Food Safety Partnership: Food Code Training

Sarah Leach: Our first two presenters I’ll introduce together and then they can come on up Angie Cyr is our first presenter. Angie has a Bachelor of Science degree in environmental health and public health from the University of Wisconsin Eau Claire. She has been involved in food safety regulation for over 30 years having worked at the Eau Claire City/ County Health Department in Wisconsin and Washington County Public Health and Environment in Minnesota before joining MDH in 2010. She is currently the acting manager of Food, Pools, and Lodging Services Section at the Minnesota Department of Health Angie was involved with the pre-work for Minnesota food code rule revision as a member of the advisory committee prior to joining MDH and has spent lots of hours drafting rule language and the SONAR, which is the statement of need and reasonableness. Her favorite term from the food code is “time/temperature control for safety food” because it’s a tongue twister. From her own experience working in retail food, Angie offers this advice: be careful when pouring ice water, the ice has a tendency to come out all at once. [laughter] Josh Rounds is an Epidemiologist with the Minnesota Department of Health where he conducts surveillance for and investigates outbreaks of foodborne disease. He is also the coordinator for the Minnesota Integrated Food Safety Center of Excellence which works with other states and jurisdictions to help them improve their foodborne outbreak detection and investigation capabilities. Josh is our go-to presenter for Epi presentations at FSP and FSP+ video conferences. Josh has been involved with Minnesota food code revision for his entire public health career since he became an epidemiologist in 2010. His favorite term from the food code is “exclude.” When Josh has a food safety question he turns to one of his fellow epidemiologists and another one of our presenters today: Nicole Hedeen so Angie, I can pull your slides up here Angie Cyr: So, Sarah has already said, you know, the main thing for my update is: the food code has been adopted and is effective January 1st. [laughter] That is all you need to know! So, with my slides rule making process in a it always has to follow Minnesota Statutes chapter 14 and Minnesota rules chapter 1400. If we don’t follow those rule and statute requirements, we can’t adopt our rule Here’s a simplified chart, and for some reason on this screen it doesn’t look how it is supposed to, so I’ll read the different boxes. So, initially the Governor’s office does a preliminary review, we post a request for comments, and the official request for comments was posted on December 21st, 2009. So this has been quite a long process. And then we go into our rule development process So we have our Advisory Committee and we draft some language, we develop a statement of need and reasonableness, and the Governor’s office reviews it and then the box where it has the arrows coming out of it, there’s a notice of an intent to adopt the rules that gets published And you can either go to routes: you can adopt without a hearing or you can adopt with a hearing. And so if there are 25 or more people that request to have a public hearing we have a public hearing And so when we posted our notice of intent to adopt the rules we did post that rule as having a public hearing because we assumed that we would need to have that. And so we had our hearing back in January and the Office of Administrative Hearings assigns an administrative law judge to our case. And so they preside over the hearing and then provide their feedback Governor’s office as a final review and then that larger triangular shaped box then we file our order adopting the rule with the Office of Administrative Hearings, and then they work with the Secretary of State who would then post it, the governor has a veto period of 14 days. And then we publish the notice of adoption and that notice of adoption was posted on September 4th so that has been posted. And so now we are in the the next one where our process is complete and the effective date of the rules is January

1st 2019. So rule revisions was happening right now so the rule revisions are different standard orders that we use on our inspections are being updated in our electronic systems. Delegated agencies are working on adopting their local ordinances to include the revised food code, and we’re doing training for inspection staff, we’re updating our educational materials, and then we’re doing outreach to the foodservice industry like the changes. We have posted a clean copy of the new rule on MDH website. So if you go to the MDH website and then just put in the search box: “food code” you’ll come up with options that will bring you to our food code page. And please note that this is a rough draft, the final version from the office of the Revisor of Statutes won’t be released until in December, but this rough draft allows people to work on the ordinances and see the language. Why it’s a rough draft as it doesn’t contain the table of contents or the chapter headers. So the actual language is in there. Like I said they’re posted in until December and then I don’t think published copies will be available until some probably in February. Any questions? This is very exciting, I have two things as an adult that I didn’t know if I’d live to see, was the food code and the Vikings actually winning the Superbowl. So maybe this is the year for the Vikings, we have a new kicker now so So I’m going to talk about our online illness complaint form. This is something that’s come up. People have had questions out there in the field and we have added an online illness complaint form to our online complaint system. Basically it’s another method of reaching people. We know we’re not getting complaints from everybody who’s getting sick and this was a way that we could get people who were unwilling to give us a call You know it’s accessible people for whom the phone is not a good option Easier for people to do at work, and it certainly collects better data than a open text email. So kind of how you know where this is located it’s online at the website: Reporting suspected foodborne and water illness page. You may see our phone number which is kind of a traditional way that we’ve gotten most of our complaints. There’s also the email option and that, you know people, it’s kind of email generally a couple sentences of what they think happened and then we have to call them back and this is the new foodborne, waterborne illness report and this confidential online survey. So we’ll just take a few minutes to go through it. So it’s using Red Cap which is a secure survey format and the initial page provides privacy information describes what we will do with the data they provide. There is a little sentence that redirects food handling issues to Food, Pools, and Lodging You know if there’s not an actual illness issue that they want to report, that will actually go to them. And then also request that if it’s a large group event like a wedding actually must call becuase those are a little more complicated and the form isn’t as well designed to kind of capture all the information you need for those. So each page has the hotline phone number at the top is if they decide they actually you know want to give us a call instead of completing the form and a phone number or at least you know a number that could be a phone number is required field. And this is kind of twofold so they can log back in to make changes if they’re doing it at work and something comes up they stop and are timed out they can use that number to get back into this complaint form. And then also if they leave information blank or if something isn’t making sense with their complaint, that allows us to reach back out to them and try to get better information from them. We also collect some demographic information like email. And then there are multiple complaint forms going to based on what the person believes made them sick. So do they think as a food

from a restaurant or similar establishments, a retail food item, recreational water exposure, or drinking water exposure? And kind of regardless of which of those they pick, the person is asked about all those other exposures as well. So the next page is asking that main question about you know number of people that were in your party, how many people are sick, how many households are these people in? That’s kind of a crucial piece of information that the Epi’s use to decide if we want to actually start an outbreak investigation. And then we ask for kind of the names and phone numbers of the other people that they were with so we can try to follow up with them. You know we also tell them they can direct those people to give us call or fill out this form themselves, but we do kind of add that carrot– we were more likely to initiate outbreak investigation if we have illness information from two or more people from more than one household and so that hopefully encourages them to kind of share that additional information. So symptom info was actually collected a little bit differently from the phone form. We made did you have diarrhea? Did you have vomitting? And your illness onset Those are required field mandatory fields since they’re really key for us to determine you know, is there an outbreak going on? And you know what’s maybe the suspected etiology of their illnesses. Kind of the other fields all have onsets and recovery date and time requested and the other symptoms are yes/no unknown. And then for swimming complaints we also ask about rash. So for the complaint establishments, it’s an open text field: collect the restaurant name and location. We require the meal date/time again to try to get that incubation period for people. But a complete history is not a mandatory field. We try to focus in more on any foods prepared outside the home, other than that complaint establishment. And that’s a repeatable field so they can add as many restaurants or cafeterias, anywhere outside home as they need. Now if the complainant says they had exposure to recreational water, they’re provided this field, this form to fill out asking you know what’s the name of the facility? Where is it located? When did you go? And kind of what sort of things did you go in? What pool, wading pool, hot tub splash pad, beach/lake, other? And you can keep adding additional exposures Everyone is also asked about their sources of drinking water, just like they are on phone form,and then details are requested for each of the options selected. So if it’s a well, what’s the location of the well? If it’s city water, what city or municipality is that coming from? And brand bottled water. Now for if they report that other people are ill, we’ll ask the symptoms for those other people can be collected on this form. If they say they would be able to provide those details Otherwise hopefully they’re providing the name and number so we can reach those other ill people. And this is repeatable as well also. They can add as many ill people as they’d like. And then kind of those other exposures that have always been on the phone form as well: was anyone else in your sick in your household sick before you? Do you work at or your kids have attend child care or in-home day care? What’s your job occupation? That kind of any other comments you want to let us know. The final screen thanks them, tells them what we’ll do with the complaint information, and then tells them they can log back in by returning to the URL. So one common issue that’s been coming up is the format of the date/time fields in redcap People seem to be having a little bit of a hard time picking the right date sometimes. And the next thing about redcap is it does allow you to build in a lot of logic, but one of the things that doesn’t what you do is ensure that our meal dates is actually reported before their onset date. So you could have that issue when they’re submitting that. That would be an instance where we would want to call them back and try to correct that. And then since the forms are submitted online, very few the fields are required and I highlighted most of them so there could be some blank or fields that they leave blank. And in general we try to call them or email them back if we think that’s a crucial piece of information, but oftentimes they may not respond back to us. And so you know inspectors if you’re getting one of these complaints and there’s missing information, you know you can reach out to Carly you have a question about it I’ll put her contact information on here. But you should continue to follow up your

routine complaints as you normally do You know obviously if we think there’s something we need to do like an outbreak investigation, we’ll call you, but in general if you have questions, Carly said that in general, she is writing kind of red cap on the top of these. I’ll go through kind of the exact stuff she’s going through on the next slide, but if you have questions when you get in one of these complaints reach out to Carly. That’s our email address or phone number and she’d be the best person to be able to kind of answer any of your questions about specific complaint. So kind of all the flow of information is working, you know someone will complete that online RedCap survey That will be submitted. Carly will receive that information and review it, try to make sure there’s no missing information that we need or the dates and times are consistent with each other, there’s nothing that’s contradicting each other there. And if something is missing or blank she’ll either call them back or email to try to get that information She’s been actually copying that information to a paper form which is what’s getting out to everyone out in the field And then that is also going back into the hotline database that try to help identify those idependent complaints that are reporting the same establishment. So that’s kind of the same same system we’ve always been using. Kind of that information into a database. So that’s kind of a general sense of what’s going on with this. I thought I’d just give you a quick outbreak example of how we’ve used this so far. So in August of this year, we had four independent complaints, all receive on the same day reporting GI illness. And actually all four of them were submitted through this online foodborne/ waterborne illness reporting tool Interestingly none of the complaints reported Pizza Luce as the suspected cause of their illness. However each of them actually had completed that four day food history section asking about all the foods outside the home, and all four reported eating at the same location of Pizza Luce in the four days prior to illness onset. So that was encouraging. And we kind of went back and forth on you know do we make every field required and then just lose people as they kind of quick quit the survey before they enter enough information for us to actually do anything So we kind of ended up landing on the side of less required fields and we’ll try to call back if it’s something important But this was nice to see that people were actually following through on that four day food history. So here’s just a screenshot of one of the complaints. They’re actually complaining about this India palace, but based off over there recorded meal date time that was nine hours before symptom onset That’s a little bit short. Their symptoms look like norovirus. Sort of thinking that that probably isn’t there exposure But actually in their four-day food history piece, reported Pizza Luce. And that incubation period was 34 hours. So that kind of fit but much better. In total they identified 18 cases with a median incubation period of 31 hours. And the meals that the complaintants were suspecting were about 5 to 20 hours before illness onset. So again kind of points to that we all know that people will tend to identify that that meal or that restaurant right before they got sick as the cause of illness when in fact things like norovirus or other other bacterial pathogens we’ll see incubation periods that are much longer So it’s nice to see that they’re actually reporting levels and were able to identify the outbreak kind of using online form. So that’s kind of all I have in general you know we can see this as another another tool another way to get additional complaints that maybe we weren’t getting before because people did want to call us or email us. But hopefully it won’t change how you guys are operating in the field. If you have questions, reach out to Carly. In general she said she is writing kind of the Red Cap or the Red Cap number on on the complaint form that’s coming out. There isn’t a field kind of on the form that indicates that it’s an online complaint as opposed to a phone complaint. The other thing I want to mention, you know with you if you are seeing inconsistencies, feel free to reach back to Carly. She did say that often times she’ll include in that email, I’m trying to call them back for these pieces of information, but I haven’t heard back yet. That might be another piece of information that’s helpful for you. Any questions at all about this online form? Nicole. [Audience member asks question]: Do you have any idea how often the four day food history are filled out? Josh: I don’t have any data yet, I know it’s over yeah yeah so Nicole’s question was how often you have any kind of numbers yet how often or what percentage of people are actually filling out that at four date with history? I don’t yet. I know Marika is planning to do kind of a paper paper on the inform. I don’t think she’s analyzed it yet. But I know you know it is

it’s not one hundred percent for sure just because it’s not a required field. And then you know in general that’s something that you know Carly has to push on quite a bit when she’s in the phone interviews as well, particularly for people who are pretty set that you know this restaurant caused their illness. They don’t want to talk about it any other exposures. So that is kind of a potential drawback of the online forms We don’t have that person kind of pushing or probing the people. All right. [Sarah]: Other Questions? Denise, do we have any questions from our WebEx? [Denise]: Not at this time. [Sarah]: Thanks Josh So as you probably know, Minnesota’s food code is over 200 pages long and we’ve changed at least something about almost all of it. The five experts on today’s agenda will have a little more than about a hundred minutes between them to summarize the twenty major changes of concern to the Minnesota food code, describe what has changed, evaluate how changes might affect food establishment operators, and explain how changes help protect the public’s health. We obviously won’t be covering everything in the code or even every small change. So you may have questions during the presentation or when we are done. While we may not have time to address questions during the session, we do want to hear from you and help everyone understand the new requirements. If we do have time we can take questions during the session here today, but please do something occurs to you, make a note and send it in an email to Sophia Walsh sophia.walsh@state.mn.us and we will find the answer and get back to you soon. For the first part of our presentations on the major changes of concern to the Minnesota food code, we turn to three food safety professionals who each have a wealth of experience with retail food regulation. They each have been standardized to demonstrate proficient knowledge and application of FDA Food Code and are experts in Minnesota’s rule Jim Topie is a Planner Principal for Minnesota Department of Health and collaborates with a diversity of professionals to ensure our food is safe to eat. He has over 35 years of food experience in the retail and manufacturing food settings. Jim is an FDA standardized food safety inspection officer. At MDH he develops and conducts food safety training and makes sure regulators are applying rules uniformly and consistently statewide. Jim coordinates HACCP plan review approvals and Minnesota’s Registered Environmental Health Specialist program. Jim recalls he had two routes of potential career opportunities: A become a funeral director at his grandparents’ business or B. build upon his love of healthy living Jim is glad he chose B. because by putting safe and wholesome food and drinking water into the mouths of consumers he’s helping lifespans continue to increase Jim was involved with the adoption of the Minnesota retail food code in 1998 and has been even more involved with the current revision. When Jim has food safety questions, he turns to the food safety team with food pools and lodging services and the FDA. He finds a lot of value and unique experiences and backgrounds that everyone brings to the table Michelle Messer has a BS degree in community health from St. Cloud State University. She worked as a sanitarian for the Minnesota Department of Health for several years and is currently a planner principal in the partnership and workforce development unit. Like Jim Michele is an FDA standardized food safety inspection officer. Her responsibilities include standardization for state and local agencies, staff training, and conducting program evaluations of delegated city and county health agencies. Michele enjoys inspecting food at major concerts and sports events because the bigger the event the more preparation time is crucial Michele can hardly remember when the food code revision process began, but knows she has been involved from the start Michelle’s favorite term from the food food code is commingled because it sounds like a dating app. Jeff Luedeman received his BS degree in biology from Northern Michigan University and his MS degree in entomology from the University of Minnesota. He has worked as the retail

food program manager with the Minnesota Department of Agriculture since August 2015. His previous work experience includes more than 20 years of inspection, leadwerks, supervisory, and program management activities in various fields of environmental health such as food safety well construction and sealing, epidemiology, recreational water safety, and disease vector surveillance and control I will pull up your slides here and we’ll get started. So we are hearing some noise from someone. I’m not sure who it is. There is some paper shuffling I think you’re muted now thank you [Jim]: All right. So hey thanks Sarah for the warm welcome and we really appreciate this opportunity to share with a really diverse audience. I think Sarah, how many people do we have signed up? [Sarah]: About 215. [Jim]: 215 so that’s quite the number. A lot of people really interested They’ve been involved probably in part with the food code revisions as well as certified food managers and so forth, and industry wanting to know a little bit more about what’s happening with the different items. So what we are going to cover is 20 questions and compacts, it really impacts most of some of the most important parts of food that we’re running into. It’s broken down into four sections: terminologies, food handling, health and hygiene, equipment and facilities. And then each topic provides a brief summary of proposed changes and as well as with that as Angie said. We posted online the rough draft of the food code. And just as a reminder these 20 is not all-inclusive there’s a lot more different changes are happening but we just really want to cover the most impactful. So first one going to cover it’d be under terminology. It’s the provision that defines potentially hazardous food or phf as time temperature control for safety food which is TCS – the initials. So this does not change in your requirements for the majority of food items, but for make the finest cut tomatoes and cut leafy greens as TCS. It also provides a method of determining a food is non TCS based on the food’s water activity and the pH or if a product assessment is needed. So this clarifies and improves the decision making process when determining whether or not who can support pathogen growth or toxin formation to reduce the risk of foodborne illness. Time/Temperature Control for safety food (TCS) was included in the 2009 FDA model food code. So it has been around for quite a while in that model code since 2009. So that you’re talking it’s been pretty much proven for at least nine years. So some people may have already been familiar with this. But it does replace the term Potentially Hazardous Food. So TCS is defined in terms of whether or not it requires time temperature control over safety to limit pathogen growth or toxin formation The definition of TCS food takes into consideration pH, water activity, pH and water activity interaction, heat treatment, and packaging for a relatively simple determination of whether the food requires time temperature control for safety. So the food code definition designates certain raw plant foods as TCS food because they’ve been shown to support the growth of foodborne pathogens in the absence of temperature control, and to lack intrinsic factors that would inhibit pathogen growth. So we have cut melons, cut tomatoes, cut leafy greens. And those are examples where certain factors are unable to control bacterial growth once pathogen or exposed to fluids and nutrients after cutting. So with this Minnesota’s current food code includes two factors used for determining if a product is not potentially hazardous. So

that was in the old code a food with water activity value of point eight five or less or the pH level of 4.6 or below But you’ll see what these new tables is an interaction of the different different items and it is both pH and water activity, not just one or the other. So the revised food code now has two tables as I mentioned as a method of determining if a food is not TCS. So you will use Table A for foods foods that are heat treated or packaged or Table B for foods that are not heat treated or heat treated but not packaged. But before we get to the tables, it’s really hard to recognize that before you use them, you need be answering certain questions of yourself to be considered. So the first question would be: is the temp to hold the food without using time or temperature control? So if the answer is no, no further action was required. So the second question would be: is a food raw or the food heat treated? Do you need to know that? Number three: does the food already require time temperature control for safety? So does it need to be kept in the refrigerator, refrigerator anyhow or some if the ingredients possibly have to be kept in the refridgerator, that would make a decision on your basis. Does a product history with sound scientific rationale exist, including a safe history of use? And then number five: what is the pH and water activity of thefood in question? And with that you would have to use an independent laboratory and they would need to be using the AOAC or the association official analytical chemists method of analysis. So it’s very specific who would be doing the testing, making sure they’re using the proper procedures to do that. So here’s the tables. So following that laboratory testing results of both the pH like I said got here you’ve got the pH values and then you got water activity values here. So if you would use this table and look across it. So here’s water activity whatever the lab results would be for like 0.92 or less or equal to, you go across and make a determination about the pH. And I would make a determination whether it’s a non-TCS food or the other aspect is a PA. So if the food is heat treated to eliminate vegetative cells, needs to be addressed differently than a raw product with no or inadequate heat treatment condition. If the food is packaged after heat treatment, it’s destroyed the vegetable cells, and subsequently packaged prevent recontamination, higher ranges of pH and water activity can be tolerated becuase remaining spore-forming bacteria are the only microbial hazards of concern. So there again this table A is very specific. It’s the interaction of pH and water activity for control of spores in food, has to be heat treated to destroy the vegetative cells, and subsequently packaged. So that’s that’s that particular table there. Table B uses interaction of pH and water activity for control of spores, and food not heat treated, or heat treated, but not packaged. So and part of that is is it packaged or is it not packaged? So you would have to consider that in part when you’re looking at these tables. So and if you look at it, this has stronger values and stronger controls regarding the pH or water activity even table A. So like here in the upper left hand corner they’re talking about 4.2 less than or equal to, and this one is a 4.6 less than equal to So that’s just demonstrating that there is a difference between the two different tables. So let’s determine if time temperature control is required, combination products presents their own challenge. So if you have, like you want to try to do a meringue pie, or something like that, all of the sudden, you as an operator decide that oh, I’m controlling it through pH and so forth Well you can’t just be checking just a small part of that pie, you have to look like where the crust is touching each other and so forth because that can make a difference with pH. You have to look at the multiple ingredients that could be in there. So it is very particular. It is specific. So and then what would happen with that would be you would actually have to go through a process authority, or for an assessment to be made as well. So food designated as a PA or product assessment required on either table. You really have to look at those different things that we just talked about. So they may have to do inoculation study or some

other type of testing to make a determination whether acceptable evidence shows the food is TCS or not. So what does TCS not include? So within the definition, so this whole part about TCS foods and so forth falls into the definition part, so you could look at within there But within that definition of TCS under subpart C, there are foods that are listed that are not included as TCS. So air-cooled hard-boiled eggs with a shell intact, commercially processed and hermetically sealed container to achieve and maintain commercial sterility That would be like canned canned product Those that fall under the parameters we just covered ever table A or table B, foods that require a process assessment, and is being controlled up growth. And then there are maybe a few other certain foods that are listed in the food code that a little bit too much detail that I want to right now. So this concludes about TCS foods. So there’s quite a bit of changes here. So you’ll just have to recognize it, work through it, and then if you’re if anybody has access to the FDA food code, their model code in the back there they do have Public Health Reasons in Chapter in parts three in the annex and that’s where I got a lot of this information from to help familiarize yourself So we’re going to move on. And then another terminology is: now violations to the food code will be designated using a two-tiered system. Right now we have a three-tiered system, right now we have two tier system we’re going to a three tier system. So the provision replaces the previous categories of critical and non-critical with Priority 1, Priority 2 or Priority 3. So this classifies code provisions based on impact they have operational risk factors. The changes will help establishment operators understand the relative severity of the violations that are received. So again we have three different tiers that we want to be working from. So priority is the same as FDA’s priority designation. It replaces the current term of critical. Priority 1 items directly impact hazard associated with foodborne illness or illness risk factors. They directly control potential hazards through elimination, prevention, or reduction to an acceptable level of hazards associated with food borne illness or injury. The priority one is indicated in the food code with a subscript of P1, which is show up in the upper left hand corner up here What are some examples of P1? So we have food temperatures such as cooking, cooling, reheating, hand-washing is very specific as well as date marking. Some other ones that could be included would be cold or hot holding, raw cross-contamination, or other items previously known as critical volations. For this next one is Priority 2. So priority 2 is the same as FDA’s priority foundation designation. Priority 2 items are violations which indirectly contribute to the creation of priority one items such as equipment and facilities. And then on this two priority two items are designated with the p2 which is also listed up here in the upper corner. So what are examples of p2 items? We got listed just a few examples here: personnel training, infrastructure/facilities, equipment and utensils, documentation record-keeping, and labeling. So the last of the three would be Priority 3 and that one would be considered the same as FDA’s what they call in their model code as a core designation is what we would have previously been called a non-critial item Priority 3 items or violations that deal with food retail practices including sanitation. And Priority 3 is not designated in the food code like what we talked about that little subscript P 1 or P 2 Anything not p1 or p2 will be considered a p3 item. So I’m just going to work through two examples just to help you understand how the hierarchy works So let’s say about hand washing. We all recognize hand washing is really important for anyone. Hands have to be properly cleaned. There are certain procedures you need to go through there and with that step of procedures immediately following cleaning, you have to be thoroughly dry. So making sure that you’re watching hands properly and drying them

that would be a priority 1. Priority 2 would be to dry those hands, you need to use one of several, one or two of several methods. Most offenses with this include disposable towels and disposable towels, have paper towels or such would have to be provided to a handwash sink. That’s a 2. P 3, where you need to what you do with the paper towel when you’re done. You need have waste recepticle pool to throw that paper towel into. And that would be the P3 part. So washing hands is P1 Using the/having the paper towels at the sink would be a P2, and throwing them into a waste receptacle would be P 3. One other example would be the state of your grilling hamburger patty So priority one, those measureables, the cooking time, the temperature so it’ll be the 155 or above for 15 seconds or there is a chart that we would utilize for different type of temperatures. P 2 is actually checking using a tempered measuring device and with that you have to have a small diameter probe. P 3 would be the thermometer design would be how easy it is to read. So that would be a P 1 is actual cooking time/temperature. P 2 was using the thermometer. P 3 be able to read that thermometer So the last one I’m going to cover. With the certified food manager, that terminology has been changed, and that will be now be called certified food protection manager So this clarifies what the requirements to have a what now is called a CFPM Certified food protection manager is primarily based on the risk and food processes rather than just the type of the facility. The course exam renewal requirements remain similar. So the process and requirements become certified to become certified and renew certification are streamlined. And the instructor providing CFPM to the certified food protection manager refresher course must be a CFPM themselves. Also CFPM’s exemptions for mobile food units aka food trucks, permanent temporary, and seasonal temporary establishments are removed. These types of facilities will now need to employ a full-time CFPM based on the risk category and the menu. So why are we having this? The presence of the CFPM promotes active mentor control in food establishments. So we initially adopted in the 1990s. The CFPM was adopted separately from the food code and was actually considered like a chapter 9 It was just an outliar in the food code So what we end up doing is relocating the certified food protection manager language to chapter two, and that’ll help assist the food operators and regulators recognize the possitive impact of this Again it’s really important to have properly trained CFPM’s. They can improve food safety, reduce risk and behaviors commonly associated with food borne illnesses Foods establishment licensees shall employ a certified food protection manager for each establishment, including a food establishment that reheats ready to eat TCS foods for hot holding, except for items under number B. Which we are going to cover right now. So the old version the CFM language exempts food estrablishments from training and certification requirements based on descriptions of ten food preparation activities as well as a mix of defined terms and common names for food business or models. Now the revised food code incorporates only terms defined within the Revised Code to both mold consistency, accuracy, uniform interpretation, navigation throughout the state. The CFPM is not required to be employed where, we got this list here, method food prep meets the definition of low risk establishment, 961 food establishment licensed as a special event food stand, establishment operates as a retail food vehicle, vertical structure or cart, or the last one is: be conducting 965 limited food preparation activities And what are those? We got them listed here: food preparation activities are solely limited one or more of the following: preparing or packaging non TCS food They’re made from ingredients that are not TCS, processing raw meat poultry, fish, or game intended for cooking by the consumer, eating or serving precooked hot dogs, sausage products, popcorn, nachos, pretzels, or frozen pizza. So we are going to dive a bit deeper into the actual rule. And with

that only upon opening or reopening a food establishment, the licensee may employ one full-time employee who at the time of opening or reopening meets the requirements become a CFPM. And within sixty days. So that is something that we did revise was a timeframe within 60 days of opening or reopening becomes a CFP. So the 60-day requirement of applying CFPM before opening simplifies the timeframes for existing establishments to obtain a CFPM during employee turnover. Furthermore the requirements of the CFPM initial certification are further specified. There’s subpart G, there’s a series of different subparts that deal with CFPM. So in order to become a CFPM in Minnesota, an individual must be trained in food safety, pass a recognized exam, and submit certain identifying information and a fee So a applicant for initial certification as a CFPM shall complete the training course and pass an accepted qualifying examination. The examination must have been taken within six months directly preceding the application for certification. So that’s a new requirement would be that six month limit there. This has been shortened from 36 months. The six-month timeframe for initial application ensures that CFPM receives up-to-date training and the central food safety principles critical to public health protection. Continue with this we have a subpart L, and the contained educational course instructor shall be a Minnesota CFPM, review the developments and topics including approved courses at least every two years, and maintain those course records for at least five years. So one of the changes under L would be, they must be a CFPM in Minnesota This is my last slide here. A lot of information, so I’ll just explain it through here. CFPM certificate effective dates and transferability are specified the subpart N. So a certificate issue under this section is valid statewide for three years from the effective of date printed on the certificate The new language describes the period of time during which a certificate valid more clearly than before. CFPM is valid for three years, when CFPM renews the new certificate is valid for the next three years with no gaps or overlaps. The effective date of the initial CFPM certificate is the date the applicant passed an approved examination. It’s currently the effective date is the date of processing. So we’ve made that change. Also the application must be processed within six months passing the actual exam. The effective date of the renewal CFPM certificate is one day after the expiration date of the previous certificate. The training needs to be completed prior to the CMPM expiration date. So it’s sort of what we were actually did is eliminated the grace period. There was wiggle room that could technically allow one year past expiration dates. So that was removed and changed. And the CFPM certificate is not transferable to another person. Finally in subpart O, we used to list what the actual fees were and we actually removed that within there because it’s actually within statute. So again this a summary of information and we’re going to pass it on to Michelle. [Audience Member]: Jim, I have a question [Jim]: We’re going to hold off on questions until the end. Yeah I think hold this over off here. Thanks [Michelle]: Good morning, I have two topics for you today. I’m going to be talking about the highly susceptible population and consumer advisory. Highly susceptible population is defined as persons who are more likely than others in the general population to experience foodborne illness The reason this population is more likely to experience who or illness is because they may be immunocompromised, such as receiving chemotherapy or hiv-positive, preschool age children, older adults that are obtaining food in a facility that provide services such as custodial care, health car, nutritional and socialization services. It is not only who they are but where they may be located or living such as assisted living and memory care facilities, child

or adult daycares, kidney dialysis center, hospital, nursing homes, senior centers, senior dining facilities, meals on wheels These are just some of the examples that where they could be located. Opperators of facilities that provide services such as custodial care or similar establishments need to be aware of additional requirements for food handling that are prohibited such as offering raw or undercooked food derived and animal products, or bare hand contact with ready-to-eat food is not allowed Because highly susceptible populations and more susceptible to contracting foodborne illness that can be fatal to them. The Food Code prohibits certain food handling practices they might otherwise be allowed in a food service that is not serving this population. The following foods may not be served in ready-to-eat form to highly susceptible populations. Raw and or partially cooked foods such as raw fish, raw oysters hamburger tartare, raw seed sprouts such as alfalfa sprouts and beansprouts. There are also certain criteria for serving highly susceptible population pertaining to juice and eggs. Only treated or pasteurized juices or juice beverages can be served. Highly susceptible populations in children age 9 or less who received juice or juice containing products in a school, daycare setting, or some similar facility that provides custodial care may not be served juice that’s prepared and packaged on-site or fresh squeezed juice prepared without hazard analysis critical control plan, commonly referred to as a HACCP plan. One thing to know here is that the rule states children under 9 and the original the other rules just as preschool children, but this is juice is specific to children age nine or less. Pasteurized eggs must be substituted for raw eggs in products such as housemaid Caesar salad dressing, hollandaise sauce, homemade mayonnaise, and in recipes in which more than one egg is broken and the eggs are combined. Prohibited practices for raw eggs in this population are no bare hand contact with ready-to-eat foods, which I stated earlier, and time as a public health control cannot be used for raw eggs sitting out at room temperature. As with all rules there are some exceptions. And the egg rule exceptions are: raw eggs may be used in one customer serving at a single meal if eggs are combined cooked and served immediately such as in an omelet soufflet or scrambled eggs. Raw eggs may be used in baked goods that are thoroughly cooked, such as in baking the cake or muffins or breads that they are combined as an ingredient immediately before baking. An approved HACCP plans required in food establishments serving highly susceptible populations when preparing food that includes raw unpasteurized eggs that are combined and not used immediately Required components for the HACCP plan if raw eggs are combined and not used immediately are: identify what egg product is being prepared, ensure there will be no bare hand contact with a ready-to-eat food, make sure the eggs are cooked properly at the specified time to temperature to kill Salmonella, and you need to include as always, critical control point the monitoring in the records, and include standard operating procedures such as cleaning and sanitizing, how are you going to control across contamination, and the training procedures for the plan Another prohibited practice for this population is food served to patients may not be reserved to others outside For example, bread served to a patient and brought back can’t be made into croutons, and then those croutons to be served to others. And packages of foods from patients clients or others cannot be reserved to persons in a protective environments of isolation. The next topic I’m going to cover is consumer advisory The revision outlines specific requirements for establishments to informants consumers of potential health risks from eating raw animal food offered for consumption. Food from animals such as meat, poultry, fish, shellfish, and eggs when eaten raw or undercooked sometimes contain hurtful viruses and bacteria that could pose a risk of foodborne illness. Young children, older adults, and those with compromised immune systems are

particularly vulnerable to foodborne illness as we learned from the last set of slides. Establishments will be required to inform consumer consumers about the significantly increased risk of eating meat, fish, dairy, and eggs that are sold or served raw or undercooked. The customer must be notified through disclosure that includes a description of the food that makes it obvious the food is raw or by asterisking the food item on the menu and refering to a footnote that state the food product undercooked. This allows consumers to make an informed choice about the food they choose to eat due to being aware of their increased risk of foodborne illness. There are two parts to the consumer advisory: the disclosure and the reminder. The disclosure is a written statement that clearly identifies animal foods which are or can be ordered raw or undercooked or they contain an ingredient that is raw or undercooked The disclosure must include a description of the raw or undercooked food, such as oysters on the half-shell which would be a raw oyster, or caesar salad dressing which can be made from raw eggs, or identification of the raw undercooked foods by putting an asterisk next to it to a footnote that states that items are served raw or undercooked or contained raw or undercooked ingredients. Disclosure of raw or undercooked animal foods or ingredients and reminders about the risk of consuming such foods, belong at the point where the food is selected by the consumer. Both the disclosure and the reminder need to accompany the information from which the consumer makes a selection. That information could appear in many forms such as on a menu, a placard listing of available choices, or a table tent. These are some of the examples how the consumer could be informed. The reminder is a written statement concerning the health risk of consuming animal foods raw or undercooked The reminder must include astericksing the animal derived foods requiring disclosure to a footnote that stays in one states in one of three ways the following: the first one can say consuming raw or undercooked meats, poultry, seafood, shellfish, or eggs may increase your risk of foodborne illness, especially if you have certain medical conditions, The second way this can be written consuming raw or undercooked meats, poultry, seafood, shellfish, or eggs may increase your risk of foodborne illness. Or the third way it can be put on a menu is regarding the safety of these items, written information is available upon request. Those are the only three ways that can be written. Now I will turn it over to Jeff [Jeff]: Okay hey good morning everybody. I’m Jeff And Sarah thank you for the introduction earlier I appreciate it. So I have about six topics I’m going to take us to up to the break, or closel to That’d be the goal here. Okay, so the first the first packet that I have is the hot holding temperature. I think we’ve all been aware of this one coming for for some time. And in our revised rule, the revised the revision lowers that hot holding temperature of TCS foods from 140 to 135 degrees. Really the hazard of concern here are the spore-forming bacteria Clostridium perfringens, Bacillus cereus, and it’s studies that we’ve conducted by the FDA what have you. Clostridium perfringens has been recorded to grow at about 126 degrees, and controlling the growth of the Clostridium perfringens procludes the growth of Bacillus cereus. And so this is 135 degrees. Excuse me it it not only prevents the growth of these hazards, but it also provides a margin of safety for

you know variations in food products. So it allows operators to hold food 5 degrees lower. Previously, it could contribute to increased or impact the quality. And it definitely controls the hazards of concern Okay so food must be maintained at 135 or above. And you see there too, I think, the provisions for roasts that we had to change You have 130 or above there as p1 designations. I want to point out for the 41 or below: though it’s not written here, this slide shows that 41 degrees or less You know that that has remained the standard on the cold holding side, but there has been a change here with respect to shell eggs. And so shell eggs we know they’ve been able to be transported at 45 degrees. So the rule does allow that in establishments that have eggs – you’ll have to look at the definition of egg because there’s new definitions. There’s an egg and egg product to pay attention to. So shell egg, new rule does allow those to be held at 45 degrees. So there’s no longer the need to once you receive shell eggs to have to cool them if you have refrigeration that you dedicated for them to hold at 45. You can continue to hold them at 45 if they have not been treated to destroy viable Salmonella. Okay so that’s that’s also an important one on the on the cold holding side. I feel like I’m working left-handed here. I’m a right-handed person. Okay I’ll get in a flow and get us going here. Get used to it Okay so variance is required for specialized processes. Now this is something that the title here in this provision was rewritten. It used to be titled specialized processing HACCP requirements. It now reads specialized processing variance requirement And so the revision requires variances to be obtained for what we know to be specialized processes. And that stands to good reason. And it’s something that 20 years ago that the state did not adopt This idea this concept of variance to go with a HACCP plan, but we have done them this time. So when you think about specialized processes those are those food handling things that are really outside of a lot of food safety practices that are prescribed in the rule. Like we think about the time/ temperatures for cooling and hot holding and cooking and things like this. So this provides flexibility to the operators to use food preparation methods that are outside those prescribed in rule. But then it also would require that the regulatory review what they propose and and then set conditions under a variance as well. So question for you is now that we have this requirement for a variance and specialized process, does it do away for the need for a hazard analysis critical control point or a HACCP plan? I’m seeing a lot of heads shake head “no.” Very good. You get to move to the front of the class Right it does not. Doesn’t it doesn’t mean that they don’t. There is still a requirement for a HACCP plan and that’s found in those parts of the rule on how to obtain a variance. And in a rule that refers to other parts that that say when the has a plan is required. And whenever you have a specialized process or variance requirement, you’re going to need to submit, the operator we need to submit conducting hazard analysis of five critical control points submitted in a plan for regulatory review and approval to go along with a variance for specialized process So here they are. Many of these we are familiar with there’s some that are new. So a food establishment must obtain a variance from the regulatory authority before smoking food as a method of food preservation, sharing food, using add to the components to preserve or render food non TCS, packaging TCS who using ROP where the hazards are not controlled

So this is one that is really pretty important to be aware of. That the rule does have a section that we’re going to do ROP where where the next requirement is not required and we’re pretty familiar with a lot of that in our current code right now. Where they are they have in their HACCP plan control points. Like kind of a double barrier method against Clostridium botulinum and the Listeria monocytogenes. So but that stuff will continue. HACCP you know ROP and HACCP without a varience, if they have controls as prescribed rule for C. bot and Listeria monocytogenes. If the operator chooses to do ROP where they have not controlled those pathogens in such a manner. That’s thing where you kick in this this variance requirement that’s specialized process. Okay? And then you see here operating mollluscan shellfish life support systems. And it continues. So custom processing game animals. And this one to be clear, is is let me, sorry, let me get my notes here real quick, so these are game animals that are for personal use. Not for sale or service in a food establishment. Not under USDA or equal to inspections. And so you think about those meat firms that you know coming sometime in November with the harvest venison that may take in deer that are legally harvested and shut down regular operations and do some processing venison and for you know private parties. That is specialized process under the new revised rule. Okay? It requires it variance, HACCP plan, things like that. So and then we see the addition here of sprouting seeds of beans. With all the hazards associated with those and associations with outbreaks in the past. And preparation preparing food by any method otherwise not in compliance with the food code or otherwise prescribed. So it’s kind of a caveat there for those. Okay next topic is time as a public health control And there’s some important changes here This expands the amount of time TCS food can be held outside refrigeration under time as a public health control plan from four hours to six hours for previously chilled food. So there’s two parts here. There’s the four hour rule that still is in effect and then there is a provision to allow for six hours And we’ll see what that is So operators can now hold TCS food out of temperature control for up to six hours before discarding it if the food stays below 70 degrees during the entire six hour period. So an example here would be at a Continental Hotel breakfast buffet. You walk up on that that the thing you see that nice presentation of all those cut melons and cantelope and all that stuff looks really good. TCS food is previously chilled. Maybe in a like on a chilled plate the food product itself may be at you know 50 plus degrees less than 70, but so long as it stays less than 70, that product temperature, they can hold it there for up to six hours, not four as an example. So definitely based on on food safety studies, the hazards associated the microbial growth are still controlled sufficiently within that time period. So the operator needs to have written procedures if they’re going to use time as a public health control. They need to be prepared in advance. They need to be maintained in the food establishment and made available to the regulatory authority upon request. And a couple of things that you won’t see in the revised rule is that the regulatory authority needs to be notified in advance of a firm using time as a public health control. That one went away. And for immediate consumption. That language also went away. So here are the two in summary

here the the two plans under time as a public health control. So you still have the four hour max and that’s as we’ve known it. Where you’re starting off with an initial temperature of 41 or in this case now 135 or greater. And that is 41 or less And you then you know the operators they mark or identify the time taken out of temperature control and discard when that time is up. And you can see the designations here too. The p2 and the p1 You see how they work together. Priority 2 where you have a procedure or a system in place such as time as a public health control and proper monitoring and time marking that they set the stage for the operator to know exactly when they have to take that make that decision on going to discard the food. Okay and that’s the that’s the one that the p1 is it. And then the next one that the new part to our revised rule is the six hour max. You start again with this initial temperature 41 or less, and you may not exceed 70 degrees within those six hours And so we’re talking cold food here only You see the difference there is not you’re not working with hot food on this part. So they have temperature monitoring marking and identifying the same and the discard when exceeds 70 degrees or when the time is up. So if they exceed 70 degrees that they’re shooting for that six hours, they’re at five hours or whatever whatever reason they see 70, that’s the time to discard the food. So we’ve gone through the example here as well. Food establishments that serve highly susceptible populations may not use time as a Public Health control for raw eggs. I think yeah that was mentioned here. Okay ready? Wild mushrooms, this one this part of the rule has been entirely rewritten. Okay what is in the current rule is an entire rewrite There’s something there fairly similar here but so the revision as requirements for obtaining wild mushrooms from an approved harvester, expands harvester registration requirements, and and record-keeping requirements for both the harvesters and the food establishments Also there is in the definitions for mushrooms that is defined now and includes parts for wild mushroom as well as cultivated mushroom and a word common to both of them is edible, edible species of mushroom. And it can be either wild or cultivated. Okay? So this provision requires food establishments to obtain mushrooms from registered harvesters or inspected food processing plants. And also requires establishments to notify consumers and through a variety of options here: that’d be a menu disclosure that says wild mushrooms are not an inspected product and are harvested from an uninspected site, unless the product received was a packaged product of a licensed and inspected processing plant. So this increases the responsibility of mushroom harvesters and foods establishments, food establishment operators to provide state mushrooms to consumers and also increased increases consumer awareness about the source and the status of wild mushrooms that they may wish to eat at a food establishment. Okay, so wild mushrooms served in a food facility must be obtained from sources where each mushroom, each individual mushroom, individually inspected and found to be safe by a certified mushroom Harvester. And there’s a provision in the rule that talks about what that is and lays the requirements for it Wild mushrooms served in a food establishment must have not only a harvester, but a written buyer specification that is retained for 90 days after the sale or service. Okay and so we’re going to get into what that buyer specification is. You see these are essentially p2 priority two terms here, but so the buyer specification must include these things the scientific and common names of the mushrooms, the date of sale, a quantity by weight of each species sold, and the

statement indicating each mushroom was identified when fresh, and the name address and phone number of the harvester. And you’ll see that the harvester themselves has a requirement for this that are very similar, but has a little bit more that they they need to maintain. So okay so a copy of the document issued by an accredited, okay so here we are here’s the this is the harvester and their certification. So go back to buyer specification. Okay so for the harvestor, a copy of the document issued by an accredited college or university of mycological Society certifying mushroom Harvester success their successful completion date of the wild mushroom identification of course, the species of mushrooms that they get are certified to be able to identify must be a part of that, and the buyer must verify the seller is listed on the Minnesota Department of Agriculture’s registry of wild mushroom harvesters. So that’s something new and our produce safety program Valerie Campbell who is a program manager there. It’s a relatively new program within the Minnesota Department of Agriculture, our food and feed safety division. Today on the mushroom harvester registry we currently have and it’s on our SharePoint site is no it’s not a publicly accessible on the website, they currently have 159 entries in the registry. And it doesn’t mean 159 a different harvesters because an individual harvester may have gone to a couple of courses and you get a couple of dates there may be different species of identification. But it’s up it’s going and it’s maintained by our produce safety program. And so for us as inspectors or if we’re in the field so there’s a requirement for the firm to ensure that the harvesters are on this registery. So you encounter any questions on inspections, just so you can reach out and we’ll get you know that we’ll work this out it’ll become pretty natural in future. But just reach out to retail food. Reach out to any of us – are my colleagues, inspectors, supervisors Valarie Gamble you know her, and we will get you tuned into the registry and work to affirm whether or not any particular harvesters on the registraty. Okay, okay so the mushroom harvester must keep records of all mushrooms sold at any retail food establishment for 90 days. And here’s what the harvester needs to keep record of: very similarly the the scientific and common name of mushrooms, the count here, the country, state, and county where harvest is – hey have to keep track of that – the date of harvest, the names of the retail establishments where they sold their mushrooms to, dates of sale, quantity by weight of each species sold. And rolling into the consumer warning. So this this disclosure: so by way of either brochures, deli case, menu advisories, table tents, placards, what have you The establishments would need to inform the consumers that wild mushrooms are not an inspected product and are harvested from non inspected site, unless they don’t have to And so this provision does not apply in these cases: that the firm or the establishments working with cultivated mushroom species that are grown, harvested, and processed in a licensed and inspected operation, or that they’ve received packaged wild mushrooms that are the product of a food processing plant that is licensed and inspected by a regulatory authority. Okay so if it’s either of those cases they don’t have to advise the consumer, but that’s not this they must have that in some fashion advise or inform a consumer that they are serving and working with wild mushrooms. Okay? Okay, so date marking. This is one this is another one that’s a long time coming, and welcome here I think in many regards. The date marking of packaged food from manufacturers open on sight So this provision will remove that date marking requirements for certain commercially prepared foods. So certain packaged foods and produced by a food processing plant, certain ones no longer

need to be marked with the date the package was opened at the food establishment. So there’s there’s factors that you can imagine at the manufacturing level as they’re producing that food with the controls they have, plans that their working under, they are able to add factors to the food that prevent the growth. In this case that the hazard of concern would be listeria monocytogenes So they’ve been able to demonstrate it. They’re working under the Code of Federal Regulations in different parts depending on that product they’re making that in the production of that food, a their end product sufficiently controls the growth of LM and does not then need the time part. The temperature still applies, it’s the time part that they don’t have to to be concerned about So our rule tells us that they must initially. So it says in the subpart B: refrigerated ready-to-eat TCS food that’s prepared and packaged by a food processing plant, that’s held for more than 24 hours, clearly marked with the day or date, seven days or less, must consume, sell, or discard. So and the date the original container opened is counted as day 1 and day or date mark must not exceed the manufactures use by date. So our rule on the way it works in its convention is going to tell us that it’s required. Date marking is required for ready-to-eat TCS food is prepared and packaged by a food processing plant, unless it’s not required [laughter] And then then it will tell us and give us all of sort of the exemptions and exclusions. Okay? So just like mushrooms, notifications are required, unless its not Here, date marking is required, unless it’s not. So maybe my favorite word in thd food code is except. So so here here what I’m going to show you as a series of slides that show those things that are exempted from this date marking requirement. Okay? So the first one: it does not apply to the following foods prepared and package by a food processing plant, inspected by regulatory authority. So this is all these deli salads such as ham salad, and seafood salad, chicken salad, egg salad, and so on and so on. Salad here according to – and this is where we need to be careful as a regulatory – and it’s doing a check on the Code of Federal Regulations title 21, so the title it would be 21 CFR part 110. So the salads that are manufactured according to this part of CFR do not need to follow the date marking provision that we have previously been doing. Okay, excuse me It also does not apply to these these foods here. So this is one too. There is a, if you look in annex 3 of like Jim had mentioned earlier, annex 3 of the FDA model code, and you look at this part and it will give a list of cheeses. So we have and we can look to these to the CFR too because this may change over time. This is not necessarily static. So hard cheeses containing not more than thirty nine percent moisture. And these are examples such as cheddar – and gonna butcher some of these names, I apologize – I can recognise parmesan, Romano, things like that. So so for the hard cheeses, semi-soft cheese contains no more than 39 percent moisture such as blue, gorganzola, gouda, monteray jack, but not more than 50 percent moisture And then again here’s 21 CFR part 133 And that language is in the rule and that’s where we refer to. So these do not, these are not subject to the date marking temperature control, yep, date marking This also does not apply to the following for foods, prepared and packaged, culinary dairy products, such as yogurt, sour cream, buttermilk Here’s 21 CFR 131. Preserved fish products such as pickled herring, dried or salted cod, other acidified fish products that are part of 21 CFR part 114, here Continuing to list the subpart B does not

apply to the following: shelf-stable dry fermented sausages such as pepperoni Genoa salami, and shelf-stable salt cured products such as prosciutto and Parma (ham) So these are shelf stable products Okay, so the next one that I have is noncontinuous cooking. We may have known this by another term: par cooking or partial cooking, non continuous cooking. So this provision, the revision in the rule establishedes a process for non continuous cooking for raw animal foods if the establishment has a written procedure obtains regulatory approval. So here’s where they’re gonna have to work with regulatory and get that approval up front Let’s engage in this this kind of process. I think we all recognize a number of kitchens, banquet style operations, or what have you, that, or other restaurants, for whatever reason, or food establishments that have looked to do some sort of non continuous cooking in the past. But here it puts the procedure in the rule. So obviously there’s no longer the need if they’re going according to this to entertain variants and things of that nature. So so it allows operators to halt the cooking process if specific time cooking and cooling parameters are met. And this ensures that food safe food does not stay in extended periods of time at temperature ranges that favor microbial growth. So raw animal foods cooked using a non continuous cooking process must: one first have an initial heat process no longer than 60 minutes You see it’s a p1 item there. Cool immediately using the the requirements for cooling already in the rule, using the required time/temperature parameters for cooling And then be held, either frozen or refrigerated, after cooling. There’s some parts that will follow that will talk about how you know where this and how they store it that kind of thing. So here’s the first part, and then prior to sale or service, that produce then is cooked using a process that heats all parts to required cooking time temperatures that are already in the rule for that type of food product. The normal full cook so you have that that part, and then cooled immediately using required time and temperature parameters if not a held hot or served immediately, or if the establishment is not an employ or use time as a public health control after complete cooking under that four hour rule And finally then here is this part, they in their procedure, they need to plan for: prepared and stored according to written procedures that have prior approval from the regulator, are maintained on site and are available to the regulatory or regulator upon request, describe how the entire process all the parts in the rule are to be monitored and documented, plus state what corrective actions will be taken when needed, and describe how the foods are marked or identified as non continuous cook foods, and describe how they are separated. So you have to be able to identify them from other foods and not mistake them for a fully cooked foods. Okay, is the idea there And I do believe that I’ll turn it back over to Sarah. [Sarah]: Alright, well thanks everyone. We do have a couple of questions that have come in. And I’ll just take this time, if you have a question, especially those of you who are on the WebEx or the live stream go ahead and send that either to Sophia or in the WebEx chat window. At while we’re kind of gathering up a couple of questions, I do want to drop

into our MDH website and let’s see. I’ll just show you where that rule language is posted So here’s our homepage, can everyone see our screen? Okay. Minnesota Department of Health, we have Food, then Food Business Safey. And we’re gonna to be right here on the Minnesota code web page. And you can see this is the Rule number Minnesota Rules Chapter 4626. And on this page we have both the current rule, which is in effect through the end of this year, as well as a link to the PDF of the rule language that will be effective starting January 1st. And we also have the SONARS or the statement of need and reasonableness. That’s my favorite turn from rule revision: statement of need and reasonableness And we have the one for the revision that we’re undertaking right now that we’ve just approved, and then also the SONAR from the 1998 rural adoption. [Angie]: If you actually scroll down on the page Sarah [Sarah]: So we’re down right here. So this link here is the current rule that’s in effect until the end of the year. This one down here where it says rough draft, as Angie mentioned earlier the reason it’s called rough draft is because it’s it’s not very pretty, but it does have all the language in there and you can see you can link to the different parts on the side here. You just click on those to take you to a particular part that you’re interested in. So if you’re having trouble sleeping you can just glance through this. We did have one question that came in through our WebEx chat and I’m going to ask Angie to come up and address this one. The question is what are the penalties and thresholds for p1 p2 and p3 violations? [Angi]: And that one I’m not really fully clear and what the person was asking, but with that our, for MDH regulated facilities you know, we’ll just continue apply our administrative penalty order that we currently have in place. So there are individual fines for separate things and MDH. Delegated agencies that their own enforcement and find schedules. I can’t really talk about those. And I don’t know if Department of Agriculture, if you’ve got anything different than… [noise from audience] Okay yeah thank you so, Minnesota Department of Agriculture, we have a kind of progressive enforcement program. So I don’t see in terms of penalties, I don’t see that changing how we work our progressive enforcement. Where you start and the initial and on-site Corrections with the inspector. Obviously there may be some need timeframes to correct things. So much a critical non-critical where you have a priority one, two, and three. But I don’t see it affecting the progressive enforcement should an operator not comply. I think much of our procedures and that the processes we have in place we may have to adjust some of the you know how we look at, you know. There’s no longer looking at critical, non-critical. It’s P one, two, and three, but much that would stay in place and again, that for the delegated agencies, they have their authority their own enforcement part of this [Sarah]: Yeah go ahead… Stay up here Jeff. [Audience Member]:I’d like to talke about a varience for HACCP for special projects. I have two questions: when smoking is considered a special process, but then if smoking for for only favor, that’s not have to be required by the varience right? [Jeff]: Right so Fong’s question is about smoking and whether there’s a HACCP or variance required and

which you know when is it a specialized process, if understand question right. So you have smoking in the way that a language read for the preservation and that’s had simply to impart a flavor or taste That’s the that’s the difference. And so if you’re not if they’re smoking only to add flavor that’s not specialized process that doesn’t require a variance or require a HACCP as I understand it But if they’re going to do it for the purpose of preservation, as that rule languages, then yes the two flows together: a variance and as part of that they will have had to have done their own hazard analysis, look at where they apply control points, submit their plan for regulatory review approval that that becomes part of the consideration of variance approval, and other conditions that their regulatory authority might set. [Audience Member]: The next question is about a sushi case. If you’re adding vinegar to a rice just to make the taste of a traditional sushi, but not using the agent to control anything to control growth in it. Is that require a varience or HACCP? [Jeff]: Okay so the question then is about acidified rice and does it and when would it be required specialized process? And so you have, if I understand it quite low, perhaps a firm that wants to operate under certain parameters the rule either gonna use times as a public health control to control the time in which they use and serve that product, or use cooling, and they use those parameters to to protect the food. So if you’re going to acidify rice and if you’re going to cool it, according to the code, and apply cooling to keep that food safe, or if you’re going to use time as a Public Health control to keep that to either server discard. I don’t see that as need necessarily needing the HACCP and specialized varience. You you know we have to be careful in looking at their process, their process flow and what they are proposing because as though as the language I don’t have it from me, but if they’re acidifying for the purposes of preservation or rendering something non TCS, the idea there’s that they want to operate outside of the time and temperature parameters that are prescribed in rule. And if they want to do that, then that is a specialized process and that is that again HACCP plan with varience. [Audience Member]: So let’s say you have a concerning rise of bacillus cereus And let’s say the pH to control that growth probably 4.4, for example. If they were to control back and the reduce at to 4.1 or something like that so they would be right or at the control, the control. And the reach point has that, but does that require temperature control. [Jeff]: So the question is in using or adjusting the pH of rice to control Bacillus Cereus. If they were to adjust it enough so that the pH is low enough, could they then take it out of temperature control? That’s the idea I think, Fong, is using the TCS chart if you look at that. This is all this is this would all be part of the, their hazard analysis and critical control point. All of that stuff submitted in a plan for regulatory approval, and to look to see you know according to those charts, according to any study data they have that says, hey I ,you know if there’s a product assessment that may be required based on pH, and you know available moisture so have you, but I think the operator that we need to kind of show the data they have that demonstrates that their process controls. But if this for the purpose of holding that food outside of temperature control that the food code would require, then most definitely HACCP and then specialized process. So they’re now a varience application. [Sarah]: So those questions really highlight the complexity of food safety and food safety regulation. And we’ve got a couple more questions. I do want to show one more thing. Hang on Colleen. I’ve got one on the WebEx if you want to show, let’s see. For those of you who might not be familiar

with with our website a little bit, we can also refer you to what we call the local book. We do have kind of a patchwork. I’m not going to find it here the way that I wanted to We have a pattern of patchwork of regulatory agencies around the state Hang on I forgot that I’m logged in as myself and so I have a link to it here we go We have oh oh sorry, sorry Thanks Michaela we do have a book we call a local book that’s posted on the MDH website, and you can find all of the inspectors for the Minnesota Department of Health. You can find Minnesota Department of Agriculture contact information for counties that have a delegation or for places that MDA regulates. And then also your local agencies. And so for example city of Minneapolis is here and we’ve got all the contact information for them. So depending on where you’re operating you might want to contact/reach out to the person who’s going to be regulating and inspecting your facility, your establishment. And that’s a great resource because we do expect people to follow the rules but we don’t expect them just to learn them on their own We’re here to help. So a couple other questions. Colleen has a question. [Colleen]: I want a clarification on the certified food protection manager And also one on date marking. But a certified protection manager, I just want to make sure I understand this correctly That if I have a current food manager certificate issued by mdh and the expiration date that on that is July or let’s say January 31st. It is expired as of that date and there’s no longer any grace period. Is that correct? [Sarah]: So Colleens question is about grace period for the certified food manager or what we’ll now call this certified food protection manager. And currently there is up to a year and the way the language is written there’s kind of a loophole that allows people to really extend their certification for a pretty long time without taking additional training. So we have narrowed that down. Your renewal trainin, your recertification training continuing education needs to be taken during your certification period. So if my certificate expires on July 1st of 2019, I’ve got the three years directly preceding that to take my four hours of continuing education. So I believe that if you don’t get it sent in right away we’ll still allow you to send it in for renewal, and you’re renewal then would, you know, back date to when you expired. You know if you send it in late, you don’t get that extra time buffer, but you do need to take the training within that three year certification period. [Colleen]: And if I have not done that and I must start over? [Sarah]: Correct So if you miss taking the four hours of required training during the three year certification period then you would need to take the exam again in order to recertify. [Colleen]: My second question relates to date marking. Is there any exception of foods that are now listed as you can basically go by the manufacturer date and don’t have to comply with the seven-day rule if it’s done in a processing plant such as deli salads? Is there any exception for highly susceptible populations with that or may they abide by the I open a jelly salad that I purchased that is potato salad for example the manufacture date is ten days out, is there any variance for highly susceptible or are they okay too? [Sarah]: Okay, that’s a great question. While, I’m repeating it, Jeff and Michelle thumb-wrestle about this one of you will come to the microphone. Colleen is wondering about date marking of commercially prepared and manufactured food such as a potato salad and if there’s any difference in the date marketing requirements for those foods if you’re a facility that’s serving a highly susceptible population Jeff’s the winner. [Jeff]: Hey thank you for the

question. And there’s there is no special provision that says hey if you if you service a highly susceptible population that you can’t do this, that you must use the seven-day datemarking. So it it holds [Sarah]: Jeff, stay there I’ve got another one I’ll let you read it. [Jeff]: Okay, so yeah, the question Thank You Would, would it be possible to clarify the designated cooler for shell eggs criteria? Most interested if the cooler is a complete dairy set, but has an egg section would be 45, with the 45 threshold, so I am interested in heat mapping a cooler to protect temps for other TCS products. Okay so hey, if I understand the question, and thank you for that. At any one of our food establishments at retail, you know we have refrigeration equipment that will hold, maintain product temperature for TCF’s, and it has, you know, all this equipment, it has its own requirements that we’ll hear later for specifications. And my comment about and I applogize if I confused matters, but the rule does allow for two cold holding temperatures, and it’s literally as 41 or below that’s cold holding. But it allows this special case for eggs that have not been treated to destroy viable salmonella. And and that has implications not only in our food establishments, but at our farmers markets and things like that as well Okay so if you have, so I don’t think it would work to have eggs in the same cooler with other food, that other food required to be at 41, but these particular eggs are required to be at 45 That won’t work So therefore my comment about if you have that a cooler that you you know if all you’re storing and it is egg as defined, that that runs at 45 maintains product temperature 45. So I hope that clarifies that. Others? [Sarah]: I think we had one more question. Someone spoke up when Jim was up here. I dont’ know who that was, who had a question I thought someone in our video… [Audience Member]: I had a question. For the CFPM, so now are the the housing with services or assisted living facilities that have less than you know ten to ten residents, do they now have to have a Certified Food Manager now? [Sarah]: That’s a great question. Angie did you hear the question? I’m not prepared to answer that one right now. I would have to look it up [Angie]: Same with me. [Sarah]: Okay we will get back to who is that asking the question? [Audience Member]: Chris Wennish with Kandiohi County [Sarah]: okay Thanks Chris, we’ll get back to you. I’d have to look up the specifics on that one. [Angie]: My gut reaction is that they have to have one, but I’d have to look it up. [Sarah]: Any other questiosn? [Audience Member]: Could you just clarify the food trucks/seasonal temporaries, are they require to have Food Managers. [Sarah]: Okay okay question is about food trucks and seasonal temporaries and she’s coming to the podium for this one. This is also a certified food protection manager question. [Angie]: And so for those, the mobile food unit, seasonal temporaries, those have to have a certified food protection manager unless their menu is that meets the menus provision in there But if you’re a department a Department of Ag regulated establishment, the food carts mobile or portable structures, retail food portable structures, or carts, that does not require it. But if it’s a food cart that meets the food cart definition and it’s licensed by mdh that

requires it. [Sarah]: So again I’ll just put another plug out there to operators to work with your inspector about your menu and food flow because it’s complicated And you can have the same menu item and if you prepare it slightly different just like a question we fielded earlier about you know sushi rice. Sushi rice in and of itself doesn’t require one thing or another because there’s different ways to prepare it and manage that in your establishments, so it’s really dependent on your food flow and the risks associated with your process. So really work with your inspector and figure out what you need to do to keep the food safe. We’re going to move on with our last segment of the session today. In the first part of the session we covered the changes to terminology and food handling requirements Remember, these changes to the Minnesota food code will be effective on January 1, 2019, so when our presenters are saying “it used to be” it’s still that way until the end of this year, and our new code will take effect on January 1st. For the last portion of the session today we will hear from Nicole Hedeen and Hannah Davis and then Jeff Ludemann will make another appearance to wrap up the final topics. Nicole Hedeen is an epidemiologist at Minnesota Department of Health She is Minnesota’s Environmental Health Specialists Network, or EHS-Net, Food Coordinator. EHS-Net is a collaborative forum of Environmental Health Specialists whose mission is to improve environmental health practice Nicolle helps develop research studies, collects data, and analyzes the data with the goal of identifying and preventing environmental factors contributing to foodborne illness. She also leads foodborne illness outbreak investigations and acts as a liaison between epi and environmental health. In her free time, Nicole enjoys doing arts and crafts with her three-year-old daughter and chasing after her energetic one-year-old son Nicole loves working on outbreak response and knowing that she is part of the team that helps prevent additional people from becoming ill. Nicole says, “Everyone eats, and everyone expects the food that they eat to be safe.” If you haven’t read The Jungle by Upton Sinclair, Nicole encourages you to find a copy and read it. Besides all the employee illness parts of the food code, Nicole’s favorite food code term is “fish.” If you’re familiar with the definition you can probably guess why. And if you aren’t familiar, look it up to find out Hannah Davis has been working in environmental health since 2011 when she was an intern at the city of Brooklyn Park. For the past year, Hannah has been working as a Food Standards Compliance Officer with Minnesota Department of Agriculture, where she conducts plan reviews. Hannah considers reviewing plans for taprooms and tasting rooms to be a highlight but does but does miss the daily interaction in the field like she had during her tenure as an Environmental Health Specialist with Ramsey County, prior to joining MDA. In her spare time Hannah enjoys running and visiting local craft breweries with her French Bulldog Harley. Hannah is thrilled to be involved with the FSP meeting today. And I, we practiced a little yesterda,y and I don’t think she’s able to incorporate her favorite term which is “extensive remodeling” but maybe she’ll find a way to drop that into her presentation today. Again, if you do have questions, please go ahead and email those to Sophia: sophia.walsh@state.mn.us or drop them in the IM if you’re on the WebEx and we will either address things now if we have time or we’ll get back to you individually. Nicole? Nicole Hedeen: All right, good morning. So yeah, I get to cover five different topics under health and hygiene risk factors, and as Sarah said, my favorite term is “fish,” which I will give you a

hint also includes alligators and frogs and crab like all these funky things so it’s really funny definition I thought of saying “exclude” was my favorite, but I knew Josh might take that one. [laughter] So, anyway, so I’m going to cover first employee illness with some of the changes that have occurred to this section. Basically the revisions to this area add requirements for some additional symptom reporting so sore throat with fever is one of them which I’ll talk about in a second. And then some additional reportable pathogens, such as norovirus. And then overall the section more clearly kind of outlines when restrictions and exclusions can be removed or adjusted. So, how will these changes affect operators? While definitely staff will need to be aware of these additional symptom and pathogen reporting requirements, and also know when they get a report to the person in charge or possibly regulatory authority to ensure that those appropriate exclusions and restrictions are put in place. And why is this important? Well, I think I’m biased, but I feel like this area of the code is one of the most important things just because if you have ill workers working in establishment, you’re very likely to have a foodborne outbreak, so following proper exclusion and restriction requirements really helps you reduce the likelihood of transmission of pathogens to patrons or other employees. So, looking at the specific code language in 4626.0040 subpart A (1), we have our list of symptoms that a food employee is required to report to the person in charge. Now vomiting, diarrhea, jaundice – those have all remained the same. But there’s an additional sore throat with fever, as I mentioned, and basically sore throat fever, these symptoms serve as an indication that a person may be affected with streptococcal sore throat, or strep throat. And streptococcal sore throat can be spread from contaminated hands to food. We’ve had a couple outbreaks that have involved an employee that had strep throat and then transmitted it through food. So that was added to the list. Looking at 4626.0040 subpart A (2), norovirus was added to the list Maybe surprising that wasn’t on there I’m sure a lot of you have heard, about 60% of our outbreaks are due to norovirus. So, norovirus transmission is, you know, very frequent and we really want to make sure any employees with norovirus are being excluded from the establishment. So norovirus is added. And then we have – I bolded – Shiga toxin- producing E.coli. The current code language says “E.coli O157:H7,” but we have generalized to any Shiga toxin-producing E.coli, or STECs, and basically since, you know, the last revision of the code, we have better diagnostic testing methods that can identify other strains of STEC. Before we could only identify O157:H7. But, of course, there now are other Shiga toxins that can cause illness, foodborne illness And then moving on, the current code language says “other enteric bacterial pathogens transmissible through food.” But we’ve added now viral or parasitic pathogens as well. The reason being, again, we have better diagnostic testing methods, and we’re able to actually test for things like sapovirus, which is a virus that is similar to norovirus – also very contagious We’ve had a couple outbreaks of that. And then of course parasitic pathogens like Cryptosporidium, Giardia, also be transmitted through water or fluid by an infected person, so those kind of covering out all of our bases for possible pathogens that could be transmitted via food. And just take note that these changes also impacted the list of what the person in charge is required to report to the regulatory authority. So 4626.0040 subpart B and then also, what consumer complaints should be reported to the regulatory authority. So 4626.0040 A So again on those lists as well as Norovirus, STEC and then a viral or parasitic pathogens are on those lists now as well. So looking at the exclusion portion 4626.0045 subpart A and B, subpart A has not really changed and is consistent with the current language that if your ill with vomiting or diarrhea you need to be excluded from the establishment. But subpart B has changed Now rather than restrict the person in charge must exclude any food employee with an enteric pathogen that is capability of being transmitted via food. So those include hepatitis, E.coli,

Salmonella, Shigella, any of those norovirus. So, you need to exclude them until you can work with the regulatory authority to determine when they can go back to work The reason now that we are requiring an exclusion rather than restriction is that there are some pathogens such as, Salmonella where you may no longer be experiencing symptoms but you still could be shedding the illness. So you really want to work with Epi and regulatory authority to determine if that person is safe to come back to work Now looking at restriction requirements, subpart C and D. Subpart C has not changed but subpart D is brand new. So basically, the language here was added to restrict an employee with a skin lesion. So, puss draining from a lesion can contaminate food and lead to foodborne illness. So, food employees you know per code are required to cover puss containing a skin lesion such as, oil or wound. If they are unable to cover that or properly contain it they would then need to be restricted. And so, the person in charge needs to make sure they’re not handling food or anything to prevent that with contamination possibility. Now looking at 4626.0050 when exclusions and restrictions can be removed. It may be somewhat surprising because common guidance for as long as I know and as long as I’ve been here, is for the person in charge to exclude employees that have vomiting and diarrhea for at least 24 hours after their symptoms have recovered. However, surprisingly that this language never actually was in the code in the past. And so, now we have in the revision the actual 24-hour requirement place there. And then the second part hasn’t really changed too much. Basically, just you know, exclusions and restrictions specified in items B Where employees are diagnosed with one of those pathogens or C if an employer presents at risk for transmission, need to be put in place until the Commissioner of Health or regulatory agency deem that they can return to their normal duties. So moving on to my next topic, which is cleanup vomiting and diarrheal events. This is new to the code and basically this revision has requirements for responding to events that involve discharge of vomit or fecal matter on surfaces and in food establishments So, how will this affect operators? Well as I said this is definitely a new parts to the code. So, there are probably many establishments that don’t really have a vomit and diarrhea cleanup procedure So, now those establishments are going to be required to have some kind of procedure for proper cleanup and the procedure must address, you know, specific actions and employees will take to minimize the spread of contamination to make sure, you know, employees and consumers and everyone’s protected. And how will this protect public health? Well as I said, you know, proper response to vomiting and diarrhea events in a timely matter could definitely reduce potential for those bacterias and viruses to contaminate surfaces. And if they are on surfaces we want to make sure that it is cleaned up immediately so that we don’t have any additional transmission. I will say, you know each year we have a couple of outbreaks to investigate and we find out that a patron vomited in the dining room and that’s likely how additional patrons or maybe even employees and became infected. So, looking at the exact code language for this – 4626.0123 Food establishments must have a procedure for employees to follow in responding to vomit and fecal matter events in the establishment. The procedure must address specific actions to minimize the spread of contamination to the employees, consumers, food and surfaces. So, definitely cleaning up all these incidences of vomiting and diarrhea would definately be a high-risk activity for a food employee because they could, you know, become ill due to the contamination. So, it’s really important to have a proper plan in place. Really walk through the plan with your employees, train them and customize your plan to you know it fits the needs of your facility. You want to think about how you’re going to train employees, who will be involved, what sanitizers and cleaning products you are going to use, what equipment do you need to have on hand. All of those different kind of areas that are going to ensure you do proper clean up of vomit or diarrheal incidents. And this image here, Olmsted County created a nice poster example of how to clean up So that’s one resource but I know CDC has one as well which definitely look and there’s different options and you can develop your own as well. So, my next topic is fingernail brushes and hand dryers so this

revision eliminates the requirement for food establishments to have a nailbrush at their handsink and also allows for heated-air and air-knife hand dryers at handsinks in the kitchen. So, kind of a two part thing here, but basically how this affects operators. While some of you may celebrate soon, you are not require to have nailbrushes at handwashing sinks anymore and now you have a few other options when it comes to drying your hands besides the disposable towels or the continuous towel system. You can use some different hand dryers in your kitchen The reasoning behind these two changes is if fingernail brushes are not properly maintained it would actually be a source of contamination and really proper handwashing is going to be sufficient to remove any viral bacterial particles. So, handwashing is the most important thing that’s still obviously in place. And then with hand dryers, you know, research has shown that there are acceptable alternatives to individual disposable towels when used properly So obviously, the current code language the nailbrush requirement is going to be repealed. And then looking at the hand drying requirements – 4626.1445, you know, as I said, the current language and what the revised code will say will be the same with the disposable towel option, continuous towel system option. Air hand drying device is in the current code. However, the current code says that this cannot be your only hand drying method at a handsink but with the revised code you could potentially just have a heated-air hand drying device. You wouldn’t need necessarily disposable towels. And now new, there’s also the hand drying device that employs an air- knife system. We’ve all seen those in the bathrooms. They’re kind of scary, but that’s an option as well. Now moving on to my next topic, which is handwashing signage This is new to the code and this revision will require establishments to provide handwashing reminder signs at all handsinks used by food employees So, how will this affect operators? Well, it may not affect many people just because I know when I go on the field I already see a lot of handwash reminder signs above handsinks. So if you already, you know, have those, you don’t really have to do too much – you don’t have to do anything – but if you do not have a sign at your handsinks you’re now required to post a sign or a poster. And why is this important? Well, definitely handwashing is the most effective way of preventing the spread of bacteria and viruses that can cause foodborne illness. And so posters and signs really have shown to help reinforce good food safety habits and help remind employees to wash their hands. So, looking at the exact language: 4626.1457. It says “a visible sign or poster that notifies food employees to wash their hands must be provided at all handwashing sinks used by food employees.” And I’ll say, you know, there’s not really, there’s no one approved sign or poster to meet this rule requirement Obviously, there’s lots of different options when it comes to handwashing signs. It is common practice in food industry, so if you have a sign posted now – okay you’re probably already meeting this requirement. If you don’t have signs and you need signs, you can work with your inspector, visit MDH website – we have some examples. And, as Sarah mentioned, we have on MN.TRAIN, if you go on the resource tab we have our new handwash sign that we created. You can download that, print it. So, lots of different options If you’re on our FSP mailing list, hopefully you received an email about a week ago that’s got this new code requirement in particular and provides some additional details on it. So, now my last topic, which is pretty extensive, and we’ll kind of break it out into a few different pieces, is the preventing contamination from hands. So, the revision to this portion formally prohibits bare hand contact with ready-to-eat-food that is – that will not receive further heat treatment. And there’s definitely a few caveats to this. So, the changes to this section: how it will affect operators. So, food establishments will have to prevent bare hand contact with ready- to-eat foods by using gloves, utensils, deli tissue. All those options. But now there is a very detailed option for food establishments NOT serving a highly

susceptible population, which may allow the use of bare hands during food preparation. And basically the plan to use bare hands during the handling of ready-to-eat or use bare hands when you’re handling ready-to-eat food at those establishments would not require a variance but again you have to have – you know – a plan or written plan available that can be reviewed on-site by the regulatory authority. So, I’ll break that down a bit in a second here. But why, you know, why are we concerned about preventing hand contact for ready-to-eat foods? You know, obviously, one of the main sources of food contamination is human hands. We have lots of norovirus outbreaks, so controlling the potential of contamination from hands helps to reduce foodborne illness. And we definitely want to be protecting those highly susceptible populations. So, looking at the specific code language. So, 4626.0225 subpart A and B talks about ready-to-eat foods. And the new code revision prohibits bare hand contact Past, or current code language said limit bare hand contact with ready-to-eat foods so now prohibited. And then, you know, the not ready-to-eat foods, that pretty much stayed the same: minimize direct contact with bare hands or arms. Basically, you know, as I said, when it comes to bare hand contact with ready-to-eat foods you know research, and we all kind of know common knowledge, that hands transmit, often, pathogens, you know, handwashing, excluding ill employees, and preventing bare hand contact with ready-to-eat foods are kinda our key ways to ensure that we don’t have outbreaks in an establishment. So, we really want to make sure we’re not handling food with bare hands. But, there’s now some things in the code, this this parts, subpart C 1 to 2 is new, and it does outline, you know, when bare hand contact with ready-to-eat foods would be allowed. And so the first one is it’s allowed if food, if those ready-to-eat foods are being added to food with raw animal foods that will then be cooked. So, for example, if a restaurant is dicing onions which would be considered ready-to-eat, and then they’re taking those onions and they’re adding them to raw ground beef in creating hamburger patties that will then be cooked, that would be acceptable The other option is ready-to-eat food, if it’s being added to food without raw animal foods, but that food will then be cooked to 145. So an example of this would be, you know, a pizza place is chopping green peppers that would then go on pizzas that will be cooked to at least 145. Technically those green peppers are ready-to-eat, but then they’re going to be, you know, receiving that heat treatment, and so it would be okay to do the bare hand contact with those green peppers. But you definitely have to be careful and consider food flows, and if any of those diced onions or those green peppers will be used on salad – obviously that’s not going to be heated – then you’re not allowed to do bare hand contact with those items. Alright, so I talked about not being able to do a bare hand contact except when you can, as of course Jeff said So, basically there are now some options – subpart D is new to the code – that allow food employees to handle ready-to-eat foods with their bare hands. First they have to make sure they’re not serving a highly susceptible population. And then if they want to do it they have to have a written procedure maintained. And there’s lots of information that needs to go into the written procedures, so I’ll talk about them in second. But, you know, if you’re an establishment that serves a highly susceptible population, which Michelle went over all those definitions, you know the risk is really too great. You have immunocompromised, you have very young, or elderly And, you know, bare hand contact is not going to be allowed at any time with those populations. All right, so if you’re not serving a highly susceptible population and you would like to handle ready-to-eat foods with your bare hands, there’s definitely some things that you’re gonna have to have in your written procedures So, your written procedure first will have to include a list of each food item that you plan to touch with your bare hands. And then, you’ll actually have to a written employee health policy, which I know a lot of establishments maybe don’t have a written employee health policy. But if you are going to do this process you have to have a written policy that covers, you know, all parts of the employee health requirements of the code, so, you know, it has to cover what symptoms and illnesses employees are required to report, when exclusions and restrictions apply, and when exclusions and

restrictions can be lifted. Alright, if you are going to write this written plan to handle ready-to-eat foods with your bare hands, you also need to have documentation that food employees acknowledge that they’re informed to report symptoms and diseases transmitted thorugh food, and comply with exclusions and restrictions. So, however that might be you may have, you know, ask, create a form and have employees sign those forms saying that they acknowledge this stuff. That’s kind of up to you, but you need to have documentation that they’ve received the message. Also, your written plan, you need documentation that the person in charge acknowledges the responsibilities of notifying the regulatory authority of when a food employee is infected with a certain pathogen – which I had mentioned that list – or if they’ve received a consumer complaint where the patron is saying, you know, “I think I have norovirus. I think it came from your establishment” they need to be making sure they have documentation that they acknowledge that requirement as well. And then the person in charge needs to keep an illness log so recording all reports of vomiting and diarrhea And then also make sure that they acknowledge they need to meet exclusion restriction requirements for all their employees. Continuing on, what needs to be in the written plan? Basically, this one is all the information in the code preventing contamination from hands. So, in your written plan to handle ready-to-eat foods with bare hands, you would have to have documentation that the food employee acknowledges that they’ve received training that covers the risks to the consumer when employee contacts read-to-eat foods with their bare hands, documentation that food employees acknowledge how to wash their hands, when to wash their hands, where to wash their hands, also how to properly maintain their fingernails, when and what jewelry can be worn, and good hygienic practices as outlined in the code, as well. And then this is kind of – I mean all this is new – but this is also and another very new piece so as this written plan they also needed documentation that food employees contacting ready-to-eat foods with their bare hands are going to use two or more control measures as additional safeguards. So this is a list of some of the options: double handwashing, fingernail brushes – which I know I just said we’re getting rid of fingernail brushes, but if they’re using a clean fingernail brush to really kind of scrub a little extra, make sure any dirt, that kind of thing is getting off their hands as well that would be another safeguard option – hand sanitizer after handwashing, incentive programs – if the establishment has, like, paid sick leave for employees that would be a control measure – or other options as discussed with the regulatory authority. So again, you know, if you want to handle ready-to-eat foods with your bare hands, would have to have two of these as additional safeguards. And then the last component of this is that you need documentation that corrective action is taken when requirements in this section are not followed. So, you know, what happens if you find out an employee was working while experiencing diarrhea, and prepared a number of ready-to-eat food items? Did you discard those items? Did you retrain employees? You know, what was the corrective action taking place so we ensure that this doesn’t happen again? So, basically, the take-home message for this entire kind of portion is if you are establishment not serving an susceptible population and you want to handle ready-to-eat foods with your bare hands, it will be possible starging January 1st, but you definitely need to have a detailed plan on site that meets all of the listed requirements and all these requirements are in place to definitely minimize the risk and make sure we’re keeping our customers healthy. And of course you know, just if you have a written procedure, it means nothing if employees aren’t actually following that written procedure. So, that kind of covers my topic [Hannah Davis] Alright, we are going to talk about equipment. So these are the revisions: it removes the requirement for all equipment to be NSF certified or equivalent. It specifies that only particular pieces of equipment must be certified or classified for sanitation by an ANSI accredited certification program, such as NSF, CSA, ETL, or UL How will this affect operators? This will ensure that critical pieces of equipment and higher risk operations remain certified to ANSI accredited sanitation standards. We’re going to review those specific pieces of equipment with future slides. This will also grant some flexibility to operators in certain

settings and with certain pieces of equipment. This is, of course, important because food equipment and utensils need to be safe durable, and cleanable. If equipment cannot maintain their original characteristics over time, they may become difficult to clean which could allow for the harborage of pathogens and pests, and pests get people sick Additionally, they must be designed and constructed so parts do not break creating an injury hazard or risk to consumers 4626.0505 part a in the new code will remain the same as our current code, stating that equipment and utensils must be designed and constructed to be durable and retain their characteristic qualities under normal use conditions. This is so that equipment and utensils can continue to fulfill their intended purpose for the duration of their life expectancy and maintain the ease of cleanability for the operators. If equipment cannot maintain the original characteristics they may be difficult to clean, allowing again for the harborage of pathogens and thus create risk for the customers The current code language for 4626.0505 part B has been repealed in the new code Under 4626.0506 part A subparts 1 through 5, the following specific equipment must be classified by ANSI standards. This includes warewashing sinks, mechanical warewashing equipment, mechanical refrigeration units except for units or equipment designed and used to maintain food in a frozen state, walk-in freezers, and food hot holding equipment. Subpart six of this rule states cooking equipment must be certified or classified by ANSI except for, explicitly, microwave ovens and toasters. And then finally, parts 4626.0506 in part A, subparts 7 through 10 the last pieces of equipment that must be classified by ANSI for sanitation are ice machines, mechanical slicers, mechanical tenderizers and grinders, and food preparation surfaces including sinks that are used for food prep Parts B through D of this rule reference requirements for exhaust hoods and vending machines that dispense water or food. Exhaust hoods must meet Minnesota mechanical code (Minnesota Rule 1346), and vending machines that dispense water or food must meet ANSI or NAMA certification standards. Water vending machines must also meet the standards and Minnesota Rules 1500.3200 to .3320 for bottled water and water vending machines. Under 4626.0506 part E, if no ANSI standard is available for a piece of equipment, the equipment must be: designed for commercial use; durable, smooth and easily cleanable; readily accessible for cleaning; and the surfaces cannot be made made of anything that is toxic where food would contact it. For Part F of this rule, a neighborhood kitchen can use equipment that is not ANSI certified with food other than raw animal food, as long as it does not result in an accumulation of grease or moisture on nearby surfaces. By definition, a “neighborhood kitchen” refers to a satellite or accillary kitchen in a residential buildings for adults ages 55 or older that is secondary to the primary approved kitchen and where most of the food would be received stored and prepared. The food items cannot produce any grease laden vapors. This includes bacon or sausage or the use of butter, cooking oil, lard, shortening, or a nonstick cooking spray Under part G of .0506, an adult or child care center or boarding establishment does not need equipment that is certified or classified by ANSI if approved by the regulatory authority, and the food establishment serves only non-TCS food or prepares TCS foods only for same-day service. In part H of this rule a bed-and-breakfast serving only one meal

a day does not need equipment that is certified or classified by ANSI sanitation. And then finally, under part I of 4626.0506, ANSI certified equipment is not required in a retail food vehicle, portable structure or cart licensed under Minnesota statute 28A, and special event food stands. A food establishment licensed under Minnesota Statutes, sections 28A.06 and 28A.07 that is a motor vehicle portable structure or non motorized cart where food and food products are: A) offered to the consumer, B) intended for off-premises consumption, and C) not subject to on-site preparation. That’s equipment for you! [Jeff] Okay so we have a few topics left: one on take-home food container reuse, and a couple on temperature measuring devices Okay, so take-home container reuse. This, this revision will provide allowances for refilling returnable take-home food containers for food and beverages. And this is this one is interesting in that our current rule has parts of this in two provisions. It’s in 4626.0295, that’s refilling returnables. And then there’s .0890. You know we’re familiar with that one, that is Returnables: Cleaning for Refilling. What is happening in the revised rule is those parts are being brought together into one 0890 is going away, so they’re consolidated. And then there’s language added there to allow for certain operations or procedures in food establishments, and that’s what we’ll look at here. So, how this affects operators: So they will need to wash rinse and sanitize and inspect refillable containers if it is for food or a TCS beverage before refilling, and then non TCS beverages will be allowed to be refilled by the operator after rinsing with hot water, and can be refilled by the customer if it’s under a contamination free process or contamination be prevented. So the difference between the two here, again: TCS beverage or food – there’s a wash, rinse, sanitize step. Non TCS beverage – the sanitize step isn’t there Okay, so this ensures that reusable containers are durable and are capable of being adequately cleaned and sanitized before refilling. So these parts here…a take home food container can be refilled at a food establishment if: (And the container itself meets these parts of the rule, and these have to do with food contact surface characteristics, durability so on and so forth, those provisions that we already are familiar with in the rule.) So, the container was initially provided to the consumer by the food establishment and is meant to be refilled and the container is properly cleaned, sanitized, and visually inspected by a food employee. And then food containers can be returned and refilled with a beverage at a food establishment if the beverage itself is non TCS and again more to the design you know the design of container, rinsing equipment, and nature of the beverage allow for easy cleaning at home or at the food establishment, and then facilities for rinsing returned containers with fresh hot water under pressure that is not recirculated are provided, and the container is refilled for the same customer by a food employee or the owner of the container the beverage dispensing system is a contamination free process Consumer owned beverage containers and vinegar and oil containers can be refilled by employees or the consumer if

it is a contamination free process. I know this has kind of come under some review in our current rule so it’s nice to see new language added there to clarify here. And also consumer owned containers which are non-food specific can be refilled at water vending machine service systems. So that’s the part about take- home refillable containers. And so this next two topics are pretty short and they’re about food thermometers or temperature measuring devices. So, food thermometers change here. The revision specifies the type of a thermometer that must be used with a particular food. And this, how it affects operators, is that it requires operators that have a suitable small diameter probe thermometer for measuring the temperatures of foods with thin masses. And a normal bi-metallic stem thermometer, that can be used but may only be used with thick foods, such as large pots of chili, a roast, etc. These devices, that is this smaller diameter probe, they provide greater accuracy when taking temperatures of food, which is important to ensure that pathogens are adequately controlled. So you can see in the language here that they are P2 items. So, a food thermometer that is readily available and accessible, and then small diameter probe designed for thin masses, thin- massed foods, such as fish and meat patties And finally, to wrap it up, there’s warewashing temperature measuring devices. And the revision will require operators using dish machines with hot water for sanitization to have an irreversible registering thermometer temperature indicator to measure utensil surface temperatures. And so it kind of looks like this: so you have both manual and mechanical warewashing here so the operator is required to use they would be required to use temperature measuring device or indicator to ensure food-contact surface temperatures reach 160 Reusable min/max registering thermometers or single use temperature sensitive stickers or labels meet this requirement. And these devices provide a simple method to verify that food-contact surfaces reach minimum required temperature while washing and sanitizing So, here’s a look at the language. Manual waewashing must have a thermometer for measuring wash and sanitizing temperatures, and a cannibal hot water warewashing must have a temperature indicator to measure the utensil surface temperature. To measure the utensil surface temperature, must have an indicator provided I’ve got that wrong, let me try again, sorry. And must have a temperature indicator to measure utensil surface. They’re a little bit confusing they need to provide, be able to measure and verify that those surfaces reach the required temperature for sanitizing. All right This concludes the 20 Questions! Thank you very much. We’ll turn it back to Sarah. [Sarah] Well, thanks to all the presenters and people who attended and had some questions. We do have just about one or two minutes if we have any questions right now that we could take? [Angie] I can answer the person’s question from before. [Sarah] That’s great Angie come on up. We had a question earlier about “under-10” establishments, right? And certified food protection manager requirements? [Angie] So, for the certified food protection manager, there’s no exemption for “10-and-under.” It depends on how you have the establishment categorized. If you have them categorized as a low-risk establishment, per Minnesota Statutes 157.20

then they are exempt. Or, if they are just doing heating or serving precooked hot dogs, sausage products, popcorn, nachos, pretzels, or frozen pizza And I don’t really think that the “10-and-unders” usually are doing that, so that’s the answer for that one [Sarah] Thanks for looking that one up for us, Angie Any other questions? Ok. I know we do have a couple of things for clarification that came in via WebEx or email, and please know that we’ll respond to you. If you think of something in the next couple days, go ahead and email us with that as well and we’ll find the right person with the right answer and we’ll get it out to you. I want to take a moment to thank all the people behind the scenes who have helped to put this on. Obviously there’s a lot of content and just getting the rule language and the SONAR finalized has taken a monumental effort from lots and lots of people. And today’s training, also, we had a small army of people working to get all the different moving parts set up. So thanks to everyone. I really appreciate the fact that so many people have signed in today and I hope you learned what you needed to. Please remember to sign the attendance sheet at your location and those of you who have agreed to kind of collect those and send them back thanks for that we’ll look for them. Because we do have so many people in attendance it will take us a little bit of time to go through. We have to check off a box for everyone. If you’re going to receive your credit, so it will not be available immediately. We’ll have to collect the sheets, log into the system, find your name, match it to the sheet, and check the box off before your certificate will be available. But that should be in the next couple of days Also, if you go into the MN.TRAIN system, you should have the ability to provide a review of the course. So, thanks for doing that if you get a chance. And we also hope that you’ll be able to provide feedback about the platform that you attended whether you were live at a session, signing out of the WebEx early [laughter] or using live stream and all it worked for you, because we want to continue to try to make the adjustments that we need to, to make the information and make these sessions available to people who need them Please remember to sign up to get email updates. We’re going to continue to add Rules in Brief updates through the end of the year to kind of summarize the changes. It’s a great way to get updates And thank you for your work to improve food safety in Minnesota. Thanks for attending Food Safety Partnership today!