise that companies use this time to take a closer look at their supply chain processes and reevaluate their recall plan.

Watch two complimentary on-demand webinars: COVID-19 in the Food Industry: Enterprise Risk Management and the Supply Chain |
COVID-19 in the Food Industry: Mitigating and Preparing for Supply Chain Disruptions
“Companies in the food industry have their work cut out for them during this outbreak and for months after,” the report states. “But the key is to focus intensely on the basics. It’s too easy to assume food safety protocols and quality controls are followed as strictly and uniformly as they always are. Use this time wisely to recheck your supply chain, review your food-safety processes and update your recall plan.”

FDA Recalls: Notable Numbers (Q1 2020)

  • 141 recalls affecting more than 8.8 units
  • Undeclared allergens: 39.7% of recalls. The top cause of recalls for the 11th consecutive quarter
  • Bacterial contamination: 58.1% of recalls by number of impacted units
  • Nearly 20% of fresh and processed food recalls impacted products distributed nationwide

USDA Recalls: Notable Numbers (Q1 2020)

  • 6 recalls impacting 22,500 pounds of product
    • More than half of recalled pounds were a result of lack of inspection
  • Recalls dropped nearly 79%
  • Undeclared allergens: 4 recalls
FDA

FDA, USDA Reach MOU to Prevent Disruptions in FDA-Regulated Food Facilities

By Food Safety Tech Staff
No Comments
FDA

This week the USDA and FDA signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in an effort to prevent disruptions at FDA-regulated food facilities, including fruit and vegetable processing locations. The agencies are also trying to prepare for the peak harvesting seasons that involve freezing and canning fruits and vegetables. The MOU provides a process by which the agencies can determine the instances when USDA would exercise authorize under the Defense Production Act (DPA) related to food resource facilities that manufacture, process, pack or hold foods.

“While the FDA will continue to work with state and local regulators in a collaborative manner, further action under the DPA may be taken, should it be needed, to ensure the continuity of our food supply. As needed, the FDA will work in consultation with state, local, tribal and territorial regulatory and public health partners; industry or commodity sector; and other relevant stakeholders (e.g. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Occupational Safety and Health Administration) to chart a path toward resuming and/or maintaining operations while keeping employees safe,” stated FDA Deputy Commissioner for Food Policy and Response Frank Yiannas in an agency press release. “We are working with our federal partners who have the authority and expertise over worker safety to develop information on protecting worker health. We are also working with other federal partners to assist the food and agriculture industry in addressing shortages of personal protective equipment (PPE), cloth face coverings, disinfectants and sanitation supplies.”

Coronavirus, COVID-19

Fourth USDA Food Safety Inspector, at Least 30 Meat Plant Workers Dead from COVID-19

By Food Safety Tech Staff
No Comments
Coronavirus, COVID-19

Last week another USDA food safety inspector died as a result of COVID-19. Time reported the unidentified inspector was located in Dodge City, Kansas, and cited a brief USDA statement: “USDA can confirm the passing of an employee. The safety and well being of our employees is our top priority. We thank those working on the front lines of our food supply chain for remaining on the job and for making sure the American people have access to safe food.”

Attend the webinar, “Is Your Plant COVID-19 Safe?” | May 27,2020 at 12 pm ET According to the report, at least 30 workers at meat plants have died of coronavirus, and a fourth USDA inspector as of May 14. More 100 USDA FSIS employees were self-quarantining as a result of exposure to COVID-19 and 171 field employees were diagnosed with the virus and did not report to work.

Worker safety at meat plants has been a concern for months, and the industry has been grappling with the threat of a meat shortage. On April 28, President Trump signed an executive order to keep meat and poultry processing facilities open during the COVID-19 crisis.