Spring 2009
Volume 3, Issue 2
MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
PWDU Quarterly Update
Partnership and Workforce Development Unit
About this Issue:
This issue offers a variety of suggestions for improving the way we do
business (e.g., social media, food
safety awards, food irradiation, and
an HACCP-based food code).
We are pleased to share the ideas
and opinions of our colleagues.
Note, however, that these opinions
and articles republished from other
sources do not necessarily reflect the
opinions of the MDH.
Please contribute your own opinions
and best practices to a future issue.
In This Issue
Recognizing Industry Excellence
1
MN Food Code & Rulemaking
2
Opinion: O. P. Snyder on the
Minnesota Food Code
3
Bug of the Quarter: Campy
4
New England Journal
on Food Safety
5
NEJM, continued,
AMA on Irradiation,
E coli Vaccine for Cattle,
Downer Cow Ban
6
MEHA conference,
Evaluation Workshop,
FDA Does Twitter
7
Food Protection Conference,
Cooking Safely for a Crowd
School Concession Guidance
8
Report: March APC Workshop
FDA Bulletin Re: Peanut Safety
9
FDA Employee Handbook
Call for Food Safety Reform
10
Industry Awards, continued,
PWDU Staff Contact Information
11
Recognizing Industry Excellence
Beyond Regulation
City of Richfield
Environmental health agencies in
Minnesota and elsewhere use a
variety of award programs to
encourage and recognize the food
safety and best industry practices of
their local food establishments.
The Richfield Advisory Board of
Health established an annual Food
Safety Awards program in 2007 to
acknowledge excellence in food
safety and service.
The programs described below take
different approaches. What they
have in common is that they
augment regulation with public
recognition for beneficial outcomes.
City of Bloomington
In 2002, City of Bloomington
environmental health inspectors
created the Food Safety Awards to
publicly recognize outstanding
achievements in food safety.
Food establishments must meet
specific criteria to be nominated by
City of Bloomington Environmental
Health staff. Once the establishments have been selected, Bloomington/Richfield Food Collaborative
members interview and score the
nominees. Scores are tallied and
the results are taken to the Bloomington Advisory Board of Health for
final approval.
The City of Bloomington presents
its Food Safety Awards at the
annual Diamond Service Award
gala—an Academy Awards-like
banquet— at which awards are also
presented to individuals who
provide outstanding customer
service in the hospitality industry.
Environmental health inspection staff
nominate three to four candidates in
three categories: full service restaurant, limited service food service,
and fast food.
Nominations and awards are based
on interviews by Food Collaborative
members, and facility inspection
results. The first annual awards
presentation was made occurred at
a city council meeting in April 2008.
Stearns County
One school and one restaurant
receive Stearns County Food Safety
Awards each year. Awards are
presented to those establishments
that consistently do an excellent job
at promoting food safety. Awards are
based on inspection reports and
feedback from environmental health
inspectors.
County Commissioners present the
award winners with a plaque for
outstanding achievement in food
safety, at a meeting of the county
board. 2008 marked the fifth year
that Stearns County
presented these
awards.
(Continued,
page 11)
Page 2
PWDU Quarterly Update
UPDATE: Minnesota Food Code and The Rulemaking Process
Revision of the Minnesota Food Code:
Temporarily On Hold
The Minnesota Departments of Health and Agriculture
are currently planning for a rulemaking to amend the
Minnesota Food Code, Minnesota Rules, Chapter 4626.
Stakeholders were invited to participate in conference
calls on March 13 and 20 to discuss two issues:
•
•
Whether Minnesota should base the new rule on: (a)
the 2005 FDA Food Code, (b) the 2009 Code and its
three-tier designation system, or (c) the 2009 Code
with the existing Critical/Non-Critical designations.
Costs for MDH and its partners associated with rulemaking, and implementation of the new rule.
The first of those calls was held and well attended. The
second call was postponed, once because of legislative
demands, and for a second time, when staff from state
and local agencies were drawn away from their regular
duties to respond to flooding and other emergencies.
MDH will reschedule the second call, and recommence
the discussion of rulemaking, after the current crisis has
passed.
Meanwhile, we offer our help and sympathy to all
those persons whose homes, families and lives have
been, and will continue to be affected by flooding,
ice storms, and other disasters. Kudos to the volunteers, and all of our colleagues who are working so
hard to respond and to assist in the recovery.
The following is from a summary of the rulemaking process in
Minnesota by David Orren, MDH. These are some of the tasks
that MDH and MDA will perform in the process of rulemaking.
What Are Rules and Why Are There Rules?
Rules are enforceable executive branch policies used to
administer legislatively created programs and to fill any
gaps left, explicitly or implicitly, by the Legislature. In
other words, the Legislature passes a law and, when
necessary, the state agency uses rulemaking to set out
clearly in writing how it will administer the law.
Rulemaking Documents
The agency drafts the rule, with the assistance of the
Revisor of Statutes. The agency drafts a Statement of
Need and Reasonableness (SONAR) that justifies the
rules. The SONAR must include a regulatory analysis,
similar to a cost/benefit analysis. It must also describe
how the agency considered performance-based
standards in developing the rules.
Rulemaking Process
The process starts with a Request for Comments
notifying the public that the agency is planning to do
rulemaking. The agency must wait at least 60 days after
the Request before formally proposing rules.
When the rule and SONAR are complete, the agency
publishes a Notice of Intent to Adopt Rules, which is
followed by a 30‑day public comment period, during
which the public can request a hearing on the rules.
Hearing requests from 25 people will trigger a hearing.
The rule and rulemaking process are reviewed by an
Administrative Law Judge before an agency can adopt
the rule. About 80% of rules are adopted without a
hearing.
Rulemaking notice/public participation:
In 1995 the Legislature added the requirement that
agencies make reasonable efforts to notify persons who
may be significantly affected by the proposed rules. This
notice could be in the print media, or other means of
communication.
Agencies mail notice of proposed rules to persons on the
agencies’ rulemaking mailing lists. Typically, agencies
form advisory committees with representatives of
interested or affected persons. Most rulemaking involves
broad, representative public involvement.
Agencies must send a copy of the notice and a copy of
the SONAR to all Legislative authors of the rulemaking
authority, and to the chairs of policy and budget
committees with jurisdiction over the subject matter of the
rule. Agencies also publish notice of proposed rules in
the State Register.
Rulemaking Timeline
It takes from three to 18 months to develop rules and get
them ready to propose for adoption. After rules are
formally proposed, it takes from three to five months to go
through the formal rulemaking process; three months if
there is no hearing, five months if there is a hearing.
Page 3
PWDU Quarterly Update
OPINION PAGE: O.Pete Snyder
A Letter to the Minnesota Food Safety Partnership on
Rulemaking and A Meaningful Minnesota Food Code
O. Peter Snyder, Jr., PhD
There are some fundamental issues that need to be
addressed when we consider whether we want to stay with
the current Minnesota code for the time being or change
over to the 2005 / 2009 FDA codes, or reject all of these
codes and write a HACCP code based on scientifically
sound rules for protecting public health.
The FDA says that we should use HACCP, but the FDA
code is simply not based on scientific evidence of risk, as
HACCP requires. When we address the SONAR questions
of whether or not there is a need for a particular control in
the code in order to protect public health, and if the
proposed control is reasonable or not to protect public
health, we are really using HACCP to determine if the
control is needed and reasonable.
The basic equation from the International Commission on
Microbiological Specifications in Foods for safe process
design is:
H0 + SI - SR £ FSO / ALOP
H0 (H sub-zero) is the hazard level, often taken as 1,000
pathogens per gram in incoming food (e.g., chicken,
hamburger), and the frequency of the hazard at the
step. It can be applied to cleaning such as 1,000,000
pathogens on the fingertips when using the toilet, and
the toilet paper slips.
The FSO (Food Safety Objective) is the safe level of pathogens in the food that will not make the consumer ill,
usually taken as 1 per 25 grams, which is the level of
detection.
SI is the expected summation (S) of increases (I) of the
hazard in the step, as might occur in cooling and warm
holding of cooked food or in pathogen-contaminated
cold ready-to-eat food.
Clostridium perfringens is used as the target organism
in hot food. Listeria monocytogenes and Staphylococcus aureus are used as for cold food.
SR is the summation of reductions (R) one must apply in the
step to reduce the hazard to an acceptable level of risk.
An acceptable level is considered to be making less
than 1 in 100,000 people who eat the food produced
with this control sick. The "magic" reduction number for
pasteurization or washing fruits and vegetables is a
5-log reduction of Salmonella or E. coli. We do not have
a value for cleaning a food contact surface, but a 5-log
reduction for the cutting board works. It is easy to do
with friction and dilution, and easy to measure.
ALOP (Appropriate Level Of Protection) is less than 1
person in 100,000 made ill per year by the failure of the
control of the risk.
HACCP teaches us that, if the H0 plus SI is more than
allowed by the Food Safety Objective (FSO), we must
reduce the hazard to an Appropriate Level Of Protection
(ALOP) through a reduction step. What this very well
established hazard analysis equation does is to completely
eliminate the need for words like "priority," "foundation," and
"core." Things are not critical. There is simply a hazard that
needs reduction to an ALOP.
There is either a risk of greater than 1 person in 100,000
becoming ill or not. (Of course, this can be whatever protection level you want.) If, for a proposed regulatory rule or
control, there is no evidence of a risk, no hazard named, and
no significant hazard level identified, there is no reason for
that control rule, because there is no risk.
In order to develop a Minnesota code, we need to look at
each requirement to determine if a hazard can be identified
and the level of the hazard. Most of the Minnesota code will
disappear, because there will be no need, or the control to
reduce the hazard to an ALOP will be shown to be not required.
It might be necessary to do some research process validation studies when we need a specific control. These could
be done in Minnesota Department of Agriculture / Minnesota
Department of Health laboratories. If MDA or MDH does not
want to do studies, they can be done in commercial labs.
The cost of these studies would be less than the projected
cost for rulemaking (about $300,000) to pass a revised
code. What we would have, rather than a non-scientific code
with arbitrary rules, is a code based on Active Managerial
Control (AMC) and HACCP for the U.S. and worldwide,
because it would be risk-based with epidemiological
evidence of risk and scientific proof that each control is
adequate to reduce the risk to an ALOP.
If HACCP can work for the Minnesota Department of
Agriculture to assure science-based control for the USDA
and FDA fish, it will work for all retail, foodservice, and home
food processes. Processors in Minnesota have been using
AMC-HACCP for years…so can the retail and foodservice
industries.
Reference: International Commission of Microbiological
Specifications for Foods (ICMSF). 2002. Microorganisms in
Foods 7. Microbiological Testing and Food Safety Management. Kluwer Academic Plenum Publishers. New York, NY.
Page 4
PWDU Quarterly Update
Bug of the Quarter: Campylobacteriosis (Campylobacter spp.)
Trisha McDonald, MDH
Campylobacteriosis
Campylobacter is one of the most common causes of
diarrheal illness in the U.S. About 13 cases are diagnosed each year for each 100,000 persons in the population. Many more cases go undiagnosed or unreported.
Campylobacteriosis is estimated to affect over 2.4 million
persons every year in the U.S.
Campylobacteriosis is an infectious disease caused by
bacteria of the genus Campylobacter. Most people who
become ill with campylobacteriosis experience diarrhea
(sometimes bloody), cramping, and fever within two to
five days after exposure to the organism.
The illness typically lasts about one week, but can last up
to three weeks in about twenty percent of cases.
Constitutional symptoms are typically pronounced, i.e.,
patients feel “really sick.” However, some persons do not
have symptoms. Campylobacter can occasionally cause
a life-threatening infection. About one in every 1,000
reported illnesses leads to Guillain-Barré syndrome.
Campylobacteriosis occurs much more frequently in the
summer months than in the winter. The organism is found
in infants and young adults more often than in people of
other ages, and in males more often than females.
Risk Factors for Campylobacteriosis
Most single cases of campylobacteriosis are associated
with eating raw or undercooked poultry or from crosscontamination of other foods by these items. Outbreaks
of Campylobacter are usually associated with
unpasteurized milk or contaminated water. Campylobacteriosis can also be caused through contact with infected
animals such as cows, chickens, pigs, dogs, or cats. Person-to-person transmission is rare.
Campylobacteriosis in Minnesota
Campylobacter continues to be the most commonly
reported bacterial enteric pathogen in Minnesota. Campylobacter is also a leading cause of travelers diarrhea, a
phenomenon frequently observed during winter months
when many Minnesotans travel to warmer climates.
There were 907 cases of culture-confirmed Campylobacter infection reported in 2007 (however, national estimates are that there are over 38 cases for every confirmed case).
The median age of Minnesota case-patients was 32
years (range, 1 month to 92 years). Fifty-seven percent of
cases were male. Eleven percent of case-patients were
hospitalized; the median length of hospitalization was two
days. Forty-six percent of infections occurred during June
through September, illustrating the typical summer
seasonality of campylobacteriosis.
Campylobacter in Chicken
From 2002-2008, Campylobacter
was present on 300 (36%) of
840 raw chicken breasts sampled in Minnesota as part of the
FDA-NARMS Retail Food program. Many chicken flocks are
infected with Campylobacter, even though they show no
signs of illness. Just one drop of juice from raw chicken
meat of an infected bird can cause illness in a person.
Recent Minnesota Outbreak
In February 2009, the MDH Acute Disease Investigation
and Control Section and the MDH Environmental Health
Services Section investigated an outbreak of Campylobacter jejuni infections at a high volume restaurant in
Dakota County.
The outbreak was detected through routine surveillance.
Ten culture-confirmed cases were associated with the
outbreak. The median age of cases was 44 years (range,
24 to 60 years). Six (60%) of the cases were female. Two
(20%) cases were hospitalized as a result of their illness.
Cases reported eating a variety of chicken and nonchicken dishes at the restaurant during February 9-14.
An environmental health inspection of the restaurant
found that chicken was at times being undercooked.
Multiple mechanisms of possible cross-contamination
with raw or undercooked chicken were also observed.
What can be done to prevent Campylobacteriosis?
•
•
•
•
•
Cook poultry products to 165 °F.
Wash hands before preparing food, after touching
raw meats and poultry, and after contact with feces.
Prevent cross-contamination.
Avoid consuming unpasteurized milk, and untreated
surface water.
Restrict persons with diarrhea from food and kitchen
related duties.
Page 5
PWDU Quarterly Update
New England Journal of Medicine on Food Safety
The following is a synopsis of the article by Dennis G. Maki,
MD, ”Coming to Grips with Foodborne Infection—Peanut Butter,
Peppers and Nationwide Salmonella Outbreaks” (NEJM,
Vol360:949-953, March 5, 2009, Nunber10) which can be found
at: http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/360/10/949
Describing the Problem
Dr. Maki reminds us of three recent, national outbreaks:
• The 2006 outbreak related to spinach contaminated
with E coli O157 which was “at least the 26th reported
U.S. outbreak of E. coli infection traced to contaminated leafy green vegetables since 1993.”
• The 2008 outbreak of Salmonella Saintpaul that was
eventually traced to jalapeño and Serrano peppers
grown in Mexico. Nearly 300 individuals were hospitalized and two died as a result of this outbreak. The
erroneous suggestion that tomatoes were responsible
for the outbreak is estimated to have cost the industry
$200 million.
• Finally, the ongoing Salmonella Typhimurium outbreak
linked to peanuts and peanut products which has
resulted in hundreds of hospitalizations, at least eight
deaths, and related costs topping one billion dollars.
the increased risk of foodborne illness: the shift from
small farms and factories to production on a “vast
industrial scale,” increased importation of foods and
condiments, and a growing tendency of Americans to eat
their meals away from home.
Maki says that we are successfully reducing the risk of
microbial contamination of food and food products but
that we cannot entirely eradicate the pathogens that
produce foodborne illness. Nor can we practically hope to
turn back the clock on the global economy or industrialized production. The challenge, therefore, “is to enhance
the quality and safety of industrially produced food.”
Solutions
He offers the following means of meeting this challenge:
• Hazard Analysis, and Critical Control Point (HACCP)
Program Enhancement
HACCP must be scientifically validated and applied
more consistently at all stages of food production.
• FoodNet Expansion
Expansion of FoodNet from ten states to the entire
U.S. would improve foodborne illness surveillance.
The addition of a central reporting system and international coverage would greatly enhance effective and
timely investigation and response.
• PulseNet Acceleration and Integration
PulseNet's should be integrated with similar programs
in other countries, and the U.S. should accelerate its
pathogen subtyping through the PulseNet program.
More Effective Food Safety Monitoring and
Assessment
Cases of Infection with the Outbreak Strain of
Salmonella Typhimurium in the United States,
September 1, 2008, through February 8, 2009. DC)
Maki concludes, “Once again, we must ask ourselves
how foodborne disease can develop in 76 million
residents of one of the world's most technically advanced
countries each year, causing 350,000 hospitalizations
and 5,000 deaths and adding $7 billion to our health care
costs, despite intensive regulation …”
Dr. Maki describes some of the factors that contribute to
Limited federal support has restricted state and
Federal agency ability to inspect and monitor. Safer
food is dependent on committed resources. Also
needed are better methods for detecting pathogens in
high risk foods.
• Food Origin Tracking
A consistent bar code tracking system would provide
faster outbreak response, as well as a basis for
consumer decisions regarding their food choices.
(Continued, next page)
Page 6
PWDU Quarterly Update
NEJ, continued, AMA on Irradiation & Some News about Beef
New England Journal synopsis, continued
• Develop and Implement Strategies to Reduce
Pathogenic Colonization of Food-Producing Animals
Current research into new feeding programs for food
animals should be pursued, in conjunction with an
international prohibition of growth-promoting antibiotics
in animal feed, and a more vigorous effort to reduce
medical and veterinary use of antimicrobial agents.
• Improve Food Safety Practices and Monitoring
We must enhance the state and local capacity to
educate and improve business and consumer food
preparation practices. Regulatory programs should be
more effectively integrated with the surveillance and
control programs of the CDC, the FDA, and the USDA.
• Routine Irradiation
Irradiation of products containing beef and poultry,
eggs and milk, and of some vegetables and fruit could
significantly reduce the incidence of foodborne illness.
“CDC has estimated that irradiation of high-risk foods
could prevent up to a million cases of bacterial foodborne disease each year in North America. I believe it
is time to launch a major effort to gain public acceptance of irradiation of high-risk foods.”
E. coli Cattle Vaccine Licensed by USDA
On March 5, 2009, a Willmar, Minnesota company,
Epitopix LLC, announced that they had been granted a
conditional license for the first U.S. E. coli vaccine for
cattle.
Kansas State University researchers associated with
product development conducted two large-pen field
studies of the vaccine at commercial feedlots, as well as
other research.
Department of Clinical Sciences professor, Dan
Thompson, reported that the vaccine resulted in a
54 percent decrease in E. coli shedding in the first field
study. With an increased dose of the vaccine for the
second study, shedding showed an 85 percent decrease
among more than 1,200 head of cattle.
Among cattle that did shed after vaccination, there were
98 percent fewer bacteria cells in their feces.
Companies in Canada and Colorado have also
developed vaccines but neither of these has yet been
licensed for sale in the U.S. All three companies
estimate vaccine costs less than $10 per head. Vaccine
developers are waiting to see whether producers,
packers and shippers will support use of the vaccine.
American Medical Association (AMA) Policy on Food
Irradiation (AMA Policy Finder)
It is the policy of the AMA to:
(1) affirm food irradiation as a safe and effective process
that increases the safety of food when applied
according to governing regulations;
(2) consider the value of food irradiation to be diminished unless it is incorporated into a comprehensive
food safety program based on good manufacturing
practices and proper food handling, processing,
storage, and preparation techniques;
(3) encourage FDA and USDA to continue the requirement that all irradiated fruits, vegetables, meats, and
seafood carry the international logo that has become recognized as indicating that the food has
been subjected to gamma irradiation; and
(4) affirm the principle that the demonstration of safety
requires evidence of a reasonable certainty that no
harm will result but does not require proof beyond
any possible doubt (i.e., "zero" risk does not exist).
Associated Press, March 15, 2009
“On March 14, the federal government permanently banned the slaughter of cows too sick or
weak to stand on their own, seeking to further
minimize the chance that mad cow disease could
enter the food supply. Those kind of cows are also
susceptible to infections from bacteria that cause
food poisoning, such as E. coli, because the
animals wallow in feces. The USDA proposed the
ban last year after the biggest beef recall in U.S.
history.”
Page 7
PWDU Quarterly Update
M E H A, MDH Evaluation Workshop & Tip Your Hat to Twitter at FDA
MEHA
SPRING CONFERENCE
May 6-8, 2009
Breezy Point Resort
Breezy Point
For more information see the MEHA website at:
http://www.mehaonline.org/
First Annual MDH Program
Evaluation Workshop
MDH has performed two pilot
program evaluations using the
protocol and survey materials
developed by the Delegation Agreement Advisory
Council Program Evaluation Workgroup. Volunteers for
the pilot evaluations were the MDH St. Cloud regional
office (February 2009) and Anoka County (March 2009).
Minor adjustments to the protocol and survey materials
will be made, based on pilot finding, during an April 22nd
meeting of the workgroup.
A workshop will be held on May 27, 2009 at the Snelling
Office Park facility in Saint Paul. Meeting details will be
available in Mid-April.
The objectives of the annual workshops are to:
•
•
Provide required training for potential observers;
•
Provide summary data and an overview of trends
observed during the prior year’s evaluations.
Describe the evaluation protocol, materials and
scoring process;
The evaluation protocol stipulates that as many as three
trained observers from delegated agencies may opt to
attend MDH evaluations at their own expense. If delegated agencies wish to have non-MDH observers as
part of their evaluation teams, they may recruit one or
more volunteers.
HHS, FDA and CDC Enter
the World of Social Media
One positive outcome of the vast,
ongoing peanut-related Salmonella
outbreak is a multi-agency collaboration
which resulted in the recent formation of
the CDC Social Media Center.
The U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS), Food and Drug Administration
(FDA), and Centers for Disease Control (CDC) have
established the Center to provide consumers and
agency partners with an array of social media tools to
access information about that ever-expanding recall.
On the Media Center website at: http://www.cdc.gov/
socialmedia/, the agencies offerTwitter updates, video
on YouTube, outreach on MySpace, and a variety of
podcasts, blogs, texting, widgets, and virtual worlds.
The various media provide educational information
about Salmonella symptoms, breaking news, and recall
information.
For those who cannot afford, or do not wish to receive
an uncontrollable number of Twitters on their cell phones
or other devices, FDA recall Twitters are posted at:
http://twitter.com/fdarecalls.
Social media played a significant role in the 2008
presidential election. The success of internet election
strategies has played an equal role in a broader
acceptance of social media. Facebook, for example,
reports 175 million subscribers, with persons over 30
the fastest growing Facebook population.
The media included in this category meld technology,
mobility, communication and social interaction, with
images, video, music and words. All of this comes with
a price tag that the traditional media cannot match.
CDC Media Center’s director Richard Stapleton reports
that social media not only enabled the agencies to
accelerate outreach, it also improved communication
and collaboration among agency staff.
Let this be a lesson for us all. The advantages of
rapid, inexpensive and accessible communication are
obvious. We must adjust our polices to allow it; and must
use these tools for our daily work, so they are familiar
and well in place before the next emergency.
Page 8
PWDU Quarterly Update
EDEN Food Protection Conference, Cooking for a Crowd & School Concessions
Extension Disaster Education Network (EDEN)
Regional Food Protection Conference
Minnesota Extension Cooking Safely for a Crowd
Workshops Scheduled in April
University of Minnesota, Continuing Education Center,
St. Paul, Tuesday, June 30, 2009, 10 a.m. to 6 p.m.
Cooking Safely For a Crowd workshops are scheduled
for the following times and places in April:
The goal of this regional conference is to understand the
role of Extension and other food safety professionals in
food recall events. In addition, the conference will focus
on how Extension can reach out to consumers during
these recall events, and collaborate with their surrounding food safety partners.
• April 16, 5:30-8:30 p.m., Palisade Bethlehem Church,
411 Main St., Palisade, MN
The conference will feature dynamic general sessions
with nationally known speakers, comprehensive food
recall and risk communication exercises, and networking
opportunities.
Speakers include:
• Travis Goodman, DHS, Food and Agriculture Sector
Specialist, “Why Food Protection Matters”
• Shaun Kennedy, Director, National Center for Food
Protection and Defense, “Creating a Food Defense
Plan”
• Kirk Smith, DVM, PhD, Director Foodborne Diseases,
Minnesota Dept Health, “Anatomy of an Outbreak”
• Robert Gravani, PhD, Professor of Food Science,
Cornell University, “Risk Communication and Food
Protection”
• Jan Singleton, National Program Leader, Food
Science and Food Safety, USDA
Who Should Attend: Extension professionals, food
industry representatives, and individuals from state and
federal agencies and organizations with a vested interest in food protection in the upper Midwest region.
Not able to attend in person? Using Adobe Connect,
individuals at satellite locations can participate in the
conference. Please get a team together and join in!
Mark your calendars for this USDA-CSREES EDEN
sponsored event. Registration will open in April.
Conference information and registration
can be found at: www.EDEN.lsu.edu.
Conference contact: Jenny Pierquet,
612-625-2899, [email protected].
• April 27, 6:00-9:00 p.m., Zion Lutheran Church,
245 Central Ave, Milaca
Anyone interested in attending one
of these workshops, or who would
like to schedule a workshop in their
area, can call Extension Educators,
Lou Ann at 1-888-241-4591, or
Carol Ann at 1-888-241-0720.
(http://www.extension.umn.edu/
FoodSafety/components/quantitycooks.htm)
School Concession Stand Documents
School concession operations have varying menus,
structure, sponsorship, and days of operation. Regardless of the differences, every food service or concession
on school grounds is required to be licensed, inspected
and compliant with the Minnesota Food Code.
There are three new documents on school concessions:
Factsheets, School Concession Stands—Operations,
and School Concession Stands—Licensing; and a
guidance document for regulators, Guidance for School
Concession Stands/Stores.
The factsheets help to clarify menu categories;
structural, equipment and sanitation requirements; and
licensing types and options, and are meant for public
distribution. In addition to the factsheet information, the
guidance document
provides statutory
background, definitions,
and a discussion of
options for licensing and
compliance.
The documents are
available on request
from MDH and will
posted soon on the
MDH website.
Page 9
PWDU Quarterly Update
APC Seminar Leads to Radiation Training & Peanut Advice from FDA
Lynne Markus, MDH
March 2009 Emergency Preparedness Seminar
The Twin Cities Metro Advanced Practice Center (APC)
and MDH’s Partnership Workforce and Development
Unit sponsored an Environmental Health Emergency
Preparedness Seminar on March 16, 2009.
The goal of the seminar was to provide useful and
practical training material to environmental health
managers, supervisors, and field staff to strengthen
their capacity to respond to a disaster or emergency in
their community.
The focus was on environmental health principles in the
context of disaster preparedness and response. It also
addressed the importance of communication in a
disaster and described different roles and responsibilities that environmental health professionals might be
assigned when responding to a disaster.
Brian Golob, Senior Environmentalist, Hennepin
County Public Health Protection and member of the
APC, presented information and guided small group
activities around these learning objectives:
• Understanding how eight environmental health core
competencies provide an effective framework when
responding to all kinds of disasters.
• Develop awareness of practical information that environmental health professionals can tap into when
preparing for, responding to, and recovering from a
disaster or emergency.
• Prepare for future disasters based on the collective
experiences of environmental health professionals in
other communities across the nation.
Overhead slides from the seminar’s Lessons 1-5 are
visible on this Web site that MDH hosts for the Twin
Cities Metro Advanced Practice Center: http://
www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/apc/prof/index,html.
To find the overheads, scroll down to Environmental
Health Emergency Preparedness Training Handouts March 16, 2009.
A total of 96 environmental health professionals participated from 20 counties, ranging diagonally from southeastern Fillmore to northern Beltrami counties.
During the March 16 seminar, some environmental
health attendees expressed interest in learning more
about basic radiation and radiation detection. As a result,
MDH is planning training sessions on these topics.
“We will provide radiation training in or near MDH district
offices to better accommodate the needs of our local
partners,” noted George Johns, MDH Radioactive
Materials Unit Supervisor. “We realize that is not
possible, or is very difficult, for many local environmental
health and public health workers to travel during this time
of economic challenge. The Radiation Section is also
reviewing the possibility of providing radiation detection
equipment to MDH district offices.”
Emergency preparedness training helps government
officials become more familiar with resources and
systems to address needs and prepare for the future.
The MDH is grateful to the APC for their partnership.
Bulletin to Operators of Food Service Establishments and Retail Food Stores Regarding Measures
to Address the Risk for Contamination by
Salmonella Species in Food Containing a PeanutDerived Product as an Ingredient.
A March 2009 FDA bulletin informs the retail and food
service industries that procedures used to manufacture
finished products containing a peanut-derived ingredient
may or may not destroy Salmonella spp.
FDA wants to alert the industry that Salmonella, while
considered heat sensitive, can become heat resistant in
low water activity products like peanut-derived products.
The effectiveness of processing conditions used to
reduce Salmonella spp. in a particular food product may
depend on whether, and to what extent, an ingredient
with a very low water activity is rehydrated. In addition,
the adequacy of a process, such as baking, to destroy
Salmonella spp. in a particular food product depends on
factors such as the highest temperature achieved in the
coldest part of the product during the baking process
and the actual duration that the product experienced this
temperature.
See: http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/pnutbull.html
Page 10
PWDU Quarterly Update
FDA Employee Health & Hygiene Handbook & Call for Food Safety Reform
Letter from
Greg Abel, FDA
Regional Retail Food
Specialist
FDA has released their
Employee Health and
Personal Hygiene
Handbook to
encourage practices
and behaviors that can
help prevent food
employees from
spreading foodborne
pathogens to food.
This handbook is full of information and helpful hints that
may be useful when addressing employee health and
hygiene matters. The material is in a different and more
readable format than it appears in the FDA Food Code.
This handbook is the first of several, planned aids from
FDA to assist our regulatory and industry partners in
achieving a reduction in the occurrence of foodborne
illness risk factors.
Please consider how you and your food industry partners
can use this handbook and its contents to improve
food employee’s and managers understanding of health
and hygiene issues and concerns; increase compliance
with your code’s employee health and hygiene regulations; and better employ behaviors and practices that
help prevent food employees from spreading viruses and
bacteria to food.
The handbook is not yet available on the FDA website
but will be soon. At present, you can request copies by
contacting Greg Abel (612-758-7199 or
[email protected]).
The Handbook includes the following sections:
•
Introduction
• Foodborne Illness Symptoms and Diagnoses
• Restriction, Exclusion of Employees from Work
• Reinstating Employees After Restrictions
• Handwashing Information
• References
• Foodborne Illness
• Management's Responsibilities
• Employee's Responsibilities
• Health & Hygiene Exclusions & Restrictions
• ADA, HIPAA, and Food Safety
• Forms
• Tables
• Highly Susceptible Populations
• Handwashing 101
The entire Table of Contents can be found
at:hhttp://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~ear/ehphtoc.html
The following was issued as a news release on March 25
from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation:
New Report Calls Food Safety System Antiquated,
Urges Reform
Trust for America's Health (TFAH) and the Robert Wood
Johnson Foundation (RWJF) has released a new report,
Keeping America's Food Safe: A Blueprint for Fixing the
Food Safety System at the U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services, which examines problems with the
fragmented and antiquated current system and
proposes ways to improve the food safety functions at
the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS) to better protect the nation's food supply.
President Barack Obama recently called for restructuring
and improving the U.S. food safety system, and this
report helps provide a road map for the first steps toward
revamping the system. The report calls for the
immediate consolidation of food safety leadership within
the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and ultimately
the creation of a separate Food Safety Administration
within HHS to ensure immediate progress on food safety
and create a platform for long-term success in reducing
foodborne illness.
(http://www.rwjf.org/publichealth/product.jsp?id=40650)
This creates an environment in which “excellence” could
potentially be considered the norm.
MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
Orville L. Freeman Building
625 North Robert Street
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55155
In Sacramento County, every award recipient must have
had at least three regular inspections and received no
major violations during the past 12 months. Depending
on the type of establishment, varying numbers of minor
violations are allowed award winners. For those
establishments requiring a Food Safety Certificate
(equivalent to Minnesota’s Certified Food Manager), at
least one member of staff must hold this certification to
be considered for the annual award.
After review and verification of inspection results from the
eligibility period, each award recipient receives written
notification of their award with the certificate enclosed.
http://www.health.state.mn.us/foodsafety
Industry Recognition, continued
Sacramento County, California, takes a slightly different
approach from the Minnesota programs, with their
Program for Excellence in Food Safety.
In Sacramento County, there is no limit to the number of
facilities that may win an annual award. A “Certificate of
Excellence” is available to every food facility every year.
In Conclusion
Regardless of the approach, and the nature of the
awards ceremony or presentation, such programs have
value for regulatory agencies, the food establishments
they serve, and the consumer.
We commend all those Minnesota agencies who make
the time and produce the effort to recognize their
excellent local establishments and look forward to
hearing from other
agencies with food
safety awards and other
incentive programs..
PWDU Staff Contact Information
April Bogard
Supervisor, Partnership and Workforce Development Unit
[email protected]
651-201-5076, 612-296-8118
Deborah Durkin
Food Safety Partnership, Food Safety Center, UPDATE, Manual
development, food safety education
[email protected]
651-201-4509, 651-295-5392
Maggie Edwards
Administrative support
[email protected]
651-201-4506
Tony Georgeson
Rapid inspection software development, maintenance, and training
[email protected]
218-332-5167, 218-770-2119
Steve Klemm
Swimming pool construction, plan review, and inspections
[email protected]
651-201-4503, 651-238-7737
Lynne Markus
Web content, emergency response, factsheet development
[email protected]
651-201-4498
Michael Nordos
Training, program evaluation, standardization
[email protected]
651-201-4511, 651-775-6234
Cathy Odinot
Training, program evaluation, consulting team
[email protected]
651-201-4843, 651-373-7381