robert e. brackett, ph.d. senior vice president and chief science and regulatory affairs officer
DESCRIPTION
The impact of pre-harvest practices on the microbial safety of produce— the US experience IAFP Latin America Symposium on Food Safety Campinas, SP, Brazil May 26, 2008. Robert E. Brackett, Ph.D. Senior Vice President and Chief Science and Regulatory Affairs Officer - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
The impact of pre-harvest practices on the microbial safety of produce—
the US experienceIAFP Latin America Symposium on Food Safety
Campinas, SP, BrazilMay 26, 2008
Robert E. Brackett, Ph.D.Senior Vice President and
Chief Science and Regulatory Affairs OfficerGrocery Manufacturer’s Association
Outbreaks of foodborne illness associated with fresh produce are becoming more apparent.
Outbreaks
• Seen an increase in the number of reported outbreaks of foodborne illnesses from fresh produce– E. coli O157:H7 outbreaks
• From spinach – 204 cases in 26 States• From lettuce at Taco John’s – 81 cases in 3 States• From lettuce at Taco Bell – 71 cases in 5 States
Outbreaks
• Seen an increase in the number of reported outbreaks of foodborne illnesses from fresh produce– E. coli O157:H7 outbreaks– Salmonella Typhimurium outbreak from
tomatoes• 186 cases in 21 States
Outbreaks
• Seen an increase in the number of reported outbreaks of foodborne illnesses from fresh produce– E. coli O157:H7 outbreaks– Salmonella Typhimurium outbreak from
tomatoes– Salmonella Newport from tomatoes
• 98 cases 19 States
Recent Outbreaks
• Seen an increase in the number of reported outbreaks of foodborne illnesses from fresh produce
• There are several possible explanations for the apparent increase– Better and more rapid detection of outbreaks– Increase in sale of fresh-cut produce– Globalization of the produce supply– Increase in the numbers of consumers at high risk
for foodborne illnesses
Increase in Outbreaks
• Data reported to CDC indicate that between 1973 and 1997 reported outbreaks associated with fresh produce increased.– From 0.7% in the 1970s to 6% of all outbreaks
in the 1990s.
Average annual number of produce-associated outbreaks by decade, USA,1973-2002*
3.76.5
10.5
49.8
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
1973-79 1980-89 1990-97 1998-2002
Decade
Outbreaks/year
* Preliminary data
*
Increase in Outbreaks
• Data reported to CDC indicate that between 1973 and 1997 reported outbreaks associated with fresh produce increased.
• Unpublished data compiled by FDA indicate that from 1996 to 2006 there were approximately 71 reported outbreaks associated with fresh produce.
Vehicle Categories 1996 - 2006
Category Outbreaks Illnesses
Processed Foods 53 3,219
Produce 71 8,734Sprouts 27 1,633
Seafood 99 2,822
Eggs 207 6,558
Opportunities for Contamination
Before and During Harvest
Contamination Opportunities
• Animal Management Issues
Animal Management
• Wild animals in the field
• Domestic animals in the field
• Animal manure in the field
Contamination Opportunities
• Animal Management Issues
• Processing/Packing Operations
Processing and Packing Operations
• Unsanitary conditions• Produce not cleaned• Packing in the field• Vermin
Contamination Opportunities
• Animal Management Issues
• Processing/Packing Operations
• Worker Health/Hygiene
Work Health and Hygiene
• Inadequate handwashing
• Inadequate hygiene training
• Unsanitary worker facilities
• Unexplained worker absences
• Community illnesses
Contamination Opportunities
• Animal Management Issues
• Processing/Packing Operations
• Worker Health/Hygiene
• Harvest Tools/Equipment
• Bare hand or unknown glove use
• Cross contamination issues
• Non-sanitized tools
• Non-cleanable tools
Harvest Tools and Equipment
Contamination Opportunities
• Animal Management Issues
• Processing/Packing Operations
• Worker Health/Hygiene
• Harvest Tools/Equipment
• Water Issues
Water Issues
• Inadequate chlorination
• Hydrocooler Issues
• Storage tank issues
• Ice issues
• Cross connection issues
E. coli O157:H7 Outbreak Associated with Pre-Packaged
Spinach Findings
Findings Related to Growing
• E. coli O157:H7 found in environmental samples collected near the fields that provided the spinach– River water– Cattle feces– Wild pig feces
Investigation Findings Related to Growing
• E. coli O157:H7 found in environmental samples collected near the fields that provided the spinach
• Ready-to-eat crops are being grown in close proximity to livestock or livestock waste
Investigation Findings Related to Growing
• E. coli O157:H7 found in environmental samples collected near the fields that provided the spinach
• Ready-to-eat crops are being grown in close proximity to livestock or livestock waste
• Evidence of wildlife activity in proximity to fields where ready-to-eat crops are grown – Riparian habitats
Investigation Findings Related to Growing
• E. coli O157:H7 found in environmental samples collected near the fields that provided the spinach
• Ready-to-eat crops are being grown in close proximity to livestock or livestock waste
• Evidence of wildlife activity in proximity to fields where ready-to-eat crops are grown
• Irrigation wells used for ready-to-eat produce exposed to feces from cattle and wildlife via surface waterways
Other Investigation Findings
• E. coli O157:H7 was not found in the samples taken from the processor.
Other Investigation Findings
• E. coli O157:H7 was not found in the samples taken from the processor.
• Number of other conditions observed that may provide opportunities for spread of pathogens, if pathogens arrived on incoming products.– Harvesting– Cooling– Processing
E. coli O157:H7 in the Salinas Valley Watershed Study*
January 2005 – August 2006
*Robert E. Mandrell, Ph.D.*Robert E. Mandrell, Ph.D.Research Leader, Produce Safety and MicrobiologyResearch Leader, Produce Safety and Microbiology Research UnitResearch UnitUSDA, Agricultural Research Service, Western Regional Research CenterUSDA, Agricultural Research Service, Western Regional Research Center
Salinas Valley Watershed Study
• Prompted by identification of a farm that supplied leafy vegetables associated with 3 separate outbreaks
Salinas Valley Watershed Study
• Prompted by identification of a farm that supplied leafy vegetables associated with 3 separate outbreaks
• “Farm” investigation: soil, water, plants, feces tested
Salinas Valley Watershed Study
• Prompted by identification of a farm that supplied leafy vegetables associated with 3 separate outbreaks
• “Farm” investigation: soil, water, plants, feces tested
• E. coli O157:H7 isolated from samples obtained from 15 of 22 different Salinas Valley (California) watershed locations– Highest incidence occurred after heavy rainfall
Salinas Valley Watershed Study
• E. coli strains representing at least 203 different genetic fingerprint types (MLVA) were identified for all isolates tested
Salinas Valley Watershed Study• E. coli strains representing at least 203
different genetic fingerprint types (MLVA) were identified for all isolates tested
• Sets of strains with identical MLVA types were isolated from watershed samples up to eight months apart, and samples collected at, near, and up to 20 miles away from, a point source on same and different days
Salinas Valley Watershed Study• E. coli strains representing at least 203 different
genetic fingerprint types (MLVA) were identified for all isolates tested
• Sets of strains with identical MLVA types were isolated from watershed samples up to eight months apart, and samples collected at, near, and up to 20 miles away from, a point source on same and different days
• Strains with nearly identical MLVA types were isolated from 3 farm/ranches separated approximately 18 to 45 miles apart
Salinas Valley Watershed Study
• Results from the Salinas watershed study and the spinach outbreak investigation indicate that E. coli O157 was isolated more frequently from samples obtained near or on grazing land compared to other locations
Salinas Valley Watershed Study
• Results from the Salinas watershed study and the spinach outbreak investigation indicate that E. coli O157 was isolated more frequently from samples obtained near or on grazing land compared to other locations
• Results are consistent with the frequent incidence of E. coli O157 reported in numerous surveys of incidence in cattle in other locations of the country and incidence in water
Time for a More Holistic View
“Balancing Agriculture, Food Safety, and Environmental
Concerns”
Potential Conflict with Environmental and Wildlife Preservation Efforts
• Concern about the potential conflict between food safety, environmental and wildlife preservation efforts
Potential Effect of Food Safety Practices
• Concerns about the effects of food safety practices on water quality– Riparian buffers, grassed waterways, filter
strips and other forms of non-crop vegetation are critical conservation measures for reduction of sedimentation and filtering of other pollutants
Potential Effect of Food Safety Practices
• Concerns about the effects of food safety practices on habitats– Riparian vegetation provides important
substrates for aquatic invertebrates, cover for predator avoidance, and resting habitats
• Removal of non-crop vegetation may increase sedimentation and lead to habitat degradation
• Increased suspended solids from runoff have damaging physical and biological effects
Where Do We Go From Here?
“Working Together with the Agricultural and Environmental
Communities To Find Solutions”
We Are In This Together
• Must work TOGETHER to solve the problem instead of each of us solving our piece of the problem
Best Practices
• Need to better understand the dynamics of agriculture, food safety practices, and the environment
Best Practices
• Need to better understand the dynamics of agriculture, food safety practices, and the environment– We know cattle are a principal source of E.
coli because the organism lives in the intestines of healthy cattle
Best Practices
• Need to better understand the dynamics of agriculture, food safety practices, and the environment– We know cattle are a principal source of E. coli
because the organism lives in the intestines of healthy cattle
– We know cattle manure is an important source of E. coli infection and can contaminate the environment, including streams that flow through produce fields and are used for irrigation, pesticide application, or washing
Best Practices
• Need to better understand the dynamics of agriculture, food safety practices, and the environment
• Need to identify and better understand the “stumbling blocks” so that we can work together to develop and implement solutions
Best Practices
• Need to better understand the dynamics of agriculture, food safety practices, and the environment
• Need to identify and better understand the “stumbling blocks” so that we can work together to develop and implement solutions– Are vertebrate populations sources of E. coli
O157:H7 contamination of watersheds?
Best Practices
• Need to better understand the dynamics of agriculture, food safety practices, and the environment
• Need to identify and better understand the “stumbling blocks” so that we can work together to develop and implement solutions– Are vertebrate populations sources of E. coli O157:H7
contamination of watersheds?– Do climate, landscape attributes and irrigation
management practices correlate with an increased risk of contamination?
Best Practices• Need to better understand the dynamics of
agriculture, food safety practices, and the environment
• Need to identify and better understand the “stumbling blocks” so that we can work together to develop and implement solutions– Are vertebrate populations sources of E. coli O157:H7
contamination of watersheds?– Do climate, landscape attributes and irrigation
management practices correlate with an increased risk of contamination?
– Is in-field contamination associated with management production practices and environmental risk factors?
Best Practices
• Need to better understand the dynamics of agriculture, food safety practices, and the environment
• Need to identify and better understand the “stumbling blocks” so that we can work together to develop and implement solutions
• Use of guidance to identify the best practices and solutions
Next Steps
“Future Strategies and Activities for Produce Safety”
A closer examination of the measures and their effectiveness
and determination of what additional or different interventions might be
appropriate.
Potential Interventions
• Identify risk factors for contamination of fresh produce associated with agricultural and manufacturing practices
Potential Interventions
• Identify risk factors for contamination of fresh produce associated with agricultural and manufacturing practices– Leafy Green Safety Initiative
Leafy Green Safety Initiative
• Collaborative effort, initiated in 2006, between U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and State of California’s Departments of Public Health and Food and Agriculture
Leafy Green Safety Initiative
• Collaborative effort, initiated in 2006, between FDA and State of California’s Departments of Public Health and Food and Agriculture– Part of a risk-based strategy intended to
reduce public health risks by heightening the focus of preventative food safety efforts on specific products, practices, pathogens, and growing areas of concern
Leafy Green Safety Initiative
• Collaborative effort, initiated in 2006, between FDA and State of California’s Departments of Public Health and Food and Agriculture– Part of a risk-based strategy intended to reduce public health risks by
heightening the focus of preventative food safety efforts on specific products, practices, pathogens, and growing areas of concern
– In 2007, FDA, State of California Departments of Public Health and Food and Agriculture, with the cooperation of industry began visiting farms:
• to assess the prevalence of factors in and near the field environment which may contribute to potential contamination
Leafy Green Safety Initiative• Collaborative effort, initiated in 2006, between FDA and State of
California’s Departments of Public Health and Food and Agriculture– Part of a risk-based strategy intended to reduce public health risks by
heightening the focus of preventative food safety efforts on specific products, practices, pathogens, and growing areas of concern
– In 2007, FDA, State of California Departments of Public Health and Food and Agriculture, with the cooperation of industry began visiting farms:
• to assess the prevalence of factors in and near the field environment which may contribute to potential contamination
• to assess the extent to which Good Agricultural Practices (GAPs) and other preventative controls are being implemented
Potential Interventions
• Identify risk factors for contamination of fresh produce associated with agricultural and manufacturing practices– Leafy Green Safety Initiative– Tomato Safety Initiative
Tomato Safety Initiative
• Collaborative effort, initiated in 2007, between FDA and state health and agriculture departments in Virginia and Florida, in cooperation with several universities and members of the produce industry
Tomato Safety Initiative
• Collaborative effort, initiated in 2007, between FDA and state health and agriculture departments in Virginia and Florida, in cooperation with several universities and members of the produce industry
– Part of a risk-based strategy to reduce foodborne illness by focusing efforts on specific products, practices, and growing areas found to be problematic in the past
Tomato Safety Initiative
• Virginia based tomato farms and packing facilities were visited:– To assess food safety practices
Tomato Safety Initiative
• Virginia based tomato farms and packing facilities were visited:– To assess food safety practices– To assess what degree Good Agricultural
Practices (GAPs) and Good Manufacturing Practices (GMPs) are implemented
Tomato Safety Initiative
• Virginia based tomato farms and packing facilities were visited:– To assess food safety practices– To assess what degree Good Agricultural
Practices (GAPs) and Good Manufacturing Practices (GMPs) are implemented
– To assess a variety of environmental factors including:
Tomato Safety Initiative
• Virginia based tomato farms and packing facilities were visited:– To assess food safety practices– To assess what degree Good Agricultural
Practices (GAPs) and Good Manufacturing Practices (GMPs) are implemented
– To assess a variety of environmental factors including:
• Irrigation water
Tomato Safety Initiative• Virginia based tomato farms and packing
facilities were visited:– To assess food safety practices– To assess what degree Good Agricultural Practices
(GAPs) and Good Manufacturing Practices (GMPs) are implemented
– To assess a variety of environmental factors including:
• Irrigation water• Wells
Tomato Safety Initiative• Virginia based tomato farms and packing
facilities were visited:– To assess food safety practices– To assess what degree Good Agricultural Practices
(GAPs) and Good Manufacturing Practices (GMPs) are implemented
– To assess a variety of environmental factors including:
• Irrigation water• Wells• Procedures for mixing chemicals
Tomato Safety Initiative• Virginia based tomato farms and packing facilities were
visited:– To assess food safety practices– To assess what degree Good Agricultural Practices (GAPs) and
Good Manufacturing Practices (GMPs) are implemented
– To assess a variety of environmental factors including:
• Irrigation water• Wells• Procedures for mixing chemicals• Drought and flooding events
Tomato Safety Initiative• Virginia based tomato farms and packing facilities were visited:
– To assess food safety practices– To assess what degree Good Agricultural Practices (GAPs) and Good
Manufacturing Practices (GMPs) are implemented
– To assess a variety of environmental factors including:
• Irrigation water• Wells• Procedures for mixing chemicals• Drought and flooding events• Animal proximity to growing fields
Potential Interventions
• Identify risk factors for contamination of fresh produce associated with agricultural and manufacturing practices
• Identify possible measures to improve safety
Potential Interventions
• Identify risk factors for contamination of fresh produce associated with agricultural and manufacturing practices
• Identify possible measures to improve safety
• Develop additional guidance– Refine Good Agricultural Practices– Commodity and/or Region Specific
Summary
• Fruit and vegetables are major components of a healthy diet, but eating fresh uncooked produce is not risk free.
Summary
• Fruit and vegetables are major components of a healthy diet, but eating fresh uncooked produce is not risk free.
• Greater application and implementation of good agricultural practices and good manufacturing practices are key to minimizing the microbial hazards and associated risks.
Summary
• Fruit and vegetables are major components of a healthy diet, but eating fresh uncooked produce is not risk free.
• Greater application and implementation of good agricultural practices and good manufacturing practices are key to minimizing the microbial hazards and associated risks.
• Solutions must balance agricultural, food safety, and environmental needs.
Summary
• Fruit and vegetables are major components of a healthy diet, but eating fresh uncooked produce is not risk free.
• Greater application and implementation of good agricultural practices and good manufacturing practices are key to minimizing the microbial hazards and associated risks.
• Solutions must balance agricultural, food safety, and environmental needs.
• Increasing scientific knowledge and understanding of the risk factors are key to development and implementation of effective risk management strategies.
Summary
• Fruit and vegetables are major components of a healthy diet, but eating fresh uncooked produce is not risk free.
• Greater application and implementation of good agricultural practices and good manufacturing practices are key to minimizing the microbial hazards and associated risks.
• Solutions must balance agricultural, food safety, and environmental needs.
• Increasing scientific knowledge and understanding of the risk factors are key to development and implementation of effective risk management strategies.
• Success in improving the safety of fresh produce requires collaboration and cooperation.