Date post: | 19-Dec-2015 |
Category: |
Documents |
View: | 217 times |
Download: | 2 times |
Special thanks to the NC Special thanks to the NC Department of Agriculture Department of Agriculture
Food Safety IssuesFood Safety Issues
Biological Hazards
Meat & Poultry Issues
Produce outbreaks
“Organism of the week”
Record Number of recalls
Outbreaks associated with Outbreaks associated with FDA/CFSAN-regulated foods:FDA/CFSAN-regulated foods:
1996-2010 1996-2010 B. Timbo, J. Brown, T. DuVernoy, E. Elliot,
J. Guzewich, T. Hill, R. Kanwal, K. Klontz, P. LeBlanc, P. McCarthy,
S. McGarry, M. Ross, D. Street, K. Vierk, B. Wolpert
Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, FDA College Park, MD
CaveatsCaveats
The data only represent those outbreaks
and illnesses associated with FDA-regulated
foods.
The data do not contain information on
outbreaks/illnesses where the point of
contamination is retail food & institutional
settings or homes.
CaveatsCaveatsThe data do not include illnesses
transmitted from person-to-person.
Illness data represent only the number of
illnesses reported to CDC, FDA, and
state/local health departments in association
with an outbreak.
The data do not include illnesses that may
have occurred but were not reported.
Reported Reported outbreaksoutbreaks and and illnessesillnesses linked to linked to FDA-regulated produceFDA-regulated produce± ± and sprouts, 1996-and sprouts, 1996-20102010
Produce:• 97 outbreaks reported (17.3% of total)• 11,909 illnesses* (35.9% of total)• 33 deaths*
Sprouts:• 34 outbreaks reported (6.0% of total)• 2,137 illnesses* (6.4% of total)• 1 death
± Excludes sprout outbreaks and illnesses*Estimated; Data as of 5/25/2011 FDA, 2011
Produce outbreaks and illnesses:Produce outbreaks and illnesses:1996-2010 1996-2010
6
10
9
1
8
6
7
10
7
6
5
9
6
4
3
1389
288
683
1749
65
743
985954
1177
773
367
194
367
642
1533
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Year
# o
f o
utb
rea
ks
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
# o
f ill
ne
ss
es
Outbreaks, N=97 Illnesses, N=11,909
FDA, 2011
Types of produce associated with Types of produce associated with outbreaksoutbreaks, , 1996-2010 (N=97)1996-2010 (N=97)
7.2%
10.3%
17.5%
14.4%
30.9%
6.2%
3.1%10.3%
Berries
Green onions
Herbs
Leafy greens
Melons
Tomatoes
Others
Unknown
1996-2010 Produce 1996-2010 Produce OutbreaksOutbreaks
Commodity % produce outbreaksLettuce/Leafy greens 30.9%Tomatoes 17.5%Melons 14.4%Berries 10.3%Herbs (basil, parsley) 6.2%_________________________________ 79.3%
5 Commodity groups make up > 75% of produce related outbreaks
FDA, 2011
Agents associated with Agents associated with produce outbreaks,, 1996-2010 (N=97) 1996-2010 (N=97)
Bacterial75 (77.3%)
Parasitic18 (18.6%)
Viral3 (3.1%)
E. Coli O157:H726 (34.7)
Shigella2 (2.7%)
Salmonella45 (60.0%)
Leafy Greens - 25
Herbs - 1
Melons - 1
Herbs - 1
Tomatoes - 17
Melons - 13
Other Produce - 11
Berries - 2
Leafy Greens - 2
Cyclospora18 (100%)
Hepatitis A3 (100%) Green Onions - 3
Berries - 8
Herbs - 4
Unknown- 1
Leafy Greens - 2
Other Produce - 3Toxin 1 (1.0%)
Cucurbitacin toxin1 (100%)
Squash - 1
Non-E. Coli O157:H71 (1.3%)
L. Monocytogenes1 (1.3%)
Leafy Green - 1
Celery - 1
FDA, 2011
Produce Poses Special ChallengesProduce Poses Special Challenges
• Grown in a non-sterile environment
• Multiple opportunities for contamination
• Often eaten raw: it’s a ready-to-eat food
• Presence of pathogens is NOT the natural state of fresh produce
•GAPs can minimize the risks
Produce Poses Special Challenges
Variety of fruits & vegetables grown
Varying production conditions
Soil types
Water sources
Irrigation methods
Feral animals
Proximity to animal operations
Fresh Fruits and VegetablesFresh Fruits and Vegetables
• Risk of pathogen contamination results
from the interaction of several factors:
Characteristics of the commodity
Geographic area
The production environment
Specific agricultural practices
Produce Associated Outbreaks Produce Associated Outbreaks Affect BusinessAffect Business
• Produce buyers & food retailers addressing the issue because of their customers
• Buyers are requiring third party inspections of farms that supply produce and certification of Good Agricultural Practices
• Growers implement GAPs to satisfy buyers & to maintain and increase their markets
PREVENTION is the Key to PREVENTION is the Key to Reducing Microbial Contamination Reducing Microbial Contamination
of Fresh Fruits and Vegetablesof Fresh Fruits and Vegetables
Good Agricultural Practices
• Water
• Manure & compost
• Worker health & hygiene
• Domestic & feral animals
• Field sanitation
• Packing house sanitation
Include important areas such as:
Industry InitiativesIndustry Initiatives
• CA & AZ Leafy Greens Marketing Agreements
• FL Legislated Mandatory tomato GAPs/BMPs
• Voluntary Programs
• Not a regulation, yet – only a guideline
• GAPs have become the “standard”
• Buyers have become the enforcers
• Science is trying to catch up
Good Agricultural Practices Good Agricultural Practices Focus on Prevention Focus on Prevention
Are Good Agricultural Practices Making a Difference?
• Foodborne illnesses have made farmers and growers aware of microbial hazards and risks
• Financial losses have also contributed to this awareness
• Growers now recognize the importance of GAPs and food safety to their businesses
• Must continue to stress the importance of GAPs in preventing foodborne illness and in maintaining the safety of fresh fruits & vegetables
• Cooperative Agreement between
Cornell University, FDA, and USDA
• PSA established on October 1, 2010
• Project length: 3 years
PSA Primary GoalsPSA Primary Goals
• Develop a standardized education and training
program on Good Agricultural Practices
(GAPs) and co-management strategies
• Create an information bank on produce
safety, GAPs, co-management and FDA's
produce safety regulation
PSA GuidancePSA Guidance
• Executive Committee
Oversight to ensure cooperative agreement
is properly executed in the allotted time
• Steering Committee
Diverse representation from produce industry
Leadership for the Working Committees
Guidance for curriculum development
PSA Guidance PSA Guidance
• Working Committees
Open participation from all sectors of produce industry
Ensure all curriculum topic areas are reviewed
Identify challenges to understanding & implementation
Facilitate identification of educational materials that are
effective and functional
Ensure that the best science available is reviewed
Important Activities of the PSAImportant Activities of the PSA
• Open participation to all interested in produce safety
Website
General Listserve
PSA Conference
Working Committees
Progress to DateProgress to Date
• Website is active:
• www.producesafetyalliance.cornell.edu
• Many signed up for the general list serve and Working Committees (WCs)
– Farmers, Industry representatives, Academics and Government agency personnel
• WCs #1-10 are currently meeting