Can of Worms

I suppose I should have started this here, instead of getting into an offsite debate, as it's an issue that directly relates to food and food issues. A while back, I was chatting with a friend and he mentioned this article in TOC regarding a restaurant being cited for home-canned foods.

I am conflicted over this issue. I see the restaurant's side of it, a commitment to local foods and making things from scratch down to the last ingredient. I get it. It's light-years of difference if you're in a restaurant that opens and dumps cans bought from US Foods into their dishes than if you're eating products chosen carefully by the chef at the height of the season, put together artfully in a recipe he or she is proud to serve, and from which you learn about the terroir where you're eating.

On the other hand, I see the Health Department's side: while we like to villify those who carry out rules & regs, I get why they are asking for an expensive certification. We are talking about a process that goes well beyond regular HACCP training standards, and for which the consequences of a misstep are severe. Home-canned foods are one of the few sources of botulism outbreaks in the US, most of those due to people either not following the process correctly, or using untested recipes - there's not a lot of room for creativity. Botulism poisoning is very, very rare even when you're careless (how many of us have eaten a room-temp foil-wrapped baked potato? Just found out they're a risk.) but it's complicated to treat and even a small amount can cause symptoms. (I'd been told when I was taking the Chicago Sanitation class that just a taste is enough, though they also said it was absolutely deadly and I've since learned that is not the case.)

Of course, I'm also in the process of putting up all kinds of fruits and vegetables, myself - so why does the Health Department go after the lifeblood of a restaurant and leave me alone? Well, to illustrate the difference, let me posit an imaginary place that uses house-canned food and sells to the general public. I put this worst-case scenario to you: One batch of something didn't get processed properly and is tainted with botulism - keep in mind, the odds of that are very long. That batch is used as part of the amuse-bouche that's served to every customer over the course of a week. Let's say over the course of that week the restaurant is running slow, and they serve only about 135 covers, and of those, let's say 30 people don't like or don't eat it. In the next 10 days, 100 people are in need of significant time in a hospital bed on a ventilator; hospitals are already struggling to meet the demand for acute care of this kind. 3-5 of the people who ate the food will die as a result (it isn't clear from what I read if those in good health are less likely to die of botulism.) The remaining people may have lifelong respiratory issues. If I screw up, it's 3 people at risk - certainly something awful, but not exactly a public health crisis.

Yes, it's a maybe, a real long shot - but compare to the spinach E.Coli outbreak in which about 100 people across the entire country were hospitalized. A large proportion were probably treated with IV fluids, (31 wound up with HUS, which sometimes needs dialysis, but most often is still treated with fluids.) About the same number of people died (but not, remember, as compared to the number of people who ate the food at issue: hundreds of people ate bad spinach, only 100 people ate the imaginary canned food.) The corresponding drain on health care services isn't the same, either - IVs are readily available and don't require a doctor to administer, many people can be treated quickly and released to home care.

I understand that our government has become a food-nanny in many ways. After all, the likelihood that you will become deathly ill from many of the things that banned in the US are small: for instance, the danger with most of those tasty illegal French cheeses is campylobacter, a bug not that dissimilar to E.Coli in that most people get a little sick and some (generally in poor health) get very ill, or listeriosis, a bug that's dangerous to pregnant women, babies, and those with compromised immune systems, but which causes momentary sickness in most people. Though I have no formal training (other than the aformentioned long-expired Sanitation Certificate) I think that the strict controls on these things are overdoing it: IMO, like undercooked pork, eggs, and sushi, you should be able to purchase and consume them as long as you're aware of the risks.

I'm not so sure about this other gamble, though. I wish the Health Department had found another way to address the issue, it's not like this is a big secret in the food world - a warning letter before canning season might have been more appropriate. Yes, I'm making a lot of assumptions in my scenario - but what the Health Department is asking for is not that they never can foods, but that they have real training to ensure that all the variables in dealing with canned foods are taken care of, in the same way that we ask that a doctor have real training about all the variables before he prescribes someone medication. I noted that there are a number of canned-food purveyors at the Evanston Farmer's Market; I assume that they are using a small-batch specialty cannery. I hope that the restaurants find a similar solution so they can keep on doing what they're doing, but with reasonable assurance that they've got someone who is clear on the whole process at the helm.

Yes, I'm making a lot of assumptions in my scenario - but what the Health Department is asking for is not that they never can foods, but that they have real training to ensure that all the variables in dealing with canned foods are taken care of

Government is not in the business of ensuring that chefs have real training. Government is in the business of ensuring that chefs have a piece of paper which costs $50,000 to get, which puts it out of the reach of most restaurants.

Government is in the business of taking remote possibilities and turning them into hysterias which increase the reach of government into our lives. And the profits of favored companies.

I expect to see charcuterie and home canning banned in my lifetime. (You doubt it? Try to order a rare hamburger.) We will all eat "safe" commercial products (loaded with salts, chemicals, and whatever other things like transfats that government declared were better for us one week, until next week when they discover they're actually worse and ban them), and get fatter and die earlier, out of concern over the microscopically remote possibility that a nice restaurant or your Grandma who's been doing it for 50 years is going to give you botulism. But when the safe commercial products kill a bunch of people because of listeria in bologna or fecal matter sprayed onto lettuce, there will be no outcry to ban them, because there is no organized lobby on the other side.

It seems to me that this move creates a big market for someone to contract can stuff for restaurants. Instead of making that bacon jelly yourself, you ship the ingredients and a recipe to a central boutique canner, who charges you for labor/expenses/your share of the license fee.

My thoughts exactly. For instance, River Valley Mushrooms not only offer fresh mushrooms at Evanston's Farmers Market, they also offer a wide variety of their own canned products. They're obviously operating a boutique cannery, so such things exist.

Hi,

I contacted a friend yesterday who is very knowledgeable on these issues.

In her area, the health department did a sweep of the local farmer's market: homemade pies, cakes, cookies and canned goods have ceased. The baked goods were largely made in home kitchens instead of a certified kitchen.

Canned goods, like we know how to produce, are not intended for resale. She said the authorities tend to give a pass to fruit jams and jellies, because there is little that can go wrong. If they go beyond that to other products, they jump in. If someone becomes ill or complains, they no longer can turn a blind eye.

She said a licensed restaurant is not the same as a food processing facility. While it is licensed as a restaurant, it does not cover canned food made on the premises. When you get into commercially produced hermetically sealed jars, it falls into the jurisdiction of the Food and Drug Administration.

For proper FDA licensing and production of canned goods served to the public, it requires:
- Attending Better Process Control School, in our region it is a week long class offered at Purdue University.
- An approved facility, which is likely where the costs would be.

My friend does not live in our area nor is she a regular restaurant visitor. She was unaware of the trends toward pickling and canning foods in restaurants. She commented once health officials become aware, it might be added to their inspection checklist of things to monitor.

While this may be unpleassant news, it was likely only a matter of time before this became an issue.

I have met some people downstate who commercially can small batches for sale at farmer's markets. They had a garage-type structure converted into a commercial kitchen. It can be done.

Meanwhile, I am working toward having a full blown canning glass next year for those who want to make home preserved goods safely. This will likely be at least four classes.

Regards,

Cathy2 wrote:Meanwhile, I am working toward having a full blown canning glass next year for those who want to make home preserved goods safely. This will likely be at least four classes. Regards,

Please keep us updated on this topic. I would be interested in a formal class. Thanks.

tyrus wrote:

Cathy2 wrote:Meanwhile, I am working toward having a full blown canning glass next year for those who want to make home preserved goods safely. This will likely be at least four classes. Regards,

Please keep us updated on this topic. I would be interested in a formal class. Thanks.

You are now on my list.

Regards,

Cathy2 wrote:

tyrus wrote:

Cathy2 wrote:Meanwhile, I am working toward having a full blown canning glass next year for those who want to make home preserved goods safely. This will likely be at least four classes. Regards,

Please keep us updated on this topic. I would be interested in a formal class. Thanks.

You are now on my list.

Regards,

Me, too, please!

Thanks,
Ronna

The issue is not that there's no issue here. There's certainly a legitimate health concern here, somewhere.

The issue is that nanny-state decisions like this are made without respect for the democratic process. The essence of this kind of nannyism is that people can't be trusted to make right choices, so somebody has to step in and decide for them-- tax soft drinks into oblivion!

And when the decisions are made that way, by some regulatory agency or municipal department who, by an amazing coincidence, winds up with more power and a bigger budget as a consequence of deciding that they do have jurisdiction over this or that, there's none of that democratic stuff about examining both sides and balancing competing interests and so on.

It's like that stuff about the FTC suddenly deciding that it had the power to go after bloggers. Out of concern that someone might once in a great while be shilling for something (and out of the absolute conviction that you and I are too stupid to recognize it for ourselves), the FTC, which has NOTHING to do with the internet, decided that they get to drop an iron fist on one of the most vibrant and creative sectors of the economy. That means in order to spare me the possibility of spending $11.50 on crap, they're going to cripple the sector of the economy that might otherwise have produced a $115,000 a year job for me in five years. Put that way, it sounds pretty stupid. But it never had a chance to be put that way, because a government agency did it in the night.

Here, we've got an agency deciding that the risk of restaurant-caused botulism-- which no one has ever documented here so we can compare it to other risks, and may well be zero stretching back decades for all I know-- requires making the hurdle of in-house canning so high that only a few restaurants can actually practice it (because they'll market themselves as among the few who do). (There ought to be a burden, that is, classes and whatnot; but I'm not at all convinced that the burden ought to be $50,000 and up given the actual risk.)

Great, botulism prevented, sort of. But what is the impact on local farmers if we reduce their market among the locavore restaurants who were canning all that stuff? What is the impact on health if we teach the next generation that everything is supposed to taste like a can of Del Monte's, full of sugar and preservatives instead of natural flavor? What is the impact on our ecosystem if there's no market for crop diversity?

All of those things, which people here are assumed to care about, should be part of the debate. But they can't be if there's no debate-- just a neverending power grab in the name of safety and the children.

Mike, the FTC rules you referred to were proposed in January 2007 with the expressed purpose of asking for comments from the public, and time for research to be undertaken on the likely effect of the proposed rules. Based on public comments and this research, a set of revised rules were proposed in November 2008. Time was given for a second set of public comments. This led to a third set of revised rules, which were recently announced.

You may disagree with their final decision, but it seems difficult to argue that they didn't respect the democratic process. Short of having a referendum on each individual rule that every agency proposes, what else would you like to have seen in this process (besides the FTC agreeing with you rather than with someone else)?

My thoughts are along the lines of Mike's, except that I'm not sure there's even an issue here at all. When is the last time there has been a legitimate complaint of botulism from eating products canned in-house at a restaurant? There's perhaps only a potential issue, but until there are legitimate complaints, then I don't think there's the need for the government to step in. Once it's been established that there is an issue, then you open up the process so that the interests of both sides are balanced. But I agree that, right now, there's nothing for the government to do.

I also agree that, because of the high anxiety surrounding the potential that this may be an issue (the children!), we are heading down a slippery slope where only food that is sourced and vacuumed packed in one of three industrial facilities will be approved for eating. Restaurants will operate like airplane food service: the foiled is lifted off the premade meal (prepared elsewhere in a government-approved facility) and the "chef" places it into the oven for reheating. I exaggerate, but slightly.

HI,

For those interested in canning class, PM me. I am keeping a list in order of requests. I have had others inquire over the last few years.

Regards,

Short of having a referendum on each individual rule that every agency proposes, what else would you like to have seen in this process (besides the FTC agreeing with you rather than with someone else)?

1) Our elected representatives debating such major revisions to the Bill of Rights, not just some federal agency publishing a notice in 8-pt type in the Federal Legal Notificator & Dog Trainer that they intend to reverse them on their own say-so.

2) Said federal agency having a clue about what it is they intend to impose. Read this interview and tell me that they meet this standard.

Call me old fashioned, but the point of the Bill of Rights is that the burden is not on me to prove to the government why I should be allowed to retain my rights. It's worth remembering the little noted words of IX and X:

IX. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
X. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

To Aschie30's point, I too am skeptical whether this is a real problem or an invented one, but suppose 100 people died of this stuff every year. Fine, then let's have a real debate about how to balance that with the other problems caused by a canned, prefabricated food culture. And frankly, I don't find the vision she outlines of a restaurant future hard to believe at all. If they can tell you what temperature a burger has to be cooked to, why can't they issue you the meat?

Just to be clear, I happen to think it is silly to make it so difficult for a restaurant to can their own foods. But I disagree with the logic that Mike G and Aschie30 used to arrive at this conclusion.

There's perhaps only a potential issue, but until there are legitimate complaints, then I don't think there's the need for the government to step in.

I am sure you don't mean to say that the government should never take any actions until something goes wrong.

Darren72 wrote:Just to be clear, I happen to think it is silly to make it so difficult for a restaurant to can their own foods. But I disagree with the logic that Mike G and Aschie30 used to arrive at this conclusion.

There's perhaps only a potential issue, but until there are legitimate complaints, then I don't think there's the need for the government to step in.

I am sure you don't mean to say that the government should never take any actions until something goes wrong.

Not what I said at all. You look at the individual issue and decide at what point there is a problem that requires government action. In this particular instance, there are hundreds, no thousands, of food-related complaints to the health department each year, some legitimate, many illegitimate. Out of those, have there been any related to a restaurant canning goods in-house? I think -- in this particular instance -- that's a pretty good gauge of whether this is a problem or not that requires swift action in the form of a stick, not a carrot. To Mike's point, fine, if you think that maybe, just maybe, people might get sick eventually, then you open the process up for debate, and then you balance the potential risk for sickness against the interests of the businesses that are canning goods. You find a middle ground and leave it at that until it becomes apparent that you need to do something different.

Mike G wrote:1) Our elected representatives debating such major revisions to the Bill of Rights, not just some federal agency publishing a notice in 8-pt type in the Federal Legal Notificator & Dog Trainer that they intend to reverse them on their own say-so.

Our elected representatives do not have the time to debate the minutia of every government regulation. That is one reason why we have agencies that implement more general guidelines. Besides, it was our elected representatives that passed the foie gras ban, not an agency.

Mike G wrote:2) Said federal agency having a clue about what it is they intend to impose. Read this interview and tell me that they meet this standard.

Call me old fashioned, but the point of the Bill of Rights is that the burden is not on me to prove to the government why I should be allowed to retain my rights. It's worth remembering the little noted words of IX and X:

IX. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
X. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Believe me, I am sympathetic to this view. (And, as I wrote above, I happen to think some of these rules are pretty silly.) But I think we're well passed the point of debating whether health and safety regulations constitute a violation of property rights.

CDC Botulism surveillance.
CDC report on restaurant botulism in restaurant-canned hot sauce

My point above is that at least one local farmer has created a commercial cannery to showcase his products, outsourcing to a licensed local cannery is possible, and probably considerably less than the 50K mentioned in the report (they may even save money from in-house canning if they consider staff time.) Why risk it?

On the flip side, while it's quite difficult to get cow brains for consumption because (I assume) of liability concerns, it's not against the law: the FDA has done nothing except suggest that travelers outside the US stick to whole-muscle beef and avoid beef organs. They could certainly put constraints on American beef, but they apparently determined that the risk was so low as to not address it - either by the Beef Lobby or for small, local producers. The risks are similar in that the two diseases are rare and potentially deadly - except there have been less than 5 per 1 billion cases of vCJD per year, and those appear to be related to travel, not local food.

Again, I have a problem with how this news was presented to the restaurant: since this is a documented restaurant trend, it should have been addressed with a general warning letter or press release before the canning season began - but it doesn't strike me as unreasonable to ask restaurants to follow the rules.

This is a tough one. This past weekend I had some wonderful charcuterie at &%*$). I assume it was homemade/ resturant made. I also know the chef makes his own bacon/pork belly at home. The stuff is great. Would I trust anything the chef put in front of me to eat. Very much so.

HOWEVER

That trust only goes so far.

To return to another argument only briefly, many people drink raw milk since they trust the supplier. I think that is completely nuts. There is no way to make raw milk safe.

But things like charcuterie, sausage etc. the process is not that difficult.

I fall on the enforcement side which has given us the safest food supply in the world, I guess.

Every commercial kitchen has someone in it who has taken a gov't approved sanitation class and is certified as having done so. I would think that it would take about three slides and five minutes during that class to cover off the health risks associated with canning. Or, a similar class to get formal canning certification. Which I think would be a good thing.

My deceased uncle was an inspector and he once told me of arriving at an out of code business with a young colleague. The colleague was ready to shut the entire business down. But my uncle explained to him that there were a lot of jobs dependant on the business staying open so they should write a warning and come back in a few days to ensure compliance.

From a superficial level I'd venture that our laws related to canning are overly draconnian. Professional operations -- which includes well run restaurants -- that want to can should have a straightforward pathway to achieving that goal. They do other things with food that are far riskier.

Rather than the gov't as boogeman in this one I'd want to ask myself, "who will lose out if canning takes off in a major way?" Which would lead me to the larger food companies.

THere are some progressive legislators out there, some of whom read this board.

I just checked on the Better Process Control School at Purdue, which happens to cost $650:

Requirements for Certification
Each person planning to be certified as a supervisor of a special thermal processing system, or systems, must attend the lecture, and pass the examinations for those specific subjects in addition to the lectures and examinations on the following subjects:

1. Food Microbiology of Canning

2. Food Container Handling

3. Food Plant Sanitation

4. Records for Production Protection

5. Principles of Thermal Processing

6. Process Room Instrumentation, Equipment,
and Operation

Each person planning to be certified as a supervisor of container closure inspection only, is required to attend the lectures and be examined on the subjects in the list above (except for number six) and one or both of the following, depending upon the type of closure to be inspected:

7. Closures for Metal Containers

8. Closures for Glass Containers

While participants are not required to attend all lectures on the subjects, we encourage all attendees to do so. Any person who attends all lectures and passes the associated examinations will be certified as a supervisor for the operations covered by the examinations, whether or not he or she will be working in these areas.

Mhays wrote:campylobacter, a bug not that dissimilar to E.Coli in that most people get a little sick and some (generally in poor health) get very ill

I was in very good health when I contracted campylobacterosis (at a restaurant in Mount Prospect). The disease left me ill for months. I had to have intravenous fluids twice for dehydration, weeks of high-dose antibiotics and a colonoscopy because the doctor thought it had damaged my colon.

I also was interviewed by the state Department of Health and the Mount Prospect sanitarian, who informed me that, coincidentally, he had done a routine inspection of the place the day after I'd eaten there, when the restaurant scored 50/100 -- which was low enough for him to order the staff to sanitation school but not to close it down. (He told me that the restaurant owners said they felt they were being "persecuted.")

Every year, the city of Chicago closes scores of restaurants for violations like potentially hazardous foods at improper temperatures, no running hot water, food not protected, improper refrigeration temperatures, roach and rat infestations, unsanitary interior, inadequate handwashing facilities, poor hygienic practices, etc.

The idea of some of those places engaged in canning gives me the heebie jeebies. Just remember that the rules apply equally to Gourmet Organic Restaurant, Chain Food R Us and Doesn't Speak English Storefront. (And I'm not sure which poses the greatest health risk.)

Mhays wrote:I wish the Health Department had found another way to address the issue, it's not like this is a big secret in the food world - a warning letter before canning season might have been more appropriate.

Shouldn't the restaurant have known what the rules are? It makes you wonder whether there are other health regulations that they are either ignorant of or deliberately flouting.

auxen1 wrote:I would think that it would take about three slides and five minutes during that class to cover off the health risks associated with canning. Or, a similar class to get formal canning certification. Which I think would be a good thing.

As Cathy notes, it would certainly take more than five minutes. There are really a lot of things that can go wrong, and mistakes can be deadly. Botulinum spores are invisible and tasteless.

There is a process for getting formal certification. Every food manufacturer in the country goes through it. Why should restaurants be exempt? Some restaurants have gone through the process. For example, Quartino has a manufacturer's license to make its cured meats.

Restaurant inspections are done by municipalities, based on the idea that restaurants serve fresh foods. Facilities that process food for long-term shelf life are inspected on a state level. Unless you are arguing that there's no need for inspection at all, allowing restaurants to become food manufacturers has considerable public cost implications for training and hiring inspectors.

I am not a medical researcher. I assume that a search of current medical journals would turn up better, more up-to-date information, but Google found this. (I note that it only concerns cases correctly diagnosed reported to the Centers for Disease Control. Given, for example, the high incidence of uninsured people in this country who don't seek health care promptly, I would guess there's severe misdiagnosis and under-reporting on foodborne illness.)

Annals of Internal Medicine wrote:

Figure 2. Annual incidence of botulism in the United States, 1973 to 1996. The line interspersed with dots indicates botulism in infants, the solid line indicates foodborne botulism, the short-dashed line indicates wound botulism, and the long-dashed line indicates botulism from an undetermined source.

From 1973 through 1996 in the United States, 724 cases of foodborne botulism (median, 24 cases annually [range, 8 to 86 cases]), 103 cases of wound botulism (median, 3 cases annually [range, 0 to 25 cases]), 1444 cases of infant botulism (median, 71 cases annually [range, 0 to 99 cases]), and 39 cases of botulism of undetermined type were reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (Figure 2) (CDC. Unpublished data)....

Important changes in the epidemiology of botulism have emerged in the past few decades. Recently identified vehicles for foodborne botulism include homemade salsa, baked potatoes sealed in aluminum foil, cheese sauce, sauteed onions held under a layer of butter, garlic in oil, and traditionally prepared salted or fermented fish (Table 1). From 1976 through 1984, restaurant-associated outbreaks accounted for a large proportion of botulism cases (42%), although only 4% of all outbreaks were restaurant-associated. The largest of these outbreaks were caused by jalapeno peppers in Michigan in 1977, potato salad in New Mexico in 1978, sauteed onions in Illinois in 1983, and skordalia made with baked potatoes in Texas in 1994.

Foodborne Botulism

Foodborne botulism is caused by ingestion of preformed toxin produced in food by C. botulinum. The most frequent source is home-canned foods, in which spores that survive an inadequate cooking and canning process germinate, reproduce, and produce toxin in the anaerobic environment of the canned food....

Symptoms from any toxin type may range from subtle motor weakness or cranial nerve palsies to rapid respiratory arrest. The initial symptoms of foodborne botulism may be gastrointestinal and can include nausea, vomiting, abdominal cramps, or diarrhea; after the onset of neurologic symptoms, constipation is more typical. Dry mouth, blurred vision, and diplopia are usually the earliest neurologic symptoms. These initial symptoms may be followed by dysphonia, dysarthria, dysphagia, and peripheral muscle weakness. Symmetric descending paralysis is characteristic of botulism; paralysis begins with the cranial nerves, then affects the upper extremities, the respiratory muscles, and, finally, the lower extremities in a proximal-to-distal pattern. Onset usually occurs 18 to 36 hours after exposure (range, 6 hours to 8 days). In severe cases, extensive respiratory muscle paralysis leads to ventilatory failure and death unless supportive care is provided. Patients have required ventilatory support for up to 7 months before the return of muscular function, but ventilatory support is most commonly needed for 2 to 8 weeks.

only 4% of all outbreaks were restaurant-associated. The largest of these outbreaks were caused by jalapeno peppers in Michigan in 1977, potato salad in New Mexico in 1978, sauteed onions in Illinois in 1983, and skordalia made with baked potatoes in Texas in 1994.

So, we still have no sign of anybody getting botulism from house-canned products in a restaurant, ever. (None of the above sounds like a canned product, though I guess the jalapeno peppers could be. So it might be that we merely have no sign of anybody getting botulism from house-canned products in the last 30 years.)

Yes, there's a serious issue here, but it's just not the only one. And just because it's easy to make sound superscary, doesn't mean it's the only one we should act upon.

restaurant-associated outbreaks accounted for a large proportion of botulism cases (42%),

The 4% refers to all cases of food-borne illness, not botulism.

Given the rather severe penalties for illegal canning (see the article Mhays linked to), don't you think that the vast majority of restaurants are law abiding?

Meanwhile, here's a report of a botulism outbreak last year from a commercial cannery. http://www.usatoday.com/money/industrie ... food_N.htm

Note this: "botulism is a concern because it's so deadly, claiming 8% of victims, often because breathing muscles become paralyzed."

LAZ wrote:Every year, the city of Chicago closes scores of restaurants for violations like potentially hazardous foods at improper temperatures, no running hot water, food not protected, improper refrigeration temperatures, roach and rat infestations, unsanitary interior, inadequate handwashing facilities, poor hygienic practices, etc.

The idea of some of those places engaged in canning gives me the heebie jeebies. Just remember that the rules apply equally to Gourmet Organic Restaurant, Chain Food R Us and Doesn't Speak English Storefront. (And I'm not sure which poses the greatest health risk.)

I'm certainly not in disagreement with you - I'm all for the existence and enforcement of basic health & sanitation regulation. However, this is where my beef lies:

The TOC Article wrote:“But I don’t know the little details that the federal government, the state of Illinois and the City of Chicago would enforce. That’s a whole other business, and you need someone to guide you through it.”

That someone, known as a HACCP consultant, charges around $15,000 to produce a plan comprehensive enough to earn approval from both the city and state.

If the primary concern is that restaurant- and business-owners are thoroughly educated about safe canning techniques, proper storage, and sanitation, why does the system have to be so convoluted, the price of entry so high, that all but the wealthy, established, and/or corporate players are excluded (or at least strongly discouraged) from curing or canning legally? Shouldn't there be at least a little emphasis on achieving a balance of ensuring public safety and making the barriers of entry feasible for the little guy who wants to start a business and stay on the right side of the law?

A system so grueling and complicated that it's almost mandatory to hire a high-priced advocate who knows the ins & outs to represent you...sounds a lot like the rest of our legal system

Hi,

As I mentioned earlier, I met a woman who converted a garage-type structure into an approved facility. This was someone where canning for farmer's markets was an important source of income in a rural area. She was not rolling in bucks. A consultant wasn't considered and not in the budget, if needed. It may not be as tough to pull off.

What may be an inconvenient reality is a restaurant space is not conducive to small batch food production. You can spend a lot of money insisting, documenting, hiring consultants and lawyers. The answer in the end may be the same, which means a lot of money evaporated into someone else's pocket.

In this region, the window for preserving is rather small if you are seeking to preserve and pickle local produce. Renting space in an approved facility for day, week or month may not be so onerous. And taking that class at Purdue, a smart investment in knowledge and peace of mind you are doing the job right.

Regards,

Mike G wrote:So, we still have no sign of anybody getting botulism from house-canned products in a restaurant, ever. (None of the above sounds like a canned product, though I guess the jalapeno peppers could be. So it might be that we merely have no sign of anybody getting botulism from house-canned products in the last 30 years.)

It just might be that few if any restaurants can their own products.

Cathy2 wrote:As I mentioned earlier, I met a woman who converted a garage-type structure into an approved facility. This was someone where canning for farmer's markets was an important source of income in a rural area. She was not rolling in bucks. A consultant wasn't considered and not in the budget, if needed. It may not be as tough to pull off.

What may be an inconvenient reality is a restaurant space is not conducive to small batch food production. You can spend a lot of money insisting, documenting, hiring consultants and lawyers. The answer in the end may be the same, which means a lot of money evaporated into someone else's pocket.

Most of the large universities in the Midwest with agricultural programs have some programs that can assist people with setting up small production facilities.

Personally, if I were going to develop a food product for sale, I would develop the idea and then contract someone to produce for me. That way, you have a lot more time to actually promote and sell the product. In addition, you are purchasing technical expertise that most people do not have.

It just might be that few if any restaurants can their own products.

Few if any restaurants do a lot of things it would be good not to strangle in the cradle, if you have a broader perspective about public health or just the pleasures of eating.

jlawrence01 wrote:Most of the large universities in the Midwest with agricultural programs have some programs that can assist people with setting up small production facilities.

I happened to contact a land grant university for the information I submitted. They are a terrific resource, which people should take more advantage of.

Regards,

Khaopaat wrote:

The TOC Article wrote:“But I don’t know the little details that the federal government, the state of Illinois and the City of Chicago would enforce. That’s a whole other business, and you need someone to guide you through it.”

That someone, known as a HACCP consultant, charges around $15,000 to produce a plan comprehensive enough to earn approval from both the city and state.

If the primary concern is that restaurant- and business-owners are thoroughly educated about safe canning techniques, proper storage, and sanitation, why does the system have to be so convoluted, the price of entry so high, that all but the wealthy, established, and/or corporate players are excluded (or at least strongly discouraged) from curing or canning legally? Shouldn't there be at least a little emphasis on achieving a balance of ensuring public safety and making the barriers of entry feasible for the little guy who wants to start a business and stay on the right side of the law?

A system so grueling and complicated that it's almost mandatory to hire a high-priced advocate who knows the ins & outs to represent you...sounds a lot like the rest of our legal system

To me, that's sort of like saying "well, I can't remember all those state and federal laws involved in driving a car, and I can't afford to hire a consultant to watch me drive, so if I get a ticket for running a red light, it's not my fault." I worked in a couple coffeeshops and was the designated Sanitation Manager in two places: I took a 2-day course offered by the City for about $250, passed the test and was certified. Admittedly, we didn't have as many variables to deal with as a restaurant, but the rules and education are the same whether you're serving tap water or tartare. I still have the book, it's a small textbook and it wasn't particularly challenging information to take in: specific ways you need to keep things clean, and information on specific foodborne illnesses - I remember that particular attention was paid to botulism and home canning, because apparently it's almost always on the certification test.

When a Health Inspector cites you, there are degrees, not dissimilar to traffic: Critical Violations are issued a citation and will get you closed down until you correct the problem, Serious Violations are issued a citation, and warrant an automatic re-inspection to assure the problem has been corrected after it was discovered, and Minor Violations don't result in a citation but must be corrected by the next inspection. A HACCP plan is not really that difficult to put into place (it means, basically, that you're aware of which foods are potentially dangerous and that you're checking the temperature of these foods every time their is a potential risk, e.g. when they're offloaded into your facility before you put them in the fridge.) The point of the inspections is that the inspector goes through your facility to make sure you meet code: if you've got a good handle the things that are really important, they will just tell you what to fix and go away.

I have a hard time believing that lack of a HACCP consultant was the issue.