In the news

The global food safety testing market was valued at $11,122.53 million in 2016. It is expected to grow at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 7.2% during 2018–2023. Some of the growth is due to the increase in food-borne illnesses due to contaminated food products. Microbiological testing often requires a long time to get results, which delays time to market of food products. Rapid testing decreased the testing time, but its high cost is affecting the market growth. Globally, incidences of food-borne diseases are increasing, and the most common cause of outbreaks are Salmonella typhi, Escherichia coli, Staphylococcus aureus, Vibrio cholera, Campylobacter and Listeria monocytogenes. The Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDCP) has reported that every year, one in 10 people get ill due to food-borne illness, most importantly, children under five years are at a higher risk. Major food-borne outbreaks have occurred in every continent in the past decade. Such incidences have made companies incur a heavy loss of sales and brand equity, making consumers aware of the potential health hazards. Pathogen testing dominates the food safety testing market, with fruit & vegetable testing being the largest. Recent concerns about microbial contaminants, such as E. coli and Salmonella, have driven the pathogen safety testing market. Pathogen testing is growing at a faster rate in the food safety testing market, due to the serious health effects of pathogens and the immediate impact of the quality of the foods. North America constituted the largest food safety testing market in 2016. The Asia-Pacific market is likely to record the fastest CAGR, primarily driven by the increase in testing procedures from the potential regions of China and India. Authorities, like the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India, and China Food and Drug Administration (CFDA) has been established to take serious steps toward ensuring food safety. @ https://www.researchandmarkets.com/research/7f84pz/the_global_food?w=4

Lipari Foods, LLC recalled Premo Brand turkey and cheese wedge sandwiches produced and packaged by sister company JLM due to potential contamination of Listeria monocytogenes. The products were produced on August 8, 2018 and distributed to food service and retail stores throughout Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Wisconsin and West Virginia. Products were distributed under the Premo Brand. The contamination was brought to the FDA attention by JLM after environmental testing initiated by the FDA following a previous recall returned positive test results for potential contamination of Listeria monocytogenes. No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this problem. Lipari Foods began shipping the product on August 9, 2018. @ https://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm617762.htm?utm_campaign=Lipari%20Foods%20Issues%20Voluntary%20Recall%20of%20Premo%20Brand%20Turkey%20%26%20Cheese%20Wedge%20Sandwiches&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Eloqua

A recent article in “Food Quality and Safety” describes the regulatory future of cell cultured meat and raises three issues (i) What federal agency should be responsible for overseeing such products? (ii) How should such products be regulated? (iii) How should the product be labeled? The agency responsible depends on the definition of cell cultured meat. Is it truly a meat? Is it FSIS or FDA? FSIS has been silent on this jurisdictional issue, noting when asked that the issue is under discussion within the administration. The FDA has taken a more active position and believes that they have the legal authority, the scientific expertise, and the procedural mechanisms in place to take hold of the issue. FDA’s approach at its public meeting in July focused heavily on gate-keeping questions. The overall message was that the FDA was highly receptive to fine-tuning its authority and to identify and activate a suitable gateway mechanism. Comments by the public revealed that some are advocating extreme caution and extensive research before any introduction of such products to the public while others, more hostile to traditional animal agriculture, arguing the sooner the better. A wide range of options for labeling was expressed—ranging from the extremely benign “clean meat,” to the highly pejorative, “fake meat,” with much in between. The main question remains whether cell culture meat will receive widespread consumer acceptance. This will depend heavily upon whether the consuming public has confidence that cell-cultured meal is safe, wholesome, properly labeled, and overseen by the appropriate government authorities. @ https://www.foodqualityandsafety.com/article/cell-cultured-meat-the-emerging-regulatory-landscape/?elq_mid=29674&elq_cid=10195538

The voluntarily recall of fresh-cut melon products, from Caito Foods, cost its owner SpartanNash $2.9 million this summer. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) epidemiological research traced back the Salmonella outbreak in fresh-cut melons that caused 77 people to become ill and 36 people to be hospitalized to Caito Foods. Costs of the recall included the disposal of the product, decreased efficiencies, increased production and other costs, according to a news release. The company CEO and President David Staples said: “It is worth noting that not one of the over 500 tests taken by the various parties showed positive evidence of salmonella, I believe these results are a testament to our commitment to operating a high-quality manufacturing process.” Tests were done by third-party food safety professionals and the FDA, according to the release. @ https://www.thepacker.com/article/caito-foods-recall-costs-spartannash-29m?mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiT0RsbU56a3paR1UyWW1RMCIsInQiOiJpV3lIU3BoM2syMUlCTlFZWjhkTGp3aGQ2Q2JCc2Q3OXRyaEhSRDVnVVBuZDBOTGtGQlJOdTRRTWZSZ3lKNUVtUjRnSUtOUEFlWGF3eXBKdldCcVRHR0NxVVN0d0UzQm1qMWpxVktvc1RkZTVEWkFYa2U1UWFNN2I4cktYdWZEbiJ9