Guest Blog: Going Beyond Legal

It’s not often that I come across an industry consultant who tries to call the public’s attention to deficiencies in the practices within his own industry. Mr. McNaughton’s article highlights the practice of “grandfathering” – a practice that allows older procedures, equipment and building designs to continue in operation even when they no longer represent “Current Good Manufacturing Practices.”

The following Guest Blog first appeared on Cheese Reporter (Volume 137, No. 1, June 29, 2012), and is reproduced here with the kind permission of its author, Neville McNaughton.

Going Beyond Legal

Grandfathering: What Is It and If Consumers Knew

by Neville McNaughton

As an advisor to cheese makers, investors, and anyone who wants to be a part of the dairy processing industry, the practice of grandfathering is the most difficult to understand.

For those unfamiliar with the concept of being “grandfathered in,” it is the practice of allowing an operator who was in production prior to a change in safety regulations to not be required to meet the same upgraded standard as a new entrant into the industry.

This is a common practice and one that is perhaps the most difficult to understand. As a rather literal person, regulations to me are regulations and they should apply to us all. It so happens that this is not the case. If you were fortunate enough to have been in operation prior to the introduction of a new rule, there is a possibility that you will not have to comply.

This is unacceptable on many levels: Food safety regulation should have only one function — that of protecting the health and safety of consumers. This protection is far more important today than in the past as the consuming public is more removed from the production of food than ever in history.

Consequently the consumer has little chance of being able to assess the food they consume. Caveat Emptor! Generally I mean this in a technical sense, but in all fairness, our food is being produced farther than ever from its point of consumption. The distance food now travels is revealing, and has led to the rise of movements like the “10, 20 or 100-Mile Diets” to promote healthier eating that also supports the local food supply.

If public health and safety is the goal of regulation, then one would think that as new discovery and processing requirements come into play, operators would be required to meet the standard. No? I can assure processors that consumers do expect and believe this; they do not accept two standards where only the new operator meets the safety requirements.

Sound like a Tale of Two Industries?

Grandfathering is definitely not just an issue for small operators. One of the most glaring/disappointing cases in recent history was a Listeria issue in a large meat plant.

After several years of analysis the reports are telling us that a contributor to the problem was the age of the building, which determined its design and construction methods. The reports are never totally illuminating because, as consumers, we are expected to accept that our inspection agencies are looking into the issues in great depth and somehow that will solve the problem. The plant in question is still in production today. Sounds like Band-Aids were added, doesn’t it?

At what point should our regulators sit down with a processor and advise them that their building and equipment need to be upgraded or replaced?

Let’s consider the state that banned raw milk cheese production while allowing one historical producer to continue. Where is the level playing field? Who needs the upgrades?

The Grade A processor who is operating in an historical building with wooden ceilings?
Grade A processors who have shields above their filling operations to stop drips contacting product and packaging as it is being filled?
The cheese maker who has trays on the top of his cheese to stop drips landing on the cheese?
The cheese packaging operation that has drips falling down on the filling line from HVAC registers in the ceiling?
The cheese maker who was told (an independent consultant was brought in to audit and advise) to add a positive air system to their production space when they had a Listeria problem before they could recommence production? (Other new operators setting up in the same state after this incident were required to put in extract fans only, no filtered air in, and were permitted to operate with open screened windows).

These may seem like trivial issues, but if something in a drip is unsafe for a product for instance, consider how far the drip splatters when it hits the horizontal shield. You can see how the problem grows exponentially.

Regulatory discrepancies happen because of the many influences in the System. An impacted industry puts pressure on their local politician, local politician puts pressure on the top bureaucrat, and it’s all downhill from there.

Observing operators with influence has never made me comfortable. What makes operators and their industries good is whether or not they make good decisions. A checks and balances system is absolutely necessary for regulating the decisions surrounding food processing safety.

If food safety is as much about attitude as it is about regulation, “Grandfathering” is an attitude problem. It shows arrogance on the part of the operator, weakness on the part of the regulator, and corruption (or at the very least confusion) on the part of the politician.

The politician can be a problem because he/she is frequently unduly influenced by the business operator in his electorate. The politician wants profitable businesses in the district to create jobs etc. but he or she should not be able to overwhelmingly influence the decision-making processes surrounding public health and safety. The situation is compounded when states do not have similar regulations. Can the operator just pick up and move across the state line?

Additionally, many states do not enforce their own regulations equally. As an example, a new construction must have brine tanks set away from walls to ensure easy cleaning while existing operators are required to make no changes.

But in one case, a new operator was permitted to build brine tanks into a corner with no provision for cleaning. They placed a freon-based evaporator in the room directly above the brine tank, further impacting the potential for dripping from the condensate tray, the potential for leaking from the condensate tray and condensate drain that led the condensate away to waste.

If condensate drains are not properly installed, they certainly can leak. The freon gas lines to and from the evaporator are insulated, frequently becoming a major source of drips and contamination.

I have a long history of working with regulators and inspectors. What were acceptable practices when I began in this industry are not acceptable today and certainly should not be. I am certain that if we had consumers on a committee along with federal and state regulators, the Grandfather rule would be gone.

Remember that many of the top federal regulators came from the industry they regulate, so they already work closely with the processors. The potential for influence is clear. The creation of a working regulatory committee that includes consumers would improve the dynamic that has led to the current situation.

There is much room to improve the way we run our food industry. There are challenges ahead for which we either don’t have solutions or don’t want to make the change mostly because of cost.

Remove the Grandfather rule and we can expect to see change occur more quickly.

About the Author: Neville McNaughton, president of Cheez Sorce, St. Louis, MO, has many years of experience manufacturing dairy products in both New Zealand and US. He has been a judge at several cheese competitions. Neville writes a regular column in Cheese Reporter.

Guest Blog: Risk-Free Eating In The EU: It’s Promise Time

It’s not only US-based politicians and bureaucrats who have the hubris to proclaim that “we have the world’s safest food supply.” The European Union is not immune from making equally absurd and unsubstantiated claims.

The following Guest Blog first appeared on Le Blog d’Albert Amgar under the title “Une alimentation sans danger dans l’UE: le temps des promesses” and is reproduced here in English translation with the kind permission of its author, Albert Amgar.

Risk-Free Eating In The EU: It’s Promise Time

by Albert Amgar
(translation by Phyllis Entis)

The EU communiqué announcing the release of the RASFF 2011 Annual Report is quite a joke. Consider the title of the communiqué, “Food: Latest Report shows EU Controls ensure our food is safe.”

For starters, the European Commissioner for Health and Consumer Policy makes the following statement, which cannot be verified, insofar as such comparisons are impossible to measure: “European consumers enjoy the highest food safety standards in the world.”

Those German consumers who became ill or died in 2011 would appreciate that!

What to make of this type of statement: “In 2011, we dealt with a number of important crises such as the effects of the Fukushima nuclear incident, the dioxin and the E. coli crisis.” The “important crisis” was that many sushi-lovers believed that these products were imported from Japan and stopped patronizing these establishments! See “Why Japanese restaurants have fallen out of favor”/Pourquoi les restaurants japonais n’ont plus la cote?“

Did food safety hazards nevertheless present a risk to consumers?

E. coli in fenugreek sprouts was responsible for 3842 illnesses and 55 deaths in Germany; in France, the Bordeaux episode caused 24 cases of infection.

An EU Commission Staff Working Document enumerated several important lessons learned from the 2011 crisis, among which are:

improving the RASFF by launching iRASFF, an on-line notification platform that will enable RASFF to operate with greater speed and effectiveness than ever before;
review operational procedures for crisis management to ensure adequate flexibility;
review the regulations relating to traceability to find hazardous products and remove them from the marketplace faster and more effectively;
organize, in conjunction with major trading partners and in cooperation with the European Food Safety Agency and the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, specialized training on the investigation of food-borne diseases and outbreak management, as well as improvement of hygiene in primary food production [via the EU program “Better Training for Safer Food”]
develop specific regulations for seeds and the production of sprouts;
improve the coordination and clarity of communication during a crisis.

A few simple observations:

It is very nice to discover that i-notification exists – in 2012!
It is not necessary to review the traceability regulations – just to ensure that everyone follows the regulations that already are on the books.
Regarding the development of regulations for seeds and the production of sprouts, I share the thoughts of Richard Lawley, in his article “Can seed sprouts be made safe?” Yes, without a doubt, but only by cooking.

As for improving the coordination of communication during periods of crisis, it seems to me that Europe has already demonstrated that it’s everyone for himself.

About Albert Amgar: Albert Amgar lives in Paris, France. He worked as a young scientist at the Parasitology and Tropical Medicine Service of the Pitié Salpétrière Hospital and later spent 12 years in the pharmaceutical industry. In 1989, he became director of a new association of agro-food industrialists named ASEPT in Laval (France). He was the general manager of ASEPT until his retirement.

Guest Blog: In Defense of Food Safety Leadership

The following Guest Blog first appeared on Food Safety News, and is reproduced here with the kind permission of its author, Nancy Donley.

In Defense of Food Safety Leadership

by Nancy Donley

My only child, Alex, died from hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS) caused by eating E. coli O157:H7-contaminated ground beef back in 1993 when he was only 6 years old. It was the most horrendous experience possible.

His first symptoms were severe abdominal cramping and bowel movements that consisted strictly of blood and mucus. Alex suffered terribly as his organs shut down one by one. At one point one of his lungs collapsed, requiring bedside surgery. His brain swelled so horribly that shunts were drilled into his head in an effort to relieve the pressure, but to no avail.

My brave little boy’s last words to me before slipping into a coma were, “Don’t cry, Mommy” as I couldn’t stop the tears from silently flowing. His last gesture to his dad was to blow him a kiss. I was with him when he suffered a grand mal seizure and was put on a ventilator. My little boy, my only child, was dead.

Alex had wanted to be a paramedic when he grew up so that he “could help others” — his words. So when he died we hoped to be able to donate his organs so that he could fulfill that wish of helping others, but his organs were unsalvageable because of the damage caused by the E. coli toxins.

There was no cure for this awful disease then and there still isn’t today. Doctors can only hope to support bodily systems until the toxins pass through. It is for this reason that it is critically important for meat and poultry companies to put into place prevention strategies and technologies to ensure that contaminated meat doesn’t make its way into the marketplace. That’s why we need to support innovations and advances that enhance food safety.

After Alex’s death, I felt compelled — really more like obligated — to fulfill his wish of helping and protecting other consumers by being his voice and working with federal regulating agencies and with companies to see to it that we did a better job as a country in generating a safer food supply. In the process, I have visited numerous meat and poultry plants, have provided input on public policies and food safety laws, and have served on the National Advisory Board for Meat and Poultry Inspection.

One of the many plants I visited was Beef Products, Inc. I got to know the owners, Eldon and Regina Roth, and was impressed by their complete commitment to the safety and wholesomeness of the meat products they produced. I was also impressed by the food safety culture they instilled throughout their company. We shed tears together over what happened to Alex and realized how we share the common goal of preventing illness and death from foodborne pathogens. Ever since that moment, BPI has generously supported STOP and has never asked for anything in return.

That said, one point that needs to be perfectly clear is this: After what I personally experienced watching my son suffer and die, I am very skeptical and cynical about for-profit meat companies and their professed commitment to food safety. Not all companies “walk their talk.” BPI does.

There has been a lot of misinformation swirling around the Internet and on TV about lean beef trim produced by Beef Products, Inc. As I stated earlier, I have personally visited their plant and the categorization of calling their product “pink slime” is completely false and incendiary. Consumers need to understand that this product is meat, period, and that the use of ammonia hydroxide in minute amounts during processing improves the safety of the product and is routinely used throughout the food industry. There are many types of interventions including food-grade antimicrobial sprays which are used on all manner of foods. Some of these things may sound icky and gross, especially when inaccurately portrayed. These interventions are necessary in ridding meat of deadly pathogens and are required to prove they pose no threats to consumers. Companies would be prohibited by the USDA and FDA to use substances that could be harmful in human consumption.

I am very concerned that mis-categorization campaigns such as this “pink slime” campaign will cause well-intentioned companies such as BPI to cease innovations for developing better food safety technologies and strategies. Why try to do something better only to get set up as a target? If this does in fact happen, and promising technologies get thwarted, we, the American public, will be the losers. And tragedies like Alex will continue to go on and on and on.