Food Safety and Environmental Health Blog : Disease Prevention, Public Health, Sanitation Information & Analysis : Environ Health Associates

The following MSNBC story about caterers having the highest risk is right on.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38420815/ns/health-food_safety/
 

This has also been my experience as an investigator. The reasons for this include time and temperature abuse due to large batch cooking in advance of service sometimes 48 hours in advance, excessive handling of ready to eat foods (NoV), and facilities that are either unlicensed or woefully inadequate (cross contamination, etc, etc.). In Florida we had a campaign to get the caterers licensed.back in the 90's. We required that catering trucks for example report daily to a commissary under inspection. We also got a state law passed (back in good old days before all food safety legislation came from industry lobbies) requiring that they put their license number up on the  delivery truck and anywhere they advertised.

Unfortunately, we estimated there were hundreds if not thousands of unlicensed caterers in Florida. They stretched all the way from neighborhood ladies baking wedding cakes (for sale) to those providing full meal service in catering halls, to vehicles delivering food to work sites, and even some preparing food for large conventions.

Too bad ignorant people are willing to hire a caterer without checking to see they are licensed and inspected. We gave up on running them down as it took so much time to ferret them out, catch them, and prosecute them (and fine them a few hundred dollars). I personally uncovered dozens of unlicensed caterers in the Central Florida area just going through phone books and ads in penny-savers and newspapers. Just another hole in the safety net that few seem to care about.

Glad this data is coming to light, but fixing this will not be easy.

Also see 30.jul.10, barfblog, Doug Powell

http://www.barfblog.com/blog/143437/10/07/30/are-catered-meals-biggest-source-foodborne-illness-americahttp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38420815/ns/health-food_safety/

http://barfblog.foodsafety.ksu.edu/blog/141211/10/03/08/anyone-can-prepare-food-and-make-people-barf-north-dakota

http://barfblog.foodsafety.ksu.edu/blog/143413/10/07/29/57-people-barfing-after-weddings-illinois-banquet-hall

http://barfblog.foodsafety.ksu.edu/blog/138935/09/10/12/consumer-groups-industry-lots-others-misuse-food-safety-data-political-gain


 

Beth Bland of the Goegia Fruit and Vegetable Growers Association makes some interesting points in her comments to the FDA. See:

http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#documentDetail?R=0900006480b1eb50

The association voices the opinion of many that third party audit schemes have taken a life of their own and now constitute a greater burden for the primary producer than is necessary to ensure food safety. Please see my letter to the associaition in response

Dear Ms Bland:

I read your good comments circulating now and your thoughts on third party audit schemes. The issues you brought up are real and need to be addressed.

The third party audit model should not take the place of government inspection. Only government inspectors have legal authority to protect the public. Third party schemes have developed to protect the buyer in the absence of government regulation, as you have correctly opined. Third party audits do in fact also protect the public, but a third party auditor cannot stop an unsafe operation, embargo a product or enforce a recall. These powers to protect the public are clearly the governments' job. Additionally, some buyers might go around the system when they need product.

As a third party auditor, consultant and former regulatory official, I have seen both sides of the picture. The business of food safety has many problems. I believe that if FDA eventually has the manpower and the authority to enforce GAP standards, the buyers will accept a satisfactory FDA inspection as an indication that the firm has food safety programs in place. The third party scheme will eventually become a best practices model that the buyers can use to separate the good, from the best. Third party audits will not go away because buyers want assurance that the infrastructure of the organization is soundly built around food safety. Government inspectors do not go that far, looking only at the facts about sanitation they see during the inspection, and this snapshot does not tell the whole story.

The two systems together will deliver both the assurance that bad operations do not continue to operate, and will satisfy the buyer that the integrity of the food safety management system is in place for the good and best operations. I believe a scaling back of third party audits will generally take place and my role will change to more consulting and less auditing

I commend you and you organization for supporting food safety, and your sincerety. I was in Tifton Ga., with Kiley Harper (RC Hatton), for the meeting with FDA this spring and your industry was well represented and very well informed. Both Kiley and I were on the water safety panel and we addressed many of your concerns about water quality and how to measure it, but we certainly do not have all the answers. Most irrigation water systems I see have no problems meeting the LGMA standard, but we do not see a lot of foliar application of surface water here in Florida, either.

We do not have a definitive answer as you know, on what constitutes a good irrigation water test result; or at what level of bacterial indicator we should expect a pathogen, or more fundamentally, the best indicator. Only applied research over a long period can establish this in produce irrigation water, if at all.

On the up side, we are seeing a big improvement in produce borne outbreaks, not having a large scale domestic incident for quite some time (since peppers/tpmatoes).

Positive actions by you and your group are accomplishing much and food safety folks like myself appreciate what you are doing.

Thanks very much.

So now we have an idea what eliminating health inspections is all about in Florida. The republican congressman from Florida who chairs the House Health Care Appropriations Committee (vice chair), a Mr. Frishe, says he has gone through a kitchen before and thus is a qualified health inspector.
 
Further, Frishe sees no reason DCF and AHCA workers can't inspect kitchens and questions the need for a bachelor of science degree for food-service inspectors. "I've gone through kitchens before and I know what to look for," said Frishe.
 
Frishe also says, harshly, "A group (of legislators) would just love to dismantle the DOH," said Rep. James Frishe, R-St. Petersburg, vice chairman of the House Health Care Appropriations Committee. "That vote was to send a message." 
 
Thanks for your message. We get it, congressman, loud and clear. 
 
What an incredibly bad understanding about what it takes to ensure food safety and an arrogant and freaky demonstration of total ignorance.  Not to mention a complete disregard for public health and safety.
 
Whether you are a regulator or not, all food safety folks should monitor this ugly situation in Florida.
 
Again, a link to a good overview of the situation.
 
http://www.healthnewsflorida.org/index.cfm/go/public.articleView/article/18643
 

Food safety has risen to a mainstream issue in the last few years. The reasons behind the rising interest of the public have to do with increasing risks. These risks have resulted in numerous contaminated products, hunderds of large recalls, billions in losses, hunderds of millions in lawsuits and thousands of illness and deaths. How is it possible that our fourth largest state, Florida, would remove public health protection from some of its most vulnerable populations at a time like this? Our public health agencies and the protections they offer to "at risk populations" are without political support and governmental decisions can be easily influenced by money and political power; those are the only logical answers.

Florida has a long history of attacking public health protections. In 1992, the last year health inspectors completed the required inspections in food service operations, the powerful Florida Restaurant Association successfully moved the restaurant inspection program from the then HRS Office of Restaurant Programs to the then Department of Business Regulation, a licensing agency- not a public health agency. This shift also triggered massive realignments of agency responsibilities, transfers of hundreds of positions, and the disorganizing of what was at that time a well run and efficient  inspection operation. The problems continued to plague DBR from thence forth, and the situation was made worse through another reorganization that created the Department of Business and Professional Regulation and yet another reorganization that took place saw Florida's Division of Hotels and Restaurants lose 20 key field positions.

Now we see a similar effort by lobbies to remove public health inspectors from institutions such as childcare centers, hospitals and nursing homes and give the licensing authority the responsibility for public health protection. History is repeating itself and the consequences will come. The situation with foodborne illness outbreaks in Institutions has been remarkably lower than in restaurants. Only about 10% of the food borne illness outbreaks investigated by the health department (yes they would still be responsible for that) are attributed to institutional food service.

Florida holds the number one ranking in foodborne illness reported in the nation. Some of this has to be looked at in terms of the remaining Department of Health DOH environmental epidemiologists in the field and their excellent work uncovering outbreaks, but the fact is the numbers are too high. We do not want to repeat these mistakes, but we here in Florida are all too familiar with Tallahassee's good ol' boy backroom politics and the tactics of industry lobbies.

Its a shame our government lets the people down time and again in favor of special business interests, but this latest attack on public health protection and the safety of food for kids, old folks and those already ill is a new low for Florida.

Please see the following article for more information.

FLORIDA: New law removes health inspectors
25.jul.10
Tampa Bay Online
Carl Orth
www2.tbo.com/content/2010/jul/25/pa-new-law-removes-health-inspectors/

Please see the article from Bites, below, thanks again to Doug Powell at Kansas State.
 
Where are our US public health scientists when food safety/public health regulatory agencies get in a corner? They just do not show up on the scene to take a stand against the political pressure from industry. The US public health science community appears co-opted, fractured, isolated in thier institutions and totally oblivious to these challenges. US Public health scientists when they are interested in food get their grants and quietly do their research in less controversial areas such as diet, nutrition, and security and are basically not heard when it comes to food safety. They rarely provide credibility to the need for public health protection.
 
We saw this in Florida last month when the state legislature abolished public health protection programs for our most vulnerable populations, we saw no support for public health, not the media, the medical community, not the universities and its scientists, and not the consumer. It seems nobody is outraged when Florida nursing homes, childcare centers and hospitals lose public health protection programs. Our agencies over here are sitting ducks for the industry who uses their political fire power through lobbies to shoot them down, because food safety rules require effort and expense and interfere with business. 
 
Here in the UK, amazingly, we have a food industry trade group correcting the Guardian for supporting the de-regulation of the food industry and standing up for food safety! And a respected sceintist speaking out! 
 
Congratulations, at least they are putting up a fight.
 
UK: We will all be losers if the FSA is abolished
14.jul.10
The Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jul/14/fsa-abolish-food-safety-environment
Melanie Leech, Director general, Food and Drink Federation, writes that contrary to your article (Victory for food firms as safety watchdog axed, 12 July), we understand that no decision has been made about the future of the Food Standards Agency. Your story claimed that food manufacturers had been lobbying to close down the FSA. However, as the voice of UK food and drink manufacturing, the Food and Drink Federation has consistently supported the need for an independent, well-funded food safety regulator. The FSA has been highly effective in this role in the 10 years since its creation, not least in ensuring that consumer confidence in the food we eat has grown significantly. Were its independent role to be abolished, neither the industry nor the consumers would be the winners.

Jon Poole, Chief executive, Institute of Food Science & Technology, writes the demise of the FSA would be regarded by many as a loss – including the food industry itself. The Institute of Food Science & Technology, an independent professional body, has seen the FSA working closely with the industry over the past few years. The adversarial style of relationship suggested in your reports is neither accurate nor helpful. During its existence, the FSA has provided coherent strategy and direction on issues such as reductions in saturated fat and salt and in food-borne diseases such as campylobacter in chicken, as well as regulating food business operators. These are all still live issues and the functions of the FSA, in whatever form, will continue to be needed in the future. Very few in the sector would see its break-up as a positive step.