A New York State investigation, targeting seafood fraud at retail supermarket chains, has found “a sky-high mislabeling rate” with more than one in four (27%) seafood purchases being mislabeled. The “Fishy Business” report from the Office of the New York State Attorney General (NY OAG) also noted that about two-thirds of the supermarket brands reviewed had at least one instance of suspected mislabeling. While NY OAG testing found substitutions for virtually every type of seafood investigated, it found “rampant mislabeling” in some species, including lemon sole, red snapper, grouper, chinook/king salmon, and wild salmon.

Sadly, this “rampant mislabeling” is not limited, by any means, to New York or to seafood. Food fraud is a known, but generally difficult to detect, issue. Whether it’s substituting a lesser quality version of the item (e.g., a lower grade of olive oil labeled as extra virgin), a wholly different species (e.g., tilapia for red snapper), inferior ingredients (e.g., sugar or molasses in honey) or dangerous additives (e.g., lead-containing dyes to spices), economically motivated adulteration (EMA) is not only a violation of both the FD&C Act and FSMA, it is a crime.

Food fraud not only causes consumers to pay a higher rate for lesser quality, it can have consumer health and environmental repercussions as well. Some of the fraudulent fish, for example, were substitutes which had higher mercury levels and other heavy metals, used more antibiotics or chemicals, or came from less sustainable fisheries. It is for just such reasons that EMA mitigation is required by FSMA’s Preventive Controls Rule and must be in the Food Safety Plan if there is a public health risk and it is reasonably foreseeable.

Some processors — and retailers — may be thinking that you’re not liable because you are simply following the labeling of the product you receive from your supplier. But with the number of reports, news items, and studies revealing the extent of food fraud, extensive supplier controls and validation should be implemented, particularly for foods often found to be adulterated. This makes EMA reasonably foreseeable — and brand damage a high risk.

If the potential of consumer health risk, brand damage, or FSMA non-compliance doesn’t sway you, perhaps the potential of a lawsuit will. Stemming from the NY OAG report, a New York consumer filed a class-action lawsuit against “the deceptive and misleading business practices of Stew Leonard’s,” stating “Given that Plaintiff and Class Members paid a premium for the Products based on Defendant’s misrepresentations that they were red snapper and sockeye salmon, Plaintiff and Class Members suffered an injury in the amount of the premium paid.”

The lawsuit was filed, not against the supplier, but against the retailer who sold the mislabeled fish. In a response to the NY OAG report, Stew Leonard’s stated that it had imported “what we believed to be red snapper. It had a red hue and it was snapper.” It also stated that the family did not know that only domestic snapper can be called ‘red snapper.’ Once alerted, the retailer changed its signage and labels.

Although the case is still pending, the damage has been done; not only to Stew Leonard’s, but to Food Bazaar, Foodtown, Uncle Giuseppe’s, and Western Beef, all of whom were noted in the report as responsible for a “vastly disproportionate share of suspected mislabeling” in New York, are subject to an ongoing consumer fraud investigation — and have been named in numerous news reports.

Countering food fraud is not easy, as indicated by Stew Leonard’s belief that it was indeed selling red snapper, and I completely agree with NY OAG’s assessment that, “Solving the seafood fraud problem requires industry-wide reforms, at all stages of the supply chain.” Additionally, I would apply the statement to all food fraud and emphasize that it does need to be addressed by all stages of the supply chain — from the source to the consumer.

Although fraud often begins at the source, it can occur anywhere along the chain. Thus, each stage needs to ensure it has a thorough supply chain program with absolute validation of the food and its ingredients, apply traceability and auditing standards to assist in EMA mitigation, and train workers to understand and alert management in any suspected fraud. Even consumers have a role to play, e.g., as NY OAG states, “If the price of seafood seems too good to be true, that may be a sign that they are not getting what they paid for.”

The start of the new year brings a new industry leader to join the experts of QA’s Advisory Board. Please welcome Alfred (Al) St. Cyr, president of ASC Consulting, LLC, Manhattan, Kan.

St. Cyr has been a part of the food and pest management industry for many years beginning as a sanitor in a bakery in 1970. After a stint in the U.S. Navy as a preventive medicine technician, he returned to the commercial baking industry as plant sanitarian and quality assurance manager. In 1985, he partnered with Dr. Austin Frishman, providing assistance to the food and pest management industry. In 1990, St. Cyr joined AIB as an inspector and by 1993 had become the head of food safety education, providing consultation and educational programs for the industry around the world.

St. Cyr continues to provide educational programs for the industry through his own consulting firm.

Following are reflections from St. Cyr on FSMA compliance 2018-2019.

FSMA COMPLIANT? It has been another interesting year of outbreaks and recalls in the food industry. Some would say that with the passage of the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) and all of the Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI) audits being conducted, food safety compliance is at an all-time high. This argument is made mostly on data that suggests the number of deaths associated with foods has dropped in recent years. Perhaps advances in early detection and treatment strategies has something to do with this.

When we look at the number of failures to stop microbiological and allergen issues, we find a slightly different picture. Our ability to recognize a failure has certainly allowed us to avoid some of the catastrophic failures affecting the consumer. But, the question that begs to be asked is, “Why did they occur in the first place?”

The buzzword throughout the industry has been “FSMA Compliant.” At various seminars we ask the question and then go into a long presentation on documentation requirements for FSMA and GFSI audits. When I visit plants, they are eager to roll out the binders of documentation showing how compliant the facility is while trying to avoid the discussion on their recent recall or product returns and process failures. After all, their documentation is telling everyone they are FSMA compliant.

FSMA is not documentation compliant. Compliance is embracing the philosophy of FSMA. I am talking about a philosophy of “Things that can be foreseen can be prevented.” Under FSMA, every plant has conducted risk assessments for failures, documented them, and designed activities to avoid them — on paper. When the failure reaches the level that we can no longer hide it in the paperwork, the truth comes out that we really did not follow through.

With all we know today and the rules in place, why are we still thinking we can grow ready-to-eat produce downstream from a stockyard and not have a microbiological time bomb waiting to go off?

Where are the adherences to the water quality standards, environmental impact review of the surrounding operations, and every other bit of information pointing to the fact that it should not have happened. Someone had to sign off on all the required documentation. Did that make it safe?

When it comes to recalls due to undeclared allergens because of improper formula control or inadequate post allergen sanitation, how did the program fail?

All of the preventive controls are likely in place on paper but who is actually following them? Where are the checks and balances that are supposed to be in place from supplier approval to the review before introduction into the process, along with correct labeling?

Documentation said that this should not have happened.

FSMA compliant is not simply more documentation with useless data that is not contributing to your ability to manage a process correctly. FSMA requires an honest review of the operations and assessment of what and where your risks are.

It is a very intense vigilance of the failure opportunities and taking continuous action to avoid them. It means that all plant personnel possess the knowledge and skills to do their jobs effectively. It means that all critical controls are monitored and verified before product leaves the facility, not just recorded as such on the documentation.

The cost of failure is often very high. There seems to be too much focus on cost reduction of operations and not enough focus on making sure the resources are available to properly maintain the facility. It appears that less informed people, who are removed from the process environment, are making critical decisions that have a profound impact on true compliance with FSMA.

How many are betting on the money saved by noncompliance vs. the cost of the catastrophic failure? History would tell us it is not a very good bet.

Salmonella is back again. What is happening? Didn’t we have this problem last winter? Why haven’t improvements made through compliance with the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) had an impact? Even with this increased emphasis on control of microorganisms, Salmonella foodborne illnesses have not decreased in the past decade and may, in fact, be increasing. Salmonella-related recalls are too frequent. What are some practical solutions?

Once Salmonella is established in a food plant environment, control becomes difficult. Salmonella can survive a wide range of temperature and pH values. This microorganism will lurk in a dormant state within microenvironments and raise its ugly head with some moisture and/or disturbance.

As outside temperatures drop and inside temperatures stay about the same, a cold front meets a warm front at the building perimeter. If the building perimeter is poorly insulated, condensation can result and rouse the dormant Salmonella. Then when an environmental sample is found positive, cleaning becomes more intense – which may create additional Salmonella positives with this disturbance of hidden microenvironments. The problem can get worse before it gets better. Here is a short list to examine what might be happening.

1. Check the Process Temperature Cooling. Assure cooling of product is sufficient to prevent condensation inside equipment; the product and room temperature should vary by no more than 20^°F. If cooked products are not cooled sufficiently, a cooler plant environment might create a conducive condition for condensation inside conveyors or bins.
2. Establish Process Separation. Eliminate any co-mingling of ingredients with flavor enhancements, packing supplies, and finished products. If a plant is to produce Salmonella-free product, there needs to be “dirty” and “clean” separation along with four plant zones for cleaning and inspection. Human feet and mechanical wheels also can track Salmonella-contaminated soil from a “dirty” damp condensate area into a designated “clean” zone.
3. Improve the Cleaning Inspection Process. A cleaning program may be well established for zones 1 and 2. However zones 3 and 4 are areas where condensation from the winter cold fronts are more likely to be seen. Look for condensation or evidence (such as water stains) inside equipment, around the building perimeter, and especially at poorly insulated ceilings.
4. Check Plant Air Flow. Check the air flow to assure clean air source(s), and keep dirty air entering “clean” zones. Poor air flow at the building perimeter can allow condensation leading to microbial problems. By utilizing portable and ceiling fans in conjunction with exhausts, air flow can be modified temporarily along ceilings or walls. Ceiling condensate dripping onto process equipment below is a serious food safety concern.
5. Check for Building for Unusual Leaks and Dust Collection. Leaks create many hours to clean, are seemingly never ending, and are preventable. As snow melts and temperatures rise and fall, roof leaks might happen at unusual times. Small leaks onto small dust can create big microbial issues. Examine the effectiveness of the
dust collection system and clean overheads.
6. Educate – and Re-educate Employees. Now is a good time to educate/re-educate employees about HACCP and pertinent essential pre-requisites to prevent Salmonella from raising its ugly head this winter – and about condensation and its consequences. Educated employees can be some of your best inspectors.

This short list can be used for Salmonella control preparation for the oncoming cold weather, as Salmonella seems to be more of an issue in the winter, probably due to condensation-related problems. Controlling Salmonella requires a well thought out microbial control program, so to implement a successful program, each of these items should be individually addressed. A review of the overall strategic plan, possibly already incorporated into short-term action and long-term budgeting, would be in order with any number of environmental positives. Even a small amount of Salmonella in a food product can cause harm. Thus, a single positive environmental sample should be seen as a warning to investigate the source and initiate specific corrective action. GMA has excellent Salmonella Control document. View or download it.