19 replies to this topic

[Scampi]

This my friends is why:
 

A) hire and train your staff well

 

B) an environmental monitoring AND approved supplier program are necessary

 

C) you never assume a swab/sample is a false positive

 

D) good and timely record keeping is your friend

 

E) better safe than sorry

 

The fact that they are adding additional sku's more than a month after the initial recall date should strike absolute fear in everyone about this brand and company

 

Starting to feel a little like the PCA recall.........

 

 

AND it's why the FDA should strengthen their powers of enforcement and compliance 

[Scotty_SQF]

Any one have a link to an article on what happened here?  Only thing I can find are the products that have been recalled.  Just curious what all led to this as I take it as a learning tool.

[acarver]

https://www.fda.gov/...ll-announcement

[MDaleDDF]

Uhhhhhhhhhh, ye-ah.   The amount of SKU's on there is definitely concerning.   I'd imagine a lot of this stuff has been consumed.   I actually put one of their granola bars in my kid's snack for today at school....

[jfrey123]

I keep hoping to see a full report get dropped on this given it was basically their entire product line recalled. I can't even imagine the firestorm running through their QA divisions right now.

 

The amount of sku's originally released had me wondering if it was an intentional adulteration problem discovered.  But with more skus being added, I'm with Scampi that this is probably a critical failure of their record keeping and QMS as a whole.

[kfromNE]

I keep hoping to see a full report get dropped on this given it was basically their entire product line recalled. I can't even imagine the firestorm running through their QA divisions right now.

 

The amount of sku's originally released had me wondering if it was an intentional adulteration problem discovered.  But with more skus being added, I'm with Scampi that this is probably a critical failure of their record keeping and QMS as a whole.

 

More likely they were conservative on the recall. FDA then came in and made them recall more products based upon their paperwork. 

 

Scampi could be right. I've heard of QC departments recommending one thing and the higher ups going against the advice of the department. 

[Scampi]

And here's the problem with a recall of this magnitude

 

https://www.foodsafe...-contamination/

 

https://foodpoisonin...for-salmonella/

 

I'm sure we've just seen the tippy top of this ice burg

Edited by Scampi, 18 January 2024 - 09:05 PM.

[G M]

10 months of production on a bunch of those items. 

 

It would seem to imply unacceptable micros on some major piece of equipment or storage location that was never really resolved.

[Scampi]

They can't even seem to release a proper statement about where their products were sold

 

In addition, Vemco, in an advertisement said of the additional products identified – Quaker oatmeal squares cinnamon and Quaker oatmeal squares brown sugar were distributed in Trinidad and Tobago.

 

https://newsday.co.t...-oats-products/

 

I blame the FDA on this one----the company is allowed to write the statement AND the FDA continues to call it a "voluntary recall"   not near enough oversight or power of control---the FDA has learned nothing from the international recalls of the past

[AltonBrownFanClub]

Did anyone else see that this location will be permanently closed?

 

I feel for the 500 employees, but I also wonder what the heck was going on in there.

Seems like we won't get any more information on this recall. They're just pulling the whole plug.

 

I wish there was more information so we could use it as a learning opportunity.

[kfromNE]

Did anyone else see that this location will be permanently closed?

 

I feel for the 500 employees, but I also wonder what the heck was going on in there.

Seems like we won't get any more information on this recall. They're just pulling the whole plug.

 

I wish there was more information so we could use it as a learning opportunity.

 

My guess - it was an old building. The cost of fixing the the structure side of things to prevent Salmonella - too much. That it was cheaper to move things to other locations. Especially since the article mentioned that production had been slower in other places. 

[Scampi]

65 year old building, so no surprise they are closing it

 

Cost of getting it up to scratch is not worth it v.s. a new build

[ChristinaK]

My guess - it was an old building. The cost of fixing the the structure side of things to prevent Salmonella - too much. That it was cheaper to move things to other locations. Especially since the article mentioned that production had been slower in other places. 

 

Yeah, I don't think most buildings from the late 50's are even close to being up-to-snuff. Cheaper to close it down and lay off staff than try to make it operable and profitable again.

[GMO]

Wow, that's really interesting and having dealt with Pepsico in the past, they are hugely risk averse but some of their facilities are old. That said, we're not talking Listeria here.  It is entirely possible to control Salmonella with dry products in an old site UNLESS we're in a situation where there was a water leak (like the Cadbury's chocolate crumb factory in the UK when that outbreak happened.)  

So my money is on one of two things; failure of heat processes or a post heat process water leak.

 

I'm really shocked at the presence of Salmonella spp in this.  Deeply so.  I'm going to shove my fourpenneth in here about having worked with american companies and micro testing... There is a reluctance to test you don't see in the UK and EU.  One I supply now tried to insist we don't test for pathogens at all but we compromised on only testing at the end of life.  I dearly hope that kind of approach to verifcation isn't part of the issue.

 

Are people ok?  The reason I ask is in that Cadbury's case it's not well known but a child almost died.  It's my idea of hell working in a company where this kind of situation happens.  Irrespective of whether it should have been handled differently I bet you any failure that is later found had already been requested by their QC / QA / food safety staff...

[ChristinaK]

Wow, that's really interesting and having dealt with Pepsico in the past, they are hugely risk averse but some of their facilities are old. That said, we're not talking Listeria here.  It is entirely possible to control Salmonella with dry products in an old site UNLESS we're in a situation where there was a water leak (like the Cadbury's chocolate crumb factory in the UK when that outbreak happened.)  

So my money is on one of two things; failure of heat processes or a post heat process water leak.

 

I'm really shocked at the presence of Salmonella spp in this.  Deeply so.  I'm going to shove my fourpenneth in here about having worked with american companies and micro testing... There is a reluctance to test you don't see in the UK and EU.  One I supply now tried to insist we don't test for pathogens at all but we compromised on only testing at the end of life.  I dearly hope that kind of approach to verifcation isn't part of the issue.

 

Are people ok?  The reason I ask is in that Cadbury's case it's not well known but a child almost died.  It's my idea of hell working in a company where this kind of situation happens.  Irrespective of whether it should have been handled differently I bet you any failure that is later found had already been requested by their QC / QA / food safety staff...

 

I think it's a case of holding your suppliers to a higher standard than you practice in-house. I've never worked for a large beast like Pepsi, though, so it's just conjecture on my part.

 

Even when it's legally required, US companies like to drag their feet on preventive approaches because such approaches don't do anything to boost profits. If they don't have to do something, and no one is verifying that something (customer, government), that something won't be done. It's like that across industries in the US. This attitude of "If I don't get caught, then it's not wrong."

 

I don't believe anyone has reported illness as a result of consuming the recalled items. At least at this time.

[Scampi]

I believe it's 1 of 2 things

 

1) no one expecting salmonella in this particular product type so brushing it off in the beginning

 

2) The FDA has no teeth------------as long as business' are allowed to essentially police themselves (no matter how big) these will continue to happen

 

 

My cynical mind is wondering if it was either the peanut butter or the corn syrup that introduced salmonella into the plant

 

Over the course of this study (April 1, 2018 to March 31, 2020), a total of 318 samples of a variety of oats were collected from retail locations in 11 cities across Canada. All samples were tested for Salmonella species (spp.), Escherichia coli (E. coli) O157, and Bacillus cereus (B. cereus). Of the 318 samples, 120 samples were tested for Clostridium perfringens (C. perfringens), Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus) and generic E. coli and 198 samples were tested for total coliforms and Aerobic Colony Count (ACC). Generic E. coli, total coliforms and ACC are considered indicator organisms as their presence in food at elevated levels may be an indicator of poor sanitary conditions in the food production chain.

In this study, all samples tested were found to be free of Salmonella spp., E. coli O157, B. cereus (>104 CFU/g), C. perfringens (>104 CFU/g), S. aureus (>104 CFU/g), generic E. coli (>102 MPN/g), total coliforms (>104 CFU/g) and ACC (>106 CFU/g).

Overall, our survey results show that oats available for sale at retail in Canada have been produced under sanitary conditions and are safe for consumption. However, as with all foods, and especially those that are consumed without cooking, safe handling practices are recommended for producers, retailers and consumers.

https://inspection.c...1/1619212161464

[GMO]

1) no one expecting salmonella in this particular product type so brushing it off in the beginning

 

Really?  That would be an appalling miss, grains are notorious for Salmonella.

[Scampi]

Grains are notorious for e coli, salmonella-not so much

 

E coli is more likely to be present as it is found in the droppings off species that may fly over fields, or in unmatured manure used as fertilizer

 

Considering the factors mentioned above and their relevance to Canadians, oats were selected for a targeted survey. The purpose of this survey was to generate baseline information on the occurrence of pathogenic bacteria and indicator organisms of concern in oats on the Canadian market.

Over the course of this study (April 1, 2018 to March 31, 2020), a total of 318 samples of a variety of oats were collected from retail locations in 11 cities across Canada. All samples were tested for Salmonella species (spp.), Escherichia coli (E. coli) O157, and Bacillus cereus (B. cereus). Of the 318 samples, 120 samples were tested for Clostridium perfringens (C. perfringens), Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus) and generic E. coli and 198 samples were tested for total coliforms and Aerobic Colony Count (ACC). Generic E. coli, total coliforms and ACC are considered indicator organisms as their presence in food at elevated levels may be an indicator of poor sanitary conditions in the food production chain.

 

Oat Safety Considerations

• Ground raw rolled oats are often recommended as a safe substitution for raw wheat flour. This is because wheat flour should not be consumed raw (Penn State Extension, 2023). Raw rolled oats ground into a flour consistency can be used because the processing of rolled oats involves a steam-treating step that is generally sufficient to kill pathogenic bacteria, allowing them to be consumed raw with minimal risk to the consumer.

[GMO]

Well indeed Scampi but that still comes back to what I said, a failure of their heat processes.  While some sampling may not show Salmonella presence on the market, the heat processing should prevent that issue.

Of course it could be the other ingredients or a water leak as I also suggested but either way, I just don't get the failure to do much in house testing in US companies.  it's like they are more concerned about being prosecuted for having a bad result than finding the result before it becomes catastrophic.

[G M]

...
Of course it could be the other ingredients or a water leak as I also suggested but either way, I just don't get the failure to do much in house testing in US companies.  it's like they are more concerned about being prosecuted for having a bad result than finding the result before it becomes catastrophic.

 

A colleague attending courses at a university in the area had a visiting professor with industry expertise, overseeing multiple FDA inspected facilities.  They were asking me about some topics in the course and it came up that this professor had advised his class to not test any product or equipment if they thought it was contaminated, but to instead rely on the obviously inadequate sanitation procedures to deal with it.  The reasoning he gave was that if they testing it and got positive results they would know for a fact that it was contaminated and be obligated to do something about it, but would somehow be under no such obligation if it was only suspected.

 

This was from a food safety lead at a very large company with multiple internationally recognized brands.  Like Scampi suggested, the FDA has no teeth, and the companies they oversee know it.

 

I gave my colleagues very different advice.  Maybe that's just my personal ethics, or my experience dealing with regulatory inspectors daily.