In the last few weeks leading up to the Christmas holiday season, a recall of hazelnuts began. Salmonella was discovered in hazelnuts at the shelling establish that supplied many other businesses with hazelnuts for further packaging and processing.
In the past year we have seen recalls of peanuts and almonds with similar contamination, but this is the first this year for hazelnuts.
What is happening in the industry? Did this company only handle hazelnuts? What were daily sanitation procedures that were in place to ensure that the bacteria were killed or not present?
Will bacterial contamination continue to increase in our food products? What have bactericides done to protect us? Are we producing bacteria that can no longer be killed by normal cleaning?
Was this a recontamination issue? Was this a result of product being brought in or a contamination in place in the facility?
Janzen Farms was the latest to issue a recall notice. Willamette Filbert Growers in Oregon was the first, followed by Kunze Farms, Harry & David, Evonuk, Whole Foods, Burnt Ridge Orchards, Market of Choice, and Mountain Man Nut and Fruit Co.
Hazelnuts are very popular in the Northwestern United States. Willamette Filbert Growers in an organic producer, did this have an effect?
Recalls appear to be more frequent at holiday times. Is this a coincidence? Is it because they are busier and less cleaning is happening? Are they trying to run longer and employees are taking shortcuts?
Could an employee have brought the contaminate in from home, in a lunch, on clothing, on hands? Were proper Good Manufacturing Practices in place?
We always have more questions than answers.
As always, stay informed and stay safe and enjoy your holidays.
Rudy
rudy@powerinlearning.com
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Monday, December 14, 2009
Hold Off on Slim Drinks
Unilever recalled 10 million cans of Slim-Fast ready to drink products throughout North America. Basically, all their drink products were subject to recall. They discovered in testing that the drinks could be contaminated with Bacillus cereus.
How would this occur? Under-processing? Post processing contamination?
How many days of production was this?
How did their internal quality system and production system fail?
Was their lack of personal control, missing equipment control, lack of procedures, failure to follow standard operating procedures?
It would be interesting to know, so that the rest of industry could avoid this problem. In most food plants and certainly in a company as large as Unilever, there are elaborate food safey systems. How can they fail? Was the failure human?
Rep. Rosa DeLauro from Connecticut called for Beef Packers in Fresno to be shut down because of a second salmonella recall on ground beef. The parent company Cargill is using outside inspectors and public health officials to search for the problem. Up until July, this plant supplied ground meat to schools.
Large retailers and restaurant chains set higher standards for ground meat than the standards set for school beef. Companies often impose higher standards in order to protect the public and reduce their liability. It only makes common sense.
So how can large companies such as Cargill and Unilever have such problems? Is it based on volume? Have they become so large that it is impossible to control contamination? Can companies work their way from under this load and responsibility?
What responsibility do you take as the consumer?
Remember a couple of basic rules. When you grind meat you spread the bacteria that is on the surface throughout the mixture. The surface area has dramatically increased. Assume that ground meat and poultry contain bacteria. Cook poultry and ground meat thoroughly. Take responsibility to protect your family.
Be safe out there.
Rudy
rudy@powerinlearning.com
How would this occur? Under-processing? Post processing contamination?
How many days of production was this?
How did their internal quality system and production system fail?
Was their lack of personal control, missing equipment control, lack of procedures, failure to follow standard operating procedures?
It would be interesting to know, so that the rest of industry could avoid this problem. In most food plants and certainly in a company as large as Unilever, there are elaborate food safey systems. How can they fail? Was the failure human?
Rep. Rosa DeLauro from Connecticut called for Beef Packers in Fresno to be shut down because of a second salmonella recall on ground beef. The parent company Cargill is using outside inspectors and public health officials to search for the problem. Up until July, this plant supplied ground meat to schools.
Large retailers and restaurant chains set higher standards for ground meat than the standards set for school beef. Companies often impose higher standards in order to protect the public and reduce their liability. It only makes common sense.
So how can large companies such as Cargill and Unilever have such problems? Is it based on volume? Have they become so large that it is impossible to control contamination? Can companies work their way from under this load and responsibility?
What responsibility do you take as the consumer?
Remember a couple of basic rules. When you grind meat you spread the bacteria that is on the surface throughout the mixture. The surface area has dramatically increased. Assume that ground meat and poultry contain bacteria. Cook poultry and ground meat thoroughly. Take responsibility to protect your family.
Be safe out there.
Rudy
rudy@powerinlearning.com
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
2 Executed in China
CNN reported that two people convicted of intentionally adding melamine to milk were executed today in China. Several others are serving 15 years to life.
The operators of the peanut butter plant in Georgia, that was implicated in a massive recall this year went out of business. I am not suggesting that we need to have the extreme that happened above in China. However, I do believe that those individuals involved in the food chain in the US need to take it seriously. It is a matter of life and death.
Unilever issued a recall on Shedd's Country Crock Chilled Side-Dish items. After a reported illness, they discovered that a co-packer had not informed them that an ingredient in the product contained sulfites. Persons with allergies or sensitivity to sulfites can have life threatening reactions.
Recalls for allergens are on the rise. Some are due to improper labelling and some are discovered by the lack of understanding of the ingredients used. Others are caused by inadequate sanitation. Do HACCP plans protect the consumer?
Another recall for salmonella in produce happened this week. This time cantaloupes sold by Five Crowns Marketing in Brawley, California discovered a positive test on a lot of product from November 4. The cantaloupes were shipped to several states.
There are new procedures initiated in produce since the spinach debacle in 2008. These procedures should reduce the chance for contamination and improve the recall procedures. Is testing fast enough? Are recalls initiated soon enough?
In this holiday season, take special precautions. Thoroughly wash all produce. Thoroughly cook your turkey. Don't let raw meat come in contact with produce or cooked foods. Refrigerate items that need refrigeration.
We can all do better as scientists, as producers, as manufacturers, as consumers. Let's take our responsibility seriously and keep our families safe from food borne illness and contamination.
Rudy
rudy@powerinlearning.com
The operators of the peanut butter plant in Georgia, that was implicated in a massive recall this year went out of business. I am not suggesting that we need to have the extreme that happened above in China. However, I do believe that those individuals involved in the food chain in the US need to take it seriously. It is a matter of life and death.
Unilever issued a recall on Shedd's Country Crock Chilled Side-Dish items. After a reported illness, they discovered that a co-packer had not informed them that an ingredient in the product contained sulfites. Persons with allergies or sensitivity to sulfites can have life threatening reactions.
Recalls for allergens are on the rise. Some are due to improper labelling and some are discovered by the lack of understanding of the ingredients used. Others are caused by inadequate sanitation. Do HACCP plans protect the consumer?
Another recall for salmonella in produce happened this week. This time cantaloupes sold by Five Crowns Marketing in Brawley, California discovered a positive test on a lot of product from November 4. The cantaloupes were shipped to several states.
There are new procedures initiated in produce since the spinach debacle in 2008. These procedures should reduce the chance for contamination and improve the recall procedures. Is testing fast enough? Are recalls initiated soon enough?
In this holiday season, take special precautions. Thoroughly wash all produce. Thoroughly cook your turkey. Don't let raw meat come in contact with produce or cooked foods. Refrigerate items that need refrigeration.
We can all do better as scientists, as producers, as manufacturers, as consumers. Let's take our responsibility seriously and keep our families safe from food borne illness and contamination.
Rudy
rudy@powerinlearning.com
Friday, November 13, 2009
IFT Releases Traceability Repot
The FDA and CFSAN contracted with the Institute of Food Technologists to evaluate the food sector and make recommendations to improve traceability and speed of recalls.
IFT released that report. I am not sure of the cost, however, the recommendations were those that were expected. The two biggest pieces for necessary requirement are to generate consistent lot codes so that they could more easily fit into a computerized search "Google like" scheme. This was similar to the findings of an independent, no cost to the government, evaluation by industry and private individuals and developed in coordination with WorldFoodTrace.org . www.worldfoodtrace.org
The second piece that will find extensive push back from industry unless the expense can be controlled, is that the information must be available for regulatory audits in an electronic form. The mechanism is not recommended so as to leave room for private industry to develop the software tools for this. It allows for individual firms to do their own conversion to electronic form or hire a third party to do it for them. So get ready to move from paper and pencil to electronic form and get ready to do it soon. When this recommendation is adopted, inspectors will be asking to see your electronic versions and so will your Global Food Safety Initiative Auditor.
I recommend researching technology now. The universal data base that will make this piece useful was not added to the report.
If you have a uniform length and format lot code, if you link lot codes of raw materials with finished products, if you record lot code shipments and quantities leaving your plant to each customer, and if this gets entered into a universal data base, then and only then will the United States have a useful workable system that will allow the CDC and regulatory agencies to pinpoint the source of a food borne illness.
Speed of recall is a life and death issue.
Identification saves lives, saves industry, saves jobs, saves our economy.
Ask your food industry representatives, your regulators, your representatives to use your tax dollars effectively and do the job right, and do the job right now!!
Be safe out there,
Rudy
rudy@powerinlearning.com
IFT released that report. I am not sure of the cost, however, the recommendations were those that were expected. The two biggest pieces for necessary requirement are to generate consistent lot codes so that they could more easily fit into a computerized search "Google like" scheme. This was similar to the findings of an independent, no cost to the government, evaluation by industry and private individuals and developed in coordination with WorldFoodTrace.org . www.worldfoodtrace.org
The second piece that will find extensive push back from industry unless the expense can be controlled, is that the information must be available for regulatory audits in an electronic form. The mechanism is not recommended so as to leave room for private industry to develop the software tools for this. It allows for individual firms to do their own conversion to electronic form or hire a third party to do it for them. So get ready to move from paper and pencil to electronic form and get ready to do it soon. When this recommendation is adopted, inspectors will be asking to see your electronic versions and so will your Global Food Safety Initiative Auditor.
I recommend researching technology now. The universal data base that will make this piece useful was not added to the report.
If you have a uniform length and format lot code, if you link lot codes of raw materials with finished products, if you record lot code shipments and quantities leaving your plant to each customer, and if this gets entered into a universal data base, then and only then will the United States have a useful workable system that will allow the CDC and regulatory agencies to pinpoint the source of a food borne illness.
Speed of recall is a life and death issue.
Identification saves lives, saves industry, saves jobs, saves our economy.
Ask your food industry representatives, your regulators, your representatives to use your tax dollars effectively and do the job right, and do the job right now!!
Be safe out there,
Rudy
rudy@powerinlearning.com
Friday, October 9, 2009
US Justice Closes Sandwich Maker
A sandwich plant in Oakland has been closed and all products seized. The FDA reports that the plant has had numerous Listeria violations since 2002 and has poor sanitation. It also reported lack of enforcement of GMP's and condensation dripping on food lines.
The FDA is stepping up inspection and enforcement and moving much quicker. Congress is giving more power and authority to the FDA and is expecting enforcement.
Both parties are in support of this legislation. The food industry is in support of this legislation.
It is time for the operators on the fringe to shape up. We do not need anymore peanut recalls or spinach problems.
Does your company have a food safety plan? Do you expect and inspect your suppliers to make sure they do as well?
GFSI is a great start. However, how many of the small operators will not be able to afford full blown SQF or BRC? Let's support our small and medium sized businesses and help them get up to speed. A good food safety plan involves strong ownership and execution of the plan from the boardroom to the restroom.
Be safe out there and practice food safety at work and at home,
Rudy
rudy@powerinlearning.com
The FDA is stepping up inspection and enforcement and moving much quicker. Congress is giving more power and authority to the FDA and is expecting enforcement.
Both parties are in support of this legislation. The food industry is in support of this legislation.
It is time for the operators on the fringe to shape up. We do not need anymore peanut recalls or spinach problems.
Does your company have a food safety plan? Do you expect and inspect your suppliers to make sure they do as well?
GFSI is a great start. However, how many of the small operators will not be able to afford full blown SQF or BRC? Let's support our small and medium sized businesses and help them get up to speed. A good food safety plan involves strong ownership and execution of the plan from the boardroom to the restroom.
Be safe out there and practice food safety at work and at home,
Rudy
rudy@powerinlearning.com
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Produce and Salmonella. Not a healthy mix.
In the last 3 weeks, we have seen produce recalls happening coast to coast.
We saw canteloupes recalled in Florida when they tested positive for Salmonella.
Green onions had two recalls due to Salmonella, one from Mexico and the other from California.
We saw parsley being recalled. Again for Salmonella.
And on Sept. 18, spinach produced in California was recalled again due to Salmonella.
Why are we seeing this? Food safety programs are in place. More testing than ever is occuring. More inspections are happening.
Increased surveillance, certainly, is expected to find any form of contamination. We would think that if we test more we might expect to see more positive testing for contamination, if contamination is occuring.
Thank goodness that more food testing is occuring and thank goodness that more effort is being made to improve conditions.
Why do these products show bacterial contamination? Let's think about this. It is planted in the soil. It is grown with a lot of moisture and in the harvesting and storage it needs moisture to stay fresh.
Salmonella will live and grow in the water and will be carried by other organisms up onto the plants. Frogs, toads, slugs, snails, birds all enjoy this environment.
How are the products handled post harvest? The picking, packing, sorting, cleaning, storage process all need to be reviewed. Having the correct procedures to eliminate contamination before packaging are needed.
Watch your handling procedures at home. Proper in home handling, cleaning and storage is important to keep your family safe.
Be careful out there and keep your green mix healthy.
Rudy
rudy@powerinlearning.com
We saw canteloupes recalled in Florida when they tested positive for Salmonella.
Green onions had two recalls due to Salmonella, one from Mexico and the other from California.
We saw parsley being recalled. Again for Salmonella.
And on Sept. 18, spinach produced in California was recalled again due to Salmonella.
Why are we seeing this? Food safety programs are in place. More testing than ever is occuring. More inspections are happening.
Increased surveillance, certainly, is expected to find any form of contamination. We would think that if we test more we might expect to see more positive testing for contamination, if contamination is occuring.
Thank goodness that more food testing is occuring and thank goodness that more effort is being made to improve conditions.
Why do these products show bacterial contamination? Let's think about this. It is planted in the soil. It is grown with a lot of moisture and in the harvesting and storage it needs moisture to stay fresh.
Salmonella will live and grow in the water and will be carried by other organisms up onto the plants. Frogs, toads, slugs, snails, birds all enjoy this environment.
How are the products handled post harvest? The picking, packing, sorting, cleaning, storage process all need to be reviewed. Having the correct procedures to eliminate contamination before packaging are needed.
Watch your handling procedures at home. Proper in home handling, cleaning and storage is important to keep your family safe.
Be careful out there and keep your green mix healthy.
Rudy
rudy@powerinlearning.com
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Listeria monocytogenes
Does the name scare you?
It should! This bacteria can prove fatal if consumed.
It loves wet places in your manufacturing facility. It loves places that are hard to clean.
It LOVES to grow in DRAINS and cracks in floors.
There was some recent research conducted at Kansas State University on growth of Listeria monocytogenes. The work was done to show the effect of high pressure cleaning of drains that were growing listeria.
The high pressure atomized the bacteria and splattered them on walls and equipment up to 5 meters from the floor level. Samples were taken at different heights up to 5 meters. Although there were less at the higher levels, listeria was still present.
Additionally the research showed that the bacteria continued to grow even after 48 hours at all levels tested.
What does this mean to me if I operate a food manufacturing plant? First, never use high pressure to clean drains. If you find listeria in these areas use a brush designated for drains and the appropriate cleaning chemical to kill the bacteria.
When working on drains or floors protect areas where open product is handled and packaged.
Remember 5 meters is higher than normal conveyors that transport food. That means bacteria can be launched onto conveyors and packaging areas.
When doing any maintenance on room expansions, remodeling, etc. assume that you are exposing listeria colonies that were waiting for a chance to grow. Protect production areas and protect the product, your customers and your business.
Take food safety seriously.
Rudy
rudy@powerinlearning.com
It should! This bacteria can prove fatal if consumed.
It loves wet places in your manufacturing facility. It loves places that are hard to clean.
It LOVES to grow in DRAINS and cracks in floors.
There was some recent research conducted at Kansas State University on growth of Listeria monocytogenes. The work was done to show the effect of high pressure cleaning of drains that were growing listeria.
The high pressure atomized the bacteria and splattered them on walls and equipment up to 5 meters from the floor level. Samples were taken at different heights up to 5 meters. Although there were less at the higher levels, listeria was still present.
Additionally the research showed that the bacteria continued to grow even after 48 hours at all levels tested.
What does this mean to me if I operate a food manufacturing plant? First, never use high pressure to clean drains. If you find listeria in these areas use a brush designated for drains and the appropriate cleaning chemical to kill the bacteria.
When working on drains or floors protect areas where open product is handled and packaged.
Remember 5 meters is higher than normal conveyors that transport food. That means bacteria can be launched onto conveyors and packaging areas.
When doing any maintenance on room expansions, remodeling, etc. assume that you are exposing listeria colonies that were waiting for a chance to grow. Protect production areas and protect the product, your customers and your business.
Take food safety seriously.
Rudy
rudy@powerinlearning.com
Monday, July 27, 2009
Contaminated Romaine Lettuce Shipped to 29 States
Tanimura and Antle recall one lot of Romaine lettuce from Salinas, California. This lot was shipped to 29 states, 2 countries and a territory.
The recall was initiated after a positive test for Salmonella from a state regulatory agency was reported.
The lot covered nine days of processing, June 25 to July 2. The recall was initiated at 19 days after the end of this lot's production. The shelf life of the product is sixteen days.
Several questions need to be answered.
1. Where did contamination arise?
2. Why would the lot span 9 days?
3. What are the internal testing procedures of the company?
4. What are the internal sanitation programs of the company?
5. What are the harvesting procedures of the company?
Until you find the source, you have to keep looking.
Think about how you handle leafy vegetables before you eat them.
Be safe out there.
Rudy Westervelt
rudy@powerinlearning.com
The recall was initiated after a positive test for Salmonella from a state regulatory agency was reported.
The lot covered nine days of processing, June 25 to July 2. The recall was initiated at 19 days after the end of this lot's production. The shelf life of the product is sixteen days.
Several questions need to be answered.
1. Where did contamination arise?
2. Why would the lot span 9 days?
3. What are the internal testing procedures of the company?
4. What are the internal sanitation programs of the company?
5. What are the harvesting procedures of the company?
Until you find the source, you have to keep looking.
Think about how you handle leafy vegetables before you eat them.
Be safe out there.
Rudy Westervelt
rudy@powerinlearning.com
Saturday, July 25, 2009
Preventing a Three Mile Island Episode
How does Three Mile Island relate to food safety?
As you may recall, the incident in 1979 at Three Mile Island Nuclear power plant involved a near meltdown. It put nuclear energy use for delivering clean energy way behind. People were rightfully scared of the possibility of a nuclear release that would cause sickness and death for their communities.
The cause of the event is what is significant.
Every plant has checks and balances and back up plans for failures. There are contingency plans for all imaginable circumstances.
On the particular day of the failure, a water filter blockage caused moisture to leak into the plant's air and shut down two valves that supplied cold water to the steam generator.
The backup system should have taken over, however the valves had been closed for some reason.
The indicator showing that the valves were closed was blocked by a repair tag on a switch above it.
No problem, another backup or relief valve was in line.
But, the relief valve was stuck open instead of closed. The gauge to let the operators know of the problem was broken and waiting for repair.
The stars were in alignment and a meltdown nearly happened.
Do you have a HACCP program? Do you have the pre-requisite programs in working order? Do you have checks and balances to prevent contamination?
Could you really track your products through the market place and back?
I would recommend that you look deeper into this. Do not underestimate the people quotient.
The reason that we have withdrawals of products and recalls of products is that reality is different on the plant floor, than expected in the board room.
The interaction of quality assurance departments, production departments and maintenance departments is essential to the operation. Expecting to avoid negative situations by operating only with bottom line thinking will give you many sleepless nights.
Food safety cannot be a vertically driven from the top down. The playing field must be horizontal to have concern and authority from the top manager to the janitor.
Think about the process in your business. It is not about if a "three mile island" will happen in your plant. It is about when it will happen.
The extent of the liability is in your hands.
Ask the right questions, look with your eyes not your ears.
Be safe out there,
Rudy
Rudy@powerinlearning.com
As you may recall, the incident in 1979 at Three Mile Island Nuclear power plant involved a near meltdown. It put nuclear energy use for delivering clean energy way behind. People were rightfully scared of the possibility of a nuclear release that would cause sickness and death for their communities.
The cause of the event is what is significant.
Every plant has checks and balances and back up plans for failures. There are contingency plans for all imaginable circumstances.
On the particular day of the failure, a water filter blockage caused moisture to leak into the plant's air and shut down two valves that supplied cold water to the steam generator.
The backup system should have taken over, however the valves had been closed for some reason.
The indicator showing that the valves were closed was blocked by a repair tag on a switch above it.
No problem, another backup or relief valve was in line.
But, the relief valve was stuck open instead of closed. The gauge to let the operators know of the problem was broken and waiting for repair.
The stars were in alignment and a meltdown nearly happened.
Do you have a HACCP program? Do you have the pre-requisite programs in working order? Do you have checks and balances to prevent contamination?
Could you really track your products through the market place and back?
I would recommend that you look deeper into this. Do not underestimate the people quotient.
The reason that we have withdrawals of products and recalls of products is that reality is different on the plant floor, than expected in the board room.
The interaction of quality assurance departments, production departments and maintenance departments is essential to the operation. Expecting to avoid negative situations by operating only with bottom line thinking will give you many sleepless nights.
Food safety cannot be a vertically driven from the top down. The playing field must be horizontal to have concern and authority from the top manager to the janitor.
Think about the process in your business. It is not about if a "three mile island" will happen in your plant. It is about when it will happen.
The extent of the liability is in your hands.
Ask the right questions, look with your eyes not your ears.
Be safe out there,
Rudy
Rudy@powerinlearning.com
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Is Your Water Safe to Drink?
A study completed and released this month from Wake Forest University Baptist Medical Center suggests a link between manganese in ground water and increased total cancer deaths, colon cancer death and lung cancer deaths in North Carolina.
Trace amounts of this element, when entering through the lungs, causes a decrease in cancer.
More research is needed to find the direct relationship.
Manganese has replaced lead in gasoline and therefore may be entering the ground water reserves.
This continues to raise the question about how we attempt to change one contaminate in our environment and in so doing may cause additional contamination. How much research should be done before making ingredient changes.
Just because we do not have reports on levels that can cause long term health risk, does not mean that we should jump in and make the change. Often changes become dictated by regulatory agencies, who are trying to protect the public. Regulatory restrictions often tell you what you cannot use.
Industry response in efforts to do the right thing make a change.
The right thing at the end of the day is for science, industry and regulatory to work together on solutions.
In the meantime, be safe out there. Watch what you eat and drink.
Rudy Westervelt
rudy@powerinlearning.com
Trace amounts of this element, when entering through the lungs, causes a decrease in cancer.
More research is needed to find the direct relationship.
Manganese has replaced lead in gasoline and therefore may be entering the ground water reserves.
This continues to raise the question about how we attempt to change one contaminate in our environment and in so doing may cause additional contamination. How much research should be done before making ingredient changes.
Just because we do not have reports on levels that can cause long term health risk, does not mean that we should jump in and make the change. Often changes become dictated by regulatory agencies, who are trying to protect the public. Regulatory restrictions often tell you what you cannot use.
Industry response in efforts to do the right thing make a change.
The right thing at the end of the day is for science, industry and regulatory to work together on solutions.
In the meantime, be safe out there. Watch what you eat and drink.
Rudy Westervelt
rudy@powerinlearning.com
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Food Safety Puts Small Business Out of Business
The United Nations recently commented that global food safety initiatives driven by government and big business is putting small companies and in particular developing countries' small businesses out of business.
At the heart of the issue is the balance of food safety and the regulations needed to improve the safety of food products. Additionally the drive is on to put the responsibility for food safety back on the producer and manufacturer.
The self regulation is being directed by lobbying groups for the food industry which are headed and funded by the large food companies. The rules being made push the small companies out and are self-supporting to large businesses.
To certify on the new programs requires training and documentation that are time consuming and expensive. The larger companies can train corporately and drive it out to each of the sub units. For the small company, the luxury of spreading the cost over many plants and large volume does not exist. Hence, the small company will not be able to compete and go out of business.
You might say, so what. Well, we want a large variety of food products at any time any where around the globe. Some of this comes from small suppliers in remote areas of the world.
Take the GFSI sweeping the EU, UK and USA. Two main accepted followings are BRC and SQF. The FMI has designed the program to only allow large training suppliers to play in the "sand box". This is because the program is very expensive. Small private inspection firms cannot compete in this arena, because the rules have been made to exclude them.
Our world economy was built on the small business. The large multiplant and international businesses grew by buying out the competition and as a large organization becoming less capable of making good decisions quickly. The economy of scale was economy of mediocrity and spreading of costs over a larger base.
As a small business owner, who wants our small producers and manufacturers to survive and our developing countries to better support their people, get big business and big government out of the control of decisions and return to common sense, ethics and personal initiative to solve our food safety and profitability issues.
Be safe...
Rudy Westervelt
rudy@powerinlearning.com
At the heart of the issue is the balance of food safety and the regulations needed to improve the safety of food products. Additionally the drive is on to put the responsibility for food safety back on the producer and manufacturer.
The self regulation is being directed by lobbying groups for the food industry which are headed and funded by the large food companies. The rules being made push the small companies out and are self-supporting to large businesses.
To certify on the new programs requires training and documentation that are time consuming and expensive. The larger companies can train corporately and drive it out to each of the sub units. For the small company, the luxury of spreading the cost over many plants and large volume does not exist. Hence, the small company will not be able to compete and go out of business.
You might say, so what. Well, we want a large variety of food products at any time any where around the globe. Some of this comes from small suppliers in remote areas of the world.
Take the GFSI sweeping the EU, UK and USA. Two main accepted followings are BRC and SQF. The FMI has designed the program to only allow large training suppliers to play in the "sand box". This is because the program is very expensive. Small private inspection firms cannot compete in this arena, because the rules have been made to exclude them.
Our world economy was built on the small business. The large multiplant and international businesses grew by buying out the competition and as a large organization becoming less capable of making good decisions quickly. The economy of scale was economy of mediocrity and spreading of costs over a larger base.
As a small business owner, who wants our small producers and manufacturers to survive and our developing countries to better support their people, get big business and big government out of the control of decisions and return to common sense, ethics and personal initiative to solve our food safety and profitability issues.
Be safe...
Rudy Westervelt
rudy@powerinlearning.com
Sunday, June 14, 2009
Can't find food safety person in a forest of lobbyists
Fox news had a story recently on the lack of concern shown by the new administration because a nominee has not been named for the position of USDA Under Secretary for Food Safety. It certainly is not because of a lack of trying.
Agriculture Secretary, Tom Vilsack is searching for the right candidate. Most have yet to pass the requirement to have not lobbied Congress to vote a certain way.
Now I bet that there are thousands of qualified candidates that could pass that test. Why aren't scientists being considered?
Apparently the meat industry has given our Ag Secy a list of names that would support their initiatives and that they could live with.
Now, Food Safety is certainly something that we believe is central to the health and welfare of our citizens. Why would we choose someone who not be impartial? Knowledge of science and industry, and the ability to make sound judgments and reach consensus should drive the search.
Heck throw my name in the hat. I'll bet that I make informed decisions and could drive consensus and move the process forward.
Give me your thoughts and speak out for food safety...
Rudy Westervelt
rudy@powerinlearning.com
Agriculture Secretary, Tom Vilsack is searching for the right candidate. Most have yet to pass the requirement to have not lobbied Congress to vote a certain way.
Now I bet that there are thousands of qualified candidates that could pass that test. Why aren't scientists being considered?
Apparently the meat industry has given our Ag Secy a list of names that would support their initiatives and that they could live with.
Now, Food Safety is certainly something that we believe is central to the health and welfare of our citizens. Why would we choose someone who not be impartial? Knowledge of science and industry, and the ability to make sound judgments and reach consensus should drive the search.
Heck throw my name in the hat. I'll bet that I make informed decisions and could drive consensus and move the process forward.
Give me your thoughts and speak out for food safety...
Rudy Westervelt
rudy@powerinlearning.com
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Are you drinking E.coli?
By the end of the year the FDA will require all manufacturers to test their source water on a weekly basis for bacteria. In particular E.coli must be evaluated.
Currently, the bottled water is tested after bottling to ensure that it does not contain E. coli and is safe to drink.
The new rule was in response to an EPA rule requiring municipal water districts to test their water to ensure it is safe to drink.
The rule will also expect bottlers to eliminate the bacteria, hold it from shipping and retest samples before shipping. All this must be retained in writing.
Since, the product should not contain harmful bacteria, the FDA using the adulterated product language to provide enforcement in this area.
Do you feel that manufacturers should be accountable to test all their ingredients when they have been furnished with a letter or certificate of guarantee?
What value are guarantees if you need to retest?
This may seem like a reasonable request. What is the cost? What is your liability? Will this better protect the public? Do current bottling procedures, such as ozonation or use of ultraviolet light, protect the product and the public?
Will public water supplies have increased scrutiny?
Let me know you thoughts.
Obviously, some unethical activity and accountability at the muncipal water source may affect your thoughts.
The government even reversed their findings in North Carolina.
A federal report said that water contaminated from a dry cleaner and industrial activity supplying Camp Lejeune was safe even though contaminated for more than 30 years. The government no longer stands by this report.
Veterans and families have filed claims in excess of $30billion.
Who do we trust? The rule makers, the government, the manufacturers?
Ask questions. Demand answers.
Be safe,
Rudy
rudy@powerinlearning.com
Currently, the bottled water is tested after bottling to ensure that it does not contain E. coli and is safe to drink.
The new rule was in response to an EPA rule requiring municipal water districts to test their water to ensure it is safe to drink.
The rule will also expect bottlers to eliminate the bacteria, hold it from shipping and retest samples before shipping. All this must be retained in writing.
Since, the product should not contain harmful bacteria, the FDA using the adulterated product language to provide enforcement in this area.
Do you feel that manufacturers should be accountable to test all their ingredients when they have been furnished with a letter or certificate of guarantee?
What value are guarantees if you need to retest?
This may seem like a reasonable request. What is the cost? What is your liability? Will this better protect the public? Do current bottling procedures, such as ozonation or use of ultraviolet light, protect the product and the public?
Will public water supplies have increased scrutiny?
Let me know you thoughts.
Obviously, some unethical activity and accountability at the muncipal water source may affect your thoughts.
The government even reversed their findings in North Carolina.
A federal report said that water contaminated from a dry cleaner and industrial activity supplying Camp Lejeune was safe even though contaminated for more than 30 years. The government no longer stands by this report.
Veterans and families have filed claims in excess of $30billion.
Who do we trust? The rule makers, the government, the manufacturers?
Ask questions. Demand answers.
Be safe,
Rudy
rudy@powerinlearning.com
Monday, May 25, 2009
Harvard Confirms BPA in College Students
A report in FoodProductionDaily included an article by Mike Stones on May 25th.
The report confirmed that bisphenol A, BPA, does leach into liquids that are held in bottles or containers lined with or containing BPA.
The study used cold drinks consumed by Harvard students for one week. All the cold drinks for that week were poured into a container that used BPA in the resin. The students showed more than a 67% higher urine concentration of BPA versus the control group who did not use this container.
BPA can cause diabetic issues, cardiovascular issues. It is linked to breast cancer. It can disrupt the endocrine activity in babies and infants.
It is assumed that hot liquids held in these containers would contain higher levels of BPA. The study was reported on just recently but was conducted a year earlier.
What can be done to get this research independently funded and conducted more quickly? We all need to know what is in the products that we are consuming. The packaging is just as important as the ingredients or contaminants in the products.
How many other products could contain BPA? Since it is used in certain plastic bottles, it lines drink cans and has other uses in the food industry, is it so inconceivable to think that a significant percentage of breast cancer or coronary disease is associated with this product.
Everywhere we turn today, we see more and more people and younger people with serious health issues. Cancer occurs at younger ages. Food allergies are on the rise. Asthma continues to attack young and old.
Let's figure this out and work harder to protect our food and drink products and protect our citizens, our friends, our families.
My challenge to each of you is to question more and expect answers. Support independent research that will supply us the real answers.
As always, be safe.
Rudy
Rudy@powerinlearning.com
The report confirmed that bisphenol A, BPA, does leach into liquids that are held in bottles or containers lined with or containing BPA.
The study used cold drinks consumed by Harvard students for one week. All the cold drinks for that week were poured into a container that used BPA in the resin. The students showed more than a 67% higher urine concentration of BPA versus the control group who did not use this container.
BPA can cause diabetic issues, cardiovascular issues. It is linked to breast cancer. It can disrupt the endocrine activity in babies and infants.
It is assumed that hot liquids held in these containers would contain higher levels of BPA. The study was reported on just recently but was conducted a year earlier.
What can be done to get this research independently funded and conducted more quickly? We all need to know what is in the products that we are consuming. The packaging is just as important as the ingredients or contaminants in the products.
How many other products could contain BPA? Since it is used in certain plastic bottles, it lines drink cans and has other uses in the food industry, is it so inconceivable to think that a significant percentage of breast cancer or coronary disease is associated with this product.
Everywhere we turn today, we see more and more people and younger people with serious health issues. Cancer occurs at younger ages. Food allergies are on the rise. Asthma continues to attack young and old.
Let's figure this out and work harder to protect our food and drink products and protect our citizens, our friends, our families.
My challenge to each of you is to question more and expect answers. Support independent research that will supply us the real answers.
As always, be safe.
Rudy
Rudy@powerinlearning.com
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Is your business epidemic proof?
Everyday around the world, we have disasters, floods, fires, hurricanes. Have you put your plan together to ensure that if any of these strike your business will survive? What if the Swine Flu, Avian Flu or other epidemic strikes, will your planning cover this emergency?
I do not mean insurance for your business and products. Certainly that is necessary.
I do mean a complete plan to address internal operations, supplier operations, customer relations, and the distribution chain.
If your main ingredient supplier could not operate for 6 months, do you have a backup supplier? Could the backup handle your volume and the volume of other new customers?
Do you know what your suppliers have planned for emergencies?
After Hurricane Katrina and a subsequent hurricane in the Gulf of Mexico, many dairy and fluid manufacturers who used HDPE to manufacture containers were restricted in the amount of resin that they could purchase. Without bottles, it is hard to operate a fluid processing plant.
In the dairy world, could you operate your plant, if you had 50% absenteeism?
Join me in a free webinar on May 14th to discuss plans further.
Space is limited.Reserve your Webinar seat now at:https://www2.gotomeeting.com/register/259403835
I do not mean insurance for your business and products. Certainly that is necessary.
I do mean a complete plan to address internal operations, supplier operations, customer relations, and the distribution chain.
If your main ingredient supplier could not operate for 6 months, do you have a backup supplier? Could the backup handle your volume and the volume of other new customers?
Do you know what your suppliers have planned for emergencies?
After Hurricane Katrina and a subsequent hurricane in the Gulf of Mexico, many dairy and fluid manufacturers who used HDPE to manufacture containers were restricted in the amount of resin that they could purchase. Without bottles, it is hard to operate a fluid processing plant.
In the dairy world, could you operate your plant, if you had 50% absenteeism?
Join me in a free webinar on May 14th to discuss plans further.
Space is limited.Reserve your Webinar seat now at:https://www2.gotomeeting.com/register/259403835
Thursday, April 30, 2009
EPA raids city hall
In Crestwood, IL it was reported by the Associated Press that 10 days after the Chicago Tribune had reported that the village water supply was supplemented with water from a municipal well that was contaminated with two chemicals related to a dry-cleaning solvent, that the EPA and FBI raided the village offices.
The agents were armed with search warrants looking for information that would provide evidence that the city officials or employees may have knowingly allowing contaminated water to be added to the public water supply, not just once but for several years.
The chemicals can cause cancer, liver damage and death.
CBS2 news quoted EPA director Scott as saying that the city engineer admitted to falsifying the truth and knew that someone could have gotten ill from this water.
What would make anyone, even a government official send contaminated water to the children and adults of this town? Was it easier? Did it make him any money? Surely not.
I am at a loss to find any reason that someone that the citizens entrust their lives to in providing safe drinking water, could make such an incredibly bad decision. Maybe criminal decision.
Do we, as citizens, need to send water samples out of the tap to the lab? Someone definitely needs to be the watch dog. It appears that the people that we support with our taxes have let us down. Maybe it is time for the citizens to begin to perform performance audits on government employees.
As always, be safe, watch what you eat and drink.
Rudy Westervelt
rudy@powerinlearning.com
The agents were armed with search warrants looking for information that would provide evidence that the city officials or employees may have knowingly allowing contaminated water to be added to the public water supply, not just once but for several years.
The chemicals can cause cancer, liver damage and death.
CBS2 news quoted EPA director Scott as saying that the city engineer admitted to falsifying the truth and knew that someone could have gotten ill from this water.
What would make anyone, even a government official send contaminated water to the children and adults of this town? Was it easier? Did it make him any money? Surely not.
I am at a loss to find any reason that someone that the citizens entrust their lives to in providing safe drinking water, could make such an incredibly bad decision. Maybe criminal decision.
Do we, as citizens, need to send water samples out of the tap to the lab? Someone definitely needs to be the watch dog. It appears that the people that we support with our taxes have let us down. Maybe it is time for the citizens to begin to perform performance audits on government employees.
As always, be safe, watch what you eat and drink.
Rudy Westervelt
rudy@powerinlearning.com
Monday, March 30, 2009
Pistachios or peanuts, are you safe
Last week in the food recall world, we saw a few more peanut related recalls and then another salmonella issue from the Georgia Nut Company that sells bulk pistachios. In relation to this further down stream, the next set of recalls was issued by Back to Nature and the Kroger Company.
Does this sound interestingly like PCA or as Yogi Berra said “Déjà vu all over again”?
A firm in South Carolina firm used the USDA stamp without an inspector on the premises. A lesson learned the hard way.
A listeria recall in Asadero and Oaxaca cheeses was initiated.
And, two companies issued recalls because of mislabeling and allergens.
Kroger Recalls Shelled Pistachios Due to Possible Health Risk (March 27) (salmonella)
Arya Ice Cream Dist. Co., Inc. Recalls California Dream Nut Sundae Because of Possible Health Risk (March 25) (salmonella)
South Carolina Firm Recalls Frozen Meat and Poultry Products Due To Misbranding and Lack of USDA Inspection (operating without inspector on premises)
Torres Hillsdale Country Cheese LLC Expands the Recall of Asadero and Oaxaca Cheeses due to Possible Listeria Contamination (March 23) (listeria)
Missouri Firm Recalls Cheese Frank Products Due To Mislabeling and an Undeclared Allergen (milk and cheese)
The Georgia Nut Company Issues Voluntary Recall of Certain Snack Products Containing Shelled Pistachio Nuts Because of Possible Health Risk (March 25) (salmonella)
Back to Nature Foods Company Conducts Nationwide Recall of Nantucket Blend Trail Mix Containing Pistachio Nuts Because of Possible Health Risk (March 25) (salmonella)
California Firm Recalls Smoked Chicken Sausage Products Due to Mislabeling (wheat gluten)
What do all these have in common? Lack of effective internal control exists. All businesses have controls. These controls are only as good as they as they are effective.
Mislabeling could be production not using the correct packaging for the current product. It could be an ineffective or missing allergen cleaning step. It might be quality control or purchasing not monitoring packaging before purchasing or an ingredient change in the formula not listed on the label.
Bacterial contamination is a testing, monitoring and sanitation issue.
All of these issues could be controlled and/or eliminated with the right controls in place and the right people taking their food safety and quality control jobs seriously.
Review your controls, test your controls and expect perfection. Errors are not acceptable when dealing with the safety of our food.
Be safe, be ethical, protect your customers and yourself.
For more information contact me at rudy@powerinlearning.com
Does this sound interestingly like PCA or as Yogi Berra said “Déjà vu all over again”?
A firm in South Carolina firm used the USDA stamp without an inspector on the premises. A lesson learned the hard way.
A listeria recall in Asadero and Oaxaca cheeses was initiated.
And, two companies issued recalls because of mislabeling and allergens.
Kroger Recalls Shelled Pistachios Due to Possible Health Risk (March 27) (salmonella)
Arya Ice Cream Dist. Co., Inc. Recalls California Dream Nut Sundae Because of Possible Health Risk (March 25) (salmonella)
South Carolina Firm Recalls Frozen Meat and Poultry Products Due To Misbranding and Lack of USDA Inspection (operating without inspector on premises)
Torres Hillsdale Country Cheese LLC Expands the Recall of Asadero and Oaxaca Cheeses due to Possible Listeria Contamination (March 23) (listeria)
Missouri Firm Recalls Cheese Frank Products Due To Mislabeling and an Undeclared Allergen (milk and cheese)
The Georgia Nut Company Issues Voluntary Recall of Certain Snack Products Containing Shelled Pistachio Nuts Because of Possible Health Risk (March 25) (salmonella)
Back to Nature Foods Company Conducts Nationwide Recall of Nantucket Blend Trail Mix Containing Pistachio Nuts Because of Possible Health Risk (March 25) (salmonella)
California Firm Recalls Smoked Chicken Sausage Products Due to Mislabeling (wheat gluten)
What do all these have in common? Lack of effective internal control exists. All businesses have controls. These controls are only as good as they as they are effective.
Mislabeling could be production not using the correct packaging for the current product. It could be an ineffective or missing allergen cleaning step. It might be quality control or purchasing not monitoring packaging before purchasing or an ingredient change in the formula not listed on the label.
Bacterial contamination is a testing, monitoring and sanitation issue.
All of these issues could be controlled and/or eliminated with the right controls in place and the right people taking their food safety and quality control jobs seriously.
Review your controls, test your controls and expect perfection. Errors are not acceptable when dealing with the safety of our food.
Be safe, be ethical, protect your customers and yourself.
For more information contact me at rudy@powerinlearning.com
Monday, March 16, 2009
New Administration, New Safety Focus
Our new administration in Washington, DC has its hands full with economic issues, health care, defense, two wars and the all important FOOD SAFETY issues.
As we all know the PCA peanut recall and subsequent recalls from all the manufacturers who received products and ingredients from PCA have dramatically affected the confidence of the American people in our food safety and its regulations. It also has negatively impacted the same companies who have recalled their products. The lost dollars in product value and future sales has caused some of the smaller companies to go out of business and/or file for bankruptsy.
Pres. Obama has named a new leader for the FDA. He has indicated that government will tighten the regulations and improve its inspection branch. Most of the food industry has positively responded to this move. We all know that something must be done.
A food safety group will be reporting on progress in the regulatory branches to the President.
We must be careful to ensure that changes are scientifically based. That changes are able to be initiated quickly without causing substantial cost to the industry. Companies do need a food safety plan. The employees of food companies need to be properly trained. In house inspections with eyes and in house enforcement tougher that the regulatory agencies see and apply. Employees must take the initiative and authority to produce wholesome products.
Certainly the regulatory agencies need more inspectors. But, do you believe that getting to each plant once or twice a year will make a difference. The large companies already have food safety plans. They have HACCP plans. They train in GMP's. They make a concerted effort to produce safe products. Those that trade on the public market are aware of the negative impact of food recalls on their profitability and stock price and retail sales.
There are a considerable number of small food companies who are not thoroughly trained in food safety. They may pass the local health department or state inspection. They may be licensed and registered with the Federal government. But, do they understand all the practices needed to safeguard their products.
We must first practice safe food production and eliminate the chance for contamination and then we need regulation to guide us in our efforts. But, make no mistake about it, if you decide to enter the food industry, you are morally and legally responsible to protect the public. Do not abuse the trust given you by your customers.
BE SAFE
Rudy
rudy@powerinlearning.com
As we all know the PCA peanut recall and subsequent recalls from all the manufacturers who received products and ingredients from PCA have dramatically affected the confidence of the American people in our food safety and its regulations. It also has negatively impacted the same companies who have recalled their products. The lost dollars in product value and future sales has caused some of the smaller companies to go out of business and/or file for bankruptsy.
Pres. Obama has named a new leader for the FDA. He has indicated that government will tighten the regulations and improve its inspection branch. Most of the food industry has positively responded to this move. We all know that something must be done.
A food safety group will be reporting on progress in the regulatory branches to the President.
We must be careful to ensure that changes are scientifically based. That changes are able to be initiated quickly without causing substantial cost to the industry. Companies do need a food safety plan. The employees of food companies need to be properly trained. In house inspections with eyes and in house enforcement tougher that the regulatory agencies see and apply. Employees must take the initiative and authority to produce wholesome products.
Certainly the regulatory agencies need more inspectors. But, do you believe that getting to each plant once or twice a year will make a difference. The large companies already have food safety plans. They have HACCP plans. They train in GMP's. They make a concerted effort to produce safe products. Those that trade on the public market are aware of the negative impact of food recalls on their profitability and stock price and retail sales.
There are a considerable number of small food companies who are not thoroughly trained in food safety. They may pass the local health department or state inspection. They may be licensed and registered with the Federal government. But, do they understand all the practices needed to safeguard their products.
We must first practice safe food production and eliminate the chance for contamination and then we need regulation to guide us in our efforts. But, make no mistake about it, if you decide to enter the food industry, you are morally and legally responsible to protect the public. Do not abuse the trust given you by your customers.
BE SAFE
Rudy
rudy@powerinlearning.com
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Salmonella product homes
This week we saw a new Salmonella recall. This time the salmonella contaminated alfalfa, onion and gourment sprouts.
Several items can provide perfect media for Salmonella growth. Some of these are sprouts, peanuts, chicken, eggs. The list is not complete, but there are ways to protect yourself. Make sure that you do not cross contaminate in your kitchen or in your manufacturing operation.
Keep raw products in locations separate from processed or cooked items.
Thoroughly cook the products when processing. Make sure internal temperatures of bulk products or deep in the muscle reach the temperature required to kill Salmonella. Cook items to 165F to be sure.
SunSprout Enterprises, Inc. Voluntarily Recalls Alfalfa Sprouts, Onion Sprouts, and Gourmet Sprouts Because of Possible Health Risk (March 3)Wed, 04 Mar 2009 11:17:00 -0600
SunSprout Enterprises, Inc., Omaha, Nebraska, is initiating a voluntary recall of Alfalfa Sprouts, Onion Sprouts, and Gourmet Sprouts based on communications it has had with Nebraska State officials regarding several cases of Salmonella St. Paul reported in Nebraska and Iowa.
Keep working surfaces clean and sanitary. Keep raw meat, eggs, produce properly refrigerated. Keep raw products from cooked. Stored cooked materials separate and above raw materials, never below.
Protect your customers and your families.
Rudy
rudy@powerinlearning.com
Several items can provide perfect media for Salmonella growth. Some of these are sprouts, peanuts, chicken, eggs. The list is not complete, but there are ways to protect yourself. Make sure that you do not cross contaminate in your kitchen or in your manufacturing operation.
Keep raw products in locations separate from processed or cooked items.
Thoroughly cook the products when processing. Make sure internal temperatures of bulk products or deep in the muscle reach the temperature required to kill Salmonella. Cook items to 165F to be sure.
SunSprout Enterprises, Inc. Voluntarily Recalls Alfalfa Sprouts, Onion Sprouts, and Gourmet Sprouts Because of Possible Health Risk (March 3)Wed, 04 Mar 2009 11:17:00 -0600
SunSprout Enterprises, Inc., Omaha, Nebraska, is initiating a voluntary recall of Alfalfa Sprouts, Onion Sprouts, and Gourmet Sprouts based on communications it has had with Nebraska State officials regarding several cases of Salmonella St. Paul reported in Nebraska and Iowa.
Keep working surfaces clean and sanitary. Keep raw meat, eggs, produce properly refrigerated. Keep raw products from cooked. Stored cooked materials separate and above raw materials, never below.
Protect your customers and your families.
Rudy
rudy@powerinlearning.com
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
The Cost of Food Safety
The current effects of the largest recall in U.S. history, that of peanut contamination, has caused and continues to cause massive product recalls throughout the United States and into other countries.
The company which had the issues and initiated recalls has filed for bankrupcy protection. It certainly has exceeded its level of insurance protection and asset protection.
Who does this affect and what is the cost? Certainly, the families who lost a loved one and those that suffered illness, have real medical costs and have suffered emotionally.
The employees, who no longer have a job, have lost their income. Eventually, since this has happened in the worst economic times since the early 70's, they could lose their homes, cars, etc. They can be on unemployment, food stamps, government assistance programs. They are not working so they do not pay taxes, which increases the burden on the local economy, the state and the U. S. economy.
The businesses in their communities suffer because they lose a customer base.
All the companies that initiated a recall, and the list continues to grow, have suffered loss that will be in litigation for some time. This affects the financial stability of these companies.
An article today by an insurance company, addressed the availability of insurance to handle these type of cases. The manager stated that the food company first needed strong quality, traceability, recall and crisis management programs in order to be considered for this insurance. Certainly, this recall has affected the rates for this insurance.
Good Manufacturing Practices, a complete HACCP plan, a working Quality program must be part of the process. We have focused a great deal of effort on finding better ways to improve speed of recall to protect the public. More work is needed to make an effective program for the entire food industry.
However, if we place more effort on education and practices in our plants, we can effectively reduce and control liability to our companies and to the public. A strong food ethics program is critical to this process.
I will comment more on this in future communications.
I look forward to discussing your situation or concerns.
Contact me at rudy@powerinlearning.com
Until then be safe and be questioning.
Rudy
The company which had the issues and initiated recalls has filed for bankrupcy protection. It certainly has exceeded its level of insurance protection and asset protection.
Who does this affect and what is the cost? Certainly, the families who lost a loved one and those that suffered illness, have real medical costs and have suffered emotionally.
The employees, who no longer have a job, have lost their income. Eventually, since this has happened in the worst economic times since the early 70's, they could lose their homes, cars, etc. They can be on unemployment, food stamps, government assistance programs. They are not working so they do not pay taxes, which increases the burden on the local economy, the state and the U. S. economy.
The businesses in their communities suffer because they lose a customer base.
All the companies that initiated a recall, and the list continues to grow, have suffered loss that will be in litigation for some time. This affects the financial stability of these companies.
An article today by an insurance company, addressed the availability of insurance to handle these type of cases. The manager stated that the food company first needed strong quality, traceability, recall and crisis management programs in order to be considered for this insurance. Certainly, this recall has affected the rates for this insurance.
Good Manufacturing Practices, a complete HACCP plan, a working Quality program must be part of the process. We have focused a great deal of effort on finding better ways to improve speed of recall to protect the public. More work is needed to make an effective program for the entire food industry.
However, if we place more effort on education and practices in our plants, we can effectively reduce and control liability to our companies and to the public. A strong food ethics program is critical to this process.
I will comment more on this in future communications.
I look forward to discussing your situation or concerns.
Contact me at rudy@powerinlearning.com
Until then be safe and be questioning.
Rudy
Saturday, February 7, 2009
Who do you trust?
When you are a customer, you have to believe in the wholesomeness of food products being sold in our supermarkets and restaurants across the country, if you are going to purchase and consume food. Or, raise your own food! Probably not for most Americans.
Our government inspection systems were set up to develop standards for operators to produce wholesome products. The regulatory agencies depend on their teams of inspectors to assess the adequacy of the system.
Our food companies have the responsibility to interpret the rules and implement them, so that they are safeguarding their products. They have to rely on all of their employees to follow the rules and procedures.
In today's world, raw materials and finished products enter our food supply from many sources, foreign and domestic. As a purchaser how do you trust that it meets the standards necessary to be used in the manufacture of your products or to be sold on your shelves?
The basic word is TRUST!
With this latest peanut disaster, TRUST has been destroyed.
A major food company announced that its inspections of the manufacturer resulted in superior inspection results. These audits were performed by an outside trusted firm. Could they have been incorrect? Maybe not. As a purchaser, how in depth an inspection are you allowed? How in depth do you ask for? Is a letter from the supplier that it guarantees that it meets regulations enough?
I suspect that if insurance companies continue to pay out big amounts for clients that do not have proper controls to avoid or reduce liabilities, they will raise rates, change legal contracts and force inspections of companies.
I suspect that we will continue to see more government direction and involvement.
I suspect that it is time for our manufacturers to ask for and demand more transparency from their suppliers and more access to their facilities.
I also suspect that in response, suppliers will be less open and provide less access, than ever before.
In today's economically challenged world, where does FOOD SAFETY fit?
That choice is up to each of us.
Be informed! Challenge the process! Contact me for specific solutions for your specific needs!
www.powerinlearning.com
rudy@powerinlearning.com
Rudy
Our government inspection systems were set up to develop standards for operators to produce wholesome products. The regulatory agencies depend on their teams of inspectors to assess the adequacy of the system.
Our food companies have the responsibility to interpret the rules and implement them, so that they are safeguarding their products. They have to rely on all of their employees to follow the rules and procedures.
In today's world, raw materials and finished products enter our food supply from many sources, foreign and domestic. As a purchaser how do you trust that it meets the standards necessary to be used in the manufacture of your products or to be sold on your shelves?
The basic word is TRUST!
With this latest peanut disaster, TRUST has been destroyed.
A major food company announced that its inspections of the manufacturer resulted in superior inspection results. These audits were performed by an outside trusted firm. Could they have been incorrect? Maybe not. As a purchaser, how in depth an inspection are you allowed? How in depth do you ask for? Is a letter from the supplier that it guarantees that it meets regulations enough?
I suspect that if insurance companies continue to pay out big amounts for clients that do not have proper controls to avoid or reduce liabilities, they will raise rates, change legal contracts and force inspections of companies.
I suspect that we will continue to see more government direction and involvement.
I suspect that it is time for our manufacturers to ask for and demand more transparency from their suppliers and more access to their facilities.
I also suspect that in response, suppliers will be less open and provide less access, than ever before.
In today's economically challenged world, where does FOOD SAFETY fit?
That choice is up to each of us.
Be informed! Challenge the process! Contact me for specific solutions for your specific needs!
www.powerinlearning.com
rudy@powerinlearning.com
Rudy
Monday, February 2, 2009
Reduce Recalls, Improve Effectiveness
Since January 28th, when the Peanut Corporation of America expanded its recall of peanuts and peanut products, over 40 companies have announced associated recalls of their products.
While work is being done in the U.S. and around the world on developing better trace and track and recall systems, we are still a long way from agreeing on a format, a useable system that can be used by all companies. In order to be effective a recall system must be useable by small, medium and large companies. Efforts must be made to control the cost impact to the companies and the consumers.
Any system in order to be effectively utilized by the CDC or FDA or other regulatory agencies will require partication by all food companies. If industry drives the process with advice from government agencies the chance for adoption will improve. Although most people feel we need an effective system, most do not agree on who must accept the cost and burden.
Two food safety directions must be followed. The first must be to continue efforts to reduce the need for recalls by improving the checks and balances in the manufacturing plants. This takes training, monitoring and daily involvement of plant operations, quality control, suppliers, and consultants.
The second piece is an effective recall process. One that can find common components or products and remove them from the market in a shorter period of time. It cannot take weeks and months to complete the process.
I am involved in work on both fronts. Feel free to contact me for further information and discussion.
Be safe out there...
Rudy
rudy@powerinlearning.com
http://www.powerinlearning.com/
While work is being done in the U.S. and around the world on developing better trace and track and recall systems, we are still a long way from agreeing on a format, a useable system that can be used by all companies. In order to be effective a recall system must be useable by small, medium and large companies. Efforts must be made to control the cost impact to the companies and the consumers.
Any system in order to be effectively utilized by the CDC or FDA or other regulatory agencies will require partication by all food companies. If industry drives the process with advice from government agencies the chance for adoption will improve. Although most people feel we need an effective system, most do not agree on who must accept the cost and burden.
Two food safety directions must be followed. The first must be to continue efforts to reduce the need for recalls by improving the checks and balances in the manufacturing plants. This takes training, monitoring and daily involvement of plant operations, quality control, suppliers, and consultants.
The second piece is an effective recall process. One that can find common components or products and remove them from the market in a shorter period of time. It cannot take weeks and months to complete the process.
I am involved in work on both fronts. Feel free to contact me for further information and discussion.
Be safe out there...
Rudy
rudy@powerinlearning.com
http://www.powerinlearning.com/
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Ethics in the Food Industry
I have always believed that each of us, who wish to be a part of the food industry are given the responsibility of protecting the public by producing food products that will not harm our customers. If the only reason we entered this business was to make money, then we have no right to be in this industry.
There is no less responsibility to protect the public in the food industry than there is in the medical field or firefighting or emergency workers or police officers.
Whenever we see people getting ill or dying from consuming food that they believe to be safe, then it harms not just the plant operators that do not care about their products or do not care to learn how to produce safe products, it harms each of us in the food industry.
The trust in the industry has been lost. In my years in the industry, I do not recall the situation being so out of control. And because one plant can send out ingredients and products that affect other products and because companies have merged and closed down underperforming plants, one large operator covers a larger part of the industry.
Today, in the Washington Post, it was revealed that the peanut company that had produced peanut butter and paste that was implicated in causing many illnesses and up to seven deaths, had internal tests over the last two years that were positive for Salmonella. Some of the tests were environmental and some were in products that had been shipped out. Those products were not withdrawn or recalled.
When a company does internal testing, and almost all do, and finds positive results what do they do with the results? Most companies have a plan for cleaning, protecting the product, protecting the public. I believe you are obligated to do more than test.
Before you start a testing procedure, you should put down in writing your plan to handle positive results. Then if you have a positive test, you must follow your plan.
Later today, the Peanut Corporation of America announced further recalls on all peanuts and products that were manufactured in their Georgia facility.
If you are CEO or president of your food company now is the time to ask the following four questions:
What bacterial contamination tests are being performed by your Quality Departments?
Who is aware of the results of these tests?
What action is occurring if a test result is positive?
When and how is the decision made to remove the product that may be contaminated from the market?
Based on your answers you may want to call or email me for a confidential and candid discussion. Understand that the persons supplying answers to your questions may be telling you the policy answer and not reality. They may be conditioned to do so.
Be informed, step up and take ownership of the process, and do not punish the public or your industry, because you do not have the time or desire to do the right thing.
Do more than is expected or required to protect the public. Help us put confidence back into our food industry and its safety.
Rudy Westervelt
rudy@powerinlearning.com
www.powerinlearning.com
There is no less responsibility to protect the public in the food industry than there is in the medical field or firefighting or emergency workers or police officers.
Whenever we see people getting ill or dying from consuming food that they believe to be safe, then it harms not just the plant operators that do not care about their products or do not care to learn how to produce safe products, it harms each of us in the food industry.
The trust in the industry has been lost. In my years in the industry, I do not recall the situation being so out of control. And because one plant can send out ingredients and products that affect other products and because companies have merged and closed down underperforming plants, one large operator covers a larger part of the industry.
Today, in the Washington Post, it was revealed that the peanut company that had produced peanut butter and paste that was implicated in causing many illnesses and up to seven deaths, had internal tests over the last two years that were positive for Salmonella. Some of the tests were environmental and some were in products that had been shipped out. Those products were not withdrawn or recalled.
When a company does internal testing, and almost all do, and finds positive results what do they do with the results? Most companies have a plan for cleaning, protecting the product, protecting the public. I believe you are obligated to do more than test.
Before you start a testing procedure, you should put down in writing your plan to handle positive results. Then if you have a positive test, you must follow your plan.
Later today, the Peanut Corporation of America announced further recalls on all peanuts and products that were manufactured in their Georgia facility.
If you are CEO or president of your food company now is the time to ask the following four questions:
What bacterial contamination tests are being performed by your Quality Departments?
Who is aware of the results of these tests?
What action is occurring if a test result is positive?
When and how is the decision made to remove the product that may be contaminated from the market?
Based on your answers you may want to call or email me for a confidential and candid discussion. Understand that the persons supplying answers to your questions may be telling you the policy answer and not reality. They may be conditioned to do so.
Be informed, step up and take ownership of the process, and do not punish the public or your industry, because you do not have the time or desire to do the right thing.
Do more than is expected or required to protect the public. Help us put confidence back into our food industry and its safety.
Rudy Westervelt
rudy@powerinlearning.com
www.powerinlearning.com
Monday, January 19, 2009
FDA advises consumers on peanut butter
The FDA has made an announcement for consumers to avoid eating products that contain peanut butter until they have completed their investigation.
Nearly 500 illnesses, 90 hospitalizations and 6 deaths have been linked to this Salmonella outbreak.
The Peanut Corporation of America has issued recall of its pastes and products manufactured since August of 2008. The products went across the United States and into Canada, Korea and Haiti.
The CDC has urged companies that use peanut butter in manufacture of products to release information on the source of their ingredients.
Peanut butter and ingredient peanut products account for nearly 130 million pounds used per month. Most of this use is in the manufacture of peanut butter.
Being requested not to consume peanut butter crackers, cookies, peanut butter chunks and flavors in your ice cream is now tremendously impacting this industry and the related users.
As consumers, our challenge is to better understand where ingredients are sourced. As manufacturers, it is essential to better understand sanitary practices of the companies supplying our ingredients and the tests essential to protect the public and as regulators, we must use each food contamination investigation as a learning experience to improve the speed of arriving at the source of contamination and getting contaminated product removed from the market.
Ask questions, expect answers.
Rudy
Nearly 500 illnesses, 90 hospitalizations and 6 deaths have been linked to this Salmonella outbreak.
The Peanut Corporation of America has issued recall of its pastes and products manufactured since August of 2008. The products went across the United States and into Canada, Korea and Haiti.
The CDC has urged companies that use peanut butter in manufacture of products to release information on the source of their ingredients.
Peanut butter and ingredient peanut products account for nearly 130 million pounds used per month. Most of this use is in the manufacture of peanut butter.
Being requested not to consume peanut butter crackers, cookies, peanut butter chunks and flavors in your ice cream is now tremendously impacting this industry and the related users.
As consumers, our challenge is to better understand where ingredients are sourced. As manufacturers, it is essential to better understand sanitary practices of the companies supplying our ingredients and the tests essential to protect the public and as regulators, we must use each food contamination investigation as a learning experience to improve the speed of arriving at the source of contamination and getting contaminated product removed from the market.
Ask questions, expect answers.
Rudy
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
The Peanut Salmonella Debacle Goes Crackers
We now know that the producer of the peanut butter that has been identified as the possible source of a strain of Salmonella that has sickened hundreds of people and some deaths, also supplies peanut butter to Kellogg Company for the manufacture of peanut butter crackers. Being concerned, Kellogg's has put its products on hold.
This has the feeling of the last peanut butter recall.
Check your cupboards and ask plenty of questions.
Kellogg Company Announces Precautionary Hold on Austin and Keebler Branded Peanut Butter Sandwich Crackers
Contact:Kellogg Consumer Response Center888-314-2060
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE -- Battle Creek, MI -- January 14, 2009 -- Kellogg Company today announced it has taken the precautionary measure of putting a hold on Austin® and Keebler® branded Toasted Peanut Butter Sandwich Crackers, Peanut Butter and Jelly Sandwich Crackers, Cheese and Peanut Butter Sandwich Crackers, and Peanut Butter-Chocolate Sandwich Crackers.
FDA and other regulatory agencies have indicated that Peanut Corporation of America (PCA) is the focus of their investigation concerning a recent Salmonella outbreak thought to be caused by tainted peanut butter. PCA is one of several peanut paste suppliers that the company uses in its Austin® and Keebler® branded peanut butter sandwich crackers.
Kellogg Company's investigation has not indicated any concerns, nor has the Company received any consumer illness complaints about these products.
Nonetheless, Kellogg Company is taking precautionary measures including putting a hold on any inventory in its control, removing product from retail store shelves, and encouraging customers and consumers to hold and not eat these products until regulatory officials complete their investigation of PCA and Kellogg provides further information as to the resolution of this issue.
"Consumer health and safety is our top priority," said David Mackay, president and CEO, Kellogg Company. "We are taking these voluntary actions out of an abundance of caution."
Be careful out there. Be observant of food handling practices.
Rudy
This has the feeling of the last peanut butter recall.
Check your cupboards and ask plenty of questions.
Kellogg Company Announces Precautionary Hold on Austin and Keebler Branded Peanut Butter Sandwich Crackers
Contact:Kellogg Consumer Response Center888-314-2060
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE -- Battle Creek, MI -- January 14, 2009 -- Kellogg Company today announced it has taken the precautionary measure of putting a hold on Austin® and Keebler® branded Toasted Peanut Butter Sandwich Crackers, Peanut Butter and Jelly Sandwich Crackers, Cheese and Peanut Butter Sandwich Crackers, and Peanut Butter-Chocolate Sandwich Crackers.
FDA and other regulatory agencies have indicated that Peanut Corporation of America (PCA) is the focus of their investigation concerning a recent Salmonella outbreak thought to be caused by tainted peanut butter. PCA is one of several peanut paste suppliers that the company uses in its Austin® and Keebler® branded peanut butter sandwich crackers.
Kellogg Company's investigation has not indicated any concerns, nor has the Company received any consumer illness complaints about these products.
Nonetheless, Kellogg Company is taking precautionary measures including putting a hold on any inventory in its control, removing product from retail store shelves, and encouraging customers and consumers to hold and not eat these products until regulatory officials complete their investigation of PCA and Kellogg provides further information as to the resolution of this issue.
"Consumer health and safety is our top priority," said David Mackay, president and CEO, Kellogg Company. "We are taking these voluntary actions out of an abundance of caution."
Be careful out there. Be observant of food handling practices.
Rudy
Sunday, January 11, 2009
What's in Your Peanut Butter?
We remember the past food recalls on Peter Pan peanut butter. The plant in South Georgia that produced it had contamination issues that resulted in the brand being pulled from the markets including co-packed brands. The recall expanded into bulk peanut butter that was used in the manufacture of cookies and other products.
One of the big issues we face today is the reduction in the number of manufacturing plants in the United States. As companies and plants have consolidated to control costs and remain competitive, they have put smaller companies out of business. Big retailers have squeezed the manufacturers for reduced wholesale costs of merchandise so that they can maintain the necessary growth in revenue to satisfy their Wall St. analysts and their shareholders.
The reason that this pertains to food safety is that many distributers today have their brand name on the product, but do not manufacture the items. Items are packed by a contract packager.
When the contract packager has contamination issues the extent of the recall depends on the quality of the record keeping, lot traceability and sanitary standard operating procedures that are being practiced.
This carries on to the following recall that has occurred in peanut butter again. The manufacturer was not mentioned in the recall, but I presume we are just hearing about this story as it unravels. The distributer is desiring to remove the product and related labels off the market to protect the public and the company's liability. Read the following recall to understand the extent. What you do not know is what related labels were packaged on the same line before or after the recalled product and the follow up by the manufacturer to correct the problem.
King Nut Issues Peanut Butter Recall
Contact:Martin Kanan 440-248-8484 extension 244
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE --Solon, Ohio (January 10, 2009) - King Nut Companies, a distributor of peanut butter manufactured for them by Peanut Corporation of America, today announced a recall of peanut butter distributed under the King Nut label. No other King Nut products are included in this recall.
King Nut took this action as soon as it was informed that salmonella had been found in an open five-pound tub of King Nut peanut butter. King Nut distributes peanut butter only through food service accounts. It is not sold directly to consumers. King Nut does not supply any of the ingredients for the peanut butter distributed under its label. All other King Nut products are safe and not included in this voluntary recall.
“We are very sorry this happened,” said Martin Kanan, president and chief executive officer of King Nut Companies. “We are taking immediate and voluntary action because the health and safety of those who use our products is always our highest priority.”
“Because we don’t manufacture peanut butter, we will do what we can to get this product out of distribution and will work with the manufacturer to inform others of this problem,” Kanan said. “We also distribute peanut butter from this manufacturer under the Parnell’s Pride brand, although we are not the only distributor. However, we have asked our customers to remove this brand as well.”
In an unrelated recall, yogurt was recalled for containing walnuts and almonds, that were not disclosed on the packaging.
Again in today's market, how can this happen?
I will go out on a limb and state that most companies, even if they have a process in place to handle proper labelling, do not practice what they have written. They have policies and procedures. They may have had someone in that position. Maybe that person left the company or the job was eliminated. Transfering those things that are in writing to actions in most cases fails to happen, because of lack of time in the day or lack of checks and balances in the process.
I am very concerned with the direction that we as a country are going as we continue to drive food safety from Washington, DC without understanding how we interpret this in plants across the country. I challenge each distributer and manufacturer to step up and get it right. Protect the public and your company. It is your morale and legal obligation when you decided to enter the food business. Take the obligation seriously.
Triple B Corporation dba S.T. Produce Issues Allergy Alert on Undeclared Allergens Walnuts and Almonds in Parfait Products
Contact:Mike Ruff206-625-1412
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE -- Seattle, WA – January 9, 2009 -- Triple B Corporation dba S.T. Produce, Seattle, WA is initiating a voluntary recall of the below listed Charlie's brand yogurt parfait products because they contain undeclared walnuts and almonds. People who have allergies to walnuts or almonds run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume these products.
The yogurt parfait products being recalled are packaged under the Charlie's Label into 8.5 ounce, clear plastic package cups with a USE BY Date of 1-12-09 through 1-15-09 stamped on the side:
Peach and Pineapple Yogurt Parfait UPC 0-45009-06747-0
Pineapple Blueberry Yogurt Parfait UPC 0-45009-06748-7
Mixed Berry Parfait UPC 0-45009-06766-1
Strawberry Blueberry Yogurt Parfait UPC 0-45009-06787-6
Pineapple Strawberry Yogurt Parfait UPC 0-45009-06788-3
In addition, the yogurt parfaits are sold in a variety pack, 6/8.5 oz. containers, sold in a cardboard carton:
Mixed Pack Parfait UPC 0-45009-08084-4, contains 6/8.5 oz yogurt parfaits – 2 each of mixed berry, strawberry & blueberry, and pineapple & peach.
The recalled yogurt parfait was distributed in Washington and Oregon in retail stores and delis.No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this problem.
The recall was initiated after it was discovered that the walnuts and almond-containing parfait was distributed in packaging that did not reveal the presence of the walnuts and almonds. Subsequent investigation indicates the problem was caused by a temporary breakdown in the company's production and packaging processes.
Until next time, Be Safe Out There,
Rudy
One of the big issues we face today is the reduction in the number of manufacturing plants in the United States. As companies and plants have consolidated to control costs and remain competitive, they have put smaller companies out of business. Big retailers have squeezed the manufacturers for reduced wholesale costs of merchandise so that they can maintain the necessary growth in revenue to satisfy their Wall St. analysts and their shareholders.
The reason that this pertains to food safety is that many distributers today have their brand name on the product, but do not manufacture the items. Items are packed by a contract packager.
When the contract packager has contamination issues the extent of the recall depends on the quality of the record keeping, lot traceability and sanitary standard operating procedures that are being practiced.
This carries on to the following recall that has occurred in peanut butter again. The manufacturer was not mentioned in the recall, but I presume we are just hearing about this story as it unravels. The distributer is desiring to remove the product and related labels off the market to protect the public and the company's liability. Read the following recall to understand the extent. What you do not know is what related labels were packaged on the same line before or after the recalled product and the follow up by the manufacturer to correct the problem.
King Nut Issues Peanut Butter Recall
Contact:Martin Kanan 440-248-8484 extension 244
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE --Solon, Ohio (January 10, 2009) - King Nut Companies, a distributor of peanut butter manufactured for them by Peanut Corporation of America, today announced a recall of peanut butter distributed under the King Nut label. No other King Nut products are included in this recall.
King Nut took this action as soon as it was informed that salmonella had been found in an open five-pound tub of King Nut peanut butter. King Nut distributes peanut butter only through food service accounts. It is not sold directly to consumers. King Nut does not supply any of the ingredients for the peanut butter distributed under its label. All other King Nut products are safe and not included in this voluntary recall.
“We are very sorry this happened,” said Martin Kanan, president and chief executive officer of King Nut Companies. “We are taking immediate and voluntary action because the health and safety of those who use our products is always our highest priority.”
“Because we don’t manufacture peanut butter, we will do what we can to get this product out of distribution and will work with the manufacturer to inform others of this problem,” Kanan said. “We also distribute peanut butter from this manufacturer under the Parnell’s Pride brand, although we are not the only distributor. However, we have asked our customers to remove this brand as well.”
In an unrelated recall, yogurt was recalled for containing walnuts and almonds, that were not disclosed on the packaging.
Again in today's market, how can this happen?
I will go out on a limb and state that most companies, even if they have a process in place to handle proper labelling, do not practice what they have written. They have policies and procedures. They may have had someone in that position. Maybe that person left the company or the job was eliminated. Transfering those things that are in writing to actions in most cases fails to happen, because of lack of time in the day or lack of checks and balances in the process.
I am very concerned with the direction that we as a country are going as we continue to drive food safety from Washington, DC without understanding how we interpret this in plants across the country. I challenge each distributer and manufacturer to step up and get it right. Protect the public and your company. It is your morale and legal obligation when you decided to enter the food business. Take the obligation seriously.
Triple B Corporation dba S.T. Produce Issues Allergy Alert on Undeclared Allergens Walnuts and Almonds in Parfait Products
Contact:Mike Ruff206-625-1412
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE -- Seattle, WA – January 9, 2009 -- Triple B Corporation dba S.T. Produce, Seattle, WA is initiating a voluntary recall of the below listed Charlie's brand yogurt parfait products because they contain undeclared walnuts and almonds. People who have allergies to walnuts or almonds run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume these products.
The yogurt parfait products being recalled are packaged under the Charlie's Label into 8.5 ounce, clear plastic package cups with a USE BY Date of 1-12-09 through 1-15-09 stamped on the side:
Peach and Pineapple Yogurt Parfait UPC 0-45009-06747-0
Pineapple Blueberry Yogurt Parfait UPC 0-45009-06748-7
Mixed Berry Parfait UPC 0-45009-06766-1
Strawberry Blueberry Yogurt Parfait UPC 0-45009-06787-6
Pineapple Strawberry Yogurt Parfait UPC 0-45009-06788-3
In addition, the yogurt parfaits are sold in a variety pack, 6/8.5 oz. containers, sold in a cardboard carton:
Mixed Pack Parfait UPC 0-45009-08084-4, contains 6/8.5 oz yogurt parfaits – 2 each of mixed berry, strawberry & blueberry, and pineapple & peach.
The recalled yogurt parfait was distributed in Washington and Oregon in retail stores and delis.No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this problem.
The recall was initiated after it was discovered that the walnuts and almond-containing parfait was distributed in packaging that did not reveal the presence of the walnuts and almonds. Subsequent investigation indicates the problem was caused by a temporary breakdown in the company's production and packaging processes.
Until next time, Be Safe Out There,
Rudy
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
And the Melamine Just Keeps on Coming
There would seem to be no end to this problem. This one was discovered by the FDA. As a consumer, you should ask questions and check labels. Many products today contain milk and milk components, this may be whey or milk powder or other components.
Read the ingredients labels and be involved in the process. Ask your retailers to ask their suppliers to find out where ingredients and products are manufactured and what steps are being done to protect the public. Public awareness is our best defense.
National Brands Inc. Issues a Nationwide Recall of Topaz brand Wafer Rolls Because of Possible Health Risks
Contact:National Brands Inc.1-866-238-5201
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE -- December 19, 2008 – National Brands Inc., Spring Valley NY is initiating a nationwide recall of all their 4.76oz (135gm) cans and 12.3oz (350gm) cans of Topaz brand Wafer Rolls because it may be contaminated with Melamine.
Product was distributed nationwide through retail stores.
The product comes in 4.76oz (135gm) metal cans and 12.3oz (350gm) metal cans in the following four flavors:
Topaz Wafer Rolls with Chocolate Flavored Cream Filling Lot numbers L8085A, L8219A, L8245A
Topaz Wafer Rolls with Hazelnut Chocolate Flavored Cream Filling Lot numbers L8085D, L8219D, L8245D
Topaz Wafer Rolls with Vanilla Flavored Cream Filling Lot numbers L8085B, L8219B, L8245B
Topaz Wafer Rolls with Mocha Cappuccino Flavored Cream Filling Lot numbers L8085C, L8219C, L8245C
Consumers who have the product which is being recalled should stop using it immediately. No illnesses associated with this product have been reported to date.
The recall was initiated after FDA testing discovered that product was found to contain Melamine.
Be safe out there,
Rudy
Read the ingredients labels and be involved in the process. Ask your retailers to ask their suppliers to find out where ingredients and products are manufactured and what steps are being done to protect the public. Public awareness is our best defense.
National Brands Inc. Issues a Nationwide Recall of Topaz brand Wafer Rolls Because of Possible Health Risks
Contact:National Brands Inc.1-866-238-5201
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE -- December 19, 2008 – National Brands Inc., Spring Valley NY is initiating a nationwide recall of all their 4.76oz (135gm) cans and 12.3oz (350gm) cans of Topaz brand Wafer Rolls because it may be contaminated with Melamine.
Product was distributed nationwide through retail stores.
The product comes in 4.76oz (135gm) metal cans and 12.3oz (350gm) metal cans in the following four flavors:
Topaz Wafer Rolls with Chocolate Flavored Cream Filling Lot numbers L8085A, L8219A, L8245A
Topaz Wafer Rolls with Hazelnut Chocolate Flavored Cream Filling Lot numbers L8085D, L8219D, L8245D
Topaz Wafer Rolls with Vanilla Flavored Cream Filling Lot numbers L8085B, L8219B, L8245B
Topaz Wafer Rolls with Mocha Cappuccino Flavored Cream Filling Lot numbers L8085C, L8219C, L8245C
Consumers who have the product which is being recalled should stop using it immediately. No illnesses associated with this product have been reported to date.
The recall was initiated after FDA testing discovered that product was found to contain Melamine.
Be safe out there,
Rudy
Sunday, January 4, 2009
Where Did Your Bacon Bits Come From?
The first Class I recall from the USDA in 2009 was on bacon bits manufactured in November in Wisconsin and distributed to restaurants and the institutional trade in six states from California to Florida.
What is the chance that most of this has been consumed? It was distributed by the case and 359 ten pound cases were sold.
The contamination was discovered after in house testing of the product.
What was done to ensure that the source was discovered? What has been done to ensure no production before or after this date was contaminated?
When you are out to dinner and order a baked potato with everything, you might ask where the bacon bits came from for your order. If you order a salad that has bacon bits, then ask the same question.
Wisconsin Firm Recalls Bacon Bit Products For Possible Listeria Contamination
Recall Release
CLASS I RECALL
FSIS-RC-001-2009
HEALTH RISK: HIGHCongressional and Public Affairs(202) 720-9113Peggy Riek WASHINGTON, Jan. 3, 2009 - Patrick Cudahy, a Cudahy, Wisc., firm, is recalling approximately 3,590 pounds of bacon bit products that may be contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service announced today.
The following products are subject to recall:
10-pound cases of "Golden Crisp APPLEWOOD SMOKED PRECOOKED BACON TOPPINGS." The products bear the establishment number "EST. 28" inside the USDA mark of inspection as well as a printed Julian date of "8318."
10-pound cases of "John Morrell APPLEWOOD SMOKED PRECOOKED BACON TOPPINGS." The products bear the establishment number "EST. 28" inside the USDA mark of inspection as well as a printed Julian date of "8318."
The bacon bit products were produced on Nov. 13, 2008, and distributed to restaurant and institutional establishments in California, Colorado, Florida, South Dakota, Texas and Wisconsin.
Be safe out there.
Rudy
What is the chance that most of this has been consumed? It was distributed by the case and 359 ten pound cases were sold.
The contamination was discovered after in house testing of the product.
What was done to ensure that the source was discovered? What has been done to ensure no production before or after this date was contaminated?
When you are out to dinner and order a baked potato with everything, you might ask where the bacon bits came from for your order. If you order a salad that has bacon bits, then ask the same question.
Wisconsin Firm Recalls Bacon Bit Products For Possible Listeria Contamination
Recall Release
CLASS I RECALL
FSIS-RC-001-2009
HEALTH RISK: HIGHCongressional and Public Affairs(202) 720-9113Peggy Riek WASHINGTON, Jan. 3, 2009 - Patrick Cudahy, a Cudahy, Wisc., firm, is recalling approximately 3,590 pounds of bacon bit products that may be contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service announced today.
The following products are subject to recall:
10-pound cases of "Golden Crisp APPLEWOOD SMOKED PRECOOKED BACON TOPPINGS." The products bear the establishment number "EST. 28" inside the USDA mark of inspection as well as a printed Julian date of "8318."
10-pound cases of "John Morrell APPLEWOOD SMOKED PRECOOKED BACON TOPPINGS." The products bear the establishment number "EST. 28" inside the USDA mark of inspection as well as a printed Julian date of "8318."
The bacon bit products were produced on Nov. 13, 2008, and distributed to restaurant and institutional establishments in California, Colorado, Florida, South Dakota, Texas and Wisconsin.
Be safe out there.
Rudy
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
