Salmonella in Seasoning?

Breaking news during an evening broadcast reported that numerous patients in a nursing home were being stricken with flu-like symptoms. The following evening more patients became ill. The next day medical staff suspected Salmonella food poisoning from breakfast cereal and reported the problem to the FDA. One brand of cereal was found to be contaminated with Salmonella, and the FDA began an investigation, arriving at the production plant a few days later. During the opening meeting, the FDA announced they were investigating a foodborne illness incident due to Salmonella allegedly originating in cereal produced at this plant. How did that happen?

Although this incident may be fictitious with any similarity to real events purely coincidental, there are lessons to be learned: If there is Salmonella in the plant, in the product, where is the food safety gap? How does one manage the media? What are some practical solutions?
 

The Investigation started with the examination of company records of Salmonella testing in both the plant environment and products. Cleaning procedures and frequencies were reviewed. Numerous environmental locations within the plant were sampled along with finished products. Each FDA investigator was shadowed by a company supervisor/manager with samples duplicated for company analysis. Products sampled were placed on hold pending results. The plant was a well-designed facility with an in-house sanitation department and no history of Salmonella problems.

Both company and FDA test results indicated an incidence of environmental positive Salmonella with “hot spots” in the seasoning room. Finished products tested negative for Salmonella, except on the day in question with a matching serotype (S. enteritidis) to the nursing home product. Salmonella was not found in any other products. Something bad happened that day.

The plant was shut down for a thorough cleaning. The company, while admitting no wrongdoing, voluntarily recalled suspect cereal products from store shelves. More people became sick, mostly the elderly and young children; some were hospitalized. The media was attempting to interview workers inquiring why the plant was not in production. The recall was expanded to recover additional products, primarily due to a lack of a clean production break and poor recordkeeping. The company was preparing a press release with one spokesperson for media contact while establishing a dedicated number for consumer contact.

The Cause. Production and sanitation records were examined during the day in question. Records indicated that a bird entered the seasoning room very early in the morning through a propped-open exit door. Previously, bird activity in nearby trees also had been reported. The bird was captured late in the afternoon. Sanitation records indicated bird droppings were cleaned up “in a few isolated areas” during production. A liquid flavor enhancement was applied on the product from an open vat. The vat was routinely cleaned by the night shift during a changeover. It is possible some bird droppings were applied on the product.

The Lessons Learned. An open door … all it takes is one lousy bird. A dropping in the wrong place can poison a whole bunch of people. Failure to react to an unusual problem not protecting the process and/or shutting down is bordering on negligence. Using good food safety design and sanitation practices, with both built on a solid foundation of good manufacturing practices, will help control microorganisms. The foundation here was weak, and employee GMP training was provided immediately with a special session for supervision.

Another lesson learned is the handling of media. Having proactive protocols for good media relations can help prevent a small problem from escalating. Likewise, good records can prevent a recall from escalating. The clean break was better defined and better records kept.

How Much Did This Cost? Total cost was in the millions of dollars. The biggest expense is an intangible with loss of company reputation and sales. Tangible costs are the escalated recall of a week’s worth of product and settlements of numerous lawsuits. Perhaps the biggest bang for the solution buck were an open-door alarm, a lid for the vat, and removal of two trees.

Conclusion. This incident hurt a company’s reputation affecting profits. Making food safety decisions proactively is much better than retroactively. Are you—and your supervisors—prepared to make unusual decisions for unusual occurrences? A chain is as strong as the weakest link. Food safety programs are as strong as very early morning activity. Now might be a good time to make a night-shift visit and observe if the shift’s activity supports food safety. Now might also be a good time to remove bird-infested trees, especially near plant doors. Be proactive and be safe!