Victory Trading Company Inc.
Greenland, NH

A food firm in New Hampshire is on notice from the FDA  for serious violations of the Current Good Manufacturing Practice, Hazard Analysis, and Risk-Based Preventive Controls for Human Food regulation. These violations include the presence of pests in their warehouse.

In an April 17, 2023, warning letter, the FDA described a Dec. 12, 2022, to Jan. 13, 2023 inspection of Victory Trading Company’s ambient, refrigerated and frozen food warehouse in Greenland, NH.

The FDA’s inspection revealed that the firm was not in compliance with regulations and resulted in the issuance of an FDA Form 483. Some of the significant violations are as follows:

Current Good Manufacturing Practice:
1. The firm did not take effective measures to exclude pests from their holding areas and to protect against the contamination of food on the premises by pests. Specifically, rodent activity was observed throughout their warehouse facility including the following:

Rodent Activity Observed

(Redacted)

• On Dec. 12, 2022, during a bag-by-bag examination of (redacted) pallets of (redacted) White Rice, lot # “(redacted)”, stored in the (redacted) corner of their warehouse, apparent rodent excreta pellets (REPs) too numerous to count (TNTC), apparent rodent gnaw holes in the bags of rice, and yellow stains on the bags of rice which smelled like urine and fluoresced UV light. An additional (redacted) pallets of (redacted) White Rice had an odor of urine and apparent REPs.
• On Dec. 13, 2022, an apparent decomposed dead rodent in the (redacted) corner of the warehouse outside the big cooler.
• On Dec. 19, 2022, an apparent decomposed dead rodent in the (redacted) corner of the warehouse outside the freezer.
• On Dec. 15, 2022, apparent REPs TNTC on an empty pallet in pallet location (redacted) in the center of the (redacted) area of the warehouse.
• On Dec. 15, 2022, approximately 10 apparent REPs on the floor below a pallet of bagged dried chili peppers among apparent rodent gnawed material in pallet location (redacted) in the center of the (redacted) area of the warehouse.
• On Dec. 15, 2022, apparent REPs TNTC on the floor behind a pallet of dried noodles in pallet location (redacted) in the center of the (redacted) area of the warehouse.
• On Dec. 15, 2022, approximately 15 apparent REPs on a pallet of BBQ sauce, and apparent rodent urine stains and apparent nesting materials on the floor directly next to pallet in pallet location (redacted) in the center of the (redacted) side of the warehouse.
• On Dec. 15, 2022, approximately 6 apparent REPs on a pallet of plastic cups in pallet location (redacted) in the center of the (redacted) side of the warehouse. The pallet also appeared to contain apparent rodent urine stains, and boxes of cups appeared to have bird excreta on them.
• On Dec. 15, 2022, approximately 13 apparent REPs on the floor in pallet location (redacted) in the center of the (redacted) side of the warehouse.

(Redacted)

• On Dec. 14, 2022, two apparent dead rodents in a glue trap in the (redacted) corner of the warehouse.
• On Dec. 14, 2022, an apparent dead rodent in a glue trap along the (redacted) wall of the warehouse under racks of bags of powdered drink mixes and seeds in pallet location (redacted).
• On Dec. 14, 2022, an apparent dead rodent in a glue trap in the (redacted) corner of the warehouse underneath racks of bagged powdered drink mixes in pallet location (redacted).
• On Dec. 14, 2022, apparent REPs TNTC on the floor at the corner junction of the (redacted) wall of the (redacted) area of the warehouse directly next to pallet location (redacted).
• On Dec. 14, 2022, apparent REPs TNTC on the floor along the (redacted) wall of the (redacted) corner of the warehouse in pallet location (redacted).
• On Dec. 14, 2022, apparent REPs on the floor along the (redacted) wall of the (redacted) corner of the warehouse in pallet location (redacted).

(Redacted)

• On Dec. 15, 2022, an apparent decomposed dead rodent on the floor along the (redacted) wall of the warehouse where bagged rice was stored.
• On Dec. 15, 2022, apparent REPs TNTC on the floor and support beams along the back (redacted) wall where bagged rice was being stored.
• On Dec. 13, 2022, apparent REPs TNTC and apparent nesting material observed in the (redacted) section of the warehouse on the floor touching and directly next to pallets of (redacted) White Rice.
• On Dec. 14, 2022, apparent REPs on the floor in the (redacted) area of the warehouse (next to the employee bathroom) in pallet location (redacted).
• On Dec. 14, 2022, apparent REPs and apparent rodent urine stains which fluoresced under UV light along the (redacted) wall of the (redacted) area of the warehouse in pallet location (redacted).
• On Dec. 14, 2022, apparent REPs on the floor in the (redacted) corner of the (redacted) area of warehouse in pallet location (redacted).
• On Dec. 14, 2022, approximately 6 REPs on the floor directly next to a pallet of rice sticks in pallet location (redacted) in racks along the (redacted) wall of the (redacted) side of the warehouse.
• On Dec. 14, 2022, approximately 20 apparent REPs on a pallet of vinegar in pallet location (redacted) in racks along the (redacted) wall of the (redacted) side of the warehouse.
• On Dec. 14, 2022, approximately 5 apparent REPs on the floor approximately 6” from a pallet of maltose in pallet location (redacted) in racks along the (redacted) wall of the (redacted) side of the warehouse.
• On Dec. 14, 2022, apparent REPs TNTC on a pallet which contained jasmine tea in pallet location (redacted) in storage racks along the (redacted) wall in the (redacted) side of the warehouse.
• On Dec. 15, 2022, apparent REPs TNTC on a pallet of plastic take-out containers in pallet location (redacted) in storage racks along the (redacted) wall in the (redacted) side of the warehouse.
• On Dec. 14, 2022, approximately 20 apparent REPs on the floor scattered directly next to a pallet of dried seaweed in pallet location (redacted) in storage racks along the (redacted) wall in the (redacted) side of the warehouse.
• On Dec. 14, 2022, a live insect and apparent REPs TNTC on a pallet of dried spices in pallet location (redacted) in storage racks along the (redacted) wall in the (redacted) side of the warehouse.
• On Dec. 14, 2022, approximately 8 apparent REPs on a pallet of rice sticks in pallet location (redacted) in storage racks along the (redacted) wall in the (redacted) side of the warehouse.

(Redacted)

• On Dec. 18, 2022, apparent REPs TNTC on the floor and on support beams along the (redacted) wall behind coolers (redacted) and (redacted).
• On Dec. 19, 2022, approximately 10 apparent REPs on a table holding shrink wrap stored along the (redacted) wall.
• On Dec. 19, 2022, approximately 15 REPs along the (redacted) wall upstairs in the equipment storage room (redacted) main office. Additionally, the rodent station (redacted) was missing from its designated wall location.
• On Dec. 19, 2022, approximately 14 apparent REPs at the top corner of the stairs leading to the equipment storage room (redacted) main office located at the (redacted) wall of the warehouse.
• On Dec. 19, 2022, approximately 25 apparent REPs in the (redacted) corner of the equipment storage room (redacted) main office located at the (redacted) wall of the warehouse.
• On Dec. 19, 2022, approximately 15 apparent REPs along the (redacted) wall of the equipment storage room (redacted) main office located at the (redacted) wall of the warehouse.
• On Dec. 14, 2022, apparent REPs TNTC on the floor at the corner junction of the (redacted) wall and the big cooler in the (redacted) side of the warehouse where bagged sugar was being stored.
• On Dec. 19, 2022, approximately 2 apparent REPs on the floor in the walk-in freezer closest to the big cooler along the (redacted) wall in the (redacted) area of the warehouse.
• On Dec. 14, 2022, apparent REPs TNTC on the floor in the center aisle of the warehouse in pallet location (redacted) of the (redacted) area of the warehouse.
• On Dec. 14, 2022, approximately 11 apparent REPs on a pallet of (redacted) noodles and approximately 15 REPS in a center food storage rack in the (redacted) side of the warehouse in pallet location (redacted).
• On Dec. 13, 2022, apparent REPs TNTC on a rack in pallet location (redacted) and (redacted) of the central aisle storage racks in the (redacted) area of the warehouse used to hold (redacted) Brown Rice in paper bags and (redacted) Potato Starch in paper bags. Additionally, apparent rodent paw prints and tail marks were observed in spilled product on the racks.
• On Dec. 14, 2022, approximately 10 apparent REPs on the floor behind a pallet of bagged rice in pallet location (redacted) of the central aisle storage racks in the (redacted) area of the warehouse.
• On Dec. 14, 2022, apparent REPs on the floor along the (redacted) wall of the (redacted) area of the warehouse in pallet location (redacted) directly below and next to bags of palleted rice.
• On Dec. 14, 2022, apparent REPs TNTC were observed on the floor along the (redacted) wall and under a food storage rack on the left-hand sides of cooler (redacted) in the (redacted) area of the warehouse.

Samples
FDA collected several samples during the inspection. These samples included a food product sample ((redacted) White Rice) and filth samples. These samples were submitted to FDA labs for analysis. Results demonstrate that the (redacted) White Rice and sample 1209823 were contaminated with rodent excreta pellets (REPs), and sample 1209822 was contaminated with rodent excreta pellets and rodent nesting material. The filth samples further demonstrate the presence of rodents throughout the facility.

2. The firm did not maintain their plant in a clean and sanitary condition and keep their plant in repair adequate to prevent food from becoming adulterated. Specifically, insanitary conditions were observed throughout their facility demonstrating that sanitation, cleaning, and maintenance operations were inadequate. The following observations reflect potential areas for pest harborage and attractants for pests:

(Redacted)

• On Dec. 13, 2022, a 24″ x 8″ rip in the insulation liner of the (redacted) wall exposing insulation. The exposed insulation had been partially removed and apparent REPs TNTC were observed inside the insulation.
• On Dec. 13, 2022, an approximate 1/4″ hole through the wall to the outside and an approximate 12″ x 12″ rip in the insulation liner of the (redacted) wall. An empty beer bottle was observed in the hole.
• On Dec. 15, 2022, an approximate 2-3” gap along the entire length of the (redacted) wall creating a potential ingress for pests.
• On Dec. 15, 2022, an approximate 1” wide crack in the floor approximately 12” from pallet location (redacted) creating a potential ingress for pests near the (redacted) wall in the warehouse.
• On Dec. 15, 2022, an approximate ½” gap in the floor approximately 6” from pallet location (redacted) in the (redacted) area of the warehouse. There appeared to be hollow space beneath the gap.

(Redacted)

• On Dec. 13, 2022, two overhead doors on the (redacted) side of the warehouse occupied by a moving and storage company were left open for an extended period during the day creating a potential ingress for pests.

(Redacted)

• On Dec. 13, 2022, spilled unknown white powder product on a pallet of soybean oil stored in the (redacted) section of the warehouse.
• On Dec. 15, 2022, an approximate 1” gap closest to the (redacted) wall of the warehouse creating a potential ingress for pests. The area below the gap appeared to be hollow.
• On Dec. 13, 2022, two approximate 1” gaps around electrical conduits in the (redacted) wall of the warehouse creating an opening to the outside.

(Redacted)

• On Dec. 12, 2022, the plastic liner of the dividing wall in the center of the warehouse in the (redacted) side contained what appeared to be rodent gnaw holes and apparent REPs inside the insulation in the wall. Apparent rodent nesting materials were observed on the ground, and gnaw marks were observed on a wooden post of the dividing wall.
• On Dec. 14, 2022, red onions in a bag made of plastic netting stored directly on the floor within 6” from where apparent REPs were observed outside the main office in the (redacted) side of the warehouse.
• On Dec. 14, 2022, stagnant clear liquid on the floor of coolers (redacted) and (redacted) creating a potential attractant for pests and a potential harborage area for bacteria in the (redacted) area of the warehouse.
• On Dec. 19, 2022, what appeared to be apparent rodent-gnawed material, apparent REPs TNTC, and insulation used as apparent rodent nesting material in the equipment storage trailer that is permanently affixed to the outside of the (redacted) wall.

3. The firm did not maintain their facility’s grounds in a condition adequate to protect food from becoming contaminated. Specifically, on Dec. 14, 2022, an overgrowth of weeds and vegetation were observed outside on the eastern and northern sides of the warehouse, creating potential harborage areas for pests.

The full warning letter can be viewed here.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)

The majority of topics highlighted at a recent World Trade Organization (WTO) meeting on food safety had already been discussed before.

At the WTO Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Measures meeting in July, members addressed specific trade concerns relating to food safety and animal and plant health.

The one new area was Canada’s restrictions on Brazilian pork from internationally recognized foot and mouth free zones without vaccination.

Ukraine shared information on the current functioning of its SPS infrastructure and other aspects of the food security situation. Russian officials said discussions about the war were outside the scope of the WTO.

U.S concern over Chinese rules

The United States repeated that it remains “deeply concerned” with China’s lack of explanation on how two decrees address food safety and public health. The United States said China has not provided the scientific basis or risk assessment that informed their development. 

The European Union gave information on proposals around plants obtained by certain new genomic techniques and their food and feed, which sets out rules for the use of such plants as part of EU sustainability initiatives. The EU also reported on recommendations to combat antimicrobial resistance as part of the One Health approach.

Australian officials said they had confidence in the process that led to the decision to release the treated water and the move was also supported by the United States and United Kingdom.

The next meeting of the SPS Committee is scheduled for mid-November 2023.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)

Reports in early August suggested post-Brexit border controls were to be pushed back for the fifth time.

Sanitary and phytosanitary controls were delayed for three months and will now be introduced beginning Jan. 31, 2024. This includes health certification on imports of medium risk animal products, plants, plant products and high risk food and feed of non-animal origin from the EU.

Documentary and risk-based physical inspections on medium risk animal products, plant products and high risk food and feed of non-animal origin from the EU will be implemented in late April 2024.

The Border Target Operating Model was developed with the help of the Scottish and Welsh Governments and following engagement with businesses in the UK.

Phytosanitary certificates will be digitized from 2023 with take-up depending on the readiness of trade partners.

Officials said risks from inadequate controls were significant. A recent UK-wide Salmonella outbreak caused by chicken products from Poland resulted in more than 1,000 confirmed illnesses, with potentially as many as 4,000 additional cases that were not reported, and cost an estimated £7.7 million ($9.7 million).

Recent inspections of shops by local authorities in the UK detected frozen, raw and uncooked meat products marked as suitable only for sale in the originating country. Further investigations found the items had been purchased by two importers, linked to more than 280 UK retail outlets. Products were exported commercially and pre-notified on the UK imports system. Although they didn’t test positive for African Swine Fever, the fact they reached the UK presents a serious threat to the pig industry.

Reaction to model and new timelines
Nigel Jenney, CEO of the Fresh Produce Consortium, said: “It’s clear, government has acted upon our concerns and will now implement a unique border approach for the benefit of consumers and industry. This focused risk-based approach will reinforce UK biosecurity and promote self-regulation to minimize supply chain disruption.”

The Chartered Institute of Environmental Health (CIEH) said there remains ambiguity about the future charging mechanism for checks. The group said fees and charges should be set at the local level to account for the unique requirements and resources of individual regions.

CIEH added there was a need for clarity in the risk categorization of goods. The distinction between high, medium, and low-risk is vital to ensure that controls maintain high standards without causing unnecessary delays.

“While the Border Target Operating Model promises an efficient and effective system, CIEH and our members have been consistent in demanding that it remains robust in safeguarding public health, food safety, and biosecurity. Furthermore, while we wholeheartedly support innovations that streamline trade and enhance security, it’s essential that such schemes are not introduced at the expense of rigorous safety and public health controls,” said Louise Hosking, executive director of environmental health.

Nichola Mallon, head of Trade and Devolved Policy at Logistics UK, said the group will study the model to see if it provides the detail needed by members and EU suppliers.

“Will three months be sufficient time for government to provide the necessary technical detail and guidance that businesses will need to change processes and adapt to the changes outlined by the new trading arrangements?,” she asked.

“After so much time, and so many delays, logistics businesses are losing confidence in the government’s ability to provide workable solutions to enable the new trading arrangements to be implemented.” 

The National Farmers Union (NFU) said the delay was “hugely frustrating”.

“For the past three years, our farmers have faced the full reach of EU controls on our exports while the EU has enjoyed continued easy access to the UK marketplace. It’s hugely frustrating for many producers that the government has yet again delayed the implementation of vital checks on goods entering from the EU,” said Minette Batters, NFU president.

The International Meat Trade Association (IMTA) raised concerns about the exact rates of physical checks, risk categories for rest of world products and the SPS charging regime.

“I think the delay will come as a relief to many of our members who have been concerned about the introduction of certification for imports from the EU and how that will impact on just in time supply chains. We hope that there will be a redoubling of efforts from government to engage with industry to ensure that when the, now delayed, changes are introduced sufficient consideration is given to just in time supply chains,” said Dan Soper, IMTA policy manager.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)

By bringing together the science  from CDC, FDA and FSIS, and by developing sound analytical methods, IFSAC’s goal was to improve estimates of the sources of foodborne illness.

IFSAC this week announced its priorities for 2024 to 2028

During 2024 – 2028 IFSAC will focus on generating the most accurate and actionable estimates for foodborne illness source attribution in the United States by leveraging the latest science, data, and methods, and will communicate these estimates to stakeholders in government, industry, academia, and consumer organizations.

Here are the four priorities for the 5-year period:

Priority 1: Explore additional data sources and alternative methods to better estimate the sources of foodborne illnesses caused by Campylobacter and harmonize estimates across different approaches and data sources.

IFSAC’s annual Foodborne Illness Source Attribution reports have aimed to estimate food category sources of Campylobacter illnesses using foodborne outbreak data. However, the sources of reported Campylobacter outbreaks differ considerably from the sources of non-outbreak- associated illnesses as reported by other types of epidemiological studies. One major concern is that the food products most frequently associated with Campylobacter outbreaks such as raw milk and chicken livers are rarely consumed. Therefore, outbreak data are not representative of sources of Campylobacter in the general U.S. population. For these reasons, IFSAC paused reporting of attribution estimates for Campylobacter in 2022. IFSAC aims to produce more reliable and generalizable Campylobacter source attribution estimates in the future.

Priority 2: Expand our list of priority pathogens to include non-O157 Shiga toxin-producing E. coli (STEC) and provide source attribution estimates in IFSAC’s annual Foodborne Illness Source Attribution reports.
Non-O157 STEC is an important cause of foodborne illness in the United States and of increasing importance to federal food safety regulatory agencies. IFSAC will leverage existing non-O157 STEC data and analytical methods to estimate source attribution for this pathogen and incorporate these estimates in IFSAC Annual Attribution Reports. 

Priority 3: Consider incorporating data on non-foodborne sources of priority pathogens, such as animal and environmental sources, into IFSAC’s annual Foodborne Illness Source Attribution estimates to better refine and contextualize foodborne illness source attribution estimates.
Although the priority pathogens included in IFSAC’s analyses are spread predominantly through food-borne transmission, these pathogens also spread through contact with water, human, animal, and environmental sources. To generate more accurate estimates for food-borne illness source attribution, IFSAC analysts will explore available data for non-foodborne sources of the priority pathogens and consider methods to incorporate this information in communications. 

Priority 4: Finalize existing analyses and disseminate findings to multiple audiences. IFSAC is engaged in numerous projects (description of current and completed projects can be found on the IFSAC website), many of which have not been communicated through peer-reviewed journal articles or other publications. To ensure sufficient resources for IFSAC’s priority research areas during 2024 – 2028, IFSAC will review the status of all projects, determine which are close to completion, and identify which should be finalized and by when. During the final stages of each project, IFSAC will pursue and implement appropriate communication vehicles for each project, such as peer-reviewed publications, public reports, webinars, conference presentations, or updates to the IFSAC website to disseminate findings to the appropriate audiences including regulatory agencies, public health partners, academics, media, industry and the public. 

Purpose
IFSAC published an initial strategic plan to outline its shared goals and objectives for the first five years of the collaboration, 2012 – 2016, which was followed by a strategic plan for 2017 – 2021 and an interim plan for 2022 – 2023.

 These documents outlined a commitment to improving foodborne illness source attribution estimates for the United States by focusing on three general areas: improving and expanding data, improving and expanding analytical methods, and improving and increasing communication activities. A description of projects, associated publications, and presentations are available on the IFSAC website.

Over the next five years, IFSAC intends to continue publishing annual reports with updated estimates of foodborne illness source attribution. IFSAC reiterates its overall focus and outline for priorities that will guide the work during calendar years 2024 – 2028.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)

Outlets are given a rating from 0 to 5, with 5 indicating “very good” food hygiene and 0 meaning “urgent improvement necessary.” In Wales and Northern Ireland, businesses are legally required to display their Food Hygiene Rating Scheme (FHRS) sticker. In England, they are only asked to do so.

Fieldwork in October and December 2022 included 1,525 covert audits of food businesses in England, Northern Ireland and Wales and 1,500 phone interviews of firms in these nations.

Around nine in 10 businesses in Northern Ireland and Wales said the legal requirement to display the rating was a good thing. In England, 82 percent reported they believed it would also be good, down slightly from 85 percent in 2021. The most common reason was that it is important to be transparent about food hygiene.

FSA decided in late 2022 that work toward a comment period and subsequent primary legislation for mandatory display in England should be temporarily paused but intends to raise the issue again with ministers in the future.

Display rates and scores
In England, 67 percent of businesses were displaying a food hygiene rating, either inside or in a location visible from outside. This is up slightly from 64 percent in 2021.

The figure was 87 percent in Northern Ireland and 91 percent in Wales. However, this means one in 10 sites do not display their score. In the survey, businesses commonly reported this was because there was nowhere suitable to show it outdoors. Self-reported rates of display were higher than those observed during audits.

In England and Northern Ireland, takeaways and sandwich shops were more likely than average to have a sticker on display, while pubs, bars, and nightclubs were less likely. In Wales, restaurants and catering sites were more likely to display their sticker, while retail businesses, such as supermarkets and food shops, were less likely.

In England, businesses with a rating of 5 were more likely than average to display a sticker, while those with a 4 or 3 were less likely. Only six out of 22 outlets with a rating of 2 or below had a sticker on show.

Most businesses had an online presence. However, relatively few with a website or Facebook Business page displayed their rating on these platforms. The majority felt that showing food hygiene ratings should become mandatory for at least some online platforms.

Auditors compared the ratings observed within businesses to those found on the FHRS database. In a few cases where the rating displayed did not match the database score, more sites had a higher rating than a lower one.

Business satisfaction

Most businesses reported being satisfied with their food hygiene rating. Those with a higher rating showed better satisfaction levels. Reasons for being dissatisfied included they were expecting a higher rating, a sense that the result was not fair, and the inspection was conducted at an inconvenient time.

Around one third of businesses considered a rating of 4 to be the minimum and very few would be satisfied with a 3 or less.

A few businesses reported they had requested a re-rating inspection or right to reply. Only around 1 in 20 in each country had applied for a re-rating and around 1 in 10 used their right to reply.

Businesses who were not satisfied with their rating but did not apply for a re-rating inspection said this was because fees were too high, they had not yet made all the changes suggested or due to a lack of time. In contrast to 2021, the COVID-19 pandemic was not mentioned as a barrier. Of outlets that did apply for a re-rating, more than half were awarded a higher grade. This is a significant increase from 28 percent in 2021.

The majority of businesses that received a food hygiene rating of 4 or less reported making changes to try to improve their score. In England, the most common action was undertaking repairs or improvements, closely followed by cleaning the workplace or premises. In Northern Ireland and Wales, the top action was improving documentation or record keeping. 

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)

A DG Sante audit in Morocco, in March and April 2023, looked at microbiological contamination in food such as strawberries, leafy crops like lettuce, tomatoes, herbs and spices.

A 2015 audit found the safety of FNAO was mainly guaranteed by inspections and certifications of private standards. Also, the effectiveness of official controls was undermined by limited laboratory capacity for microbiological testing.

Moroccan situation
The latest audit also found microbiological food safety at primary production depends on good agricultural practices, inspections by buyers and private certification systems.

Officials could not provide data on the number of farms that are producing or supplying for export to the EU but did share post-farm gate information.

There are no official controls to verify measures taken on farm to prevent microbial contamination during growing and harvest but documentary checks take place afterwards. The absence of controls at these stages could present a problem in outbreak situations, said auditors.

Authorities have not considered the risk of environmental Listeria contamination at operators handling products intended to be eaten raw, as requested by EU legislation. Inspectors also demonstrated limited knowledge and expertise of how to verify food firms’ management of Listeria monocytogenes risk.

Moroccan officials said a new rule for ready-to-eat food businesses to take Listeria samples in processing areas and on equipment as part of their sampling plans should apply from the end of 2023.

The lab network is good but there is no official laboratory with accredited methods to detect Shiga toxin-producing E. coli (STEC) and foodborne viruses. A National Reference Laboratory for foodborne pathogens is planned for the future and accreditation should be achieved in 2024.

“The lack of accredited methods for these foodborne pathogens, in conjunction with the absence of national reference labs supporting the official laboratories, could have an impact on the reliable laboratory investigation of FNAO,” said auditors.

Portugal findings
A DG Sante audit in February and March 2023 in Portugal covered FNAO, including seeds intended for sprouting and sprouts.

There is a risk-based system for onsite controls but there are gaps in identifying high-risk growers and in the registration of processors. It is also not geared towards crops at primary production level which pose the greatest microbiological risks. This means products with potentially high food safety risks may not be subject to official controls, said auditors.

The audit team found training did not enable all inspectors to assess correctly some aspects of the operators’ own-check quality assurance systems regarding the time and place of Listeria monocytogenes sampling and HACCP.

During the second half of 2023, training will be reinforced on Listeria testing, cross-contamination, and critical control points. Several sessions on HACCP have already been carried out involving the General Directorate of Food and Veterinary Affairs (DGAV) and the Portuguese Meat Industry Association (APIC).

At the time of the visit, three sprout-producing operators were approved. However, one had ceased activities and another was suspended after detection of STEC in sprouts. A root cause investigation found problems with the water supply. A third was suspended after an inspection observed by the audit team. This was lifted after non-conformities were corrected.

At processing sites, auditors noticed produce dropped on the floor was put back on the transport belt, and workers did not change gloves after touching the floor. Condensation on ceilings over exposed produce was not always detected and dealt with efficiently.

Suitable lab capability is in place but authorities had yet to designate a National Reference Laboratory for foodborne viruses, which is against EU rules. This was addressed with INSA being named as the NRL in June 2023.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)

Iceland and Norway are in the European Free Trade Association (EFTA). The EFTA Surveillance Authority (ESA) monitors how both countries implement European Economic Area (EEA) rules on food and feed safety, as well as animal health and welfare.

Both nations have established control systems to ensure they follow relevant EEA requirements, but some areas need strengthening, said ESA.

Recommendations being actioned

In May 2022, ESA sent a letter of formal notice to Iceland regarding incorrect implementation of food hygiene requirements, and a failure to undertake official controls concerning fish oil. 

In a general review audit earlier this year, ESA assessed how Iceland followed up on recommendations it made in reports between January 2018 and September 2022. Iceland had taken steps to address the issues in six out of nine audits.

For three audits, limited progress was noted. One example was Iceland not addressing shortcomings identified during a 2018 audit on official controls of animal by-products not intended for human consumption.

The same process was undertaken for Norway. ESA found progress had been made to address the recommendations in four of nine audits.

However, Norway failed to meet the deadlines indicated for certain corrective actions listed in the other audits. This means a number of recommendations have not been satisfactorily addressed or only limited progress has been made, according to ESA.

ESA said actions to improve the controls on animal welfare during transport and related operations were still outstanding five years after the audit. Norwegian officials said implementation of a new process for the planning and verification of official controls to address the issues is planned for later this year.

Performance by sector

For fishery products, both nations have a risk-based system for official controls and, in general, it is consistently and adequately implemented and covers the entire production chain from catch to final product.

However, systems are weakened by an incomplete overview of landing sites and the register of vessels in Iceland and official controls not always being carried out in line with the frequencies established by the risk-based system in Norway.

Both countries apply a risk-based system to establish the minimum time or frequency for official controls related to poultry meat based on the size and activity of the food business. However, controls of animal by-products were weak as they do not ensure the prevention of risks to human and animal health arising from such products.

For food of non-animal origin, border control posts generally comply with the minimum requirements of the relevant EEA regulation and, if presented for official control, consignments mostly undergo documentary, identity and physical checks in line with the legislation.

However, the organization of official controls in Iceland does not ensure that relevant consignments are presented for checks. This undermines the assurance that only compliant products are placed on the market.

Follow-up of a 2019 audit on live bivalve mollusks in Iceland found further actions must be taken to address some of the recommendations to ensure that bivalve mollusks placed on the market are safe for human consumption.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)

The Victorian Auditor General’s Office (VAGO) looked at whether agencies are complying with their legal responsibilities for food safety. This included the Department of Health and councils in Casey, Geelong, Hepburn, Kingston, and Manningham.

Three recommendations were made to the five councils to improve compliance with legislative responsibilities and workforce planning.

Seven recommendations to the Department of Health covered industry workforce shortages, improving reporting of food safety performance and enhancing guidance and training.

Not meeting targets
Findings fell into three areas with councils’ regulation of food premises not fully meeting requirements in the Food Act 1984, which regulates the industry in Victoria. Food safety reporting by the Department of Health and councils was called “ineffective.” Also, while the Department of Health’s guidance and training has improved, it did not always meet the needs of councils.

Auditors found none of the councils consistently assessed all class 1 and 2 premises or inspected all class 3 outlets between 2018 and 2022. They said assessment and inspection ratings were inconsistent and councils struggled to identify unregistered premises.

Class 1 sites, such as hospitals, prepare and serve potentially hazardous food to vulnerable populations. Class 4 outlets sell pre-packaged low risk foods.

Geelong, Hepburn, and Manningham did not meet food sampling obligations in certain years and the Department of Health did not know which councils had met targets.

“If councils don’t identify and take action on non-compliant premises, it may lead to unsafe food practices going undetected or unaddressed. Inconsistent assessment or inspection ratings between councils mean consumers are not getting the same level of protection against food safety risks across Victoria,” said auditors.

The audit team found 19 unregistered home-based businesses using online food delivery platforms in four of the council areas.

COVID-19 impact and staff shortages
Only 24 and 23 percent of all 79 Victorian councils reported they had assessed all registered class 1 and 2 premises in 2020 and 2021 respectively. This compared to between 46 and 49 percent from 2018 to 2019. The main reason for the drop in annual food safety assessment was the COVID-19 lockdowns. At Geelong and Hepburn, vacant environmental health officer posts made the situation worse. Hepburn has also had to deal with fires, floods, and storms.

“Department of Health and councils need to respond quickly to the shortage of skilled staff, which compromises the effectiveness of the food safety regulatory system. The failure of all audited councils to conduct proactive monitoring of all class 1, 2 and 3 food premises each year increases the risk that unsafe food practices in food premises may continue undetected, posing a risk to public health,” said auditors.

There are also challenges around consistency, with variation in EHOs’ interpretation of food safety requirements. A lack of uniformity can mean higher costs for firms needing to rectify non-compliant issues because of the council being tougher in assessment or inspection ratings.

Councils followed up some poor performers nine times in one year to rectify non-compliance issues. They usually inspect food premises within one to two days of receiving a complaint.

Only Casey and Kingston achieved food sampling targets for the 5-year period between 2018 and 2022. A database problem means the Department of Health is unable to collate or analyze the results of statewide sampling to identify problem or risk areas. A lack of monitoring means the agency does not know which councils are not meeting food sampling targets.

Data reporting was another issue as the Department of Health does little meaningful analysis of council food safety activity reports. It does not publicly report foodborne illness trends or use sampling information to assess risks to public health. Information published by councils about food safety assessments is also not always comparable between authorities.

Auditors said all audited councils could make better use of data from inspections, food sampling and complaints to help with education, enforcement and identifying systemic issues.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)

The UK government rated food supply contamination as four out of five for likelihood and three out of five for impact in the 2023 national risk register. This means the likelihood of food supply contamination is considered as being between 5 percent and 25 percent and its impact would be “moderate” on a scale that ranges from “minor” to “catastrophic.”

The risk register was last published in 2020 and while food was mentioned, the same rating system was not used.

Supply chain information
Leo Parkington and Zoe Betts, of the law firm Pinsent Masons, said that food supply contamination presents a regulatory and reputational risk for businesses.

Parkington said the updated risk register should prompt food producers to ensure they know their supply chain.

“In practice, this means undertaking proper due diligence on suppliers across the supply chain to understand, for example, which farms are producing certain products, the factory conditions in which the products are processed, and how they are stored and transported,” he said.

“It is also important to include clauses in supplier contracts compelling suppliers to comply with legislation, cooperate with product recalls, audits and regulatory investigations, and comply with detailed operational and procedural requirements — such as around refrigeration temperatures when goods are in transit — as well as labeling specifications to inform consumers and hospitality businesses how to use and store the product.”

Contamination could occur during production, processing, distribution and preparation and may result from cross-contamination, poor hygiene, inappropriate storage or due to animal waste.

The worst-case scenario is based on an incident involving a pathogen in the food chain resulting in illness, hospitalization and possible fatalities in a moderate to large number of people. It was assumed that the type and source of contamination would not be identified immediately, and traceability of the implicated product would be complex and time consuming.

Response to effectively manage such an event would include the Food Standards Agency (FSA) and public health agencies as well as mitigating the risk of widespread loss of consumer confidence.

Potential consequences
Betts said businesses need to understand the consequences of contamination and what to do if food is affected. She added the company may be required to act immediately, irrespective of fault, if their intervention could protect consumers.

“All food business operators need to have a suite of comprehensive policies and procedures which can be implemented swiftly in the event of a food-related issue. Crisis management plans and teams should be appropriate for the nature and size of the business, including details of any cross-border contacts if products have been sold in foreign markets,” she said.

“The plan should be trained out to those staff members who would need to respond to the crisis, and it should also be regularly tested and updated – not least to ensure that key members of the team still work for the organization.” 

The risk register also covers human, animal and plant health including the risk of outbreaks as well as chemical contamination of the food or water supply.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)

In a 2019 outbreak associated with pre-packed sandwiches supplied to hospitals in England, seven patients died of listeriosis.

Following this incident, the FSA said it would review its 2016 listeriosis guidance. The research was commissioned to look at awareness, implementation, and perceived effectiveness of the guidance, including barriers to implementing it in full.

The recent report covers findings from 39 respondents within National Health Service (NHS) Trusts and 445 from Health and Social Care (non-NHS Trust) settings, such as nursing homes, home care service providers and hospices, in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland.

An online survey was sent to all NHS Trusts in the three nations between November and December 2021. In the majority of cases, the survey was completed by the catering manager, who was responsible for food safety. IFF Research carried out the survey of non-NHS settings by telephone. Fieldwork took place in August and September 2022. IFF Research interviewed the person with overall responsibility for food safety — this was often the general manager.  

Health and social care findings
In non-NHS Trust settings, 63 percent had some knowledge of the guidance. However, 36 percent did not know anything about the document or were not aware of it.

More than half trained kitchen staff (57 percent), nurses, midwives or carers (55 percent) and management personnel (52 percent) in controlling the risk of Listeria monocytogenes. About a third trained staff who sell or serve food as their main role.

The majority were aware of at least some of the risks associated with chilled ready-to-eat foods from Listeria. Almost all agreed that cleaning of all food contact surfaces at their site controlled the risk of the pathogen.

Just less than half reported the maximum temperature that chilled RTE foods reached during storage in areas for patients or residents was 5 degrees C (41 degrees F), which is in line with FSA guidelines. About one-fifth said the max temperature was 8 degrees C (46.4 degrees F), which is the legal requirement, and just over a quarter did not know. Two percent reported that these foods reached temperatures over 8 degrees C for more than four hours.

A high proportion, 80 percent, agreed the maximum shelf-life for RTE sandwiches sold or distributed on their site was day of production plus two days, although 14 percent disagreed. Only 54 percent said they carried out regular sampling for Listeria.

A fifth reported they were not registered with their local authority. They were compared with the Food Hygiene Rating Scheme (FHRS) listings to ensure the reliability of this finding but results were inconclusive, according to the report.

Parts of the guidance mentioned as being useful in reducing the risk of listeriosis included temperature control and fridges, checklists for preventative practice, information on cross-contamination/infection control, and content on cleaning standards. Some would appreciate it being easier to read, updated more often, or being made more accessible.  

A lack of control over the kitchen area was frequently mentioned as a difficulty, followed by 30 percent who found it challenging to ensure good practice in clients’ homes or residents’ rooms. In total, 38 percent of participants said residents’ lack of understanding of the risks was a barrier to implementing good practice.

Including food safety requirements in contracts for onsite retailers or caterers was not always easy. A quarter reported a lack of control over their supply chain. The most difficult area of Listeria control was to check food safety at suppliers by carrying out unannounced visits every six to 12 months. 

NHS results
Overall, 92 percent of NHS Trusts said they had been using the FSA guidance on listeriosis before taking part in the survey.

Nearly all trusts said their kitchen staff received training on how to control the risk of Listeria monocytogenes. Slightly fewer said service and food retail staff had this training whilst 55 percent of ward staff and 21 percent of volunteers were trained. 

Things that made it difficult to implement the guidance in full included a lack of control over food service and their supply chains, high staff turnover and a lack of control over food storage. Other factors were it was not a legal requirement, poor maintenance of equipment and money.

More than half of NHS trusts reported the maximum temperature foods reached during service or storage on wards or other patient areas was 5 degrees C (41 degrees F). A quarter said it was 8 degrees C (46.4 degrees F), with 11 percent reporting it could go beyond 8 degrees C for up to four hours.

A total of 84 percent agreed cleaning of all food contact surfaces controlled the risk of Listeria effectively. About eight in 10 agreed that the maximum shelf-life for RTE sandwiches sold or distributed in the trust was day of production plus two days. Only 13 percent disagreed. Half of respondents said their trust carried out regular sampling for Listeria while almost 40 percent reported this was not the case.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)

Bivalve mollusks include mussels, clams, oysters, and scallops. France, Spain, Italy, and Greece make up more than 80 percent of the production in Europe, mostly from aquaculture.

They feed by filtering algae from surrounding water and can accumulate microorganisms and chemical contaminants. Some algae species produce marine biotoxins, which build up in the tissues of bivalve mollusks and when above certain levels, can lead to illness in humans.

The EU Commission gathered information from 15 bivalve mollusk-producing member states, through four audits and 11 questionnaire replies, as well as other publicly available data, and published an overview report.

National agencies are responsible for controlling areas where bivalve mollusks are produced and harvested.

Microbial issues
EU legislation addresses the microbiological risk by requiring the classification of areas where mollusks are harvested. Production areas must be listed as Class A, B, or C depending on their microbial contamination status, using E. coli as an indicator of fecal contamination. Classification determines the post-harvest treatment.

Earlier this year, at least 170 people fell ill in Finland after eating oysters in various restaurants in February and March. Also, in March, Norovirus in mussels sickened seven people in Sweden. Norovirus in oysters from France affected three, and 15 illnesses were linked to oysters from the Netherlands. Twenty people were ill in Belgium in February with norovirus in oysters from France. Oysters caused two outbreaks in Denmark from late 2022 to early 2023 – the first had 19 patients, and 73 people were sick in the second.

The report found most countries keep up-to-date lists of classified production areas, but there are major differences in the development of sanitary surveys. In some cases, reviews of classification areas disregarded results that exceeded the criteria or were based on findings from operators’ checks without following EU rules for the use of this data.

Some member states only monitor the microbial quality of production areas during harvesting periods, which is not in line with EU rules. Other issues include the selection of sampling points and indicator species.

Common shortcomings in survey quality related to failing to demonstrate the representativeness of sampling sites, not including sampling frequency recommendations or the species and points to be sampled, said the EU Commission.

Acting on findings
Monitoring of classified production areas for biotoxins is often not in line with EU requirements, mostly because of the frequency and type of biotoxins tested. The EU Reference Laboratory (EURL) for Marine Biotoxins is working on a guide for monitoring biotoxins in bivalve mollusk harvesting areas.

Member states usually take action when their monitoring tests indicate a potential risk to health. However, weaknesses in the system sometimes impact the timely detection of certain risks or delay the response to them.

Countries generally follow the requirements in legislation for reopening production areas that were closed because of monitoring results. However, several do not consider relevant data during the review of classifications.

Recalling bivalve mollusks that may pose a risk to consumers seems to be a problem, partly because of the perishable nature of the products when they are placed on the market alive, according to the report.

The EU Commission intends to conduct more audits of other bivalve mollusk-producing member states. Current discussions focus on improving the traceability of shellfish destined for purification or exchange between nations and possibly revising the biotoxin content in shellfish.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)

It’s a “twofer” because Marler Clark’s new comments were submitted under two dockets — the FSIS Salmonella in Certain Not-Ready-to-Eat Stuffed (NRTE) Chicken projects and the petition the Seattle law firm previously submitted calling for “Outbreak” Salmonella serotypes to be listed as adulterants. If a food is deemed adulterated it cannot be sold.

Salmonella is so frequently found in U.S. poultry that some food scientists say it is a biological hazard in consumers’ kitchens. FSIS denied Marler Clark’s 61-page petition to address all Outbreak strains. The petition was submitted on behalf of families damaged by Salmonella and several consumer organizations.

The new Marler Clark comments support FSIS’s proposal to regulate Salmonella at levels of 1 colony forming unit (CFU) in NRTE breaded stuffed chicken. It says, “we maintain that the Agency must adopt more robust measures to tackle the Salmonella problem effectively.”

“FSIS’s proposed determination on Salmonella in breaded stuffed chicken products was supported by various factors, one being the investigation of 14 Salmonella outbreaks and 200 illnesses linked to these products since 1998. But according to CDC, Salmonella bacteria cause a staggering 1.35 million illnesses, resulting in 26,500 hospitalizations and 420 deaths in the United States every year,” Marler Clark’s Aug. 14 letter says.

The new comments clarify that the law firm wants a response, not just a denial, to its previous petition. The petition was not an “all or nothing” request but presented 31 Salmonella serotypes that scientific fact or statutory law would justify adulterant status.

FSIS responded “in a serotype-specific” way for three serotypes, but the agenda was silent about the other 28. Marler Clark says denying its petition “was insufficient as a matter of law.”

FSIS said it could not “justify issuing the broad interpretive rule” that “would declare all Salmonella” as added substances in all products.

On behalf of its clients, Marler Clark may seek judicial review of the FSIS denial.   Marler Clark’s latest comments say an agency that is “incomplete and evasive” isn’t given deference during the review.

Marler Clark says the agency “primarily” used “straw-man” arguments in denying their petition. “Nothing in the Petition asserted that ‘grave health and safety problems’ posed by Salmonella in raw poultry or meat could not be addressed unless thirty-one serotypes were declared adulterant,” the Seattle law firm said.

It points out that FSIS’s data finds five stereotypes are responsible for 60 percent of USDA-regulated products.

USDA recognizes the Salmonella strains are “injurious to health,” but Marler Clark claims the FSIS “offered a laundry list of reasons not to regulate.”  “In the meantime, as the Agency hosts roundtables and ponders an ‘updated’ Salmonella strategy…necessary to reduce such illnesses,” the significant portion of the approximately 1.35 million cases of salmonella that occur each year.

The incidence of salmonellosis from poultry exceeds the CDC’s Healthy People 2030 objective of 11.5 cases per 100,000 population with no substantial deductions in two decades.

The Marler Clark comments conclude by saying “no reasonable interpretation” of FSIS regulations that do not require at least some Salmonella serotypes to be adulterants when present in specific quantities.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here)

Food Standards Scotland (FSS) and the Food Standards Agency (FSA) issued voluntary industry guidance on glycerol in slush ice drinks after two children fell sick in Scotland in Lanarkshire in 2021 and in Edinburgh in 2022. Both required hospitalization and had symptoms consistent with glycerol intoxication. 

Glycerol is an ingredient in slush ice drinks to prevent the liquid from freezing solid. It is allowed as an additive and there are no limits. Manufacturers can add as much of it as needed to achieve the desired technological function. The level of glycerol in slush ice drinks varies depending on the manufacturer and the product.

Visible warning
The guidance advises that sales of slush ice drinks containing glycerol should be accompanied by a written warning visible at point of sale that states: ‘’Product contains glycerol. Not recommended for children 4 years of age and under.’’

One concern is unlimited refills at theme and activity parks. The FSA said it was aware of a growing number of self-serve options at retail shops, convenience stores, and newsagents. Another problem is that refill offers are often unmonitored. 

Manufacturers are being advised to tell retailers that they should not offer free refill promotions to children younger than 10, to prevent children being from exposed to excessive amounts of glycerol.

An FSA risk assessment found that young children may suffer from headaches and sickness caused by exposure to glycerol. 

At very high levels of exposure – when several products are consumed by a child in a short space of time – glycerol intoxication could cause shock, hypoglycaemia and loss of consciousness. 

Slush ice drinks can contain glycerol as a substitute for sugar to create the slush. The guidance asks businesses to only add glycerol at the minimum quantity technically necessary to achieve this effect. 

Those older than 4 are considered unlikely to suffer ill effects from one slush drink. This is because the effects of glycerol are related to body weight.

Industry action
Adam Hardgrave, FSA head of additives, said while symptoms of intoxication are usually mild, it is important for parents to be aware of the risks – particularly at high levels of consumption. 

“It is likely that there is under-reporting of glycerol intoxication, as parents may attribute nausea and headaches to other factors. We are grateful to those manufacturers who have already taken steps to reduce levels of glycerol, and to those who have already told us they will be adopting our new guidelines,” he said.

One company, Nichols, said it has reformulated Slush Puppie and Starslush products to remove glycerol, as they are predominantly sold in venues popular amongst young children.

The British Soft Drinks Association said members have been working with FSA on the glycerol guidance.

“Our members adhere to all current ingredient legislation including in relation to glycerol, which is authorized as an additive for use in the UK and Europe and has been used for a number of years by manufacturers of slush ice drinks in order to stop the product from freezing. We support this updated FSA communication for the benefit of consumers.”

Food crime assessment
Meanwhile, Food Standards Scotland has launched an online program which allows companies to assess their vulnerabilities to criminality.

The Food Crime Risk Profiling Tool means businesses can assess themselves against a series of statements on topics, such as how they source materials and their supply methods, before being given a report at the end which will highlight areas of good practice as well including guidance on areas they may wish to improve.

Ron McNaughton, head of the Scottish Food Crime and Incidents Unit at FSS, said prevention is the key to winning the battle against food crime.

“Food crime is serious fraud and related criminality in food supply chains. It could include adulteration, substitution or misrepresentation of origin amongst other criminal techniques. So we’ve decided to work with key stakeholders from the food industry and experts who have an interest in tackling fraud in food supply chains to develop an online, food crime risk profiling tool,” he said.

FSS will be holding several free online workshops later this year to help increase authenticity and improve food crime resilience – those who sign up to the tool will receive an invite to the sessions. 

In mid-2022, the FSA also unveiled an online tool to help companies assess their vulnerability to food crime. It was developed by the National Food Crime Unit (NFCU).

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here)

One of a series of articles, published in the Robert Koch Institute’s Journal of Health Monitoring, focuses on the influence of climate change on foodborne intoxications.

The review looks at hazards to human health posed by relevant foodborne bacteria, parasites and marine biotoxins in Germany including Salmonella, Campylobacter, and Vibrio as well as parasites Cryptosporidium and Giardia.

Climate change can result in higher air and water temperatures, increased precipitation, or water scarcity. For example, in the future, agriculture may have to rely more on treated wastewater due to water shortages. This poses a risk to food safety, because of possible contamination of irrigated produce by pathogens, said researchers.

Campylobacter, Salmonella and Vibrio
Campylobacter infections are typically seasonal, with most cases in the summer months from July to September. With progressive warming as a result of climate change and the associated prolonged warm periods, an increase in cases is expected.

It is also possible that during summer months, increased temperatures lead to higher prevalence in poultry flocks and greater exposure of consumers via consumption of poultry meat, according to the study.

Altered behaviors during summer months could have an indirect effect on the rise in infections, such as more frequent barbecuing of poultry and other meats, or swimming in surface waters. An increase in infections and outbreaks has also been observed after heavy rains and flooding.

In Europe, most salmonellosis cases are reported during the summer months.

The favored growth of Salmonella at higher temperatures leads to higher concentrations in contaminated foods during warmer periods. Among other things, this is linked to poor food preparation and refrigeration during barbecues or picnics, which are also more common in summer. Elevated temperatures increase the risk of cold chain disruption, which can have a significant impact on the microbiological status of food.

Foodborne Vibrio infections have been rare in Europe so far. Occurrence of Vibrio spp. is favored by global warming and the increase of heatwaves and may lead to its spread and possibly also the establishment of new types in Europe, so human infection incidence may go up in the future, according to researchers.

The increase in water temperature will lead to an amplification of Vibrio contamination in European seafood catching, harvesting, and farming areas, and will also expand beyond summer and autumn months.

Accurate information on foodborne Vibrio infections is not yet available. In Germany, only isolated cases have been recorded since introduction of mandatory reporting in 2020, which may indicate either low exposure to Vibrio-containing products or that a large proportion of illnesses are not detected or reported. Raw and insufficiently heated products such as mussels and oysters pose a risk, especially for people with weakened immune systems or pre-existing conditions.

Parasites and prevention steps
Research from the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), which has not yet been published, indicates that a changing climate also has a direct impact on the prevalence and virulence of parasites, which are already very stable in the environment. Cryptosporidium and Giardia can remain infectious for a long period and cause disease, especially after consumption of raw contaminated food.

Extreme weather such as heavy rainfall and flooding, which are expected to increase as a result of climate change, grow the risk of infectious oocysts/cysts entering bodies of water, as well as the risk of contamination of plant-based foods, said researchers.

Climate change is altering the geographic distribution of some algal species that may be involved in forming harmful algal blooms. Marine biotoxins are not detectable by odor, taste or appearance and are not usually destroyed by cooking, freezing, or other preparation processes.

“Our main recommendations for minimizing the health risk from foodborne infections and intoxications lie in the area of kitchen hygiene, which should always be applied when preparing food. This includes thorough handwashing and the use of fresh kitchen utensils after handling raw meat and fish, as well as avoidance of cross-contamination,” said researchers.

“In addition, most microbiological pathogens can be safely killed by a sufficient heating process; for example, a core temperature of 70 degrees C (158 degrees F) for at least two minutes must be maintained when preparing seafood.

“We also recommend the use of new technologies to track supply chains. Given a globalized food distribution network and the use of different processing and preservation techniques, it can be difficult to track a product’s supply chain to identify potential risks. Technological advances have produced digital solutions for this; knowledge of fish stocks, seafood traceability and supply chain transparency can benefit from innovative approaches.”

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)

The report was produced by the Animal and Plant Health Agency (APHA) under contract with the Food Standards Agency (FSA).

In 2021, 105 samples of fresh beef and pork on retail sale in the UK were sampled between October and December and investigated for E. coli. In previous surveys, 300 samples were tested throughout one year. Reduced numbers were because of the delayed start following exit from the EU and because of lab capacity.

E. coli isolates are useful indicators of AMR. They are ubiquitous in animals and allow scientists to monitor the presence of AMR typically circulating in food-producing animals.

Resistance levels found
Less than 1 percent of beef and 4 percent of pork samples possessed an Extended Spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL) or AmpC-expressing E. coli. No meat samples, before enrichment, had background or AmpC-/ESBL-phenotype E. coli counts above EU detection levels, indicating low numbers of these bacteria. However, post-enrichment, one beef, and four pork samples yielded AMR E. coli. Results were similar to the 2015, 2017, and 2019 surveys.

Two pork samples were positive for AmpC-producing E. coli, and two were positive for ESBL-producing E. coli. The beef isolate had an E. coli with an AmpC + ESBL-expressing phenotype.

ESBL and AmpC enzymes confer resistance to cephalosporins. No beef and pork samples were positive for E. coli with resistance to last-resort carbapenem or colistin antimicrobials.

In the five E. coli isolates, resistance was seen to some antibiotics. The beef isolate was resistant to all four cephalosporin antibiotics it was tested against (cefepime, cefotaxime, cefoxitin, and ceftazidime), while the pork isolates were resistant to at least two of these antibiotics. All five E. coli isolates resisted ampicillin but not amikacin, temocillin, or tigecycline.

Most beef samples were from the UK, but some came from Ireland, Brazil, Poland, Scotland, and Spain. Most pork samples were domestic, but others were from Germany, Denmark, Belgium, Ireland, and the Netherlands. Samples were collected from retail across England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Pet food AMR study
Another survey is gathering data on antimicrobial resistance in bacteria found in raw dog and cat food on sale in the UK.

Raw pet food does not undergo heat treatment meaning the final retail product can be contaminated with microorganisms, including pathogens and AMR bacteria.

Findings will enable the FSA to identify any risk to the public by cross-contamination during storing and handling of such products.

The survey involves collecting 280 dog and 100 cat food items on sale in the UK from March 2023 to February 2024. Before testing for AMR, samples will be tested for the detection and enumeration of E. coli, Salmonella, Campylobacter, Shiga toxin-producing E. coli, and Livestock-associated Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Screening of AMR will include Extended Spectrum Beta Lactamases (ESBLs), AmpC, Carbapenems, and fluoroquinolones, as well as analysis for colistin resistance and the colistin-resistant MCR genes.

Another 140 dog and 50 cat products will have the packaging swabbed before opening and testing for the above contaminants. This data will indicate whether raw dog and cat food packaging is appropriate to prevent microbiologically contaminated meat liquid seepage during thawing and the potential to cross-contaminate other foods and surfaces within the home.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)

Belgium recorded 830 outbreaks in 2022 compared to 547 in 2021, with 4,247 people affected compared to 2,070 in 2021. In 2022, 125 people were hospitalized, and two died.

The rise may partly be because of increased activity in the hospitality, restaurant, and catering sector after large closures because of COVID-19. The various incidents, such as Salmonella contamination at Ferrero, may also have raised consumer awareness and encouraged them to report illnesses, said the Federal Agency for the Safety of the Food Chain (FASFC).

Outbreak data
A dozen Bacillus Cereus outbreaks affected 172 people, while nine Salmonella outbreaks sickened 206. The incident linked to Ferrero chocolate caused 64 cases in Belgium.

Seven histamine outbreaks had 44 cases, and one Yersinia enterocolitica incident led to 17 illnesses. In five Shiga toxin-producing E. coli (STEC) outbreaks, 15 people were sick, and two Listeria outbreaks had five cases. Two Clostridium perfringens incidents had 46 cases and two deaths.

Eleven outbreaks caused by viruses affected 816 people, and one linked to parasites sickened 15. The agent was unknown for 772 outbreaks, according to data from Sciensano, Belgium’s national public health institute.

In early July 2023, Ferrero found Salmonella again at its plant in Arlon and the implicated production line was temporarily stopped. No final product tested positive and by the end of the month, the factory had returned to full production with shipments being ramped up over time.

Fraud work
FASFC, also known as AFSCA or FAVV, had previously revealed 394 recalls in 2022 as well as 5,000 complaints and 6,600 questions to its advice line.

The agency carried out 70,260 samples in 2022, and 97.8 percent of them were compliant. Almost 16,000 warnings were issued, and temporary closure was required on nearly 300 occasions.

In 2022, several incidents occurred in large companies in the food sector. A few months apart, Ferrero and Barry Callebaut were confronted with unrelated contamination by Salmonella. Also, Milcobel, a major player in the dairy market, revealed a problem with Listeria monocytogenes at one of its sites. Contamination was found during self-checks, there were no related illnesses, but large amounts of cheese had to be recalled.

FASFC’s food fraud unit received 834 information dealing with potential fraud in 2022, and 600 investigations were opened.

Operations included wider EU work on testing for sugars added to honey, sunflower oil due to the invasion of Ukraine, additives in sweets imported from non-EU countries, sulfites in meat to hide spoilage, potato variety fraud, and illegal sale and processing of game meat.

A particular focus was food supplements, with some found to contain sildenafil without it being listed on the label. Checks online and on posted items revealed only 12 of 86 samples were compliant.

Herman Diricks, managing director of FASFC, said: “The food incidents that occurred in 2022 remind us that we must not let our guard down. It is essential that everyone involved in the food chain buys into the culture of food safety and acts accordingly to maintain a high level of food safety and consumer confidence. Therefore, a strong and effective agency is more necessary than ever to monitor the food chain.”

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)

The Standards and Trade Development Facility (STDF) aims to improve sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) capacity in developing and least developed countries.

STDF was established by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), World Organisation for Animal Health, the World Bank Group, World Health Organization (WHO) and the World Trade Organization (WTO).

“Compliance with SPS requirements is already a major challenge for many developing countries. Climate change is making this even more difficult. Strengthening developing countries’ SPS systems, including capacities to monitor and control new pests and diseases, is more important than ever and will contribute to increased food production and food security,” said Melvin Spreij, head of the STDF.

Project examples
STDF works with government institutions, international organizations and development partners in different sectors to enhance compliance with international food safety, animal and plant health standards and facilitate safe food trade.

The annual report highlights projects such as improving the safety and quality of Sudan’s sesame seeds; enhancing compliance with phytosanitary measures in Uganda’s fruit and vegetable sectors; promoting good agricultural practices in Tajikistan’s honey and apricot value chains; and increasing fish exports from the Solomon Islands.

Stories were shared from Djibouti, India and Tanzania, highlighting results that can be achieved when government authorities and the private sector work together on trade. Ongoing projects include enhancing food safety capacity of the pepper value chain in Jamaica and piloting a voluntary third party assurance (vTPA) program in East Africa.

STDF members also continued learning about the use of data-driven approaches to boost safe trade and accelerate economic growth, including electronic phytosanitary certificates.

Projects help to improve compliance with international standards within and across countries and regions. Some initiatives struggled to catch up on delays made worse by the pandemic. In certain cases, staff turnover caused additional challenges for in-country commitment and political instability was an issue in some parts of West Africa.

Program financing
Eight projects were approved while another 17 are ongoing. Fifteen donors contributed more than $6.5 million in funding. The next deadline to submit project funding proposals is Aug. 11 and these will be considered by STDF in November 2023. Pending initiatives include reducing histamine in tuna in Indonesia and managing aflatoxins in maize in Uganda.

“The STDF is working to create a world where food traded is safe and secure for all, and also to facilitate the compliance of relevant standards by developing countries’ exports,” said Jean-Marie Paugam, WTO Deputy Director-General. 

In May 2023, Germany’s Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture announced a contribution of €150,000 ($165,000) to the STDF.

Bettina Waldmann said: “By helping developing countries tackle sanitary and phytosanitary challenges, we are making a contribution to improving SPS systems and ensuring safe agricultural food trade globally. Building SPS capacity is key to raising food security levels, protecting the environment and securing people’s livelihoods.”

Spreij said the support would benefit producers, traders and governments along global and regional value chains, helping them raise export revenues, income levels and living standards. 

Money will be used to strengthen the ability of small-scale farmers, producers and traders to gain and maintain access to markets for food and agriculture products through SPS projects, knowledge sharing, and monitoring and evaluation of results.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)

The 2022 Impact Report represents the work of more than 8,600 employees from all 50 States, four territories, and 27 countries. Among the highlights, according to the Acting APHIS Administrator Mike Watson, are these:

• Inspected and cleared 2.82 billion pounds of fresh fruits and vegetables from 19 countries before they were shipped to the United States. Oversaw a systems approach to import 2.04 billion pounds of avocados into Mexico safely.
• Expanded the export of U.S. fresh potatoes to Mexico beyond the 26-kilometer border zone, estimated to provide a market potential of $250 million in five years. This is an increase of $190 million from the current export value of $60 million.
• Initiated an emergency program to address nationwide detections of highly pathogenic avian influenza. Performed 1,854,713 tests on commercial poultry flocks through National Poultry Improvement Plan cooperative agreements and coordinated the collection of 20,860 wild bird samples, helping to protect the U.S. poultry industry–whose production is valued at $46.1 billion.
• Assisted the Dominican Republic and Haiti in their African swine fever (ASF) program by advising on surveillance, quarantine, depopulation, and disposal methods; testing support; outreach; staff training; expanding surveillance; and bolstering in-country testing capacity.
• Continued to enforce an ASF protection zone in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands; enhanced pre-departure activities by adding temporary staff, canine detector teams, and x-ray machines, as well as conducting training for staff in inspecting for animal products; and increased Smuggling Interdiction and Trade Compliance market surveys in the protection zone to identify potential regulated or prohibited product and ensure its removal from the marketplace.
• Facilitated new markets for a wide range of U.S.-origin animals and animal products, including bovine meat and bone meal to Peru worth an estimated $5 million per year; wheat to Fiji worth an estimated $3 million per year; sheep and goats to Senegal worth an estimated $800,000 per year; and bovine, ovine, and caprine genetics to Tunisia worth an estimated $500,000 per year.
• Produced 1.04 billion sterile Mediterranean fruit flies weekly at the El Pino sterile insect facility in Guatemala, supporting preventative release programs in California and Florida, along with population control efforts in Guatemala and Mexico
• In a One Health initiative with Federal, State, and Tribal partners, monitored and surveyed thousands of white-tailed deer and other animals (both wild and domestic) for SARS-CoV-2 to help identify species that may serve as reservoirs or hosts for the virus and better understand exposure, disease susceptibility, and the risks of cross-species transmission.
• Protected wildlife and public health by distributing more than 8.5 million oral rabies vaccination (ORV) baits to combat raccoon rabies in 16 Eastern States and more than 1.2 million ORV baits in Texas to prevent canine rabies from reemerging along the Mexican border.
• Oversaw 13,376 licensees and registrants, including nearly 2,500 new registrants, ensuring the humane care and treatment of AWA-covered animals.
• Conducted 10,595 AWA site inspections—including 1,248 unannounced inspections at research facilities—to assess the health, care, and treatment of more than 1.4 million animals. Found 96 percent of licensees and registrants in substantial compliance with the AWA.
• Fully implemented USDA’s revised biotechnology regulations allow APHIS to regulate with greater precision and reduce regulatory burden for developers of organisms that are unlikely to pose plant pest risks, providing over $8 million in annual cost savings.
• Collected 72,500 samples for SARS-CoV-2 testing — representing 100 species from wildlife, zoos, aquaria, and other facilities across 36 States and Washington D.C. Sequenced 500 samples, with 161 being variants first detected in humans before animals. Maintained further support at 30 National Animal Health Laboratory Network (NAHLN) labs, including seven capable of testing human samples.
• Issued 2 Regulatory Status Review (RSR) decisions, which replaced the petition process in the legacy regulations to determine whether a plant developed using genetic engineering is subject to regulations as a plant pest. These were the first decisions under the new RSR process in the revised regulations. APHIS has completed nine RSR reviews to date.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)

The measures would allow food crime officers to be lawfully on premises and assist with searches, following an arrest by police. This would reduce the need for support from local authorities and the police. 

NFCU currently relies on an agreement with the National Police Chiefs’ Council. If the unit is granted section 18 Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) powers of search and entry, while a police presence is still likely to be needed in case arrests are required, it would help. FSA does not intend to seek access to powers of arrest for food crime officers. 

The hope is that search and entry powers would enable the NFCU to more effectively detect and investigate serious criminal offences such as fraud that may impact the safety or authenticity of food, drink or animal feed. A warrant is not required and evidence relating to offences could be seized.

Potential additional powers
“This additional power of search and entry would be a vital tool to make sure that investigations can be progressed more directly, while also freeing up local police services so their vital resources can be diverted to other priorities,” said Andrew Quinn, acting head of the NFCU.

“At the same time any use of these powers of entry and search will be restrained, focusing on effective regulation to prevent and detect food crime, and subject to robust controls and external scrutiny. We remain committed to using any enhanced powers in a proportionate way that keeps the public safe, with strengthened safeguards and oversight arrangements to guard against their abuse.”

Recent operations have highlighted that not having access to section 18 powers can create a “significant disadvantage” to the ability of NFCU officers to be lawfully on premises and assist with searches following an arrest, according to the consultation.

Relying on partners to use their investigatory powers on the FSA’s behalf can lead to delayed investigations and is organizationally more complex.

Stakeholders in England and Wales can respond to the call until Aug. 6. Separate legislation applies in Northern Ireland and another consultation for this country will be held at a later date. 

It does not apply to Scotland, where Food Standards Scotland’s Scottish Food Crime and Incidents Unit (SFCIU) is responsible for tackling food crime.

Evidence received in the consultation will inform recommendations made by the FSA to the Secretary of State, who will then decide what happens next.

A past consultation in 2022 sought views on additional powers for the NFCU and responses were mostly supportive. However, since this time, a requirement for other abilities under PACE for NFCU officers was identified. Previously proposed powers covered the capacity to apply for search warrants, seize evidence and interview suspects who are under arrest.   

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)

FSA wants to make display of Food Hygiene Rating Scheme (FHRS) ratings mandatory for businesses online. Physical display is required in Wales and Northern Ireland but not in England.

A sample size of 1,500 included hotels, pubs, restaurants, cafes, canteens, and takeaways. The project was in 2021 but results have only recently been made public.

More than half of the sample had a business website and it was estimated that the prevalence of online display was about 3 percent. Takeaways were more likely than other outlet types to display a rating, while pubs were less likely.

All websites were displaying a 5 rating, apart from one, which was actually not the business’s own website. A comparison with actual ratings found that two sites were rated 4.

Toward online display
Data from Google Places was matched against a sample of businesses from the FHRS open data. Only an establishment’s own website was included, so a social media page or presence on an aggregator such as Deliveroo were not taken into account. Website images were matched against reference images of FHRS ratings, although false positives and false negatives were found with the algorithm threshold used.

Legislation for mandatory online display is being considered. A version was drafted in Northern Ireland in 2017, but fell through because of suspension of the parliament. An impact assessment for rollout of mandatory display including online in England suggested a cost to businesses of compliance and to local authorities of enforcement.

Researchers examined a sub-sample of 100 firms with no business website. Of these, 37 had a Facebook page and seven were showing a rating. However, it was the wrong score in four cases.

“The difficulties encountered in finding food businesses’ online presence would provide some support for requiring businesses to provide this information, at point of registration or inspection, and for local authorities to submit it with their FHRS return,” said the report.

Recovery plan second assessment
FSA has also published part two of an assessment on a recovery plan due to the pandemic. The COVID-19 Local Authority Recovery Plan started in June 2021 and applied in England, Wales and Northern Ireland until the end of March this year.

The first period of assessments was between April and July 2022 in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. A second period from January and March 2023 in England included seven local authorities.

Five of seven local authorities entered the recovery period in July 2021 with some food officers still diverted to enforcement of COVID-19 regulations and dealing with local outbreaks. However, at the time of the assessments, all officers had returned to food law enforcement work.

Most authorities were able to meet or exceed recovery plan milestones. Where deadlines for onsite interventions had been missed, it was for reasons beyond their control.

From April 2023 onward, local authorities said they would enter the new financial year with significant numbers of overdue low risk food hygiene and medium and low risk food standards interventions as a result of the pandemic.

One authority reported a significant increase in workload during the recovery period, because of more activities associated with the issuing of Export Health Certificates following the UK’s exit from the European Union.

All local councils assessed reported an increase in the levels of food company non-compliance during the recovery period, because of high staff turnover and employee recruitment issues for some firms and the impact of the cost of living crisis. Other suspected reasons for the decrease in compliance included a lack of business knowledge and the extended time between interventions.

A significant increase in re-rating requests was noted because of aggregator platforms requiring a minimum FHRS rating of 3. Financial incentives for companies linked to the use of online food sales platforms were a significant driver to improve food hygiene compliance levels for some businesses. 

Three-quarters of local authorities used remote interventions occasionally or had attempted to. When used, councils adopted a risk-based approach and in most cases, they were for low-risk verification checks, at low-risk businesses or to provide advice to firms prior to onsite interventions. The verdict was that remote checks introduced additional steps in the process and did not improve the efficiency of onsite inspections. 

Most authorities supported the recovery plan but one felt it was focused on food hygiene matters and limited recognition was given to food standards controls.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)

Katie Pettifer, strategy and regulatory compliance director at the FSA, recently said change is becoming a theme after speaking at the event last year on how constant change was the new normal.

“The first change is times have got even tougher for businesses and consumers. Between May last year and this year, food prices rose by over 18 percent. The impact of rising food and fuel prices also comes alongside a series of challenges for supply chains due to Brexit and the Ukraine war,” she said at the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health (CIEH) food safety conference.

“We are beginning to see disruption from climate change too. It is a worrying time for those of us working to make sure food is safe. FSA data tells us that around 25 percent of people have reduced cooking times and temperatures each month, and over 20 percent have turned down fridges or freezers to save money. We’ve heard plenty of stories from local authority food safety teams about businesses cutting corners too.”

Managing workload
A second change is local food teams getting food safety inspections back on track after the pandemic.

“When I spoke last June, I said we thought food hygiene standards seemed to have remained high, but there were some big unknowns because many businesses had not been inspected for some time. Staff diverted during the pandemic have returned to food hygiene work. Interventions are back on track in the high-risk categories, and the numbers of unrated businesses have been coming down all year,” said Pettifer.

“In April, we were able to bring our local authority recovery plan to an end and return to the normal expectations in the Food Law Code of Practice. I know from what I’ve heard from many environmental health professionals that a lot of work can be needed to help get businesses back on track when they are re-inspected after a long break, and resources are stretched. It is difficult to recruit and retrain professional staff.”

Making the most of limited resources was also mentioned.

“We need local authorities to make the best use of their resources, particularly when they are stretched. We know about food standards that weren’t happening in the past. So we are changing the model for food standards controls,” said Pettifer. 

“It will be more risk-based, focus more on the less compliant businesses, will be more intelligence-driven and we’ve introduced an FSA-directed sampling budget to support it. It will enable local authorities to make more choices about the right type of intervention to use. Local authorities that piloted the model were three times better at finding non-compliance than in the current system.”

The standards model is being rolled out in the next two years, and a pilot will soon start in Wales. A comment period on the updated food hygiene model has recently closed. Pilots will begin in 2024.

Food Authenticity and future regulatory approach
Pettifer also mentioned developments around food import checks and domestic law, such as precision breeding, and spoke about food fraud and authenticity.

“The first line of defense is businesses themselves; they have legal obligations to ensure the food they produce and sell is authentic. Second is food teams in local authorities, who conduct inspections and other controls to ensure businesses comply with the rules, and third is the FSA. There are some controls we carry out directly. Still, for most of the industry, our role is to oversee local authority delivery, monitor performance and take a national level view on whether the system is working,” she said.

“There are over 600,000 food businesses in a sector which employs 4 million people but in local authorities across England, Wales, and Northern Ireland, there are 1,800 trading standards and environmental health professionals working on food and in the FSA working on that third line of defense there are fewer people still.”

FSA has also been trying new forms of regulation that might help in the future.

“We are three months into a pilot with some of the major supermarkets to test whether it is possible to make an assessment of how good their food safety systems and processes are at a business level and feed this into the way they are regulated, rather than just looking at the outcomes at store level. The pilot is alongside planned inspection for a year. We’ll have an independent evaluation before we decide on the next steps,” said Pettifer.

“We’ve been looking at how we can strengthen the first line of defense when it comes to food hygiene with the three big food delivery platforms. We want them to use their influence to improve food safety. We’ve been working with them on a charter covering areas like ensuring all businesses on their platform are registered and have a minimum food hygiene rating score.”

DNP and food crime
Andrew Quinn, deputy head of the National Food Crime Unit (NFCU), gave an update on 2,4-Dinitrophenol (DNP) being added to the Poisons Act in October.

“Some other good news is we were contacted recently by our partners in the FDA, who secured a conviction against William Merlino, who was 85 years old. He got sentenced to 33 months in prison for selling DNP. That investigation resulted from the NFCU identifying Merlino as the supplier of DNP to a UK individual that died from its ingestion.”

A year-long investigation by FDA revealed that Merlino, a retired physician, packaged and sold DNP as a weight-loss drug and used Twitter to advertise, eBay to sell, and email to communicate with customers in the U.S., Canada, and the UK. Merlino operated his business at home from November 2017 until March 2019, earning $54,000 from sales to hundreds of people.

Quinn also covered an independent review of NFCU, the publication of a food crime assessment being pushed back until 2024, and an upcoming public consultation in relation to access to section 18 Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) powers.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)

Finnish Customs (Tulli) said the case involves evading taxes and food safety. The issue was found during Customs’ control in the West Harbor of Helsinki in spring 2022.

A preliminary investigation is in the final stages before the case is forwarded to the prosecution district of Southern Finland for consideration of charges.

Officials said the suspect tried to bring into Finland around 500-kilograms (1,100 pounds) of fresh beef and sheep meat in a car from Latvia via Estonia.

The Finnish Food Authority (Ruokavirasto) found the quantity of meat in question was so large that it could not be considered for private use. Instead, it was import for commercial purposes. The suspect’s operation was not registered, which is a requirement for the commercial import of foodstuffs, according to the Food Act.

Meat was transported unrefrigerated and without a Salmonella certificate. Deficiencies in the operation put end-users at risk of illness and increased the chance of Salmonella spreading, said authorities.

The suspect also admitted they had brought fresh and frozen meat to Finland on previous occasions.

“The case is serious in terms of consumer safety. The operation has caused harm, both to the health and safety of citizens and to law-abiding operators in the food sector. The suspect has benefited financially by neglecting the cold transport approval required by the obligation to register for the food sector,” said the investigator in charge, Juha Havumäki.

Generally, products move freely between EU member states. Depending on the countries concerned, there may be different import requirements to ensure product safety and to prevent the spread of animal and plant diseases. The Finnish Food Authority supervises the import of foodstuffs of animal origin to Finland.

Zoonosis report

Meanwhile, monitoring results of the main zoonoses from 2011 to 2021 have been compiled to understand the situation and development of trends in Finland.

Campylobacter is the most common and Salmonella is second for causing human infections. In recent years, cryptosporidiosis and Shiga toxin-producing E. coli (STEC) cases have been reported more than before.

Among production animals, Salmonella cases in cattle and pigs increased, while in broilers they decreased. Salmonella is still very rare in domestic beef and pork. In slaughter broilers, prevalence of Campylobacter has decreased. STEC O157 became more common in slaughter bovines.

For foods, raw milk acted as a vehicle for several zoonoses causing infections including Campylobacter, Yersinia and E. coli. The importance of vegetables as a source of illness was also emphasized.

Between 2011 and 2021, 33 epidemics were caused by Campylobacter, in which 451 people fell ill and 11 of STEC with 399 patients.

From 2011 to 2020, an average of two Salmonella outbreaks with 35 cases were recorded. However, seven outbreaks were noted in 2021 including one that sickened more than 700 people.

From 2011 to 2021, Yersinia caused seven epidemics, in which 133 people fell ill. Ten listeriosis outbreaks affected 143 people.

The analysis found the situation in Finland was affected by changes related to the environment and climate, the number of people with weakened immunity, and imported dogs from endemic areas.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)

Dear Editor,

As an advocate for comprehensive organizational change in FDA’s Food Program, I give Commissioner Califf and his team the credit they are due for the changes he announced this week. I still think that food inspectors should report to the Food Program leader, but the Commissioner’s plan moves strongly in the direction of a unified structure that can operate with much greater efficiency and unity of purpose than the current structure.   

As I read the proposal, it effectively dismantles the old version of the Office of Regulatory Affairs by taking out the state partnership office, the field food labs, and most of ORA’s headquarters staff working on food and moving them into a reshuffled version of the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition under a single accountable leader. These are big changes, for which the commissioner deserves credit. Overall, it looks to me like a new organization with a chance for a fresh start, albeit with huge implementation challenges.  

My largest outstanding question is whether the new Deputy Commissioner will ultimately have the formal and practical authority within FDA to fully implement the reorganization plan, in both headquarters and the field, and to lead the necessary shift to a food safety culture of transparent engagement and collaboration, laser focused on risk-based prevention of foodborne illness.  The new structure makes this culture change possible but not inevitable.  FDA deserves the food community’s continued input and support to make it happen. 

Mike Taylor
Former FDA deputy commissioner for foods and current Board Member Emeritus at Stop Foodborne Illness

More than 130 people are sick with Salmonella Mbandaka after eating chicken products from Ukraine. Four patients were admitted to hospitals and one person died.

In response to repeated non-compliance with partly cooked chicken products from Ukraine, a system of Intensified Official Controls (IOC) was started in April. This included a requirement that the next 10 imported consignments from the implicated establishment would be subject to extra inspections.

Because of continued breaches of food safety requirements, this was escalated to Imposed Checks in May. These physical, documentary and testing inspections will remain in place until a minimum of 30 consecutive favorable results are achieved.

The UK importer has stopped receipt of the steam-cooked chicken product until the issue is resolved and is testing all their uncooked product on arrival into the UK for Salmonella. An investigation by Ukrainian authorities has resulted in risk management measures being taken at the facilities of the manufacturer.

In late 2022, the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) reported that Finland had 89 cases while a few patients also lived in the Czech Republic, Estonia, France, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands, and Israel. 

Listeria incident
In a Listeria outbreak, there were three confirmed patients linked by microbiology and food history to a type of cheese. One person died. The UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) has declared the outbreak is over.

Investigations traced the source of all patients back to a producer of Baronet cheese and five product recalls were issued. More than 70 businesses were identified in the supply chain. Efforts involved preventing any further cross contamination where the cheese had been opened and cut. 

Patients were aged 59 or older and were from the south of England or London. One person fell sick in November 2022, while the other two became ill in February 2023.

The Old Cheese Room said it had changed a monthly testing regime to positive release, meaning that every batch of cheese is tested before it leaves the premises.

In a recent board meeting, FSA noted the incidence of foodborne illness was returning to pre-pandemic levels or higher. Work is ongoing looking at potential factors influencing the data. However, it was mentioned that weather conditions contributed to a Shiga toxin-producing E.coli (STEC) outbreak. 

Food fraud cases
The National Food Crime Unit (NFCU) is continuing to investigate suspected meat fraud as part of Operation Hawk. The FSA was alerted to fraud allegations in August 2021 and millions of documents were seized.

In March 2023, a warrant was executed at a company and three suspects were arrested in connection with the investigation linked to cooked meat products. New documents and digital files were recovered. 

In May, the FSA organized a roundtable and working groups with industry to protect against fraudulent criminal activity. This covered helping whistleblowers report concerns, the role of third party audits in passing on information to regulators to prevent fraud and how the agency can share intelligence-based alerts with industry. 

As part of another investigation, a suspect appeared in court in May, charged with four counts of conspiracy to steal and one of money laundering. A trial date has been set for July 2024.

Operation Aspen is looking into a series of alleged European distribution frauds with the value of the food products obtained reaching £600,000 ($760,000). In March, the suspect was charged with five food crime related offences.

FSA, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), the Animal and Plant Health Agency (APHA) and port health authorities in London have also been dealing with illegal export of poultry meat for human consumption from birds originating from an Avian Influenza protection zone. Meat was recalled to the UK and never reached its final destination.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)

FDA Commissioner Robert Califf this afternoon announced part of his plan to revise the agency’s organizational flow, focusing on the Office of Regulatory Affairs (ORA). Earlier this year, Califf announced he would reorganize the FDA and reinstate the position of deputy commissioner of foods.

“We know that in front of us is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to unify our fieldwork with the priorities of program offices and centers,” Califf said in his announcement.

“This is why I’m proposing a number of additional changes to ORA, including moving several of the office’s laboratories and merging its current compliance functions into those of the new HFP (Human Foods Program) and other agency product centers. These proposed changes are designed to help ensure the most strategic use of resources to meet the demands of our increasingly complex public health mission.” 

Some of Califf’s plan specifically refers to the agency’s post of deputy commissioner of foods, which will oversee all food operations and report directly to the commissioner. The food operations are currently handled by two agency administrators, with neither having responsibility for the entire food program.

As announced earlier this year, the deputy commissioner’s authority will include the Office of Regulatory Affairs, which is the focus of today’s announcement. The ORA’s core mission will be “conducting investigations, inspections, and imports for all FDA-regulated products, with assignments planned in partnership with the HFP and other product programs or centers,” according to Califf’s plan.

Two former key FDA administrators have reservations about the ORA changes.

Mike Taylor is a retired FDA deputy commissioner for foods and is now co-chairman of the board of STOP Foodborne Illness. When he was with the FDA, he led the efforts behind the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA), which was signed into law in 2011. Taylor says Califf’s plan falls short.

“Moving the food labs out of ORA is a positive step toward a unified foods program, but I remain concerned that FDA continues to portray ORA’s core mission in terms of the traditional reactive functions of investigations, inspections, and import screening,” Taylor told Food Safety News.  

“The food field mission certainly includes these functions but, under FSMA’s prevention model, must be so much broader. It still remains to be seen whether the deputy commissioner will have both the formal and practical authority over ORA’s leadership team and resources to shift the field focus from reaction to a holistic prevention strategy.”

As it currently stands, the FDA does not have a clear chain of command as it did when Taylor was deputy commissioner. Instead, two administrators with authority over different aspects of a food safety report to Commissioner Califf. That leaves the regulation and enforcement of food safety measures fragmented and without a clear chain of command.

Currently, the FDA’s post of deputy commissioner for food policy and response — which was vacated earlier this year when Frank Yiannas resigned — is left to face off with the director of the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN) when it comes to the nation’s food safety programs and the enforcement of them. 

Yiannas says that division helped slow the FDA’s response to an outbreak of illnesses among babies linked to infant formula and the subsequent infant formula shortage crisis. He was not notified of key whistleblower information as soon as the CFSAN director, even though a key part of his job description was to respond to food safety problems.

Some of the changes planned by Califf regarding the FDA’s Office of Regulatory Affairs will take the agency in the wrong direction according to Yiannas.

“While I believe today’s announcement is well-intentioned, it is not sufficiently strategic, creative, nor bold enough for the once-in-a-generation opportunity the FDA acknowledges it has at hand to modernize itself for the 21st century,” Yiannas told Food Safety News. “And it still falls short of the direction recently provided by a House Oversight committee for FDA to establish a fully empowered deputy commissioner for food with direct line authority — not only for resources — but also for the people who work on food. Therefore, I hope FDA’s thinking on this issue continues to evolve and eventually aligns with the broad stakeholder consensus on this matter. 

“Lastly, while this might get missed by many stakeholders, the transitioning of certain functions under the Office of Security and Emergency Management, currently in the Office of Operations, to ORA is deeply concerning. 

“If this group is transitioned to ORA, I hope there is no loss in the amazing functionality that exists in this group. If there’s any time that the agency cannot skip a beat, it’s in a crisis, and this group has proven itself over and over again as best-in-class at what they do.”

Nuts and bolts

Commissioner Calif is proposing the following changes: 

• Establishing ORA’s core mission as conducting investigations, inspections and imports for all FDA-regulated products, with assignments planned in partnership with the HFP and other product programs or Centers. The new Deputy Commissioner for Human Foods will have oversight of all budget and resource allocations for the entire HFP, including ORA resources. 

• Merging compliance functions currently managed within ORA into the HFP and the product centers’ existing compliance functions to streamline operations and expedite decision-making. 

• Realigning the eight Human and Animal Food laboratories that are currently managed by ORA into the HFP. These eight labs will team up with the four labs in the FDA’s current Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition to form a unified food laboratory enterprise under the HFP. The labs will report to a member of the executive leadership team under the Deputy Commissioner for Human Foods, who will work closely with the Chief Scientist and the Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) director to coordinate on research priorities. These labs will remain open and in the same geographic location under the proposal. 

• Transitioning certain functions under the Office of Security and Emergency Management, currently in the Office of Operations, to ORA. This includes the Office of Emergency Management, which activates Incident Management Groups with augmented staffing from relevant Centers and Offices to monitor and manage coordinated responses to emergency situations, such as emergencies involving regulated products like recalls, hurricanes, fires, floods, etc. 

• As previously shared, unifying state and local food safety partnership functions and certain aspects of international food safety partnerships into an Office of Integrated Food Safety System Partnerships in the HFP. This office will report to a member of the executive leadership team under the Deputy Commissioner for Human Foods who will closely collaborate with the CVM director to advance a truly integrated food safety system. 
• Reviewing support functions across ORA and proposing realignment of certain resources and personnel to support these changes. This includes staff and resources in ORA’s Office of Regulatory Management Operations, Office of Information Systems Management, Office of Training, and Office of Communications and Project Management. 

• Prioritizing recruitment, retention and training opportunities for field-based employees with the availability of Title 21 hiring authority to support the agency’s ongoing efforts to increase its inspectional activities domestically and internationally. 

Califf says the changes are partly based on a review of the infant formula crisis this past year. He contends they would empower the deputy commissioner for human foods. 

A search for the person to be named deputy commissioner is underway. The FDA is also seeking someone to fill the new post of associate commissioner for regulatory affairs who will lead the Office of Regulatory Affairs.

“The FDA is in the final stages of the recruitment process for the Deputy Commissioner for Human Foods and will be providing an update in the near future. The FDA remains on target to finalize its reorganization proposal, for both ORA and the unified HFP, this fall,” according to Califf’s announcement this afternoon.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here)

The endeavor unites a group of scientists from ARS, universities, and the food industry, each specializing in various fields, to combat Salmonella, a foodborne pathogen that infects a million Americans annually. The challenge aligns with the ongoing efforts of the USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) to develop a more effective strategy for reducing human Salmonella illnesses associated with poultry.

The primary objective of ARS is to integrate its research and expand understanding of how and where Salmonella poses the highest risk of contamination in meat and poultry products. This knowledge will prove invaluable in developing enhanced monitoring tools for meat and poultry producers to detect Salmonella contamination.

Salmonella, the bacterium responsible for the illness known as salmonellosis, is present in nearly every corner of our environment — from animals (including pets) to food, water, soil, and even the air. Individuals infected with Salmonella experience a range of symptoms including diarrhea, fever, abdominal cramps, chills, headache, nausea, and vomiting. The infection can result in long-term health complications and even death in severe cases.

To tackle this pervasive issue, the ARS team will combine their ongoing research efforts by combining, standardizing, and coordinating their work to create unified datasets. This collaborative approach will enable them to identify broader trends, emerging threats, and innovative strategies for mitigating Salmonella.

There are more than 2,500 types of Salmonella bacteria, each presenting different risks across various production systems. To effectively manage the vast amount of data, the research team will employ machine-learning tools, streamlining the analysis and integration process. The collaborative nature of the project will foster knowledge-sharing among researchers, potentially leading to groundbreaking discoveries.

The Salmonella Grand Challenge will empower researchers to deepen their understanding of Salmonella risks, develop accurate predictive models, and create monitoring tools specifically tailored for meat and poultry producers. Ultimately, the team aims to contribute to the Healthy People 2030 objective of reducing salmonellosis cases by 25 percent.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)

The Alert and Cooperation Network (ACN) includes the Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed Network (RASFF), the Administrative Assistance and Cooperation Network (AAC), and the Agri-Food Fraud Network (FFN).

The AAC and the FFN registered the highest number of notifications ever seen while RASFF notices were down in 2021, largely because of an improvement in the ethylene oxide situation.

The annual ACN report, published by the European Commission, shows there was a significant increase in agri-food fraud activity during the year but RASFF remained the most active network. A total of 4,361 notifications were transmitted through RASFF linked to health risks in food or feed.

Also, 2,554 Administrative Assistance and Cooperation notices or non-compliances with European Union legislation, which do not present an immediate health risk, were reported with another 600 suspected cases of fraud reported.

RASFF alerts down
Among all RASFF notifications in 2022, 3,904 concerned food, while others were because of feed and food contact materials. Almost 1,000 were linked to pesticide residues in fruits and vegetables or herbs and spices, which was down when compared to 2021. The most common pesticides were chlorpyrifos, ethylene oxide and 2-chloroethane, and chlorpyrifos-methyl.

Pathogenic microorganisms were the second most reported hazard category in food. Salmonella was the main pathogen with more than 600 notifications, followed by Listeria monocytogenes with 132 and 41 for E. coli, all primarily detected in products of animal origin. A total of 190 Salmonella notifications concerned poultry meat products from Poland, while for Listeria the top category was fish and fish products.

In 2022, 41 notifications on foodborne outbreaks were sent in RASFF. A dozen identified Salmonella as the probable cause, seven were linked to Listeria monocytogenes, five to histamine poisoning, and four to norovirus. Seven notifications were related to multi-country outbreaks.

Mycotoxins were the third main hazard category with 485 notifications. These were mainly the detection of aflatoxins, and the product category was nuts, nut products, and seeds. Origin was the United States on 53 occasions. Allergens were mentioned in 210 notifications, with cereals and bakery products as the main product category and milk as the most common allergen notified.

Border rejections were the only notification type that increased from 2021. The top reported notification basis for goods detected on the market was official controls, followed by a company’s own check and a consumer complaint. On 45 occasions, food poisoning was mentioned.

In line with previous years, Germany was the most active notifying country in RASFF with 586 posts. The Netherlands was second with 559, followed by Belgium with 428 and Poland with 320.

The top EU countries in terms of origin were Poland with 312 notifications, the Netherlands with 257 and France with 226. Turkey was listed as the country of origin in 557 notifications and India in 299, mainly due to pesticide residues.

Almost 300 RASFF notifications were caused by pesticide residues in fruits and vegetables from Turkey and 190 by Salmonella in poultry meat products from Poland. Issues with food contact materials from China were third. Fourth was Salmonella in nuts, nut products, and seeds from Nigeria while aflatoxins in this product category from the United States was fifth. Sixth was Salmonella in herbs and spices from Brazil.

AAC and FFN highlights
Germany created more than a third of all notifications in the AAC system, followed by Belgium and Austria at about 10 percent each.

Two-thirds of notices involved goods coming from the EU and a third from outside the EU. More than 85 percent of notifications are related to food. The highest-reported product category was fruits and vegetables. Second, were dietetic foods, food supplements, and fortified foods and third were meat products other than poultry.

The main violation was faulty labeling or claims, non-compliant composition was second, followed by a lack or improper documentation or controls and faulty processing or storage conditions.

Notifications in FFN went up to 600 from 407 in 2021. The leading countries reporting fraud suspicions were Germany, Belgium, and France.

Almost three-quarters were for goods coming from the EU and a quarter from outside the EU. Of cases involving products of non-EU origin, 21 percent concerned China, mostly suspicions of adulteration in honey, followed by misdescription of fish products. A total of 12 percent concerned India, involving mainly alleged adulteration of shrimps by undeclared addition of water.

For products from the EU, cases in Spain covered suspected adulteration of squid products and mislabeling of olive oil as extra virgin olive oil. Incidents involving the Netherlands focused on misdescription and smuggling of animal products.

Follow-up of suspicious cross-border fraudulent activity led to the launch of actions such as the coordinated control plan to deter adulteration practices in honey.

Problems with live animals and horses continue to be recorded. Cases concern consignments of animals that have not undergone the necessary controls or are not fit for human consumption but are illegally brought into the food chain. Around half of the requests presented forgery or absence of animal passports and identification elements such as microchips, health certificates, or registration in national databases or TRACES and the other half were for smuggling and illegal trade.

Notifications on fish products mainly featured cases of substitution of fish with lower-value species. Other recurrent cases were the use of unapproved and undeclared treatments or processes such as color-stabilizing treatments of tuna to suggest a higher quality.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)

The move echoes the sentiment from a House committee, former FDA leaders, and experts in the field of food safety.

In recent years members of the House have been urging the Food and Drug Administration to unify its food programs under an empowered deputy commissioner. 

The topic came to the forefront a year ago when a House committee held a hearing related to the infant formula shortage crisis and an outbreak of cronobacter infections in babies. At that point, House members told FDA Commissioner Robert Califf that the lack of a clear chain of command in the foods program was obviously responsible, in part, for the infant formula situation and outbreak.

Califf initiated an in-house review as well as a review by the Reagan Udall Foundation for the FDA. The Reagan Udall report said a unified foods program with one person at the top was crucial for the food safety operations of the agency. That person, said the report, should be a deputy commissioner for foods who reports directly to the FDA Commissioner. The deputy commissioner should have authority over all foods and feed programs in the agency.

The review was lauded by consumer protection groups and former FDA leaders who called the move a common-sense approach to problems at the agency. Among those problems are a scattered approach to food safety, which is spread across the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, the Office of Regulatory Affairs, and the Deputy for food policy and Response, among other FDA entities. 

However, people who are closely watching the process say that the plan put forth by Califf does not go far enough because it does not ensure that the deputy commissioner’s post would have full authority over all of the aspects of the food programs at the FDA. 

The language in the Appropriations Bill 2024 for the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies, has a paragraph about the unification of the FDA’s foods program:

“Human Foods Program Restructuring. — The Committee directs FDA to unify the foods program under an expert, empowered Deputy Commissioner for Foods with full line authority over CFSAN, the food and feed-related activities of the Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM), and all the food-related components of the Office of Regulatory Affairs, including inspection and compliance, food-re-lated laboratories, import oversight, State partnerships, training, and information technology.”

Brian Ronholm, food policy director at Consumer Reports, said the move by the committee is good news, but he is not confident that it will make a difference.

“It’s very encouraging that the committee has sent a strong signal to the FDA on what the unification of the foods program should look like. They clearly believe that the current plan by the FDA is inadequate and won’t achieve the desired goal of increased transparency and accountability, and better governance” Ronholm told Food Safety News.

“Unfortunately, the agency has an extensive history of ignoring report language from Congress, so the language likely will not have an immediate effect, but it does establish a foundation for how meaningful reform should proceed.”

Two former FDA leaders, Mike Taylor, who is a former deputy commissioner, and Frank Yiannas who is the former deputy commissioner for food policy and response, are cautiously optimistic about the committee’s direction. They, along with Consumer Reports and other consumer protection groups and food safety experts, want to make sure that a unification plan includes an FDA deputy commissioner who has full authority to run the human foods programs instead of the starburst chain of command that is currently in place.

The FDA’s top three human foods operations — the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, the Deputy for food policy and Response, and the Office of Regulatory Affairs (ORA) — currently work separately and report directly to the FDA Commissioner. This setup is different the operations of the food programs that once reported to s single deputy commissioner for foods who had power over both operations and reported directly to the commissioner. 

Taylor, who served as the most recent deputy commissioner and had authority over all of the foods programs told Food Safety News that “incorporating the food elements of ORA into a truly unified food program is key to the cultural and programmatic overhaul needed to fulfill the Food Safety and Modernization Act’s (FSMA’s) prevention vision. The traditional approach to inspection and enforcement that works for drugs won’t suffice for the much different challenge of food safety.”

Yiannas was most recently deputy commissioner for food safety and response but did not have authority over the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition. He resigned earlier this year after voicing concerns about the lack of a direct line of a chain of command at the food program. During the infant formula crisis, he said he had not received information about the cronobacter outbreak even though the center officials had.

Yiannas told Food Safety News that he is “so grateful for the congressional language that includes an empowered deputy commissioner of foods.” He added that he hopes the FDA Commissioner follows the direction of elected officials.

“It is not a recommendation, it is a direction,” Yiannas said.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here)

2023 is the 60th anniversary of the Codex Alimentarius Commission and the 75th anniversary of WHO.

In 1963, following the endorsement of the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and WHO, the first session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission was held. Codex sets international standards for food safety and quality, to protect consumer health and promote fair practices in food trade.

While an agenda is not yet available, the event will take place in a hybrid format with in-person and online participation possible. It is set for July 13 at the Centre International de Conférences de Genève in Geneva, Switzerland.

Building towards new estimates
In related news, WHO’s Foodborne Disease Burden Epidemiology Reference Group (FERG) is to hold its fifth meeting virtually on June 15 and 19.

The main aims are to agree on the final list of considered hazards and associated health outcomes for the 2025 estimates on the burden of foodborne diseases and on a revised timeline for actions toward their publication.

Experts will discuss various methodological aspects for predicting the burden of foodborne infections, receive updates on the status of source attribution studies through expert elicitation and share updates on ongoing and planned country activities. 

The previous meeting was in November 2022. FERG published estimates in 2015 using 2010 data. Updated figures will be released in 2025 but the reference year has not yet been decided, with the influence of the COVID-19 pandemic being taken into account.

Focus on food standards for World Food Safety Day
Announcement of these events comes shortly after WHO and FAO marked World Food Safety Day on June 7.

Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, WHO Director-General, said every day an estimated 1.6 million people become sick from eating unsafe food, many of them small children.

“On World Food Safety Day, we recognize the critical role that governments and the private sector have in maintaining food standards, nutrition, and quality to protect health and well-being. This year we celebrate 60 years of Codex Alimentarius, established by FAO and WHO as the international standard-setting body, to protect consumer health and promote fair trade practices for food. Food systems are changing quickly and food safety faces increasing challenges due to climate change, population growth, new technologies, globalization and industrialization. Together, let’s make food safe today and every day because food standards save lives,” he said.

Over 200 diseases from diarrhea to cancers are caused by eating food contaminated with bacteria, viruses, parasites or chemicals.

QU Dongyu, FAO Director-General said the fifth World Food Safety Day was an important opportunity to raise awareness and inspire action.

“There cannot be food security and nutrition for all, without food safety. If a product is not safe to eat, we cannot call it food. Agrifood systems need to produce increasing amounts of safe and nutritious food to meet the needs of a rising global population. Food can only be safe if every person involved in its production, distribution, and preparation ensures its safety,” he said.

Help to meet standards
FAO has launched a website to help the sector meet international food hygiene standards. 

Described as a “toolbox”, the site aims to protect consumer health and promote fair practices in food trade. The content was developed and reviewed by FAO food safety officers and the Department of Food Science at the University of Guelph in Canada.  

The website includes guides to personal hygiene, such as how to educate visitors entering a food production site, the correct procedure and frequency for handwashing, and suggestions for appropriate clothing. There is a focus on small food business operators and producers in low- and middle-income countries.

Corinna Hawkes, FAO’s Director of Food Systems and Food Safety Division said: “It provides not only the internationally agreed upon principles of food safety but also sets a common language, which in turn provides a framework and a commonality within which countries can negotiate and food businesses can communicate on food safety amongst themselves.”

It is initially available in English, French, and Spanish. The plan is to collect feedback and possibly expand the toolbox to provide more in-depth guidance for other sectors, such as fisheries.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here)

José Emilio Esteban said standards set in Codex are science-based and the science is applicable worldwide.

“They are established at every stage in the food production process. So they cover pathogens and contaminants as well as safe food handling practices for those that are growing, processing, packaging, distributing, and preparing your food. The reason we follow Codex standards is everybody in the world is entitled to the same quality and safety of food. It is important that the standards we develop are applied to large and small producers and to make sure everybody has the same target when it comes to the safety of food,” he said.

Several webinars were held this week discussing food safety standards as part of the World Health Organization’s (WHO) Health Talks around World Food Safety Day on June 7.

Esteban, a previous chair of the Codex Committee on Food Hygiene, gave examples of how Codex work is used in the United States.

“The USDA worked with the EPA and FDA in establishing the national residue program to conduct surveillance for chemical residues in meat, poultry, and egg products in FSIS. We take the input from Codex on the allowable levels and that informs the amounts we will be allowing or not in our food supply. It also helps us shape our response and establish our risk-ranking models to manage those hazards adequately,” he said.

“Another example is Codex labeling standards, I can’t see anything more important for consumers than to have accurately labeled products for them to make decisions on how to handle, manage, and what they are getting to put on the table for their families. Those standards for labeling allow consumers to have confidence in products that are imported and exported. If we follow Codex guidelines and make regulatory decisions based on those principles we would be saving lives.”

Salmonella and cultured meat
Esteban said the USDA is data-driven. He cited figures from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that show the U.S. has roughly 1.4 million illnesses attributed to Salmonella each year. About 23 percent of that is attributed to the consumption of poultry products.

“We are in the midst of completely reassessing how we address Salmonella control in poultry. Over the next few months, you’ll see a lot of activity in this direction. We are trying to minimize the impact and come up with a new framework. Ultimately, the responsibility of producing safe food is that of the producers, the government is there to verify the food is safe,” he said.

Upcoming cultured meat developments were also highlighted by Esteban.

“There are other countries that have already done it but for us, this is a gigantic shift. It’s important to realize there is a place for traditional food, a place for standard food, and now there will be a place for novel types of foods. We need to make sure we offer food security for the world. The bottom line and what drives me every day when I wake up is everybody is entitled to safe food and we have to work as hard as we can to ensure everybody gets safe and nutritious food every day.”

WFP: Joining food safety and food security pieces
Virginia Siebenrok, from the World Food Programme, said the agency daily walks a line balancing food safety and food security.

“In emergency response, we don’t know where the emergency will hit and when. We operate by buying a lot of food with a long shelf life and placing it in hubs across the globe so it is ready in case of an emergency. As you can imagine, it is very tricky to buy these foods without knowing the final recipient country. When bringing in food, one of the main risks is you are going into an area you have never been before and you have little contact with the end consumer. You need to make decisions quickly in a crisis situation. Standards play a big role in this, we don’t have aligned standards around the globe, not even regionally often, so this is challenging,” she said.

“We have a very long and fragmented supply chain. One example is a specialized nutritious food that has around 18 months of shelf life. It is produced in the U.S. and transported from Houston overseas to one of our hubs in Togo, this trip takes a month. When it reaches this port it is transported to a warehouse and then by truck inland over 20 days and three countries until it reaches the final destination. You can imagine the challenges we have in terms of transportation, maintaining shelf life, nutritional aspects, and the trade barriers we may encounter.”

Inclusion of fresher foods
In the case of airdrops, food is selected based on its resilience and robustness of packaging.

“We rely a lot on grains and pulses but we also have nutritional foods specially designed to meet the needs of the society we are operating in, either to treat or prevent acute malnutrition in pregnant women or children. Recently we have been moving towards having operations with fresh foods, which brings a different type of challenge. We have shifted a lot from buying just internationally from large suppliers to local suppliers and in this setting, we rely on local standards,” said Siebenrok.

She also spoke about malnutrition, giving an example of a peanut-based peanut. 

“As you may know allergen regulations are varied and not aligned, so the challenge of producing this food which is highly specialized and normally produced in a few specific locations, shipping across the globe and still ensuring we have the right labeling and are applying the correct regulations demands a lot of discussions with local government, research, and many resources to ensure the writing of every specification,” she said.

“Another big problem is school meals. The main challenge here is we need to work locally with the quality and safety of the preparation of the food. Where is it procured? Is the local regulatory framework strong enough to allow for this to be safe? This also includes foods from indigenous communities.” 

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here)