Spring/Summer 2010 - Robert M. Kerr Food & Agricultural Products ...

ne of the
biggest
food-related
national news stories
in 2009 has been the
massive peanut recall.
Products from
raw peanuts to ice
cream, and cookie
mixes containing
the contaminated nuts have
been recalled for safety and
health measures. Pistachio nuts
also have been recalled for the same
contamination found in the peanuts.
A question remains in some
American’s minds, how exactly did
an in-plant mishap like this become
such a national issue?
The base of this question
goes back to quality control
actions taken at the plant
level, how in-depth the inspection
and control procedures at the
plant are taken, and how seriously
the quality control personnel take
their jobs.
According to Merriam-
Webster, quality control is
defined as “an aggregate
of activities
(as design analysis
& inspection
for defects)
designed to ensure
adequate quality
especially in manufacturing
products”
(2009). Simply
meaning, a process
of checks
and balances are
6 | fapc.biz
news
By Kim Angstadt
Food Science Undergraduate Student
kim.angstadt@okstate.edu
2009 Peanut Recall
Could it have been avoided?
The following paper by Kim Angstadt placed second in the FAPC Undergraduate Technical
Writing Competition. For more information, visit www.fapc.biz/papercompetition.
taken at the plant level to make sure
the products being sold to the public
to consume are safe to eat. Based on
the definition, any peanut product that
was properly tested and found positive
to the Salmonella typhimurium
never should have been released from
the plant for further processing. Yet,
the positively tested S. typhimurium
product was released from a plant in
Georgia, and a nation-wide recall was
born (MSNBC, February 2009).
Obviously, someone was not properly
doing his or her job in Blakely,
Georgia, or the tainted peanuts never
would have been released from the
plant. It brings the question of how
efficient quality control technicians
are at their jobs and how closely they
pay attention to detail and variances
in readings they get from tests performed,
as well as, if some pertinent
tests were even performed at all.
There were initial reports of rats
found in the plant the contaminated
peanuts were from, and the source of
contamination could have come from
their interaction with the product.
While the sights of rats or other pests
or any kind of infestation was not evident
(ABC, February 2009), that’s not
to say the pests were not there. It also
was apparent positive tests were found
on the peanuts, but no one was prop-
erly notified of them (ABC, February
2009).
Situations such as pests or positive
readings on bacteriological tests
performed by the quality control
personnel at a plant should be signs,
which action needs to be taken to
prevent or control the problems. With
this being said, it is evident the quality
control personnel in this Blakely
plant could have done a much better
job at preventing contaminated product
from leaving their plant. Thanks to
their negligence, and responsibility to
their company, Peanut Corporation of
America has filed for bankruptcy because
of the massive recall and tarnish
to the peanut industry (FDA, 2009).
Unfortunately, this is not the only
recall issued during the past few years,
but it is the most recent to hit home
with a lot of people. What exactly is it
going to take to make some companies
and employees see that quality control,
what they do in their plant and how
efficient they are at testing and control
of product, is a big deal and could potentially
save lives?
If supervisors take more enforcement
at the plant, and quality control
personnel report more of their findings,
as well as take more care and
efficiency in their testing, perhaps recalls
in the future can be prevented.
References:
ABC. “Lawmakers Examine Peanut Recall.
. 21 April 2009.
MSNBC. “Cracking The Poison Processed Peanuts Case.”
. 21 April 2009.
USDS, Food & Drug Administration.
. 20 April 2009.