FDA: Federal food safety law carries price tag

Tom Karst
The Packer
01/04/2013

The costs to fruit and vegetable growers for complying with the newly proposed produce safety regulation have been estimated at more than $30,000 annually for large farms and about $13,000 per year for smaller farms.

Those figures come from the Food and Drug Administration’s cost-and-benefit analysis of the produce safety rule regulation, one of two proposed Food Safety Modernization Act components released Jan. 4.

The FDA estimates the new food safety regulations on growing and packing will prevent 1.75 million foodborne illnesses annually.

The proposed rule imposes new standards on growers for worker training and hygiene, agricultural water purity, biological soil amendments, equipment, tools and buildings. Exemptions to the proposed rule were carved out for produce commodities rarely consumed raw, produce used for personal or on-farm consumption, produce that receives a “kill step” to reduce the presence of microorganisms and farms with average annual sales of $25,000 or less.

Other growers with sales less than $500,000 (and who sell mostly to consumers or nearby retailers and restaurants) can qualify for exemption or fewer mandates — as outlined in the Tester Amendment.

The FDA calculates the benefit from reduced foodborne illnesses to be $1.04 billion. The FDA estimates the cost of the legislation to domestic farms at $460 million annually and $171 million a year for foreign farms. Net benefit was calculated to be $406 million annually.

Michael Taylor, the FDA’s deputy commissioner for foods and veterinary medicine, said it is hard to predict foodborne illness outbreaks. He said one of the benefits of the regulation is greater consumer confidence in produce safety and less damage to the industry from recalls.

Taylor said FDA plans to collaborate with the produce industry, state agriculture departments and University Extension agents to educate growers on the new requirements and to provide technical assistance and training.

Margaret Hamburg, commissioner of the FDA, said in a Jan. 4 news conference that the produce safety rule will allow small and large farms to organize themselves around one set of standards, rather than multiple standards from multiple buyers.

“Now there is going to be a uniform, agreed-upon approach that I think will both be driven by the best possible science and be agreed up and enforced at various levels, both local, state, industry and by FDA,” she said.

The produce safety rule was one of two rules released on the two-year anniversary of President Obama’s signing of the federal food safety law.

A second rule released Jan. 4 is the regulation designed to prevent foodborne illnesses originating from food facilities.

The proposed rules are available for public comment for the next 120 days, according to a news release from FDA. After the comment period, the FDA could take up to a year to publish final rules, Taylor said.

Industry leaders said they immediately began reviewing the lengthy proposals.

Mike Stuart, president of the Florida Fruit & Vegetable Association, said Jan. 4 he was glad the produce safety rule was finally out.

“The industry has been in limbo for the past year waiting for the rules to come out, so at least now we have begun the process of looking at them and over the next 120 days we will talk to membership and groups and around the country to provide some input on what we see,” he said.

The 547-page produce safety rule is so long that average growers may have difficulty reviewing the proposal, said Chris Schlect, president of the Yakima, Wash.-based Northwest Horticultural Council. He predicted the 4-month comment period may be extended because of the length of the proposed rules.

“The fear I have is not so much for the big operations because they have people on staff trained to deal with these kinds of things,” he said.

While the smallest farms are exempt from regulation by the food safety law, Schlect said mid-sized family operations might be driven out of business by the regulation.

Schlect said he hopes the FDA provides flexibility for low-risk commodities, including apples and pears.

Officials for PMA and United Fresh declined comment until they could review the proposals in-depth.

Produce safety rule

The produce safety rule proposes enforceable safety standards for the production and harvesting of produce. This rule proposes science- and risk-based standards for fruits and vegetables, according to the release.

The produce safety rule proposes that larger farms comply within 26 months after the final rule is published in the Federal Register, according to the FDA release. “Small” and “very small” farms would have more time to comply, according to the release. All farms will have more time to comply with water quality requirements.

Food facilities rule

The 680-page proposed rule on food facilities requires makers of food to be sold in the U.S., (whether domestic or imported), to develop a formal plan for preventing foodborne illness, according to the FDA release.

The proposed rule would establish requirements for a written food safety plan, hazard analysis, food safety measures to prevent contamination, monitoring, corrective actions, verification and associated records.

The agency said it is proposing that many food manufacturers be compliant by a year after the final rules are published; small and very small businesses would be given additional time.

FDA’s implementation of the proposed regulations will require additional funding, Taylor said.

Hamburg said additional rules on imported food and accreditation standards for third-party food safety audits overseas.

Prepping for Your GAPs Audit: Dec 4th

Are you thinking about getting your Good Agricultural Practices (GAPs) certification?  This process can be overwhelming and intimidating, but we are here to help.  On Dec. 4th, Cooperative Extension in collaboration with Carolina Farm Stewardship Association will be holding a training on "Food Safety Audit Trainings for Diversified Farmers".

What:  "Food Safety Audit Trainings for Diversified Farmers"

When:  Tuesday, Dec. 4th from 1-5 pm

Where:  Mountain Horticultural Crop Research and Extension Center, 455 Research Dr.  Mills River, NC

How Much:  Free but you must pre-register!

Registration:  Call the Henderson County Cooperative Extension Office at 828-697-4891 or email me at sue_colucci@ncsu.edu

Tentative Agenda:

1:00 pm        Introductions

1:30 pm        USDA GAP & GHP Audit Preparation and Scheduling

2:15 pm        General Section

3:00 pm        15 Minute Break

3:15 pm        Part One – Farm Review

4:00 pm        Part Two – Field Harvest and Field Packing Activities

4:45 pm        Wrap Up & Questions

The RAFI-Tobacco Communities Reinvestment Fund & NC Specialty Crop 

Block Grant funded the development of this curriculum. 

For more information, contact Dr. Audrey Kreske, Food Safety Extension 

Assoc., at ackreske@ncsu.edu.

Learn more at http://gapsmallfarmsnc.wordpress.com.

 

NCDA&CS Workshop Helps Protect Your Produce Business

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
WEDNESDAY, SEPT. 5, 2012

CONTACT:

Annette Dunlap, food business specialist NCDA&CS Marketing Division 919-707-3117; annette.dunlap@ncagr.gov

NCDA&CS workshop geared toward produce businesses

RALEIGH -- The N.C. Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services will host a workshop Oct. 3 in Raleigh on protecting your produce business. The event, which will be held at the Donald W. Eaddy Agronomic Lab at 4300 Reedy Creek Road, is tailored for anyone who grows, packs or ships fresh produce.

“This workshop is especially timely as there have been a number of produce recalls around the country this summer,” said NCDA&CS food business specialist Annette Dunlap.  “We want to arm produce businesses with the information they need to hopefully avoid food recalls, but also help them be prepared if a recall happens.”

The workshop will feature presentations from retailers, food inspectors, extension specialists and NCDA&CS staff. Topics include the economics of a food recall, a retailer’s perspective, communicating a recall to your customers and the public, everyday produce safety, working with regulators, legal liability and recalls, rebuilding trust with vendors and NCDA&CS resources.

The cost for the workshop is $20, which includes lunch and materials. The registration deadline is Sept. 28. For more information or to register, go to www.ncagr.gov/markets/agribiz/

, or call Annette Dunlap at 919-707-3117.

The Case of the Contaminated, Reusable Grocery Bag

by Mary Rothschild
Food Safety News
May 10, 2012
Original link: http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/05/the-case-of-the-contaminated-reusable-grocery-bag/

How Oregon epidemiologists solved a norovirus mystery

Oregon state senior epidemiologist William Keene is a fan of Berton Roueché, whose books, like Eleven Blue Men, revealed the whodunnit work of epidemiology.

Now Keene, of the Oregon Public Health Division, and fellow sleuth Kimberly Repp, of Oregon Health and Sciences University, have cracked a case and told a real-life detective tale worthy of Roueché.

Writing in The Journal of Infectious Diseases, available here online, Keene and Repp explain how in October, 2010, a group of Oregon soccer players, 13 and 14 years old, and some adult chaperones, came down with norovirus during a tournament in Washington state.

One of the girls apparently was infected prior to the trip, and began vomiting and suffering bouts of diarrhea late Saturday in the chaperone's hotel bathroom. The girl, who had no contact with her teammates after she became ill, was driven home in the morning.

But a reusable grocery bag filled with snacks -- packaged cookies, chips and grapes -- had been in the bathroom. The rest of the group ate that food during a Sunday lunch, and other members of the team were ill by Tuesday after they had returned to Oregon.

In investigating the outbreak, Keene and Repp found no connections to any other norovirus illnesses at the team's hotel, the tournament, or the restaurants where they had eaten. It wasn't until they learned about the bag in the bathroom that a "coherent story" emerged, Keene and Repp wrote.

Two weeks later, matching viruses were found on the sides of the bag.

Although the first sick girl said she did not touch the grocery bag, Keene and Repp theorize that the viruses had aerosolized in the bathroom and settled on the sack and the food items inside.

"What this report does is it helps raise awareness of the complex and indirect way that norovirus can spread," said Aron Hall, DVM, MSPH, with the Division of Viral Diseases at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in an accompanying editorial. And in what could be a blurb for a Roueché-style book, Hall adds that the study authors provide "a fascinating example of how a unique exposure and transmission scenario can result in a norovirus outbreak."

The investigation shows how this tenacious virus "finds a way to move from host to host, even when those hosts have no direct contact with one another," Hall added.

Keene and Repp observe that "incidentally, this also illustrates one of the less obvious hazards of reusable grocery bags."

While they recommend not storing food in bathrooms, the study authors say "it is more important to emphasize that areas where aerosol exposures may have occurred should be thoroughly disinfected; this includes not only exposed surfaces, but also objects in the environment" that could become
contaminated and spread infection.

In addition to thorough hand-washing, disinfecting affected areas with bleach- based solutions and dedicating bathrooms for use only by those who are sick are some practices that could limited outbreaks caused by such indirect contact, they suggest.

Noroviruses -- "perhaps the perfect human pathogens,"  according to Hall -- are the leading cause of gastroenteritis in the U.S. They are responsible for more than 21 illnesses, 70,000 hospitalizations and 800 deaths annually in this country alone. People can get norovirus illness throughout the year, but cases generally peak between December and February.

GAP compliance critical for trust in local produce, study says

Tom Karst

The Packer
03/21/2012

Growers marketing local food should be prepared to implement good agricultural practices if they want to assure long-term consumer and retail demand, according to researchers at Penn State’s College of Agricultural Sciences.

“What we found was the trend seems to be that Pennsylvania supermarkets are both interested in increasing sales of local produce but also are going to increasingly hand down more stringent expectations that will require growers to verify their compliance with on-farm food safety standards,” said Daniel Tobin, author of the study and graduate student at Penn State.

The study involved 15 Pennsylvania companies with a total of 628 supermarkets in the state.

The research asked a representative from each of the participating supermarkets to indicate their current (2009) and projected (2012) policies on GAPs. The survey found that in 2009, only four (27%) companies required either GAP training or certification. The research found that by 2012, however, 10 of the 15 (67%) supermarkets said they intend to require either GAP training or third party certification for suppliers.

The majority of supermarkets taking part in the research said they intended to increase purchases of local produce in 2012.

Seven of the companies (47%) indicated they would buy the same amount of local produce in 2012 as they had in 2009, while eight (53%) indicated that they would purchase more local produce by 2012.

None of the retailers planned to buy less local produce.

All the supermarkets that required either training or certification said they intend to purchase more local produce in 2012.

Only one of the 15 companies said it communicates to consumers that the local produce it sells has been inspected for on-farm food safety.

Tobin said there are no reliable figures on the percent of growers in Pennsylvania who have implemented GAPs or undergone third-party certification. The expectation is that GAPs will become required.

“Whether mandated by the Food Safety Modernization Act or the private sector, GAP compliance through third-party certification will likely become the norm for most growers, regardless of farm size, location, or financial status,” according to the study.

A separate study found that 87.6% of Pennsylvania consumers placed high importance on knowing whether the produce they bought had been inspected by the government for on-farm food safety. In addition, 86.6% strongly agreed they would have fewer concerns about produce contamination if they
produce they bought had been inspected by the government.

In general, the authors said the research showed consumers do not currently feel assured that the produce they are purchasing is safe.

Microbial Food Safety and Organic Sanitizers Webinar

Join eOrganic for a webinar on Microbial Food Safety Issues of Organic Foods on December 6, 2011 at 12PM Eastern Time (11AM Central, 10AM Mountain, 9AM Pacific Time). Space is limited and advance registration is required. Register now at http://www.extension.org/pages/61477

In this webinar, Dr. Francisco Diez-Gonzalez will discuss some of the major concerns related to contamination of organic foods with pathogenic bacteria such as those stemming from the use of manure as fertilizers and the lack of effective organic sanitizers for disinfection of processing equipment. He will discuss some of the current epidemiological and scientific evidence related to those concerns, and offer an update on his research using bacteriophages as potential organic sanitizers

Francisco Diez is a Food Microbiologist and Professor at the Department of Food Science and Nutrition of the University of Minnesota where he conducts research on control of foodborne pathogens and teaches courses on Food Safety and Microbiology. He has been investigating the safety of organic foods for more than 10 years.

Find all eOrganic upcoming and recorded webinars at http://www.extension.org/pages/25242/webinars-by-eorganic

Study Finds that Salmonella Can Enter Tomatoes Through Leaves at VERY High Concentrations

From Food Safety News November 11

Salmonella Can Enter Tomatoes Through Leaves
By Gretchen Goetz

Recently scientists have been exploring whether or not pathogens can enter fruits and vegetables through plant parts, and have found that bacteria can indeed be taken in through the roots. Now new research shows that the leaves of tomato plants are a possible point of entry for Salmonella.

A study from the University of Florida, released Wednesday by PloS ONE publications, revealed that after leaves of tomato plants were exposed to high concentrations of Salmonella, the bacteria traveled through the plant and contaminated some of the fruit.

Researchers found that 1.5 percent of tomatoes whose leaves had been dipped into a solution with a high concentration of Salmonella then tested positive for the bacteria.

However, these findings don't mean that 1 or 2 out of every 100 tomatoes in the field will be contaminated if their leaves come into contact with Salmonella. The concentrations of Salmonella used for the study were much greater than what plants would normally be exposed to, says Ariena van Bruggen, the study's lead author, a professor of plant pathology and member of UF's Emerging Pathogens Institute.

This unusually high concentration of Salmonella was necessary, says van Bruggen, in order to ensure that if the bacteria did get through to the fruit, it would be detectable among the smaller sample size of a greenhouse full of tomatoes.

"If you use a normal Salmonella concentration that you would find in the field, you would have to test say 10,000 plants or so," she explained to Food Safety News.

The take-home message, she says, is that leaf-to-tomato contamination "can happen, but the chance is low."

"That should be stressed," she notes, "so that we don't create any panic."

But the fact that such means of contamination is possible is a reminder that growers need to be careful to review safety plans, for factors such as the source of their irrigation water or wild animal encroachment, because given the quantities of tomatoes produced in America, some tomatoes in a field where thousands of leaves are exposed to Salmonella could become contaminated, notes van Bruggen.

"It's just because we consume so many tomatoes, somebody could become ill at some point," she says.

And even that small risk is reason for safety precautions. The tomato industry brings in an estimated $619 million per year, and damaged consumer confidence could have a devastating effect on producers.

In 2008 when a Salmonella outbreak was incorrectly linked to domestic tomatoes, consumers stopped buying fresh tomatoes, and growers lost an estimated $100 million.

The study also came with a kernel of good news: contaminated seeds do not seem to contaminate the plants they produce.

"Somehow seed contamination doesn't survive in the next generation," says van Bruggen, who explained that her team planted contaminated seeds harvested from the plants that acquired Salmonella through their leaves and tested the fruits they produced, finding no Salmonella.

Organic Food No Guarantee Against Foodborne Illness

By Madhu Rajaraman, NEWS21

Original Link: http://foodsafety.news21.com/2011/safety/organics

Eating organic may limit your exposure to pesticides. It may make you feel environmentally conscious. It can help support local farmers.

But scientists warn it won't necessarily protect you against foodborne illnesses. Organics, like conventionally farmed foods, can harbor dangerous pathogens including E. coli and salmonella.

A 2006 study in the Journal of Food Science did not find a significant difference in the prevalence of E. coli between organic and conventional produce. And a 2009 Kansas State University study did not find a difference in the prevalence of E. coli between organically and conventionally raised cattle.

Organic foods have caused their share of outbreaks of disease. Last winter, for example, sprouts from an organic farm in Illinois infected at least 140 people in 26 states and the District of Columbia with salmonella. And over a three-month period in 2011, a massive outbreak of a deadly strain of E. coli linked to sprouts from an organic farm in Germany killed 50 people and sickened more than 4,300 in several countries.

Organics are a big business in the U.S. Sales of organic food and beverages totaled $26.7 billion in 2010, according to the Organic Trade Association, with sales of fruits and vegetables up nearly 12 percent over 2009.

Consumers buy organic for a number of reasons, including to avoid certain pesticides, to encourage smaller farms and to support agriculture that doesn't introduce harsh substances into the environment. In a June 2011 health survey by Thomson Reuters and National Public Radio, 58 percent of respondents said they preferred organic over non-organic foods. The most popular reasons cited: to avoid toxins and support local farmers.

Despite the public's favorable perceptions, however, "the science doesn't show a difference," said David Lineback, senior fellow in food safety at the Joint Institute for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition at the University of Maryland.

Federal organic standards set by the U.S. Department of Agriculture do not include explicit requirements for food safety, nor are they intended to. The primary purpose of organic farming is not to prevent foodborne illness but to practice and promote environmentally sustainable agriculture.

"We don't purport that organic is healthier than conventional food," said USDA spokeswoman Soo Kim.

"The organic standards do not directly address issues of food safety but instead production and processing and handling methods of agricultural products," Kim said in an email. But, she added, "organic certification by the USDA doesn't preclude any operation from having to meet the food safety and environmental requirements" of two other federal bodies: the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency.

Organic labeling standards are based on the percentage of organic ingredients in a product.

For crops, this means growing on land without the application of any prohibited substances (as defined in the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990) and without the use of genetically modified organisms, most conventional pesticides or sewage sludge, for example. Organic livestock must be raised without hormones, fed 100 percent organic feed without byproducts and given year-round access to the outdoors.

Carrie Vaughn, vegetable production manager of the recently certified organic Clagett Farm in Upper Marlboro, Md., said she believes the food safety risks are lower on her farm because of strict standards for manure composting that come with organic certification.

USDA's organic program requires composted manure to be heated to at least 131 F for a minimum of either three or 15 days (depending on the composting system) in order to reduce pathogens.

Vaughn said the close relationship she has with her buyers and their families motivates her to be vigilant about food safety in the field. "It's terrifying for me as a grower to think that I could grow something that could kill a small child," she said. "So we're careful on the farm, and we also work directly with our customers. ... If something ever happened, it would be so easy to trace that contamination back to us."

Lineback, at JIFSAN, remains skeptical of what he calls consumers' "I-know- the-farmer" attitude. That trust, he said, is rooted not in science but in consumers' feelings about food and a distrust of corporate agriculture.

There is even debate over whether organic food is more nutritious, as proponents maintain. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition reported in 2010 that a study of 50 years of academic articles on the topic found that organic and conventional foods are nutritionally comparable.

So, which is better for you: organic or conventional? In the end, as Lineback noted, "it's a matter of choice and what people believe."