Food Safety News

Findings from the testing of food products for authenticity, contaminants, and allergens have been published by the Food Standards Agency (FSA).

The survey is targeted to areas of potential risk and where sampling is needed to inform FSA policy and science. It took place in October 2022 and included products from a typical food basket, plus a range of other items. A total of 1,215 food samples from 28 different commodity types were tested.   

Food samples were bought from national supermarkets and smaller independent retailers in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland, with some purchased online. They were tested for undeclared allergens, contaminants, adulteration, composition, or incorrect labeling.

Samples were analyzed by public analysts, who examined food and feed to check their compliance with relevant laws. They reported 81 percent as satisfactory. The compliance rate for the basket of foods was 86 percent, and 75 percent for surveillance samples. Packaged breads had the lowest compliance rate of the basket of food commodities.

Food samples purchased from small firms were 75 percent compliant, meaning that one in four was unsatisfactory. Samples bought online had a pass rate of 76 percent.

Allergens and authenticity
Undeclared allergens were found in 16 percent of samples tested for allergens, making one in six potentially dangerous to those with food allergies.

Highlighted issues included undeclared allergens in some African spices and prepacked food for direct sale (PPDS). Of 267 food products, 27 percent of African spices tested contained undeclared peanut protein, and 17 out of 47 prepacked foods for direct sale had allergens without the correct labeling.

In one pork sausage sample from a small business, 13 percent of sheep DNA was detected as well as pig, but the ingredients list did not mention sheep-derived ingredients.

Authenticity testing was carried out on 437 samples. Four of 30 oregano samples showed the presence of a leaf other than oregano in proportions ranging from 10 to 25 percent. Three were olive leaves. Insect fragments and a small piece of synthetic fiber were also found. One sample had high lead levels, but there is no set limit for lead in dried oregano.

Four of 36 olive oils did not meet compositional requirements, and another five had labeling irregularities. Ten percent of basmati rice samples were adulterated with non-basmati or no approved basmati varieties in one case. One packaged sliced turkey sample contained chicken DNA not declared on the pack. One sample of tinned pork, not produced in the UK, contained an estimated 1 to 5 percent beef, which was not listed on the label.

Providing data on contaminants
Allergens were detected in three samples of vegan ice cream. A total of 66 “free from” products were tested, and higher than permitted gluten levels were found in one sausage sample. A range of 46 plant-based meat substitutes, such as burgers, sausages, and meat pieces, were checked for the declared protein content, and there was an 87 percent compliance rate. 

Edible insect samples were purchased from online suppliers, and all 40 were satisfactory for the heavy metals tested. Two kelp samples had notable levels of inorganic arsenic. Significant levels of iodine were detected in 55 percent of the 45 marine algae samples. 

Of 89 nutmeg, turmeric, and oregano samples tested for mycotoxins, 9 percent had levels above the regulatory limits. These were mainly ground nutmeg.

Professor Rick Mumford, deputy chief scientific advisor and director of science, research, and evidence at the FSA, said: “This survey is designed to help local authorities target their food safety inspections to use their resources more effectively to protect consumers better.

“We have also made available some funding for local authorities in England and Northern Ireland to sample pre-packaged foods and spice blends for allergens for direct sale following the survey results. We will continue to carry out targeted surveillance programs to identify and find emerging risks within the UK food system to help ensure the safety of consumers.”

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

Distributed food aid is suspected to be behind more than 200 people falling sick in the Philippines.

Agusan del Sur health officials said 216 people had been treated in the hospital earlier this week with symptoms such as vomiting and stomach aches.

The incident is being treated as food poisoning based on the symptoms of patients taken to different medical centers. The majority of people have now been discharged, and none are believed to be seriously sick.

Suspected food came from the Philippine Red Cross (PRC). The agency has been helping thousands of people affected by flooding and landslides in Mindanao. Local media reported meals included chicken liver, egg, and rice.

Red Cross response
PRC has suspended the hot meals program in the province while an investigation into the cause of the incident is ongoing.

“The welfare of the people is of utmost concern to us, and we are doing everything we can to ensure that every individual taken to the hospital is out of harm’s way as soon as possible. We will wait for the results of the ongoing investigation and extend our support to the authorities. PRC remains transparent and will closely coordinate with the local government on this serious matter,” said a PRC statement.

PRC said it was one of several groups providing hot meals in Agusan del Sur. It has served about a thousand residents per day since January.

Testing of stool samples from patients, food, and drinking water has been undertaken, with results pending.

PRC has distributed water and almost 24,500 hot meals to flood victims and sent 248 volunteers to assist in relief efforts and conducting first aid sessions and training on hygiene.

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

Ten years after a jury trial convicted him of 31 charges, resulting in a 20-year federal prison sentence, peanut broker Michael Parnell, 65, has filed his opening brief in his appeal of that conviction and sentence with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit in Atlanta.

In the brief, his attorney, Elliott Harding of Charlottesville, VA, says one of the issues “is novel and warrants oral argument.”   

Parnell’s company, P.P. Sales, transported peanut products from the Peanut Corporation of America (PCA) plant in Blakely, GA, to Kellogg’s. After a nationwide Salmonella outbreak — that sickened at least 700 and killed 9 — the submission of false salmonella testing by PCA was discovered, resulting in several convictions, including Parnell’s.

He is currently incarcerated in the low security lockup at the federal prison at Butner, NC.

Parnell’s conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court were also “affirmed” on appeal by the 11th Circuit in 2018, and the Supreme Court decided then not to hear it. His Habeas Corpus, or Motion 2255, was filed in late 2019 to vacate his sentence. However, the trial court, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, last year denied Parnell’s Habeas motion.

This current appeal to the 11th Circuit was made on May 26, 2023, and on Jan. 10, 2024, the appellate court issued a certificate of appealability for two issues. Harding’s new 68-page brief filed on Feb. 20 makes Parnell’s best arguments.

Early in the Parnell brief, it claims the district court “erred in determining that Michael Parnell could not establish a presumption of jury prejudice based on adverse publicity..”

The brief says reports about the “700 illnesses and nine deaths were  prejudicial to all defendants, but especially Michael Parnell because Kellogg’s was not associated with the products linked to any reported deaths.”     

It says his trial attorney, Edward Tolley, “knew this, yet failed to move for a change of venue” either before trial or once it came out that some jurors had pre-trial knowledge of the deaths.  All the attorneys, defense, and prosecution agreed that the salmonella deaths would not be brought up at the trial.

“Ultimately, eleven prospective jurors revealed pre-trial knowledge of the alleged deaths, and two made it on to the final jury, jurors 37 and 84,” the brief says.  

“Empaneling these jurors was reversible error, but it compounded when at least one of the twelve jurors learned of the allegations from others before trial, and another three of twelve learned after the trial began. Allowing the case to remain in Albany fostered an atmosphere of pervasive media coverage and preconceived notions that could not be refuted, distinguished, or mitigated at trial.”

“It was impossible to rehabilitate jurors by having them state they could set aside extrinsic information.  Even if they could, Jurors 4, 10, and 12 could not be questioned about what impact such information would have on their ability to decide the case because they learned of it during the trial from other jurors,” it added.

“Prospective Juror 26 stated he heard “the talk was people got sick and died from it” on the first morning of jury selection,” Harding writes.

“Tolley knew the extrinsic information was uniquely prejudicial to Mr. Parnell,” the brief continues. “He knew prospective jurors were aware of the information. He claimed he intended to strike jurors who knew these details, but he did not ask questions concerning pretrial knowledge to most of the venire and never moved for a change of venue.”

Harding writes that “Tolley maintained an erroneous belief that jurors could be rehabilitated if they “agree that they can put any prejudice aside and render a verdict based only on the evidence as it comes from the witness stand.” 

In addition to tainted jurors, the Parnell brief argues the PCA criminal prosecutions should have been moved out of the Middle District of Albany because public opinion blamed the salmonella outbreak damaged the peanut industry.

The appellate brief describes the climate where jurors were picked this way: 

“Everyone in Albany wanted to be distanced from the case. They considered it “toxic.”  While one venire-person wanted to “exact a pound of flesh,” another wanted to “fry” the defendants. Another was excused for cause and acknowledged that “If I didn’t live in Blakely and hadn’t seen all this and everything, it probably be a little different story, but living there in Blakely with all the talk going on and all, it would be pretty hard for me, I think, to get over that.”

Another said his co-workers told him the defendants “should be held responsible for the deaths.” A prospective juror’s wife told him: “[T]hey ought to hang somebody for doing that.” Another personally executed her store’s recall of affected peanut butter and saw the corporate memo.”

In conclusion, Mr. Harding, on behalf of his client, “ respectfully requests for this honorable Court to HOLD that the district court erred when it found that he could not establish a presumption of prejudice, HOLD that he did establish of prejudice, HOLD that his counsel was ineffective for failure to move for a change of venue in violation of his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel, ORDER that the district court’s judgment and order dismissing his motion to vacate his sentence and conviction be reversed, vacated, and remanded, ORDER that his conviction and sentence be vacated, and ORDER any further relief that this Court may deem reasonable and appropriate.”

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

Two examples showing the benefits and challenges of agencies moving from paper-based to digital systems have been published by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).

The first covers how the country of Georgia developed a digital system for food control data.

The National Food Agency used to receive control results from the regions on spreadsheets and text files. Collection of the data was ineffective, cumbersome, and prone to mistakes. Authorities experienced problems receiving timely data throughout the supply chain, including information on registrations of food businesses, inspection results, and other relevant food safety data. This impacted the understanding of Georgia’s food safety situation and food control development.

A digital system to modernize data acquisition began in 2017 in the capital, Tbilisi, and has since expanded to the whole country. It is being further developed to include more information from the food chain, permitting detailed analyses of food safety and food control effectiveness.

Need to evolve systems
Food control inspectors were equipped with portable tablets and printers, which permitted onsite electronic documentation of the inspection results, handing over a printout to the business and instant data transfer to the National Food Agency’s online database.

The software program scores businesses based on data, including food type, activity, and compliance history. It also contributes to risk-based planning of food control activities.

Digital systems allow real-time assessment of food safety compliance levels, can help establish baselines and trend analyses, and enable targeted actions to respond to food control results. A well-functioning system can provide results from several food safety aspects and show where there is room for improvement.

Georgia decided in 2015 to develop a digital system because of obstacles in registering food firms, shortcomings in handling control data, and a lack of an overall view of the food safety situation in the country. The first task was identifying active food companies from different authority registers to include them in the National Food Agency’s online database.

Some issues include financing the development of the digital system. As the program is not optimal for expanding data collection to include all food control data, it must be upgraded. While the system could meet initial objectives, the need for advanced data collection meant the software was not as flexible and helpful as required. Building such a system is a complex and time-consuming task. Step-by-step integration allows testing of features and more effective improvement.

Authorities want to continue using and developing the system, but future upgrades depend on available resources. Foodborne outbreak data and incidence of infections will be included as soon as the IT program and resources allow. Sampling data has already been collected, but laboratory results have not yet been integrated into the system.

Barcelona’s experience moving from paper to digital
The second example is from the Public Health Agency of Barcelona (ASPB). The agency found previous paper-based inspection procedures lacked harmonization and was leading to inefficiencies and inconsistencies, so it moved to a digital system in 2021 for onsite inspections of retail sites.

The past system didn’t ensure that officers assessed the same aspects in each inspection or took the same enforcement measures in equivalent risk situations. The digital inspection tool enables non-compliance collection, information about official samples taken for laboratory analysis, and pictures to be attached to inspection reports. It also increases the consistency of the process.

Results of inspections are shared with food businesses in a standardized format, with deadlines to correct any non-compliance. Inspection results are stored in the cloud-based servers of the ASPB and further analyzed for better monitoring and continuous improvement of the control system.

The current checklist considers up to 228 non-compliances in four areas. The system offers binary options to assess compliance, and officers cannot proceed with the inspection until all non-compliances are marked as detected or undetected. Non-compliances are scored based on risk, and an algorithm calculates a compliance score for each section.

Development of the digital tool took time and included pilot and validation tests. A lack of smartphones to support the digital tools and internet connection in food establishments caused problems, but the application was updated so it could also be used offline. It must also be flexible to adapt to future food safety law amendments.

Some officers were not confident using digital tools. The ASPB distributed educational material among officers, simulated inspections, offered expert support during inspections, and promoted informal feedback. The agency also met with all food business associations in Barcelona to explain the revised inspection process. Several other local authorities have adopted the digital inspection tool, which is being expanded to other provinces of Catalonia.

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

According to a multi-agency analysis, a decline in antimicrobial consumption in Europe has been associated with a drop in overall antimicrobial resistance (AMR).

Findings come from a report looking at the usage of antimicrobial agents and the occurrence of antimicrobial resistance in bacteria from humans and food-producing animals, such as broilers, turkeys, cattle under one year of age, and pigs.

It included data from 2019 and 2021 on antibiotic consumption and AMR in Europe. It was published by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC), the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), and the European Medicines Agency (EMA).

Additional data will be released shortly in another EFSA and ECDC report covering AMR in bacteria affecting humans, animals, and food.

Impact of cutting antibiotic usage on farms
ECDC, EFSA, and EMA analyzed trends of antimicrobial consumption and AMR in E. coli from humans and food-producing animals. They also looked at changes between 2014 and 2021 and discovered antibiotic consumption in food-producing animals decreased by 44 percent but remained stable in humans.

The agencies said high levels of antimicrobial consumption and AMR were still being reported in several EU countries. Reducing use in food-producing animals is likely to benefit human health, such as impacting resistance in foodborne pathogens such as Campylobacter.

An analysis found that E. coli bacteria in animals and humans became less antibiotic-resistant as the overall antibiotic consumption was reduced. The agencies say that trends in antibiotic resistance can be reversed with the right actions and policies.

“Using fewer antibiotics in livestock production pays off: in most countries that reduced antibiotic use, we observed a corresponding decrease in resistance levels. This means that national efforts work,” said EFSA’s executive director Bernhard Url.

Bacterial isolates from humans were from clinically ill individuals sampled in healthcare settings, while isolates from food-producing animals came from domestically produced healthy animals at slaughter.

Associated resistance
The report covered seven antimicrobial groups (carbapenems, third- and fourth-generation cephalosporins, fluoroquinolones and other quinolones, aminopenicillins, polymyxins, macrolides, and tetracyclines). It focused on resistance to these antimicrobials in E. coli and Campylobacter, while some data on Salmonella is included.

In humans, using essential groups of antibiotics, such as carbapenems, third- and fourth-generation cephalosporins, and quinolones, was associated with resistance to these antibiotics in E. coli from human infections.

Using quinolones, polymyxins, aminopenicillins, and tetracyclines in food-producing animals was associated with resistance to these antibiotics occurring in indicator E. coli in food-producing animals.

Bacterial resistance in humans may be linked to such resistance in food-producing animals. Two examples are Campylobacter jejuni and Campylobacter coli, which may be found in food-producing animals and spread to people through food.

Overall findings suggest that measures to reduce antimicrobial consumption in food-producing animals and in humans have been effective in many countries, said experts.

“Nevertheless, these measures need to be reinforced so that reductions in antimicrobial consumption are retained and further continued, where necessary. This also highlights the importance of measures promoting human and animal health, such as vaccination and better hygiene, thereby reducing the need for antimicrobials.”

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

The Food and Drug Administration continues using import alerts to enforce U.S. food safety regulations for food from foreign countries. The agency updates and modifies the alerts as needed.

Recent modifications to FDA’s import alerts, as posted by the agency, are listed below. 

Click here to go to the FDA page with links to details on specific alerts.

— OPINION —

Here is bit(e) of history:

Organic Pastures Dairy Company (OPDC) & Raw Farm LLC – Started OPDC in 2000 – Changed name to Raw Farm LLC in 2020

Organic Pastures Dairy Company Recalls and Outbreaks:

• September 2006 Raw Milk E.coli Outbreak: 6 ill/2 HUS 
• September 2007 Raw Cream Listeria Recall
• December 2007 Raw Milk Campylobacter Outbreak: 8 ill 
• September 2008 Raw Cream Campylobacter Recall
• November 2011 Raw Milk E.coli Outbreak: 5 ill/3 HUS 
• May 2012 Campylobacter Raw Milk/Cream Outbreak: 10 ill, reported illnesses from Jan. thru April
• October 2015 Campylobacter Raw Milk Recall
• January 2016 E.coli Raw Milk Outbreak: 9 ill/2 HUS

2023 Raw Farm LLC Recalls and Outbreaks:
May 2023 Campylobacter Raw Milk Recall
August 2023 Salmonella Cheese Recall 

October 2023 Salmonella Raw Milk Outbreak and Recall:
San Diego County—12 illnesses 
Orange County—7 illnesses 

Here is the 2023-2024 version – E. coli Outbreak and Recall:

As of February 16, 2024, a total of 10 people infected with the outbreak strain of E. coli have been reported from four states – California, Utah, Colorado and Texas. Illnesses started on dates ranging from October 18, 2023, to January 29, 2024. Of 9 people with information available, 4 have been hospitalized and 1 developed hemolytic uremic syndrome, a serious condition that can cause kidney failure. No deaths have been reported.

Public health investigators are using the PulseNet system to identify illnesses that may be part of this outbreak. CDC PulseNet manages a national database of DNA fingerprints of bacteria that cause foodborne illnesses. DNA fingerprinting is performed on bacteria using a method called whole genome sequencing (WGS). WGS showed that bacteria from sick people’s samples are closely related genetically. This suggests that people in this outbreak got sick from the same food.

State and local public health officials are interviewing people about the foods they ate in the week before they got sick. Of the 8 people interviewed, 6 (75%) reported eating RAW FARM LLC brand raw cheddar cheese. This percentage was significantly higher than the 4.9% of respondents who reported eating any raw milk cheese in the FoodNet Population Survey—a survey that helps estimate how often people eat various foods linked to diarrheal illness. This difference suggests that people in this outbreak got sick from eating RAW FARM LLC brand raw cheddar cheese.

CDC advises people not to eat, sell, or serve RAW FARM brand raw cheddar cheese while the investigation is ongoing. Recalled Raw Cheddar blocks and shredded cheese products. Sold at retailers nationwide – Original Flavor: all sizes of blocks and shredded packages and Cheddar with added Jalapeño Flavor: all sizes of blocks and shredded packages.

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

Hundreds of stores received more than 110 recalled products related to an outbreak of Listeria Monocytogenes linked to products from Rizo Lopez in Fresno, CA.

The Food and Drug Administration has published a list of retailers that received the implicated products. The list includes Whole Foods, Trader Joe’s and Costco. According to the FDA, the list may not include all of the retailers that received the products. The list of stores can be found here.

The recalled products range from cheese to dips, salad dressings, enchiladas, and more.

The list of products recalled and photos of some of the 113 products can be found here. The products were sold under a wide variety of brands.

People have been sickened since 2014 in the outbreak, which has sickened 26 and put 23 in hospitals. Two patients have died. The sick people are spread across 11 states, from Washing to Florida.

Laboratory testing has linked sick people to foods from the production plant. It can be difficult to diagnose Listeria infections because it can take up to 70 days for people to become ill. Health investigators interview people, but it is hard to remember what foods they ate that may have been contaminated, making laboratory testing particularly important.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention say there are at least two people who go undiagnosed for every patient that is identified.

About Listeria infections
Food contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes may not look or smell spoiled but can still cause severe and sometimes life-threatening infections. Anyone who has eaten any recalled product and developed symptoms of Listeria infection should seek medical treatment and tell their doctors about possible Listeria exposure.

Also, anyone who has eaten recalled products should monitor themselves for symptoms during the coming weeks because it can take up to 70 days after exposure to Listeria for symptoms of listeriosis to develop. 

Symptoms of Listeria infection can include vomiting, nausea, persistent fever, muscle aches, severe headache, and neck stiffness. Specific laboratory tests are required to diagnose Listeria infections, which can mimic other illnesses. 

Pregnant women, the elderly, young children, and people such as cancer patients who have weakened immune systems are particularly at risk of serious illnesses, life-threatening infections, and other complications. Although infected pregnant women may experience only mild, flu-like symptoms, their infections can lead to premature delivery, infection of the newborn, or even stillbirth.

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

Norovirus caused the most foodborne outbreaks, but Salmonella was behind the largest, according to an analysis covering several years in Finland.

In 2020 to 2022, there were 135 foodborne outbreaks included in a register maintained by the Finnish Food Authority (Ruokavirasto). Overall, 2,543 people fell ill, 86 were hospitalized, and 15 died.

A total of 55 outbreaks were recorded in 2022, 46 in 2021, and 34 in 2020, according to the report published by Ruokavirasto and the Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare (THL).

Norovirus was the most common cause of foodborne outbreaks in the period with 34. Contaminated oysters were linked to five norovirus outbreaks. Salmonella was behind 13 outbreaks with 226 cases, Campylobacter caused 12 with 101 cases, Listeria caused seven with 69 cases, five were due to Yersinia enterocolitica with 40 cases and three because of E. coli with 90 cases. The causative agent was unknown in 33 outbreaks.

Outbreak details by pathogen
Salmonella Typhimurium caused the most significant event in June 2021, when 728 people became ill because of a salad mix in lunches served in daycare centers. More than 100 staff fell sick and 620 patients were children. More than 50 sites received food from the same central kitchen.

Salmonella mbandaka caused the biggest outbreak in 2022 and was part of an EU-wide incident linked to chicken. A total of 97 people were sick in Finland. A serious E. coli O103 outbreak affected 62 people in 2021. Two people developed hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS), and two died. Salad products were suspected, but food testing didn’t find the outbreak strain.

Two Listeria clusters, one with 23 cases between 2016 and 2020 and the other with 14 cases in the same time period, were linked to meat products.

Most foodborne epidemics were small, with fewer than 10 cases. Two had more than 100 patients; the rest were medium-sized, with 11 and 100 cases.

Bacillus cereus caused three epidemics in 2020 and 2022, in which 28 people fell ill. One of these was traced to a contaminated oat drink. Clostridium perfringens also caused three outbreaks and 62 people were sickened. Two ETEC outbreaks affected 39 people. One outbreak each was due to histamine, with nine cases, and Cryptosporidium, with 35 cases.

Foods and reasons for outbreaks
The most reported food vehicles were vegetables and products, with 16 outbreaks. The second most common was fish and fish products, including shellfish and mussels, with 12 outbreaks. However, the vehicle remained unidentified in most outbreaks, or several foods were suspected.

Imported frozen raspberries caused one Hepatitis A virus epidemic with five cases. A Hepatitis E outbreak sickened four people in 2022. E.coli and Cryptosporidium caused illness in an outbreak traced to raw milk cheese. Another small E. coli outbreak was linked to raw milk.

The participation of an infected kitchen worker in food preparation and inadequate hand hygiene resulted in 23 outbreaks. In nearly all these cases, the causative agent was norovirus. The use of contaminated ingredients was linked to 18 outbreaks. In 16 outbreaks, there were inadequacies and errors in temperatures and storage of food.

The main locations where outbreaks occurred were restaurants, cafés, or hotels, with 64 outbreaks, followed by homes, with 16 outbreaks. Sixteen national outbreaks or outbreaks with multiple locations were also reported.

Meanwhile, data from Helsinki shows more reports of suspected food poisoning in 2023 than the year before. However, investigated outbreaks dropped from 18 to 13. A total of 245 people fell sick.

Suspected food poisoning alerts rose to 795 from 654 in 2022. This trend may be related to increased restaurant dining or better operator awareness of the need to report incidents. In most suspected food poisonings, the cause remained unclear, or the illness was unrelated to the outlet.

Of 13 food poisoning outbreaks, Norovirus caused four. Three were linked to an infected kitchen worker, and the other was due to oysters. Contaminated oysters caused 150 people to fall ill after eating at different restaurants. Norovirus was found in Dutch, French, and Irish oysters, and several batches of products were removed from the market.

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

The North American Meat Institute (NAMI) in the United States, to deepen ” meat industry coordination and government collaboration,” has a new agreement with organizations in Canada and Mexico.

NAMI is the nation’s oldest and largest trade association representing the U.S. meat industry,

The Canadian Meat Council (CMC), Consejo Mexicano de la Carne (COMECARNE), and the NAMI signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that formalizes the three associations’ ongoing work to improve trade, reduce regulatory barriers, and enhance information exchange within North America.

The organizations also finalized a Joint Statement of Coordination emphasizing their commitment to addressing foreign animal diseases, sustainability, and non-tariff trade barriers.

The MOU and Joint Statement were shared during COMECARNE’s Annual Convention in Playa del Carmen, Mexico. CMC, COMECARNE, and the NAMI convened a trilateral meeting during the Convention, during which they discussed ways to begin taking action on the areas agreed to in the Joint Statement of Coordination.

The information in the documents was also sent to government officials handling agriculture and trade in Canada, Mexico, and the U.S., and all three organizations intend to promote greater public-private collaboration moving forward

The three organizations said in the document, “Because of the interconnected, complementary nature of the North American meat industry and the attendant economic interdependence it has forged, each of our organizations commits, with renewed vigor, to deepening our already robust partnership on the previous issues, and on other concerns not reflected in this document. More frequent, formal exchanges among our organizations and between industry and government will benefit the communities and workers we serve, augment regional and global food security, and mitigate regulatory and legal barriers undermining our industries’ integration. Our collective advocacy for science- and risk-based trade and our joint efforts to align sustainability messaging and actions will secure the North American meat industry’s position as the global leader in innovative, efficient, trade-facilitative practices and standards. Moreover, our commitment to producing the safest, most affordable, most abundant meat supply globally will underpin every collaborative endeavor we undertake.”

The groups commit to deepening coordination with the governments in three key areas by:

• Foreign Animal Disease, specifically African Swine Fever (ASF): committing to sharing information about industry mitigation and traceability efforts, participating in joint ASF preparedness exercises, and working closely with respective governments to promote continuity of live swine and pork and pork products trade, in line with international standards, if an ASF outbreak occurs in North America.
• Sustainability (social, economic, and environmental): committing to cooperate to advance voluntary, evidenced-based, trade-facilitating agricultural sustainability programs, including industry-wide frameworks like the Protein PACT and CRSB’s National Beef Sustainability Assessment and Strategy. And seeking to identify areas for greater collaboration and alignment among meat industry sustainability initiatives across North America and agricultural sustainability regulations and policies adopted and championed by the governments of Canada, Mexico, and the United States, both domestically and in global fora.
• Technical or other barriers to trade: by promoting streamlined regulatory processes that deliver products to customers and consumers in the fastest, freshest, and safest possible state. This includes exchanging information about and devising coordinated responses to potentially trade-restrictive regulations and laws. Examples include but are not limited to, onerous packaging and labeling policies, burdensome regulations resulting in live animal and product segregation, and protectionist, unfounded measures not grounded in risk- or science-based principles resulting in less efficient meat production and processing practices. Enhanced industry coordination to promote trade and business continuity will be matched with efforts to streamline trade, reduce existing and emerging hindrances, and dissuade governmental retaliation that will only undermine the industry’s integration.
  The three North American groups plan to meet this summer to reevaluate priorities and discuss progress on existing joint efforts.
• (To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)
  

The Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) has been told by auditors to improve its oversight of food importers.

The Auditor-General in New Zealand examined how well the MPI was monitoring importers of foods that pose a greater risk to consumers. Some of these high-risk foods, including frozen berries and tahini, have caused recalls and outbreaks in the country. In 2022 and 2023, 39 people were infected with Hepatitis A attributed to frozen berries from Serbia.

Under the Food Act 2014, importers are responsible for ensuring that food they bring into the country is safe. The MPI is responsible for monitoring whether importers are meeting their responsibilities and that import requirements are working effectively.

A lack of clear understanding
In early 2024, there were more than 3,700 registered food importers in the country. Of 60 consumer-level recalls in 2022, 27 were for imported food. This was an increase on previous years. 2020 data shows New Zealand imports food from 218 countries.

John Ryan, auditor general, said the amount of food sent to New Zealand was steadily increasing.

“New Zealand’s food import system relies on a level of trust that importers are assessing the safety of food that will be sold to the public. As with any system involving trust, checks are needed to ensure that importers are meeting their responsibilities,” he said.

“In my view, MPI does not have a clear understanding of the effectiveness of the food import system. This is because MPI has not been consistently monitoring whether importers are assessing the safety and suitability of specified high-risk foods before they arrive in the country. MPI also does not collect all the information it needs to assess the effectiveness of the requirements for importing food.”

Recent investigations into food safety events found that some firms were unaware of importing requirements. Importers had limited information about suppliers that manufactured the food, how hazards associated with the products were controlled, and traceability.

Areas to improve
Three recommendations were made including taking a more proactive approach to identify non-compliance by regularly collating and evaluating information about importers and imported food. The second area was improving understanding of the information importers need to improve compliance. The third mentioned ensuring access to the information needed to detect food safety risks earlier, better understand them, and respond more effectively.

The MPI is working on proposals to strengthen the system, including more monitoring of importers and imported food. The agency recently launched a public consultation on two proposed levies, including a food importer levy to support increased monitoring.

MPI staff spoken to felt that more verification of importers was necessary. They highlighted the lack of monitoring programs as a factor that prevented more verification from happening.

Ryan said the MPI was aware of the issues and there had been progress in some areas.

“But more improvements are needed so MPI can respond to a food import market that is subject to changing food trends and risks. The risks from some imported foods are being managed reactively. This means that, in some cases, action is only taken after people have fallen ill.”

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

Cozy Vale Creamery of Tenino, WA, is advising consumers to discontinue consumption of their retail raw milk and cream products with the best-by dates of 02-18-24 through 02-29-24 and dispose of or return it to the place of purchase for a full refund. 

These products, which were bottled in gallon, half-gallon, quart, and pint containers, were sold to customers, including retail stores, in Western Washington, according to a recall notice distributed by the dairy.

The advisory was initiated after routine sampling conducted by the Washington State Department of Agriculture (WSDA) revealed the presence of toxin-producing E. coli in retail raw whole milk from Feb, 05. Cozy Vale Creamery and WSDA continue to work jointly to address the source of the problem.

All other production dates are not impacted by this notice. Consumers with questions may contact the company at 360-481-4010.

About E. coli infections

Anyone who has eaten any of the implicated products and developed symptoms of E. coli infection should seek medical attention and tell their doctor about their possible exposure to the bacteria. Specific tests are required to diagnose the infections, which can mimic other illnesses.

The symptoms of E. coli infections vary for each person but often include severe stomach cramps and diarrhea, which is often bloody. Some patients may also have a fever. Most patients recover within five to seven days. Others can develop severe or life-threatening symptoms and complications, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

About 5 to 10 percent of those diagnosed with E. coli infections develop a potentially life-threatening kidney failure complication, known as a hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS). Symptoms of HUS include fever, abdominal pain, feeling very tired, decreased frequency of urination, small unexplained bruises or bleeding, and pallor. 

Many people with HUS recover within a few weeks, but some suffer permanent injuries or death. This condition can occur among people of any age but is most common in children younger than five years old because of their immature immune systems, older adults because of deteriorating immune systems, and people with compromised immune systems such as cancer patients. 

People who experience HUS symptoms should immediately seek emergency medical care. People with HUS will likely be hospitalized because the condition can cause other serious and ongoing problems such as hypertension, chronic kidney disease, brain damage, and neurologic problems. 

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

A Taylor Farms salad mix is under recall in Canada after government testing showed contamination with Salmonella.

The “Mexican Style Street Corn Chopped (Salad) Kit” was sold in New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia. Ontario, Prince Edward Island, Quebec and possibly other provinces and territories, according to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

Taylor Fresh Canada Foods ULC is recalling the following product:

Anyone with the salad in their homes is urged to not eat it and to return it to the place of purchase.

About Salmonella infections
Food contaminated with Salmonella bacteria does not usually look, smell, or taste spoiled. Anyone can become sick with a Salmonella infection. Infants, children, seniors, and people with weakened immune systems are at higher risk of serious illness because their immune systems are fragile, according to the U.S. CDC.

Anyone who has eaten any recalled products and developed symptoms of Salmonella infection should seek medical attention. Sick people should tell their doctors about the possible exposure to Salmonella bacteria because special tests are necessary to diagnose salmonellosis. Salmonella infection symptoms can mimic other illnesses, frequently leading to misdiagnosis.

Symptoms of Salmonella infection can include diarrhea, abdominal cramps, and fever within 12 to 72 hours after eating contaminated food. Otherwise, healthy adults are usually sick for four to seven days. In some cases, however, diarrhea may be so severe that patients require hospitalization.

Older adults, children, pregnant women, and people with weakened immune systems, such as cancer patients, are more likely to develop a severe illness and serious, sometimes life-threatening conditions.

Some people get infected without getting sick or showing any symptoms. However, they may still spread the infections to others.

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

His campaign for President was brief, but Tom Vilsack is one of longest serving Secretaries of Agriculture in U.S. history.  He held the post for the 8-year Obama Administration, and he’s close to another four with Biden-Harris.

Whether or not there’s another term this time, there are signs that the former Governor of Iowa will soon cash it in.  The “tell sign” is the sudden expressions of honesty coming from Vilsack himself.  Everybody knows that telling the truth is the one thing that can get you into trouble in Washington, D.C.

After thousands of routine statements have gone out under his name, almost like being part of the furniture, Vilsack began popping out truths that have shaken things up in just the past few days.

First up may have been his predicting that USDA was “18 months or so” away from having a bird flu vaccine available. USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is the lead agency for combatting avian influenza, and it has not seemed interested in vaccines.

The APHIS  party line was that bird vaccines were a “French thing” that would upset trade and could be accomplished with biosecurity. Vilsack, however,  says USDA is already working to distribute a vaccine and discussing those plans with trading partners.  The Secretary seems to be acknowledging that the  avian influenza death is just too large to continued failed approaches.

Next was the Farm Bill in the House Agriculture Committee, where Vilsack spent five hours testifying, only to call the experience “a wasted opportunity.”  He said it was disappointing not to result in “more creative ways to help farmers.”

The Farm Bill has required three extensions, as little progress has been made on the renewed version.

Vilsack wants a new Farm Bill that helps smaller farmers. Only 11 percent of USDA farm assistance goes to the 1.6 million smaller farms in the U.S.  The rest goes to large scale operations with sales of more than $500,000 annually.

And finally,  Vilsack has told Congress that agricultural producers are going to face “chaos in the marketplace” if Congress doesn’t address the impact of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling over California’s Proposition 12.

Vilsack pointed out that “chaos” can be created when each state can define what farming techniques or practices are appropriate for itself.  “I’m not sure that this Congress will be able to pass legislation, but in due respect, I would suggest that if we don’t take this seriously, we will have chaos in the marketplace. That’s because nothing prevents any state from doing what California did.”

Much like the original COOL labeling, Vilsack expressed concern about possible trade ramifications from Canadians as the rules from California’s proposition begin to affect how pigs are raised by Canadian farmers, who then ship those pigs to U.S. finishing farms.

As Vilsack likely anticipated, he heard animal activists label his concerns “ alarming comments.” He will get a lot of that as long as he keeps telling us what is really on his mind, but at this point, I doubt if he cares. 

Vilsack might stay to tie the historic record. James Wilson was Secretary of Agriculture for 16 years under President William McKinley, Theodore Roosevelt, and William Howard Taft.  He holds the record for the longest cabinet service.  Vilsack is going on 12.

But candid comments are likely a sign that he will step down before year 13. Until then, however, I am listening.

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

Polish authorities have issued an urgent warning to avoid meat sold at a market in the country after one person died.

The Government Centre for Security (RCB) told people not to eat meat from unverified sources bought at the market in Nowa Dęba in Tarnobrzeg County over the weekend because of the risk of poisoning. Anyone with symptoms was asked to contact their doctor or to call the emergency number 112.

The agency said symptoms could vary, including nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal pain, fever, and general weakness.

RCB urged people to share information about the potential danger to prevent others from eating contaminated meat and advised the public to buy meat only from official sources.

Polish media, quoting the police, said two people are being questioned in connection with the incident. They are a married couple, aged 55 and 56, who sold homemade meat products from their car at the market.

A man who ate deli products from the market died in hospital on Saturday, and two other people were hospitalized with food poisoning symptoms.

The District Prosecutor’s Office in Tarnobrzeg is also investigating the incident. Related meat products are currently being tested at a research institute in Pulawy.

2022 Poland reported 336 outbreaks with 3,670 illnesses, 457 hospitalizations, and four deaths. This included 191 Salmonella outbreaks, and 26 involved eggs and egg products.

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

A recent report from the Food and Drug Administration has found that a sheep farm was likely a contributing factor in the contamination of onions.

The finding came when investigators searched for the cause of a 2020 outbreak of Salmonella Newport foodborne infections associated with red onions from the Southern San Joaquin Valley and Imperial Valley in California.

“The outbreak, which caused 1,127 reported domestic illnesses and 515 reported Canadian cases, is the largest Salmonella outbreak in over a decade,” according to the research report. “This outbreak is also remarkable because the food vehicle, whole red onions, is a raw agricultural commodity that had not been previously associated with a foodborne illness outbreak.”

The specific outbreak strain of Salmonella Newport was not found in most subsamples tested, 11 subsamples — 10 water and one sediment — collected near one of the growing fields identified in the traceback were positive for Salmonella Newport, representing a total of three different strains.

“Although a conclusive root cause could not be identified, several potential contributing factors to the 2020 red onion outbreak were identified, including a leading hypothesis that contaminated irrigation water used in a growing field in Holtville, California, may have led to contamination of the onions. While our investigation did not occur during any harvesting activities, visual observations of the implicated red onion growing fields suggested several plausible opportunities for contamination, including irrigation water and sheep grazing on adjacent land. . .” 

The investigation did not occur while packing activities were ongoing. However, visual observations and records review of packing house practices confirmed numerous opportunities for the spread of foodborne pathogens such as Salmonella, including signs of animal and pest intrusion as well as food contact surfaces that had not been inspected, maintained, cleaned, or sanitized as frequently as necessary to protect against the contamination of produce, according to the FDA’s report.

Thomson International Inc., the producer of the onions, cooperated with the FDA throughout the investigation and is continuing to engage with the FDA on the agency’s findings and recommendations.

Notably, Salmonella isolates from two sediment subsamples and two water subsamples collected during this investigation were found to be genetically related by WGS to clinical isolates from 2016 and 2018 foodborne illness outbreaks, Salmonella Muenchen and Salmonella Montevideo, respectively, associated with consumption of sprouts. 

This may indicate human pathogen persistence and distribution in this growing region — a concentrated area of seed for sprouting production — which could pose a risk of contamination for any produce commodity. FDA issued an assignment to follow up with the associated firms. Sprouts are not a food vehicle of interest in the 2020 Salmonella Newport foodborne illness outbreak.

“We urge growers to conduct risk assessments that include evaluation of hazards that may be associated with adjacent and nearby land uses — especially relating to the presence of livestock and wildlife and the potential for runoff into growing fields or water sources — and implement risk mitigation strategies where appropriate,” the FDA researchers said.

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

The majority of people in Southeast Asian countries wash raw poultry meat at home before cooking, according to a study.

People are advised not to wash raw poultry before cooking because it increases the risk of cross-contamination.

The study, published in the journal Food Control, assessed consumers’ self-reported and observed behavior of raw poultry washing practices.

A survey on consumer washing practices before cooking was conducted in Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, the Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam. Observational studies and interviews in Indonesia and Malaysia followed this.

Reasons for washing meat
A total of 2009 responses were eligible for data analyses. More than 45 percent of participants purchased raw poultry products from traditional or wet markets.

Ninety-six percent reported washing raw poultry at home before cooking. The main reasons for this were to remove dirt, slime, blood, or feathers, and washing makes them feel safer. There was also a misunderstanding that washing helps to remove germs. Respondents mostly learned the practice from family members or through their own experiences.

Older consumers, those who were married, on a low income, and who purchased raw poultry from farms, butchers, or wet markets were significantly associated with washing poultry. Two hundred sixty-seven people said household members had experienced food poisoning after eating homemade poultry dishes.

A lack of cleanliness of raw poultry bought from traditional markets caused consumers to wash it. The number of participants who would not wash raw poultry increased from 4 percent to 16.9 percent if they perceived the product had been slaughtered according to food safety standards. Those who purchased from supermarkets were more confident in not washing raw poultry.

People were knowledgeable about the correct handwashing techniques and understood the implications of inadequate cooking or using the same chopping board for raw poultry and cooked food. However, almost half of them were unaware of the indicators of adequately cooked poultry.

Observed findings
Raw poultry washing and handwashing practices of eight people from Indonesia and Malaysia were observed. All of them rinsed or washed raw poultry before cooking. The time spent washing and preparing raw poultry ranged from 21 seconds to 20 minutes.

Observed behavior did not match the knowledge of participants in the survey, where more than 95 percent agreed that hands should be washed with soap and water after handling raw poultry. In the observed study, people did not wash their hands before handling raw poultry, using utensils, or touching ingredients.

Participants were informed about not washing raw poultry, and an explanation was given as to why they shouldn’t do it. Only two people said they would be willing to change their current washing practices. Others said they would continue the practice because of their perception of cleanliness, culture, and faith. Households with young children or elderly members were less confident about not washing raw poultry before cooking.

Participants from Laos and Indonesia reported being more confident about not washing raw poultry upon understanding the rationale for not doing it. Scientists say this indicates the possibility for targeted food safety messages and educational awareness suited to cultural differences in the region.

“Due to the challenges associated with raw poultry products purchased from traditional markets and the lack of confidence among consumers, a more effective food safety message would be to encourage good hand hygiene practices during and after handling raw poultry and to wash kitchen sink and preparation area with soap and water,” they added.

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

The head of a dairy company behind a Listeria outbreak in Austria faces more than a year in prison.

The boss of Käserei Gloggnitz was sentenced to 13 months in jail this week. The 39-year-old faced several charges but denied the allegations and the verdict was reported not to be final, according to media reports.

A Listeria outbreak from 2020 to 2022 had 10 cases and caused at least three deaths.

Käserei Gloggnitz faced financial issues in 2022 which led to insolvency proceedings being opened and in 2023 the closure of the plant was ordered.

Additional allegations will be heard in mid-March at the Regional Court of Wiener Neustadt when several other witnesses will also be questioned.

Incident background
In a January 2023 audit, DG Sante examined a file of the dairy plant linked to the outbreak. Käserei Gloggnitz had a poor compliance history and an inspection in 2020 identified several major deficiencies. Results of an inspection one year later were equally serious.

However, those findings did not lead to an increased inspection frequency or enforcement until an epidemiological link between infections and the company was established in autumn 2022 and authorities ordered production to be stopped.

Patients were six women and three men between 29 and 82 years old plus a newborn baby. Illnesses occurred in Vienna, said the Austrian Agency for Health and Food Safety (AGES).

Käserei Gloggnitz recalled all kajmak, drinking yogurt, and cream cheese products in September 2022 because of potential Listeria monocytogenes contamination. Kajmak is a type of cheese.

Officials found Listeria that matched the outbreak strain in three environmental samples taken from the company in Lower Austria. The outbreak strain was also detected in the food it produced. 

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

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has issued an “existing stocks order,” allowing farmers planning to use dicamba products for 2024 to receive and use them during the upcoming growing season.

EPA has ruled that farmers can accept “existing stocks” — previously registered pesticide products currently in the United States that were packaged, labeled, and released for shipment before Feb. 6.

On that date, the U.S. District Court for Arizona terminated dicamba registration in the United States. EPA’s “existing stocks order” clarified that dicamba products already in the possession of distributors, co-ops, and other parties for sale before that date can be sold and distributed within the set guidelines outlined in the order.

With millions of dollars of product on the line and few fast alternatives available before spring planting, the American Soybean Association (ASA) said in a statement that it “is exceptionally appreciative of” the EPA action.

 Josh Gackle, ASA president, and soybean farmer from North Dakota, said, “The court’s decision on dicamba instantly left tens of millions of acres of U.S. farmland in limbo — and in limbo a matter of weeks before spring planting. We appreciate the certainty EPA’s existing stock order provides to farmers from North Dakota, where I farm to Florida and everywhere in between. This ruling potentially affects more than 50 million acres of dicamba-tolerant soybeans and cotton — an area larger than the state of Nebraska — so again, we are very appreciative of EPA’s decision to let us get through the 2024 growing season by using any product already in the delivery pipeline.”

 ASA is the national advocacy organization for the industry and led a letter to EPA last week signed by 26 soy state affiliates asking the administration for help following a dicamba ruling in a federal district court in Arizona. 

The court ruled EPA made a procedural error in issuing 2020 dicamba registrations for over-the-top (OTT) use on dicamba-tolerant soybeans and cotton. Because EPA did not offer a public notice and comment period before issuing the registrations, the court ruled the agency was in violation of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act and vacated 2020 registrations for XtendiMax, Enginia, and Tavium.

In addition to the “existing stocks order,” ASA has asked for the administration’s support of an appeal of the ruling and help to keep the ruling from taking effect pending appeal.

The Feb. 6 court ruling was a victory for plaintiffs, including the  National Family Farm Coalition, the Pesticide Action Network, the Center for Food Safety, and the Center for Biological Diversity.

The ruling by the federal court in Tucson overturned EPA’s 2020 approval of the herbicide, which included additional application restrictions that failed to prevent ongoing drift damage. Plaintiffs argued that dicamba use is causing far-reaching harm and pointed to USDA’s estimates that as many as 15 million acres of soybeans were damaged by dicamba drift.

The  National Association of State Departments of Agriculture (NASDA) also supported the “existing stocks order” for the herbicide dicamba.  
 
“As co-regulatory partners with EPA committed to preserving environmental stewardship, protecting the rural economy and securing a healthy food supply chain, NASDA commends EPA on issuing an existing stocks order for dicamba that is inclusive of products that are in the possession of growers or the channels of trade. Today’s action will prevent severe detrimental impacts on our food, fuel, and fiber availability.” NASDA CEO Ted McKinney said.

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

As part of its enforcement activities, the Food and Drug Administration sends warning letters to entities under its jurisdiction. Some letters are not posted for public view until weeks or months after they are sent. Business owners have 15 days to respond to FDA warning letters. Warning letters often are not issued until a company has been given months to years to correct problems.

Iowa Egg Company Inc.
Houston, TX

In a Dec. 15, 2023, warning letter, the Food and Drug Administration warned the owner of an egg company about Salmonella concerns in his facility.

On June 28-29, 2023, the Iowa Department of Agriculture, under contract with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), inspected the shell egg farm and egg processing facility, where eggs are washed, graded, and packed. The inspection revealed serious violations of the Prevention of Salmonella Enteritidis in Shell Eggs During Production, Storage, and Transportation regulation (the Shell Egg regulation), Title 21, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 118 (21 CFR Part 118). 

Failure to comply with the provisions of 21 CFR 118 causes your shell eggs to be in violation of section 361(a) of the Public Health Service Act (the PHS Act), 42 U.S.C. § 264(a). In addition, these violations render your shell eggs adulterated within the meaning of section 402(a)(4) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act), 21 U.S.C. § 342(a)(4), in that they have been prepared, packed, or held under insanitary conditions whereby they may have become contaminated with filth, or whereby they may have been rendered injurious to health. You may find the Act, the PHS Act and Shell Egg regulation through links on FDA’s home page at www.fda.gov.

At the conclusion of the inspection, Iowa Department of Agriculture State inspectors issued an FDA Form 483 Inspectional Observations. To date, FDA has not received a response describing corrective actions. Based on our review of the inspectional findings, we are issuing this letter to advise you of our concerns and to provide detailed information describing the findings at your farm. Your significant violations are as follows:

You did not have and implement a written Salmonella Enteritidis (SE) Prevention Plan that includes, at minimum, the SE prevention measures required by 21 CFR118.4. You have a document titled “SE Prevention Plan”; however, as described below, this plan is inadequate in that it does not address all required SE prevention measures.

Biosecurity

You did not have written measures to ensure that there is no introduction or transfer of SE into or among poultry houses, as required by 21 CFR 118.4(b). At a minimum, you must:

• Limit visitors on the farm and within the poultry houses;
• Maintain personnel and equipment practices that will protect against cross-contamination when people or equipment move between houses;
• Prevent stray poultry, wild birds, cats, and other animals from entering poultry houses;
• Not allow employees to keep birds at home.

Further, inspectors observed gaps for potential entry of pests and other animals to the poultry houses (including large gaps in the (redacted) house), perimeter exhaust fans missing their protective cages, and other fans with protective cages that were not securely fastened.

Rodents, Flies and Other Pest Control

You did not monitor for the presence of rodents by appropriate methods, as required by 21 CFR 118.4(c)(1). Specifically, you did not identify a threshold for acceptable or unacceptable activity, nor did you identify corrective actions to take if unacceptable activity was observed. Farm management stated that a pest control company visits the farm (redacted) and places bait stations on the inside and outside of the poultry houses. However, the bait consumption was not routinely monitored. Inspectors observed evidence of rodent activity, including droppings and chewed insulation in the (redacted) house.

• You did not monitor for the presence of flies by appropriate methods, as required by 21 CFR 118.4(c)(2). Specifically, you did not routinely monitor fly activity, did not identify a threshold for acceptable and unacceptable fly activity, and did not identify corrective actions to take if unacceptable activity was observed. Further, flies were observed in the (redacted) house.
• You did not remove debris within a poultry house and vegetation and debris outside your poultry house that may provide harborage for pests, as required by 21 CFR 118.4(c)(3). Specifically, inspectors observed tall grass and weeds growing immediately around the poultry houses.

Cleaning and Disinfection

Your SE Prevention Plan did not include cleaning and disinfection procedures for poultry houses, in the event that you have an environment test or egg test that was positive for SE at any point during the life of a flock, as required by 21 CFR 118.4(d).

2.  You did not hold or transport eggs at or below 45 degrees F ambient temperature beginning 36 hours after the time of lay, as required by 21 CFR 118.4(e). Your SE Prevention Plan stated “eggs should be stored in a cooler that is (redacted)”; however, your cooler temperatures routinely exceeded 45 degrees F. For example, from May 4, 2023, through June 4, 2023, the documented cooler temperatures ranged from 51 degrees F to 68 degrees F consecutively for 31 days.

3.  You did not conduct environmental testing for SE in your poultry houses when laying hens were 40 to 45 weeks of age, as required by 21 CFR 118.5(a). Specifically, the (redacted) house and the (redacted) house were tested when the flocks were approximately 48 weeks of age.

Further, we have concerns regarding your handling of environmental samples. For example, the laboratory record dated March 3, 2023, indicates the sample receipt date as March 1, 2023. However, this record also indicates that the (redacted) house was sampled on Feb. 27, 2023, with the date “on the bag” indicated as Feb. 25, 2023. Additionally, this laboratory record indicates that (redacted) house was sampled on Feb. 26, 2023, but indicates the date “on the bag” as Feb. 14,2023. No further explanation was provided to clarify the testing timeframes and date submitted to the laboratory for analysis.

4.  You did not maintain records regarding your SE Prevention Plan in accordance with the requirements set forth by 21 CFR 118.10. Specifically:

a.  You did not have documentation that the pullet environment for your current flocks were tested for SE at 14-16 weeks of age, as required by 21 CFR118.10(a)(2).

b.  You did not have documentation that refrigeration requirements were met; specifically, you did not have cooler temperature logs for seven of the 12 months reviewed, as required by 21 CFR 118.10(a)(3)(iv).

c.  Your SE Prevention Plan was not dated and did not include the signatures of the person(s) who administers the plan, as required by 21 CFR 118.10(b)(3).

d.  You did not keep your SE Prevention Plan onsite at your farm location, as required by 21 CFR 118.10(d). Inspectors requested your SE Prevention Plan and received a copy via email from your corporate office.

The complete warning letter can be found here.

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