Processing aids are materials that can be added to foods during manufacture to achieve specific targets. A great example is material added to wine to clarify it (remove cloudiness), it is then removed prior to the bottling step. Only processing aids that are approved for use by the Food Standards Code may be used.

The following is from the latest Emerging Issues newsletter from Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ);

FSANZ has invited submissions on an application for a processing aid to reduce the risk of the food poisoning bacteria Listeria.

FSANZ Chief Executive Officer, Steve McCutcheon, said EBI Food Safety Ltd had applied for permission to use a bacteriophage preparation called P100 as a processing aid for ready-to-eat foods to reduce levels of Listeria monocytogenes.

“Processing aids can’t legally be used in food production without a rigorous safety assessment by FSANZ,” Mr McCutcheon said.

Bacteriophages are the most abundant biological entities on earth. They infect bacteria and multiply inside them until the bacteria breaks down. They are naturally present in high numbers in the environment , in saltwater, freshwater, soil, plants and animals (including people) and food .

Bacteriophages infect very specific strains of bacteria so the P100 bacteriophage would not infect any other bacteria except Listeria.They are harmless to plants, animals or humans and do not alter the properties of food, disintegrating into natural compounds such as amino acids.

Listeria bacteria can cause disease called listeriosis. They are common in the environment and may contaminate many different types of foods from the farm right through to the retail market.

While Listeria has little impact on healthy people, it can cause severe illness in people with reduced immune systems such as pregnant women and their babies, young children, cancer patients, people with HIV/AIDS, and the elderly.

Currently, the Food Standards Code permits no tolerance of Listeria monocytogenesin several foods.

The use of bacteriophage preparations to treat food has been approved by the United States, Canada and the Netherlands.

Mr McCutcheon said that there would be a second round of public comment later in the application process before a recommendation on the application to the FSANZ Board.

Submissions on the consultation document are invited from consumers, the food industry and jurisdictions on the recommended approach contained in the proposal and its impacts. The period for submissions closes on 1 November 2011

The following is the Food Standards Australia new Zealand latest recall notice and is included here with permission.

Please find below information on recent Australian consumer level food recalls. This information is also available on our website at www.foodstandards.gov.au

Date Notified To FSANZ: 16 September 2011

Food Type: Juice

Product Name:

1. Apple Time Apple
2. Apple Time Apple Mango
3. Apple Time Triple Berries
4. Homebrand Orange
5. Homebrand Orange Mango

Package Description & Size:

1. Apple Time Apple 2L plastic bottle
2. Apple Time Apple Mango 2L plastic bottle
3. Apple Time Triple Berries 2L plastic bottle
4. Homebrand Orange 3L plastic bottle
5. Homebrand Orange Mango 3L plastic bottle

Country of Origin: Australia

Date Marking:

1. Apple Time Apple 28/05/2012
2. Apple Time Apple Mango 28/05/2012
3. Apple Time Triple Berries 28/05/2012
4. Homebrand Orange 27/05/2012 and 29/05/2012
5. Homebrand Orange Mango 27/05/2012 and 29/05/2012

Australian Distribution:

Apple Time products: small retail and independent food stores in QLD only.

Homebrand products: Woolworths and Food for Less Stores in QLD and Woolworths stores in Northern NSW*.

* Ballina, Ballina Fair, Byron Bay, Casino, Coffs Harbour, Grafton, Kingscliff, Lismore, Lismore Square, Macksville, Mullumbimby, Nambucca Heads, Park Beach Plaza, Toormina, Tweed City, Tweed Heads.

Overseas Distribution: Asahi Beverages Australia Pty Ltd has not exported this product.

Reason for Recall: Possible presence of foreign matter – (metal shavings)

Comments:

Problem: The recall of the above products is due to the possible presence of foreign matter – (metal shavings)

Food Safety Hazard: Beverages containing metal may cause injury if consumed.

What to do: Consumers should not consume these products and they should return them to the place of purchase for a full refund.

Contact Details: Please call Asahi Beverages Consumer Relation Centre – 1800 244 054

Date Notified To FSANZ: 19 September 2011

Food Type: Cheese

Product Name: Mainland Extra Tasty Cheddar Cheese

Package Description & Size: 200g and 400g vacuum sealed pack

Country of Origin: This product is made in New Zealand for distribution in Australia

Date Marking: Best Before 28 February 2012

Australian Distribution: The recalled product has been available for sale in retail outlets such as Coles and Woolworths (and associated retail outlets), IGA/Food Land and Franklins Australia wide

Overseas Distribution: Fonterra Brands Australia has not exported this product.

Reason for Recall: Presence of metal fragments

Comments:

Problem: The recall of the above products is due to the detection of a metal fragment found in one product.

Food Safety Hazard: Food products containing metal fragments may cause injury if consumed.

What to do: Consumers should not eat this product.

Customers should return the products to the place of purchase for a full cash refund.

There have been no reports of anyone becoming injured. The recall is a precautionary measure as there can be no compromise when it comes to product quality or the health and safety of our consumers.

The recall applies only to the above-mentioned product with the nominated sizes, best before date and batch numbers and no other Mainland products are affected.

Contact details: For further information, please call the Fonterra consumer information line:1800 633 275

Fonterra Brands (Australia) Pty Ltd

327 Ferntree Gully Road

Mount Waverley, Victoria, 3149

Reg No. 550

With Global Handwashing Day rapidly approaching, it is scary that in the last 12 months there have been 170 handwashing related offences listed on the New South Wales Food Authority’s Name and Shame List, with two of those added in just the last two weeks.

The offences primarily related to the failure to maintain adequate hand washing facilities according to the Food Standards Code.

The Code requires that there must be a clean separate handwashing sink with suitable facilities.

Ms.Katrina Hodgkinson, the Federal Minister for Primary Industries, said; “Hand-washing is at the very foundation of correct and safe food handling. In New South Wales, each penalty notice carries a fine of $880 for a corporation and $440 for an individual as well as the unenviable honour of being placed on the Name and Shame list where consumers can easily see the breaches of their local food outlets.”

What business would want to be known as having poor handwashing, as it is the main method we all having of reducing food poisoning? That is the strength of the List – the public knowledge of the offence.

The Name and Shame List can be found at www.foodauthority.nsw.gov.au/penalty-notice

With the changes to the Victorian Food Act coming into effect as of 01 July 2011, there is now a need for vending machines registered by the primary council.

This requirement is coming in as of 01 October, and will create significant issues according to the President of the Independent Vending Machine Operators Association (IVMOA), Bob Goss.

The requirement is to give the councils access to the potential food safety risks linked to the specific products in the machines, as well as their location. It is of particular importance because there are now vending machines that cook foods and therefore there are obvious food safety issues.

Mr Goss said, “There are more than 70 principal councils in Victoria, which means there are large numbers of health inspectors from different councils each looking at the new legislation and interpreting it differently. The main issue, however, is that the only people that are being sent out information on the new legislation are those in the IVMOA or involved with it – our members are the legitimate operators. Yet we believe there are thousands of illegitimate operators in Victoria who are escaping the radar. If they are caught, they are subject to a fine from the government. However, these people are not being caught which is why there is not a level playing field.”

As with the broad requirement for all food businesses to have HACCP based food safety programs several years ago, Victoria is in many ways once again taking a strong lead in food safety legislation.

It also highlights the increasing problem in Australia of each jurisdiction having different requirements and then within those, each Council have different interpretations and then the Environmental Health Officers in those councils reading the laws differently as well.

As an example an EHO in one area would not allow the business in their jurisdiction to use probe type thermometers due to potential cross contamination risk and insisting that all food temperature checks be done using an IR gun. These guns cannot take internal temperatures as required by the Food Standards Code, so probe type thermometers are essential. To eliminate the potential cross contamination risk, these can be cleaned and then sanitised with a food grade sanitiser.

Talking with some holders of Showmans Food Vans recently, it became very obvious that there is enormous disparity about food safety across the country. This is creating major problems, costs and confusion.

States need to work together to ensure that food safety laws match across the country – after all, wasn’t that one of the main reasons for the Food Standards Code, to ensure uniformity.

The term “GM” conjures up scary images for many in our society. The image of mad scientists sitting around and fiddling with plants and animals to create new things is often not far from the perception that many have about this science.

The CSIRO’s Chief Executive, Megan Clark, said “We recognise that the modification of genes in plants causes concern in sections of the community. However, we also know that many people will be comfortable with genetic modification in food products if they can be assured they are beneficial for human health and safe for the environment. We research the genes of plants to improve human health outcomes, increase the take-up of nutrients from soil, improve yields and provide resistance to plant diseases. Our genetic modification research generally involves turning off genes, changing the timing of the expression of some genes or inserting genes from different plants.”

Genetic modification, or GM, is a highly skilled science that modifies the genes of animals and plants to give or improve specific characteristics. As an example; Golden Rice is a GM product designed to give a large proportion of the world’s population access to more Vitamin A. By adding a gene into a rice species, scientists have added Vitamin A to this vital crop and allowing for a deficiency in this essential nutrient to be addressed in an easy and effective way.

By genetically modifying plants, scientists have been able to increase production, reduce pesticide use and other positive advances.

Ms Clark said; “When it comes to our food supply, the world’s population could reach 9 billion by 2050 and the global challenge is to produce 70 per cent more food in the next 40 years. To meet that food demand we need to increase our agricultural yields and increase the efficiency of how plants take up nutrients. It means growing plants that use less water to produce the same output and improving resistance to disease and pests. Across the very extensive and prolonged use worldwide, there has been no evidence of harm to human health associated with the use of GM technology. In Australia we’ve been growing and consuming GM products for at least 15 years with GM cotton and carnations grown commercially since 1996 and GM canola since 2008.”

In Australia, GM foods are regulated by the Gene Technology Regulator. Food Standards Australia New Zealand has produced a series of terrific Fact Sheets about GM which are well worth a read and can be found at http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/consumerinformation/gmfoods/

When a part of the Food Standards Code is changed there is always a period of time allowed for the changes to be made by businesses. The best example is that of labelling changes. Often up to a year is allowed for the change to be on all labelling, to allow time for stocks of current packaging to be used up and new material produced.

If current packaging is left over at the end of the phase in period, it has to be dumped, which can be a significant expense for manufacturers.

There is a call by small food manufacturers for this to be considered during the decision making stage on the introduction of traffic light labelling on packaged foods.

With the economic situation being tight for manufacturing in general, small food manufacturers are very concerned about having to throw out packaging material and purchasing more, if this new labelling is required. This could be the difference between a business making a profit, surviving or going bust.

Lyn Bentley who is the Managing Director of Sticky Fingers Gourmet Foods is just one of the heads of small manufacturers who is voicing their fear about this problem. She says; “As a small manufacturer supplying to both the food service and retail food industries, the costs of having to change all of our labels will be prohibitive for us. If this new traffic light labelling becomes law, we will no longer manufacture for the retail industry at all. Being a small manufacturer, we need to get a good buy on our labels which means we need to bulk buy them. This costs a lot of money and we invest a lot of money making sure we have everything right with the labels. When labelling requirements change, companies like ours are given a certain amount of time to change our labels. Any stock not changed has to come off the shelf and is lost.”

The Restaurant of the Year was named recently in the Australian Gourmet Traveller magazine Australian Restaurant Guide Awards. For 2012 it is Sydney’s Marque Restaurant.

It is true that one person’s best of something may not be another’s, but it does give an important guide for many of us to think and talk about.

There were other awards included in this year’s awards including the following;

The Regional Restaurant of the Year – The Royal Mail Hotel in Dunkeld, Victoria.

Best New Talent – Luke Burgess – from Garagistes, Hobart, Tasmania

New Restaurant of the Year – Porteno, Sydney NSW

Outstanding Contribution to Hospitality – The Hemmes family, Merivale

Bar of the Year – Shady Pines, Sydney, NSW

Sommelier of the Year – Giorgio De Maria, 121BC, Sydney, NSW

Wine List of the Year – Ortiga, Fortitude Valley, Queensland

Maitre D’ of the Year – Lara Marro, Vincenzo’s Cucina Vera, Parkside, South Australia.

Dear Stakeholders

Please find below information on a recent Australian consumer level food recall and is included here with permission from Food Standards Australia New Zealand.

This information is also available on our website at www.foodstandards.gov.au

Date Notified To FSANZ: 19 August 2011

Food Type: Baby food

Product Name: Rafferty’s Garden Italian Lasagne Premium Baby Food 10 months+

Package Description & Size: Tear-top packet 170g

Country of Origin: Australia

Date Marking: Best Before 26/MAY/12 and 03/JUN/12

Australian Distribution: Coles and Woolworths supermarkets nationally

Overseas Distribution: FSANZ has no further information on distribution outside Australia.

Reason for Recall: Foreign matter (plastic)

Comments:

Problem: The recall of the above product is due to foreign matter contamination – plastic.

Food safety hazard: Food products containing plastic may cause injury if consumed.

What to do: Consumers should not eat this product. Customers should return the products to the place of purchase or directly to the address below for a full refund.

For further information please call:

(02) 9969 3788, fax (02) 9969 7400, or email info@raffertysgarden.com

Rafferty’s Garden Pty Ltd,

Building 26 Best Avenue, Mosman, NSW, 2088

If a private member’s bill by both Senator Nick Xenophon and Bob Katter passes through the new session of the Australian Federal Parliament, supermarkets will be required to show what percentage of the price of their fresh produce actually goes to the farmers who grow the food.

The bill is called the Farm Gate Pricing Bill will only pass if a major party supports it.

The media advisor for the Senator, Rohan Wenn, said; “The Bill would allow consumers to see the price the supermarket is charging in contrast with the amount the primary producer is receiving. Independent grocers would be exempt but major supermarkets would be required to publish the farm gate prices at point of sale and also on their websites. Farmers have previously expressed concern that there is a huge gap between what the supermarkets charge and how much the farmers are paid for fresh produce.”

The two major supermarkets were either not commenting about the potential new requirement or stated that when farm gate pricing was investigated in 2008 by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) it was not considered “a significant problem”.

A spokesperson for Choice, Ingrid Just, said, “We think it is better if the position of a supermarket ombudsman is created to become the independent arbitrator. There is only so much information that consumers can take in when juggling kids, crowds, and shopping lists at supermarkets. An ombudsman would allow for a dedicated focus for people with grievances to take them to. The information would be better in the hands of a regulator who could follow through on what needs to be done. Meanwhile, it is also up to the ACCC to see if there is a misuse of market power.”

Written by Rachelle Williams – The Green Food Safety Coach

Twitter – GreenFoodSafety

Genetic modification is the process of manipulating the genes of a species to achieve desired characteristics. It can be the adding of a gene from carrots to white rice to significantly increase the Vitamin A content of that rice and thus improving the nutrient intake of a large portion of the consumers of rice. It can also be the addition or removal of genes from a plant to increase it’s resistance to certain types of pests, and therefore significantly reducing the amount of pesticides used.

Unfortunately some of the plants that have been genetically modified (GM) are not able to produce seeds for the next year’s crop, so farmers using this species need to purchase more seed every year. This is an excellent money earner for the business that developed the genetically modified plants for a set number of years, but can be a major issue for the farmer.

A GM crop may also produce seeds that spread to another farmer’s paddock and alter that crop. This can have significant impact, especially if the second farm is practicing organic practices, as there is a nil tolerance for GM contamination in Australia.

Steve Marsh, an organic farmer from Western Australia, is currently suing his neighbour for loss of organic certification due to genetically modified canola seed allegedly contaminating his property. This is an important case as it highlights the importance and necessity to introduce national laws to control crop contamination by GM seeds and plants.

There are only a very small number of genetically modified food crops allowed to be grown and sold in Australia and they are tightly monitored by the Gene Regulator but the potential cross contamination of non GM crops is not yet as tightly controlled. Those foods that contain GM material must be clearly labelled according to the Food Standards Code.

The case is being supported by the Safe Food Foundation amongst other groups.

It will be interesting to see what happens with this court case and the flow on effects across Australia.

Written by Rachelle Williams – The Green Food Safety Coach

Twitter – GreenFoodSafety