Issue #8

Food Safety

Food Safety Evaluation Website 

Problem, Opportunity Statement

Food safety education should be a high priority for producers, processors, government regulators, food handlers, food retailers, and consumers. For this reason, Pennsylvania State University ’s Cooperative Extension, with its network of university specialists and extension educators in 67 counties, is in a unique position to foster the development of a food safety education partnership. By working together with government, agriculture, industry, academia, and consumers, we have the potential to significantly impact the incidence of foodborne illness across the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and ultimately, the United States. 

It is estimated that over 76 million foodborne illnesses, 325,000 hospitalizations, and 5,000 deaths occur in the United States each year (Mead et al., 1999). The economic impact of foodborne illness, in terms of medical care, lost wages and associated costs, is estimated to be in the billions of dollars per year. Foodborne illness can not only result in minor bouts of gastroenteritis or minor flu-like symptoms, but also serious, life-threatening health problems such as arthritis, Guillain-Barré Syndrome (paralysis associated with Campylobacter spp. infections) or Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome (life-threatening kidney damage associated with E. coli O157:H7).

Foodborne illnesses are not new, but many factors require that we pay attention to foodborne pathogens as a health risk. The first of these is to determine how pathogens are transmitted through food. Secondly, new methods must be identified for detection of emerging and reemerging pathogens. Thirdly, factors must be identified that put children, the elderly, and immune-compromised (i.e., pregnant women, diabetics, transplant recipients, AIDS patients, etc.) at risk for foodborne diseases. And finally, the factors that contribute to foodborne illness, including intensive agricultural practices; complexity of the food production and distribution system; role of imported foods; concentration in food processing; role of convenience foods; food consumption outside of the home; and level of food safety knowledge and practices by food handlers and consumers, must be determined.

Since the early 1990s, numerous agencies and/or organizations have passed legislation or made recommendations to address the growing concern over food safety. In 1996, the U. S. Department of Agriculture Food Safety Inspection Service passed the Pathogen Reduction Act, requiring food safety training and food safety measures for all meat and poultry processed in the U. S. The Food and Drug Administration released the 2001 Food Code with guidelines for the safe production and distribution of foods. The Healthy People 2010 and the USDA Dietary Guidelines also include the safety of foods in their recommendations. In 1999, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania passed the Food Employee Certification Act which requires one supervisory employee from for-profit facilities that carry a Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture license to attend an approved food safety course and pass an approved examination.

By utilizing an integrative approach to address the transmission and detection of emerging and reemerging foodborne pathogens, identification of factors that contribute to foodborne illness, as well as the development and implementation of legislation and regulatory guidelines, this partnership will not only provide safer food, but also strengthen consumers' confidence in our nation's food supply.

Subject Matter Areas

• Processing

• Distribution

• Retail/Food Service/Institutions

• Consumers

Program Titles and/or Program Topics by Subject Matter Area

• Production/Pre-Harvest
  • Quality Assurance (Beef, Pork, Dairy, On-farm pathogen control)
  • Residue Avoidance
  • Animal Handling (4-H, petting zoos)
  • Pest Management
  • GMO’s
  • Game Meat
  • Agrosecurity
  • Good Agriculture Practices

• Processing
  • Good Manufacturing Practices
  • Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP)
  • Food Preservation
  • Pathogen Control
  • Regulation Updates
  • Biosecurity/Bioterrorism
  • Front Line Food Safety Training

• Distribution
  • Pathogen Control
  • Biosecurity/Bioterrorism

• Retail/Food Service/Institutions
  • ServSafe™
  • SuperSafeMark™
  • Food Safety for the Food Handler

• Consumers
  • Cooking for Crowds
  • Wild Game Meat
  • Irradiation
  • Food Safety for Consumers

Indicators

    Immediate Indicators   

• Number of participants who increased their knowledge by at least 10%.
• Number of participants who identified one or more NEW things they have learned.
• Number of participants who identified one or more practices they plan to implement.
• Number of participants who complete certification exam and qualify for food safety certification from PDA (ServSafe™ and SuperSafe Mark™ specific).
• Number of customers/consumers served by food handlers who may positively benefit from attendance at a food safety program.

   Intermediate Indicators

• Number of participants who identified one or more practices they have implemented within 3 to 6 months after the training.
• Number of participants who report increased frequency of one or more ESTABLISHED safe food handling practices in the past 3 to 6 months.
• Number of participants who trained others. 
• Number of participants who shared information with others.
• Number of participants who purchased equipment to promote safe food handling. 
• Number of participants who modified, developed, and/or implemented a HACCP plan.
• Number of businesses that developed a plan to deal with food safety emergencies (i.e., recalls, outbreaks, etc.).

   Extended Indicators

• Number of organizations using Cooking for Crowds manual to plan and implement food fundraising events.
• Number of organizations initiating a Food Safety Committee (i.e., fundraisers, equipment purchase, etc.).