It seems like the more people look into the situation surrounding the recent salmonella outbreak in peanut products, the more disturbing it gets. This problem is giving a people a look into America’s food safety system the likes of which civilians rarely get, and things aren’t at all pretty.

Private inspectors play big role

Another layer illuminated by the New York Times recently involves the use by food companies of independent inspectors who are usually paid by the company they’re inspecting to determine if a production facility is up to snuff.

Such an inspection took place last spring at the Georgia Peanut Corporation of America plant at the center of the massive recall. The paper reports that Eugene A. Hatfield had just a day to look over the plant, which he did at the request of Kellogg, didn’t take any samples to test for salmonella and didn’t ask to see the logs of tests the plant had been performing that would have showed contamination problems dating back to 2007.

In fact, the inspector, who is an expert on produce, didn’t know how susceptible peanuts are to salmonella contamination and assumed that the processing the peanuts were going through would kill pathogens.

His report last March called food safety at the plant “superior.” Since then it’s been revealed that food safety was anything but a priority at the plant, which allegedly shopped around for negative salmonella tests so it could keep shipping out potentially dangerous products.

Companies, government rely on inspections

Such private inspections aren’t required by the government, but there is an extent to which the government needs private inspectors because there are so few federal inspectors and so many food processors to monitor.

But as mentioned earlier, the private inspectors are often paid by the very people they’re inspecting, so there is a level of incentive for them to produce positive reviews. Companies use these reports to boost their food safety credibility and to reduce liability should a recall happen.

Inspectors aren’t always well trained in the sorts of facilities they’re inspecting (one of the biggest private inspectors started out as a bakery inspection service but now covers all sorts of foods, for example), inspections vary widely in cost and quality, and even if a plant gets a justified rave review, such private inspections don’t typically follow the full chain of all ingredients that go into a particular product.

So for instance the main ingredients in Veggie Booty may have been safe, but the spices that came from China and weren’t inspected contained salmonella that prompted a recall of that snack in 2007.

While it’s likely more companies are thinking twice about their use of private inspectors following the outbreak, consumers might want to see more testing rather than less to give them some kind of reassurance, however flimsy, that a product is safe.

(By Sarah E. White for CalorieLab Calorie Counter News)

Subscribe to our RSS feed | Weekly e-mail updates | Follow us on Twitter

This entry was posted on Sunday, March 8th, 2009 and is filed under Food dangers, Food miscellaneous, Food safety. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed. Permalink.