Here is your push back already
0 views
Skip to first unread message
Roy Costa
Jul 26, 2008, 5:52:04 PM7/26/08
to foodsa...@googlegroups.com
It does not take long for the spin doctors and lobbyists to go to work when Congress is considering mandating traceability. Of course traceback is critically important in an outbreak investigation. Here is a typical industry twist of the facts from Western Growers, a key lobby.
Traceback Is Not the Problem in Salmonella Saintpaul Outbreak
Last update: 7:42 p.m. EDT July 25, 2008
IRVINE, Calif., July 25, 2008 /PRNewswire-USNewswire via COMTEX/ -- On June 7, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a consumer alert directing the nation to stop consuming certain types of tomatoes. To this date, the federal agency has not announced an end to the investigation or the source of the contamination. On June 27, the agency admitted that tomatoes may not have been responsible for the outbreak of Salmonella Saintpaul and said instead they "were keeping an open mind" about other commodities being responsible for the outbreak. Spokespersons for the FDA and Centers for Disease Control (CDC) have cited difficulty tracing product consumed by those who became ill back through the supply chain, and a number of consumer groups have used these statements to dust off their calls for the federal government to require an electronic traceback system.
Disputing these calls are the facts: Yesterday the Minnesota Star Tribune reported that the Minnesota Department of Health had traced the source of their outbreak in less than two weeks. According to the article, Minnesota health officials "were on the phone July 9 with their federal counterparts making it 'crystal clear' it was not tomatoes but jalapenos that were the likely source."
"Traceback is not the issue here," says Western Growers' President and CEO Tom Nassif. "The FDA and CDC initially claimed that tomatoes were the culprit. Now they are focusing on jalapenos. Were they looking in the wrong place? If so, no system of traceback, no matter how sophisticated would have made a difference in this two-month-long investigation." Corroborating this point, in an Associated Press article published today, Dr. David Acheson of the FDA was reported to dispute that an electronic records system would have helped investigators.
"Today there are good traceback laws in place that the produce industry supports and embraces," says Nassif. "Nevertheless, Western Growers supports a risk-based approach to mandatory traceback, designed in collaboration by industry and that meets the needs of regulators. To say that the less-than effective and slow pace of the federal government's investigation is because of traceback problems is way off the mark."
"There is no proof tomatoes were the culprit, but the entire industry is being made to pay the price for this early implication," says Nassif. "The FDA has a moral and legal responsibility to establish a threshold for announcing a commodity is unsafe and an obligation to work with industry to perfect its ability to trace products faster."
Western Growers is an agricultural trade association whose members from Arizona and California grow, pack and ship ninety percent of the fresh fruits, nuts and vegetables grown in California and seventy five percent of those commodities in Arizona. This totals about half of the nation's fresh produce.
SOURCE Western Growers Association
Roy E Costa, R.S., M.S./M.B.A.
Public Health Sanitarian Consultant
Environ Health Associates, Inc
1.386.734.5187
www.haccptraining.org
www.safefoods.tv
rco...@cfl.rr.com
Use video conversation to talk face-to-face with Windows Live Messenger. Get started.
CarlHansenMD
Jul 26, 2008, 6:11:14 PM7/26/08
to Foodsafe
How do the findings with the jalapeno peppers in Minnesota cancel out
the findings with tomatoes by the workers on the Navajo reservation?
Link: http://www.newmexicoindependent.com/view/usa-today-navajo
It would appear similar methodological approaches and technology were
applied.
Perhaps, it would be good for Congress to hear directly from the
individuals involved in these two situations that are temporally and
spatially separated and appear to have different systems of
production, packing, storage, distribution and sale involved.
(Human Geography Note: McAllen, TX has a direct route via I-35 to
Minnesota that is commonly traveled by Minnesotans who "winter" in
Texas and frequently visit nearby Mexico where they find a variety of
products that find their way back across the border personally and
commercially.)
the findings with tomatoes by the workers on the Navajo reservation?
Link: http://www.newmexicoindependent.com/view/usa-today-navajo
It would appear similar methodological approaches and technology were
applied.
Perhaps, it would be good for Congress to hear directly from the
individuals involved in these two situations that are temporally and
spatially separated and appear to have different systems of
production, packing, storage, distribution and sale involved.
(Human Geography Note: McAllen, TX has a direct route via I-35 to
Minnesota that is commonly traveled by Minnesotans who "winter" in
Texas and frequently visit nearby Mexico where they find a variety of
products that find their way back across the border personally and
commercially.)
Jim Prevor
Jul 27, 2008, 2:23:08 AM7/27/08
to Roy Costa, foodsa...@googlegroups.com
Roy --
I always enjoy your posts and appreciate you many and varied contributions to enhancing food safety.
I am, however, unclear on what you are trying to say in your recent posts.
First, you make constant references to the industry opposing mandatory regulation. But all the national and many of the regional trade associations in the produce trade have endorsed mandatory federal regulation. Who, precisely, is opposed to regulation?
Second, whatever the problems might be with trace back it is clearly true that the problem in this particular outbreak has been related to the capacity of the state health labs and epidemiology. The states have to process the samples and CDC has to decide the vector of the contamination before the trace back effort starts. If the data isn't there from the states or the epidemiology is wrong, no trace back technology or system will find the source of the outbreak.
Third, I do not understand your emphasis on this one jalapeno pepper. You know that one positive in a sea of negative findings is suspect. It could be a lab error or any number of things.
I apologize but I just don't understand what your point is.
All the best --
Jim Prevor
From: Foodsa...@googlegroups.com on behalf of Roy Costa
Sent: Sat 7/26/2008 5:52 PM
To: Foodsa...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [Foodsafe] Here is your push back already
CarlHansenMD
Jul 27, 2008, 9:24:31 AM7/27/08
to Foodsafe
It is not about ONE jalapeno pepper. It is a number jalapeno PEPPERS
in some UNNAMED food establishment that received shipments of PEPPERS
via INTERSTATE COMMERCE from a NAMED distributor in McAllen, TX
following IMPORTATION from Mexico.
During wartime, all citizens are called to a higher level of conduct
and action.
If members of ANY industry or organization act knowingly to deceive
the American government, subvert its laws or alter policy or practices
in any way that would thereby endanger the health and welfare of the
public or those who defend our country, it would fall far below the
higher standards of conduct and action expected in a time of war.
With the current level of agricultural, scientific and medical
knowledge and historical understanding of how to grow on the farm and
deliver safe, quality and healthy food to the table, it is reasonable
expect a REASONABLE accounting of events by Congress and take
appropriate ethical, effective, efficient and economical actions taken
to safeguard our food supply.
in some UNNAMED food establishment that received shipments of PEPPERS
via INTERSTATE COMMERCE from a NAMED distributor in McAllen, TX
following IMPORTATION from Mexico.
During wartime, all citizens are called to a higher level of conduct
and action.
If members of ANY industry or organization act knowingly to deceive
the American government, subvert its laws or alter policy or practices
in any way that would thereby endanger the health and welfare of the
public or those who defend our country, it would fall far below the
higher standards of conduct and action expected in a time of war.
With the current level of agricultural, scientific and medical
knowledge and historical understanding of how to grow on the farm and
deliver safe, quality and healthy food to the table, it is reasonable
expect a REASONABLE accounting of events by Congress and take
appropriate ethical, effective, efficient and economical actions taken
to safeguard our food supply.
Tom
Jul 28, 2008, 9:54:50 AM7/28/08
to Foodsafe
Tom Karst of The Packer and Fresh Talk here. (www.thepacker.com and
www.freshtalk.blogspot.com ) The presidents of the produce industry's
two national trade associations, Produce Marketing Association and
United Fresh Produce Associations, co-wrote an opinion piece for The
Packer for today's publish date. I'll post it below. I don't think you
will find "pushback" but rather a desire to have a say in how the
industry is regulated: Text of the column follows:
We can't go back, so let's charge straight ahead
Bryan Silbermann, Produce Marketing Association
Tom Stenzel, United Fresh Produce Association
The mid-July news that the Food and Drug Administration had lifted
its tomato advisory was welcome indeed.
And now that FDA has identified a sample of jalapeno pepper with
the identical salmonella bacteria as the outbreak strain, maybe we can
finally see the light at the end of the tunnel. The longer the
agency's foodborne illness investigation drags out, the more key
stakeholders, including consumers, question the safety of our foods --
and the higher industry's losses mount.
There were plenty of flaws in the management of this outbreak. And
while we will be working to correct those wrongs, we as an industry
must also accept that life has changed. But don't think that we can
now get back to our usual business, because we can't.
And if we can't go back, then let's charge ahead and drive our
future.
Short term, our industry has urgent business pending with FDA and
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. This experience
demonstrated that we can and should play a greater role in produce-
related investigations in the future.
We expect they have vital information to share with us as well --
the investigation has already shown that the ability to trace produce
quickly throughout our industry is critical in traceback
investigations.
When we met July 14 with FDA and CDC officials at their request to
discuss other possible explanations for this outbreak, FDA
commissioner Andrew von Eschenbach pledged that he would follow up
with an additional meeting that our associations have now twice
requested to discuss how to do things better in the future.
We plan to hold him to that pledge. Our industry deserves that
much.
Long term, we all must accept the reality that our industry's days
of "business as usual" are over. After the spinach outbreak in 2006,
some said we were just one big outbreak away from mandatory food
safety laws being passed by Congress.
And now, that outbreak is here. In part because of its flaws, some
very important stakeholders -- legislators, regulators and consumers
-- have found our food safety efforts to be lacking and are demanding
change.
Thunder can already be heard from Capitol Hill to FDA
headquarters. Hearings are being scheduled, bills are being
introduced, regulations are being drafted.
Meanwhile, consumers are showing their displeasure with their
wallets. The Food Marketing Institute reports that 84% of surveyed
consumers said they stopped buying some produce in 2007. While food
safety brings added costs to our business, losing consumers is a cost
none of us can bear.
Our industry's key focus now should be to exert as much control as
possible over our destiny moving forward. We are, after all, in the
best position to lead the task at hand.
The industry established the leafy greens marketing agreement that
now mandates food safety practices for 99% of California-grown
product.
The industry had drafted updated tomato guidelines before this
outbreak started, and tomato producers are driving for fair regulation
of all. And last year the industry created the Center for Produce
Safety at the University of California-Davis, while driving some $50
million annually in new specialty crop research funded by government
in the 2008 farm bill.
As we move forward, our associations will advocate strongly on our
industry's behalf. We support fair but mandatory produce food safety
rules to restore consumer confidence and ensure that all players meet
the appropriate standards.
These measures must be risk-based and commodity-specific to
address the greatest areas of risk as identified by government.
They must also be science-based, to ensure they are proven
effective at improving food safety, and they must apply equally to U.S-
grown product and imports, to ensure a level playing field and to
reassure consumers in the safety of all produce.
Working together with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, state
departments of agriculture and foreign governments, there must be
extensive industry training and education, to help every employee at
every company understand the role they play in creating a food safety
culture.
It often takes a fire to demonstrate the value of fire prevention,
and this investigation has been like fighting a fire.
While we must do better in fighting future fires, we must also
redouble our efforts to prevent this type of fire -- or outbreak -- in
the beginning. Our hope is that mandating fair food safety standards
will prevent any more of our industry -- or any more consumers -- from
being burned by a food safety problem caused by fresh produce.
The stakes are too high to not change.
Tom Stenzel is president of the United Fresh Produce Association,
Washington, D.C. Bryan Silbermann is president of the Produce
Marketing Association, Newark, Del.
www.freshtalk.blogspot.com ) The presidents of the produce industry's
two national trade associations, Produce Marketing Association and
United Fresh Produce Associations, co-wrote an opinion piece for The
Packer for today's publish date. I'll post it below. I don't think you
will find "pushback" but rather a desire to have a say in how the
industry is regulated: Text of the column follows:
We can't go back, so let's charge straight ahead
Bryan Silbermann, Produce Marketing Association
Tom Stenzel, United Fresh Produce Association
The mid-July news that the Food and Drug Administration had lifted
its tomato advisory was welcome indeed.
And now that FDA has identified a sample of jalapeno pepper with
the identical salmonella bacteria as the outbreak strain, maybe we can
finally see the light at the end of the tunnel. The longer the
agency's foodborne illness investigation drags out, the more key
stakeholders, including consumers, question the safety of our foods --
and the higher industry's losses mount.
There were plenty of flaws in the management of this outbreak. And
while we will be working to correct those wrongs, we as an industry
must also accept that life has changed. But don't think that we can
now get back to our usual business, because we can't.
And if we can't go back, then let's charge ahead and drive our
future.
Short term, our industry has urgent business pending with FDA and
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. This experience
demonstrated that we can and should play a greater role in produce-
related investigations in the future.
We expect they have vital information to share with us as well --
the investigation has already shown that the ability to trace produce
quickly throughout our industry is critical in traceback
investigations.
When we met July 14 with FDA and CDC officials at their request to
discuss other possible explanations for this outbreak, FDA
commissioner Andrew von Eschenbach pledged that he would follow up
with an additional meeting that our associations have now twice
requested to discuss how to do things better in the future.
We plan to hold him to that pledge. Our industry deserves that
much.
Long term, we all must accept the reality that our industry's days
of "business as usual" are over. After the spinach outbreak in 2006,
some said we were just one big outbreak away from mandatory food
safety laws being passed by Congress.
And now, that outbreak is here. In part because of its flaws, some
very important stakeholders -- legislators, regulators and consumers
-- have found our food safety efforts to be lacking and are demanding
change.
Thunder can already be heard from Capitol Hill to FDA
headquarters. Hearings are being scheduled, bills are being
introduced, regulations are being drafted.
Meanwhile, consumers are showing their displeasure with their
wallets. The Food Marketing Institute reports that 84% of surveyed
consumers said they stopped buying some produce in 2007. While food
safety brings added costs to our business, losing consumers is a cost
none of us can bear.
Our industry's key focus now should be to exert as much control as
possible over our destiny moving forward. We are, after all, in the
best position to lead the task at hand.
The industry established the leafy greens marketing agreement that
now mandates food safety practices for 99% of California-grown
product.
The industry had drafted updated tomato guidelines before this
outbreak started, and tomato producers are driving for fair regulation
of all. And last year the industry created the Center for Produce
Safety at the University of California-Davis, while driving some $50
million annually in new specialty crop research funded by government
in the 2008 farm bill.
As we move forward, our associations will advocate strongly on our
industry's behalf. We support fair but mandatory produce food safety
rules to restore consumer confidence and ensure that all players meet
the appropriate standards.
These measures must be risk-based and commodity-specific to
address the greatest areas of risk as identified by government.
They must also be science-based, to ensure they are proven
effective at improving food safety, and they must apply equally to U.S-
grown product and imports, to ensure a level playing field and to
reassure consumers in the safety of all produce.
Working together with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, state
departments of agriculture and foreign governments, there must be
extensive industry training and education, to help every employee at
every company understand the role they play in creating a food safety
culture.
It often takes a fire to demonstrate the value of fire prevention,
and this investigation has been like fighting a fire.
While we must do better in fighting future fires, we must also
redouble our efforts to prevent this type of fire -- or outbreak -- in
the beginning. Our hope is that mandating fair food safety standards
will prevent any more of our industry -- or any more consumers -- from
being burned by a food safety problem caused by fresh produce.
The stakes are too high to not change.
Tom Stenzel is president of the United Fresh Produce Association,
Washington, D.C. Bryan Silbermann is president of the Produce
Marketing Association, Newark, Del.
harrisc
Jul 29, 2008, 9:11:42 PM7/29/08
to Tom, Foodsafe
tom karst quoted from the piece by bryan silbermann and tom stenzel . . .
that at the moment the science is not in place that would make it possible
to fulfill these two criteria . . . my sense is that although considerable
research is currently in process on risk attribution in foodborne illness
(pathogen, vehicle, source), the kinds of definitive results that would meet
the silbermann-stenzel criteria are not yet available . . . in part this is
because the database for the analysis of these questions is so weak (only a
small percentage of foodborne illness outbreaks are ever traced to a
vehicle, and outbreaks themselves represent only a small percentage of
foodborne illness in the u.s.) . . .
if that description of the current situation is accurate, do the
silbermann-stenzel criteria present a reasonable effort to move forward on
food safety, or a hurdle that cannot be overcome in the forseeable future .
. .
cheers,
craig
craig k harris
department of sociology
michigan agricultural experiment station
national food safety and toxicology center
institute for food and agricultural standards
food safety policy center
michigan state university
http://www.msu.edu/~harrisc/
"These measures must be risk-based and commodity-specific to address the
greatest areas of risk as identified by government.
They must also be science-based, to ensure they are proven effective at
improving food safety"
while i would certainly appreciate hearing other perspectives, my sense is
greatest areas of risk as identified by government.
They must also be science-based, to ensure they are proven effective at
improving food safety"
that at the moment the science is not in place that would make it possible
to fulfill these two criteria . . . my sense is that although considerable
research is currently in process on risk attribution in foodborne illness
(pathogen, vehicle, source), the kinds of definitive results that would meet
the silbermann-stenzel criteria are not yet available . . . in part this is
because the database for the analysis of these questions is so weak (only a
small percentage of foodborne illness outbreaks are ever traced to a
vehicle, and outbreaks themselves represent only a small percentage of
foodborne illness in the u.s.) . . .
if that description of the current situation is accurate, do the
silbermann-stenzel criteria present a reasonable effort to move forward on
food safety, or a hurdle that cannot be overcome in the forseeable future .
. .
cheers,
craig
craig k harris
department of sociology
michigan agricultural experiment station
national food safety and toxicology center
institute for food and agricultural standards
food safety policy center
michigan state university
http://www.msu.edu/~harrisc/
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages