FSNET FEBRUARY 17, 2003

Iowans propose food safety center
Survey shows drop in food safety concern
E. coli outbreak debated
Check restaurant grade before opening menu
NCBA eyes lawsuit as possible remedy to EU ban
Aquentium, Inc. announces U.S. trademark application for #1 Patriot food
safe fruits and vegetables
Food watchdog warns of mercury risk in tuna
Allergen-free shrimp? Seafood marks a place in food safety research
Bringing science communication into policy


FSnet is produced by the Food Safety Network at the University of Guelph,
and is supported by the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food, Health
Canada, AgCare, Agricultural Adaptation Council (CanAdapt Program), Canadian
Council of Grocery Distributors, ConAgra Foods, Inc., Pioneer Hi-Bred
Limited (Canada), AgWest Biotech, Inc., Meat and Livestock Australia,
National Pork Board, Council for Biotechnology Information, New Zealand Food
Safety Authority, Canadian Animal Health Institute, Canadian Restaurant and
Foodservices Association, Canadian Food Information Council, Saskatchewan
Agriculture, Food and Rural Revitalization, JIFSAN, American Air Liquide,
National Cattlemen's Beef Association, National Turkey Federation, Keystone
Foods LLC, National Food Processors Association, Parmalat, BC Ministry of
Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, Feedlot Health Management Services,
Canadian Institute of Public Health Inspectors, Ontario Branch, Syngenta
Crop Protection, Ontario Corn Producers' Association, Caravelle Foods,
Bioniche, Office of Consumer Affairs, Burger King, Sobeys Ontario, The Dairy
Farmers of Ontario, ABC Research, National Meat Association, Central
Laboratories Friedrichsdorf GMBH, The Smithfield Packaging Co., Inc.,
International Association for Food Protection, Ontario Egg Producers, Nestle
Canada Inc., The Canadian Meat Council, Chemical Metrology Group, NRC,
Marcotte Consulting, Inc., UC Davis Biotechnology Program, Consumer
Federation of America Foundation, New Science Management, Inc., Optibrand,
Canadian Livestock Genetics Association, Tactix Government Consulting, Inc.,
International Food Focus Ltd, GamRay Consulting Inc., Safe Foods
Corporation, Hospitality Institute of Technology and Management, Inc.,
Innovative Food Solutions, Kraft Foods R&D, Inc., and Global Public
Affairs.

The Food Safety Network's national toll-free line for obtaining food safety
information: 1-866-50-FSNET (1-866-503-7638)

archived at: http://131.104.74.73:96/fsnet-archives.htm

IOWANS PROPOSE FOOD SAFETY CENTER
February 15, 2003
The DesMoines Register
Jerry Perkins
http://desmoinesregister.com/business/stories/c4789013/20501072.html
Leading Iowa businesses want, according to this story, to establish a
National Center for Food Safety and Security in Iowa to coordinate national
and state efforts to safeguard the U.S. food supply from terrorism, disease
or accidents.
The Iowa Business Council was cited as proposing bringing a food safety and
security center to the state because it's a leader in food production,
processing, research and medicine.
Ron Pearson, chief executive and chairman of Hy-Vee Inc. and former chairman
of the Iowa Business Council, was quoted as saying, "We think that there is
such a need for a center like this, that it will happen somewhere. Why not
Iowa? This is not just a dream," Pearson said. "It's gone beyond that.
We're going to do something. If we don't take the leadership role, who
will?"
The business council, made up of executives of the largest Iowa companies
and the three regent university presidents, has no specific location in mind
for the center. "We don't care where it's located in the state," Pearson
said. "Just so it's in Iowa."



SURVEY SHOWS DROP IN FOOD SAFETY CONCERN
February 17, 2003
Food Standards Agency
http://www.foodstandards.gov.uk/news/newsarchive/csas_2002
The Food Standards Agency's third annual Consumer Attitudes to Food survey
reveals a small but significant decrease in concern about food safety and an
overall decline in the number of people with concerns about specific food
issues.
Most significant are a 16% fall in concern about BSE (45% in 2002 compared
with 61% in 2000), and a fall in concern about GM foods ­ from 43% in 2000
to 36% in 2002.
The 2002 survey highlights a number of trends that have emerged since the
first
Consumer Attitudes to Food survey was carried out in 2000. The most
noteworthy of these is a small but steady decline in concern over the safety
of meat, with a significant decrease in concern about types of meat such as
beef, pork, lamb, and raw meat over the past three years.
Confidence in the role played by the Food Standards Agency has also
increased
significantly, with 60% of consumers now claiming to be very or fairly
confident in the Agency's role in protecting health with regard to food
safety, an increase of 10% since 2000.
The results of the survey are based on a representative sample of more than
3000 consumers across the UK and reveal the views and the issues that really
matter to them. Although there have been few significant changes in consumer
behaviour over the past year, particularly with regards to nutrition, diet
and
shopping habits, the survey does show that consumers are slowly becoming
more confident about food safety and standards. In the past year there have
been significant falls in concern about animal feed (50% in 2001 to 41% in
2002) and the use of pesticides to grow food (50% in 2001 to 44% in 2002).
Sir John Krebs, Chair of the Food Standards Agency, said: 'The small but
steady decline in public concern about food safety and some important food
issues is extremely positive news, both for consumers and the Food Standards
Agency. 'In the past three years we have made some headway in the journey
to earning public confidence and trust. This annual survey, by continuing to
highlight changing opinion about the issues that matter most to consumers,
is a valuable contribution to the continuing public debate on food safety
and standards.' People have, however, become more worried about fast food
outlets with a significant increase in the percentage of people concerned
about them ­ from 18% in 2001 to 23% in 2002. Where consumers are concerned
about hygiene in a particular catering outlet, they stop using that outlet,
but only 7% were likely to report their concerns to anyone ­ a fall from 11%
in 2001. There was no change in the number of people claiming to have
suffered from food poisoning in 2002 (13%). As the previous year, this
figure is lowest in Northern Ireland.
The majority of those who suffered from food poisoning (75%) attributed
their illness to food prepared outside the home, but most of them did not
report the illness to anyone.



E. COLI OUTBREAK DEBATED: BEEF PLANT OPPONENTS SAY FEARS WARRANTED; FOOD
SPECIALISTS SAY OTHERWISE
February 14, 2003
Daily Tribune
Melissa A. Lake and Antoinette Rahn
http://www.wisinfo.com/dailytribune/wrdtlocal/277021863000256.shtml
With the possibility of a beef processing and slaughter house coming to
Wisconsin Rapids nearing a reality, experts on food and bacteria, according
to this story, gave different opinions this week on the potential of an E.
coli outbreak.
Two food specialists with the University of Wisconsin-Madison were cited as
saying fears of an outbreak aren't warranted, although those opposing
construction of a beef plant contend that bringing 1,000 head of cattle per
day into the community would increase the likelihood of an outbreak.
UW-Madison's Steve Ingham and Dennis Buege were cited as agreeing that E.
coli O157:H7 can be dangerous - even fatal. The debate, however, is not
about the severity of the bacteria, but the likelihood of its transmission
due to a beef plant.
Buege, who specializes in meat science and technology, food safety and meat
processing at the UW Extension Meat Science Lab, was quoted as saying,
"There is no evidence at all, that I'm aware of, that there have been
outbreaks of E. coli in communities where there is a slaughterhouse. There
are a hundred small slaughterhouses throughout Wisconsin. I've never heard
of these communities having E. coli outbreaks right in their communities as
a result of a slaughterhouse."
Ingham, associate professor and food safety extension specialist, was quoted
as saying, "The outbreaks of E. coli that have occurred in recent years have
not been in the vicinity of a plant. Based on the evidence, having a beef
plant isn't any more or less likely to cause E. coli outbreaks in a
community."
Kendra Kimbirauskas, agricultural organizer with the Sierra Club in
Minneapolis was cited as saying it has reports citing incidences of E. coli
O157 in at least 60 percent of beef plants - and this strain of E. coli
found on 50 percent of feed lot cattle processed at plants.
Brett Hulsey, senior Midwest representative for the Sierra Club, was quoted
as saying, "E. coli, cryptosporidium and other pathogens kill 1,000 people a
year and sicken about 1 million each year. A big source of these problems is
the spreading of animal waste on the ground with no concern for drinking
water supplies."



CHECK RESTAURANT GRADE BEFORE OPENING MENU
February 13, 2003
NewsNet5
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ibsys/20030214/lo_wews/149413
0
CLEVELAND -- One northeast Ohio county has implemented a new restaurant
rating. NewsChannel5's Ted Hart reported that you might want to check out
the grading before opening a menu. At the Old Country Buffet on Whipple
Road in Canton, they're proud of their "Grade A" rating.
"That's the highest rating the health department gives a restaurant," said
general manager Art Caspary. "The program challenges you to achieve maximum
performance from your employers, err, your employees."
To be awarded the Grade A certificate, a restaurant must have no critical
violations for a full year and at least 80 percent of the staff must have
passed a food-safety test. It's a measuring stick that's good for consumers
and an incentive for the restaurant and its employees.
"When they walk through their door at the start of the work day, they are
reminded they work for a Grade-A facility. My personal belief is it improves
their spirit. It makes them better able to do a good job for their customers
that day," said Bob Somrak with the Stark County Health Department.
So far, Hart said that 18 facilities have received Grade-A status in Stark
County.
Glenmoor Country Club Inspectors recently found food items stored in
uncovered containers at Glenmoor Country Club.
Hart said that raw meat was stored above pasta in the cooler and cleaning
chemicals were stored next to food items.
Management at Glenmoor said they were all small issues and in a follow-up
inspection everything had been corrected.
Blue-Ribbon Winners
No need for corrections at Panchos Southwestern Grille in North Canton. The
restaurant got its Grade-A rating from the county health department.
It was the same story at Blimpies Subs on North Main Street in North Canton.
It got the top rating.
In honor of all the Grade-A recipients in Stark County, they are this week's
5 On Your Side blue-ribbon winners.



NCBA EYES LAWSUIT AS POSSIBLE REMEDY TO EU BAN
February 17, 2003
MEATing Place
Daniel Yovich
www.meatingplace.com
The National Cattlemen's Beef Association will discuss with other trade
groups in coming weeks the possibility of forming a coalition to fund and
pursue strategies-including lawsuits that would help force the European
Union to overturn its ban on U.S. beef grown with growth promotants.
"We are studying the directive approved by our membership, and the first
stept will be to communicate with other trade groups to gauge their interest
and obtain feedback on this issue," said NCBA spokesperson Karen Batra. "The
we'll establish what the next step should be."
At their annual convention last month in Nashville, NCBA members voted to
instruct the NCBA's board of directors to explore the formation of an
industry coalition to pursue legal strategies to overturn the EU ban. Batra
said NCBA's Washington, D.C. office would coordinate the effort, and the
project would likely be headed by Gregg Dowd, the NCBA's chief economist.
The association's Washington office oversees the NCBA's trade strategies.
Dowd joined the NCBA in January. Batra said she was uncertain when the NCBA
would begin making overtures to other trade groups to participate in the
proposal.



AQUENTIUM, INC. ANNOUNCES U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION FOR #1 PATRIOT FOOD
SAFE FRUITS AND VEGETABLES
February 14, 2003
>From a press release
LAKE ELSINORE -- Aquentium, Inc. announced today that the company has filed
a trademark application for #1 Patriot Food Safe Fruits and Vegetables with
the United States Patent Trademark Office.#1 Patriot Food Safe Fresh Fruits
and Vegetables(TM) will be used by Aquentium's wholly owned subsidiary, Food
Safe, Inc.
Food Safe, Inc. has developed food safety processes that kill pathogens and
bacteria. This process also removes pesticides and can guarantee not only a
food-safe product at the processing and packing levels, but also all the way
through the transportation and distribution channels until the product is
delivered to the customer.
"One of the most important elements of the food safety system is its ability
to extend the shelf life of a product an additional 10 to 30 days.
Considering that over 25-35% of a grower's fresh fruits, vegetables and
produce never reach an end-user, the extension of the life cycle of a
perishable product is extremely beneficial to all parties, including the
consumer or any end-user," stated Food Safe CEO William Karney. Currently,
the food industry is in the United States alone is an $800 billion market.
According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, less than 2% of all fruits
and vegetables are pathogen, or "germ" free, at the initial packing point,
with greater risk of pathogen growth during the distribution cycle.
"Our plan is to also file foreign applications that take advantage of the
provisions of the International (Paris) Convention for the Protection of
Industrial Property," stated Aquentium President Mark Taggatz.



FOOD WATCHDOG WARNS OF MERCURY RISK IN TUNA
February 17, 2003
Reuters
LONDON - Britain's Food Standards Agency was cited as saying on Monday that
pregnant women, breastfeeding women and those planning babies should limit
their consumption of tuna because mercury found in the fish could present a
health hazard,.
The groups concerned are advised to eat no more than two medium-sized cans
of tuna a week due to a low risk that mercury in them could harm an unborn
child's developing nervous system.
FSA acting food safety director Andrew Wadge was quoted as saying, "It is
unlikely that many pregnant or breast-feeding women eat more than the
recommended amounts of these fish every week. But for any that currently do,
it would be a sensible precaution to change their diets slightly. This will
help protect the unborn child and the developing breast-fed baby. When
planning to have a baby and whilst pregnant or breast-feeding, women do need
to take particular care of their health and that of their baby."



ALLERGEN-FREE SHRIMP? SEAFOOD MARKS A PLACE IN FOOD
SAFETY RESEARCH
February 16, 2003
American Association for the Advancement of Science Press Release
DENVER, CO ­ A buffet of shrimp cocktail, lobster on the half shell, and
king crab sounds like a seafood dream come true, but for people with
shellfish-food allergies, it can be a nightmare instead.
Now, new genetic studies show promise for putting allergen-free shrimp on
our dinner plates someday, scientists said today at the 2003 American
Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) Annual Meeting.
"It¹s definitely possible that we¹ll have foods that are less of a risk for
allergy," said Samuel B. Lehrer of Tulane University in New Orleans,
Louisiana, where shrimp is a key element of the local cuisine.
"There¹s a lot of work we need to do to be sure to know what to ask."
Lehrer and others are conducting studies on shrimp to better understand the
genetic basis for the proteins in foods that cause allergic responses in
some people. An expert in food allergens and allergen detection, Lehrer also
addressed issues of allergenicity in new products being developed through
genetic engineering, and gave an "understanding of the framework that¹s
involved and changing, and a sense of what¹s being ensured so we don¹t have
exposure to new allergens."
Research in shrimp allergenicity owes its recent strides to ongoing research
in plant foods, such as soy and peanuts.
Food allergies are immune responses to proteins from foods that somehow did
not get broken down by cooking or digestion. Instead, they entered the
bloodstream and interact with antibodies on cells lining the gut, and in the
nose, throat, skin, and lungs, for example. These cells then release
chemical mediators including histamines, which create unpleasant and
sometimes life-threatening allergic
responses.
Lehrer has identified the major shrimp allergen and the epitopes--the
allergenic portion of the molecule‹that bind with an antibody called
immunoglobulin E (IgE). The reaction that results from the allergen or
epitope causes classical allergic reactions of itchiness around the eyes,
throat, skin, and mouth.
Improved detection methods for unknown food allergens can also contribute
toward better safety for new food products that are altered through genetic
engineering, according to Lehrer, who is in the process of developing an
immunological test, with mice, to check foods for allergenicity.
Work on altering animal-based allergens is generally much less further along
than that for plant-based food allergens, for which breeding programs and
food processing have been used to address allergenicity. Now, working
directly at the gene level may put allergen-free peanuts, soybeans, or
shrimp on our dinner plates someday, according to Lehrer. "There¹s concern
that new epitopes can be made," Lehrer says of the techniques used to
transfer genes in and out of a food plant or animal.
While testing for known allergens has been established, testing proteins
that may be expressed in genetically modified foods, which have no previous
human exposure, is needed. This scenario raises an interest in developing
models for testing allergenicity, says Lehrer, who is developing a
mouse-based model to test exactly this. "If there¹s a way to validate the
mouse responses are similar to the human response, this would be a useful
way to screen novel proteins. We saw very good
responses to peanut allergens and shrimp allergens and they seem to be
similar to human responses.
Now, we want to look at responses on an epitope level." Lehrer is also
looking at less commonly allergenic materials, like rice, beef and corn.
The biotechnology used to alter food products can also be used to improve
food safety by preventing the production of allergy-causing agents,
according to Lehrer, who describes his work with shrimp as an example.
Lehrer has located the gene sequence that encodes the shrimp allergen and
regions of the sequences for the different molecules that interact with the
antibody IgE. By altering the epitopes in
shrimp allergens that bind to IgE‹by just one amino acid‹the binding action
could be stopped. "This can possibly be used therapeutically or even in
reducing the allergenicity of a particular food," Lehrer says.



BRINGING SCIENCE COMMUNICATION INTO POLICY
February 17, 2003
SciDev.Net
David Dickson
http://www.scidev.net/archives/editorial/comment52.html
via AgBioView at http://www.agbioworld.org
Science communication has become a major factor in the formulation of policy
on science-related issues, not just a commentary on the way such issues are
addressed.
One of the most significant images in UK debates over the past 20 years
about the relationship between science and society was a photograph taken in
May 1990 of Britain's then agriculture minister, John Gummer, feeding a
hamburger to his somewhat bemused and reluctant daughter, Cordelia.
The country was at the time in the midst of its crisis over so-called Mad
Cow Disease, but the government -- prompted by the farming industry -- was
insisting that there was no way that the disease could pass to humans. The
photograph encapsulated the headlines that went with it, indicating that a
government minister was so confident about this position that, even as a
responsible parent, he was prepared feed British beef to his daughter.
The rest, as they say, is history. It was not long before Gummer, and indeed
the whole of the British government, had to eat its words -- almost
literally -- and admit that they had got it wrong; BSE indeed can pass into
the food chain, with tragic consequences. Furthermore this particular
picture has come to haunt Gummer -- who ironically has a good record as an
effective defender of the environment -- the Conservative party and
government public relations officers ever since.
With the benefit of hindsight, the manipulation is obvious. We are now well
aware of the function of this image as well as the dubious claim to
scientific legitimacy on which it was intended to be based. Indeed the
subsequent realisation by the British public of the extent to which it had
been misled by this particular picture, and indeed the whole government
handling of the BSE debacle in Britain, is widely blamed for a significant
drop in the public's trust of both politicians and the scientists who advise
them.
But the picture also highlights a critical issue about the way that the
media frames, and thus helps to mould, public perceptions of key issues at
the interface between science and society. The issue for those involved in
science communication, both in developed and developing countries, is how to
balance a desire to inform the public about the scientific perspective on
controversial issues -- such as BSE or genetically-modified crops -- with an
awareness of the political interests that may lie on each side of such a
dispute.
The challenge for society more generally is to recognise that the practice
of science communication has become a significant participant in the
formulation of policy on science-related issues, and no longer merely
provides a commentary on the way such issues are addressed.
Beyond the respect for truth. At its crudest level, of course, science
communication must be concerned with the accurate transmission of
information. This includes not only communicating the facts produced by
science, but equally reporting as accurately as possible on the
uncertainties attached to such knowledge, as well as on the impacts of
science on society -- and society's response to such impacts. All this is
relatively conventional wisdom with the science communication community,
even if it acknowledges a truth -- that achieving a proper public
understanding of science is a two-way process that must include the
scientist's better understanding of the public -- that is only just being
recognised within the scientific community itself.
To quote the words of Alan I. Leshner, for example, the chief executive
office of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, writing
in a recent issue of Science: "We need to engage the public in a more open
and honest, bi-directional dialogue about science, technology and their
products, including not only their benefits but also their limits, perils
and pitfalls. We need to respect the public's perspective and concerns, even
when we do not fully share them, and we need to develop a partnership that
can respond to them."
But there is a need to go beyond this, and to inquire how the process of
developing a partnership with the public works in practice, and who will be
engaged in establishing it. Here it is necessary to acknowledge that the
role of the science communicator, as Leshner accepts, is not one of simply
conveying the 'truth' to the public (any more than the role of a scientist
can be defined simply as discovering scientific 'facts'). Rather it is to
communicate significant facts -- and, where space allows, the nature of this
significance.
In other words, the task of any science communicator is essentially one of
extracting significance from a mass of scientific evidence, policy
documents, and headline-grabbing statements from individuals and
institutions that may or may not have a vested interested in the outcome.
In doing this, I suggest, those engaged in the communication of science --
particularly when this is conceived of as a two-way process -- becomes
proxies for the public when it comes to interpreting and articulating the
relationship between science and society, or to put it another way, between
knowledge and power.
Science communication and policy-making. The terms 'interpreting' and
'articulating' are both somewhat abstract concepts. They imply that the way
the media handles science has actually become an important constitutive
component of the policy-making process on science-related issues. The media
does more than just report policy choices to the public on such issues, or
even on the responses of the public to the policy choices they are being
presented with. In a significant way the media also helps to frame both the
policy issues and the public responses to them.
This is illustrated by the intense debates taking place in the developing
world over topics such as GM crops or even 'biopiracy', itself a term
largely coined by those who might be described as communicators of science.
In each case, the way that such issues are presented to the public becomes
the way that the issues are seen by the public. And these perceptions in
turn become a major factor in political decision-making, particularly in an
era when mass communication has made every decision taken by a politician
the subject of close public scrutiny.
The full implications of this shift remain far from clear. Nevertheless it
is already possible to suggest that informed communication about science
must become a central component of development strategy. Without such
communication, trust in political decisions on science-related issues will
be gradually dissipated. With such communication there is no guarantee that
this trust will necessarily be maintained. But at least the basis will have
been laid on which such trust can be rebuilt.
This comment is based on a talk delivered to the annual meeting of
American Association for the Advancement of Science on 17 February 2003 in
Denver Colorado

To subscribe to FSnet, send mail to:
listserv@listserv.uoguelph.ca
leave subject line blank
in the body of the message type:
subscribe fsnet-L firstname lastname
i.e. subscribe fsnet-L Doug Powell

To unsubscribe to FSnet, send mail to:
listserv@listserv.uoguelph.ca
leave subject line blank
in the body of the message type:
signoff fsnet-L

For more information about the FSnet research program, please contact:
Dr. Douglas Powell
Associate Professor
dept. of plant agriculture
University of Guelph
Guelph, Ont.
N1G 2W1
tel: 519-824-4120 x2506
cell: 519-835-3015
fax: 519-763-8933
dpowell@uoguelph.ca
http://www.foodsafety.ksu.edu

The Food Safety Network's bilingual toll-free line for obtaining food safety
information: 1-866-50-FSNET (1-866-503-7638)

archived at:
http://131.104.74.73:96/fsnet-archives.htm