USDA Challenges Consumers to Test Their Back to School Food Safety Smarts

Heading back to school means getting into a new routine. As moms and dads pack lunches for their kids before a busy day of class and extra-curricular activities, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) encourages families to update their food safety routine and take precautions that will help prevent food poisoning in America's young students.

"Preventing foodborne illness is part of USDA's public health mission, but one in six Americans is still expected to get sick from the food they eat this year," Under Secretary for Food Safety Dr. Elisabeth Hagen said. "Back to school time provides an excellent opportunity for the whole family to brush up on food safety steps."

When it comes to food safety, are you an A+ student? This true or false quiz is based on real calls to USDA's Meat and Poultry Hotline, 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854). The hotline is open weekdays from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. and is staffed by specialists who can answer consumers' questions about safely handling, cooking and storing food.

True or False: To effectively destroy germs on my hands, I need to wash them for 20 seconds.

True. Wash hands before and after handling food with soap and running water by rubbing hands together vigorously for at least 20 seconds. The mechanical action of rubbing your hands creates friction that helps dislodge bacteria and viruses. Warm or hot water is preferable to cold water because it helps dissolve fats and foods, aiding in microbe removal and the deactivation of pathogens. If soapy water is not available, use an alcohol-based hand sanitizer that contains at least 60 percent alcohol. Alcohol-based hand sanitizers can reduce the number of germs on hands in some situations, but sanitizers do not eliminate all types of germs, including viruses.

True or False: The "let stand" step of microwave meal instructions is only there so I don't burn myself.

False. If the food label says, "Let stand for x minutes after cooking," do not skimp on the standing time. Food continues to generate heat after the microwave is turned off, so letting your microwaved food sit for a few minutes actually helps your food cook more. That extra minute or two could mean the difference between a delicious meal and food poisoning. After waiting a few minutes, check the food with a food thermometer to make sure it is 165 °F or above.

True or False: I need to put some sort of cold source in my lunchbox.

True. Harmful bacteria multiply rapidly between 40 and 140 °F, so perishable food transported without an ice source will not stay safe long. Insulated, soft-sided lunch boxes or bags are best for keeping food cold, but pack at least two ice sources with perishable food in any type of lunch bag or box you use. You can use two frozen gel packs that are 5-by-3 inches or larger, or combine a frozen gel pack with a frozen juice box. When packing your bag lunch, place the ice sources above and below the perishable food items to keep them cold. If there is a refrigerator available at work or school, store perishable items there upon arrival. If you place your insulated bag in the refrigerator, leave the lid or bag open so that cold air can keep the food cold.

Some food is safe without a cold source. Items that do not require refrigeration include whole fruits and vegetables, hard cheese, canned meat and fish, chips, breads, crackers, peanut butter, jelly, mustard and pickles.

True or False: As long as it isn't topped with chicken or sausage, leftover pizza is safe to eat if unrefrigerated overnight.

False. Bacteria grow readily in carbohydrate-rich, cooked foods. While uncooked vegetables are safe to store at room temperature in their raw state, cooked foods such as casseroles, rice, pasta and pizza—whether or not the dish contains meat or poultry—must be refrigerated within two hours after cooking. The possibility of bacterial growth increases after cooking, because the drop in temperature allows bacteria to thrive. If a food has been left between 40 and 140 °F for more than two hours, discard it, even though it may look and smell okay. The kinds of bacteria that cause food poisoning do not affect the look, smell, or taste of food. Put leftover pizza in the refrigerator right away, and it will be safe to eat for three to four days.

Read more here:

http://www.thebaynet.com/news/index.cfm/fa/viewstory/story_ID/29360

Food Safety Advocates to USDA: Require Labeling for Tenderized Meat

A group of food safety advocates is calling on the Obama Administration to make good on its proposal to require labeling for mechanically tenderized meat.

In a letter to the U.S. Department of Agriculture Friday, the Safe Food Coalition called on the agency to require that mechanically tenderized meat bear a label that includes instructions on how to safely cook this meat.

In the past, USDA has differentiated mechanically tenderized steaks--which have been probed with a series of small metal blades or needles--from "intact" steaks, which it says need only be cooked to 145 degrees F because bacteria does not penetrate into the middle of intact cuts. Mechanically tenderized cuts, however, should be cooked to an internal temperature of 160 degrees F, like ground beef, to allow for the fact that bacteria may have penetrated further into the meat. 

In January of 1999, USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service listed mechanically tenderized meat as a non-intact meat in its policy on beef products at risk of contamination with E. coli O157:H7. 

"Pathogens may be introduced below the surface of these products as a result of the processes by which they are made," said the agency. 

According to research from Kansas State University, approximately 3 to 4 percent of E. coli bacteria can be carried from the surface of contaminated meat to the inside of the beef product. 

However, the agency does not currently require a label on tenderized steaks indicating that they should be cooked to a higher temperature.

"Without a label to identify mechanically treated meat products, along with information to help mitigate the risk, the unsuspecting purchasers of these products - whether they are restaurant cooks or consumers - will have no idea that the product that they have selected needs additional protective handling and preparation," says the Safe Food Coalition letter, signed by member groups. 

In March of this year, USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) submitted a rule to the federal Office of Management and Budget suggesting that "raw, needle or blade, mechanically tenderized, meat and poultry products be labeled to indicate that they are 'mechanically tenderized.' It goes on to propose that tenderized meat labels "include cooking instructions that have been validated to ensure adequate pathogen destruction."

Mechanically tenderized beef products were implicated in at least 6 E. coli O157:H7 outbreaks between 2003 and 2009. The latest - in December of 2009 - sickened at least 21 people in 16 states. 

The American Meat Institute says that tenderization is not necessarily what led to contamination in these outbreaks, and that evidence shows mechanically tenderized steaks are no riskier than intact ones.

In February of 2010, AMI said it had reviewed outbreaks linked to tenderized meat and determined that all meat implicated in these outbreaks had been further altered beyond tenderization.

"From this review AMI has determined that all of the recalls due to outbreaks were related to the consumption of marinated or enhanced steak products," said AMI Vice President of Food Safety and Inspection Services Scott Goltry.

"Because blade-tenderized steaks have been found to be comparable in safety, we don't believe that special labeling declaring the mechanical tenderization process will provide meaningful or actionable information to consumers," said the American Meat Institute in 2009 in response to calls for mandatory labeling of tenderized steaks. 

Dr. Richard Raymond, who was Undersecretary for Food Safety at USDA from 2005-2008, says the idea of requiring a label on mechanically tenderized meat came up in internal meetings at FSIS while he was in office, but that he decided against it given the small number of illnesses that had been linked to these meats at the time and the potential damage it could do to the industry.  

"I felt the risk was not significant enough to require a labeling process," Raymond told Food Safety News. 

"In theory, it is absolutely possible that you can drive bacteria into the inner part of the steak. In actuality, there haven't been that many illnesses linked to blade-tenderized steaks," says Raymond. 

"If you choose to put it on the label people are going to say, 'Well what does that mean?' You have to have an explanation if you say it's been mechanically tenderized," he says. "A lot of people wouldn't buy a steak that had that label on it because they're not going to cook them well-done. It's like putting the radura symbol on meat that's been irradiated. It's scary. It will make people think the product is less reliable." 

Current Undersecretary for Food Safety Dr. Elizabeth Hagen pushed for acceptance of the proposal to label mechanically tenderized meats in front of the House Appropriations committee in March. 

"We do believe (mechanically tenderized meats) should be labeled. This is important information for consumers to have."

The rule is still under review at OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. 

BY GRETCHEN GOETZ

Hurricane food, water, appliance safety tips

Food:

n A full freezer will hold the temperature for about 48 hours, 24 if half-full, if the door remains closed. The refrigerator will keep food safely cold for about 4 hours. Dry or block ice will keep the refrigerator cold in case of a prolonged power outage. The U.S. Department of Agriculture says 50 lbs. of dry ice should hold an 18-cubic foot full freezer for 2 days.

• Food in the freezer will be safe to eat should an appliance thermometer reads 40 degrees or below, the USDA says. If you don’t have a thermometer, check each package of food for ice crystals, which means it’s safe to refreeze. Discard any perishable food that’s been kept above 40 degrees for more than 2 hours.
• Do not eat any food that may have come into contact with flood water, the Food and Drug Administration says. Discard food and beverage containers in water-damaged packaging or that have screw-caps, snap lids, crimped caps, twist caps flip tops and any home-canned foods.
• If you live in a location that could be flooded, store your supplies on shelves that will be out of the way of contaminated water.
• Undamaged all-metal cans and flexible, shelf-stable pouches can be saved, the USDA says. Remove all labels, then thoroughly wash the cans or pouches in soap and water. Brush or wipe away dirt or silt. Rinse cans or pouches with potable water, then sanitize them by immersing them in boiling water for 2 minutes or in a solution made of 1 tablespoon of unscented, liquid chlorine bleach per gallon of drinking water. Air-dry the cans or pouches for at least an hour, then re-label each item, including the expiration date.

Water:

• If bottled water is unavailable and boiling water is not possible, the FDA says, water can be made potable by adding 1⁄8 teaspoon of unscented, liquid chlorine bleach to 1 gallon of water. Stir well and let stand for 30 minutes before using. If the water is cloudy, filter it through clean cloths or allow it to settle, then draw off clear water before adding bleach.
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention-approved sources for emergency drinking water inside the home include: water from your home’s water heater tank and melted ice cubes. Water from swimming pools and spas may be used for personal hygiene and cleaning, but not for drinking.

Infants and young children:

n It’s always best to use ready-to-feed formula, according to the CDC. Should ready-to-feed formula not be available, use bottled water to prepare powdered or concentrated formula. If you have no bottled water, use boiled water or treated water.

Cleaning food-contact
surfaces:

n The CDC recommends this four-step process: Wash surfaces with soap and warm, clear water. Rinse with clean water. Sanitize by immersing for 1 minute in a solution of 1 tsp. chlorine bleach (5.25%, unscented) per gallon of clean water. Allow to air dry.

• The FDA recommends wooden cutting boards, wooden dishes, wooden utensils, plastic utensils, baby bottle nipples and pacifiers that come into contact with flood water be discarded.
• The USDA says to clean counter tops thoroughly with soap and water, then rinse and sanitize with a solution of 1 tablespoon of unscented, liquid chlorine bleach per gallon of drinking water. Allow to air-dry.
• Run the dishwasher, empty, through three complete cycles to flush the water lines and assure they are cleaned before returning to normal use, the FDA says. Also discard all the ice in ice machines, sanitize the interior surfaces with 1 tablespoon of bleach per gallon of potable water. Then run the ice machine through three cycles, discarding the ice.

Sources: The United States Department of Agriculture, the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

BY BETH COLVIN

Is 'pink slime' being unfairly demonised?

"Pink slime" may be off the menu for many US school children after the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), which provides a fifth of school meals in the US through its National School Lunch Program, yielded to a petitiondemanding the withdrawal of the meat product from the school menu.

However, the beef industry, the company that makes the product and campaigners against food contamination have fiercely defended the safety and value of the product, officially called "lean finely textured beef" (LFTB).

So what's going on? What is "pink slime", and is it being unfairly demonised?

What on earth is this stuff?
Essentially, it is beef recovered from slaughterhouse trimmings – the fatty off-cuts and slivers from cuts used for steak and roasts. Normally, these would be discarded or added to pet food, but 10 years ago, Beef Products Incorporated of Dakota Dunes, South Dakota, devised a way to separate the remaining meat from the fat and concentrate it into pellets.

How is "pink slime" made?
First, they simmer the off-cuts to tenderise them, then separate the fat from the meat using a centrifuge. The separated meat is then sterilised using a small amount of ammonium hydroxide, compressed into pellets and frozen for delivery.

How is the product used?
LFTB is used in a wide range of beef and meat products, including beefburgers, hamburgers, chillis and sausages. McDonald's and Burger King recently removed it from their burgers following the public outcry.

What is its nutritional value?
Rick Jochum, a company spokesman, told New Scientist that LFTB is 94 to 97 per cent lean beef, with similar nutritional value to 90 per cent lean ground beef, and besides being very high in protein and low in fat, contains iron, zinc and B vitamins.

So what prompted the campaign to get rid of it from school meals?
The trigger was an online petition launched in early March by freelance food blogger Bettina Siegel. This morning it had 235,970 signatures. In her blog, she cites safety concerns raised by microbiologists formerly employed by the USDA, and a story from 2009 in The New York Times that exposed three incidents of Escherichia coli and 48 cases of Salmonella contamination, all of which were intercepted before the product reached customers.

What do the microbiologists have to say on the subject?
Former USDA microbiologist Gerald Zirnstein coined the term "pink slime" in 2002 in an internal memo. He and fellow microbiologist Carl Custer both say they had misgivings about the product when it was being reviewed by the USDA in the early 2000s. Quoted recently on ABC, their objections seem to concern whether consumers are being conned into buying products they think are pure beef, but which have been bulked up with LFTB.

How has the USDA responded to the petition?
The USDA appears to be capitulating to campaigners by offering schools awider choice of ground beef products. "Due to customer demand", it says schools will now be able to order products "either with or without LFTB". It also reaffirmed its earlier judgement that the product is safe to consume.

What is Beef Products Incorporated doing to counter the bad publicity?
Spokesman Rick Jochum rejected many of the charges, including claims that the product includes cow intestines and connective tissue such as tendons. "This is absolutely not true," said Jochum. "Intestines never enter our plant, and never enter the beef processing facility from which we purchase our trim," he says. "Similarly, tendons are removed at our suppliers' facilities."

The company has set up a web page challenging the "Top 7 Myths of 'Pink Slime'". It points out, for example, that many media outlets reporting the controversy have used a picture of pink goo that is not actually LFTB. Also, it rejects allegations that the "puff of ammonia" used to sterilise the product is dangerous, pointing out that it has been used to sterilise a wide range of food products since 1974 when it was approved for use by the US Food and Drug Administration.

Who else is backing the company?
The beef industry has given its backing, as have several prominent figures within the industry.

Perhaps more significantly, Nancy Donley, founder of the campaign group STOP Foodborne Illness, whose own son died from E. coli beef food poisoning in 1993, has vigorously defended the product and the company. "I have personally visited their plant and the categorisation of calling their product 'pink slime' is completely false and incendiary," says Donley.

"Consumers need to understand that this product is meat, period, and that the use of ammonia hydroxide in minute amounts during processing improves the safety of the product and is routinely used throughout the food industry," 

FOOD SAFETY GUIDES FOR GROUPS MOST VULNERABLE TO FOODBORNE ILLNESS NOW AVAILABLE

USDA and FDA partner on food safety booklets to help those with compromised immune systems prevent food borne illness 

August 5, 2012  (Washington) —The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) and the Department of Health and Human Services’ Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have partnered to create six booklets with food safety advice for populations that are most susceptible to food borne illness. The booklets in this “at-risk series” are tailored to help older adults, transplant recipients, pregnant women, and people with cancer, diabetes or HIV/AIDS reduce their risk for food borne illness.

“These booklets are a much needed resource for consumers who are at increased risk of getting sick from food,” said USDA Under Secretary for Food Safety Dr. Elisabeth Hagen. “The clear, understandable information in these booklets will help at-risk individuals feel confident about the safety of foods they prepare and eat. The booklets are also helpful to physicians and other health care providers for educating their at-risk patients about food borne illnesses.”

Each of the booklets contains 24 pages of practical guidance on how to prevent food borne illness. The information is presented in easy-to-read charts, illustrated how-to’s, and straightforward descriptions of why each group is at higher risk for food borne illness and symptoms that may mean trouble. The booklets contain three tear-out cards with quick-reference tips for grocery shopping, cooking to the right temperature, and eating at restaurants for those times when taking along the entire booklet would be impractical.  

“Everyone, from farmers to food manufacturers to food preparers in the home, has a role in food safety,” said FDA Deputy Commissioner for Foods Michael Taylor.  “It is important that consumers, particularly those who are at higher risk of foodborne illness, have information they can use to do their part in preventing illness by properly selecting and preparing foods.”

While booklets on five of these topics have been previously produced in 2006, the two agencies this year created a sixth booklet for pregnant women, who are at particular risk for the illness listeriosis. The six new booklets list food safety resources, such as www.foodsafety.gov, that have been made available since the earlier copies were printed. They also include revised safe cooking temperatures for meat and poultry: 145 °F for whole cuts of meat, followed by a three-minute rest time; 160 °F for ground meats; and 165 °F for all poultry.

FSIS and FDA have mailed copies of the booklets to physicians around the country who treat patients in any of these six categories, and the booklets are available to the public free of charge. Additionally, the booklets are downloadable in PDF format at www.foodsafety.gov/poisoning/risk/index.html. To order booklets for your home, office, or organization, call the toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline at 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) weekdays between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m. ET, or email requests to fsis.outreach@usda.gov. 

Consumers with food safety questions are encouraged to “Ask Karen,” the FSIS virtual representative available 24 hours a day at www.AskKaren.gov or via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov. “Ask Karen” live chat services are available in English and Spanish weekdays from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. ET.

As part of a multi-faceted approach to prevent foodborne illness, the USDA and the FDA joined the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Ad Council to launch Food Safe Families, a consumer food safety education campaign. It is the first joint public service campaign to empower families to further reduce their risk of food borne illness at home by checking their key food safety steps: clean, separate, cook, and chill. For more information, go to www.foodsafety.gov.

Today's action is in addition to other significant public health measures FSIS has put in place during President Barack Obama's Administration to date to safeguard the food supply, prevent food borne illness, and improve consumers' knowledge about the food they eat. These initiatives support the three core principles developed by the President's Food Safety Working Group: prioritizing prevention; strengthening surveillance and enforcement; and improving response and recovery. Some of these actions include:

• Test-and-hold policy that will significantly reduce consumer exposure to unsafe meat products, should the policy become final, because products cannot be released into commerce until Agency test results for dangerous contaminants are known.
• Labeling requirements that provide better information to consumers about their food by requiring nutrition information for single-ingredient raw meat and poultry products and ground or chopped products.
• Public Health Information System, a modernized, comprehensive database with information on public health trends and food safety violations at the nearly 6,100 plants FSIS regulates.
• Performance standards for poultry establishments for continued reductions in the occurrence of pathogens. After two years of enforcing the new standards, FSIS estimates that approximately 5,000 illnesses will be prevented each year under the new Campylobacter standards, and approximately 20,000 illnesses will be prevented under the revised Salmonella standards each year.  

Playing chicken on food safety?

USDA DEFENDS EFFORTS TO SPEED UP POULTRY SLAUGHTER LINES AND REPLACE MOST FEDERAL INSPECTORS WITH PLANT WORKERS

That's how long a federal inspector will have to examine slaughtered chickens for contaminants and disease under new rules proposed by the federal government.

The proposal would speed up production lines as much as 25 percent. It also would pull most federal inspectors off the lines and replace them with plant workers.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture says its proposal is a win-win-win that modernizes food inspection while saving money for taxpayers and the poultry industry.

The nation's most recognized food safety and consumer groups, however, say the plan would leave gaping holes in oversight that will endanger the nation's food supply, not to mention create a conflict of interest for poultry plants. They warn that Americans, who eat about 80 pounds of poultry a year, will be at greater risk of getting a side serving of fecal contamination or cancerous tumors with their chicken.

"I went out and bought a food processor so we could make more vegetarian meals," said Felicia Nestor, a food safety advocate and a consultant with the Government Accountability Project. "If the changes go into effect, my husband and I will no longer buy chicken."

The USDA's Food Safety Inspection Service, which oversees poultry plants, believes the changes would "ensure and even enhance the safety of the poultry supply by focusing our inspectors' efforts on activities more directly tied to improving food safety," FSIS spokesman Dirk Fillpot said in a statement.

The agency says it wants inspectors to focus on issues that pose the greatest health risks to the public.

Georgia produces more chickens for meat consumption — 1.3 billion a year — than any other state, so the USDA's proposed changes are critically important here. The agency has not said when it will make its final decision on the proposal. The new system would be voluntary, though FSIS expects all but the smallest poultry plants to opt in. Advocates say that's because the other option would prohibit those plants from remaining competitive in the industry. The biggest changes would:

- Use workers in chicken and turkey plants to replace all but one federal inspector on the conveyor belt, where bad birds are removed from the production line. (Currently, chicken plants have as many as four federal inspectors on their lines.)

- Let those plants decide how much training their workers receive in identifying diseased or defected birds.

- Enable plants to speed up their slaughter lines so that the sole federal inspector, stationed at the end of the line, would be required to view up to 175 birds per minute. The maximum speed now is 140 per minute, but that workload is divided among four inspectors so that it averages out at 35 per minute for each inspector.

- Let poultry plants decide what dangerous bacteria they test carcasses for and how often they test, and no longer require plants to test for E. coli.

The government says the changes will save taxpayers more than $90 million over three years. But the big winner will be the poultry industry, which will save at least $256 million a year in production costs, the USDA has projected.

But at least one Georgia poultry plant owner isn't sold on the concept. Will Harris, owner of White Oak Pastures in Bluffton, said he likes having an unbiased third party closely examining each chicken that comes through his production line.

"I don't want to be the fox that's guarding the henhouse," said Harris, whose farm is about 75 miles south of Columbus. Harris also raises grass-fed cattle and sheep and is one of the few operations that handles its own slaughter on-site.

How it works now

Georgia's largest poultry plants are capable of slaughtering and processing hundreds of thousands of chickens in a day. On the production line, chickens are hung upside down by their feet in shackles, one next to another, and subjected to an electric shock that stuns them into unconsciousness. A razor-sharp blade then cuts the animals' jugular vein; other devices remove their feathers, heads, feet and internal organs.

As the chickens move down the line, as many as four federal inspectors are stationed to examine them. The line is timed so that birds pass in front of an inspector for about two seconds. The inspectors handle each carcass and peer inside its chest cavity, searching for defects such as disease, infection and fecal contamination; he or she also looks at the bird's internal organs for signs of disease. The inspector pulls the chicken off the line if any of those conditions is present.

A few times a month, other inspectors take small samples of birds and mail them to federal labs, where they are tested for bacteria such as salmonella and campylobacter.

The Food Safety Inspection Service says the new system would require poultry plants to take more responsibility for weeding out birds with diseases, infections and defects. These conditions include an infection of the blood called septicemia, which discolors the bird, and an infection called "inflammatory process," which can cause a hard yellow scab to form under a chicken's skin. Currently federal inspectors pull these birds off the line when they spot them; the new rules would largely leave that to plant employees.

In redirecting its inspectors from production lines, FSIS says, more inspectors will be freed up to focus on issues that affect public health, such as salmonella and campylobacter. Yet, under the proposed system, FSIS would not increase testing for those pathogens.

Advocates say they're not opposed to modernizing poultry inspection and requiring plants to take more ownership of their product. They say, however, that the agency's proposal goes far beyond that, giving too much control and freedom to poultry plants while also relaxing the government's oversight.

In 1999, FSIS created a pilot program that allowed 20 chicken plants and five turkey plants to play by a different set of rules. They could run their slaughter lines at faster speeds. They swapped most government inspectors on the lines with their own plant workers. Two plants in that pilot program are in Georgia, one in Gainesville, one in Claxton.

The program is the foundation for the proposed changes. And FSIS documents portray it as an overwhelming success. The agency says the rates of fecal contamination — a major vehicle for spreading bacteria — are lower in the pilot plants. The agency also says the rates of salmonella compare favorably.

Opponents of the proposal say FSIS is distorting the facts on both issues. They cite an audit by the Government Accountability Office in December 2001, which concluded that results from the program would be "unreliable."

The audit also noted that citations for fecal contamination skyrocketed in poultry plants' first year in the pilot program.

Critics say FSIS responded by gaming the system. They say the agency allowed the pilot plants to rearrange the production line in a way that largely prevented inspectors from writing citations for fecal contamination.

As a result, the critics say, the citations plummeted. The government says its fecal contamination rates in pilot plants are about half those of other plants'.

"So all those [citations] that were getting written up early on under the [pilot] program because inspectors were finding a lot of fecal, all of a sudden, they all go away," Nestor said. She is the food-safety consultant to the Government Accountability Project, a Washington group that supports government and corporate whistleblowers.

Asked for a response, FSIS did not address the alleged connection between the citations and the relocation of the employee stations. The agency would not agree to an interview with the AJC for this article but answered some of the newspaper's questions by email.

Food safety advocates also say that the agency's statistics on salmonella rates in pilot plants are unimpressive.

Salmonella rates were actually lower in 2009 and 2010 in nonpilot comparison plants than the pilot plants, according to a 2011 evaluation of the pilot program.

Hurdle Technology

Many food safety professionals are familiar with the term “hurdle technology”¹. The concept refers to the fact that, in many cases, multiple, low-level mitigations used sequentially or concurrently are more effective at reducing and eliminating microbes than the sum of the individual “hurdles.” The term was coined before “technology” was as omni-present as it is today, with vendors offering technologies that address all aspects of food safety: from the generation of HACCP plans to document control and management, rapid testing, traceability systems, new processing technologies, and many more discussed in this issue of QA. Sorting through all these technologies—and how they fit into your business—can be quite a hurdle.

One common question is how technology might be used to help meet the requirements of the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA). The answer, however, generally requires an individual focus on the needs of the company: How can you improve your business and the safety and quality of your products, and thereby protect your brand? Pursuing robust food safety and food quality standards, that include strong preventive controls, will get you to the point of being compliant with what we expect to be in the FSMA regulations.

Many technologies can, however, be related to FSMA, and here we categorize them and discuss how technology can help you overcome some FSMA (and business) hurdles.

Prerequisite Programs. While the preventive control rules are still behind the doors of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) as of this writing, FSMA specifies that preventive controls include prerequisite programs such as sanitation, training, environmental monitoring, food allergen control programs, recall plans, GMPs, and supplier-verification activities. There are a number of technological innovations that can help firms achieve GMPs and other components of prerequisite programs.

For example, FSMA requires firms to evaluate their sanitation programs, including “sanitation procedures for food-contact surfaces and utensils and food-contact surfaces of equipment.” Given the expectations of environmental testing and concern about allergen cross contamination, there are opportunities both for the providers of cleaning and sanitation chemicals and products as well as manufacturers of equipment to innovate to help food producers better manage sanitation in their facilities, consequently assuring compliance with FSMA.

Preventive Controls.

• Processes. USDA-regulated and a few FDA-regulated products are already required to have HACCP plans. Realistically, many firms have already gone through the process of identifying potential hazards and their critical control points (CCPs) and limits. Gone are the days when thermal processing, pH, salt content, and metal detection are the only CCP options. Researchers continue to identify novel ways to treat foods to reduce or detect potential hazards. Given USDA FSIS’ recent emphasis on verification and validation, firms who choose to use new technologies will want to use processes that have been validated. More conventional technologies benefit from volumes of published data (which in some cases has been used to develop models). Newer processes will need to be thoroughly explored to ensure that the “validation” aspect is covered. Determining and designing appropriate validation studies will require some effort. Firms will need to consider whether studies can be conducted in research environments or if they must be validated in a production center, and whether or not results obtained in one facility using one piece of equipment can be extrapolated to other locations or other equipment. Still, technologies such as irradiation (not new but still limited in use), high pressure processing, cold plasma, and others offer product-dependent benefits that can help firms satisfy consumer, customer, and regulatory expectations for safety and quality.
   
• Testing. Testing helps ensure that the food safety system is working, and includes that of finished products as part of verification activities as well as environmental testing as part of prerequisite programs. Given the short shelf life and/or just-in-time production that exists in many operations, firms are often faced with needing to decide if they should hold product while waiting for test results. Thus, there is a need for tests that are more rapid and more reliable. University researchers and diagnostic firms continue to find new ways to identify problematic food products more rapidly and with greater sensitivity at a reasonable cost. Tests are based on DNA, RNA, proteins, or other molecules, and they vary in the amount of sample preparation, sample volume, detection technology, and specificity. As testing becomes more prevalent, food companies will need to ensure that they are able to properly interpret and analyze results, ensure that appropriate sampling strategies are being used, trends are being determined, and preemptive action is taken when needed. Thus, data management is another area where technology goes hand in hand with FSMA.
   
• Recordkeeping. Of increasing importance, and apparent in FSMA, is a need to manage many different types of records. These include food safety plans that outline the prerequisite programs, HACCP plans, and food defense plans. Data generated as a result of these plans also need to be maintained, as well as documentation of the corrective actions implemented. While the recordkeeping regulations stemming from the Bioterrorism Act of 2002 already require one-up/one-back supply chain information, FSMA authorizes FDA to require additional records related to high-risk foods. And as we’ve seen in many outbreaks, although one-up/back records exist, piecing them together through the supply chain presents some challenges.

Conclusion. Technology should be seen as an enabler, not only to meet regulatory requirements, but more importantly, to protect your products and brands. As and when the FSMA proposed rules emerge, it will be possible to look at the new proposed requirements and provide more concrete suggestions around the use of technology. But as we all wait, it is well worth considering how some of the new technology solutions can be applied to food production that will place food firms in an optimal place to both protect their brands and be compliant with what will likely be in the new requirements.

 

¹Leistner L (1995) “Principles and applications of hurdle technology.” In Gould GW (Ed.) New Methods of Food Preservation, Springer, pp. 1–21.

School Nutrition Program Implements New Standards for School Meals

(Columbus, GA)-Muscogee County School District increases healthy meal options served in school cafeterias. As part of the United States Department of Agriculture's (USDA) New Meal Pattern, school meals will offer foods and portion sizes recommended by the 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, which are a key component of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010. Healthier meal options will continue to improve over the next three years.

Changes include:                                               Implementation Schedule

- Low-fat and fat-free milk choices                                2011-2012
- More whole grain rich-foods                                       2012-2013
- More fruits and increased varieties of vegetables         2012-2013
- No trans-fats                                                            2012-2013
- Age-appropriate portion sizes                                     2012-2013
  (Minimum and Maximum for lunch meals)
- Age-appropriate portion sizes
  (Minimum and Maximus for breakfast meals)               2013-2014
- Sodium reductions                                                    2014-2015

"As a Registered Dietician, I am excited about the new school year and what we are doing in School Nutrition," said Marian Bone, School Nutrition Program Director. "Every day children will be served nutritious menu options that promote the maximum health and well-being and our cafeterias will continue to serve as learning laboratories for how to make healthy lifestyle choices.

The New Meal Pattern raises nutrition standards in schools across the nation and is expected to play a key part of improving the health and nutrition of more than 32 million students nationwide, including the 1.59 million students statewide in Georgia.

"We are working diligently to ensure that school nutrition professionals are ready to start applying these positive changes to school meals this year" said Georgia School Nutrition Division Director, Nancy Rice. "Our state has successfully trained School Nutrition Directors for each local school district. We will also continue to provide resourceful materials so that the implementation of healthier meals will also foster a conversation about healthy food choices at school and at home."

(SOURCE: MUSCOGEE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT)

Short Introduction to HACCP

Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point or HACCP (English, pronounced /ˈhæsʌp/) is a systematic preventive approach to food safety and pharmaceutical safety that addresses physical, chemical, and biological hazards as a means of prevention rather than finished product inspection. HACCP is used in the food industry to identify potential food safety hazards, so that key actions can be taken to reduce or eliminate the risk of the hazards being realized. The system is used at all stages of food production and preparation processes including packaging, distribution, etc. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) say that their mandatory HACCPprograms for juice and meat are an effective approach to food safety and protecting public health. Meat HACCP systems are regulated by the USDA, while seafood and juice are regulated by the FDA. The use of HACCP is currently voluntary in other food industries.

A forerunner to HACCP was developed in the form of production process monitoring during World War II because traditional "end of the pipe" testing was not an efficient way to ferret out artillery shells that would not explode. HACCP itself was conceived in the 1960s when the US National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) asked Pillsbury to design and manufacture the first foods for space flights. Since then, HACCPhas been recognized internationally as a logical tool for adapting traditional inspection methods to a modern, science-based, food safety system. Based on risk-assessment,HACCP plans allow both industry and government to allocate their resources efficiently in establishing and auditing safe food production practices. In 1994, the organization of International HACCP Alliance was established initially for the US meat and poultry industries to assist them with implementing HACCP and now its membership has been spread over other professional/industrial areas.
Hence, HACCP has been increasingly applied to industries other than food, such as cosmetics and pharmaceuticals. This method, which in effect seeks to plan out unsafe practices, differs from traditional "produce and test" quality control methods which are less successful and inappropriate for highly perishable foods. In the US, HACCP compliance is regulated by 21 CFR part 120 and 123. Similarly, FAO/WHO published a guideline for all governments to handle the issue in small and less developed food businesses.

Principle of HACCP

Principle 1: Conduct a hazard analysis. – Plans determine the food safety hazards and identify the preventive measures the plan can apply to control these hazards. A food safety hazard is any biological, chemical, or physical property that may cause a food to be unsafe for human consumption.

Principle 2: Identify critical control points. – A Critical Control Point (CCP) is a point, step, or procedure in a food manufacturing process at which control can be applied and, as a result, a food safety hazard can be prevented, eliminated, or reduced to an acceptable level.

Principle 3: Establish critical limits for each critical control point. – A critical limit is the maximum or minimum value to which a physical, biological, or chemical hazard must be controlled at a critical control point to prevent, eliminate, or reduce to an acceptable level.

Principle 4: Establish critical control point monitoring requirements. – Monitoring activities are necessary to ensure that the process is under control at each critical control point. In the United States, the FSIS is requiring that each monitoring procedure and its frequency be listed in the HACCP plan.

Principle 5: Establish corrective actions. – These are actions to be taken when monitoring indicates a deviation from an established critical limit. The final rule requires a plant's HACCP plan to identify the corrective actions to be taken if a critical limit is not met. Corrective actions are intended to ensure that no product injurious to health or otherwise adulterated as a result of the deviation enters commerce.

Principle 6: Establish procedures for ensuring the HACCP system is working as intended.– Validation ensures that the plants do what they were designed to do; that is, they are successful in ensuring the production of a safe product. Plants will be required to validate their own HACCP plans. FSIS will not approve HACCP plans in advance, but will review them for conformance with the final rule.

Verification ensures the HACCP plan is adequate, that is, working as intended. Verification procedures may include such activities as review of HACCP plans, CCP records, critical limits and microbial sampling and analysis. FSIS is requiring that the HACCP plan include verification tasks to be performed by plant personnel. Verification tasks would also be performed by FSIS inspectors. Both FSIS and industry will undertake microbial testing as one of several verification activities.

Verification also includes 'validation' – the process of finding evidence for the accuracy of the HACCP system (e.g. scientific evidence for critical limitations).

Principle 7: Establish record keeping procedures. – The HACCP regulation requires that all plants maintain certain documents, including its hazard analysis and written HACCP plan, and records documenting the monitoring of critical control points, critical limits, verification activities, and the handling of processing deviations.