What is the future of Global Fresh produce safety for retail and food service.

1. Summary of Conference for Food Protection Workshop
April 12, 2008
San Antonio, Texas
By Lydia Strayer, MS
Chemstar Corporation
Director of Food Safety and Regulatory Affairs
What is the Future of
Global Fresh Produce Safety
for Retail and Foodservice?

2. In April 2008, The Conference for Food Protection (CFP) held a pre-conference workshop on fresh produce safety. The workshop,
What is the Future of Global Fresh Produce Safety for Retail and Foodservice?, was moderated by Don Schaffner, PhD, Rutgers
University, who has served for the last two years as CFP Program Chair.
The Conference for Food Protection is a non-profit organization established in 1971. The structure of the Conference provides a
representative and equitable partnership of regulatory, industry, academia and consumer professionals. The goal of the Conference
is to identify problems, formulate recommendations and develop practices that promote food safety and consumer protection.
Recently designated as a titanium-level sponsor of CFP, Chemstar Corporation has been a strong supporter of the conference since
1994. As part of its ongoing effort to provide industry-related food safety information, Chemstar chartered Lydia Strayer, Director of
Food Safety and Regulatory Affairs, with the task of observing the pre-conference workshop and summarizing the
recommendations of the presenters. This document provides excerpts and an overview of this workshop
To view the complete workshop presentation, please visit:
Http://www.foodprotect.org/Previousbiennial/2008/2008WorkshopFilesCombined.pdf
.
WHAT IS THE FUTURE OF GLOBAL FRESH PRODUCE SAFETY FOR RETAIL AND FOODSERVICE? SUMMARY OF CONFERENCE FOR FOOD PROTECTION WORKSHOP
Overview
2
As the first name in food safety, you can trust Chemstar Corporation to understand that it’s not just about keeping your premises clean, it’s about
keeping your brand clean. For more than 25 years, we have been providing comprehensive food safety, sanitation, and hygiene solutions for
companies worldwide in industries such as retail supermarkets, food service, restaurants, hospitality, food processing, and healthcare institutions.
Our mission of flexibility and customer service allows us to spend more time on-site than anyone else. As a result,
Chemstar Corporation dedicates more than 80% of our staff to direct customer service. Food safety is all we do
and we do it better than anyone.
No matter what business you’re in, Chemstar Corporation can help you keep it clean, safe, and efficient with
best-in-class sanitation chemical products and equipment, unmatched service, consistent customer
communication, and a staff of experts in food safety and sanitation.
For more information on our innovative food safety and sanitation solutions, contact us at:
Chemstar Corporation
120 Interstate Parkway, Suite 100
Lithia Springs, Georgia 30122
Phone: +1.800.327.0777
Web: www.chemstarcorp.com
E-mail: info@chemstarcorp.com

3. Since 1973, CDC has collected reports of foodborne illness outbreak investigations. Most foodborne
outbreaks (two or more cases of a similar illness resulting from the ingestion of a common food) are
detected, investigated and controlled by local and state health departments. Reporting is voluntary and
incomplete. Before 1998, CDC received reports of 400 - 600 outbreaks per year. With revised surveillance,
approximately 1,200 foodborne outbreaks have been reported since then.
CDC defines fresh produce as “uncooked produce items, or salad without eggs, cheeses, seafood or meat”. From
1973 - 1987, there were190 foodborne outbreaks linked to fresh produce, comprising 3.2% of all outbreaks of
determined source, with over 16,000 illnesses and 8 deaths. In descending order, lettuce, melons, seed sprouts
and apple or orange juice were most frequently implicated as the food vehicle. Of those 190 outbreaks, 62 had
bacterial causes (Salmonella - 30; E. coli 0157 - 13), while 21 had viral causes (Hepatitis A - 12; Norovirus - 9).
With enhanced surveillance, all foodborne outbreaks increased beginning in 1988, including produce-related
outbreaks. From 1998 - 2004, there were 384 outbreaks linked to produce items (28 were multi-state
outbreaks), comprising 7% of all outbreaks of determined source, with over 15,800 illnesses and 15 deaths. The
implicated food vehicles still included lettuce in first place, but sprouts moved up to second, then tomatoes and
melons. Of those 384 outbreaks, 97 had bacterial causes (Salmonella - 53; E. coli 0157 - 19), while 81 had viral
causes (Calicivirus/Norovirus - 73; Hepatitis A - 8). While Norovirus increased dramatically during this time
period, its increase coincided with increased availability of Norovirus diagnostic testing.
From 1998 - 2004, the number of foodborne illness outbreaks caused by fresh produce
has been in the range of approximately 40 - 60 annually. Individual illnesses from
fresh produce averaged approximately 2,200 per year. Though significant,
these numbers are far less than outbreaks/illnesses attributed to
meat/poultry products.
Produce-Related Foodborne Infections: Review of Outbreak Surveillance
Art Liang, MD, MPH U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
WHAT IS THE FUTURE OF GLOBAL FRESH PRODUCE SAFETY FOR RETAIL AND FOODSERVICE? SUMMARY OF CONFERENCE FOR FOOD PROTECTION WORKSHOP 3

4. Historical Perspective: In 1997, multiple federal agencies launched the National Food Safety Initiative (FSI). After several
outbreaks associated with fresh and fresh-cut produce and sprouted seeds, the FSI was expanded to include the Produce and
Imported Food Safety Initiative (PIFSI). In 1998, FDA published their GAPs and GMPs in the “Guide to Minimize Microbial
Food Safety Hazards for Fresh Fruits and Vegetables”. The next year they published guidance for theproduction of safe sprouts.
Outbreaks associated with produce continued, largely associated with specific fruits and vegetables, often from specific regions or
countries. Outbreaks occur with both domestic and imported produce though agents and products may be different.
Produce Safety Action Plan: FDA initiated a review of its produce safety program, which resulted in the 2004 Action Plan. This
initiative addresses all principal points between farm and table where contamination could occur. The 1998 GAO/GMP guidance
focused on the farm and packing facility. Commodity-specific guidance has since been published for the melon, lettuce/leafy greens
and tomato supply chains. Final guidance was published in Guide to Minimize Microbial Food Safety Hazards of Fresh-cut Fruits and
Vegetables (February 2007). The Guide recommends that processors employ HACCP principles and provides recommended practices
in all areas, including recalls and tracebacks.
FDA has worked on produce safety at retail and foodservice by addressing time/temperature control for tomatoes in the Supplement
to the 2005 Food Code and for leafy greens through an Issue submitted at the 2008 CFP. Other areas of concern for retail and
foodservice include employee health and hygiene, preventing cross contamination, and encouraging GAPs via purchase
specifications. Questions need to be answered about the efficacy of chemical washes for fresh produce.
FDA has taken produce safety actions that include consumer education, and working collaboratively with
stakeholders at various produce conferences in the U.S. and abroad. Codex Alimentarius developed the
Code of Hygienic Practice for Fresh Fruits and Vegetables. A FAO/WHO expert panel determined
that the safety of leafy greens and herbs is relevant worldwide and would justify attention by the
Codex Committee of Food Hygiene.
Current Activities: Two public hearings on produce safety and possible measures that
could be taken by FDA were held in 2007, with comments received from a broad
spectrum of groups. Characteristics of any produce safety regulatory option developed
by FDA should be consistent across the U.S., based on sound science, overarching (all
fresh produce) and accommodate specifics. Questions still to be answered include
whether guidance, regulation, or a combination of both are needed.
FDA’s Perspective on Global Produce Safety
Nega Beru, PhD, U.S. Food and Drug Administration
WHAT IS THE FUTURE OF GLOBAL FRESH PRODUCE SAFETY FOR RETAIL AND FOODSERVICE? SUMMARY OF CONFERENCE FOR FOOD PROTECTION WORKSHOP 4

5. Situation: Increase in foodborne illnesses associated with fresh produce, multiple commodities, multiple states,
diversity in production practices, lack of existing regulatory oversight at farm and packing houses, and societal
intolerance of adverse events.
Solution: FDA listening sessions, USDA Request for Comments on Marketing Orders/Agreements, California marketing
agreement, Florida state regulation, and AFDO Model Code.
The California Leafy Green Marketing Agreement (LGMA) covers fresh and fresh-cut leafy greens. Currently, it has 116
signatories, which equals 99% by volume, with 368 audits conducted. Components include general requirements, personal
hygiene (field and harvest), animal exclusion, environmental assessment, water testing, and requirements for soil
amendments. Based on the number of checkpoints on the audits, there was 99% compliance. Two firms were decertified
and one declared ineligible. Of the major deviations, most involved record-keeping.
The Florida Tomato Rule will take effect in July, 2008, and requires a permit for packing houses and applies to all growers
and packers, but exempts small quantities. The Rule adopts the “Tomato Best Practices Manual”, which includes
environmental assessment, water monitoring, soil amendments, record keeping, and requires a pathogen
reduction step for Field Pack.
The Association of Food and Drug Officials (AFDO) has experience in developing Model
Codes. An AFDO Model Code establishes a framework for national consistency, is
quicker and more easily modified than federal rules, provides an open inclusive
process, and as a “model” it provides a mechanism for states/local
authorities to address specific issues to that locale. The approach will be
to begin where GAPs leave off. Many stakeholders are participating in the
development of the Model Code: five states, two federal agencies,
several industry associations representing the entire food chain, along
with academia and two consumer groups.
Produce Safety - States’ Perspective
Marion Aller, DVM, DABT, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services and AFDO
WHAT IS THE FUTURE OF GLOBAL FRESH PRODUCE SAFETY FOR RETAIL AND FOODSERVICE? SUMMARY OF CONFERENCE FOR FOOD PROTECTION WORKSHOP 5

6. McDonald's Corporation has a presence in 118 countries, and as such has a vested interest in
global standards. Currently, there are numerous types of audits and numerous audit standards,
creating a confusing array of redundant audits. Over 90% of the content is the same.
Customers around the world expect safe and high quality food. McDonald's has instituted a Supplier Quality
Management System (SQMS) outlining worldwide supplier expectations. The company also is co-lead with
Cargill, Coca Cola, and Kraft in the Global Audit Harmonization Initiative (GAHI) with the vision of creating a
globally accepted audit framework across the global food supply chain to ensure safe food efficiently
delivered to consumers.
The journey to global harmonization has involved many months of collaboration with the Global Food Safety
Initiative (GFSI). [See the last presentation by Cory Hedman for more on GFSI.]
Current produce safety standards include:
- Global GAP harmonizes and establishes standards around the globe.
- FDA Guide to Minimize Microbial Food Safety Hazards of Fresh-cut Produce
- Canadian Horticultural Council manuals
- SQF 1000 System Growing and Production of Fresh Produce/Leafy Greens
- LGMA mandatory government audit program that certifies member companies
- FSLC On-Farm Produce Standards and Produce Processor Standards
Global GAP would provide a single integrated standard with modular application for different
product groups, including a crops base, livestock base and aquaculture base. The Crops
Base would have a Fruits and Vegetables segment, among others. This Standard would
help establish a common framework/standard for produce across the globe.
Harmonization on Global Produce Safety Standards
Cindy Jiang, McDonald’s Corporation
WHAT IS THE FUTURE OF GLOBAL FRESH PRODUCE SAFETY FOR RETAIL AND FOODSERVICE? SUMMARY OF CONFERENCE FOR FOOD PROTECTION WORKSHOP 6

7. Fresh produce includes over 300 separate commodities, each with its own hazards, controls and risk profile. Thereare
5,000,000 bags of green leafy salads produced each day. In almost all cases, food safety relies on prevention of
contamination. Inhibiting pathogen growth is not sufficient, but there is no practical “kill” step currently available.
FDA's Guide to Minimize Microbial Food Safety Hazards for Fresh Fruits and Vegetables (GAPs, 1998) is still the primary
guidance. Commodity-specific guidelines for melons, lettuce and leafy greens, and tomatoes were issued in 2005-2006,
building on the 1998 GAPs, but extending to the entire supply chain. There are key considerations for production and
harvest. Processing considerations include washing (not a “kill” step), labeling (ready-to-wash vs. ready-to-eat), and finished
product packaging (final protection against subsequent contamination). There is no evidence that GAPs, commodity-
specific guidelines and other best practices, properly applied, are not sufficient to assure fresh produce food safety.
Outbreaks that were linked to leafy greens in 2006 caused many speculations of what went wrong, including flooding,
contaminated manure, root uptake or contaminated aquifer or wells. In the Taco John E. coli 0157:H7 outbreak linked to
iceberg lettuce, the field investigation report showed the outbreak strain was found at two dairies adjacent to a supplier's
lettuce field, and that the field's irrigation system shared cross-connection with the manure waste system at one dairy.
Where do we go from here?
Best Practices, such as California has in place. They should be science-based when possible, but when science is lacking,
specific criteria may be based on expert opinion and consensus. Several diverse, independent buyer initiatives have
been put in place to define irrigation water standards, use of soil amendments, distances from domestic animals,
corrections for incursions by wild animals, worker hygienic practices, and microbiological testing.
Compliance with GAPs, customer standards, third party audits, etc. have not gone away. But newer initiatives
include Marketing Agreements, such as California's. Participation is voluntary, but then mandatory. It
requires “handlers” to purchase only from growers who comply with Leafy Greens Best Practices. Arizona is
implementing a similar program. The California Tomato Farmers Cooperative has a similar voluntary
program, but is then mandatory. In both programs, USDA personnel perform audits.
Research is needed in the following areas: a “kill” step in the supply chain; better methods to
prevent, detect and correct contamination; and science to support quantified acceptance criteria,
e.g., distance from a dairy operation or how long to wait after potential contamination of a field.
Role of Agricultural Producers and Processors in Assuring Fresh Produce Safety
Dale E. Gombas, PhD, United Fresh Produce Association
WHAT IS THE FUTURE OF GLOBAL FRESH PRODUCE SAFETY FOR RETAIL AND FOODSERVICE? SUMMARY OF CONFERENCE FOR FOOD PROTECTION WORKSHOP 7

8. Fresh produce sourcing is the most critical prevention step. The focus is on people, animals and
water through Darden's supplier approval process. All approved growers must develop and
implement GAPs; third-party audit as well as supplier internal auditing is required. Foreign fields
must pass Darden audits. Produce mustbe traceable to field and lot. There are stringent standards for
employee hygiene, field sanitation and facilities, animal control and agricultural water. The packing shed
approval process is similar.
High-risk products such as leafy greens, green onions, tomatoes, herbs, berries and melons are tested
pre-harvest for E. coli 0157:H7 and Salmonella. A confirmed positive sample means “Do Not Harvest”.
Pesticide testing is performed as well.
Fresh-cut produce processors must ensure GMPs, HACCP, SOPs and SSOPs. They must have an internal
auditing program in place and must pass third-party audits along with Darden audits. There is also an
approval process for distributors, which includes trucking.
Produce practices in restaurants also receive priority. Restaurant managers must provide training for
employees, check for approved sources and check the product for quality. Managers must ensure proper
storage (dry, refrigerated) as applicable to the particular item of produce. Proper handling is required:
no bare hand contact, sanitized sinks (dedicated sink ideal), and established washing and preparing
procedures.
All segments of the produce industry must work collaboratively together for continuous improvement
and reviewing/improving standards. Industry needs more research on water quality and product testing.
“It's 9:00 a.m., do you know where your produce is coming from?”
Fresh Produce Safety Program at Darden Restaurants
John Gurrisi, REHA, Darden Restaurants, Inc.
WHAT IS THE FUTURE OF GLOBAL FRESH PRODUCE SAFETY FOR RETAIL AND FOODSERVICE? SUMMARY OF CONFERENCE FOR FOOD PROTECTION WORKSHOP 8

9. The Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI) was launched at the CIES - The Food Business Forum Annual Congress in 2000,
following a directive from food business CEO's. CIES is comprised of 200 retailer companies and 200 manufacturer
companies in 150 countries. Food safety was, and still is, “top of mind” with consumers. Food safety has risen in
importance with CEO's from sixth place in 2006 to second place (behind corporate responsibility) in 2008.
The GFSI mission is “continuous improvement in food safety management systems to ensure confidence in the delivery of safe
food to consumers”. The GFSI Foundation Board of Directors (11 positions) includes representatives from four U.S.companies:
These standards were completely aligned with the GFSI Guidance Document Version 4 requirements, resulting in increased
confidence in the standards, with comparable audit results. The goal: “Once certified, accepted everywhere”.
In 2007, eight large companies, including Delhaize and Wal-Mart, came to a common acceptance of GFSI benchmarked
standards. Over 30,000 certificates were issued against GFSI recognized standards, a 50% increase over 2006.
GFSI is adding value with less duplication, continuous improvement in the content of the standards, healthy
competition, more cost efficiency in the supply chain, comparable audit approach and results, and confidence
in sourcing.
Challenges continue in 2008 to achieve common acceptance by all stakeholders, greater consistency of food
safety requirements in vertical supply chains and safer sourcing. Work remains to be done with auditor
competence and training, auditing in emerging markets, protocols for small suppliers, and food defense and
bio-terrorism.
- Cory Hedman, Hannaford Supermarkets - Brian Farnsworth, Hormel Foods Corp.
- Cindy Jiang, McDonald’s - J. P. Suarez, Wal-Mart
This Board provides oversight to the GFSI Technical Committee comprised of over 50 food-safety experts that work on common-
interest projects to ensure continuous improvement in food safety.
Current priorities include benchmarking work on four key food safety standards:
- British Retail Consortium (BRC) - International Food Standard (IFS)
- Dutch HACCP - Safe Quality Food (SQF)
Global Food Safety Initiative
Cory Hedman, MPH, Hannaford Supermarkets
WHAT IS THE FUTURE OF GLOBAL FRESH PRODUCE SAFETY FOR RETAIL AND FOODSERVICE? SUMMARY OF CONFERENCE FOR FOOD PROTECTION WORKSHOP 9

10. ABOUT CHEMSTAR CORPORATION
WHAT IS THE FUTURE OF GLOBAL FRESH PRODUCE SAFETY FOR RETAIL AND FOODSERVICE? SUMMARY OF CONFERENCE FOR FOOD PROTECTION WORKSHOP
10
As the first name in food safety, you can trust Chemstar Corporation to understand that it’s not just about keeping your premises clean,
it’s about keeping your brand clean. For more than 25 years, we have been providing comprehensive food safety, sanitation, and
hygiene solutions for companies worldwide in industries such as retail supermarkets, food service, restaurants, hospitality, food
processing, and healthcare institutions.
Our mission of flexibility and customer service allows us to spend more time on-site than anyone else. As a result, Chemstar Corporation
dedicates more than 80% of our staff to direct customer service. Food safety is all we do and we do it better than anyone.
No matter what business you’re in, Chemstar Corporation can help you keep it clean, safe, and efficient with best-in-class sanitation chemical
products and equipment, unmatched service, consistent customer communication, and a staff of experts in food safety and sanitation.
For more information on our innovative food safety and sanitation solutions, contact us at:
Chemstar Corporation
120 Interstate Parkway
Suite 100
Lithia Springs, Georgia 30122
Phone: +1.800.327.0777
Web: www.chemstarcorp.com
E-mail: info@chemstarcorp.com
About the Author
Lydia Strayer, MS, is Director of Food Safety and Regulatory Affairs for Chemstar Corporation.
A native of Mississippi, Ms. Strayer holds a masters degree in food science from Mississippi
State University. She is the former Director of the Mississippi Bureau of General Environmental
Services, as well as the past Chair of the Conference for Food Protection. She is currently active
in AFDO, AFDOSS, Southeast FDA and NEHA and holds training certifications for SuperSafeMark,
ServSafe and the National Registry.
Copyright © 2008 by Chemstar Corporation. All rights reserved.