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

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
 

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.
 

I referred this “anonymous sanitation complainant” to the proper authorities in the jurisdiction in question. This message brings up some very interesting points:

1. Working conditions and health of employees and the duty of the employer

2. Attitudes about cleanliness

3. Motivation

4. Self esteem

5. Communications

6. Duty to the public

7. Duty to the firm

I don’t think the health department can fix all of these problems. 

REGARDING: My Compliant

PROBLEM: Everything is falling apart. Roaches are EVERYWHERE. The place has a very unclean atmosphere.

I have problems keeping myself in the mood to continue my employment there. But if anything, maybe this letter will find the right ears and maybe something can be done.

I'm not sure how much I've eaten from that restaurant, but now that I work there and have seen 1st hand the environment in which the food is subject to (roaches crawling on walls, floors, equipment; finding roaches in drink mixes) - the place is NASTY and I cannot find another job at the moment to get out of blank.

I request to be ANONYMOUS - If I can be entitled to some claim\suit after seeing how the food has been prepared and served in such an environment, food that I have eaten most recently, I feel I've been violated, my trust misplaced, my money wasted on food that is not of high quality.

Please let me know my options or what you or anyone else can do.

Abstract: The safety of produce and its production has come under scrutiny as the results of repeated and serious outbreaks of foodborne illness. Environmental health standards for sanitation, personal hygiene, water, and soil quality during farming operations are now recognized as critical for the safety of produce. Public health and rregulatory initiatives targeting produce are underway in Florida, California, and other jurisdictions as a result of numerous outbreaks of E. coli O157:H7 and Salmonella. The California Senate last year approved three bills designed to implement tougher food safety rules for growers and handlers of spinach and other leafy greens. In addition, the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) is administering a voluntary California Leafy Greens Marketing Agreement (Marketing Agreement) requiring Good Agricultural Practices (GAP). Florida is regulating tomato safety through the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (DACS). Environmental health practitioners have many of the skills needed to address the challenge of regulating on-farm food safety. State public health agencies are applying public health protection programs to farms and  the role of the sanitarian/environmental health specialist is essential. 

Environmental Health on the Farm

The safety of produce depends on many environmental health factors from the farm to the consumer’s plate. For example, intensive farming of leafy green vegetables occurs in the Salinas Valley on the central coast of California. In this location, farms are subject to flooding from the polluted Salinas River and its tributaries. One major source of pollution in the basin is the surface water run off from the valley’s extensive cattle operations. In addition to polluted water, reservoirs of pathogens include workers, cattle, manure, and wildlife. Once produce is contaminated, pathogens are difficult to remove. Modern distribution and processing systems contribute to the rapid and wide dispersion of contamination if it occurs. There is also a high demand for fresh-cut (processed) produce at the retail level. High demand has increased the amount of processed produce in the marketplace and the numbers of people potentially exposed to farm pathogens. These factors, mostly related to the environment crops are grown in, are causing large and numerous outbreaks of foodborne illness. Experts now recognize the farm as a critical link in the safety of the nation’s food supply and environmental health professionals are now at work in this area.

Following environmental health standards in farming is a new concept. Traditionally, environmental health programs have not focused on produce safety on the farm, but legislatures are now  considering laws and rules to stop the spread of disease through produce, as they have done in the past with milk, seafood and meat. Environmental health programs at all levels must expand to confront the risks to public health posed by human health hazards originating in the farming environment.

Recent Produce Outbreaks

In 2006, produce-borne E coli O157:H7 in spinach and lettuce, and Salmonella in tomatoes, caused several well-publicized and serious outbreaks. In the spinach outbreak, contaminated produce eventually reached 26 states and caused over 200 cases and at least 3 deaths. California leafy greens caused a total of 22 reported outbreaks in the last 12 years, and the Salinas Valley was the source of produce in nine of them. The “Investigation of an Escherichia coli O157:H7 Outbreak Associated with Dole Prepackaged Spinach”, released March 21, 2007, may be the first investigation to link a produce-borne pathogen to a specific US farm[1]. Close on the heels of the spinach outbreak, investigators traced California grown lettuce to 2 outbreaks E coli O157:H7 at two national taco chains. In 2008 the US experienced one of its worst outbreaks of salmonella through contaminated produce with both peppers and tomatoes associated with illnesses.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2008_June_6/ai_n25489057

California’s Proposed Regulations and Voluntary Programs

California legislatures are seeking to make the California Department of Health the regulator of mandatory on-farm food safety under a series of bills sponsored by state Sen. Dean Florez^[2]  A competing industry level program is already in place, and it is questionable whether the bills have strong industry support. The voluntary program is an industry effort supported by the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA). Most of the largest produce growers in California this March signed on to the “California Leafy Greens Marketing Agreement” (Marketing Agreement) allowing the CDFA to conduct GAP (Good Agricultural Practices) inspections on farms, packinghouses and processing plants^[3],[4]. With 99% of produce grown in California under the Marketing Agreement, and inspections and audits occurring, farms will more consistently apply Good Agricultural Practices. However, there is skepticism about the sufficiency of voluntary controls alone. If we experience another large outbreak with leafy greens, calls will undoubtedly arise again for public health agencies to intervene.

Weakness in the Buyer Driven Food Safety Model

FDA first published a “Draft Guidance for Industry; Guide to Minimize Microbial Food Safety Hazards of Fresh-cut Fruits and Vegetables” in 1998, and in March of 2007 issued a “Final Draft” form^[5]. The Guide met with general approval by agriculture, but compliance still remains “non-binding”. Industry at some level has adopted the guidance, but compliance is not uniform and we continue to see significant outbreaks involving fruits and vegetables. The FDA also published the “Commodity Specific Food Safety Guidelines for the Lettuce and Leafy Greens Supply Chain.-1st Edition” in 2006^[6]and a second edition in February of 2007. This guidance also lacks the force of regulations, and how well the supply chain follows FDA guidance is unknown. For these reasons, many feel there is a need for a specific body of rules that all must follow.

Because industry with or without mandatory rules must still supply a safe product, the produce industry has been operating a self-regulating “buyer-driven” food safety system. Although buyers value the safety of products, economic realities may limit the strength of this voluntary approach. There is no requirement for buyers to be so food safety conscious that they  constrict the supply of produce that they rely on, and price must always be a major factor in a buying decision.

Strengthening the Buyer Driven Food Safety Model through Regulation

In the absence of a regulatory presence, third party auditing firms together with management and the buyers themselves provide the oversight in the buyer-driven model. Third party auditors unlike their regulatory counterparts “inspectors”, do not approve suppliers, enforce standards or decide what products enter commerce. Third party audits provide an assessment of compliance with one of several voluntary food safety standards generally based on FDA guidance documents. While there is much interplay and coordination between the two sectors, third parties act independently of government.

The current trend is for  the major wholesale buyers, Albertsons, Wal-Mart, McDonalds, Publix Markets, and other large food retailers to request a third party audit of a produce supplier as a condition of approval. The model needs strengthening because while audits may be thorough and the audit findings comprehensive, as previously explained, buyers make decisions based on factors other than audit results. In the end, the final decision to select or reject a produce supplier rests with the buyer and his needs at the time. Buyers evaluate audit criteria, but also base decisions partly on quality, quantity, and the economics of supply and demand. A complimentary regulatory program would strengthen this model.

While it seems logical that the federal government should administer the program, the State Departments of Health or Agriculture are in a better position than federal agencies to regulate produce. FDA reports it cannot move swiftly enough to meet the current challenges in regulating the nation’s produce supply and questions whether its own regulations will work ⁽⁷⁾. USDA currently does not have any jurisdiction over on-farm food safety, and experts agree that federal laws would take years to put into place.

Proposed Mandatory State Rules-“The California Produce Safety Action Plan”

In February, 2007, California Senator Dean Florez, introduced “The California Produce Safety Action Plan”, a package of senate bills designed to bring mandatory rules to California produce growing operations for the first time. These bills are in response to the deadly E. coli O157:H7 outbreaks that have hurt the leafy green industry in California. “After 22 E. coli outbreaks associated with leafy greens, we know that market forces have not been strong enough to bring reform to the leafy green industry”, Florez said, during his remarks to the California senate. “For years” he explained, “the federal government through the FDA has been left to writing open letters practically begging the industry to act. None of it has worked” he added, “it’s time that government does its job.”  While these bills met with opposition and are struggling to move forward, the structure of the bills provides valuable insight into how environmental health regulations can be structured.

Bills introduced by Sen. Flores in California

SB 200

The first bill, SB 200, allows the California Department of Health Services (DHS) the authority to effectively manage and protect the public safety in the event of an E. coli outbreak. It includes the authority to-

• Quarantine
• Recall, and
• Destroy infected produce

SB 200 also creates the Leafy Green Inspection Program at DHS. Inspectors will inspect farms under this program. DHS inspectors will have the authority to conduct their own investigations and take action to protect public health, including the quarantine of produce.

SB 201

SB 201 mandates the application of GAP. DHS will act as the gatekeeper and create regulations for the industry to follow.

SB 201 also requires DHS to develop Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point Plans (HACCP) systems for leafy greens and requires growers to develop a plan for each growing location and to keep records.

SB 202

SB 202 requires the creation of a trace-back system. This system will require product coding to identify the source of the product all the way to the specific farm where it was grown.

Produce Inspection Duties

If such rules come into practice the regulator tasked with seeking compliance must acquire a high level skill specific to farming operations. The regulator must validate the management controls in place, verify the effectiveness of GAP application, and  be able to identify or estimate levels of contamination.

The roles of the inspector would include auditing records, making visual inspections, ensuring farmers meet GAP standards, and performing tests. Specific duties might include:

·           Testing of water

·           Testing of soil

·           Testing of produce

·           Prohibiting use of raw manure

·           Prohibiting the use of creek water for irrigation

·           Prohibiting the use of portable toilets in the fields themselves

·           Maintaining buffer zones around various hazards

·           Overseeing composting operations

·           Approving grazing land set backs

·           Septic tank installation approval

·           Evaluating Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO) set backs

·           Testing water sources (ponds / creeks / lakes / rivers, etc.)

·           Validating recall procedures

·           Verifying trace back and trace forward systems

Florida Tomato Initiative

In Florida, enforceable standards are required in the tomato industry. Florida tomato growers successfully asked our state legislature for regulation. Under Florida Administrative Rule 5Q-6 these measures and inspections will begin this fall. "We want mandatory inspections to bring everybody that handles tomatoes in the state in the loop to comply with food safety," said Tony DiMare, vice president of Homestead-based DiMare companies, one of the state's largest tomato growers in a story published recently in the Palm Beach Post^[7]. "We wanted to take a proactive approach and stay ahead of the curve". The importance of this initiative is underscored by the fact that although Florida was not shipping tomatoes during the early outbreak of this year, the Florida tomato industry lost millions due to fears of  potential contamination

The law takes effect before the fall planting season and is under the auspices of inspectors with the State of Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services.. While the largest tomato operations in the state see the advantage of regulation, many of the small and mid-sized growers will feel a serious impact due to new rules covering mandatory washing and temperature controls for products.

https://www.flrules.org/gateway/chapterhome.asp?chapter=5g-6

Environmental Professionals and Produce Regulations

Environmental health professionals have experience in most key areas important to produce safety. New regulations will require regulators to quickly assimilate knowledge about GAP and apply the principles of GAP to their inspection duties. The FDA guidance documents are a good place to start assimilating knowledge but understanding how the industry applies GAP will take some experience. Determining a grower’s compliance with GAP requires familiarity with Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP), especially the process of validating and verifying HACCP systems at all levels of the produce supply chain. The produce industry is actively applying HACCP to growing, harvesting, packing and processing.

Regulators will evaluate and interpret microbial data. To assess the effectiveness of on-farm food safety programs regulators need working knowledge of basic microbiological sampling methods and testing procedures for products, water and soil. Sanitarians will also need to stay aware of current research and emerging scientific findings. They will take on the job of assisting in mitigation of microbiological hazards and need an understanding of how pathogens contaminate produce and how to assess risks. To ensure their own efforts are successful, regulators must base regulatory decisions on sound scientific evidence.

Throughout the history of public health, sanitarians have played an important part in food protection. With experience in so many key areas, environmental health professionals will undoubtedly make a valuable contribution to on-farm-food-safety through regulation. Public health regulation will enhance what the produce industry is doing now, improve its food safety record, and restore consumer confidence in a healthful and safe produce supply.

References

Who Owns Public Health Protection?

In an ideal world, the government would have the capacity, resources and determination to ensure public health and safety and government would essentially own food safety as one of its key initiatives, controlling the food industry through laws administered by public health agents of the government. This is the way it was for many years. In the very recent past, when the US food supply seemed “the safest in the world” there was little private sector involvement in food safety and the private practice of food safety served mainly as reinforcement for the strong position held by government. Such industry level efforts did not compete with government for “market share” or a piece of government food safety programs.

Today, our governmental agencies entrusted with public health, FDA and USDA, often lack the authority and political strength needed to address new problems of many types related to the health and safety of the populace. While Americans seem to take their public health protection for granted, when it comes to food safety, our governmental agencies have backed away from their responsibility and have relinquished some of their “ownership” over food safety and public health protection to the private sector. There are consequences , some good and some not that we must understand.

Government Disengagement Creates a Vacuum

There are many reasons for apathy on the part of government, but the fact remains that government’s ineffectiveness to protect the public has created a vacuum, and other stakeholders have come forward to fill in the vacuum. This vacuum is being filled by a variety of food safety stakeholders with a profit motive, including private companies of all types (e.g., Environ Health Associates), academia, and research groups and others. This has given rise to a new sector of the food industry the  “for profit food safety products and services industry”. In this relatively new arena, we have various players competing with government for ownership of some part of food safety. Competitors include many types of food service providers (pest control companies, chemical suppliers, lab services, auditing firms, training agencies and programs), professional associations, certification bodies, consulting firms, law firms, and others. All would  would like to lay claim to a share of the lucrative food safety market.

While the unmet needs of the industry and the demand for food safety are the basis for the demand for products and services, the inevitable market forces inherent in any industry model are shaping the field of food safety in subtle yet significant ways. While government attempts to hang on to a leadership position, there are many who claim ownership of parts of the food safety model reserved in the very recent past to government and who approach food safety from a business standpoint.

Who are the Owners of Food Safety Training?

Currently, there are several groups who claim a market share in food safety training. For example, The National Restaurant Association-NRA is a dominant player in the restaurant, food-safety-training market. As a case in point, the Florida Restaurant and Lodging Association-FRLA has over the last ten years fostered strong political connections to Florida’s regulatory agencies and now enjoys a close relationship with the Florida Department of Business Regulation-DBPR, a state agency. 

Influenced by the FRLA lobby, DBPR chose FRLA as the preferred provider of restaurant, employee-food-safety training materials in the state. This is has been a windfall for FRLA and its sales figures are in the millions every year. FRLA now controls easily 90% of the food-safety training market in Florida where there are at least 50,000 mangers and 500,000 employees needing training.. NRA fosters similar relationships in many states, making NRA’s particular brand of training “ServSafe” virtual law in many locations. Such sales provide a sizeable cash flow to NRA and its state affiliates. NRA ands its affiliates use these funds primarily to lobby legislatures on behalf of the industry, not consumers.

Who Owns Food Safety Training in Seafood? 

We see professional associations such as The Seafood HACCP Alliance, with another approach to food-safety training-market "ownership". The Seafood HACCP Alliance through its relationship with the Association of Food and Drug Officials (AFDO) has influenced the required training of all seafood processors. Now, only those trainers sanctioned by AFDO and taking and approved AFDO accredited course (the only approved one, being owned by the Seafood HACCP Alliance, and rarely offered) are FDA approved to give courses. These required courses provide a significant source of revenue to private, AFDO trainers. It is not clear exactly if or how AFDO benefits, but one can see a potential problem for governmental officials who belong to AFDO advocating AFDO as the sole approved source of training.

Who Owns Food Safety Training in the Meat Industry?

At the level of the manufacturing of meat, food safety training must meet the requirements of the International HACCP Alliance at Texas A&M in order to have validity with USDA. Any training considered “valid” training must now pass through the HACCP Alliance, and is subject to fees and review. We can see a similar sort of problem here for USDA in terms of creating a monopoly for the HACCP Alliance. 

Who Owns Food Safety Auditing?

A similar example exists in auditing for compliance with so-called voluntary standards. The Food Marketing Institute FMI, the self-proclaimed voice of the multi-billion dollar food industry, recently entered the food safety-auditing sector in the US. Through its influence over buyers and the retail distribution chain, FMI’s brand of food safety auditing is trying to become the standard by which the entire food production chain self -regulates its own sanitation programs. While the program may have ultimate benefits for consumers, there is a lucrative monopoly position developing for FMI similar to that owned by NRA in restaurants. While there are many competing standards, FMI’s SQF (Safe Quality Foods) standard was recently endorsed by Wal-Mart, the worlds largest retailer. Suppliers to Wal-Mart are feeling pressure to adopt this standard while FMI is driving significant income to itself. FMI is a powerful political lobbying/marketing group that has the best interests of its members, and not necessarily consumers as its core mission. 

Who Owns International Food Safety?

There are examples of ownership at the international level of food safety, where groups like ISO, the International Standards Organization have put pressure on international regulators to adopt standards based on the work of this group; ISO standards are proprietary and owned by this non-governmental organization. While ISO has a very strong consumer focus, the effort is a business proposition as well as a food safety concept.

Who Owns Food Safety Research? 

In the background are the researchers at the National Institutes of Health and their counterparts; academicians who receive extensive research grants, and who claim ownership to the scientific basis for food safety. The budget for food safety research through NIH grants is in the millions each year. Their ownership of food safety research is ownership over a key segment of the market because it is this body of research that drives legislation and the validity of food safety systems across all segments. While our government spends billions on research, the food industry is very slow to adopt new technology. NIH research has produced a great deal of theoretical knowledge but the public has seen very little added protection from foodborne pathogens from new innovations developed and knowledge gained through research.

Who Really Owns Food Safety?

The reality is that a forgotten group of stakeholders actually owns food safety-and it is we… consumers collectively. The consumer through his buying power and voting power is truly the rightful owner of food safety. Several groups such as the Partnership for Food Safety Education, and Centers for Science in the Public Interest-CSPI have recognized this, yet no consumer level group has been able to unite consumers to affect the changes needed in the current food safety model for the exclusive benefit of consumers. While we as consumers hold the real power in food safety, we are often misinformed and remain mostly disengaged from food safety policies. We do not see the advantage we actually have. There is nothing wrong with educational messages from the Partnership teaching consumers how to safely cook or clean, but ultimately, the real power consumers have to protect themselves is at the voting booth and at the supermarket and not in the kitchen. 

The reality is that there is no “market”, no “profit motive” to motivate stakeholders to organize consumers and properly mobilize them. We have a few creditable grassroots activists and consumer groups whose voices the public hears faintly over the din of industry propaganda and government messages. We can find worlds of information from government agencies on their websites, but our government currently has no plans for any organized consumer education scheme. As in everything governmental these days, there is not enough resources, and a serious lack of leadership preventing government from maintaining an effective consumer protection effort or even attempting a meaningful campaign to educate consumers. 

Law firms are now leaders in the food industry, thanks to the failures of public health protection. The hundreds of millions of dollars in lawsuit settlements and judgments paid to consumers who have been injured provide law firms specializing in this area with leverage to influence industry food safety policies and practices in a positive way. Yet, it is really the consumers the attorneys represent that have the most power for meaningful change, not the law firms themselves. 

If trends hold, eventually we may have a very serious mass foodborne illness outbreak affecting consumer in a way not seen before. Thousands of cases of serious infections have occurred over the last few years, some with life threatening hemorrhagic colitis associated with contaminated produce and meat.  Some far more serious illnesses related to food wait patently in the wings to emerge, or re-emerge as serious threats. 

Eventually, the voting/buying public will awaken to the fact that the industry acting in its own best interest will not provide them the protection they expect. Consumers must demand that their government first does whatever is necessary to protect them as a bottom-line responsibility.

Consumers rightly own food safety because we pay for all the interventions government and industry invoke when we purchase food or pay our taxes. Therefore as owners, consumers need to have an influence in the way industry goes about public health protection. If government elects to essentially delegate some of its public health protection responsibilities to industry, than consumers have a right to know what industry is doing to protect them and to have a much greater say in the matter.

As consumers and owners of food safety we have the power to demand that our government effectively protects our health and welfare, to demand that our elected and appointed officials exert real power over those who produce our food, and to require the food industry to maintain transparency.