Re: Food plants don’t have to report contamination
- From: toci <gina39d@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 05:31:58 -0800 (PST)
On Jan 29, 7:50 pm, Jim Higgins <gordian...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Food plants don’t have to report contaminationhttp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28919975/
ATLANTA - A federal probe into a deadly salmonella outbreak has exposed
a dirty secret: Food producers in most states are not required to alert
health regulators if internal tests show possible contamination at their
plants.
The legal loophole surfaced this week when federal investigators
disclosed internal Peanut Corp. of America reports that documented at
least 12 positive tests for salmonella between 2007 and 2008 at their
Blakely, Ga., plant, which has been identified as the source of the
nationwide outbreak. In each case, the plant did not alert state or
federal regulators.
The flaw has infuriated regulators and food safety experts, who are
pushing legislation that would require the alerts at the first sign of
contamination. They say stricter requirements could have stemmed an
outbreak, which may have started months ago and has sickened at 529
people and may have led to eight deaths.
Story continues below ?advertisement | your ad here
"Nobody was looking over their shoulder," said Caroline Smith DeWaal,
director of food safety for the Center for Science in the Public
Interest. "And if they knew state officials could have viewed that data,
they might have made different decisions. And that could have saved lives.."
Peanut Corp. tests showed salmonella had been found in products made at
the plant in southwest Georgia dating to 2007. Still, production lines
were never cleaned, according to a Food and Drug Administration report.
The products that initially tested positive were retested and shipped
after a different test by a different firm came up negative.
Federal officials, food scientists, legal experts and industry groups,
including the Grocery Manufacturers Association, cannot point to a state
that requires food producers to alert health regulators about positive
contamination tests. That includes three of the biggest agricultural
states — California, Texas and Florida.
While there is nothing that requires companies to disclose to either the
public or regulators internal test results, the Food and Drug
Administration does have the authority under the Bioterrorism Act of
2002 to obtain the records when it considers it valuable to
investigating an outbreak, said agency spokeswoman Stephanie Kwisnek.
The FDA has only exercised that authority three times, including this
latest outbreak. It was after it received Peanut Corp.'s records that
the FDA discovered that 12 internal tests had pinpointed batches of
peanut butter containing the salmonella bacteria.
The agency also used the Act in the 2007 melamine investigation that led
to a massive recall of pet food. Unscrupulous suppliers in China had
been adding the industrial chemical to pet food ingredients to
artificially boost protein readings on quality tests. It caused kidney
problems, even death.
Federal lawmakers are pushing for vast changes to food safety inspection
policy. Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., who heads a congressional panel
looking into the outbreak, and Rep. Henry Waxman, who chairs the House
Energy and Commerce Committee, said they will hold a hearing next month
on the problem.
"The situation at the plant is alarming," said Waxman, D-Calif. "It
shows major gaps in our food safety system. I am extremely troubled by
reports that the plant tested positive for salmonella numerous times but
nothing was done to ensure that the product did not go on the market."
Some states do have laws that give regulators more tools to access
internal reports. California, an agricultural powerhouse, allows access
to internal records if regulators request them as part of a survey or an
inspection. But it doesn't require the plants to submit them on their own..
But Fred Pritzker, a food safety lawyer in Minneapolis, said he doubts
any states have the requirement because those requirements would be more
restrictive than the federal government.
Food makers not being required to share tests that show harmful bacteria
has long aggravated food safety experts and state regulators, who say
these latest sicknesses are why the information is needed.
"It's obvious in this case that the company was finding salmonella in
the plant, and that is a violation of good manufacturing practices. None
of that product should have come out," said Tony Corbo of Food & Water
Watch, a Washington-based advocacy group.
Peanut butter has long been considered a relatively low risk for
salmonella because roasting the peanuts properly kills the bacteria, and
because its low moisture content makes it a less fertile breeding
ground. But during an inspection of the Blakely plant in January,
federal inspectors reported finding roaches, mold, a leaking roof and
other sanitary problems.
The company says it is cooperating with the government and has shut down
production at the plant. Peanut Corp. said in a statement it
"categorically denies any allegations that the company sought favorable
results from any lab in order to ship its products."
Major peanut manufacturers, including Jif maker J.M. Smucker Co., Skippy
manufacturer Unilever and ConAgra Foods Inc., which makes Peter Pan,
have said they have stringent food safety and quality control standards.
But they wouldn't say how often their plants test the finished product.
None is implicated in the outbreak.
--
Civis Romanus Sum
I believe in as little Government as possible. But Free Enterprise
keeps giving us reasons for more and more. Toci
.
- References:
- Food plants don’t have to report contamination
- From: Jim Higgins
- Food plants don’t have to report contamination
- Prev by Date: Food plants don’t have to report contamination
- Next by Date: Re: SPam SpAm sPAm and more IdIOt spaM
- Previous by thread: Food plants don’t have to report contamination
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
