AIB responds to accusations of potential link to salmonella outbreak

The American Institute of Baking, a Manhattan-based company, is a well-known corporation in the food industry, specializing in food safety and research. However, a recent New York Times article disputes the company's effectiveness as a food auditor.

The March 6 article identified AIB and several other companies that offer food safety audits as sharing responsibility for recent food poisoning outbreaks. The conclusions drawn from audits of several companies "show that auditors failed to detect problems at plants whose contaminated products later sickened consumers," according to the Times article.

Four of the six members of AIB's senior management staff hold at least one degree from K-State.

AIB auditor Eugene Hatfield's visit to the Blakely, Ga., Peanut Corporation of America plant in early March 2008 received considerable attention in the Times story written by Andrew Martin and Michael Moss. Hatfield is identified as an expert on fresh produce and was unaware that peanuts were "readily susceptible" to salmonella, according to the Times article.

A document available on the AIB Web site contends that Hatfield was misrepresented, and states that Hatfield received a bachelor's degree in cellular biology and a master's degree in applied biology. It also states that Hatfield had worked in a number of different areas of the food industry and had conducted approximately 200 audits of peanut facilities in his career.

The Times article noted that during Hatfield's one-day audit he was not required to test for the bacteria, which later caused an outbreak across the United States. Hatfield concluded that the plant food safety level of the facility was "superior" according to his March 27, 2008, audit, which was obtained by the Times.

Federal investigators later discovered the PCA had been shipping tainted peanuts for at least nine months. The company has since filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy.

The PCA knew when Hatfield would be inspecting the plant. Maureen Olewnik, vice president of audit and technical services for AIB, said the company offers both unannounced and announced inspections. She said the certificates the company receives clearly denote which inspection took place.

"We do record [the type of inspection] very clearly on the certificate they receive and the audit they got," she said. "There are pluses and minuses to each. It depends on what the customer is looking for in that inspector. We try to be transparent on which one it is so anyone will know."

Since the release of the Times article, AIB now requires a minimum of two days or longer to complete an inspection at a food processing facility. AIB has also announced it will change the name of its Good Manufacturing Practices inspection certificates from "Certificate of Achievement" to "Recognition of Achievement."

A document available on AIB's Web site notes that this was to "lower the possibility of our completed inspection process being misunderstood as an actual certification."

Private audits of food companies like the PCA have increased as government auditors have been "overwhelmed" by the task of guarding the nation's food supply, according to the Times article. Audits of food companies are not mandated by the government and are often an attempt by corporations to minimize liability and ensure safety.

Inspections by third-party food auditors are often significantly cheaper than those offered by the Food and Drug Administration, adding to the allure of the inspections.

But there are questions of impartiality. Usually, the companies being inspected pay food auditors. A document on AIB's Web site notes that auditors are expected to maintain a professional relationship with personnel at each facility they audit.

"The relationships [auditors] build can be collaborative and cordial but cannot impinge upon the necessity to remain objective and impartial," it reads. "This is especially important when auditors identify unsatisfactory situations that can result in a facility failing an inspection."

Audits generally are only conducted at the manufacturing plants. Suppliers often go unexamined. According to the Times article, one plant in Pennsylvania, which manufactured Veggie Booty, a healthy snack, received an "excellent" rating from AIB in 2007. The plant's Chinese supplier, which was not inspected, sickened 2,000 people in 19 states with salmonella-tainted spices.

Food products are rarely tested for pathogens during audits, according to the Times article. That is only the beginning of issues with third-party food audits, said Doug Powell, associate professor of diagnostic medicine and pathobiology and editor of barfblog.com, an online food safety blog.

"Third-party food audits, like restaurant inspection, are a snapshot in time," Powell said. "They are not indicative of what happens day in and day out. It doesn't really tell you much. There are some audits that are OK. It depends on the auditor.

"My concern is that — and I have done a lot of work with farmers and producers and companies — what you really want is to help people become better with food safety, whereas an audit is just a checklist that penalizes people. That doesn't necessarily help people get better with food safety."

To respond to problems with third-party auditors, two large companies are taking action. Kellogg has said it is reviewing all audits conducted by the American Institute of Baking.

Costco, a retail store, which previously limited AIB's inspections to its bakery vendors, has now instructed suppliers to not use AIB at all.

Nonetheless, a move toward more audits conducted by third-party companies had been increasing in recent months leading up to the problems with the PCA. A document developed by the FDA as "guidance for industry" and released in December 2008 proposed expanding the role played by third-party food auditors.