FDA Archives - Page 2 of 2 - California Agriculture News Today

Got ice cream! (Thanks to UC Davis)

By Trina Wood

Chances are when you’re scooping that vanilla bean ice cream into your bowl for dessert, you’re focused on the flavor about to hit your taste buds, not on whether it may give you a foodborne illness.

That confidence in the safety of California’s dairy products — the state’s top agricultural commodity, valued at nearly $7 billion in annual retail sales — results in part from the efforts of the San Bernardino branch of the California Animal Health and Food Safety laboratory system.

This network of laboratories, headquartered at UC Davis and administered by the UC Davis School of Veterinary Medicine on behalf of the California Department of Food and Agriculture, performs surveillance and diagnostic testing for livestock and poultry.

The San Bernardino laboratory carries out such work on milk and dairy products that are submitted by the state’s Milk and Dairy Foods Safety Branch. The lab’s on-site bacteriology section tests for a variety of disease-causing microbes including Listeria, Brucella, Salmonella, Campylobacter and E. coli O157:H7 — all of which can cause severe illness and even death.

Protecting against foodborne diseases

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that each year roughly one in six Americans (or 48 million people) get sick with a foodborne disease. Of these, 128,000 are hospitalized and 3,000 die from these illnesses.

However, such diseases have almost been eliminated from licensed milk and dairy products, thanks, in large part, to a strong regulatory framework, including adherence to pasteurization and laboratory standards.

Approximately 1,500 samples of milk, dairy products and water arrive monthly at the San Bernardino lab resulting in approximately 4,200 tests conducted by a team of eight technicians. These microbiological assessments monitor bacteria populations and the effectiveness of pasteurization in destroying harmful bacteria.

Partnering with California

“The laboratory system has been a successful partnership between the state and UC Davis since 1987,” said its director, Richard Breitmeyer.

He noted that it was natural in the 1990s to expand the lab’s statewide regulatory testing services to include milk products. Before then testing was limited to samples from only Southern California.

In 2000, the California Department of Food and Agriculture was so impressed with the accuracy and timeliness of the California Animal Health and Food Safety laboratory system that it placed all such statewide regulatory compliance testing in the network of labs, in a move that enabled the state to cut costs, speed analysis and consolidate testing.

The San Bernardino lab

Three years ago, the state asked the laboratory system to also begin testing milk and dairy products for chemical components such as fat and protein content. The San Bernardino lab now provides this service.

“I’m proud of our efficiency,” says Jose Gallegos, the San Bernardino lab’s supervising dairy analyst, who has been with the laboratory system for 20 years and oversees the milk quality testing lab. “Results are rapid and consistent, and reduce the number of people who become ill in the event of an outbreak.”

The San Bernardino laboratory is considered the state reference lab for California and holds the distinction of being the only veterinary facility in the nation set up as a regulatory testing facility. In addition to running tests for the state, the laboratory also is certified by the U.S. Food and Drug administration, under the National Conference of Interstate Shippers program guidelines to run microbiological tests.

Testing dairy products

As part of this testing program, the state sends samples from three sources: the farm, processing plants and retail establishments where the finished product is sold. The lab also tests some exports such as ice cream for microbiological components and dry goods such as powdered milk.

State milk and dairy officials may submit samples from a location if a report comes in that someone has become ill after eating or drinking at a particular business. State and federal investigators also routinely check farmers markets and small establishments for raw or illegally processed milk and dairy products that could pose a serious health risk. Those products are sent to the San Bernardino lab to be tested for the presence of bacteria or improper pasteurization.

Samples sent to the lab must be transported at the proper temperature, arrive within 60 hours of collection and be properly packaged before they are tested for general bacteria populations. If the testing criteria aren’t met, those samples are rejected for testing and reported to the state for recollection. Any test results indicating the products were not produced in compliance with state regulations are reported to the California Department of Food and Agriculture, which is authorized to enforce the regulations.

After milk samples have been analyzed for bacteria and other indicators of improper sanitation at a facility, they move on to be tested for drug residue and other unwanted substances such as antibiotics, which may have been used to treat sick cows.

Farmers are required to keep milk out of the supply line until the medication has cleared from the cow’s system and the milk meets strict requirements established by the FDA. Other testing, such as checking for proper pasteurization and possible water contamination, complements the tools used by state officials to ensure the quality and safety of the milk supply.

“We’re always looking at developing better tests and working with our partners to provide the highest level of service,” Gallegos says. “Knowing all the quality testing processes in place, I feel great about drinking milk!”

About CAHFS

CAHFS is a public service program of the university. The primary objectives of the CAHFS are to provide appropriate and timely diagnostic support to safeguard the health of California’s dairy, livestock and poultry industries and to protect the public health from animal disease.

Patrick Cavanaugh2016-05-31T19:33:26-07:00September 11th, 2014|

‘To-do list’ on food safety grows longer for feds

Source: Benjamin Goad; The Hill

The largest food safety overhaul in generations is being starved of funding needed to enforce a host of new regulations for factories, farms and importers, safety advocates warn.

The 2010 Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) was billed as creating a fundamental shift in the way government protects the nation’s food supply against the threat of food-borne illness.

But despite bipartisan and industry support for the program, only a fraction of the funding needed to implement and enforce it has materialized. Now, with most fiscal 2015 funding issues likely in limbo until after the midterm elections, uncertainty remains.Without additional funding, priorities of the ambitious initiative could fall short, public interest groups fear.

“They’re just not going to make enough of a dent in their to-do list,” said Sandra Eskin, director of food safety at The Pew Charitable Trusts. “They’re going to be really strapped to effectively enforce it.”

The Food and Drug Administration in January of last year began rolling out the first of seven draft rules in support of the FSMA, the biggest food safety update in 70 years.

The rules add a slate of standards for the agriculture industry and food manufactures, and create third-party audits and a new supplier verification program to prevent contaminated foods from entering the country.

Together, the rules are meant to replace a decades-old system built to respond to illness outbreaks with one set up to prevent them through better practices at production plants, warehouses and farms.

The rule-making process has been fraught with delays, as the FDA grapples with a litany of questions about how to impose the regulations. The agency has been forced to revise and re-propose some of the rules in response to industry concerns.

The FDA’s failure to meet a July 2012 deadline under the law drew a lawsuit from food safety advocates and a subsequent federal court order requiring the agency to complete all final regulations under the FSMA by mid-2015.

But merely putting the rules in place is one matter; creating a system to enforce them is another.

During budget hearings this year, Michael Taylor, the FDA’s first ever deputy commissioner for foods, made clear that current funding levels would be insufficient.

“Simply put, we cannot achieve our objective of a safer food supply without a significant increase in resources,” he told members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

Upon approval of the FSMA in 2010, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated the FDA would need an additional $583 million over five years to carry out its new mission.

Following boosts totaling just under $100 million in fiscal 2011 and 2012, the administration estimated last May that an additional $400 million to $450 million would be required “to make FSMA a fully successful initiative.”

Since then, the funding allocated to the effort has been much less than requested, thanks to budget cuts and competing priorities. An omnibus funding bill for fiscal 2013 included $40 million for food safety, but that total was reduced to $37 million by sequester-related cuts.

A fiscal 2014 omnibus passed in January added $53 million more. As of Tuesday, the agency said an additional $362 million to $412 million was needed.

Spending bills now pending in both chambers of Congress contain increases of around $25 million, sowing angst among groups who say funding is required to fully implement the law.

Even business groups with reservations about the new restrictions support additional funding, which they view as bringing certainty to the industry.

“In order to keep consumer confidence in the safety of America’s food supply high and to reduce the number of foodborne illnesses, it is important that FDA also have the infrastructure in place to implement FSMA once the rules are finalized and after the appropriate compliance period ends,” a coalition of major businesses including Wal-Mart, General Mills and Coca-Cola wrote in a letter to congressional appropriators.

Specifically, the groups are calling for funding to retain and hire additional scientific experts, modernize the FDA’s information technology and increase food safety inspections to meet the targets set out in the law.

Sophia Kruszewski, a policy specialist at the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, said the group is worried that a lack of funding would imperil programs authorized by the law to help farmers and other food producers come into compliance.

“Funding will be critical because so much of what proper implementation of FSMA is gong to require is training,” Kruszewski said. “It’s hard to know where all the money is going to come from.”

The Obama administration has proposed new user fees to help meet the funding goals. The president’s 2014 budget request calls for a new registration fee for domestic and foreign food facilities that are required to register with FDA. The fee would have yielded an estimated $59 million this year.

A second fee on imports would have brought in $166 million, according to estimates.

Congress, however, has not approved legislation establishing the fees, which industry groups have denounced as a “food tax.”

In prodding Congress to direct more money to the safety effort, public interest groups say the cost of inaction could be made clear in the event of a major illness outbreak.

There have been 26 multi-state outbreaks of food-borne illness since Obama signed the FSMA into law, according to a Pew analysis.

Food safety advocates say they are trying to raise the public profile of an issue that affects all Americans.

“Every time they sit down for a meal, they want to know that the government is doing to make sure their food is safe,” Eskin said.

Patrick Cavanaugh2016-05-31T19:33:27-07:00September 4th, 2014|

California Almond Board Blog Goes Live!

Richard Waycott, President and CEO of the Almond Board of California, launched its new Almond Board blog, almonds.com, TODAY, with the inaugural post (dated 7/22/14), “The Almond Board of California is a What? Understanding Federal Marketing Orders.”

Back in 1950, almond growers asked the United States Department of Agriculture to approve a Federal Marketing Order, so they could all work together to improve the quality and marketing of their crop. The Almond Board of California was born. A lot has changed since our establishment 64 years ago, including a name change (we used to be called the Almond Control Board) and the broadening of our programs from what initially was just quality standards compliance. Today, we call ourselves an agricultural promotion group.

In their current form, agricultural promotion groups are made up of farmers – in our case growers and handlers – who work together to educate consumers and to research, innovate and promote what they produce.

While you may have never heard of us before, these groups are part of an American tradition and are ingrained in our culture. Whether it’s the dancing California raisins, “Got Milk?,” “Incredible Edible Egg,” “Pork: The Other White Meat” or “Beef: It’s What’s for Dinner,” agricultural promotion groups have created and funded these campaigns. (By the way, have you seen our own “Crunch On” ad campaign that was launched in 2013?)

Different ag promotion groups work in different ways, but essentially they are founded and funded by industry members. They are not funded by taxpayers, which is an occasional misconception. Each year almond handlers contribute money to fund Almond Board marketing and research programs. We develop our own programs and direct our own research, with the USDA providing oversight and review of all external messaging, to make sure they are accurate and comply with FDA and FTC regulations.

At the Almond Board of California, we have worked hard not only to help our favorite nut overcome certain negative perceptions due to their oil content, but more importantly to become the number one nut that surveyed North American consumers associate with being nutritious and heart healthy.*† By creating demand for almonds, we work to build global markets for California Almond growers and handlers.

In terms of research, we have funded $42 million in almond quality and food safety, nutrition, environmental, and production research since 1973. From developing a new nutritional supplement for our pollinators – the honeybee – to improving water efficiency by 33 percent per pound of almonds produced over the last two decades, the Almond Board constantly strives to be a stellar guardian of the natural resources that almond growers and handlers employ to produce one of the finest foods in the world.

Click here to learn more about the Almond Board of California.

__________

*ABC North American Attitudes, Awareness and Usage Study, 2013

†Good news about almonds and heart health. Scientific evidence suggests, but does not prove, that eating 1.5 ounces of almonds as part of a diet low in saturated fat and cholesterol may reduce the risk of heart disease. One serving of almonds (28g) has 13g of unsaturated fat and 1g of saturated fat.

Patrick Cavanaugh2016-05-31T19:34:14-07:00July 23rd, 2014|

CDC 2013 Data Show Limited Progress in Reducing Foodborne Infections

The nation’s food safety grades are out and the results are mixed. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Centers for Disease Control’s (CDC) annual report card shows that foodborne infections continue to be an important public health problem in the United States.

The rate of salmonella infections decreased by about nine percent in 2013 compared with the previous three years, bringing it to the rate last observed in the 2006-2008 baseline period. But campylobacter infections, often linked to dairy products and chicken, have risen 13 percent since 2006-2008. Vibrio infections, often linked to eating raw shellfish, were at the highest level observed since active tracking began in 1996; however, rates of infections caused by Vibrio vulnificus, the most severe species, have remained steady.

Rates of the other foodborne infections tracked have not changed since the period between 2006 and2008.

“CDC data are essential to gauge how we’re doing in our fight against foodborne illness,” said Robert Tauxe, M.D., M.P.H, deputy director of CDC’s Division of Foodborne, Waterborne and Environmental Diseases. “This year’s data show some recent progress in reducing salmonella rates, and also highlight that our work to reduce the burden of foodborne illness is far from over. To keep salmonella on the decline, we need to work with the food industry and our federal, state and local partners to implement strong actions to control known risks and to detect foodborne germs lurking in unsuspected foods.”

The data for the report card come from the Foodborne Diseases Active Surveillance Network (FoodNet), a group experts, from CDC, ten state health departments, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

FoodNet surveillance covers 48 million people, encompassing about 15 percent of the American population. FoodNet sites are located in Connecticut, Georgia, Maryland, Minnesota, New Mexico, Oregon, and Tennessee, and selected counties in California, Colorado, and New York.

In 2013, FoodNet logged just over 19,000 infections, 4,200 hospitalizations, and 80 deaths from the nine germs it tracks. Young children were the most affected group for seven of the nine germs that FoodNet tracks.

New standards for cut-up poultry parts and plans to modernize poultry inspection are already in the works to increase the safety of chicken.

Regulations designed to help prevent food safety problems have been proposed for many sectors of the food industry, including produce farms, food facilities, food importers, food transporters, and third-party auditors/certification bodies.

“Steps are underway to address many of the concerns raised in this report, such as our Salmonella Action Plan and other plans to modernize food inspection,” said Assistant Administrator for FSIS’ Office of Public Health Science David Goldman, M.D., M.P.H. “As these actions are being implemented, we are beginning to see progress, and I am confident we will see further improvement over time.”

“The latest information from FoodNet highlights the importance of continuing preventive measures from the farm to the consumer,” said Stephen Ostroff, M.D., the FDA’s acting chief scientist. “We are making significant progress in implementing the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act, having issued seven proposed rules addressing the safety of produce, imported foods, and human and animal food production and transportation. Full implementation of these rules will help prevent these types of infections.”

In addition to new regulations, everyone can help prevent food poisoning. The food industry can require safer ingredients and can implement preventative controls while restaurants and consumers should follow safe practices in the kitchen. These include cooking meat to proper temperatures, washing produce, preparing meat and fresh produce on different surfaces.

Consumers should know there are risks to consuming unpasteurized milk, soft cheeses made with unpasteurized milk, and raw oysters, especially for certain populations at risk for foodborne illness. For more information on avoiding illnesses from food, and knowing who is at greatest risk, please visit www.foodsafety.gov.

About FoodNet

FoodNet collects information to track rates and determine trends in laboratory-confirmed illnesses caused by nine pathogens transmitted commonly by food: campylobacter, cryptosporidium, cyclospora, listeria, salmonella, Shiga toxin-producing O157 and non-O157 E. coli, shigella, vibrio, and yersinia. Annual data are compared with data from the previous three years (2010-2012) and with data from 2006-2008 to measure progress.

Since 2010, FoodNet has been tracking the increasing use of culture‐independent diagnostic tests instead of culture by clinical laboratories for diagnosis of some bacterial enteric infection. Replacement of culture challenges the ability to identify cases, monitor trends, detect outbreaks, and characterize pathogens.

CDC works 24/7 saving lives and protecting people from health threats to have a more secure nation whether these threats are chronic or acute, manmade or natural, human error or deliberate attack, global or domestic.

Patrick Cavanaugh2016-05-31T19:38:02-07:00April 17th, 2014|

FDA Issues Final Rule on Record Access Requirements for Food Firms and Announces Guidance for Industry

What You Need to Know About Establishment and Maintenance of Records; Small Entity Compliance Guide

This guidance was created to inform domestic persons in the U.S. who manufacture, process, pack, transport, distribute, receive, hold, or import food for humans or animals, and foreign persons who transport food in the U.S., about final regulations that establish requirements regarding the establishment and maintenance of records.

http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformation/FoodDefense/ucm391329.htm?source=govdelivery&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery

FDA Records Access Authority Under Sections 414 and 704 of the Federal Food, Drug, & Cosmetic Act

This guidance document provides updated information pertaining to the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) authority to access and copy records under sections 414 and 704 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act).

http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformation/FoodDefense/ucm292745.htm?source=govdelivery&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery

Record Availability Requirements: Establishment, Maintenance, and Availability of Records

More information can be found on this link: https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2014-07550.pdf

Patrick Cavanaugh2016-05-31T19:38:04-07:00April 3rd, 2014|

Webinar to Examine Environmental Impact of Produce Safety Proposed Rule

Today the U.S. Food and Drug Administration announced it will hold a webinar on April 4 to discuss the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the agency’s Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) proposed rule to establish standards for growing, harvesting, packing and holding of produce for human consumption.

The FDA is holding this meeting to seek public input on the issues and alternatives that it should consider when preparing the EIS and to inform the public of the provisions of the proposed rule that may significantly affect the quality of the human environment and anticipated alternatives FDA plans to consider.

In an update received earlier today, FDA noted that it is “identifying a number of issues and a range of potential alternatives to be considered in the EIS.”

Alternatives have been identified in areas where potential environmental impacts are likely, including the following:

Microbial standard for agricultural water used during growing activities for covered produce using a direct water application method
Minimum application intervals for biological soil amendments of animal origin
Measures related to animal grazing and animal intrusion
Scope of proposed rule and implications to land use and land management.

The meeting will be from 1:00-5:00 p.m. at the Harvey W. Wiley Federal Building in College Park, Maryland. The meeting will also be Webcast at 2 p.m. For more details on how to participate in person or online, visit the FDA website.

PMA members and industry are also encouraged to visit the FSMA Resource Center for additional information on the FSMA and its numerous proposed rules.

Patrick Cavanaugh2016-05-31T19:38:08-07:00March 19th, 2014|

Previous 12