15 replies to this topic

[kingstudruler1]

Doesnt sound good.   

 

https://www.foodsafe...teria-outbreak/

[ChristinaK]

Yuck.

If there's buildup of meat, mold, etc. that's a lot of substrate that would allow microorganisms to adhere and being forming biofilms...I would be testing for pseudomonas or other primary colonizer organisms that could indicate they have biofilm colonies in the plant. Because if listeria is in a biofilm community, it becomes much harder to eliminate. 

 

Definitely avoiding Boar's Head products for the foreseeable future, because those listed violations and their poor recall response don't give me any reason to believe they are capable of returning to sanitary operating conditions.

[MDaleDDF]

I think one of the points Scampi was making in the other thread on this topic, which is not even arguable, is that once Listeria is in a plant, it's extremely difficult to get it gone completely.    And I concur 100%....

I never bought boar's head stuff before, but for what it's worth, I DEFINITELY don't now....

[kfromNE]

I looked it up. Got an excellent rating in their last SQF audit in May. It was an unannounced audit. 

They must have hid their problems from the audit or the audit wasn't done well or something completely else that I'm not thinking of. 

Edited by kfromNE, 03 September 2024 - 05:33 PM.

[kconf]

Now that is unbelievable - excellent in SQF. They must have had been sold. 

[Scampi]

Yet another example that proves my points on GFSI schemes         @SQF in what world should this facility have been given an Excellent rating!?!?!?!       Clearly the auditor hasn't enough experience in deli meat processing to know what to look for and I would wager a years salary that they DID NOT perform an independent pre op during the audit

 

Boars head may never recover from this, why do business' find it hard to understand that doing things right the first time is ALWAYS cheaper than ignoring a potentially bad situation

[kingstudruler1]

I looked it up. Got an excellent rating in their last SQF audit in May. It was an unannounced audit. 

They must have hid their problems from the audit or the audit wasn't done well or something completely else that I'm not thinking of. 

 

 

I looked that up as well.   GFSI audits have become a joke.  

[Seathalos]

And now there is a large possibility that the town of Jarratt, especially all of those that worked in the facility, will have a major economic hardship because the facilities upper management did not make sure that they were producing safe to eat food and slacked off on their sanitation. And I am willing to bet any amount of some it had to do with it being "too expensive" and/or "we never had an 'issue' before". I honestly feel like these issues will continue to happen until we can properly nationalize auditing bodies because if they are treated as a business that needs to be profitable instead of a public service that we need to have corners will continue to be cut. Then there is the constant issue of the Judicial branch having the unconstitutional and undemocratic power to enact policy decisions in the US. Honestly could see a regression to the early 1900's for quality and food safety in the next few years if something isn't changed. 

 

Maybe it is time to go into Muck Rucking like I aspired to as a high schooler 

[ChristinaK]

And now there is a large possibility that the town of Jarratt, especially all of those that worked in the facility, will have a major economic hardship because the facilities upper management did not make sure that they were producing safe to eat food and slacked off on their sanitation. And I am willing to bet any amount of some it had to do with it being "too expensive" and/or "we never had an 'issue' before".

 

It would be a similar situation with PepsiCo shutting down the Danville, IL Quaker Oats facility because they didn't feel like updating the site. I believe something like 500 jobs lost for a town that didn't have many other large employers. They stated that employees would have the option to relocate to other facilities, but who the heck can afford to do that when rent, house prices, and loan interest are still so high? A terrible situation for all floor workers. :-(

[Seathalos]

It would be a similar situation with PepsiCo shutting down the Danville, IL Quaker Oats facility because they didn't feel like updating the site. I believe something like 500 jobs lost for a town that didn't have many other large employers. They stated that employees would have the option to relocate to other facilities, but who the heck can afford to do that when rent, house prices, and loan interest are still so high? A terrible situation for all floor workers. :-(

Yeah, this is one of the biggest reasons I loose my cool whenever Ops says "we have to fudge x,y,z." and "I'm not trying to get this place shut down" in the same breath. They don't realize the cost of trying to fix a problem instead of mitigating the possibility of it ever happening. Like sure you have been doing this for 20+ years and haven't had any "problems" yet but it doesn't mean that they can't or won't happen in the future. Spending the money to make sure we are doing it right in the beginning will make sure we aren't spending hundreds of thousands to millions that a recall could cost us. Just because you hid the potential points of failure doesn't mean it isn't still there.

 

But I put it mostly on most food safety cultures being more so "compliance" culture than actual food safety.

[kfromNE]

And now there is a large possibility that the town of Jarratt, especially all of those that worked in the facility, will have a major economic hardship because the facilities upper management did not make sure that they were producing safe to eat food and slacked off on their sanitation. And I am willing to bet any amount of some it had to do with it being "too expensive" and/or "we never had an 'issue' before". I honestly feel like these issues will continue to happen until we can properly nationalize auditing bodies because if they are treated as a business that needs to be profitable instead of a public service that we need to have corners will continue to be cut. Then there is the constant issue of the Judicial branch having the unconstitutional and undemocratic power to enact policy decisions in the US. Honestly could see a regression to the early 1900's for quality and food safety in the next few years if something isn't changed. 

 

Maybe it is time to go into Muck Rucking like I aspired to as a high schooler 

 

We don't need to nationalize auditing bodies. We have the USDA and FDA. The USDA was on-site and inspected them daily. The problem - the lack of power for the USDA to shut the facility down or make if financially worth it to fix the problems. 

 

Side note: It shouldn't be up to one inspector's decision to shut a facility down. We all know of the inspectors that had their own interpretation of the rules and wrote NR's for every little thing. 

 

The bigger problem that is hard to solve: a balance of laws. So not too many to make it impossible for the companies doing things right. But enough for the 'bad apples' that could care less about food safety and only profit. What I tell the director of production - I wouldn't have to put in more paperwork, SOPs, etc or make them more strict if the employees followed the original ones in the first place. It was the errors that happened on multiple occasions to why more drastic changes were made. However, I'm also the first to admit when something I made is the cause. 

Edited by kfromNE, 03 September 2024 - 07:31 PM.

[Scampi]

We don't need to nationalize auditing bodies. We have the USDA and FDA. The USDA was on-site and inspected them daily. The problem - the lack of power for the USDA to shut the facility down or make if financially worth it to fix the problems.

I couldn't disagree more         when facilities like this receive an Excellent audit score, there is an issue there is essentially no one watching the hen house for which we all pay 1000s of dollars a year for the privilege (which is now actually a requirement to be able to sell your product) and should not be isolated to the USA, but should be an international body

[kconf]

Maybe they lowered their standards for them. For a meat plan, they thought the conditions were "excellent". (I am not supporting them by any means, just to be clear)

[Seathalos]

We don't need to nationalize auditing bodies. We have the USDA and FDA. The USDA was on-site and inspected them daily. The problem - the lack of power for the USDA to shut the facility down or make if financially worth it to fix the problems. 

 

Side note: It shouldn't be up to one inspector's decision to shut a facility down. We all know of the inspectors that had their own interpretation of the rules and wrote NR's for every little thing. 

 

The bigger problem that is hard to solve: a balance of laws. So not too many to make it impossible for the companies doing things right. But enough for the 'bad apples' that could care less about food safety and only profit. What I tell the director of production - I wouldn't have to put in more paperwork, SOPs, etc or make them more strict if the employees followed the original ones in the first place. It was the errors that happened on multiple occasions to why more drastic changes were made. However, I'm also the first to admit when something I made is the cause. 

Never said it should be one inspector that can shut down a facility. Nationalizing it would allow there to be more funds provided (As long as the neo-liberal understanding of public services stays out of it). I agree with Scampi that international and jointly funded body would be best. Having n amount of different auditing bodies with all different interpretations of guidelines set will always lead to major cracks in a system as one person might think something isn't as important to food safety when the opposite is true. 

 

It has been shown time and time again when public services are privatized they become worse than before as under our current systems of economics if you aren't having infinite profit growth you are "failing" when it should be focused on providing the greatest amount of benefits to the entire populace. 

 

I'm not saying we should have more laws, but having a single easy to understand guideline of what is expected for food safety that is actually followed and verified instead of our current system.

[ChristinaK]

I would hope that SQFI is looking into that auditor who gave them the excellent rating. Sheesh.

 

SQF 2.4.1.3 requires that the site notify SQF and the CB of any regulatory warnings or events. Per the below definition (from SQF v9), shouldn't those documented non-compliances brought up the the USDA reps require notification then??

Regulatory Warning: A formal notification or advisory from a relevant authority to a certified site regarding a breach in legislative requirements.

 

I think SQF code should include a clause addressing recalls that result in the death of a consumer...something like your certification is suspended until...

 

The current death toll and hospitalizations associated with the Boar's Head listeria contamination is at 9 people dead, 57 hospitalized. 

[G M]

...

SQF 2.4.1.3 requires that the site notify SQF and the CB of any regulatory warnings or events. Per the below definition (from SQF v9), shouldn't those documented non-compliances brought up the the USDA reps require notification then??

...

 

That would be heavily disproportionate in our regulatory system.  Every USDA facility would be contacting their CB a dozen times a year, and FDA regulated facilities would go years without, simply because the FSIS is mandated to be on site every day to 'grant inspection' and the FDA has trouble meeting their own woefully inadequate target of being on site once in 3-5 years.  If no one is around, no problems are observed or reported.

 

The USDA-FSIS NR system doesn't distinguish severity or likelihood of causing harm either.  Condensation on a doorway that no one has passed through in a month is the same as a leaking pipe over a processing line.  Just like with GFSI auditors, the FSIS inspectors have a great deal of discretion in how things are interpreted and disagreement has an appeals process -- but unlike your auditor from the CB, the FSIS auditor is assigned to an area (probably living close by, and inspecting one large facility, or a few small ones) and you will keep seeing them every day (they are around so frequently you are expected to provide them an office in your facility) -- so generally if they point out a problem the facility "hops to it" to correct most issues to the inspectors satisfaction.  

 

You can catch that sentiment in one of the quotes from Boar's Head "...and if at any time inspectors identify something that needs to be addressed, our team does so immediately..."