Keith Warriner | Food Safety News

Hello from the other side: Retailers as a force in food safety

Keith Warriner — Fri, 22 Jan 2016 06:08:21 +0000

Adele is a singer from my homeland who made history by having the quickest selling record of all time. The signature tune “Hello” was an emotional rendition of lost love. When I first heard it I was reminded of the role of retailers in food safety — they’re involved in setting the agenda, but they step back when things go wrong. Such a line of thought could indicate I need to get a social life. Beyond that we need to consider what role retailers’ have in food safety and whether they should be the leaders If we look back in history we often forget that the main purpose of introducing food regulations was the habit of retailers to adulterate products. It was common to find flour mixed with plaster of Paris, chicory used to extend coffee or milk diluted with water. The first supermarkets arose in the 1960s and went through exponential growth to become the national and international conglomerates we see today. The key to the success of the retail chains was excellent management, marketing, cost cutting and highly efficient distribution chains. Importantly, they didn’t come through by competing with each other, but to take the space from the small independents. The relationship between food processors and retailers has undergone a significant transformation over the years. In the 1950s, the era of mass food production grew rapidly with greater centralization. At that time it was the processor who set the prices and retailers had to accept them. Industry also set the food safety agenda and was the driving force for the introduction of HACCP (Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points) in the 1990s. With industries being the leaders in food safety it may have been expected that foodborne illness outbreaks would have dropped like a stone. In the white paper published under the Clinton administration that essentially gave the food safety keys to industry, it was predicted that Salmonella would be a thing of the past by the year 2000. Obviously that did not happen. Outbreaks such as the one in 2002 that killed eight and was linked to Pilgrim’s Pride deli meats contaminated with Listeria made some commentators think the keys to the chicken house had been given to the fox. During the 1990s there was a rapid shift of power away from processors to the now powerful retailers. Indeed, the retailers had the power to dictate to the processors on both price and quality. The shift in power was primarily due to the major retail chains cooperating, sometimes to the detriment, but also to the benefit of the consumers. With industry seemingly struggling to control foodborne illness outbreaks, it was the retailers who stepped up and developed the concept of Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI) benchmarking. The primary goal of GFSI is to bring equivalency and consistency of food safety management systems across the globe. For the retailers this provided assurance that regardless where products were sourced from they could, in theory at least, be of an equivalent standard of those produced domestically. Another benefit of GFSI was that rather than retailers each having to send auditors to inspect processors, they could all use the same one — a third-party auditor — thereby increasing efficiency. The power of retailers enabled them to push the GFSI agenda and essentially dictate to processors that if they didn’t implement a GFSI recognized scheme they would go elsewhere. Anyone who has been through SQF, BRC and FSSC2000 will appreciate the cost and effort involved to implement and maintain certification. Nevertheless, if processors wish to supply the big retailers, it is a hoop that needs to be jumped through. By 2010 it was clear that retailers were the ones pushing the food safety agenda and imposing requirements on processors that went beyond government regulations. At the same time they pushed processors to provide products at lower costs, just-in-time delivery and with increased efficiency. As in life, with leadership comes responsibility. This is where retailers tend to take a backward step. The first cracks started to appear with the advent of the third-party auditor reports where soon after receiving a glowing audit there was a multi-state foodborne illness outbreak. The most notable case was with the listeriosis outbreak linked to cantaloupes produced by the Jensen brothers in Colorado. The outbreak resulted in 147 confirmed cases and 33 deaths. The outbreak was noteworthy on many counts with one being that the retailer, amongst others, was named in subsequent litigation. Walmart settled out of court but a precedent had been set. If we move forward to a more recent outbreak involving E. coli O157:H7 tainted celery and/or onions the retailer, Costco in this case, was quick to point the finger at their suppliers as the root cause of contamination. Clearly, in this case Costco officials were attempting to distant themselves from responsibility. This was not the only example, in 2011 most of the 17 cases of E. coli O157:H7 resulting from the XL Foods incident were traced to tenderized steaks sold at Costco. At no point in the outbreak investigation was Costco held accountable with all the blame being diverted to XL Foods that had a short history thereafter. There is an argument that retailers should not be engulfed in the litigation fly trap. After all, they are simply the middleman between processor and customer. Moreover, any failure to identified food safety issues should be placed on the third-party auditor who is commissioned to ensure the processor is maintaining standards. To many these seemed valid arguments and for a long time I shared the same view. However, when we look a little closer one would question the commitment of retailers to food safety. For example, is it a coincidence that the risk of Listeria at retail deli counters was found so high that guidance documents had to be published to improve sanitary standards. In another example, the doctoring of “Best Before” dates has been highlighted. Some may suggest the “Best Before” dates are not a safety issue, this could be true, but it is certainly a food safety culture issue. There are other examples, of temperature abuse and cross-contamination that could also be highlighted. In short it does appear that retailers more frequently are in a position of “Do as I say but not what I do.” There is little doubt that GFSI has brought major benefits to the standard of food safety, if not only to increase the focus of processors to do the right thing. Factors such as third-party auditing need to be improved, along with practices at retail. More importantly, retailers have to note they are part of the food safety system as opposed to above all responsibility on the other side. (To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)

How to Store Eggs Safely: It Depends on How You Look at the Data

Keith Warriner — Wed, 10 Dec 2014 06:02:53 +0000

The debate over how to store shell eggs has been going on ever since the chicken laid the first egg, if we assume the former came before the latter. Our ancestors looked at a range of techniques to preserve eggs, from burying them in lime to coating them with sodium silicate (water glass). The methods were relatively effective, with more than a one-year shelf life being reported, although prolonged storage had negative effects on egg quality such as coagulating the white and imparting interesting flavors to the yolk. The French went a step further in the 17th century by incorporating eggs into vinegar and oil to make the first mayonnaise, or into citrus fruit purée, which later evolved into lemon curd. The French can also be credited with introducing the trend of eating eggs with soft yolks, which, at the time, were considered to aid digestion. The tradition has been retained, and if you order any egg dish in France, be prepared to expect a practically raw yolk. Certainly eggs simply taste better when partially cooked, even though the risk of Salmonella exists. To wash or not to wash? That is the question. When the population moved into urban centers during the latter part of the 19th century, there was a need to transport foods over relatively large distances, and, moreover, look acceptable to the paying customer. When eggs are laid, there is a mucus layer around the outside of the shell that subsequently dries out to form the cuticle — a hard protein layer. At this time, the eggs can be contacted by dust, feathers, soil and manure, making the visual appearance undesirable to the paying consumer. Therefore, in the early 20th century, there was interest in washing eggs before sending them off to market. In 1919, Jenkins was the first to report about the negative effect of egg washing, which led to “green whites,” along with “crusted yolks,” due to spoilage by pseudomonads. There were also anecdotes reported that washed eggs had a greater tendency to develop rots (for example, Aspergillus) compared to those that had not been washed. Brooks pulled all the evidence together in 1951 and came to the conclusion that egg washing caused more problems than it solved. It was at this point the Europeans and North Americans went down very different paths, even though they based their decisions on the same set of data. Specifically, the Europeans took the works of Jenkins and Brooks to clearly show that washing eggs was not practical, cost-effective or beneficial. In contrast, the North Americans (USDA, specifically) concluded that the Europeans gave up too early, and, with a little tinkering with the equipment, could make the egg-washing process work. The early egg washes of the 1950s were essentially washing machines where the eggs would be placed into hot water (49 degrees C, or about 120 degrees F), along with soap, then gently agitated for three minutes. The consequences of the wash process were to remove the protective cuticle layer and possibly cause fractures in the shell, leading to ingress of water along with the spoilage microbes. USDA went to work on the problem and came up with new egg-washing technology and guidelines. In brief, the new wash process involved misting/fogging with pressure sprays being used to remove stubborn soils. Additional recommendations were to wash eggs soon after laying (before the cuticle dried), ensure that the iron content of water was kept below 2 ppm (to prevent membrane weakening), maintain sanitizer-detergent levels and apply an oil film to the post-washed egg. A further critical feature of the revamped wash process was to ensure that eggs were dried before packaging, then distributed/stored below 45 degrees F ( to minimize microbial growth). The revised washing method appeared successful in terms of reducing incidence of spoilage compared to the original wash process. Meanwhile, back in Europe The European policy on eggs was essentially based on a preventive approach by ensuring eggs were delivered to packing houses without visible dirt and also providing the option of dry brushing. Critically, egg washing was banned, and, as a further step, the recommended storage temperature was set at 62 to 73 degrees F to minimize the risk of condensation. The regulations also specified that the temperature fluctuation from delivery to the packing house, distribution and retail should be no more than 11 degrees F. Again, this was to avoid condensation that could facilitate the ingress of microbes from the shell into the inner egg. In effect, the regulation was interpreted as the correct storage temperature for eggs is room temperature. Edwina Curry speaks The 1980s was a decade when the food industry recognized that the practices developed in terms of efficiency had detrimental effects in terms of food. One relevant example was the practice of using ground chicken carcasses as poultry feed, along with other dubious practices. At this time there was an increase in the incidence of a virulent Salmonella Enteritidis that could transfer to the yolk prior to the egg being laid (transovarial transmission). The multi-drug resistant Typhimurium DT104 was also becoming established in poultry operations. The incidence of Salmonella in the UK was especially cause for concern as, toward the end of the 1980s, the number of cases had tripled in the space of two years. The egg industry simply turned a blind eye to the problem, and the Department of Agriculture & Food was glad to do the same. Then, in December 1988, a junior minister in the Department of Health (one Edwina Curry) came out with the famous quote, “Most of the egg production in this country sadly is now infected with Salmonella.” The UK egg industry collapsed overnight, and, in less than a month, Curry was removed from office as her government colleagues turned on their own. History proved her right, although she didn’t actually know what the carriage of Salmonella in eggs was at the time and neither did the industry or the Ministry of Agriculture — if you don’t look, you don’t find. In effect, Curry had made a slip by using “most” when she should have said “some.” Nonetheless, the horse had bolted from the stable, and the egg industry had to make amends. What emerged was the Lion Stamp, which essentially put in place Salmonella control interventions, the most notable being vaccinating poultry to reduce the incidence of Enteritidis and Typhimurium within the laying flock. In addition, a best-before date of 21 days was stamped on eggs based on the time it would take Salmonella to go from the surface to the internal structure of the egg, among other interventions. At this time, the washing of eggs was revisited by the UK and Europe in general. The net conclusion of the study was that egg washing did represent an enhanced risk of introducing Salmonella into the inner egg due to the lack of protective cuticle layer and ingress of water. The report also noted that there were too many aspects of the wash process that could go wrong, along with the obvious issue of transoverian transmission of Enteritidis. Therefore, the Europeans did not see the need to change the policy on egg washing, and the ban was kept in place. One problem encountered with storing eggs at room temperature was that the inner membrane and white of the egg degrade, leading to broken yolks when cracked into the frying pan. Therefore, a three-year project was undertaken to find the best way to store eggs to preserve quality while reducing the risk posed by Salmonella. The net result of the research was that eggs can be stored in the fridge provided they are kept in the carton (egg box) to minimize condensation on the shell surface. So who has the right egg policy? U.S. vs. Europe Through time, the European philosophy of foodborne pathogen control has been that prevention is better than the cure. The North American approach is more directed toward post-harvest interventions, given the difficulty in controlling pathogens at the primary production level. So the question arises: Did the North Americans take the right path with egg washing or is the European approach the way to go? Well, it really depends on what metrics are used to gauge success. In terms of Salmonella prevalence in flocks, the average in the EU is 2 percent, compared with 6.5 percent in the U.S. How about the prevalence of Salmonella in eggs? It is estimated that 1 in 10, 000 eggs carries Salmonella in the U.S.; in the EU, it’s 1 in 150, 000. Does such low carriage translate into a decrease in Salmonella cases? Yes, the incidence of Salmonella has significantly decreased in Europe. All indicators would therefore suggest that the European egg policy has been more effective compared to that formulated by USDA. However, this doesn’t mean that outbreaks of Salmonellosis linked to eggs are a thing of the past in Europe. Indeed, in the summer of 2014, there was an outbreak linked to eggs resulting in more than 300 confirmed cases across Europe. The source of the contaminated eggs was traced to a German egg-packing plant. Although not on the same level as the U.S. Salmonellosis outbreak of 2010, the incident illustrates that any food safety system is only as strong as the weakest link. It certainly would be too simplistic to suggest that washing has no value, as there is a reduction in the carriage of Salmonella on the shell, and, of course, it makes for a cleaner-looking egg. Still, the European approach to tackling pathogens on the farm rather than relying on post-harvest methods will ultimately be a more effective strategy. We are waking up to this fact in North America and clearly a vaccination program would go a long way to improve the microbiological safety of eggs irrespective of washing.

Can the Leafy Greens Industry Learn Anything from Sprouted Seeds?

Keith Warriner — Sun, 13 Jan 2013 18:37:18 +0000

It was the illustrious wartime leader, Winston Churchill, who said, “Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” With this in mind it was somewhat inevitable that the first major news stories of 2013 have been the outbreaks in Canada and Ohio linked to lettuce contaminated with E coli O157:H7. The industry falls back on the low incidence of pathogens on produce and the miniscule number of foodborne illness cases compared to the millions of bag salads sold daily. However, it is generally acknowledged that there are increasing concerns about the microbiological safety of leafy greens, especially bagged salad. One only has to review the growing list of recalls and outbreaks linked to leafy greens in 2012 to see that the industry in heading for a crisis. So what do foodborne illness outbreaks have to do with sprouted seeds? Well, those in the produce sector have a tendency to distance themselves from sprouted seeds. There maybe some good reason for this, as sprouted seeds have and continue to be implicated in foodborne illness outbreaks linked to E coli O157:H7, Salmonella and occasionally Listeria monocytogenes. If we go back to leafy greens, the key outbreak that stimulated action and changes in the industry was that implicating E coli O157:H7-contaminated spinach that resulted in over 200 confirmed cases of illness along with 3 deaths. In the case of sprouts, the major outbreak occurred in Japan in 1996 involving radish sprouts contaminated with E coli O157:H7, resulting in over 6000 cases and 12 deaths. As one could imagine, this outbreak, along with others that occurred periodically, stimulated the government and industry to take action. Through various lines of research it was found that the seed used in sprout production was the source of human pathogens in 99% of cases. Consequently, it was proposed to use 20,000 ppm hypochlorite as a seed disinfection step even though it was recognized that the sanitizer was not totally effective at eliminating pathogens. Critically, the hypochlorite treatment was the only one recommended by the FDA guidelines published in 1999, and it become carved in stone. At the same time, the outputs of research were delivering more effective seed decontamination methods compared to hypochlorite. However, because they were not included in the sprout growers guidelines the industry turned their back on the new technologies. In 2005 the FDA held a public meeting to review the sprout guidelines. here were several presentations relating to alternative seed disinfection methods. Yet, the FDA deemed that there was no need to revise the guidelines and the status quo persisted, as did the outbreaks. A few years later the FDA did take action by announcing that sprouts should be considered a high-risk food that should be avoided by susceptible groups. Faced with mounting pressure to fix the food safety issues with the industry, it might have been expected that sprout growers would consider introducing more effective seed decontamination methods. But no, the industry maintained its reliance on the ineffective hypochlorite seed disinfection method. It was almost as if they were oblivious to the outbreaks and recalls going on around them with an “it cannot happen to me” attitude. Even in the midst of the 2011 E coli O104:H4 outbreak linked to sprouted seeds in Germany, the industry in North America seemed to think such an outbreak could never happen here. What evidence they had to give such assurances was never elaborated upon. The lack of positive action by the FDA and industry led major retail chains to remove sprouted seeds from the retail shelves on their own. The industry has been hit hard over the last decade with many sprout producers going to the wall. Those that have survived can see their market shrinking almost like a watering hole in the desert. Clearly, the lack of action on implementing intervention steps has cost the industry dearly. So how does this relate to leafy greens and what lessons can be learned from the history of sprouted seeds? Well, the first is the increasing number of outbreaks linked to leafy greens and the inability of industry to do anything to control the problem. Yes, there are guidelines and warning letters, but these tend to dance around the problem, as opposed to tackling the food safety issue head-on. The post-harvest wash treatment for leafy greens is the main intervention step to remove field-acquired contamination. However, it was known back in 2001 that washing is relatively ineffective and can increase the problem by leading to cross-contamination between batches. Although more effective interventions have been developed for produce decontamination, the industry is reluctant to adopt new technologies. Sound familiar? Such technologies not only include irradiation but also gas phase treatments, those based on the advanced oxidative process and gas plasma technology. These are close to commercial application, although there is little confidence that industry will embrace them. One could envision that the road back to market for sprouted seeds is going to be long and troublesome. The withdrawal of bagged salads from the supermarket shelves is a long way off, but how many foodborne illness outbreaks the market can take? Anyone can safely predict there will be several outbreaks and illnesses associated with leafy greens in 2013. It is time for the industry take action and implement effective post-harvest interventions rather than follow the decline of the sprouted seeds sector.

Food Safety: The Industry Must Take Ownership

Keith Warriner — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 01:59:07 +0000

With the ongoing economic crisis there has been a need for governments across the globe to cut budgets. Food safety lacks the tangible benefits of, say, health care and it was somewhat inevitable that food inspection agencies would experience the brunt of such cutbacks.

In the United Kingdom, the Food Safety Agency that was established in the wake of the “mad cow” disease outbreak, amongst other food safety scares, was essentially dismantled with its portfolio being returned to Ministry of Agriculture (DEFRA).

In Canada, the number of CFIA inspectors was increased following the listeriosis outbreak of 2008 in which contaminated deli meats resulted in 20 deaths. However, the Canadian government is now cutting over 200 inspectors in a bid to save $25 million from the federal budget.

In the United States, the cutbacks have been deeper, with over 260 USDA offices being closed for a savings of $150 million per year.

In reaction, many consumer groups, the press and unions have pronounced the cutbacks as placing the public in danger through the governments neglecting their responsibilities.

The old question is thus posed: Does more government involvement, specifically in relation to inspector numbers, lead to a more effective food safety system?

A similar question is posed by criminologists in relation to police numbers and crime rates. Those on one side of the argument use statistics to show that an increase in police numbers results in decreased crime rates. However, what is missed is that an increase in policing is commonly preceded by a major event, such as 9/11 or when pre-existing crime levels are high.

In other studies, where no major event has occurred, it has been found that there is no correlation between police on the ground and crime rates.

The theory goes that high numbers of police on the ground lead to an increased level of crime detection but do little to prevent crime from occurring. As sociologists will indicate, crime rates are mostly affected by the environment, such as socio-economic factors and community cohesion – in effect the existing culture. To take the argument further, it is thought that increasing the level of policing can bring a siege-like atmosphere to a community and negatively affect the community cohesion.

Returning to food safety, we can make parallels between the effect of policing on crime rates and superimpose on the number of food inspectors and foodborne illness outbreaks.

Specifically, inspector numbers increase or reorganization of agencies occurs following a major foodborne illness outbreak.

Yet, what is missed is that in the event of an outbreak, it is the industry response that is primarily responsible for enhancing food safety and not visits by an army of food inspectors. Nevertheless, food inspection does play a major role in containing outbreaks and follow-up investigations, although this is different from prevention.

Industry-led initiatives are the only way to enhance food safety

In the 1980s, there was a diverse range of food safety issues of concern. Foodborne illness rates were increasing, virulent pathogens such as E. coli O157 were taking hold, not to mention the BSE and problems with the emergence of drug-resistant microbes.

In response, a directive from President Clinton’s administration set to prioritize food safety risks, reduce red tape and bureaucracy. The directive essentially empowered the industry to take responsibility for food safety by introducing HACCP, amongst other initiatives.

There is little debate that the initiatives were highly successful in reducing the incidence of foodborne illness with a progressive decrease in numbers since implementation.

A more recent example of industry-led initiatives is in relation to the use of antibiotics in animal production. Antibiotics have been commonly used in animal production to prevent infections, thereby leading to high growth rates. However, a negative effect of antibiotics has been the emergence of lethal antibiotic strains of pathogens such as Salmonella, amongst others.

The FDA has debated the banning of antibiotics for promoting animal growth for over 30 years. In late 2011, the FDA somewhat unexpectedly stepped back from banning antibiotics in animal production, which is counter to the actions taken over in the EU.

Many commentators saw this as a capitulation of the FDA to the lobbying pressure from the meat industry. However, the reality is that the meat industry has been proactive in reducing the use of antibiotics in animal production on the understanding that a staged reduction is required. Of course, this is not well-publicized but illustrates that only a successful antibiotic reduction program can be achieved if led by industry and not by government.

Empowerment of food safety is the key

The empowerment of industry to self-regulate always comes under criticism in the event of a foodborne illness outbreak. The knee-jerk reaction always appears to be more testing, more inspectors, more agencies etc.

In many ways, “tinkering” with the food safety system by government hinders the progress that has been made since 1995. Ultimately, industry-led initiatives will always be the most effective approach to improve food safety. Consequently, rather than increasing government inspection a more productive strategy is how to remove the weak links in the chain to prevent outbreaks from occurring in the first place.

Such a strategy is far from straightforward, as there is a need to understand the underlying basis for decisions made that ultimately led to critical errors of judgment in foodborne illness outbreaks.

For example, why do processors send out product known to be contaminated or perform practices that represent obvious food safety risks? In a broad sense, it can be proposed that the actions are through ignorance (lack of knowledge is perhaps a better term) of the risk, economic factors or, in a relatively low number of instances, bioterrorism or criminal intent.

Ironically, it is the latter group who have the greatest perception of empowerment given they are controlling events. In contrast, those that lack knowledge may have good intentions in producing high quality products, although fail to see the consequences. It is almost akin to a thought pattern of “nobody told me not to do it.”

The current trend of clean labels, along with producers of organic products, can be classed in this group, where attempts to produce additive-free foods leads to food safety risks (for example, omitting nitrites to control Clostridium botulinum). Also included in this group are food handlers, quality assurance personnel and management whose main focus is to produce product as fast as possible with little thought of ownership or empowerment.

Workers have a tendency to lack empowerment, as they are told what to do and when to do it. This ultimately leads to a disconnect between the product and food safety. In the processing environment, workers are judged on how quickly the product can be processed regardless if the production line is producing ready-to-eat deli meat, cars or paper-clips.

Even if food violations occur, there is little incentive for the worker to raise concerns or to be empowered to make suggestions. When visiting processing plants, I sometimes ask the workers if they consume the products produced in the facility. In the majority of cases, the answer is no, due to their prior knowledge of the history of the product. Clearly those workers have a disconnect or lack of ownership with the product.

Akin to when the industry is highly regulated by government, the l
ack of empowerment by food workers throughout an organization ultimately leads to essentially passing-the-buck when it comes to food safety – an “it is not my problem” attitude.

It could be argued that empowerment is encompassed in the concept of a food safety culture. Yet “food safety culture” remains a relatively woolly term that lacks the nuts-and-bolts on how to change the behavior of those working in the food industry. There is frequent reference to increasing knowledge by training. However, knowledge and empowerment are very different.

Frank Yiannas introduced the term food safety culture, and noted the major challenges in changing worker behavior – after all, it does take a generation. Still every road starts with a first step and rather than look at the loss of government inspectors as entering the Dark Age we should look at this as an opportunity for industry to be empowered to take food safety initiatives to the next level.

————————

Dr. Keith Warriner is an Associate Professor within the Department of Food Science at University of Guelph, Canada.