11/11/2011 08:35:00 AMAndy Nelson
Andy Nelson, Markets EditorIn Nebraska, where I grew up, we envied our neighbor to the southwest not only for its mountains, but also for its summer peaches and, yes, its Rocky Ford cantaloupes.
It's always a problem with stolen identities. Jensen is so far away from the Rocky Ford area and the growing conditions. For marketing reasons someone else had the idea to use the name from an area where never was a problem before. I would like to learn why an independent auditor sees the Listerias or other pathogens walking across the floor and not a hired auditor when he shows up once a year?! Really what’s the difference? It just proves again how useless this certification business is. It will not work for the retailers to hide behind a certificate anymore.
I can't speak to the "stolen identities" concept, but I can offer my opinion on the second half of your coment, Ben. As we all know, bacteria cannot be seen with the eye alone. Instead, what we as food safety personnel need to do is to scout for and recognize practices and situations whereby the conditions can be created to harbour and/or grow a bacterial population. I say "recognize" with some gravity; unless the person in charge of food safety has an understanding of the way bacteria can live and grow, he or she cannot possibly recognize all the situations that put a plant at risk. In this instance, the FDA has suggested a delivery truck may have brought the contamination to the plant, and that standing water may have harboured and spread it. If, on the day the third party auditor was working there, the truck was absent and the water not pooling under equipment, how could the auditor possibly know that these conditions had been present at any other time? It may be argued that an auditor should ask whether these risk factors exist at other times, but I feel like the responsibility lies with the company for not employing someone with the appropriate scientific background or training to understand the risks when present at any given time, or for ignoring that person if the risks were brought forward. In my plant, I used to get complaints when I insisted that standing water be cleaned up right away. Not anymore. My only regret is that it's taken such a horrendous and tragic incident for my own staff to take my advice seriously.
The best way that I see for food safety auditing is for the consumer to be the one that funds it. You could have a program where 1 cent per fruit or vegetable sold is used to pay for random audits of suppliers. Random audits are the only way you can get a true picture of what is going on at an operation. The current system allows suppliers to prepare for an audit and hide or fix things that would throw them out of compliance. A penny per ear paid by the consumer of sweet corn would have generated $15 million for random audits. For cantaloupes you would have generated approximately $6 million for random audits. There could have been 2000 random audits of canteloupe operations last year funded by a simple 1 cent per canteloupe fee. At that level of inspection, I feel we could have caught what was happening.