MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
Autumn 2007
Volume 1, Issue 4
PWDU Quarterly Update
Partnership and Workforce Development Unit
http://www.health.state.mn.us/freedomtobreathe/
BACKGROUND
New Freedom to Breathe (FTB)
provisions, under the Minnesota
Clean Indoor Air Act (MCIAA) come
into effect today, October 1, 2007.
Under FTB provisions, smoking is
now prohibited in nearly all indoor
public places and
indoor places of
employment.
This article will
address some of
the most common
questions being
asked about the
new law, including, the role of facility managers,
the definition of “indoors,” and how
the FTB provisions will be enforced.
MANAGERS’ ROLES
Facility managers are required to:
•
Post "No Smoking" signs at or
near all public entrances.
•
Ask persons who smoke in restricted areas to stop smoking
or require the person to leave
the facility if they refuse to stop.
•
Use lawful methods like those
used with disorderly persons for
patrons that refuse to comply.
•
•
Refrain from providing ashtrays
and matches indoors.
Withhold service for patrons
who will not comply.
A manager or owner who knowingly
fails to comply with the provisions of
the law is guilty of a petty
misdemeanor. Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) has the
authority to take enforcement
actions that may include monetary
penalties up to $10,000. Local
public health agencies may choose
to respond with fines, license
suspension, or other means.
WHEN IS INDOORS, INDOORS?
Smoking will not be allowed in
indoor areas, regardless of
special accommodations such as
ventilation. Smoking shacks, tents
and patios must not be “indoors”
according to the following
50 percent rule:
Indoor area means all space
between a floor and a ceiling that is
bounded by walls, doorways, or
windows, whether open or closed,
covering more than 50 percent of
the combined surface area of the
vertical planes [walls] that are the
perimeter of the area.
For example, a shelter with
removable windows is an indoor
area when the windows are in
place, whether they are open or
closed. This becomes an outdoor
area when the windows have been
removed from the structure, if the
open or screened area comprises
at least 50 percent of all wall space.
ENFORCEMENT & COMPLIANCE
During the first year, MDH and its
partners, including the Local Public
Health Association (LPHA), will
focus their FTB efforts on education
and compliance assistance.
LPHA and MDH staff have made
presentations at many conferences
and held statewide video conference
training sessions in August and
September. FTB information is available in a variety of formats and on a
number of websites (see Page 8).
It is expected that most facility
managers and patrons will comply
with the law once they understand its
requirements. “Compliance
assistance letters,” available on MDH
and partner websites will play an
important role. These letters can be
sent by local public health or
concerned citizens to facilities where
smoking is occurring, in violation of
the new provisions.
Anyone who observes a violation of
the smoking laws can send a
compliance letter (see link, Page 8) to
remind the facility manager of the
October 1, 2007 changes in the law.
MDH and local agencies will initiate
enforcement action when facilities
refuse to comply.
In this issue:
Freedom to Breathe Legislation
Page 1
Delegation Agreement—Next Steps
Page 2
Environmental Health Knowledge
Management Project—Food Program
Page 3
Effective Communication
Pages 4-5
Bug of the Quarter—Botulism
Page 6
The Pickle Law—Home-Canned Goods
Page 7
Freedom to Breathe, continued
A Note from April Bogard
Page 8
Page 2
PWDU Quarterly Update
Delegation Agreement Advisory Council - Next Steps
BACKGROUND
LEADERSHIP ROUNDTABLE
DELEGATION AGREEMENT
In April 2007, an Advisory Council
was formed to review the draft
Delegation Agreement for Environmental Health (EH) Services.
Advisory Council membership was
based on nominations from stakeholders and approved by the
Commissioner of Health.
MDH Environmental Health Division
Director, John Stine, agreed that
the time had come to reinstitute
statewide environmental health
meetings. He proposed a regularly
scheduled roundtable among MDH
and local EH Directors (or Community Health Directors of counties
without an EH Director). It is hoped
that the first of these meetings will
be held in January 2008.
After the last Advisory Council
meeting, MDH staff revised the
Delegation Agreement and submitted the draft to MDH legal counsel.
The next draft will be reviewed by
several City and County Attorneys.
After a final revision, the Delegation
Agreement and accompanying
documents will be introduced to
stakeholders throughout the state.
MDH has not yet determined a
sunset date for existing Delegation
Agreements. We will continue to
update stakeholders, as these and
other details are determined.
The Advisory Council has held five
meetings since April. That process
has resulted in a
near-final draft of
the Delegation
Agreement and
recommendations
for future action.
NEXT STEPS
The Advisory
Council has proposed the following:
•
Continuation of the Delegation
Agreement Advisory Council;
•
Regular meetings of state and
local EH leaders;
•
Formation of a workgroup to
design a process for evaluation
of statewide EH programs; and
•
Formation of a workgroup to
write a best practices manual,
including materials from state
and local EH programs.
ADVISORY COUNCIL
Advisory Council members who
were present at the September 13,
2007 meeting agreed that they
would be willing to continue their
service until these recommendations had been carried out. They
also advised long-term continuation
of the Advisory Council to assist
MDH with future implementation of
delegation agreements and to assist with the creation of statewide
EH program goals and standards.
EVALUATION PROCESS
MDH staff, and counties with
delegation agreements received an
email on September 17, 2007
requesting nominations for inclusion
in an Evaluation Workgroup to be
chaired by Michael Nordos, of the
MDH Partnership and Workforce
Development Unit.
The workgroup will consist of five
MDH staff and five staff from delegated agencies. One local agency
member from each of the two city
and three county “teams” (see
adjoining text box) will be selected
by their respective Advisory Council
member from nominations received.
The workgroup will design a
process for program evaluation
during twice-monthly meetings to
begin in October. A draft evaluation
is expected before May 2008.
Advisory Council Membership
Representing Delegated Programs:
•
Minnesota Cities:
Lynn Moore, Bloomington
Sherry Engelman, Edina
•
Cities of the First Class:
Bill Gunther, Saint Paul
Curt Fernandez, Minneapolis
•
Non-Metro Small Counties:
Jason Petersen, Goodhue
David Benson, Nobles
Bill Patnaude, Beltrami
•
Metro Counties:
Cindy Weckwerth, Washington
Duane Hudson, Hennepin
•
Non-Metro Large Counties:
Pete Giesen, Olmsted
Hank Schreifels, Stearns
MANUAL WORKGROUP
Representing All Stakeholders:
Advisory Council members Bill
Gunther, Curt Fernandez, Lynn
Moore, and Pete Giesen offered to
draft the outline for an EH manual
and toolkit. After review of the
outline at the next Advisory Council
meeting, topic experts will be
recruited for a Manual Workgroup
to draft specific Manual chapters.
•
Local Public Health Association:
Sandy Tubbs; Julie Ring
•
Association Minnesota Counties:
John Baerg; Patricia Coldwell.
•
State Community Health Services
Advisory Committee (SCHSAC):
Larry Kittelson; Bev Wangerin.
•
Hospitality Minnesota:
Kevin Matzek; Dave Siegel.
Page 3
EHKMP (FOOD PROGRAM) UPDATE
We are pleased to congratulate
the Environmental Health
Knowledge Management
(EHKMP) Working Group
Food Program on the approval
of their Action Plan, Part 1,
by the
EHKMP Steering Committee.
BACKGROUND
In October 2005, MDH hosted a
meeting at which environmental
health (EH) partners from across
the state discussed the sharing and
collection of EH data. With the
support of that group, MDH took the
lead in bringing together a group of
stakeholders to examine the possibility of statewide EH data sharing.
The effort that resulted from those
early discussions became the
Environmental Health Knowledge
Management Project (EHKMP).
EHKMP is described as an initiative
to improve EH services in Minnesota through strategic application
and management of EH information
on a statewide basis.
In November 2005, MDH solicited
volunteers to serve on the EHKMP
Steering Committee. That group
selected food program information
as the first focus of EHKMP efforts.
(Future working groups will
consider the information collected
by drinking water, lead, radon, and
other programs)
The EHMKP Working Group (Food
Program) was soon formed. The
ten member group includes local
partners, a representative of the
Minnesota Environmental Health
Association, and staff from the
Minnesota Departments of Health
and Agriculture. Two members of
the EHKMP Steering Committee
have also participated on the
Working Group (Food Program).
steps for improving statewide
sharing of food program
licensure, inspection, and
enforcement data; and
INITIAL GUIDANCE
The EHKMP Steering Committee
laid the foundation for the Food
Program and subsequent working
groups by creating the following:
•
A diagram or “mind map” that
illustrates the benefits of
EHKMP and the key relationships and activities that will be
important to its success;
•
A vision statement; and
•
Programmatic goals for the
EHKMP food program effort.
WORKING GROUP
After more
than a year
of hard
work, the
EHKMP
Working
Group (Food
Program)
has finalized
documents that comprise Part 1:
An Action Plan to Improve the
Sharing of Food Program
Licensure, Inspection, and
Enforcement Data.
The draft action plan includes:
•
•
•
Diagrams illustrating the basic
flow of licensure, inspection,
and enforcement data within
food programs;
A dictionary of food program
data elements considered important to share on a statewide
basis (including separate data
dictionaries for licensure,
inspection, and enforcement);
Recommendations and action
•
Many supporting documents.
NEXT STEPS
The EHKMP Steering Committee
approved the EHKMP Action Plan:
Part 1—Food in September 2007.
MDH staffer and EHKMP project
manager, Jennifer Miller, will make
a few last revisions to action plan
documents prior to their posting on
the EHKMP website in early
October 2007.
Plans for implementation of the
action plan will be discussed at the
next meeting of the EHKMP Steering Committee (October 24, 2007).
Several presentations introducing
EHKMP process, plans, and
products have already been made;
more will be forthcoming as local
partners are recruited to join the
MDH food program in adopting the
action plan.
FOR MORE INFORMATION
To learn more about the EHKMP
and its first action plan to be
approved and endorsed by the
EHKMP Steering Committee,
please visit the EHKMP website at:
http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/e
h/local/knowproj/index.html.
Feel free to contact Jennifer Miller,
if you have questions about
EHKMP or wish to schedule a
presentation for your county,
conference or association.
Jennifer L. Miller, MRP
Planner, Division Services Section
Minnesota Department of Health
Division of Environmental Health
651-201-4556
[email protected]
Page 4
PWDU Quarterly Update
Guest Editorial: Toward More Effective Communications —
by Ken Schelper, FMP,
Vice President, Davanni’s
Dedicated to the enlightened
Sanitarians of Olmsted County who
were among the first to jump on this
band wagon with me.
NOTE:
“More Effective Communications”
was the title of a presentation that I
made at the MEHA conference
earlier this year. The focus of my
workshop was how you, as regulators, can more effectively communicate with the establishments and
the people you are charged with
“overseeing.” This advice is from
the perspective of someone who
has been in the restaurant industry
for 31 years and actively involved in
food safety since 1979.
SHARED INTEREST
Effective communications—as well
as persuasion and cooperation—
often start with finding a common
ground or shared interests. For
people working in public health, and
those working in the food industry,
our shared objective should be to
serve safe food to the public.
Foodservice inspectors, that is your
charge under the law. In the foodservice industry, food safety should
be one of our key focuses, but often
is not. This is not because we don’t
view it as important. If you could
remove us from the demands of the
moment, most of us would say that
food safety is vital—and we would
be able to tell you why it is.
Unfortunately, food safety is most at
risk “during the moment” when so
many other things are demanding
one’s immediate attention. If a manager fails to take time to observe
every food-handling practice during
a “rush,” nothing is likely to happen.
If a customer’s food is late or their
order is wrong, the manager will
hear about it—often forcefully and
immediately!
RISK
Whether in the work place or at
home, the same principle holds.
If you are a parent, you should already know this. The least effective
way to get anyone’s willing cooperation is to say “Do it because I
say so.” If they don’t understand
“why” and “buy-in,” they will do
things the way they want to—or the
way that is most expedient, as soon
as your back is turned. It works the
same with employees, young or old.
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?
SOME TACTICAL ADVICE
You don’t have to convince us or
force us (demanding does little
good) - just help us. Help us to
understand your concerns and to
make the connections (Why is this
important to both of us?). Help us to
identify the biggest risks.
DOESN’T THE OLD WAY WORK?
No, it probably never did. Here are
some reasons why:
Food safety is not really under your
control or power: Regardless of
what regulations say, food safety
depends entirely on the day-to-day
practices of our businesses and
employees. In an era of increased
responsibility and increased
budgetary constraints, you are in
our businesses about .03 percent of
our open hours. Food safety
depends almost entirely on what
happens during that other 99.97
percent of the time.
You can’t force people to change:
This is basic human nature.
For the food industry, it means first
being able to identify and prioritize
risks, and then to build good practices into our systems and training.
For public health sanitarians, it
means that you have to take a hard
look at how you spend those two or
so hours a year that you are in our
businesses. It means that you may
need to reconsider what your role is
in the whole scheme of food safety.
It also means that your effectiveness must be even more directly
tied to your communications skills.
All of the regulations, inspection
forms, checklists, and standing
orders in the world are worthless if
you can’t communicate effectively.
HOW DO WE KNOW IF
COMMUNICATIONS ARE
EFFECTIVE?
I define effective communications
as those that are Heard, Understood, Accepted and Acted Upon.
Too often we are satisfied with
Heard (“Well, I told them to …” or “I
wrote them up ...”) Ultimately our
goal should be Willingly Acted Upon
because this implies understanding
and commitment.
Page 5
— Sharing the Common Ground
This takes some effort, but the results are worth it. The food-handling
practices will be good when you
aren’t there and you won’t have to
revisit the same issues in the future.
Consider yourself a coach, not a
cop; a teacher not a regulator. Acting as a cop or a regulator should
be considered a last resort and a
sign of a failure of the system.
authority barrier.
WHAT ARE THE BARRIERS?
Begin with clarifying or establishing
shared goals. During your first inspection of an establishment or first
meeting with a manager, establish
relationships and gather information. These should be your primary
goals for a first visit, so devote at
least 30 minutes to this task. Now
you have significantly reduced the
fear and defensiveness.
Avoid walls, ceilings and nitpicking
as much as possible. Concentrate
instead on real risks specific to the
operation. Provide a focus! If you
overwhelm an operator with issues
(more than three things), some will
be forgotten and none will be
considered very important.
Here are some of the barriers:
authority or status, surprise, defensiveness, fear, distraction, interruption, time (yours and ours), and
language. Are any of these potential factors when you visit our place
of business? (Of course.)
When I refer to language, I’m not
just relating it to our immigrant, nonEnglish speakers but to native-born,
English speakers. Do you know that
today’s high school graduates are
only required to read at an 8th
grade level? Do you know that
about half of the people who take
college entrance exams lack sufficient skills to handle introductory
courses in history or sociology? Do
you know that you don’t always
speak clear, understandable English?
It’s true. I’ve listened to you for over
30 years and you speak FoCoBiL
(standing for Food Code Biological
Legalese). FoCoBiL is filled with
acronyms, scientific & technical
terms, jargon, and numerical references to rules. FoCoBiL is written
using legal language, fancy words,
and unbelievably run-on sentences.
HOW CAN YOU OVERCOME
SOME OF THESE BARRIERS?
Here are some of my recommendations.
Schedule inspections. This will take
care of the surprise and a lot of the
distractions and interruptions.
Stop talking. You can’t learn anything when you are talking—and
you already know what you know.
Before you can be an effective
resource, you have to get to know
the operation, the menu and the
operator. Remember that the
operator is the one who has
ultimate control over food safety.
Observe, ask questions and provide
feedback. It is very hard to “put on
a show” for an inspector (Yes, you
will continue to be inspectors in our
eyes until you change the way you
approach us). If the visit is more
interactive, employees will be less
likely to revert to familiar and incorrect practices after you are gone.
Don’t be condescending or threatening. This will help pull down that
Offer help and resources. Explain
not only the “how” or “what”, but
also the “desired results” and the
“whys.”
Collaborate, negotiate and compromise when possible. Too often sanitarians turn a deaf ear to our operational concerns. Remember that
operators and their employees are
geared towards expediency. The
easier that we can make it for them
to do the right thing, the more likely
they are to do it after you leave.
Set clear goals (no more than three,
if possible) that are mutually acceptable, reasonable and achievable. Have operators take responsibility to contact you when items
have been completed, if they need
help, or if something is preventing
them from meeting the goals.
Finally KISSS – keep it simple,
simple, simple! Don’t talk to me
about comminuted fish, potable
water, or hygroscopic food. If you
can’t figure out a simpler way of
saying something (I bet you can)
take the time to help us to understand the concept, if you expect to
see results.
Agree or disagree with this
editorial? Put your own
editorial on these pages in
the next issue.
Page 6
PWDU Quarterly Update
Quarterly Bug Report - Clostridium botulinum
About Foodborne Botulism
Botulism is a potentially fatal illness
caused by a toxin produced by a
bacterium called Clostridium
botulinum which is commonly found
in soil. These bacteria form spores
which survive in the environment
until conditions are favorable for
growth. They require an anerobic
environment to multiply and produce toxins.
There are three types of botulism:
foodborne, wound, and infant
botulism. Foodborne botulism
occurs when a person ingests food
contaminated with the toxin.
Botulism is quite rare. According to
the Centers for Disease Control
(CDC), an average of 110 cases
are reported each year in the U.S.
About 25 percent are foodborne.
With foodborne botulism, symptoms
usually appear within 18 to 36 hours
after eating. However, they can
start as soon as six hours later, or
as long as 10 days later.
Symptoms include double vision,
blurred vision, drooping eyelids,
slurred speech, difficulty swallowing, dry mouth, and progressive
muscle weakness.
Intensive supportive care in a
hospital is the primary treatment for
botulism. If the illness is identified
quickly, an anti-toxin can be given
to block the effects of the poison.
Foodborne botulism can be prevented through safe food handling
practices. Although most cases of
foodborne botulism are associated
with home-canning, outbreaks have
also occurred from sources such as
improperly handled garlic in oil, chili
peppers, and baked potatoes.
WHY BOTULISM?
The choice of Botulism for this new
“Quarterly Bug Report” might seem
like an odd one, given the rarity of
outbreaks related to C. botulinum.
However, a July 2007 outbreak of
botulism associated with factorycanned chili products proved to be
of considerable interest to the food
community.
First, contrary to
recent history, the
outbreak was not
related to homecanning. Second,
the recall was
complicated by
the gradual expansion of the list of
products that were potentially
involved. Third, it became clear that
a comprehensive notification and
recall of these products would require a multi-jurisdictional effort.
THE CHILI SAUCE RECALL
First announced in mid-July, the
chili sauce recall expanded by the
end of the month to include 10 chili
sauce products, dozens of canned
meals such as hash and stew, and
several varieties of dog food—
ultimately millions of canned food
items. The cause of the outbreak
was being investigated as potentially related to a problem on the
production line months earlier.
clear that existing records and
methods did not allow comprehensive notification of all those facilities
where canned foods are made
available to the public.
In late July, the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) reported that
more than 3,788 retail stores across
the country had been visited by
FDA; 1,390 by the U.S. Department
of Agriculture. (USDA). Recalled
product was found available for
purchase in about 300 stores.
On July 30, USDA issued a bulletin
asking state and local officials to
spread word of the recall to food
salvage and food bank operations.
USDA noted that there is no
national salvage operation for FDA
to contact, and no list of food banks
or food shelves. USDA provided
information to be dispersed locally,
regarding the safe removal and
disposal of these recalled products.
TAKE HOME MESSAGES:
•
Home-canning is not the only
source of botulism.
•
Good record keeping is helpful.
•
Collaboration is critical to good
public health practice.
Botulism Information:
Centers for Disease Control (CDC):
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dbmd/disea
seinfo/botulism_g.htm
Ultimately, two cases of botulism
were identified in Indiana and two
cases in Texas. The chili sauce
eaten by the Indiana cases tested
positive for C. botulinum.
United States Department of Agriculture
Home-Canning Guide:
http://www.uga.edu/nchfp/publications/
publications_usda.html
RECALL WRINKLE
Minnesota Department of Health:
http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/idep
c/diseases/botulism/botulism.html
As the recall expanded, and nationwide efforts to remove these foods
from shelves progressed, it became
Food and Drug Administration Chili Recall:
http://www.fda.gov/oc/opacom/hottopic
Page 7
The Pickle Bill: Selling Home-Canned Goods
WHY A PICKLE BILL?
Although prior Minnesota farmers’
market exemptions allowed sale at
the markets of homegrown produce, these exemptions did not
apply to the sale of any processed
foods at farmers’ markets or
community events. A Minnesota
legislator decided it was time to
change that law. The result was the
2006 “Pickle Bill.”
This new law is explained in a Minnesota Department of Agriculture
fact sheet, Fact Sheet for Certain
Home-Processed and HomeCanned Foods. The following is
excerpted from that fact sheet.
WHO, WHAT, WHERE & HOW?
Products covered by the “Pickle
Bill” are high-acid (pH value of 4.6
or lower) pickles, vegetables, or
fruits. This legislation does NOT
cover sales of home-canned, lowacid foods such as peas, green
beans, beets, or carrots that have
been processed in a boiling water
bath or in a home pressure cooker.
Under this law, sales of homecanned foods are limited to a
maximum of $5,000 per year.
The individual who is selling homeprocessed or home-canned acid
foods under this exemption must
provide, upon request of a regulatory authority, a recipe and the pH
results for the product being sold.
The food products may only be sold
at Minnesota community or social
events, or farmers’ markets. This
includes county fairs and town
celebrations but does NOT include:
craft shows; other for-profit events;
sales to other businesses; interstate
or internet sales; or sales from the
home or business.
The seller must display a sign or
placard at the point of sale which
states that the canned goods are
homemade and not subject to state
inspection.
Each food container must be
labeled with: the name and address
of the person who processed and
canned the goods; and the date on
which the food was processed and
canned.
Persons producing and selling
these products are urged to:
successfully complete a better
process school recognized by the
Minnesota Commissioner of
Agriculture; and have the recipe
and manufacturing process
reviewed by a person knowledgeable in the food canning industry
and recognized by the Minnesota
Commissioner of Agriculture as a
process authority.
This legislation requires
that the homeprocessed
and homecanned foods
consists of
either an acid
food or an
acidified food, The law only applies
to pickles, vegetables, or fruits.
It does NOT apply to adding acid
(i.e. vinegar) to pickled eggs, fish,
or meat, even if the product’s final
pH is 4.6 or less.
FOODS THAT MIGHT BE
ALLOWED TO BE SOLD
The final pH of the food must be 4.6
or less. Acid foods are defined as
foods that have a natural pH of 4.6
or less and acidified foods are
defined as low-acid foods to which
acid(s) or acid food(s) are added.
The types of foods that might be
allowed under this exemption include, but are not limited to, homeprocessed or home-canned sweet
or dill pickles, tomatoes, salsa,
apples, cherries, grapes, plums,
peaches, flavored vinegars, and
naturally fermented foods such as
sauerkraut, pickles, and KimChi
(Korean-style fermented vegetables) if the final pH is 4.6 or less.
FOODS THAT WOULD NOT
BE ALLOWED TO BE SOLD
This includes foods that are homeprocessed or home-canned that are
not pickles, vegetables or fruits. For
example, home-canned fish, pickled
eggs, and meat are not allowed.
Foods that have a pH of 4.6 or
greater are not included under this
law.
The following foods have a natural
pH above 4.6: artichokes, asparagus, beans (lima, string, kidney,
Boston style, soy, waxed), beets,
broccoli, Brussel sprouts, carrots,
cabbage, cauliflower, horseradish,
sweet corn, egg plant, mushrooms,
peas, most all peppers, potatoes,
squash, spinach, and vegetable
soups. Therefore, these foods are
not allowed unless the pH of these
foods is reduced to pH 4.6 or less.
Foods that require refrigeration are
not allowed.
Fresh-processed (not canned)
foods that require refrigeration such
as fresh salsa and pesto are not
allowed.
For more information, see the complete fact sheet at:
http://www.mda.state.mn.us/food/bu
siness/factsheets/picklebill.htm
Freedom to Breathe, continued.
Minnesota Department of Health
Division of Environmental Health
Environmental Health Services Section
Orville L. Freeman Building
625 North Robert Street
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55155
Minnesota Department of Health (MDH), Local Public Health
Association (LPHA) and other partners have created a wealth
of materials regarding implementation of Freedom to Breathe
provisions.
•
MDH general and situation-specific fact sheets,
compliance assistance letters and other information can
be found at: http://www.health.state.mn.us/
freedomtobreathe.
•
See the LPHA “business kit,” training opportunities, and
other materials at: http://www.mncounties2.org/lpha/
freedom_to_breathe.htm.
•
Fresh Air Minnesota provides secondhand smoking facts,
and information on smoking cessation, compliance and
enforcement at: http://www.freshairmn.org/.
•
If you have questions or need additional information about
Freedom to Breathe, please contact:
[email protected].
http://www.health.state.mn.us/foodsafety
Note from April Bogard
It’s been a busy summer for Environmental Health staff
across the state! Many MDH staff members and our local
partners were called to participate in the SE MN flood
response efforts. Staff worked in the field with those
directly affected, directed emergency operations centers,
worked in the flood recovery centers, answered calls on
the flood hotline, and performed many other valuable
tasks during the response. Public health personnel
should be applauded for their dedication and tireless
efforts to lend a helping hand.
We look forward to hearing from our state and local
partners about their experiences during the floods. If you
would like to contribute an article for our next PWDU
Update (published in January 2008), please contact
Deborah Durkin.
Since our last PWDU update was published, our unit has
had some staffing changes. Paul Allwood left MDH and
began working at the University of Minnesota. Michael
Nordos has joined the PWDU and has enthusiastically
taken on the responsibility for chairing the Evaluation
Workgroup (part of the Delegation Agreement Advisory
Council). Mike is also working on developing training
programs for our state and local sanitarians.
Please feel free to call any of our staff with questions,
comments, concerns, compliments ... April
PWDU Staff Contact Information
Name
Got A Question?
Phone and Email
April Bogard
Supervisor, Partnership and Workforce Development Unit.
Deborah Durkin
Food Safety Partnership, Food Safety Center, UPDATE,
Manual Workgroup, food safety education.
[email protected]
651-201-4509
Tony Georgeson
Rapid inspection software development, maintenance and
training.
[email protected]
218-332-5167
Mike Kaluzniak
Data systems, Statewide Hospitality Fee, emergency
notification system.
[email protected]
651-201-4517
Steve Klemm
Swimming pool construction, plan review and inspections.
[email protected]
651-201-4503
Angela McGovern
Administrative support.
Michael Nordos
Training, Evaluation Workgroup, program evaluation.
[email protected]
651-201-5076
[email protected]
651-201-4506
[email protected]
651-201-4511