Feeds:
Posts
Comments

(This blog post by Dr. Ben Chapman was published June 2, 2014, on Barfblog and is republished here with his permission.)

A couple of years ago, I heard a retailer food safety dude tell a group of farmers that his team keeps track of companies linked to illnesses and recalls. The buyer paid attention to how the incident was handled, especially watching for an expanding recall (indicating poor sanitation or traceability) and any public comments by the company. The collected info. was used to evaluate whether they would buy from the supplier in the future.

Being linked to tragic illnesses usually results in more than just writing off product; fallout also often includes a loss of trust within the buying community and a poor reputation with consumers.

And that’s what I told Bill Shea of Crain’s Detroit Business when he asked what might be ahead for Wolverine Packing Co. Here’s part of his story:

The business fallout from Detroit-based Wolverine Packing Co.’s May 19 recall of 1.8 million pounds of ground beef that may be contaminated with potentially deadly E. coli bacteria won’t be known for some time.

Investigations, both internal and by government officials, are underway. So is at least one lawsuit.

Wolverine, which had $1 billion in revenue last year, declined to discuss any business practices that may change, or how it may be affected financially, until it completes its own internal investigation.

“Since the voluntary recall was launched, the company still is conducting an internal investigation into the recall and assisting the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service as it continues to look into the matter,” said Chuck Sanger, Wolverine’s outside spokesman via Hartland, Wis.-based food industry public relations firm Charleston Orwig Inc.

Shea’s article continues:

Bad press and lawsuits trigger worry by suppliers, who may turn elsewhere.

“Trying to sell back to that industry that is purchasing can be an uphill battle,” said Ben Chapman, an assistant professor and food safety extension specialist at North Carolina State University.

“The loss of that 1.8 million pounds is one thing. It’s difficult to put a monetary value on (goodwill); it’s more than just the product.”

Companies that have closed in the wake of a major recall couldn’t survive the combination of lawsuits and loss of trust, Chapman said.

In Wolverine’s case, he expects customers to have questions no matter what investigations show.

“If everything is up to what’s expected, the buyers may say, “What are you to doing to address what went wrong?’ ” he said. “It’s not a random act. Something happened. Either the system they have failed or the system they have wasn’t good enough.”

Add, “If I buy from these folks, will I be increasing the risk of foodborne illness for my customers – because that’s unacceptable,” to the list.

Who’s growing your #food? #farming #agriculture http://t.co/1Je9QvJ4tl

20140317-190138.jpg

@pamelasweeten: Who’s growing your #food? #farming #agriculture http://t.co/1Je9QvJ4tl

20140317-185904.jpg

New website is live!

Come join us at P Sweeten Consulting

Would enjoy sharing cost effective solutions in meeting FSMA

New Website is LIVE!!!

New Website is LIVE!!!

Please join us at our new site.

http://www.trackmycrop.com

This is an example of a farm record that will follow the commodity throughout the supply chain. Complete and secure.

https://www.scoringag.com/scoringag/3/Ag.cfm?sfa=main.PSA&entity_id=SSI_A7237BA48A

 

 

Consistent with recent years, the Food and Drug Administration inspected just less than 2% of food and feed imports in 2012, according to a new report.

The report said the agency examined 1.9%, or 207,839, of more than 11.1 million food import shipments in fiscal year 2012.

In fiscal year 2012, the FDA reports that imported fresh fruit and vegetables totaled 2.189 million shipments out of a total 11.13 million U.S. imported food shipments, or 19.7% of the total. That compares with 1.92 million shipments of imported fresh fruits and vegetables in fiscal year 2011, which represented 18.5% of total imported food shipments of 10.44 million that year, according to the FDA. FDA defines food shipments to include human food, infant formula/food, animal feed, dietary and food and color additives.

The FDA’s 2012 inspection rate of 1.9% of food import shipments compares with a rate of 2.3% in fiscal year 2011, when the FDA said it examined 243,000 food import shipments out of total imports of 10.43 million. For fiscal year 2010, the FDA physically examined 2.1% of food import shipments, or 206,723 lots out of a total of 9.94 million shipments imported.

However, this year’s report said the FDA’s reach was greater than the percent of imports inspected.

“All import entries are electronically screened using an automated system, which helps field inspectors determine which products pose the greatest risk and, therefore, should be physically examined,” according to the report.

When needed, the report said the FDA can issue import bulletins which trigger greater scrutiny for a product or range of products from a supplier.

The average cost of physically inspecting/sampling is about $160 per field exam and $3,100 per sample analyzed, according to the report.

The FDA also provided statistics on the number of inspections the agency performed on domestic and foreign food facilities. In fiscal year 2012, FDA and the states under contract with FDA inspected (or tried to inspect) 24,462 domestic food facilities, according to the report; FDA officials inspected 1,342 foreign food facilities.

As of October 2012, the FDA said there 172,969 registered domestic food facilities and 285,977 foreign food facilities.

The FDA has identified 22,325 domestic food firms as high-risk. Of that total, the FDA said 11,007 were inspected in fiscal year 2011. In fiscal year 2012, another 8,023 high-risk facilities were inspected (or inspection was attempted), totaling 19,030 or 85% of the total high risk domestic food firms. In addition, another 3,736 firms inspected in fiscal year 2011 were re-inspected (or inspection was attempted) in fiscal year 2012.

In fiscal year 2012, the average FDA inspection cost for a high-risk domestic food facility was $15,500, according to the report. while the non high risk domestic food facility inspection average cost was $9,200. Foreign facility inspections were more expensive, the report said; foreign-high risk food facility inspections averaged $23,000 in fiscal year 2012.

Food facility inspections performed by the Food and Drug Administration cost nearly $200 million in fiscal year 2012 according to the FDA’s annual report to Congress on food imports and food facilities.

The report said the total budgeted money for inspections totaled $198.5 million in fiscal year 2012. Of that total, the FDA said $145.2 million was used for FDA inspections of domestic facilities and $34.7 million for FDA inspection of foreign facilities. In addition to those amounts, the FDA said $18.6 million was provided to state agencies, through contracts, to perform domestic inspections on behalf of FDA. Those figures don’t include the cost of inspections at the border, the FDA said, since those inspections are not performed in registered facilities, according to the report. The agency devotes more than 1,300 full time equivalent staff to conduct inspections and food safety investigations, according to the report.

- See more at: http://www.thepacker.com/fruit-vegetable-news/FDAs-report-shows-2-inspection-rate-for-imports-233635361.html?view=all#sthash.1qs6LwAU.dpuf

Your #Thanksgiving dinner brought to you by American Farmers/Ranchers – great infograph provided by the #USDA http://t.co/vtWoO48tWj

Thank You AMERICA’S FARMERS!!! “.

Thank You AMERICA’S FARMERS!!! “

If your eating a meal today then you need to see this.

http://bit.ly/1cscoxp 

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,830 other followers