December 2010 E-Zine

Mylene's Minute

Mylene Lopez Mafuz
Senior Marketing Consultant

Welcome to the December issue of the NRFSP e-zine!

In the spirit of the season, the team at NRFSP has made a donation to Jersey Hospice Care.

Please keep in mind that during the Holiday Season, we will be closed for several days.

NRFSP Office Hours
The National Registry of Food Safety Professionals will be closed Friday December 24, 2010, Monday December 27, 2010 and Monday January 3, 2011 in observance of the Holiday season and New Year.

Don't forget to visit us on Facebook.

Happy Holidays!

New CDC Data Provides Insight About Foodborne Illness Challenges and Interventions

Richard H. Linton
Professor of Food Safety at Purdue University

The most recent data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), relative to foodborne disease outbreaks in the United States, was published this past summer in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR). CDC still estimates a total of 76 million illnesses occur annually in the United States, which amounts to nearly 1 in every 4 people. The most recent report provides information as to the causes of foodborne illness and types of foods implicated in foodborne illness incidents in the year 2007.

Epidemiologic data was provided for 1,097 reported outbreaks. These outbreaks resulted in 21,244 cases of foodborne illness and 18 deaths. Among the 497 foodborne outbreaks where a laboratory-confirmed single causative agent could be identified, Norovirus and Salmonella spp. were the number 1 and number 2 reported agent, respectively. It is interesting to note that Norovirus, Salmonella spp., and Clostridium perfringens accounted for 85% of 2007 reported U.S. foodborne illnesses.

Table 1. Agents involved in foodborne illness for the most commonly reported bacterial pathogens (10), viruses (2), parasite (2), and chemicals (2), based on 2007 CDC data.

In 235 outbreaks, a single food commodity was identified as the cause of illness. Poultry, beef, and leafy vegetables were most often the cause of illness. The commodities most commonly implicated in outbreaks were finfish, poultry, and beef. The commodities associated with the most illnesses were poultry, beef and leafy vegetables (refer to table 2).

Table 2. Food commodities involved in foodborne illness for most commonly reported commodity groups based on 2007 CDC data.

Of most interest is the "combined pathogen-commodity pairs" that were responsible for the most outbreak-related illnesses. These were:

1. Norovirus in leafy vegetables (315 illnesses),
2. E. coli O157:H7 in beef (298 illnesses) and,
3. Clostridium perfringens in poultry (281 illnesses).

This information is useful for us to set priorities of developing risk-based interventions, from the farm to the fork. Interventions for each of these pathogen-commodity pairs are described below.

Interventions for Norovirus in leafy vegetables
Noroviruses are transmitted directly from person to person and indirectly via contaminated water and food. They are highly contagious viruses, with as few as ten virus particles being able to cause infection. Transmission occurs through ingesting contaminated food and water and by person-to-person spread. Transmission is predominantly from the fecal-to-oral route. The virus can also be aerosolized when those stricken with the illness vomit, and, infection can follow eating food near an episode of vomiting, even if cleaned up. The viruses continue to be shed after symptoms have subsided and shedding can still be detected many weeks after infection.

Salad ingredients, like leafy greens, are often implicated in norovirus outbreaks. Frequent and proper handwashing (at the farm, during distribution, and in retail/foodservice settings) is the most effective method to reduce the spread of norovirus. Sanitizing of surfaces where the norovirus may be present is recommended. Alcohol rubs are not very effective at controlling norovirus. CDC has prepared a technical fact sheet (http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvrd/revb/gastro/norovirus-factsheet.htm) that describes the best control measures for norovirus.

Interventions for E. coli O157:H7 in beef
Escherichia coli O157:H7 is an enterohemorrhagic strain of the bacterium. Infection often leads to hemorrhagic diarrhea, and occasionally to kidney failure, especially in young children and elderly people. Transmission is via the fecal-to-oral route, and most illness has been associated with eating undercooked, contaminated ground beef, swimming in or drinking contaminated water, and eating contaminated raw vegetables.

E. coli O157:H7 is found on cattle farms and can live in the intestines of healthy cattle. Beef processing is a common point of contamination. During the slaughtering process, the contents of intestines can come into contact with the meat. Ground beef is much more likely to be a source of infection compared to a steak due to the increased surface area and routes of contamination that occur in the grinding process. Accordingly, most of the effective measures to reduce E. coli O157:H7 can occur at the slaughtering facility that have included careful removal and cleaning of the intestines, steam/vacuum treatment, and organic acid sprays. A detailed article "Guidance for Minimizing the Risk of Escherichia coli O157:H7 and Salmonella in Beef Slaughter Operations" (http://haccpalliance.org/alliance/BeefSlauterGuide.pdf) has identified some of these measures.

Within a retail/foodservice setting, cross-contamination control measures and good handwashing techniques are keys to preventing transmission of the bacteria. Cooking ground beef to at least 155oF (68.5oC) for at least 15 seconds is the most effective measure to eliminate the organism.

Interventions for Clostridium perfringens in poultry
C. perfringens is a spore-forming bacterium. The bacterial spores convert to vegetative cells in the digestive tract of people and produce a toxin that can cause human illness. The organism is widely distributed in the environment and frequently occurs in the intestines of humans and many domestic and feral animals. Spores of the organism persist in soil, sediments, and areas subject to human or animal fecal pollution. C. perfringens poisoning is characterized by intense abdominal cramps and diarrhea which begin 8-22 hours after consumption of foods.

Temperature abuse, including improper cooling, hot holding, and storage conditions have most commonly been associated with foods believed to be responsible for causing illness, whether these foods are prepared at foodservice, retail food establishments, institutions, or at the home. An extensive risk assessment was completed in 2005 for C. perfringens in RTE and partially cooked meat and poultry products. An executive summary is available at http://www.fsis.usda.gov/PDF/CPerfringens_Risk_Assess_ExecSumm_Sep2005.pdf.

Within the retail and foodservice setting, control of time and temperature is the most important mechanism for control of the C. perfringens organism, in particularly, for hot/cold holding and for cooling of PHF (TCS ) foods. For food product holding, cold foods should be kept at 41oF (5oC) or below and hot foods kept at 135oF (57oC) or above. Effective cooling is perhaps the most critical intervention. PHF (TCS) foods should be cooled from 135 - 70oF (57 - 21oC) in less than 2 hours and from 135 - 41oF (57 - 5oC) in less than 6 hours.

CDC data are an excellent source of information about the causes of foodborne illness and the types of foods implicated in these outbreaks. This information can be valuable to all segments of the food industry when it comes to setting priorities and developing risk-based interventions from the farm to the fork. By implementing these interventions on the farm, in processing plants, during transportation, and at retail food establishments, we will enhance the safety of our nation's food supply.

FOOD RECALL: IS YOUR RESTAURANT PREPARED?

Steven A. Kronenberg

Food recalls present a serious risk management problem for restaurants. Consumers are worried about food safety, and they may blame your restaurant for serving recalled food that made them sick. Restaurants that manage this risk proactively lower the risk of serving tainted food and increase profitability.

Food Recalls are a Serious Problem

Food recalls are a serious problem for consumers. Nearly 75 percent of consumers are as concerned about food safety as terrorism.¹ Over 90 percent have expressed concerns about food recalls.² Each year, food-borne illnesses afflict an estimated 48 million (one of every six) Americans, which cause 128,000 hospitalizations and 3,000 deaths.³ In 2009, the FDA publicized over 800 food recalls and market withdrawals.⁴ Even ignoring two enormous manufacturer recalls of peanuts and pistachios that resulted in hundreds of individual product recalls, the median number of monthly food recalls in 2009 was 20.⁵

Was your restaurant aware of all of these recalls? If not, why not? Restaurant food recall risk management is critical, because more than 40 percent of food-borne illnesses arise from restaurant meals.⁶

Do I Really Need to Worry about a "Voluntary" Recall?

Yes. Manufacturers almost invariably note that their recalls are "voluntary," because a "recall" is, by definition, a voluntary action that food companies take to protect public health.⁷ (If the President signs the Food Safety Modernization Act that has passed both houses of Congress, then the FDA will have the authority to order recalls.⁸) Unfortunately, some people mistakenly think that a voluntarily recalled food does not present a serious hazard, because the government did not require the recall.⁹ However, almost all recalls for life-threatening hazards like salmonella and undisclosed allergens are "voluntary," because manufacturers know that if they do not act, the FDA may seize their product or initiate legal action against the company.¹⁰

My Restaurant can Rely on Its Distributors for Notice of Recalls, Right?

Wrong. Time is of the essence for food recalls to avoid or minimize the risk of illness,¹¹ but some manufacturer's recall notices do not reach their intended audiences as soon as possible. Communication among food processors, state and federal food safety regulators, intermediate food distributors, and retail food establishments may be delayed.¹² To cite one recent example, a manufacturer recalled a frozen entree from grocery stores due to possible salmonella contamination, but a week later, it was still for sale.¹³ Telephone calls from manufacturers to distributors may each require 10-20 minute explanations,¹⁴ so by the time your restaurant has received notice of a recall, your staff may have already served food that included an unsafe ingredient.

The Buck Stops with You

Customers often blame restaurants for food-borne illnesses, because your staff are at the end of the food distribution line.¹⁵ Unfortunately, you probably will not have a chance to explain to your sick customers that they should blame someone else until you (1) have already lost business and/or (2) are a defendant in a lawsuit.

Restaurants Should Plan Proactively to Manage Recall Risk

Restaurants should plan proactively to manage the risk of using a recalled food product. Troublingly, most people have never searched for a recalled food in their homes,¹⁶ and most people do not actively search for food recall notices.¹⁷ This means that your restaurant probably needs to educate its employees to manage the risk of serving recalled foods in your restaurant. While passively waiting for a manufacturer or distributor to notify you about voluntary recalls, you may accidentally serve customers a contaminated product that caused serious illness or death. This entirely preventable scenario unnecessarily exposes your restaurant to litigation and lost goodwill. Restaurants that implement recall risk management plans can lower their liability and increase profitability.¹⁸

For more information about food recall risk management plans, contact Steven Kronenberg of Murphy, Pearson, Bradley & Feeney at 415.788.1900 or via e-mail at SKronenberg@MPBF.com.

---

¹ http://www.qsrmagazine.com/articles/news/story.phtml?id=8249µsite=legal (visited 8/13/10).
² http://www.qsrmagazine.com/articles/news/story.phtml?id=8249µsite=legal (visited 8/13/10).
³ http://www.cdc.gov/eid/content/17/1/pdfs/10-1821.pdf (visited 12/21/10).
⁴ http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ArchiveRecalls/2009/default.htm?fragment25_NextRow=901&TabType=4052 (visited 8/16/10).
⁵ http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ArchiveRecalls/2009/default.htm?fragment25_NextRow=901&TabType=4052 (visited 8/16/10).
⁶ http://www.qsrmagazine.com/articles/features/143/mike_taylor-2.phtml (visited 8/13/10).
⁷ 21 CFR 7.40(a).
⁸ http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/22/business/22food.html?hp (visited 12/21/10).
⁹ http://www.foodpolicyinstitute.org/docs/news/Impr_Food_Recall_%20Comm_FPI_2010.pdf (visited 8/13/10).
¹⁰ 21 CFR 7.40(c); http://www.foodpolicyinstitute.org/docs/news/Impr_Food_Recall_%20Comm_FPI_2010.pdf (visited 8/13/10).
¹¹ Michigan State University (2010, March 3). More efficient methods of food-recall notices needed, expert urges. ScienceDaily. Retrieved August 17, 2010, from http://www.sciencedaily.com­ /releases/2010/02/100219204417.htm
¹² http://www.wral.com/5onyourside/story/5233898/; http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/health/Goya-Recalls-Mamey-Pulp-Over-Salmonella-Concerns-100534209.html (visited 8/17/10).
¹³ http://media.conagrafoods.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=97518&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1439629&highlight; http://www.oregon.gov/DHS/news/2010news/2010-0624.pdf?ga=t (visited 8/18/10).
¹⁴ http://www.belltowertech.com/AssociatedFoods-CaseStudy (visited 8/17/10).
¹⁵ http://www.qsrmagazine.com/articles/features/143/mike_taylor-2.phtml (visited 8/13/10).
¹⁶ http://www.wltz.com/news/local/97845709.html (visited 8/18/10).
¹⁷ Michigan State University (2010, March 3). More efficient methods of food-recall notices needed, expert urges. ScienceDaily. Retrieved August 17, 2010, from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100219204417.htm; http://www.fsis.usda.gov/factsheets/FSIS_Food_Recalls/index.asp (visited 8/17/10).
¹⁸ http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3190/is_33_36/ai_90702499/ (visited 8/17/10).

top