By GARANCE BURKE, Associated Press Writer
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
(09-12) 16:08 PDT Salinas, Calif. (AP) --
Government regulators never acted on calls for stepped-up inspections of leafy greens after last year's deadly E. coli spinach outbreak, leaving the safety of America's salads to a patchwork of largely unenforceable rules and the industry itself, an Associated Press investigation has found.
The regulations governing farms in this central California region known as the nation's "Salad Bowl" remain much as they were when bacteria from a cattle ranch infected spinach that killed three people and sickened more than 200.
AP's review of data obtained through the Freedom of Information Act found that federal officials inspect companies growing and processing salad greens an average of just once every 3.9 years. Some proposals in Congress would require such inspections at least four times a year.
In California, which grows three-quarters of the nation's greens, processors created a new inspection system but with voluntary guidelines that were unable to keep bagged spinach tainted with salmonella from reaching grocery shelves last month.
Despite widespread calls for spot-testing of processing plants handling leafy greens following last year's E. coli outbreak, California public health inspectors have not been given the authority to conduct such tests, so none have been done, the AP review found.
And some farms in the fertile Salinas Valley are still vulnerable to bacteria-carrying wildlife and other dangerous conditions.
"We have strict standards for lead paint on toys, but we don't seem to take the same level of seriousness about something that we consume every day," said Darryl Howard, whose 83-year-old mother, Betty Howard, of Richland, Wash., died as a result of E. coli-related complications.
She was one of two elderly people to die in the outbreak that began in August 2006 and also included the death of a child and sicknesses reported from more than 200 people from Maine to Arizona.
By mid-September, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued a two-week nationwide warning not to eat fresh spinach. Authorities eventually traced the likely source of the E. coli to a cattle ranch about 40 miles east of Salinas.
But a regulatory backlash never happened.
State Sen. Dean Florez, a Central Valley Democrat who sponsored three failed bills to enact mandatory regulations for leafy greens earlier this year, said momentum faded as the E. coli case dropped from the headlines and the industry lobbied hard for self-regulation.
"That legislation was held up waiting for this voluntary approach for food safety to see if it works," said Florez, who is skeptical of that approach.
"It only took one 50-acre parcel to poison 200 people and bring the industry to its knees," he said. "We don't get why the industry would be playing this game of roulette with our food."
Among the AP's other findings:
_ Since September 2006, federal Food and Drug Administration staff inspected only 29 of the hundreds of California farms that grow fresh "stem and leaf vegetables," a broad category the agency uses to keep track of everything from cauliflower to artichokes. Agency officials said they did not know how many of those grew leafy greens.
_ Since raw vegetables, especially leafy greens, are minimally processed, they have surpassed meat as the primary culprit for food-borne illness. Produce caused nearly twice as many multistate outbreaks than meat from 1990-2004, but the funding has not caught up to this trend. The U.S. Department of Agriculture branch that prevents animal diseases gets almost twice the funding as the FDA receives to safeguard produce.
_ California lettuce and spinach have been the source of 13 E. coli outbreaks since 1996. But if salad growers or handlers violate those new guidelines, they are not subject to any fines, are not punishable under state law and may be allowed to keep selling their products.
Last year's outbreak prompted a temporary downturn in sales of salad greens, but more than 5 million bags of salad are now sold each day nationwide, a number the industry says will grow as health-conscious consumers opt for more greens and vegetables.
Much of those sprout near Salinas, where the fog lifted on a recent morning over fields of romaine and iceberg already wilting in the August sun.
Men in sweat shirts and baseball caps cut heads of lettuce from the ground and loaded them into cardboard boxes to be taken to a nearby plant owned by Castroville-based packager Ocean Mist Farms. From there, they would be shipped out to supermarkets and buyers as far away as Japan.
In an attempt to reassure wary customers, Ocean Mist's vice president recently helped organize a group to police food safety, run entirely by the $1.7 billion leafy greens industry. Some 118 salad processors have signed on to the California Leafy Green Products Handler Marketing Agreement, which uses its own voluntary food safety guidelines.
Public health inspectors can impose mandatory food-safety rules on the farm only after an outbreak, said Patrick Kennelly, chief of the food safety section at California's Department of Public Health.
Some scientists question the approach.
"Mandatory measures give a level playing field and make sure everybody responds," said Martin Cole, a food safety expert at the Illinois Institute of Technology.
But in the absence of federal regulations, 10 auditors from the California Department of Food and Agriculture are monitoring the fields, including Roxann Bramlage, who tramped down the rows of lettuce with a checklist.
"When somebody cuts their finger and it bleeds, what will you do?" Bramlage asked foreman Fernando Vasquez, standing next to a harvester machine rolling gently over the beds.
"When he cuts his finger, even if it's a small cut, I take him to the edge of the field," Vasquez said in Spanish. "Then I put a border around the area where he was working and I don't let anyone cut in it."
That was the right answer.
Ocean Mist passed Bramlage's field audit because the company could prove its growers protected their crops against pathogens, which gave them the right to use a state seal telling consumers the product was grown safely. Growers say that seal sends a powerful message to consumers.
"Once they join, there's nothing voluntary about the program," said Scott Horsfall, who oversees the marketing agreement. "If a handler is decertified, buyers will definitely react."
The industry-led approach isn't foolproof, however.
On Aug. 29, Metz Fresh, a grower and shipper in King City, 30 miles south of Salinas, recalled 8,000 cartons of fresh spinach tainted with salmonella. Auditors had visited the company a few weeks before, but inspected a field where the produce was clean. So they noted nothing unusual in their report.
No one knows how the bacteria got into the leaves. But the news rekindled fears among consumers and legislators who say they are skeptical of the government's willingness to let the industry police itself.
"Some will say the system is working and that we are catching the problem and recalling products, but the average consumer wouldn't know that," said U.S. Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, who chairs the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry. "Last year, it was E. coli; this year, salmonella."
Harkin and Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., are both working on bills to develop a set of mandatory national guidelines to supercede the current patchwork of food safety regulations.
Similar proposals were developed a year ago, but none have gone forward.
In March, the Bush Administration issued a draft of its guidance to minimize microbial hazards of fresh-cut fruits and vegetables. Unlike the strict hazard-control program governing meat and poultry, the guidance included no new laws.
Many growers and producers are either unaware of the guidelines or simply aren't complying, according to the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a Washington-based consumer advocacy group.
"Inspection alone isn't going to fix the problem, unless the farmers utilize food-safety plans that are effective for controlling pathogens," said Caroline Smith DeWaal, director of the center's food safety division. "They're not getting at the source of the contamination: on the farm."
Associated Press writer Marcus Wohlsen in San Francisco contributed to this report.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/09/12/financial/f151104D77.DTL
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Recall renews debate on safety of leafy greens
Company that pulled suspect spinach used its own tests, going beyond new guidelines.
By Carrie Peyton Dahlberg - Bee Staff Writer
Published 12:00 am PDT Sunday, September 2, 2007
Five months after the produce industry rolled out new guidelines in an effort to bring safer spinach and lettuce to America's tables, another spinach recall is shining a spotlight on what that approach can -- and can't -- ensure.
The Salinas Valley company that yanked back 68,000 pounds of spinach this week, fearing salmonella contamination, says it found the problem by going far beyond the updated safety guidelines.
From that, people can reach almost any conclusion that suits their politics: We need tougher laws. Or market forces will keep our produce safe. Or the new guidelines are helping. Or they aren't.
"It's never going to be perfect. We all understand that," said Bill Marler, a Seattle attorney who specializes in food poisoning litigation. Marler argues that ultimately, tough regulation will protect consumers better than even the most vigilant companies.
Spinach and lettuce growers are hoping, instead, to prove their trustworthiness with voluntary efforts, including something called the Leafy Green Marketing Agreement, which calls for safer farming practices.
Scott Horsfall, who oversees that agreement, estimates that 99 percent of handlers -- the companies that pack fresh greens from California and send them to markets or restaurants -- have signed onto the pact since it went into effect April 1. The terms require handlers to do business only with growers who pledge to test irrigation water, keep animals out of fields and take other steps to prevent contamination.
The guidelines themselves came after years of food-borne disease outbreaks traced to the Salinas Valley, most recently last fall when spinach contaminated with E. coli killed three people and sickened 200.
Afterward, state Sen. Dean Florez, D-Shafter, was among those who proposed tough new consumer regulations. His bills, strongly opposed by agriculture, are stalled in an Assembly committee.
In the wake of the 2006 E. coli outbreak, though, two other changes began moving through the salad and spinach industry. The coalition of growers and handlers set up their leafy greens pact. And a number of companies stepped up their own internal testing for E. coli and salmonella.
Horsfall estimates that more than half the handlers covered by the leafy greens agreement are also doing additional product testing that's not required by the pact.
Among them are Metz Fresh, a growing and shipping company based in King City in Monterey County. It started pulling bags of spinach off the assembly line and testing samples back in October, said company spokesman Greg Larsen.
That "final product testing" was the procedure that tipped Metz Fresh to potential salmonella on Aug. 24, he said. The company began contacting shippers and retailers that day, telling them to hold off on moving any more of the spinach, which was headed to club stores and grocers in 48 states and Canada.
Larsen said Metz Fresh didn't issue a public recall right away because it wanted to do a second, more thorough round of testing.
Those tests were done Tuesday, and Metz Fresh worked into the evening with the Food and Drug Administration to craft a recall notice, Larsen said. The notice itself wasn't made public until very late Tuesday night or early Wednesday morning, he said.
By then, the company had tracked down about 90 percent of the 8,000 cases of spinach it had shipped, and it had not received any reports of people becoming ill.
On Friday, Larsen said, the company still wasn't certain what happened to the other 10 percent. It doesn't know if anyone ate it, how much was sold or in what states, he said.
"We contained the vast majority of it," Larsen said.
One of the biggest questions is why Metz Fresh didn't hang onto its spinach until the test results were in.
Such a test-and-hold approach is "the smartest move," said Horsfall of the leafy greens group.
Said attorney Marler: "Testing without holding tells you whether a product is contaminated or not, but if it is, it's already out your door and you have a problem. I don't think it's wise to test it and ship it."
Larsen said Metz Fresh began shipping because the quick tests it uses for salmonella often produce false positives, and the more precise confirmation tests can take three to 12 days.
Yet Michael Hansen, a senior scientist for Consumers Union, said a company pushing hard can do that second round of confirmation testing in 24 to 48 hours.
At the same time, Marler and others praised Metz Fresh for testing at all. While it's not a solution to all problems, and tainted products can still slip through, testing helps the industry identify weak points and improve safety, Marler said.
For his part, A.G. Kawamura, secretary of the state Department of Food and Agriculture, used the latest episode to praise the leafy greens agreement.
He wrote Sen. Florez on Friday that the agreement's food safety and product tracking systems were responsible for "preventing an outbreak that could have resulted from contaminated spinach."
Asked how that could be, when the program didn't call for the kind of testing used by Metz Fresh, Kawamura's spokesman responded in an e-mail that he was referring only to how the tainted product could be tracked more easily.
By late Friday, the company was still working to find out where the rest of its spinach had gone. It urged consumers to either throw away affected bags of spinach or return them to stores for refunds.
The recalled spinach, in 10- and 16-ounce bags well as cartoons containing around 4 pounds, has tracking codes 12208114, 12208214 and 12208314.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Go to: Sacbee / Back to story
By Carrie Peyton Dahlberg - Bee Staff Writer
Published 12:00 am PDT Sunday, September 2, 2007
Five months after the produce industry rolled out new guidelines in an effort to bring safer spinach and lettuce to America's tables, another spinach recall is shining a spotlight on what that approach can -- and can't -- ensure.
The Salinas Valley company that yanked back 68,000 pounds of spinach this week, fearing salmonella contamination, says it found the problem by going far beyond the updated safety guidelines.
From that, people can reach almost any conclusion that suits their politics: We need tougher laws. Or market forces will keep our produce safe. Or the new guidelines are helping. Or they aren't.
"It's never going to be perfect. We all understand that," said Bill Marler, a Seattle attorney who specializes in food poisoning litigation. Marler argues that ultimately, tough regulation will protect consumers better than even the most vigilant companies.
Spinach and lettuce growers are hoping, instead, to prove their trustworthiness with voluntary efforts, including something called the Leafy Green Marketing Agreement, which calls for safer farming practices.
Scott Horsfall, who oversees that agreement, estimates that 99 percent of handlers -- the companies that pack fresh greens from California and send them to markets or restaurants -- have signed onto the pact since it went into effect April 1. The terms require handlers to do business only with growers who pledge to test irrigation water, keep animals out of fields and take other steps to prevent contamination.
The guidelines themselves came after years of food-borne disease outbreaks traced to the Salinas Valley, most recently last fall when spinach contaminated with E. coli killed three people and sickened 200.
Afterward, state Sen. Dean Florez, D-Shafter, was among those who proposed tough new consumer regulations. His bills, strongly opposed by agriculture, are stalled in an Assembly committee.
In the wake of the 2006 E. coli outbreak, though, two other changes began moving through the salad and spinach industry. The coalition of growers and handlers set up their leafy greens pact. And a number of companies stepped up their own internal testing for E. coli and salmonella.
Horsfall estimates that more than half the handlers covered by the leafy greens agreement are also doing additional product testing that's not required by the pact.
Among them are Metz Fresh, a growing and shipping company based in King City in Monterey County. It started pulling bags of spinach off the assembly line and testing samples back in October, said company spokesman Greg Larsen.
That "final product testing" was the procedure that tipped Metz Fresh to potential salmonella on Aug. 24, he said. The company began contacting shippers and retailers that day, telling them to hold off on moving any more of the spinach, which was headed to club stores and grocers in 48 states and Canada.
Larsen said Metz Fresh didn't issue a public recall right away because it wanted to do a second, more thorough round of testing.
Those tests were done Tuesday, and Metz Fresh worked into the evening with the Food and Drug Administration to craft a recall notice, Larsen said. The notice itself wasn't made public until very late Tuesday night or early Wednesday morning, he said.
By then, the company had tracked down about 90 percent of the 8,000 cases of spinach it had shipped, and it had not received any reports of people becoming ill.
On Friday, Larsen said, the company still wasn't certain what happened to the other 10 percent. It doesn't know if anyone ate it, how much was sold or in what states, he said.
"We contained the vast majority of it," Larsen said.
One of the biggest questions is why Metz Fresh didn't hang onto its spinach until the test results were in.
Such a test-and-hold approach is "the smartest move," said Horsfall of the leafy greens group.
Said attorney Marler: "Testing without holding tells you whether a product is contaminated or not, but if it is, it's already out your door and you have a problem. I don't think it's wise to test it and ship it."
Larsen said Metz Fresh began shipping because the quick tests it uses for salmonella often produce false positives, and the more precise confirmation tests can take three to 12 days.
Yet Michael Hansen, a senior scientist for Consumers Union, said a company pushing hard can do that second round of confirmation testing in 24 to 48 hours.
At the same time, Marler and others praised Metz Fresh for testing at all. While it's not a solution to all problems, and tainted products can still slip through, testing helps the industry identify weak points and improve safety, Marler said.
For his part, A.G. Kawamura, secretary of the state Department of Food and Agriculture, used the latest episode to praise the leafy greens agreement.
He wrote Sen. Florez on Friday that the agreement's food safety and product tracking systems were responsible for "preventing an outbreak that could have resulted from contaminated spinach."
Asked how that could be, when the program didn't call for the kind of testing used by Metz Fresh, Kawamura's spokesman responded in an e-mail that he was referring only to how the tainted product could be tracked more easily.
By late Friday, the company was still working to find out where the rest of its spinach had gone. It urged consumers to either throw away affected bags of spinach or return them to stores for refunds.
The recalled spinach, in 10- and 16-ounce bags well as cartoons containing around 4 pounds, has tracking codes 12208114, 12208214 and 12208314.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Go to: Sacbee / Back to story
California Senator Dean Florez Questions Results of Leafy Green Industry Self-Regulation in Light of Salmonella Outbreak
By Frank D. Russo
Senator Dean Florez answered questions by another persistent reporter yesterday about what the recent outbreak of salmonella in California lettuce distributed in over 48 states and Canada means about food safety in California.
Florez wrote A.G. Kawamura, the Secretary of the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA), to express his concerns, and a copy of his letter is reproduced below. Florez is the chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Food-borne Illness and introduced legislation in the wake of deadly 2006 E. coli outbreaks linked to California leafy greens which would have mandated an improved inspection process and efficient traceback system. That legislation was shelved by the Assembly Agriculture Committee, which opted to wait and see how industry faired in its attempts to self-regulate, despite the industry’s previous lack of response to repeated outbreaks and calls for action from the federal Food and Drug Administration.
In his letter, Florez questions how the contaminated produce made it to store shelves before the danger was caught if leafy greens are being inspected as promised under the voluntary Leafy Green Marketing Agreement to which the distributor in question, Metz Fresh, is a signatory.
Here is what the reporter, clearly frustrated by the lack of a response to her questions to the CDFA, heard from Florez:
Q. What do you make of this latest recall? It's clearly a different problem, different part of Monterey County, so we're not looking necessarily at the same thing.
Well, I think that what this says is that the system that growers had voluntarily put together is not working. And many of them have said that it is a workable system now--that we caught the salmonella--even though it was distributed in 48 states and Canada. But remember, it was caught at the store level.
And I think the issue was as we debated spinach last year, that they were in essence going to make the product safer, they were going to put a seal on it, and everybody was going to know by the time it hit that shelf that it was absolutely grade A, ready to go for consumers. I think that what we found here--there was no seal, it hit a shelf, it was pulled off the shelf and now we're pulling cartons off.
This is not the system that I think consumers want. Consumers want at the very beginning of this process to have a bag sealed, with a seal of approval that says it is ready to be eaten. Period.
What this is, is simply a catch up system that says--Once we find out something is wrong, we'll catch up, pull it back, and hope that there's no illnesses. In this case, we still don't know if there will be illnesses. Salmonella obviously affects a lot of people.
Q. But isn't this better than nothing? It was the company's own voluntary testing that that they didn't have to do. They didn't have to recall it, so…
Well, I think this is a better situation than the situation we had last year. It is not the right situation, however. We need to catch this before--We need to have the seal of approval prior to, and we …shouldn't have to be pulling product off the shelf. I think at the end of the day what we're saying is that there's a link that's missing here--and that is the seal of approval that was touted. And we just want to make sure that the industry recognizes that--I know they're having an emergency meeting today to talk about this.
Our job in essence is to say there's a better way to do this, there's a mandatory way to do this, and there ought to be something that says the seal of approval means that a bag that's closed is ready to eat. And that isn't the case today with spinach and it's been shown by the outbreak of the salmonella that we just found.
Q. But the Health Department has said that its food emergency response team"--what is that. What does this mean, and are we to trust people because they….
Well, the problem with the Department of Health's approach at this point in time again is that it is also a 'catch up" system. There's no one proactively going out to the fields, spot checking. We are relying on the industries to do their own spot checks. And in this case, it's in the industry's interest to recall those bags because once people began to get sick, it doesn't matter how well this program runs--no one will go back to eating spinach for a very long time.
They're doing it for economic reasons--we get that--but think for health reasons we'd like to have that bag sealed with that seal of approval as they've promised us, and not have to find it on a shelf.
Q. But this is the Department of Health Services that once again--they can't produce somebody to tell me what a food emergency response team is--are we going to trust them to do anything?
I think the reasons that the Department of Health Services is so vague on how to enforce this is because, this is number one, not mandatory--they're relying on a voluntary group of folks to tell them how this ought to be implemented. And this is the whole rationale for having our bills pass this year--is that the Department of Health Services should have very strict guidelines. They should be running the show and not reacting to--because they don't have answers because they're not part and parcel creating the regulations necessary to make this happen.
Q. But they seem fairly incompetent--pretty much any level. Any time we call them they never can produce anyone to tell us anything.
It's because we don't have the proper structure our bills put forward, to have if you will, leafy greens part of our health inspection programs. Right now, they're reacting to and they're probably calling the folks that were responsible for this--in a voluntary way--the growers and asking them--"Can we tell people that it's OK?" That really isn't the way government should be operating.
Q. But just because you do a bill, is this going to all of a sudden make these people competent overnight?
No, but what I think a bill does is it puts in statute real regulations we can hold the Department of Health Services accountable to. Right now we could do is ask the Department: "How did you monitor? How did it go? How did it look?" There's really no really nothing to hold them accountable to, and quite frankly, the voluntary group that produced this salmonella issue just a day ago isn't responsible to anyone either. So, we're back in the same situation where no one is held accountable, everyone promises things will get better, we have a catch up system in the end, and we're just taking chances with consumers.
Not one consumer can say that a bag on a shelf is sealed, they can open it, put it on their plate and eat it. That's not the case today. That's what consumers want and we ought to push for that higher standard.
Here is a copy of Floret's letter to Kawamura.
August 30, 2007
A.G. Kawamura
Secretary
California Dept. of Food & Agriculture
1220 N Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Secretary Kawamura:
I am writing to express my serious concern regarding the recent distribution of spinach contaminated with salmonella from a California farm. I understand that the contaminated spinach originated from Metz Fresh, which is a signatory to the Leafy Green Marketing Agreement program, which is under the jurisdiction of the California Department of Food and Agriculture.
Nearly one year has passed since the devastating E. coli outbreak from California grown spinach, and it is clear that California’s food safety measures are lacking, as is evidenced by the fact that we continue to distribute contaminated produce across the United States and Canada. Most troubling is the fact that, according to reports in the Bakersfield Californian, contaminated spinach was placed on shelves and was available for sale to consumers. This raises serious questions regarding the effectiveness of the current food safety program and signals the need for stronger regulation on the part of government.
In light of this incident it is necessary and appropriate for the Committee to better understand the current status of the food safety measures in place under the Leafy Green Marketing agreement. Accordingly, please provide the Committee with the following information:
1) An explanation as to why the contaminated spinach was not identified prior to being distributed to retailers and/or commercial food establishments and, more importantly, why it was not identified prior to being made available for purchase by consumers.
2) Whether the packaging containing the contaminated spinach bears the official seal of the Leafy Green Marketing Agreement. In the event that the packaging does not bear the seal, please provide an explanation as to why, given that the seal is the only manner for consumers to identify whether a grower is a signatory to the Leafy Green Marketing Agreement and was touted as a cornerstone of the agreement.
3) Whether Metz Fresh has been inspected pursuant to the Leafy Green Marketing Agreement. If so, please provide the date of the inspection and the results of the investigation, detailing any violations or shortcomings identified. Please provide any documents generated during the inspection process.
4) What specific actions will be taken by the Leafy Green Marketing Agreement in light of this incident.
5) The current status of the Leafy Green Marketing Agreement inspection and compliance program, including what percentage of processors and growers have been inspected to date, and the results of these inspections.
Given the seriousness of this breakdown in California’s food safety system please provide a response no later than 1 p.m. on Friday, August 31, 2007.
Sincerely,
DEAN FLOREZ
Chair, Senate Select Committee on Food-Borne Illness
Senator Dean Florez answered questions by another persistent reporter yesterday about what the recent outbreak of salmonella in California lettuce distributed in over 48 states and Canada means about food safety in California.
Florez wrote A.G. Kawamura, the Secretary of the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA), to express his concerns, and a copy of his letter is reproduced below. Florez is the chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Food-borne Illness and introduced legislation in the wake of deadly 2006 E. coli outbreaks linked to California leafy greens which would have mandated an improved inspection process and efficient traceback system. That legislation was shelved by the Assembly Agriculture Committee, which opted to wait and see how industry faired in its attempts to self-regulate, despite the industry’s previous lack of response to repeated outbreaks and calls for action from the federal Food and Drug Administration.
In his letter, Florez questions how the contaminated produce made it to store shelves before the danger was caught if leafy greens are being inspected as promised under the voluntary Leafy Green Marketing Agreement to which the distributor in question, Metz Fresh, is a signatory.
Here is what the reporter, clearly frustrated by the lack of a response to her questions to the CDFA, heard from Florez:
Q. What do you make of this latest recall? It's clearly a different problem, different part of Monterey County, so we're not looking necessarily at the same thing.
Well, I think that what this says is that the system that growers had voluntarily put together is not working. And many of them have said that it is a workable system now--that we caught the salmonella--even though it was distributed in 48 states and Canada. But remember, it was caught at the store level.
And I think the issue was as we debated spinach last year, that they were in essence going to make the product safer, they were going to put a seal on it, and everybody was going to know by the time it hit that shelf that it was absolutely grade A, ready to go for consumers. I think that what we found here--there was no seal, it hit a shelf, it was pulled off the shelf and now we're pulling cartons off.
This is not the system that I think consumers want. Consumers want at the very beginning of this process to have a bag sealed, with a seal of approval that says it is ready to be eaten. Period.
What this is, is simply a catch up system that says--Once we find out something is wrong, we'll catch up, pull it back, and hope that there's no illnesses. In this case, we still don't know if there will be illnesses. Salmonella obviously affects a lot of people.
Q. But isn't this better than nothing? It was the company's own voluntary testing that that they didn't have to do. They didn't have to recall it, so…
Well, I think this is a better situation than the situation we had last year. It is not the right situation, however. We need to catch this before--We need to have the seal of approval prior to, and we …shouldn't have to be pulling product off the shelf. I think at the end of the day what we're saying is that there's a link that's missing here--and that is the seal of approval that was touted. And we just want to make sure that the industry recognizes that--I know they're having an emergency meeting today to talk about this.
Our job in essence is to say there's a better way to do this, there's a mandatory way to do this, and there ought to be something that says the seal of approval means that a bag that's closed is ready to eat. And that isn't the case today with spinach and it's been shown by the outbreak of the salmonella that we just found.
Q. But the Health Department has said that its food emergency response team"--what is that. What does this mean, and are we to trust people because they….
Well, the problem with the Department of Health's approach at this point in time again is that it is also a 'catch up" system. There's no one proactively going out to the fields, spot checking. We are relying on the industries to do their own spot checks. And in this case, it's in the industry's interest to recall those bags because once people began to get sick, it doesn't matter how well this program runs--no one will go back to eating spinach for a very long time.
They're doing it for economic reasons--we get that--but think for health reasons we'd like to have that bag sealed with that seal of approval as they've promised us, and not have to find it on a shelf.
Q. But this is the Department of Health Services that once again--they can't produce somebody to tell me what a food emergency response team is--are we going to trust them to do anything?
I think the reasons that the Department of Health Services is so vague on how to enforce this is because, this is number one, not mandatory--they're relying on a voluntary group of folks to tell them how this ought to be implemented. And this is the whole rationale for having our bills pass this year--is that the Department of Health Services should have very strict guidelines. They should be running the show and not reacting to--because they don't have answers because they're not part and parcel creating the regulations necessary to make this happen.
Q. But they seem fairly incompetent--pretty much any level. Any time we call them they never can produce anyone to tell us anything.
It's because we don't have the proper structure our bills put forward, to have if you will, leafy greens part of our health inspection programs. Right now, they're reacting to and they're probably calling the folks that were responsible for this--in a voluntary way--the growers and asking them--"Can we tell people that it's OK?" That really isn't the way government should be operating.
Q. But just because you do a bill, is this going to all of a sudden make these people competent overnight?
No, but what I think a bill does is it puts in statute real regulations we can hold the Department of Health Services accountable to. Right now we could do is ask the Department: "How did you monitor? How did it go? How did it look?" There's really no really nothing to hold them accountable to, and quite frankly, the voluntary group that produced this salmonella issue just a day ago isn't responsible to anyone either. So, we're back in the same situation where no one is held accountable, everyone promises things will get better, we have a catch up system in the end, and we're just taking chances with consumers.
Not one consumer can say that a bag on a shelf is sealed, they can open it, put it on their plate and eat it. That's not the case today. That's what consumers want and we ought to push for that higher standard.
Here is a copy of Floret's letter to Kawamura.
August 30, 2007
A.G. Kawamura
Secretary
California Dept. of Food & Agriculture
1220 N Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Secretary Kawamura:
I am writing to express my serious concern regarding the recent distribution of spinach contaminated with salmonella from a California farm. I understand that the contaminated spinach originated from Metz Fresh, which is a signatory to the Leafy Green Marketing Agreement program, which is under the jurisdiction of the California Department of Food and Agriculture.
Nearly one year has passed since the devastating E. coli outbreak from California grown spinach, and it is clear that California’s food safety measures are lacking, as is evidenced by the fact that we continue to distribute contaminated produce across the United States and Canada. Most troubling is the fact that, according to reports in the Bakersfield Californian, contaminated spinach was placed on shelves and was available for sale to consumers. This raises serious questions regarding the effectiveness of the current food safety program and signals the need for stronger regulation on the part of government.
In light of this incident it is necessary and appropriate for the Committee to better understand the current status of the food safety measures in place under the Leafy Green Marketing agreement. Accordingly, please provide the Committee with the following information:
1) An explanation as to why the contaminated spinach was not identified prior to being distributed to retailers and/or commercial food establishments and, more importantly, why it was not identified prior to being made available for purchase by consumers.
2) Whether the packaging containing the contaminated spinach bears the official seal of the Leafy Green Marketing Agreement. In the event that the packaging does not bear the seal, please provide an explanation as to why, given that the seal is the only manner for consumers to identify whether a grower is a signatory to the Leafy Green Marketing Agreement and was touted as a cornerstone of the agreement.
3) Whether Metz Fresh has been inspected pursuant to the Leafy Green Marketing Agreement. If so, please provide the date of the inspection and the results of the investigation, detailing any violations or shortcomings identified. Please provide any documents generated during the inspection process.
4) What specific actions will be taken by the Leafy Green Marketing Agreement in light of this incident.
5) The current status of the Leafy Green Marketing Agreement inspection and compliance program, including what percentage of processors and growers have been inspected to date, and the results of these inspections.
Given the seriousness of this breakdown in California’s food safety system please provide a response no later than 1 p.m. on Friday, August 31, 2007.
Sincerely,
DEAN FLOREZ
Chair, Senate Select Committee on Food-Borne Illness
Sen. Florez heated about recent spinach recall
Last Update: 8/30 8:19 pm
Sen. Dean Florez (D-Shafter) voiced his frustration Thursday over the latest recall of California-grown spinach.
Metz Fresh in Monterrey County voluntarily recalled 68,000 pounds of bagged spinach after it tested positive for salmonella.
Earlier this year, Florez introduced bills that would have required the Department of Public Health to conduct testing in the fields and facilities where spinach and other leafy greens are packaged.
Those bills were killed, however, by the committee.
"We’re back in the same situation where we're taking chances with consumers,” Florez said. “Not one consumer can say a bag on the shelf is sealed. They can open it, eat it, that's not the case. It’s what consumers want. We're going to push for that higher standard."
A team of state and federal officials are investigating the Metz Fresh facility, combing through their records and products.
http://www.kget.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=71fff469-3e06-4ab1-a5ed-150a037a726b
Sen. Dean Florez (D-Shafter) voiced his frustration Thursday over the latest recall of California-grown spinach.
Metz Fresh in Monterrey County voluntarily recalled 68,000 pounds of bagged spinach after it tested positive for salmonella.
Earlier this year, Florez introduced bills that would have required the Department of Public Health to conduct testing in the fields and facilities where spinach and other leafy greens are packaged.
Those bills were killed, however, by the committee.
"We’re back in the same situation where we're taking chances with consumers,” Florez said. “Not one consumer can say a bag on the shelf is sealed. They can open it, eat it, that's not the case. It’s what consumers want. We're going to push for that higher standard."
A team of state and federal officials are investigating the Metz Fresh facility, combing through their records and products.
http://www.kget.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=71fff469-3e06-4ab1-a5ed-150a037a726b
Push for food bills renewed
Spinach recall highlights both sides of safety issues
By MARIE VASARI
Herald Staff Writer
Article Last Updated: 08/31/2007 01:32:48 AM PDT
Depending on whom you ask, the recall this week of 8,118 cases of Metz Fresh bagged spinach is either an indication that the safeguards in the nation's food chain are solidly in place or dismally lacking.
No illnesses have been reported in the recall, which centers around 68,000 pounds of spinach grown and shipped by King City-based Metz Fresh LLC.
But several lawmakers point to the recall as evidence that voluntary compliance measures on the part of the industry are inadequate.
State Sen. Dean Florez, D-Shafter, and U.S. Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, issued statements Thursday calling for legislative action to regulate growers.
Harkin, chairman of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, said he would introduce legislation to establish more federal oversight of food safety practices to reduce food-borne illnesses.
"With the memory of last summer's massive E. coli outbreak in spinach still fresh in our minds, Americans are once again being hit by a large-scale recall of bagged spinach," he said. "This is a food safety concern for consumers who wonder if it is OK to serve this produce to their families and an agricultural concern for growers who face another blow to sales of their product."
Kate Cyrul, a spokesman for the senator, said he is drafting legislation similar to a bill he introduced in 1996 calling for a national framework for produce oversight, shifting the responsibility from growers to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. That legislation could be introduced as early as next month, she said.
Sen. Florez also weighed in, drafting a letter to A.G. Kawamura, secretary of the California Department of Food and Agriculture.
As chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Food-borne Illness, Florez introduced legislation following last year's spinach recall, when an E. coli outbreak killed three people and sickened hundreds.
His legislation would have mandated what his office described as an improved inspection process and efficient traceback system, but the bill was shelved by the Assembly Agriculture Committee, which opted to wait and see how the industry fared in its attempts to self-regulate.
Florez cited what he called "the industry's previous lack of response to repeated outbreaks and calls for action from the federal Food and Drug Administration."
In his letter, he questioned the effectiveness of a voluntary system that allowed leafy greens contaminated with salmonella to make it to store shelves, despite the fact that Metz Fresh was a signatory to the Leafy Green Marketing Agreement program, under the jurisdiction of the state Department of Food and Agriculture.
"This raises serious questions regarding the effectiveness of the current food safety program and signals the need for stronger regulation on the part of government," he wrote.
He called upon Kawamura and Metz Fresh to better explain how contaminated spinach was not identified prior to distribution, whether the company had been inspected pursuant to the Leafy Green Marketing Agreement and what penalties its board would take in light of the incident.
"I guess the biggest question anybody should have is this: Are we any better than we were last year?" said Florez by phone from Sacramento. "This sounds very reminiscent of last year, so really nothing has changed other than what we call a catch-up policy."
He questions how a member of the marketing agreement could allow contaminated product, in any amount, to get into consumers' hands and said he wants the marketing agreement's stamp to provide an iron-clad guarantee that the product is safe.
"The choice really is about a mandatory approach that says when we put the seal of approval on it, it means that when you open the bag, it means it is ready to eat and not contaminated," he said.
"The question is, what's the penalty, and where is the Department of Health Services in this process?" he said. "Let's face it: These guys didn't want regulators in their fields."
The only guarantee, according to Florez, is to increase public accountability by changing voluntary practices into statute. Florez said he'd call a hearing to address the food safety issue within the next 10 days.
But Scott Horsfal, CEO of the California Leafy Green Marketing Agreement, said the government already oversees the industry's practices.
"The inspections are done by California Department of Food and Agriculture inspectors, under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, so it is government inspectors," he said. "This program was designed so that it does have government involvement."
While the industry provides funding for the program, its 10 inspectors are California Department of Food and Agriculture employees, trained by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, he said.
Metz Fresh, as a produce handler, had already been inspected several times and its practices audited for conformity, he said.
Jim Bogart, president and general counsel for the Grower-Shipper Association of Central California, also dismissed the criticism as misguided.
"To assert that indicates to me that they are uninformed, or misinformed as to how this marketing agreement works," said Bogart, "because it is the government, not the industry, that conducts the audits and implements the verification process for compliance with the standards."
State and federal officials spent much of Thursday at Watsonville Produce, Inc., the Moss Landing processing plant Metz Fresh contracts with for production. The state health agency was contacted Tuesday when Metz Fresh received confirmation of its test results, she said.
Suann Buggy, a spokeswoman for the state Department of Public Health, said public health inspectors conducted an investigation of the processing plant Thursday and found no violations. Officials will continue with the verification of test results and examination of company records, she said.
Sold under the Metz Fresh label, the spinach was sold to retail outlets and food service providers in 48 states and Canada in 10-ounce and 16-ounce bags, as well as in 4-pound cartons and in 2.5-pound four-pack cartons, with tracking codes 12208114, 12208214 and 12208314.
Metz Fresh did not release information on the value of the recalled spinach.
But the losses from those 8,118 recalled cases, amounting to 68,000 pounds of spinach, pales in comparison to last year's spinach recall. Spinach production values for the county dropped 41 percent — a loss of $77 million — according to the Monterey County Agricultural Commissioner's 2006 Crop Report as compared to the previous year.
Metz Fresh grows and packages fresh spinach primarily for food service consumers, including wholesalers, with about 25 percent of its bagged spinach products shipped directly to retail establishments.
Routine testing by an independent lab, BSK Food and Diary, detected the presence of salmonella bacteria in one of three production lines Aug. 24 at a contracted processing facility in Watsonville. Further testing confirmed those results late Tuesday.
More than 90 percent of that spinach was held back before it reached consumers, according to company spokesman Greg Larsen, and the company's labeling and tracking systems allowed the company to keep the vast majority of the spinach out of the hands of the public.
Spinach grower Dick Peixoto said the calls for more government oversight were unnecessary. In his opinion, the measures growers are taking under the Leafy Green Marketing Agreement work just fine.
"They're trying to make an issue where there is no issue," said Peixoto, who grows organic spinach in Watsonville.
"All I can say is, I don't know why they're calling for more regulation when the system worked," he said. "Nobody got any tainted spinach, nobody got sick. They found it in the plant."
http://www.montereyherald.com/ci_6767470
By MARIE VASARI
Herald Staff Writer
Article Last Updated: 08/31/2007 01:32:48 AM PDT
Depending on whom you ask, the recall this week of 8,118 cases of Metz Fresh bagged spinach is either an indication that the safeguards in the nation's food chain are solidly in place or dismally lacking.
No illnesses have been reported in the recall, which centers around 68,000 pounds of spinach grown and shipped by King City-based Metz Fresh LLC.
But several lawmakers point to the recall as evidence that voluntary compliance measures on the part of the industry are inadequate.
State Sen. Dean Florez, D-Shafter, and U.S. Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, issued statements Thursday calling for legislative action to regulate growers.
Harkin, chairman of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, said he would introduce legislation to establish more federal oversight of food safety practices to reduce food-borne illnesses.
"With the memory of last summer's massive E. coli outbreak in spinach still fresh in our minds, Americans are once again being hit by a large-scale recall of bagged spinach," he said. "This is a food safety concern for consumers who wonder if it is OK to serve this produce to their families and an agricultural concern for growers who face another blow to sales of their product."
Kate Cyrul, a spokesman for the senator, said he is drafting legislation similar to a bill he introduced in 1996 calling for a national framework for produce oversight, shifting the responsibility from growers to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. That legislation could be introduced as early as next month, she said.
Sen. Florez also weighed in, drafting a letter to A.G. Kawamura, secretary of the California Department of Food and Agriculture.
As chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Food-borne Illness, Florez introduced legislation following last year's spinach recall, when an E. coli outbreak killed three people and sickened hundreds.
His legislation would have mandated what his office described as an improved inspection process and efficient traceback system, but the bill was shelved by the Assembly Agriculture Committee, which opted to wait and see how the industry fared in its attempts to self-regulate.
Florez cited what he called "the industry's previous lack of response to repeated outbreaks and calls for action from the federal Food and Drug Administration."
In his letter, he questioned the effectiveness of a voluntary system that allowed leafy greens contaminated with salmonella to make it to store shelves, despite the fact that Metz Fresh was a signatory to the Leafy Green Marketing Agreement program, under the jurisdiction of the state Department of Food and Agriculture.
"This raises serious questions regarding the effectiveness of the current food safety program and signals the need for stronger regulation on the part of government," he wrote.
He called upon Kawamura and Metz Fresh to better explain how contaminated spinach was not identified prior to distribution, whether the company had been inspected pursuant to the Leafy Green Marketing Agreement and what penalties its board would take in light of the incident.
"I guess the biggest question anybody should have is this: Are we any better than we were last year?" said Florez by phone from Sacramento. "This sounds very reminiscent of last year, so really nothing has changed other than what we call a catch-up policy."
He questions how a member of the marketing agreement could allow contaminated product, in any amount, to get into consumers' hands and said he wants the marketing agreement's stamp to provide an iron-clad guarantee that the product is safe.
"The choice really is about a mandatory approach that says when we put the seal of approval on it, it means that when you open the bag, it means it is ready to eat and not contaminated," he said.
"The question is, what's the penalty, and where is the Department of Health Services in this process?" he said. "Let's face it: These guys didn't want regulators in their fields."
The only guarantee, according to Florez, is to increase public accountability by changing voluntary practices into statute. Florez said he'd call a hearing to address the food safety issue within the next 10 days.
But Scott Horsfal, CEO of the California Leafy Green Marketing Agreement, said the government already oversees the industry's practices.
"The inspections are done by California Department of Food and Agriculture inspectors, under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, so it is government inspectors," he said. "This program was designed so that it does have government involvement."
While the industry provides funding for the program, its 10 inspectors are California Department of Food and Agriculture employees, trained by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, he said.
Metz Fresh, as a produce handler, had already been inspected several times and its practices audited for conformity, he said.
Jim Bogart, president and general counsel for the Grower-Shipper Association of Central California, also dismissed the criticism as misguided.
"To assert that indicates to me that they are uninformed, or misinformed as to how this marketing agreement works," said Bogart, "because it is the government, not the industry, that conducts the audits and implements the verification process for compliance with the standards."
State and federal officials spent much of Thursday at Watsonville Produce, Inc., the Moss Landing processing plant Metz Fresh contracts with for production. The state health agency was contacted Tuesday when Metz Fresh received confirmation of its test results, she said.
Suann Buggy, a spokeswoman for the state Department of Public Health, said public health inspectors conducted an investigation of the processing plant Thursday and found no violations. Officials will continue with the verification of test results and examination of company records, she said.
Sold under the Metz Fresh label, the spinach was sold to retail outlets and food service providers in 48 states and Canada in 10-ounce and 16-ounce bags, as well as in 4-pound cartons and in 2.5-pound four-pack cartons, with tracking codes 12208114, 12208214 and 12208314.
Metz Fresh did not release information on the value of the recalled spinach.
But the losses from those 8,118 recalled cases, amounting to 68,000 pounds of spinach, pales in comparison to last year's spinach recall. Spinach production values for the county dropped 41 percent — a loss of $77 million — according to the Monterey County Agricultural Commissioner's 2006 Crop Report as compared to the previous year.
Metz Fresh grows and packages fresh spinach primarily for food service consumers, including wholesalers, with about 25 percent of its bagged spinach products shipped directly to retail establishments.
Routine testing by an independent lab, BSK Food and Diary, detected the presence of salmonella bacteria in one of three production lines Aug. 24 at a contracted processing facility in Watsonville. Further testing confirmed those results late Tuesday.
More than 90 percent of that spinach was held back before it reached consumers, according to company spokesman Greg Larsen, and the company's labeling and tracking systems allowed the company to keep the vast majority of the spinach out of the hands of the public.
Spinach grower Dick Peixoto said the calls for more government oversight were unnecessary. In his opinion, the measures growers are taking under the Leafy Green Marketing Agreement work just fine.
"They're trying to make an issue where there is no issue," said Peixoto, who grows organic spinach in Watsonville.
"All I can say is, I don't know why they're calling for more regulation when the system worked," he said. "Nobody got any tainted spinach, nobody got sick. They found it in the plant."
http://www.montereyherald.com/ci_6767470
Food safety observers react to latest recall
By DAWN WITHERS
The Salinas Californian
Tough new food safety precautions and produce-tracking systems implemented last year after a fatal E. coli outbreak may have prevented sicknesses when salmonella-tainted spinach was recalled from stores this week.
Jim Bogart, president of the Grower-Shipper Association of Central California, said the fact that King City-based Metz Fresh was able to identify the latest problem, stop most of the spinach in the shipping process and quickly alert customers proves the industry safeguards have been successful.
"This is what we want to see," he said.
As more produce companies conduct more testing for contamination, more recalls and outbreaks will be announced, said University of California researcher Trevor Suslow, who worked closely with the industry in developing the marketing agreement's safety rules.
"I think the test of the industry is how we react to these types of situations," said Joseph Pezzini, vice president of operations for Ocean Mist Farms in Castroville.
Pezzini chairs the board that established and administers the new produce safety rules.
"No one was harmed by the product," he said, "and that's important."
But Caroline Smith DeWaal, food safety director at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, questioned why it took so long for Metz Fresh to confirm its first positive test for salmonella.
"I can't imagine why the confirmatory test would have taken from Friday to Wednesday," she said. "Confirmatory tests can be run within 24, maximum 48 hours."
Metz Fresh officials did not immediately return an Associated Press call seeking further comment Thursday.
Jean Halloran, director of food policy initiatives at the Consumers Union, faulted the produce industry for resisting mandatory government regulations and instead enacting its own leafy green marketing agreement.
"The spinach industry has set up this whole system that was going to prevent these problems," she said.
"Yet we have this kind of problem again."
Metz Fresh is "certainly to be commended for detecting the problem and issuing the recall, but why wasn't the system set up to test this before it left the plant," said Halloran, whose nonprofit organization tests food and provides information about threats to consumers.
State Sen. Dean Florez, D-Shafter, said the Metz Fresh recall demonstrates the marketing agreement is flawed.
Florez has been an outspoken critic of the new food safety rules and has called for state regulation of salad producers. Leafy greens handlers sign the existing agreement only voluntarily.
His legislation to put state health officials in charge of a mandatory food-safety program for leafy greens has stalled in the state Assembly.
Florez said he plans to hold a hearing on the product recall in Salinas next month.
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS contributed to this report. Contact Dawn Withers at withers@thecalifornian.com.
http://www.thecalifornian.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070831/NEWS01/708310315/1002
The Salinas Californian
Tough new food safety precautions and produce-tracking systems implemented last year after a fatal E. coli outbreak may have prevented sicknesses when salmonella-tainted spinach was recalled from stores this week.
Jim Bogart, president of the Grower-Shipper Association of Central California, said the fact that King City-based Metz Fresh was able to identify the latest problem, stop most of the spinach in the shipping process and quickly alert customers proves the industry safeguards have been successful.
"This is what we want to see," he said.
As more produce companies conduct more testing for contamination, more recalls and outbreaks will be announced, said University of California researcher Trevor Suslow, who worked closely with the industry in developing the marketing agreement's safety rules.
"I think the test of the industry is how we react to these types of situations," said Joseph Pezzini, vice president of operations for Ocean Mist Farms in Castroville.
Pezzini chairs the board that established and administers the new produce safety rules.
"No one was harmed by the product," he said, "and that's important."
But Caroline Smith DeWaal, food safety director at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, questioned why it took so long for Metz Fresh to confirm its first positive test for salmonella.
"I can't imagine why the confirmatory test would have taken from Friday to Wednesday," she said. "Confirmatory tests can be run within 24, maximum 48 hours."
Metz Fresh officials did not immediately return an Associated Press call seeking further comment Thursday.
Jean Halloran, director of food policy initiatives at the Consumers Union, faulted the produce industry for resisting mandatory government regulations and instead enacting its own leafy green marketing agreement.
"The spinach industry has set up this whole system that was going to prevent these problems," she said.
"Yet we have this kind of problem again."
Metz Fresh is "certainly to be commended for detecting the problem and issuing the recall, but why wasn't the system set up to test this before it left the plant," said Halloran, whose nonprofit organization tests food and provides information about threats to consumers.
State Sen. Dean Florez, D-Shafter, said the Metz Fresh recall demonstrates the marketing agreement is flawed.
Florez has been an outspoken critic of the new food safety rules and has called for state regulation of salad producers. Leafy greens handlers sign the existing agreement only voluntarily.
His legislation to put state health officials in charge of a mandatory food-safety program for leafy greens has stalled in the state Assembly.
Florez said he plans to hold a hearing on the product recall in Salinas next month.
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS contributed to this report. Contact Dawn Withers at withers@thecalifornian.com.
http://www.thecalifornian.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070831/NEWS01/708310315/1002
Spinach recall sparks oversight calls
By GARANCE BURKE
08/30/07 16:09:36
Related Content
Metz Fresh LLC Consumer advocates and some lawmakers say that a Salinas Valley company's recall of spinach because of a salmonella scare shows that the federal government must do more to protect the nation's food supply, but industry officials call it proof that their voluntary regulations are working.
Metz Fresh, a King City-based grower and shipper, recalled 8,000 cartons of fresh spinach Wednesday after salmonella was found during a routine test of spinach it was processing for shipment. More than 90 percent of the possibly contaminated cartons never reached stores, company spokesman Greg Larson said.
California's leafy greens industry adopted the voluntary regulations last year after a fatal E. coli outbreak, but advocates said a national, mandatory inspection and testing program overseen by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is needed.
"Eight thousand cartons left the plant for distribution in the U.S. That's 8,000 too many," said Jean Halloran, a food safety expert with Consumers Union. "At this point, we are relying on the leafy green industry to police itself."
Some growers said Metz Fresh's ability to catch the bacteria showed that the new testing regimes are working. No illnesses have been reported from eating spinach linked to the company.
"I think the test of the industry is how we react to these types of situations," said grower Joseph Pezzini, who heads the board that administers the new produce safety rules. "No one was harmed by the product and that's important."
Larsen said the recalled spinach, which was picked Aug. 22, had tested negative in earlier field and production tests. Metz Fresh began telling stores and restaurants on Aug. 24 not to sell or serve the lettuce after a first round of tests came up positive.
"The first thing we are looking at right now is making sure this product, as much as possible, is under our control," he said. "The next step is to back up and take a hard look at how this happened."
Metz Fresh has complied with the California Leafy Green Products Handler Marketing Agreement, a set of voluntary food safety rules drafted after last year's E. coli outbreak in fresh spinach killed three people and sickened 200. By joining the program, participants also agree to have their fields and plants checked for compliance.
In two separate plant and field visits earlier this month, California auditors found no signs of danger at Metz Fresh, said Scott Horsfall, who oversees the industry-sponsored program.
"I'm not trying to put a pretty face on it, but the overall system is working very well," Horsfall said. "Consumers can have a high degree of confidence in this product, notwithstanding this recent problem."
But some legislators said the latest recall showed the FDA had yet to improve a patchwork produce safety system critics believe is vastly understaffed and poorly monitored.
"This in no way should be seen as a success story," said state Sen. Dean Florez, who chairs a committee on food-borne illnesses. He said that Metz Fresh should have caught the salmonella before any of its spinach reached consumers, and that he has written the state's agriculture secretary demanding answers about "this breakdown in California's food safety system."
U.S. Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, is crafting legislation that would set up national food safety practices for growing and processing fresh produce that run the highest risk of causing food-borne illnesses.
"This is a food safety concern for consumers who wonder if it is OK to serve this produce to their families, and it is an agricultural concern for growers who face another blow to sales of their product," said Harkin, who chairs the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry. "It is long overdue for the FDA to exercise more oversight of food safety practices."
FDA and state public health officials said Thursday they were investigating the company's records, tests and products.
The recall covers 10- and 16-ounce bags, as well as 4-pound cartons and cartons that contain four, 2.5-pound bags, with the following tracking codes: 12208114, 12208214 and 12208314.
The California Department of Public Health and the Food And Drug Administration are investigating the Metz Fresh processing facility in King City.
Salmonella sickens about 40,000 people a year in the U.S. and kills about 600.
08/30/07 16:09:36
Related Content
Metz Fresh LLC Consumer advocates and some lawmakers say that a Salinas Valley company's recall of spinach because of a salmonella scare shows that the federal government must do more to protect the nation's food supply, but industry officials call it proof that their voluntary regulations are working.
Metz Fresh, a King City-based grower and shipper, recalled 8,000 cartons of fresh spinach Wednesday after salmonella was found during a routine test of spinach it was processing for shipment. More than 90 percent of the possibly contaminated cartons never reached stores, company spokesman Greg Larson said.
California's leafy greens industry adopted the voluntary regulations last year after a fatal E. coli outbreak, but advocates said a national, mandatory inspection and testing program overseen by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is needed.
"Eight thousand cartons left the plant for distribution in the U.S. That's 8,000 too many," said Jean Halloran, a food safety expert with Consumers Union. "At this point, we are relying on the leafy green industry to police itself."
Some growers said Metz Fresh's ability to catch the bacteria showed that the new testing regimes are working. No illnesses have been reported from eating spinach linked to the company.
"I think the test of the industry is how we react to these types of situations," said grower Joseph Pezzini, who heads the board that administers the new produce safety rules. "No one was harmed by the product and that's important."
Larsen said the recalled spinach, which was picked Aug. 22, had tested negative in earlier field and production tests. Metz Fresh began telling stores and restaurants on Aug. 24 not to sell or serve the lettuce after a first round of tests came up positive.
"The first thing we are looking at right now is making sure this product, as much as possible, is under our control," he said. "The next step is to back up and take a hard look at how this happened."
Metz Fresh has complied with the California Leafy Green Products Handler Marketing Agreement, a set of voluntary food safety rules drafted after last year's E. coli outbreak in fresh spinach killed three people and sickened 200. By joining the program, participants also agree to have their fields and plants checked for compliance.
In two separate plant and field visits earlier this month, California auditors found no signs of danger at Metz Fresh, said Scott Horsfall, who oversees the industry-sponsored program.
"I'm not trying to put a pretty face on it, but the overall system is working very well," Horsfall said. "Consumers can have a high degree of confidence in this product, notwithstanding this recent problem."
But some legislators said the latest recall showed the FDA had yet to improve a patchwork produce safety system critics believe is vastly understaffed and poorly monitored.
"This in no way should be seen as a success story," said state Sen. Dean Florez, who chairs a committee on food-borne illnesses. He said that Metz Fresh should have caught the salmonella before any of its spinach reached consumers, and that he has written the state's agriculture secretary demanding answers about "this breakdown in California's food safety system."
U.S. Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, is crafting legislation that would set up national food safety practices for growing and processing fresh produce that run the highest risk of causing food-borne illnesses.
"This is a food safety concern for consumers who wonder if it is OK to serve this produce to their families, and it is an agricultural concern for growers who face another blow to sales of their product," said Harkin, who chairs the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry. "It is long overdue for the FDA to exercise more oversight of food safety practices."
FDA and state public health officials said Thursday they were investigating the company's records, tests and products.
The recall covers 10- and 16-ounce bags, as well as 4-pound cartons and cartons that contain four, 2.5-pound bags, with the following tracking codes: 12208114, 12208214 and 12208314.
The California Department of Public Health and the Food And Drug Administration are investigating the Metz Fresh processing facility in King City.
Salmonella sickens about 40,000 people a year in the U.S. and kills about 600.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
