Header graphic for print

Marler Blog

Providing Commentary on Food Poisoning Outbreaks & Litigation

Primus Linked Again to a Great Audit and a Foodborne Illness Outbreak

A few evenings ago I posted the final CDPH Report on the E. coli outbreak linked to Trader Joe’s and Walgreen’s.  Primus finds itself redacted on page 14 of the report:

Ratto Bros. also underwent routine audits from a third party, _____. The most recent _____ audit before the implicated romaine harvest was on August 8, 2013 (Exhibit B). The audit was performed on Ranch 6, 9, and 10 and the audit evaluated two areas, food safety management system requirements and good agricultural practices requirements. The firm had received a total score (before corrections) of 95.91% out of a possible 100%. The area where Ratto Bros. lost points in the audit was in good agricultural practices. They were marked down because there was animal activity (birds) on Ranch 6 during the audit, there were three dogs observed on land adjacent to Ranch 6, a water source was accessible to animals, and a water source was not free from a contamination issue (vegetation). The final _____ audit score was recalculated after corrective actions were performed by Ratto Bros. The final score was 99.32% out of 100% due to the fact that not all of the firm’s corrective actions were accepted by the _____ auditor. The corrective action that was not accepted by the _____ auditor was the non-conformance related to animals having access to the water source (open canal). The firm had taken measures to ensure that water used for irrigation, washing of equipment, and mixing of pesticides remained free of contaminants by filtering the water from an open source, chlorinating, testing regularly, maintaining equipment to ensure that it was not a source of contamination to the water source, and employing personnel and a security company to patrol the ranches. The aforementioned measures were not accepted by the _____ auditor, thus not allowing the full score of 100% to be reached. (Exhibit C).

Interestingly, the blanks have now been filled in:

Ratto Bros. also underwent routine audits from a third party, Primuslabs.  The most recent PrimusGFS 1.6  audit before the implicated romaine harvest was on August 8, 2013 (Exhibit B). The audit was performed on Ranch 6, 9, and 10 and the audit evaluated two areas, food safety management system requirements and good agricultural practices requirements. The firm had received a total score (before corrections) of 95.91% out of a possible 100%. The area where Ratto Bros. lost points in the audit was in good agricultural practices. They were marked down because there was animal activity (birds) on Ranch 6 during the audit, there were three dogs observed on land adjacent to Ranch 6, a water source was accessible to animals, and a water source was not free from a contamination issue (vegetation). The final PrimusGFS 1.6 audit score was recalculated after corrective actions were performed by Ratto Bros. The final score was 99.32% out of 100% due to the fact that not all of the firm’s corrective actions were accepted by the PrimusGFS 1.6  auditor. The corrective action that was not accepted by the  PrimusGFS 1.6   auditor was the non-conformance related to animals having access to the water source (open canal). The firm had taken measures to ensure that water used for irrigation, washing of equipment, and mixing of pesticides remained free of contaminants by filtering the water from an open source, chlorinating, testing regularly, maintaining equipment to ensure that it was not a source of contamination to the water source, and employing personnel and a security company to patrol the ranches. The aforementioned measures were not accepted by the PrimusGFS 1.6   auditor, thus not allowing the full score of 100% to be reached. (Exhibit C).

Primus audits – the gift that keeps on giving – only if you are a lawyer.  Thanks to the work of their lawyers and the decisions of several Federal Judges in the Cantaloupe Listeria case, a lawsuit may well not be far behind.