<![CDATA[Consumerist: inspection]]> http://cache.gawker.com/assets/base/img/thumbs140x140/consumerist.com.png <![CDATA[Consumerist: inspection]]> http://consumerist.com/tag/inspection http://consumerist.com/tag/inspection <![CDATA[ Spinach Facilities Are Unsafe, Disgusting And The FDA Doesn't Care ]]> baggedspinach.jpgIf you like spinach you might not want to read a new report from the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform called "FDA and Fresh Spinach Safety."

After a deadly outbreak of E. coli 0157:H7 in September 2006, the committee examined the Food and Drug Administration's efforts to protect the safety of packaged fresh spinach. What they found wasn't pretty.

From the report:

Packaged fresh spinach facilities were inspected only once every 2.4 years, less than half of FDA's stated goals. Frequent inspections are the cornerstone to the current safeguards for fresh produce and adequate resources are required for frequent inspections. FDA's performance goals state that 95% of high risk facilities like packaged fresh spinach facilities should be inspected at least once yearly. Over a seven-year period, FDA provided 199 inspection reports for 67 packaged fresh spinach facilities. This translates to an inspection rate of about one inspection of each facility every 2.4 years, less than half of FDA's stated goal.

FDA observed objectionable conditions during 47% of the packaged fresh spinach facility inspections. Of the 199 inspections reviewed, 93 documented "objectionable conditions," the most common of which involved plant sanitation, plant construction, and worker sanitation. For example, more than 60% of the inspections with "objectionable conditions" revealed problems related to facility sanitation, such as inadequate restroom cleanliness or accumulations of litter.

Despite observing objectionable conditions in packaged fresh spinach facilities, FDA took no meaningful enforcement action. FDA did not refer any of these inspections with objectionable conditions for further action by its own enforcement authorities. In one case, FDA did refer one inspection to the state for further action. FDA did not issue warning letters or pursue more aggressive steps such as seizures or injunctions.

FDA overlooked repeated violations. In 38 cases, FDA observed repeated violations by packaged fresh spinach facilities but did nothing to force correction. Instead of taking enforcement action, FDA continued to request voluntary compliance after recording violations at each inspection. 14 of these repeat requests for voluntary compliance were for precisely the same violations.

The report also revealed that the FDA does no testing of fields where spinach is grown, despite the fact that this is where the contamination likely comes from.

The California Department of Health Services and the FDA performed a joint investigation into the causes of the 2006 spinach outbreak and found that the outbreak probably did not originate in the facilities that are inspected by FDA. Instead, the problem began outside the plants and most likely was due to contamination of the water outside of the plant by cattle feces, pig feces, or river water. FDA does not routinely inspect the fields except in outbreak investigations. In fact, none of the 199 Establishment Inspection Reports reviewed by Committee staff indicated that any observations of field conditions had taken place.
The report concluded that the FDA is essentially useless: It appears that FDA is inspecting high-risk facilities infrequently, failing to take vigorous enforcement action when it does inspect and identify violations, and not even inspecting the most probable sources of many outbreaks.

Might want to think twice about fresh spinach.

FDA and Fresh Spinach Safety (PDF)
[US House Of Representatives via Consumer Reports]
(Photo:jeffturner)

]]>
Consumerist-372965 Thu, 27 Mar 2008 13:49:11 EDT Meg Marco http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=372965&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Chinese Exporters Use Kosher Certification To Quell Food Safety Concerns ]]> Kosher certification is the new darling of health-conscious consumers who misguidedly believe that biblically blessed health standards can reign in the excesses of commercial food production. Even Chinese exporters are betting that kosher certification can convince foreign consumers that their wares are safe. To companies, certification is just a marketing tool: it lends the aura of safety without offering any actual food safety benefits.

Many Chinese companies were unfamiliar with the concept: One furniture maker asked for kosher certification, drawing a polite rebuff. Another facility asked to get certified as kosher even though it was smoking eel on site, a kosher no-no. The company was turned down; it is now building a separate, kosher-only facility.

And many companies weren't ready for the grilling the rabbis gave them on their first visits to their plants, seeing it as a sign of distrust. "In China, everything works on relationships," said Grunberg of the Orthodox Union, which certifies more than 400,000 products worldwide.

Almost 5,000 new Kosher products hit U.S. shelves last year, but they aren't any safer than traife goods.
Whether kosher foods are actually less likely to be contaminated with, say, E. coli bacteria remains up for debate. While research is scant in this area, experts say it makes sense that kosher food could be safer because it's more closely monitored. "Jews aren't allowed to ingest bugs, so produce must go through a thorough washing and checking to ensure that no bugs are found within the leaves or on the surface of the fruit or vegetable," says Moshe Elefant, a rabbi and chief operating officer of the Orthodox Union KOSHER, a kosher certification organization based in New York. But bacteria can remain even after this type of washing, so consumers can't assume they're less likely to get food poisoning with bagged spinach marked kosher than with a conventional bag.

The same caveat applies to poultry and beef. A salting process that removes blood from the meat has antibacterial effects, but salmonella and E. coli can still survive, says Joe Regenstein, a professor of food science who teaches a course on Jewish and Muslim food laws at Cornell University. Kosher beef, though, is much less likely to contain the misshapen proteins that cause mad cow disease, rare as that is, probably because the animals are slaughtered young, before the disease sets in.

Kosher certification is especially ill-suited for the Chinese marketplace. Contamination is caused by corrupt suppliers who substitute cheap poisons for relatively expensive ingredients. We use kosher certification for one thing, and one thing only: finding really good Coke.

Health-conscious consumers put their faith in kosher certification [The Globe and Mail via BarfBlog]
China going kosher after recalls [Mercury News]
(Photo: nicasaurusrex)

]]>
Consumerist-346810 Sat, 19 Jan 2008 09:30:51 EST Carey http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=346810&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ A Bunch Of Groups Compromise On State Meat Inspections ]]> con_iamyourfoodsupply.jpg From the "boring but important" category of meat-related news, the Consumer Federation of America has joined with other advocacy groups as well as union and labor groups, under the assistance of men and women in Congress, to work out a compromise in response to July's ill-conceived attempt by Minnesota Rep. Collin Peterson to do away with the federal inspections requirement for interstate meat sales. The new plan augments Peterson's measure in a way that ensures state-inspection procedures meet or exceed federal ones.

The original measure, snuck into the farm bill this past summer for largely pork barrel reasons, reduced federal regulation of small meat companies without specifically laying out a protocol that would guarantee federal inspection levels. And yeah, we know that federal inspection levels aren't exactly anything to be proud of, but they're better than nothing. Thankfully, other more responsible politicians have stepped up to develop a plan that would guarantee meat from small companies will still be inspected at the same level, whether by a state or federal agency, if they want to ship across state lines.

We're glad to see that this modified plan is being suggested that grants more independence to states while also providing a baseline of regulatory guidelines—it would be nice if the Consumerist didn't have to spend all of 2008 reporting state-by-state E. coli outbreaks.

"CFA, Consumer Groups Join Labor, Farm Groups and State Departments of Agriculture to Assure All Meat and Poultry Shipped Across State Lines Will Remain Subject to Federal Meat and Poultry Inspection Laws, Regulations and Policies" [Consumer Federation of America] (pdf file)

RELATED
"Bill would reduce meat inspections" [Chicago Tribune]
(Photo: Getty)

]]>
Consumerist-314843 Wed, 24 Oct 2007 23:55:11 EDT Chris Walters http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=314843&view=rss&microfeed=true