Food Safety Recall: Safie Specialty Foods Company, Inc. recalls Sweet Pickled Beets

Food Safety Recall: Safie Specialty Foods Company, Inc. recalls Sweet Pickled Beets (1L jars; Best before Aug 18, 2013 or later), after a consumer finds glass in the product. The recalled products were sold between August 18 and December 30, 2011 in Costco Wholesale warehouses in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba.

Courtesy of eFoodAlert

Safie’s Sweet Pickled Beets, Costco Item # 170172
December 30, 2011
Dear Costco Member,

Safie Specialty Foods Company, Inc. is voluntarily recalling limited lot codes of Sweet Pickled Beets, sold between August 18 and December 30, 2011 in Costco Wholesale warehouses in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba.
Safie’s Specialty Foods is responding to a consumer finding of glass in packaged Sweet Pickled Beets in 1L jars. All recalled products are marked Best Before Aug18, 2013 or later. There have been no reported injuries associated with the consumption of this product. Customers should not consume the product and should return any jars of Safie’s Sweet Pickled Beets to a Costco warehouse for a full refund.
For further information please contact Ms. Filomena Morgan at Safie Specialty Foods at
1-586.598.8282
Thank you for your cooperation. We apologize for any inconvenience and ask that you pass this letter on to any person to whom this affected product may have been given.

Sincerely,
Safie Specialty Foods

Ireland Closes Record 64 Food Establishments in 2011

BY NEWS DESK | JAN 07, 2012
Documents obtained by the Irish Independent show that 2011 was the worst year for food safety at the retail level in Ireland since the current enforcement system went into effect in 1999.

The newspaper, using records obtained under the Irish Freedom of Information Act, reports that Food Safety Authority of Ireland (FSAI) last year closed a record 64 restaurants, pubs, and other retail food establishments because they poised a grave risk to public health.

The Independent said the documents revealed “gory details behind the closures.” For example, it said maggots and mold were behind the April closure of the butchery section of Cahill’s food store in Cork County. Inspectors closed the facility after maggots were found on meat debris under the cutting plate.

It has yet to re-open.

Pests were frequently a problem, including rat and mice infestations. Closure orders are typically lifted in Ireland as soon as the problems cited are addressed.

Two closures involved mixing staff accommodations with food businesses, including finding such personal items as hair brushes and razors in a kitchen where no shower or bathroom facilities existed, and filthy mattresses and personal toiletries in food store room.

© Food Safety News

POSTED: JANUARY 5TH, 2012 – 1:56PM BY DOUG POWELL

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports today that a total of 19 persons infected with the outbreak strain of Salmonella Typhimurium have been reported from 7 states.

The number of ill persons identified in each state is as follows: HI (1), KY (1), MA (1), ME (4), NH (6), NY (5), and VT (1).

Collaborative investigative efforts of state, local, and federal public health and regulatory agencies indicated that this outbreak is linked to eating ground beef purchased from Hannaford Supermarkets.

Contaminated ground beef was recalled from grocery stores but may still be in consumers’ homes.

Consumers should check their homes for recalled products and not eat them; restaurant and food service operators should not serve them.

The full report is available at http://www.cdc.gov/salmonella/typhimurium-groundbeef/010512/index.html.

Food-safety system failing Canadians, group says

 

JESSICA LEEDER — GLOBAL FOOD REPORTER

From Thursday’s Globe and Mail

Published Wednesday, Apr. 13, 2011 8:53PM EDT

Last updated Saturday, Oct. 01, 2011 5:49AM EDT

 

All five of Canada’s federal political parties have promised to beef up food safety if elected in May, but their pledges aren’t enough to please a national medical policy group working to stoke the debate.

In an editorial that warns Canadians that they “Eat at your own risk,” the Canadian Medical Association Journal on Wednesday slammed the country’s food-safety system for what it called “major failings” related to the tracking of food-borne illnesses.

Citing a recent University of Saskatchewan study that gave Canada a mediocre rating on its food-safety performance compared with 16 other developed nations, the editorial cited “inadequate surveillance systems” and lack of a national farm-to-fork traceability system as key problems.

“There is a reason why it’s an issue during the election for us,” said Dr. Paul Hebert, the journal’s editor-in-chief. “Food safety and security and how we regulate our foods are important health issues. When we looked at them, we found serious, ongoing issues that have yet to be addressed in Canada.”

The journal joins a growing chorus of voices across the country calling for a more robust food-safety system that focuses more on preventing outbreaks than reacting to them. Traceability – the ability to redraw the pathway that food travels from farm to fork – is increasingly seen as crucial to managing outbreaks and narrowing the economic fallout that occurs on the industry side. But implementing the technology is expensive, and industries that have chosen to pursue traceability plans have largely shouldered the cost alone.

Before the federal government was defeated last month, the Conservative Party pledged to spend an extra $100-million over five years to improve food inspection in Canada. Last month, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency launched a new transparency initiative that opens access to its enforcement of food-safety laws and names convicted offenders.

But some argue the food-safety system needs much more of an overhaul.

“I hate to say that food safety in Canada is an accident, but the more I look at the system, the more I think that it’s likely to be the case more often than not,” said Rick Holley, a professor of food microbiology and food safety at the University of Manitoba, who, until January, sat on the CFIA’s academic advisory board.

He said Canada’s patchwork system of tracking outbreaks of food-borne illness is insufficient and full of holes.

“We’re strapped in terms of our ability to be able to know what it is that causes us to become ill,” he said.

While he applauded the government for implementing most of the recommendations made in the Weatherill Report, the result of an independent investigation into the causes of a deadly listeriosis outbreak in 2008, he noted that the report’s focus was narrow.

“Those recommendations were directed toward solving the problems associated with listeria. They were not directed towards solving the problems overall in the food-safety system,” he said, adding: “The priorities with respect to food-borne illnesses seem to occur only after there is somebody who has died. That’s not right.”

One man disagrees. Ron Doering, an Ottawa lawyer and a former CFIA director, will give a speech on food safety at McGill University on Friday during the launch of the school’s new Chair in Food Safety, the first of its kind in Canada. Although he agrees the system could use some improvement, Mr. Doering said it is not in a ramshackle state.

“I’m not aware of any system anywhere in the world that’s better than ours on public health reporting for food-borne illness,” he said. “It doesn’t mean it’s perfect. There’s no zero risk. But I’m not aware of any study that demonstrates in any persuasive way that any country has a better food inspection system than Canada.”

…….

Food for thought

The importance of tracking contaminated food products was illustrated last week by the recall of walnuts linked to several cases of E. coli in Quebec, Ontario and New Brunswick. Fourteen people were reported to have become ill during the outbreak and one person in Quebec died.

Canada’s rates of the pathogen are also in the top three of the OECD countries included in a University of Saskatchewan report on food safety, which lists E. coli rates per 100,000 people.

Adrian Morrow

Thank you to The Globe and Mail

Another Alert on Possible Listeria-Contaminated Cheese

BY JULIA THOMAS | DEC 31, 2011

 

The Massachusetts Department of Public Health (MDPH) has added a warning to consumers about cheese recalled last month in Canada that may still be in circulation in the United States.

The cheese, linked to one case of listeriosis in Canada, was supplied by Fromagerie Marie Kade of Quebec. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency issued a Nov. 24 health alert notifying residents of Canada of a recall initiated by the dairy plant, 3903052 Canada Inc., Boisbriand, in Québec.

This large recall followed two previous alerts and fairly extensive product testing, according to  Canadian authorities.

After a Glendale, CA, distributor issued a Dec. 26 recall of the cheese distributed in Southern California, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) notified Massachusetts officials on Dec. 28 that the product was distributed to Cedar Market in Norwood and that Cedar Market sold the recalled cheese to Bahnan’s in Worcester.

No illnesses have been reported in Massachusetts. The MDPH said it has worked with the FDA and local officials to embargo and destroy the possibly contaminated cheese and to review inventory records for distribution.

The recalled products distributed in Massachusetts have the brand name “Fromagerie Marie Kade.”  and bear the establishment number 1874. Any best-before dates up to and including those listed, are affected by the alert:

– Akawi Cheese best before 08 MAR 2012

– Baladi Cheese best before 08 FEB 2012.

– Shinglish Cheese best before 07 NOV 2012

– Tresse Cheese best before 10 NOV 2012

– Vachekaval Cheese best before 10 MAR 2012

– Halloom best before 01 MAY 2012

– Moujadale best before 04 MAY 2012

Go here to see all the labels for the recalled cheese.

Because the recalled products have not expired, it is possible that consumers may have products in their home. For that reason, MDPH is advising consumers who have purchased products listed to discard them.

Consumers with questions may call MDPH Food Protection Program at 617-983-6712.

 

© Food Safety News

Don’t Think It Can Happen Here?

E. Coli, Animal Exhibits and the North Carolina State Fair

BY GRETCHEN GOETZ | JAN 06, 2012

 

Nearly three months after E. coli O157:H7 sickened 25 people who attended the North Carolina State Fair, investigators know little more about what caused the outbreak, other than   it originated in a livestock building on the fairgrounds.

Field notes published Thursday, from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, confirmed that the only space visited by all outbreak victims was a permanent structure where sheep, goats and pigs were kept during livestock competitions.

Eight of the fairgoers became so sick they required hospitalization. Four developed hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS), a life-threatening complication of E. coli infection.

And while the exact source of the E. coli O157:H7 exposure remains unclear, the investigators conclude that it likely was contact with the animals.

“Fair attendees were not intended to have physical contact with animals in the building,” the CDC noted, but 25 percent of the case patients said they did.

The conclusion echoes the findings of an investigation into a 2004 outbreak, also at the North Carolina State Fair. That year E. coli bacteria traced to the fair’s petting zoo sickened 187 people, 15 of whom were hospitalized with HUS.

After that outbreak, the North Carolina Legislature adopted Aedin’s Law – named after a boy who developed a serious case of HUS. The law stipulates, among other things, that animal exhibitors must carry a public permit if visitors come into contact with animals.

However, because the animals housed in the Kelley Livestock Building during the 2011 State Fair were not intended to be touched by fairgoers, the facility was not subject to the law.

The building did have certain sanitation measures in effect, in accordance with a national set of recommendations for public animal exhibits that has been in place since May 2011. For instance,  the facility had posted educational signs about animal hygiene and provided hand-washing facilities for visitors.

The CDC announced that the next step in the 2011 North Carolina State Fair investigation will be evaluating the sanitation precautions that were in place when the outbreak occurred, and identifying further ways to prevent the spread of disease at animal exhibitions. A multiagency task force is being formed in North Carolina for this purpose.

 

© Food Safety News

Fast Food Companies Abandon Ammoniated Beef

Debate over ‘pink slime’ continues; is consumer perception damaging food safety?

BY HELENA BOTTEMILLER | JAN 06, 2012

Ammoniated beef has taken a real beating in the media over the past couple years, and now fast-food giants McDonald’s, Taco Bell and Burger King are no longer using it. As veteran journalist Philip Brasher reported over the holidays, the Iowa-based company that manufactures the beef product — at one time used in around 70 percent of American ground beef — has watched sales drop by 25 percent.

Beef Products Inc. uses an innovative process to turn fatty beef trimmings, which used to go mainly into pet food and other byproducts, into hamburger filler. Because the trimmings are at risk for E. coli or Salmonella contamination, the company adds a mixture of ammonia and water (ammonium hydroxide) to kill bacteria. BPI’s process, progressive food safety policies, and state-of-the art system have received numerous food safety awards and the company has never been linked to a foodborne illness.

But when some consumers find out about the treated beef product — dubbed “pink slime” by a U.S. Department of Agriculture microbiologist — they don’t like what they hear and food companies are taking notice.

In 2008, many American eaters were introduced to the product by Food, Inc, the Oscar-nominated documentary, which portrayed the technology as merely masking a symptom of a bigger problem: the industrial meat system. A year later, a New York Times expose questioned whether the ammonium hydroxide process was really delivering on its food safety promise, which is especially critical considering the product is widely used in the National School Lunch Program.

Last spring, chef and TV personality Jamie Oliver went a step further on his ABC reality show “Food Revolution.” He called the “clever scientific process” shocking and a breach of consumer trust.

Oliver held up raw “inedible” trimmings fit only for “pet food” and put them in a washing machine with ammonia cleaning product to illustrate the BPI process. He also repeatedly called the product “shit.” (That was bleeped out.)

“The supporters of this product would say it’s safe and efficient,” said Oliver to a live audience. “But everything about this process, to me, is about no respect for food, or people, or children, and I’d want to know when I’m eating this stuff. And I’d want it clearly labeled.”

Though Oliver’s show was discontinued last year due to poor ratings, when he blasted ammoniated beef more than 5 million people were watching, according to one estimate. The response on Twitter and the blogsphere was overwhelmingly negative.

McDonald’s and Burger King said their decision to drop BPI beef was not a reaction to the show.

“The decision to remove BPI products from the McDonald’s system was not related to any particular event but rather to support our effort to align our global beef raw material standards,” said Todd Bacon, the company’s senior director for U.S. Quality Systems and Supply Chain Management, in a statement provided to Food Safety News.

Burger King released a similar statement. “The decision to remove BPI products from the BK system is not related to any particular event but rather part of the company’s normal course of business,” the company told the Argus Leader. Taco Bell declined a request for comment.

Industry consultant and blogger Dr. Richard Raymond, former Under Secretary for Food Safety at USDA, blames Oliver’s show for the move to drop the product.

“This move, although not exactly described as such by the three fast food chains, was because of the ‘ick factor’ as revealed by celebrity chef Jamie Oliver,” said Raymond, in an email. “I guess after the two prior attacks, the Oliver video must have been over the top, and it is scary that an activist can potentially take away one of our interventions that makes our food safer. That is not how food safety policy should be determined.”

David Theno, an industry consultant who is credited with revolutionizing Jack in the Box’s food safety program after the 1993 E. coli O157 outbreak, also believes the negative consumer perception of ammoniated beef is bad for food safety.

Theno, who has advised BPI, said he understands why fast food companies are sensitive about their image. “They don’t want to have controversy around their brand names,” he said. “If you ask a technologist they’ll say [ammoniated beef] is the right thing to do … a marketing guy will have a different slant on it.”

“If you don’t want bacteria in your food you have to treat it,” he added. “This is a good ingredient and a very effective intervention. It’s almost like something’s been taken out of the arsenal that shouldn’t have. And as a food safety guy, that bothers me.”

As many in the meat industry have pointed out, ammonium hydroxide is only one of many processing aids or “safe and sustainable ingredients” approved by the government’s Food Safety and Inspection Service to reduce and eliminate pathogens on raw meat products. FSIS has a 52-page list of approved chemicals companies can use to treat raw meat, poultry, and egg products — many of them can be used without any labeling on the package because they are technically considered a process and not an ingredient.

“If consumers and restaurants are up in arms about the use of ammonia and can potentially drive a company out of business by their actions, I can only wonder what they are going to do when they look at the other chemicals in use to try and protect us from foodborne illnesses, chemicals like liquid chlorine and lactic acid just to name a couple,” said Raymond. “There are just certain unpleasant realities of how meat is processed in this country. Those of us with farm backgrounds maybe can accept them a little more readily than someone who has led a life sheltered from these realities.”

The tension between widely used food safety interventions and concern about chemicals in food will surely continue. Recent polling, sponsored by the food industry, suggests consumer confidence in food safety is slipping. At the same time, surveys reveal consumers consistently list chemical and pesticide use in food production as a top concern.

“All new food safety technologies must get through the ultimate filter – and that is consumer acceptance,” notes Caroline Smith DeWaal, food safety director at the Center for Science in the Public Interest.

“Just like irradiation, a potentially life-saving technology to kill pathogens in meat can still face rejection by consumers, who are anxious to provide the best food for their families. The rise in demand for organic and local foods shows that consumers often go outside pure safety considerations to evaluating where and how the food was produced.”

© Food Safety News

Canadian Food Prices Rose 4.8 per cent in 2011

THURSDAY, 22 DECEMBER 2011 14:52

OTTAWA — Canadian food prices rose 4.8-per-cent in the 12 months to November 2011, the largest increase since July 2009, according to Statistics Canada.Consumers paid 5.7 per cent more for food purchased from stores as prices increased for common staples, including meat (6.2 per cent), fresh vegetables (13.2 per cent) and bread (11.9 per cent). Prices for food purchased from restaurants also spiked. Overall, consumer prices rose 2.9 per cent in the 12 months to November, matching the increase in October. While the 12-month change in gasoline prices continued to ease, the year-over-year increase in food prices remained high. For more 2011 food price details, visit statcan.gc.ca. Thank you to foodserviceworld.com