PrimusLabs cannot count the lives saved through the decades of servicing the fresh produce industry.  Unfortunately, we can only pray and mourn for the lives that have been lost due to the unfortunate circumstances that were beyond our control.

Every life is precious.  For over 20 years our passionate commitment at PrimusLabs is food safety and minimizing illness and death from fresh produce.  Our weapon in the battle against food illness is to verify:

•  Pesticide testing to validate that residue levels in the field are low enough for harvest crews to enter and at federal standards for human consumption.
• Pathogen testing of harmful bacteria on farm inputs, product, water, and facilities.
• Auditing of fresh produce farming and facility food safety practices, reporting what each company is doing to eliminate food sickness.

No life should be taken by food safety ignorance.  We believe food safety preparation can be accomplished by any grower or facility from the Salinas Valley, CA, to the mountain farmer in Arkansas, or to the small one hectare farm in Canada, Guatemala, Mexico, or China.

We have backed our commitment up by creating and providing free food safety preparation tools to the fresh produce industry in both English and Spanish.

• Manual Building Toolkit: http://intranet.primuslabs.com/Toolkit/User/Default.aspx
• Self Audit:  https://intranet.primuslabs.com/audit/sign_Self_Auditor.asp
• Posting of all audits: http://www.primuslabs.com/rs/documents.aspx

PrimusLabs is the strongest auditing firm in the fresh produce industry.  We will conduct over 15,000 audits worldwide, with competent auditors who utilize industry backed auditing standards.  We believe our process for training, developing, calibrating, and scheduling auditors is the most stringent in the fresh produce industry.

PrimusLabs wants the world to know that our commitment to life through food safety will never fade.  We want to be in the forefront so one day no lives are ever again lost due to a food illness.

There is no easy answer, but rather a lot of thinking to do. What is the most practical approach? What is the most cost efficient approach? What will the consumers feel is the safest? What will not cause problems when exporting to other countries with different laws?

Let’s look at a few ideas that are floating out there in cyberspace at the moment. There is a lot of talk about reducing pathogens from cattle by altering their diet, for example, corn byproducts, and there is also a lot of buzz about researchers developing cattle vaccines that will reduce the pathogen levels. By reducing the pathogens at the source, then hopefully we could reduce cross contamination, and ultimately reduce recalls and outbreaks.

Is focusing on the start of the supply chain enough? What about spending some money on researching new product washing systems? Alternatives to chlorine such as peracetic acid and ozone are being seen, as well as some trade name products such as Fresh Rinse ™ and Smart Wash ™, but there are also some new ideas like electrolyzed water and phage washes. Phage washes are a product of nature in that nature created a predator for bacteria called bacteriophages, and these lunar landing craft looking viruses can “infect” bacteria and really mess up their day, and there are already companies commercializing this for food safety. However, you will hear extremely bad press about what the “wrong phage” can do to a pathogen, like increasing the pathogens bad effect on a consumer.

Last but not least, what technology might fix everything at the near end of the supply chain no matter where or when a pathogen got picked up? Release the laser guns. We hear a lot about irradiation as being a possible solution in many supply chains, including produce, and the topic has been revived since the latest German E.coli outbreak. Usually we worry how the consumer will react to this technology and how (or if) this will require special labeling. What about the technical aspects of irradiation though? Is irradiating a lettuce the same as irradiating a hamburger patty? A detailed article on the engineering aspects in a recent food safety magazine shows some of the technical difficulties involved.

If we each had a money cloud that was constantly down pouring on us, why not say invest in preventive systems at every level in the supply chain? The more food safety hurdles (technologies) we build the better. If a pathogen is going to make me sick, it better at least work for it! Unfortunately, money can be tight, so we will need to carefully consider all the pro’s and con’s of what the various technologies can offer, and focus our resources on the ones that give the best results. Now, like most children will tell you, a good once upon a time story requires a happily ever after… let’s hope so with our current preventive break through technologies, because I don’t hear any white, majestic horses trotting down the hallway towards my office right now. WAIT! I heard something…oh, never mind, someone dropped a cup. It’s weird when a cup bounces a few times before breaking.

Subscribe to this blog!

Although there is no infectious dose to monitor love sickness, we do have some numbers for pathogenic doses, which our microbiologists were so kind to let me know.  The infectious dose is the amount of pathogen required to cause an infection to the host.

Example infectious doses for some microorganisms from the FDA website, last updated 03/03/2011:

* Salmonella: As few as 15-20 cells

* Listeria Monocytogenes: unknown; safe to assume fewer than 1,000 cells

* Escherichia coli O157:H7: unknown; may be similar to Shigella spp (as few as 10 cells)

* Shigella spp: As few as 10 cells

Now, just like love, pathogens can also manipulate their host. Let me explain…the success of any pathogen is dependent on its ability to avoid host immune responses. Because of this, pathogens have evolved several (yes, several) methods that allow them to successfully infect a host, while cleverly avoiding detection or destruction by the immune system. I can just see little pathogens wearing a pair of those disguise glasses with a fake nose and mustache. Pathogenic dodging techniques include, but are not limited to, secreting enzymes that digest any physical barriers, intracellular pathogenesis (which Salmonella is a fan of), and generating surface proteins that bind to antibodies, rendering them ineffective. Hopefully, an individual doesn’t suffer from immunodeficiency, which makes these techniques easier for the pathogens. Click here to read about the defenses we have against pathogens, like the acidity in our guts, or antibiotics and vaccinations!

Not all pathogens are equal. Some pathogens, in your average healthy person, go relatively un-noticed. You may feel off for a day, and wake up the next morning ready for that date you’ve been waiting for all week! On the other end, some pathogens, even in the most healthy person, can cause hospitalization, sever complications which may result in life long tribulations, or in worst cases, death. For example, Escherichia coli 0157:H7 is considered an extremely dangerous pathogen. Victims can develop hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS), which can lead to permanent loss of kidney function. The treatment plan for this is dialysis, medications such as corticosteroids, and transfusions of packed red blood cells and platelets. In the elderly, HUS, plus two other symptoms, fever and neurologic symptoms, constitutes thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura (TTP). This illness can have a mortality rate in the elderly as high as 50%.  On the other hand, Enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli (ETEC), which, according to the FDA website is not considered a serious foodborne hazard in countries having high sanitary standards and practices, is usually self-limiting. In infants or debilitated elderly persons, appropriate electrolyte replacement therapy may be necessary. In other words, stay home and drink a lot of Gatorade.

For more information on any pathogen, check out the Bad Bug Book, which is basically a complete criminal profile for each pathogen, minus the mug shot. However, keep in mind that the recent E.coli 0104:H7 outbreak in Germany is a game changer, and we may be seeing updates in regards to pathogen profiles.

Subscribe to this blog!

When an outbreak occurs, national and local government agencies are under a lot of pressure to quickly say what caused the outbreak. Sometimes this pressure results in premature finger pointing with questionable evidence to uphold such finger wagging, and in some cases is later proved wrong upon viewing scientific evidence. It’s my elementary school playground routine all over again! In all seriousness, this can have severe ramifications. For example, in 2008 there was a salmonella outbreak, and tomatoes were initially blamed causing serious losses for the tomato industry. Later, as the outbreak investigation evolved, it was discovered that jalapenos were the real culprit, but the damage to the tomato industry was already done, and, unlike in Europe, government compensation was not forthcoming. In the recent German E.coli O104:H4 outbreak, cucumbers from Spain were initially blamed, and later it was said that locally grown sprouts were the cause. The Spanish are now claiming compensation, and the German disease sleuths are looking more like Inspector Clouseau than Sherlock Holmes!

Clearly, these wrongful accusations are very harmful to all concerned, and the whole supply chain suffers.  Consumers were saying “Please, hold the cucumbers, and pile on some sprouts in their place,” and buyers stopped buying the affected commodity. In a perfect world, our disease sleuths with their amazing, accurate, and very fast epidemiological investigation, coupled with an awesome traceability system, will precisely locate the offending lots of product and their source. The opposite end of this perfect world is using heavy artillery on the industry, taking down whole commodity groups in one shot. It is no doubt that this is a stressful situation for everyone involved, and my heart goes out to the person who has to make the call between incomplete evidence and mounting fatalities and seriously ill people – you won’t find my “E” on those shoe tags.

So what are the solutions? How do we keep the consumers safe without wrecking industries?  I wish I knew the answer! The food industry puts a lot of resources into preventive measures, and rightfully so, but maybe the food industry should also remember that despite the best will in the world, that bad stuff happens, so investing in crisis management is a necessary evil. Investing in our disease sleuths is one part of that investment. For example, the ability for investigations to start immediately, avoiding the red tape, and getting those customer responses in fast because the more time that goes by, the less likely it is to pinpoint the source. In other words, invest in good epidemiology. Investing in good traceability systems is also an important facet of a recall situation so that the size and scope of a recall can be narrowed down as far as technically possible. Good investments in epidemiology and traceability by all parts of the supply chain and governments should result in fewer outbreaks, and if they do occur, less affected suppliers and consumers.

PCR is a DNA-based test, developed in 1983 in order to amplify DNA from a very small amount. When running PCR, the polymerase needs to know what DNA it should make copies of. This is where primer comes in, which is a strand of nucleic acid. The primer provides a starting point for a given sequence to match up. The polymerase will find any sequences in your sample DNA that are complementary to the primer sequence. The number of DNA segments increases exponentially, essentially doubling in number after each cycle. To put it in perspective, thirty PCR cycles are capable of producing 1 billion DNA copies in less than 3 hours, all starting from a single strand of DNA. I would HATE to follow THAT act! To make PCR even better is that the process is very simple to perform. After all the material is in the test tube, it just needs to be placed in a device known as the thermal cycler that performs the temperature changes necessary for PCR to occur.

When testing using PCR, you can get a positive reaction from many things, including closely related bacteria, or dead bacteria which still have DNA, but would not be capable of causing disease. (I call that a zombie, depending on which movie I am referencing). Therefore, every “presumptive positive” PCR test should be confirmed using cultural methods to make sure that a) the pathogen being looked for is what actually caused the positive reaction, and b) to make sure the pathogen detected is alive. This confirmation, “cultural confirmation”, takes several days, and before PCR, was the only option for testing.

The time difference between PCR and cultural confirmation testing can be several days, even weeks depending on how far you want to carry the confirmation testing. PCR manufacturers can technically sell you a 1-2 hours test based on the amount of time the PCR reaction itself takes, however, there is almost always an enrichment step before the PCR can be run, which can take up to 2 days. Most of our PCR turn around times are within a day or two of receiving a sample, (although some are as short as 12 hours), while cultural confirmation usually takes up to a week.

Currently, there is research into methods to improve PCR, for example, a modification that will allow distinguishing between live and dead cells, but PCR will most likely remain the standard for several years, just like my brand new pair of super comfortable jegging jeans.

Spoiler Alert: Gone are the days when people used an Abacus to track the number of sick people…stay tuned for my next blog regarding Epidemiology!

Subscribe to this blog!

There is an overabundance of new reports every hour from all over the world about the German E.coli 0104 outbreak, and these reports are a mix of facts, and at best, interpretations of the facts sometimes buried in journalistic jargon. Working out the details is made even more difficult with press releases coming from the European Union, the individual European country’s governments, and within these countries, the local government officials, both in the affected outbreak countries, and countries who’s crops are being accused of causing the outbreak. Even more, the media wants to grab the general public’s attention away from Lady Gaga like news, which may be the cause of extraordinary headlines like “Killer Cucumber,” or “Sexist E.Coli,” in an award-wining attempt to steal the spotlight. Journalism quality varies, but one rule that is good to go by is to try and view the official press releases, for example the ECDC (European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control), RKI (Robert Koch Institut), or Euroserveillance. Also, try to find a good news/analysis source like this Bloomberg piece, for example.

Finally, always read multiple sources when trying to decipher the facts of any issue, and always have a pinch of salt ready (sodium light though…no need to have high blood pressure AND be misinformed in the same day).

Subscribe to this blog!

PrimusLabs’ believes that one of our strengths from the beginning has always been our relentless focus on all things food safety, meaning that one of our number one goals was (and still is) to create audits which help to ensure that our auditee’s have effective food safety programs in place. PrimusLabs audit checklists are devoted to food safety topics, and there is no mixing of scopes with other topics, such as biodiversity, social accountability, or environmental sustainability. However, post 9-11, we did add a small separate section in the PrimusLabs audits on food security.

PrimusGAP, PrimusGMP, and PrimusGFS audits have zoned in on food safety since their inception, even before we built our first food safety database in 1998. Our GAP audits tackle produce industry related food safety issues such as fertilizer use, compost, water used for irrigation, pesticide delusion, food handling, and more. Our GMP audit looks at issues like process control, cross contamination, sanitation, traceability, HACCP, etc. PrimusLabs now has offices in Chile and Costa Rica, as well as several offices in both the USA and Mexico. This means that we are performing lots of audits outside of the US on product destined for both domestic consumption and import to the USA. These audits, whether performed here in the US or in another country, are all the same questions and criteria, which are all centralized around Food Safety.

In the world today, communication is hot and poppin’ with the world wide web. We get news almost instantaneously with the help of online news subscriptions, social networking, and other timely online based alerts. PrimusLabs matches this speed, delivering testing and audit results ASAP via email. We also code programs for data to move up and down the supply chain using internet technology. We also make all our audit programs and self help tools available (free of charge) on our website; 24-7, all around the world. Because of this instantaneous news trend, consumers are wildly more aware of foods safety issues, concerns, and recalls. The general public is becoming a lot more proactive in their attempt to get involved, or think twice about what they are eating or feeding their friends and loved ones. Perhaps this awareness in the general public, mixed with the frequency of outbreaks and recalls, will push the industry to put more emphasis on food safety.

PrimusLabs’ message has always been, and will always be, “when food safety counts.”

PrimusLabs certified audits include standard PrimusGAP (Good Agricultural Practices) and Harvest Crew audits, standard PrimusGMP (Good Manufacturing Practices) audits, and all facility type audits, including HACCP (Hazard Analysis & Critical Control Points).  You can view all audit programs here. You can also review the checklist and guidelines for all these audit types on the PrimusLabs website for a heads up on how you should prepare. If you are still un-sure as to how you might do, or feel like you might be ready, you have the option to apply for a pre-assessment audit! A pre-assessment audit is basically an unofficial audit that can be used internally, so you can evaluate if you are ready for an official audit. Wouldn’t it be great if we could do this in the dating world too? I can see myself now, “Stop calling me, that wasn’t a REAL date…I was doing a pre-assessment.” Or, you have the option to perform a self-audit, which is at no-cost to you, and is just one of the many free tools that PrimusLabs provides to help any company attain their food safety goals. Click here for more information on conducting a self-audit. Once you are sure you are ready for the real audit, you can go ahead and schedule your audit.

So then, what is an affiliated audit? What is the connection with PrimusLabs? GREAT question. I will be answering this in my next blog, due out June 1^st, in my continuous effort of trying to clear up confusing subject matter. If this is your first visit to the blog, welcome to the jungle baby.

Click here to subscribe to this blog!

For those growers that were affected by the floods this year, apart from the obvious concerns that the floods would have caused, they probably also experienced a sense of worry when it came time for their GAP (good agricultural practices) ranch audit.

Usually when the auditor gets to the questions about flooding, the grower can say “WHAT RAIN!?” and the auditor dutifully scribes “no flooding occurred” and continues to score all the back up mitigation questions “Not Applicable” and the audit moves onto the next group of questions. However, this year, quite a few California growers will have to report a “yes” to the flooding question, so I thought I would give those folks a heads up on where to look in the ranch audit template.

Question 03.05: “Has flooding from uncontrolled causes occurred on the growing area(s) since the previous growing season?” If the auditee answers this question with a “No”, then the supporting questions (03.05a and 03.05b) are deemed “Not Applicable”. However, if question 03.05 is answered “Yes,” then questions 03.05, 03.05a and 03.05b become measurable with a score.

Question 03.05a: “If the growing area(s) and product were affected by the flood waters, is there documented evidence that corrective measures were taken to affected land and product?” Think of things like maps that explained what happened, or applications of buffer zones, and the time difference between the time of the flood and planting (see question 03.05a conformance criteria for more details).

Question 03.05b: “Have soil tests been conducted on the flooded area(s) showing soil was negative or within an appropriate regulatory agency’s approved limits for contaminants?” This is where it asks to consider soil samples across the affected areas, followed by testing of these samples. For example, microbiological testing (see question 03.05b conformance criteria for details).

You can view the GAP ranch audit checklist here, as well as the checklists for harvest crew, greenhouse, pre-harvest block, and pre-season food safety inspection audits. Also available for viewing are the audit scoring guidelines. These tools can really help a company prepare for audits, giving them a sense of what the auditors are looking for.

It is important to view the auditor criteria as being the lowest hurdle to jump. Be sure to review and conduct risk assessments for all flooding issues for any potential problems regarding biological, chemical, or physical risks to your production areas and subsequent crops.

As a child, growing up on a farm (that didn’t produce food or anything besides weeds), my damage control for flooding involved the cunning use of duct-tape, frozen peas, and A LOT of kitchen sponges. Figure THAT one out.

For two of our lab locations, one in Yuma, Arizona, the other in Salinas, California, we do a seasonal migration of a select group of staff which occurs every year due to the seasonal changes which impact the crops. Basically, we (and our clients) are following the growing crops (leafy greens: winter in Yuma, summer in Salinas). Some clients even move their processing equipment during this shift in the seasonal location change! You have to admire that kind of hard work and commitment-seriously. From November to March, our select group of staff is in Yuma, and from April to November, that same group resides in Salinas. Well, why don’t we just hire people for different locations so that they don’t have to move? Here’s the thing…the jobs that these people do is incredibly complex, and the training it entails is substantial. The time and effort it would take to properly train new staff is overwhelming, plus, on the off seasons, there isn’t as much work, so having more staff doesn’t make sense in that respect either. Although the great migration requires a lot of work, it is actually the easiest and most sensible option.

So, which staff members are going all over the place each season? It’s actually a hodgepodge (I have been waiting a long time to use that word) of samplers, foremen, dispatch coordinators, lab technicians, and microbiologists. So, how does this work? Do we rent a RV, a tour bus, a personal jet? I don’t know why I was feeling particularly curious today, (I watched Ghost Hunters on my lunch break,) but I decided to dig up the “Season to Season Move Protocol” and figure it all out, and let me tell you, whoever wrote this likes their protocols like they like their orange juice: concentrated. There is a lot of coordination- how many people are moving, housing arrangements, payment arrangements, landlord meetings, move in dates, moving in itself, key making, setting up utilities, etc! Basically, we all know what a nightmare moving is, and this group has to do it every couple of months…while still performing their PrimusLabs duties! I can’t even hoola-hoop and pat my head at the same time!

Click here to find out what’s in season in your region!