|
With its $9.5 billion tourist industry mostly built around food and music, the safety of Louisiana restaurant food is a subject of interest far beyond its borders, especially with anyone who has a taste for crawfish, gumbo, and jambalaya. The report says that according to the Louisiana State Epidemiologist, accurately quantifying foodborne illness cases is difficult because not all cases are reported, and because many foodborne illnesses can be transmitted through a means other than food served at a restaurant. With that caveat , the state Epidemiologist estimates the state has 163,357 cases of foodborne illness annually with an estimated 28,000 illnesses originating at restaurants. During the last year, the state took about 2,930 reports of foodborne illness, with 498 or 17 percent coming from restaurants or other retail food establishments. The audit focuses specifically on the Office of Public Health (OPH) , the retail food safety unit of the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals (DHH). Among its most significant findings are:
Louisiana's retail food establishments are regulated by an $11 million a year program with 86 authorized positions. It currently permits about 16,000 retail establishments and conducted about 98,000 inspections over the two years that were the focus of the audit. During that period, about 20 percent or 88,290 critical violations were discovered among a total of 444,825. Critical violations are generally through of as problems poising an immediate threat to human health. Examples in Louisiana are food stored at improper temperatures, poor employee hygiene, no water, chemical contamination and sewage backup. The audit findings were especially critical of OPH for granting permits to establishments where a critical violation was discovered but was not addressed before the opening. Further, Louisiana did not inspect 81 percent of the high-risk establishments in accordance with its own risk model. For example, in Fiscal Year (FY) 2011, OPH failed to inspect 2,079 of the 2,516 high-risk establishments. The auditor suggests OPH come up with a penalty or "some other condequence" for establishments with repeat critical violations. The Department of Health and Hospitals basically agrees with that recommendation, but says it will need legal advice on its options. The auditor also recommends a re-inspection fee system be developed. It suggested one revenue model that would raise another $718,500 for the program. Currently, restaurants in Louisiana pay an annual permit fee of just $100 each. To illustrate it point on how some restaurants run up critical violations without concern, the audit includes "Exhibit 4," listing "Restaurants with Most Violations by Region." Topping that list are three restaurants in Lafayette with total and critical violations for the two year period: Royal Panda (687 total including 133 critical violations or 19.4 percent) ; Charles Seafood (566 total including 102 critical violations or 18 percent0; and Crown Plaza Lafayette South (532 total including 98 or 18.4 percent). © Food Safety NewsMore Headlines from Local Food  |
12.13.2012
Legislative Audit Questions Effectiveness of Louisiana Restaurant Inspections
DeLauro to Obama Admin: Don’t Weaken Food Safety in Canada Trade Intiatives
| Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) is urging the Obama administration to not weaken food safety protections in initiatives with Canada as the two countries work to hash out the details of the Regulatory Cooperation Council and the Beyond the Border program. "There are significant differences between the two countries' food safety systems and easing the way for Canadian products to bypass traditional safeguards and enter U.S. markets could put public health at risk," said DeLauro's office in a statement released on Thursday. The released accompanied a letter sent to Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, Jeffrey Zients, Acting Director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, and John Brennan, Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism. In the letter, DeLauro points to the recent E. coli O157:H7 XL Foods recall in Canada — the largest in Canadian history — to argue that achieving greater alignment between US and Canadian regulatory approaches would have "the potential to weaken public health protections in the United States and impede USDA's ability to prevent foodborne illness." "Facilitating trade should not supersede public health protections," added DeLauro, who is a senior member of the subcommittee on agriculture appropriations. DeLauro also outlined several key differences between the US and Canadian food safety regulatory systems, which she believes are problematic: • "The United States has zero tolerance for Listeria monocytogenes in all Ready-to-Eat products and product contact surfaces, while the Canadian system allows for a tolerance level of less than 100 colony forming units. As you know, listeriosis is a serious infection that may be caused by consuming contaminated foods like deli meats and hot dogs. This grave foodborne illness primarily affects pregnant women, older adults, and newborns. Moreover, data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicates that hospitalization rates and case fatality rates for listeriosis are among the highest seen for foodborne illnesses. • Earlier this month, nearly 5,000 pounds of frozen butter chicken imported from Canada were recalled because the product may have been contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes. Although the product is frozen, it is considered 'Ready-to-Eat' as defined by Canadian standards. While it is obvious that frozen products need to be heated before being consumed, there are non-frozen products that require additional cooking but can still be described as 'Ready-to-Eat' by the Canadian definition. Meanwhile, USDA defines 'Ready-to-Eat' as products that can be consumed without additional cooking or preparation, as the term implies to consumers. • In the United States, before a meat or poultry facility is permitted to ship its product into commerce, it is required to review its hazard analysis and critical control points (HACCP) records to ensure that all of the plant's critical control points have been met. Canada does not require this pre-shipment review of a plant's HACCP records. • Perhaps most importantly, FSIS requires a continuous inspection presence at meat and poultry slaughter and processing facilities. Canada does not require a daily or continuous inspection presence at its meat and poultry slaughter facilities. This significant difference could explain how the 'high-event period' at XL Foods went undetected for an extended period of time until identified by FSIS testing." The letter continues: "It is alarming that the BtB Action Plan establishes a pilot program that would allow a Canadian establishment to ship fresh beef and pork products directly to an FSIS-inspected facility, bypassing border inspection. The XL Foods recall underscores the importance of border testing and demonstrates that there are questions as to whether the Canadian food safety system for meat is truly equivalent to the U.S. system…I strongly urge you to prevent any food safety-related measures from being included in these initiatives." © Food Safety NewsMore Headlines from Food Politics |
Seafood Fraud: A Threat to Your Health, or Just Your Pocketbook?
|
The results of this study – released last week by ocean advocacy group Oceana – add New York to a growing list of major cities in which widespread seafood fraud has been discovered by DNA testing of samples. A recent investigation by the Boston Globe found that 48 percent of fish from restaurants, supermarkets and fish markets in Boston were mislabeled. Oceana unearthed a similar situation in Los Angeles this spring when it tested 119 samples of fish from area retailers and found that 55 percent were not the species consumers thought they were buying. This most recent round of testing in New York City found that tuna was the most likely to be mislabeled. A full 94 percent of fish labeled "white tuna" were revealed to be escolar, a fish banned by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration because of the laxative effect it can have on those who consume it. The group also found two instances in which tilefish was substituted for other types of fish. Tilefish, notes the report, is "on the FDA's do-not-eat list because of its high mercury content." A total of 15 substitutions for snapper were found out of 19 "snapper" samples taken. All 16 of the sushi restaurants included in the study were found to be selling mislabeled fish. Seafood Fraud: A Health Threat? How concerned should consumers be about these findings? Does seafood fraud put people at risk or just cheat them out of better quality fish? "The use of a false or misleading name may prevent correct species identification and thereby affect the ability of processors and consumers to make accurate assessments of the potential safety hazards associated with seafood," says FDA in its introduction to the Seafood List, a list of all names it accepts as seafood species. "Hazards such as allergenic proteins and scombrotoxin formation are associated with some species but not others, presenting potential food safety risks if the food is not accurately labeled." While it is possible that mislabeling fish could mean that an at-risk consumer eats the wrong fish, seafood fraud does not generally pose a major public health threat, says Ken Gall, a Seafood Technology Specialist at for the New York Sea Grant at Cornell University Extension. Subbing one fish for a similar type of fish – such as tilapia for snapper – is relatively harmless, he says, since white fish such as these generally have the same safety requirements for processing. "It's only a price issue, because from a taste and quality standpoint they're essentially the same, and from a public health standpoint there's no issue at all," says Gall of subbing other white fish for snapper. Dark-flesh fish, on the other hand, can be more dangerous because they contain histidine. When bacterial spoilage occurs, histidine produces enzymes that can convert to histamine and cause an allergic reaction. For this reason, dark-fleshed fish such as makarel, tuna or mahi mahi are subject to different controls. They must be monitored more often to make sure they are kept at low temperatures to control for bacteria. If one dark-flesh fish is replaced with another, it will still be subject to the same histidine controls under the company's Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points plan (HACCP), which every processor is required to have in place, explains Gall. And dark-flesh fish is nearly impossible to pass off as white fish, he notes. "Even though you might substitute one type of mackerel for another, it's still going to be recognizable as a mackerel to almost everyone in the industry and they will know that it has to be handled in a HACCP plan for the histamine fish." As for the tilefish found in two samples – a fish that is purportedly dangerous to pregnant women – Gall says the tilefish found in New York City was likely a different tilefish from the kind subject to FDA's warning, which is harvested from the Gulf of Mexico. Tilefish from the Hudson Canyon are not considered dangerous to pregnant women. Replacing an illegal fish like escolar for tuna, however, poses a mild health threat. "The issue with escolar is the purgative effect," says Gall. "It could be an uncomfortable thing, but it's generally not a big health issue." Roger Tollefsen, President of the New York Seafood Council, questions the validity of the Oceana study, pointing out that "white tuna" is not a type of fish under FDA's list of accepted fish labels. "How many people were buying 'white tuna' that was legitimate? None. Because there's no such thing," says Tollefsen. "If 94 percent of the tuna that was tested was escolar, what was the other 6 percent? They just found a new species," he jokes. "The clear message to the consumer is don't buy white tuna. To me right now, what white tuna is is escolar. It's a generic name that was given to this fish." Gall concurs: "The only reason people might use that term is because white meat, or albacore tuna, is something people are familiar with in the can, but there really is no species called white tuna and so you can pretty much bet that that's a substitute." Nevertheless, mislabeling fish is foul play, says Gavin Gibbons, a representative for the National Fisheries Institute, a trade association that launched the Better Seafood Bureau in 2007. BSB members pledge their commitment to safe and correctly labeled seafood and agree to more extensive inspections. "Even though it's not really a food safety issue, if a company is willing to defraud its customers, what else is it willing to do?" asks Gibbons. In the past, some seafood producers who were subbing one fish for another were also found to have been changing the expiration date on packaging to make fish seem fresher than it was, points out Kimberly Warner, Senior Scientist at Oceana and lead author of the New York City seafood study. This allows more time for histidine to develop into histamines as the fish decays. "The perishability of seafood is a huge issue," says Warner. "Chances of scromboid poisoning (illness from decaying fish) increases the longer the fish is out of the sea," she says. Tackling the Problem Whether it is an economic or health issue, or both, seafood fraud is an illegal, punishable crime — one that can be hard to detect. "Seafood is so much more complicated than any other food commodity," says Gall. "When you think about the possibility that there are 500 different species of fish and shellfish out there in the marketplace, it's very difficult for even experts a lot of times to identify correctly what species they're handling." FDA has been maintaining a list of all accepted fish names since 1988, and expanded that list to include invertebrates such as mussels and clams in 1993. The National Fisheries Institute acts as a self-regulator for industry, providing a stamp of legitimacy to those who subscribe to the Better Seafood Bureau and closely monitoring members. BSB works with FDA and the enforcement arm of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to detect seafood fraud and prosecute perpetrators. Over the past few years, the government has been cracking down on fraudulent fish sales. Several dealers have been convicted of seafood fraud and most have been sentenced to jail time. Earlier this year a California company was fined $1 million for selling Asian catfish as grouper. In a 2010 case, three seafood dealers pled guilty to illegally importing 283,500 pounds of Vietnamese catfish, labeling the fish as sole and grouper and distributing it to over 65 restaurants, military installations and supermarkets in the Southeast. The perpetrators served a combined total of nearly 6 years in prison. However, as recent studies show, the problem persists. In July of 2012, following the Boston Globe's report, U.S. Representatives Edward Markey (D-MA) and Barney Frank (D-MA) introduced the Safety and Fraud Enforcement for Seafood (SAFE Seafood) Act, which would require full traceability for all seafood sold in the United States. "Without strict accounting of the supply chain, a tracking number that follows the fish, you don't really know where it's coming from," says Warner of Oceana. "And fish have a very complex and obscure supply chain." A full 91 percent of seafood consumed in the U.S. is imported, according to NOAA, meaning it can often be difficult to trace mislabeled product to its origins. In 2009, the U.S. Government Accountability Office said there was more that FDA and other agencies responsible for seafood safety could do to combat fraud. "FDA examines only about 2 percent of imported seafood annually, and its primary seafood oversight program does not address economic fraud risks, which limits its ability to detect fraud," GAO said in the document. "Because of the limited scope of FDA's seafood oversight program, its mismanagement of the Seafood List, and its failure to update its guidance to reflect the allergen labeling requirement, consumers have less assurance that the seafood they purchase is correctly labeled." Gibbons says the right regulations are already in place, but must be put into practice. "The way we feel is that this is really an enforcement issue. There are rules and there are regulations already in place, but enforcement has been lacking. And as soon as we start to see a renewed focus on enforcement, we'll start to see this issue turn around." "If you have a DNA test, a menu and an invoice, you should be able to tell where the fraud happened," he says. "You don't have to test every piece of fish that's on the market. You just have to let people know you're testing a percentage. For people who are committing fraud, that will serve as a strong deterrent." Tollefsen suggests simply using the recent evidence of seafood fraud to educate inspectors about what to look for. "That's just a memo on the board. Okay, inspectors, when you go out, look for white tuna." Experts agree that wholesalers are less likely to be fooled than a restauranteur. "If I buy fish from a harvester, I know what I'm buying," says Tollefsen, who was formerly in the fish business. "I have to know. Just like a diamond dealer knows what he's buying. If I was a wholesaler and I bought a tilefish and had no idea it was something else, shame on me. I have no place in the business." Gall explains that by the time a fish gets to the restaurant, it might be in filet or steak form and less recognizable. "There's really few problems on the part of the fishermen and the wholesalers who sell those fish, they are experts, they have experience. But there are unscrupulous dealers." "It's just really hard to get a handle on because the only way you can be sure is this kind of DNA testing," Gall says. In his opinion, it's a matter of putting limited public health funds where they'll make the most difference. "These agencies have to prioritize their resources and they're going to focus on high public health risk types of issues," he says. Even given what's going on, probably much more of an economic issue than a public health issue." Consumer Detection While a restaurant patron or grocery store shopper will be the least likely to recognize fraudulent fish, there are some warning signs consumers can look out for. First, consumers can ask where the seafood they're buying came from, says Warner. Another sign of fish fraud is a label that describes a type of fish not on FDA's seafood list, such as "white tuna." The full list is available here. "The other issue that people need to be tuned into is price," says Gall. "When you see a label like white tuna and a price that's so much lower than other kinds of tuna, it's a red flag that something's probably going on." And for those who wish to be more proactive: "We need consumers to be able to demand that the fish we buy and feed ourselves is honestly labeled and ask questions about where it's from and say that you care, that you would support having a traced seafood product available to you so that you can be sure that what you're ordering is what you're getting," says Warner. © Food Safety NewsMore Headlines from Food Policy & Law |
WY Restaurant Outbreak Likely from Norovirus
|
The evidence points to a Norovirus contamination at a buffet-style Golden Corral restaurant in east Casper as the source, health department director Robert Harrington told Food Safety News. Thus far, none of the 167 self-reported cases have been clinically diagnosed. Results from tests should begin coming in next week. The emergency room of the local hospital reported a "remarkable spike" last week in illnesses featuring symptoms of Norovirus infection, Harrington said. Those suffering from infection may experience diarrhea, stomach cramps, nausea and vomiting. Around 1 p.m. Mountain Time, Golden Corral announced a voluntary 24-hour shutdown to sanitize the premises. Harrington cautioned management that a temporary closure cannot guarantee eliminating the contamination, but praised the move as "doing the right thing." The restaurant opened approximately one month ago, Harrington said. Local health officials performed their first operational inspection of the facilities on Wednesday following the spate of illness reports. A news story published Wednesday in the Casper Star-Tribune featured an interview with a Golden Corral patron who noted dirty plates being served to customers. When he addressed the concern to an employee, he was told that the restaurant's dishwasher was broken. Harrington said that the dishwasher was functioning properly when officials inspected the restaurant on Wednesday. Inspectors did not note any unclean plates, either. Health officials will be back at Golden Corral Friday to inspect the facility once again before it re-opens for dinner. © Food Safety NewsMore Headlines from Foodborne Illness Investigations |
Taylor Farms Romaine Lettuce Recalled for Possible Listeria
| Taylor Farms is recalling 110 cases of Taylor Farms Hearts of Romaine 10 oz. bags of romaine lettuce due to possible contamination of Listeria monocytogenes. The affected product bears a UPC of 0-30223-04032-3 and features a best-by date of today, Dec. 13, 2012. The product was sold in California and Florida. No reported illnesses have yet been associated with this product. However, until the isolate can be further characterized, it is not possible to say if any known cases of illness match it. More Headlines from Food Recalls |
Burgers Recalled in Canada for Possible E. Coli
|
The affected product is frozen in 1.13 kg packages bearing the UPC 0-60383-89363-7, with a best-before date of March 2013. The product was distributed nationally across Canada. According to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, the recall has resulted from an ongoing investigation into a number of E. coli O157:H7 illnesses in Canada. The recall may be expanded as additional products undergo testing. © Food Safety NewsMore Headlines from Food Recalls |
12.12.2012
Ex-BPI Employee Sues Media Over LFTB Controversy
|
In the suit, Bruce Smith targets ABC News and a number of media personalities, including ABC anchors Diane Sawyer and Jim Avila, who aired a segment called "Pink Slime and You" during the March 7, 2012 edition of ABC World News with Diane Sawyer. Other individuals named in the lawsuit include celebrity chef Jamie Oliver and blogger Bettina Siegel. On April 12, 2011, Oliver featured a segment on his TV show "Jamie Oliver's Food Revolution" deriding 'pink slime'. Siegel, author of The Lunch Tray blog, gained national attention on March 6, 2012, when she started a petition on Change.org titled "Tell USDA to STOP Using Pink Slime in School Food!" More than 250,000 people signed Siegel's petition, which ultimately resulted in the USDA giving school districts the choice of whether or not to include LFTB-supplemented beef in their menus. In the weeks that followed, grocery chains such as Safeway, Supervalu Inc., Kroger and Food Lion announced that they would discontinue sales of ground beef containing LFTB. BPI closed three of its four plants in the months following the media coverage. Smith worked as an environmental health and safety officer at BPI for more than four years. He was one of nearly 90 corporate employees laid off by the company in May, the Sioux City Journal reports. A licensed Nebraska attorney representing himself in the lawsuit, Smith is seeking $70,000 in damages for "extreme emotional distress" and "hardship and pain and suffering." In Nebraska, suits seeking $70,000 or less cannot be transferred to federal court, and Smith wishes the case to be heard by a jury in Dakota County, the Journal reports. BPI operates its one last plant there, and it is where many current and former BPI employees reside. "For the time being," Siegel wrote on her blog, "I'll have no further comment except to say that I'm confident the First Amendment protects the rights of all Americans, including bloggers like myself, against meritless attempts at censorship like this one." Smith is also self-publishing a book about the controversy, titled "Pink Slime Ate My Job," available now in eBook format and coming in paperback Christmas Day. Smith said that if the book sells at least 100,000 copies, he will donate $1 from each sale to his fellow ex-BPI employees. In September, BPI filed suit against ABC News, former U.S. Department of Agriculture officials, and a former BPI employee for allegedly defaming its products. The company is seeking $1.2 billion in damages as well as punitive damages for a "sustained a vicious campaign" against LFTB that resulted in "enormous financial harm." ABC News Senior Vice President Jeffrey Schneider has said the organization will defend its news coverage against the allegations "vigorously," saying the lawsuit "is without merit." Food safety law firm Marler Clark has been retained by ABC News for its defense in the suit. Marler Clark underwrites Food Safety News. Read Smith's full complaint here. More comprehensive 'pink slime' coverage from Food Safety News can be found here: BPI and 'Pink Slime': A Timeline The Rise to Fame of 'Pink Slime' BPI Sues ABC News, Former USDA Officials for 'Pink Slime' Defamation © Food Safety NewsMore Headlines from Lawsuits & Litigation |
