Home Tags Posts tagged with "food safety"

food safety


If you’re a restaurant chain or general food retailer with non-English speaking employees that is looking to expand into new states due to considerable success in your home market, one of the first things you need to take into consideration is the variances in individual state laws when it comes to food handlers.

Different Laws – Different States

Based on the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, powers that are not expressly given to the federal government as outlined by the constitution are in effect reserved for each individual state. Legalmatch.com states that this setup is due to how the U.S. was initially created as a confederation of independent states which manifested in the present day manner of each state dealing with the implementation of specific laws and issues under their individual prerogatives. This helps to explain why there are differing levels of implementation when it comes to aspects related to taxation, food safety, workers compensation, food inspection, limitations on hiring practices as well as a wide assortment of different laws, provisions and regulations that impact the day to day operations of restaurants and other food-related services.

Impact on Food Handling

All business operations in the U.S. that handle food on a daily basis are required by law to have their food handlers undergo a process of training/instruction when it comes to food safety, food hygiene and other related aspects of proper food handling. However, despite the rules required in proper food handling being more or less the same across multiple states, the fact remains that a food handler from one state cannot simply work the same type of job in another state despite already having the years of training and certifications needed when it comes to proper food handling. For example, food handlers in California are required to have a Food Handler Card which is issued by the state as a way of indicating that a person has passed the necessary prerequisites when it comes to knowing the necessary food safety practices. While this card allows them to work in a variety of establishments in California that handle food, this does not confer to them a similar right to do the same job in a different state. If they wanted to work in Texas, for example, they would have to get the Texas food handlers license.

Examples of Differences in Guidelines

One of the best examples of how food handling laws vary can be seen in the cases of California and Illinois. As mentioned in the previous paragraph, California requires food handlers to have a card indicating that they have passed a food safety course. Within California, food service facilities can actually provide the needed food safety courses themselves so long as the training course that is provided actually matches the requirements set by the state regarding the type of training and information that is given to their workers. In fact, Calrest.org explained that California’s food safety training laws are actually quite flexible since it also allows food service facilities to utilize food safety training programs that are not in adherence to local guidelines so long as these guidelines have already been approved by another state. This allows companies that utilize their own in-house training programs to easily provide the necessary training for their workers or show that their workers have already been sufficiently trained based on the requirements of other states. This allows for a greater level of customization on the part of the company since they can combine different types of training into a single course which saves a lot of time when it comes to getting new employees ready for work. The case of Illinois though differs considerably from that of California where Ansi.org explained that food handlers need to attend ANSI-accredited training providers that meet the ASTM E2659-09 certification standard. This means that in that in-house food safety training is not feasible in this case.

Why are Extensive Food Safety Guidelines Needed?

Proper food safety guidelines are an absolute necessity due to the potential dangers that improper training could have on the public at large due to errors in food handling that could very well lead to outbreaks of otherwise preventable food poisoning cases. Over the years, numerous processes have been developed in order to ensure that the handling and storage of food are conducted in a safe and sterile manner. These processes have been developed in response to various types of bacteria such as E. coli, Salmonella, Campylobacter jejuni and a plethora of similar pathogens that can develop in food that has not been handled, processed or stored properly. Cases of food poisoning can range from mild to severe symptoms and can even lead to death.

What is the conclusion?

Based on what has been presented to far, getting food safety licenses for non-English speaking employees is a lot more complex than it seems and, as such, it is recommended that you acquire the services of the Bilingual Food Handlers School certified by ServSafe® to ensure that you can get your employees the right sort of training they need regardless of the state certification process.


Nestle India has decided to temporarily stop distribution of Maggi noodles across India.

The move comes amid concerns about safety as several states have been testing Nestle’s bestselling instant noodle brand for higher-than-allowed levels of lead.

Maggi noodles have also been testing for the chemical monosodium glutamate, widely known as MSG.

Nestle said in a statement on June 5 that Maggi noodles were completely safe.

However, “recent developments and unfounded concerns about the product have led to an environment of confusion for the consumer,” Nestle said.

Nestle said the confusion had developed to such an extent “that we have decided to withdraw the product off the shelves, despite the product being safe”, but promised the noodles would return to the market as soon as the current problem was dealt with.Maggi noodles India pullout

Maggi noodles had already been banned for 15 days in India’s capital Delhi and states including Gujarat. However, other states had deemed them safe.

The earlier ban of Maggi noodles in Delhi received prominent coverage in the media and on social media platforms.

Maggi noodles ban sparked humor as well as public health concerns on social media platforms like Twitter.

Several hashtags like #Maggi, #Maggiban, #Maggiinasoup, #MaggiKeSideEffects have trended in the past few days.

Some took to Twitter to give their “humorous take” on the ban.

Maggi has an 80% share of India’s instant noodle market and has been branded the third staple alongside rice and lentils.

The instant noodles arrived in India in 1983 and can be found in corner shops across the country.

Nestle’s relationship with India dates back to 1912, when it launched in the country as The Nestle Anglo-Swiss Condensed Milk Company (Export).

Dutch authorities have found that 50,000 tonnes of meat supplied by two local trading companies and sold as beef across Europe since January 2011 may have contained horsemeat.

The meat is being recalled where possible, the Dutch authorities say.

According to Netherlands Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority, there was no evidence that the meat was a threat to human health.

Dutch authorities have found that 50,000 tonnes of meat supplied by two local trading companies and sold as beef across Europe since January 2011 may have contained horsemeat

Dutch authorities have found that 50,000 tonnes of meat supplied by two local trading companies and sold as beef across Europe since January 2011 may have contained horsemeat

In total, 132 companies in the Netherlands and some 370 more around Europe are affected by the discovery.

The suspect meat was supplied by Wiljo Import en Export BV and Vleesgroothandel Willy Selten.

Both companies are owned by one man who has already previously been investigated by food safety officials.

The latest find was made as part of EU-wide tests to trace horse DNA in processed beef foods and to detect a veterinary drug used on horses.

The results of the rest of the tests conducted across the EU will be made public next week – giving consumers a better idea of how widespread the scandal has been.

The authorities decided to release their results early because of the magnitude of what they had discovered.

The recall covers meat dating back to 1 January 2011 up until 15 February 2013, the Dutch food authority said on Wednesday.

Due to the lapse of time, a lot of the meat “may already have been consumed”, it added.

Inspectors examining the records of the Dutch trading companies found that the origin of the supplied meat was unclear. As a result it was not possible to confirm whether slaughterhouses had respected procedures.

Some of the suspect meat was also exported to Germany, France and Spain, where authorities have been alerted.

“It might contain traces of horsemeat, but we don’t know for certain at the moment if this is the case,” said Esther Filon, a spokeswoman for the Dutch food authority.

“The buyers have probably already processed the meat and sold it on. They, in turn, are obliged to inform their own customers.”

All EU member states have been informed of the Dutch discovery, said EU spokesman Frederic Vincent.

They have been urged to check whether or not processed meat products coming from the plants in question were still on the market, he added.

“The Dutch announcement is a consequence of the investigations which were launched by EU member states a few weeks ago,” the EU spokesman said.

“Given the size of the fraud, the Dutch decided to go public with their discovery.”

Traces of horsemeat have been found in numerous processed beef frozen meals across Europe.

In February, Dutch officials raided a meat processing plant suspected of mislabelling beef and ordered the withdrawal of suspicious products from supermarket shelves.

Other countries affected included the UK, the Republic of Ireland, France, Switzerland, Sweden and Germany.

The EU is set to adopt an Animal and Plant Health legislative proposal in the coming weeks, which includes clauses designed to tackle food fraud.