FSnet Dec. 1/06 -- II
New Food
Safety Network Infosheet -- Two Norovirus outbreaks: Same food safety failure
Dinosaur
closes for cleanup; 278 report getting ill
Health
department fields 200 calls on norovirus outbreak
Norovirus
hits Hamilton again
Health
hazard alert - Saroli Brand green bella di cerignola olives may contain
dangerous bacteria
An Open
Letter to Dalton McGuinty, the Premier of Ontario: December 1, 2006
NY cracks
down on illegal mystery meats
Dear eDiets:
Are soft cheeses dangerous?
Restaurants
implement controls to stop 'hidden' epidemic of food poisoning
Kane County
sees Salmonella cases rise
Sheetz
denied record access
Breakfast
bone of contention
Woman
claims she found tooth in biscuit
Hague
tribunal shuts after Legionnaire's trace found
Hershey
chocolate plant reopens next week
U of I
scientist helping processors keep E. coli out of meat
Food
Defense: International collaboration in a critical area of biodefense
how to subscribe
New
Food Safety Network Infosheet -- Two Norovirus outbreaks: Same food safety
failure
01.dec.06
Food Safety Network
Ben Chapman
http://www.foodsafety.ksu.edu/articles/965/FSN-infosheet-12-1-06.pdf
The newest food safety infosheet, a graphical one-page food safety-related story
directed at food handlers, is now available at foodsafetyinfosheets.ksu.edu.
Infosheet highlights:
Banquet hall outbreak infected at least 85 in Hamilton, ON. Canada
It has already been confirmed that the norovirus was spread by an employee
Dozens sickened after dining at restaurant near Des Moines, IA
Dr. Patricia Quinlisk, state epidemiologist, was cited as saying "Anyone
with diarrhea or vomiting in the last few days should not be handling any food
items."
Infosheets are created weekly by FSN and are posted in restaurants, retail
stores, on farms and used in training throughout the world. If you have any
infosheet topic requests, or photos, please contact Ben Chapman at bchapman@uoguelph.ca
Dinosaur
closes for cleanup; 278 report getting ill
01.dec.06
Syracuse Post-Standard (NY)
Sue Weibezahl
http://www.syracuse.com/news/poststandard/index.ssf?/base/news-7/1164967375244620.xml&coll=1
The Dinosaur Bar-B-Que restaurant was cited as voluntarily closing its doors
Thursday afternoon after 278 people called the Onondaga County Health Department
to report becoming ill after eating there last weekend and earlier this week.
Jean Smiley, Onondaga County's deputy health commissioner, was cited as saying
the restaurant will stay closed today, Saturday and Sunday to give employees a
chance to discard ice and prepared foods and thoroughly clean and sanitize the
building.
Owner John Stage was quoted as saying, "We need to break this cycle. The
Health Department suggested closing, and I think it's a . . . good idea. I'm not
worried about the business; I'm just worried about ending this sickness."
Stage said about 20 restaurant employees have called in sick with the same
illness; the Dinosaur restaurants in Rochester and Harlem haven't had any
problems.
By 5 p.m. Thursday, employees asked patrons to finish their meals and stopped
taking new customers, Smiley said. Health officials will oversee the cleaning of
the restaurant. The time it is closed should also give sick employees a chance
to get better to prevent any future transmission, she said.
Health officials have had to open additional phone lines to keep up with the
dramatic increase in calls about people who ate at the Dinosaur and later
experienced cramps, vomiting and diarrhea.
Dr. Cynthia Morrow, the county's health commissioner, said some lab reports
should be in today to confirm if the gastrointestinal illness was caused by a
problem with the food. Tests to determine whether an airborne virus was the
cause will take weeks to complete, she said.
Most of the complaints of illness have been primary, meaning the people who got
sick ate at the restaurant. There have also been a few complaints of people
catching the illness from someone else, she said. People seem to have been
infected Friday, Saturday, Sunday and Monday, Morrow said.
Health
department fields 200 calls on norovirus outbreak
01.dec.06
Lansing State Journal (Michigan)
Jeremy W. Steele
http://www.lsj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061201/NEWS01/612010364
Health department officials continued to receive more than 200 phone calls today
from people concerned about a norovirus outbreak at a local restaurant.
Steve Tackitt, health officer for the Barry-Eaton District Health Department,
said his office continues to interview people to determine how widespread the
outbreak was.
People who experienced vomiting and diarrhea after eating at Applebee’s
Neighborhood Grill & Bar on West Saginaw Highway in Delta Township between
Nov. 22 and Nov. 28 should call health officials at 541-2641. Illness also can
be reported online at www.michigan.gov/healthwatch.
“We’re taking their names and numbers and will be interviewing them
later,” Tackitt said.
As of Thursday, 32 people had reported symptoms, including 19 employees.
Norovirus
hits Hamilton again
01.dec.06
AM900 CHML
http://www.900chml.com/news/news_local.cfm?cat=7428218912&rem=53335&red=80121823aPBIny&wids=410&gi=1&gm=news_local.cfm
Hamilton -- The City of Hamilton’s Public Health Services is, according to
this story, investigating an outbreak of gastroenteritis (norovirus) following
reports received on Wednesday November 29, 2006.
Reportedly, more than 100 people attended a private function in a private home
on the weekend of November 25 and 26. The event was catered by Piazza Banquet
Centre.
The pattern of illness suggested norovirus may have spread from person-to-person
among people who attended the party.
Public Health Services has inspected the Piazza Banquet Centre on two occasions
since the report was received and there is no indication of any problem with
food handling preparation or storage at those facilities.
With the cooperation of the people who attended the event, Public Health is
working to contact attendees to provide education about handwashing and
prevention of norovirus transmission.
Health
hazard alert - Saroli Brand green bella di cerignola olives may contain
dangerous bacteria
01.dec.06
Canadian Food Inspection Agency
OTTAWA - The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) and Mario Saroli Sales Inc.
are warning the public not to consume Saroli brand Green Bella di Cerignola
Olives described below because the product may be contaminated with Clostridium
botulinum. Toxins produced by this bacteria may cause botulism, a
life-threatening illness.
The Saroli brand Green Bella di Cerignola Olives, a product of Italy, is sold in
1 litre containers bearing UPC 7 79390 00404 1 and the lot code 075/6. The
affected product has been distributed in Ontario.
There have been no reported illnesses associated with the consumption of this
product.
Food contaminated with Clostridium botulinum toxin may not look or smell
spoiled.
Consumption of food contaminated with the toxin may cause nausea, vomiting,
fatigue, dizziness, headache, double vision, dry throat, respiratory failure and
paralysis. In severe cases of illness, people may die.
The importer, Mario Saroli Sales Inc., Vaughan, Ontario, is voluntarily
recalling the affected product from the marketplace. The CFIA is monitoring the
effectiveness of the recall.
For more information, consumers and industry may call one of the following
numbers:
Mario Saroli Sales Inc. at 905-265-2227
CFIA at 1-800-442-2342, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. local time, Monday to Friday.
For information on Clostridium botulinum, visit the Food Facts web page at
http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/fssa/concen/causee.shtml.
For information on receiving recalls by e-mail, or for other food safety facts,
visit
our web site at www.inspection.gc.ca.
An
Open Letter to Dalton McGuinty, the Premier of Ontario: December 1, 2006
01.dec.06
Dr. Murray McQuigge
Premier McGuinty,
Thank you for your recent stand to continue to pasteurize milk in Ontario and to
not allow the legal sale or distribution of raw milk. Many lives will be saved
by your commitment.
However the Ontario Treasurer, Greg Sorbara, has spoken about legalizing the
sale of raw milk. Therefore, I feel compelled to write you, especially given the
experience of the Walkerton water disaster.
After 16 years in family medicine, I went into public health because I could no
longer bear seeing people come to my office that were sick or dying of diseases
that could have been prevented. Pasteurization of milk prevents just such misery
and death.
It appears that Michael Schmidt is on a hunger strike for the right to legally
kill Canadians. It would also appear that Michael Schmidt has been making
serious money by flaunting the laws of Ontario and illegally selling and
distributing raw milk.
The following are some thoughts on this issue:
In 1938, Ontario Premier Mitchell F. Hepburn’s Liberal government brought in a
law to mandate the pasteurization of milk. All provinces in Canada now have this
legislation. This legislation was the end result of a crusade started by one of
the founders of the Women’s Institute: Adelaide Hoodless of Hamilton, Ontario.
In 1896 her 14 month old son died of drinking contaminated milk. At that time,
over 10% of all childhood tuberculosis was caused by unpasteurized milk. After
the legislation was passed, tuberculosis rates and the rates of many other
milk-borne diseases in children plunged dramatically.
Treasurer Sorbara talks about the establishment of a “safe distribution system
for raw milk”. There never was, and cannot be, such a safe system.
Unpasteurized milk has been one of the most dangerous sources of food poisoning
since recorded time. Dairy cattle get many diseases that can cause disease in
humans: tuberculosis, brucellosis, listeria (which can cause abortions in
pregnant women), salmonellosis, diseases from E. coli O157:H7 (the same bacteria
that killed 7 people in Walkerton), campylobacter gastroenteritis, and staph and
strep infections to name a few. Cow’s milk is not safe when it comes from the
udder. These diseases are all passed through the cow and in to its milk. No
amount of clean animal husbandry can prevent this. We know this because, in the
U.S. states that allow the sale of raw milk, disease and deaths from its
consumption regularly occur. Some of those states are aggressively pursuing
legislation to mandate the pasteurization of milk.
Is cow tuberculosis no longer a threat in milk? No. Every year, some dairy
cattle in Canada test positive for tuberculosis. All TB needs to make a comeback
is to have a lapse in preventive methods. Pasteurization kills the tuberculosis
bacteria.
Unfortunately, new bacteria have found their way into our farms and food: E.coli
O157:H7 is one of them. It first appeared in 1984 and is now found in at least
10% of the cattle in Canada. It can be passed on by their feces contaminating
other foods, milk, and water.
This is not a matter of personal choice, where an adult choice only harms
themselves. At Christmas time in 1981, a happy Peterborough couple headed home
with the glowing reassurance that their babies – a newborn boy and girl –
were healthy and normal. Within 9 days, their newborn girl, Stephanie, came down
with salmonella muenster, a pathogenic bacteria frequently associated with raw
milk. Stephanie died of salmonella meningitis. Stephanie had never drunk raw
milk. It was learned that the mother of another baby in the nursery had drunk
raw milk during her pregnancy, and the clinical tests showed that this mother
was a carrier of salmonella muenster, although she herself showed no symptoms.
She had transferred the infection to her infant, also an asymptomatic carrier,
and the salmonella had passed from the baby to Stephanie (see the Harrowsmith
1985 article on this). There are many stories like Stephanie’s. The drinking
of raw milk puts others at risk.
Because of public health prevention, today’s public doesn’t see or
experience the dirty diseases that we had 75 years ago and so may be led to
believe that all food is safe and secure. Nothing could be further from the
truth. The recent experience with spinach and carrot juice point out that no
food, including organic food, is safe.
There have been many examples of people buying raw milk without being informed
of the risks involved. In 1993 in Oregon, U.S.A., a 56-year old woman, Norma
Bryne, was a victim of E. coli from drinking raw milk. She spent a month in
hospital and incurred an estimated $100,000 in uninsured medical expenses. She
testified at an inquiry that “she didn’t understand the risks when she drank
the milk” and that the pain she had suffered was “worse than anything I had
ever experienced”.
Our local MPP in Grey-Bruce counties, Bill Murdoch, has commented that he was
amazed that uniformed men came to seize Michael Schmidt’s milking equipment.
As the Medical Officer of Health who ordered Michael Schmidt to cease and desist
selling and distributing raw milk in 1994, I can tell you that Schmidt was
belligerent and violent towards my staff and they asked me to provide them with
police protection when they went to his farm. It is no surprise that the folks
seizing Schmidt’s equipment this time took precautions.
This is not an anti-farming issue. My father sold farm machinery in Alliston,
Ontario where I grew up and had my first summer jobs on dairy farms. The
backbone of Canadian life is farming. This is a medical and public health issue.
I fully support the concerns and recent statements of Medical Officers of Health
of Ontario, the Chief Medical Officer of Health, other citizens and health care
professionals.
To bring in legislation to allow the sale and distribution of raw milk would be
tantamount to willful manslaughter and taking our province back to the Dark
Ages.
Respectfully submitted,
Dr. Murray McQuigge, former Medical Officer of Health for the Grey Bruce Health
Unit and now, thankfully, retired but seriously concerned.
NY
cracks down on illegal mystery meats
01.dec.06
Herald News Daily: Voice of the Dakotas
Adam Goldman, Associated Press
http://www.heraldnewsdaily.com/ViewArticle.aspx?id=30908&source=2
NEW YORK - When a food safety inspector walked into a market in Queens, he
noticed, according to this story, the store had an interesting special posted on
its front window: 12 beefy armadillos. In Brooklyn, inspectors found 15 pounds
of iguana meat at a West Indian market and 200 pounds of cow lungs for sale at
another market. At a West African grocery in Manhattan, the store was selling
smoked rodent meat from a refrigerated display case. An inspector quickly seized
a couple pounds of it.
Authorities were cited as saying the discoveries are part of a larger trend in
which markets across New York are buying meat and other foods from unregulated
sources and selling them to an immigrant population accustomed to more exotic
fare.
The seizures also cast a spotlight on the eating habits of this ethnically
diverse city, where everything from turtles and fish paste to frogs and duck
feet make their way onto people‘s plates.
The story says that in the first nine months of the year, inspectors across the
state seized 1.6 million pounds of food, destroying about 81 percent of it. Last
year, the state seized only 976,076 pounds of food.
Such food can spread nasty bacteria like salmonella or botulism.
Bush meat, or anything killed in the wild, is typically illegal. Eating
endangered or threatened species like as gorilla and chimpanzee — whose meat
is occasionally found in New York — is against the law.
State sanitary inspection reports dating back to 2001 reveal a widespread
appetite for this potentially dangerous food.
Down the street at Dahing Seafood Market, inspectors have found frogs being sold
from an unapproved source. And next door, authorities spotted crates of turtles
and a large tub of bullfrogs being sold without proper invoices.
Inside Kam Lun Food Products in Queens, inspectors discovered questionable
turtles and frogs and a clue: "Label on animal boxes states China Air
Cargo," the inspector wrote in his report.
Dr. Philip Tierno, author of "The Secret Life of Germs: Observations and
Lessons from a Microbe Hunter," and director of clinical microbiology at
New York University Medical Center, was quoted as saying, "That‘s a no-no
because there is absolutely no monitoring of the standards in these places.
It‘s subject to the vagaries of whoever is processing the food. Who‘s
watching?"
Sung Soo Kim, president of Korean American Small Business Service Center of New
York, was cited as saying it‘s hard to change eating habits that are
centuries-old.
Kim runs a state-approved food safety education program and has delivered
seminars to the Korean community about food laws.
Dear
eDiets: Are soft cheeses dangerous?
01.dec.06
eDiets
Pamela Ofstein
http://www.ediets.com/news/article.cfm/cmi_1980579/cid_1
Dear eDiets,
I've been told it isn't safe to eat soft cheeses. Is this only if you're
pregnant?
Name Withheld
The Food and Drug Association (FDA) states that it's OK to eat the cheese if
it's made from pasteurized milk so hard cheeses are usually acceptable. It's
recommended to avoid unpasteurized, soft cheeses not only if you're pregnant but
also if you have an impaired immune system (especially elderly people).
Soft cheeses harbor a common bug called Listeria that can be deadly to unborn
babies and those who have a weakened immune system. The FDA states that Listeria
only lurks in unpasteurized products such as Brie, Camembert, blue cheeses, feta
and other soft cheeses. The pasteurization process destroys this bug.
The FDA also recommends avoiding pre-cooked meats like luncheon meats and hot
dogs since they often harbor Listeria and are high in sodium. Read the label if
you're unsure if a product is pasteurized or not. You can enjoy food products
"made with pasteurized milk" but stay away if it contains "raw
milk."
Restaurants
implement controls to stop 'hidden' epidemic of food poisoning
01.dec.06
The Enterprise (MA)
Elaine Allegrini
http://enterprise.southofboston.com/articles/2006/11/30/news/news/news02.txt
Abington Health Agent Michelle Roberts was quoted as saying she has a routine
for investigating complaints of food-borne illnesses: "Follow the trail of
the food from what comes in the back door to what goes out the front door."
By following the trail, she said she learns who delivered the food, who handled
the food, where it was stored and how it was served.
Dr. Bela Matyas, medical director of the state Department of Public Health's
epidemiology program, was cited as saying Wednesday that food storage and
handling regulations have greatly diminished chances for outbreaks food-borne
illnesses from one common source, adding, "Lots and lots of people get
diarrheal illnesses all the time, but only some of those diseases are caused by
food."
Other causes include drinking or recreational water, person-to-person spreading
or animals, often in a petting zoo, he added.
He said the data used by Scripps Howard from the national Centers for Disease
Control, which compared food-borne illnesses by state, is not based on
scientific reporting standards, and therefore does not paint a true picture of
the issue.
Louis Tartaglia, Brockton's executive health board director, was cited as saying
his department shuts down about six food service establishments each year for
violations that may include outdated food, clean-up, cross-contamination or
improper handling, but that food-borne illnesses can originate in private
kitchens, too, stating, "The biggest problem in the home is thawing
something on the counter. The longer the food is out, the longer it's breeding
bacteria." (show me the data -- dp)
Javier Perez, manager of the Abington Ale House, was cited as saying the state's
food certification program that requires tri-year retraining, sets out the right
storage, handling and cleaning procedures that in turn benefit diners.
Craig Sylvester, interim chief of Brockton Hospital's emergency department, was
cited as saying it is very unusual to see an outbreak of food poisoning, but
when they are confirmed, they are reported to the state, adding, "Most of
these outbreaks are some sort of fecal/oral contamination from an animal or
person and linked to food handling."
Roberts, the Abington health agent, was quoted as saying, "You can make
yourself sick — you go to the bathroom, don't wash your hands, then eat
chicken salad. A lot of it is common sense."
Kane
County sees Salmonella cases rise
01.dec.06
Courier-News (IL)
http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/couriernews/news/156626,3_1_EL01_A3SALMONELLA_S1.article
The Kane County Health Department is, according to this story, reporting an
increase in food-poisoning cases.
Health officials were cited as saying the county usually sees an average of four
cases of Salmonella poisoning a year, but it has recorded 21 cases so far in
2006.
The health department has issued advice on handling food safely:
Hands should be washed thoroughly before and after handling food.
All meats and eggs should be thoroughly cooked.
All food preparation surfaces should be cleaned. Avoid cross-contamination by
using different utensils, plates, cutting boards and counter tops before and
after cooking.
All fruits and vegetables should be washed thoroughly before preparing and
eating.
The health department is asking people displaying Salmonella symptoms --
headaches, muscle aches, diarrhea, vomiting, rumblings in the bowels, chills,
fever, nausea and dehydration -- to see their doctor.
Salmonella often is mistaken for the "stomach flu," health officials
said. Symptoms usually appear six to 72 hours after ingestion.
Sheetz
denied record access
01.dec.06
Altoona Mirror (PA)
Phil Ray
http://www.altoonamirror.com/News/articles.asp?articleID=7132
HOLLIDAYSBURG — A Blair County judge was cited as ruling that Sheetz Inc.
cannot access Pennsylvania Health Department documents relating to a salmonella
outbreak in its stores.
The story says that the denied request is the latest in the legal fallout after
the July 2004 outbreak.
Residents from Pennsylvania counties, including Blair, are suing Sheetz Inc. and
Coronet Foods of West Virginia, which supplied tainted Roma tomatoes to Sheetz.
Sheetz requested that President Judge Jolene G. Kopriva order the release of
documents that detail the state investigation into the source of the outbreak.
Sheetz attorney Christopher Lee of Pittsburgh says the documents are relevant to
Sheetz and other defendants.
The state refused to release any documents and instructed two of its doctors not
to cooperate with Sheetz.
The health department contends that its records are not public under the
Pennsylvania Right-to-Know Law and that the information is ‘‘confidential
and not subject to disclosure.’’
Attorney Grace R. Schyler, representing the department, also chastised Sheetz
for contacting regional health offices to obtain information about local
outbreaks of salmonella.
Breakfast
bone of contention
30.nov.06
North Island Gazette (BC)
PORT HARDY -- Jessie Roland was, according to this story, looking forward to a
beautiful day as she sat in her sunny kitchen eating her favourite cereal Friday
morning, until she spooned up what appears to be a beef bone.
The bone, which still has remnants of meat attached to it, is about an inch and
a half long.
Roland, a long-time Port Hardy resident, artist and business owner, was quoted
as saying, "It just turned my stomach. All the possibilities that are going
through my mind are grossing me out."
The offending cereal is Post Selects Cranberry Almond Crunch, purchased locally.
Roland called the number on the box and Post said they "would look into
it" and took her name, phone number and address.
"When I asked them how they would do that, he said he didn't know,"
says Roland.
The company did not offer her any compensation. "They seemed a bit
indifferent."
Roland also called the Better Business Bureau, who advised her to call Health
Canada and report the find in her cereal.
Woman
claims she found tooth in biscuit
01.dec.06
Goldsboro News-Argus (North Carolina)
Andrew Bell
http://www.newsargus.com/news/archives/2006/12/01/woman_claims_she_found_tooth_in_biscuit/index.shtml
A Wayne County woman has filed a lawsuit against McDonald's after allegedly
finding a piece of a human tooth in her food last year. She is seeking at least
$10,000 in damages over the incident.
Terryl Underwood, who is represented by Goldsboro lawyer Ron Lawrence, filed the
lawsuit in August in Wayne Superior Court against Wilson-based Dixon Foods Group
Inc., Irvine, Calif.-based Golden State Foods Group and McDonald's Corp.
The lawsuit stems from an alleged incident on Nov. 4, 2005, when Ms. Underwood
entered the McDonald's restaurant at 2002 Wayne Memorial Drive and ordered a
sausage biscuit. The restaurant is owned by Dixon Foods Group Inc. and receives
food and ingredients from Golden State Foods Group. Ms. Underwood said in her
lawsuit that after she began eating the biscuit, she bit down on a piece of a
human tooth.
After realizing the object was a tooth, Ms. Underwood spit out the tooth and
claimed she became nauseated and vomited, which required medical attention.
Since that time, she alleges that she has suffered physical pain and discomfort,
missed time from work to make repeated visits to the hospital and has suffered
mental anguish.
Hague
tribunal shuts after Legionnaire's trace found
01.dec.06
Agence France Presse
THE HAGUE - Proceedings at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former
Yugoslavia in The Hague were suspended on Friday after traces of Legionella,
which cause Legionnaire's disease, were found there.
The traces were discovered on the fifth floor of the ICTY building, which housed
a bank before being put to its current use in 1993.
"There is no danger. This is a precautionary measure," the ICTY's
press department said.
The air conditioning in the ICTY's main chamber was shut down, and staff was
allowed to go home, but the department said it expected the all-clear by Monday
morning.
Hershey
chocolate plant reopens next week
01.dec.06
CBC News
http://www.cbc.ca/Canada/toronto/story/2006/12/01/hershey.html
After a closure of almost a month, the Hershey chocolate factory in Smiths
Falls, Ont., is scheduled to reopen next week.
The plant, about 60 kilometres southwest of Ottawa, was shut down Nov. 9 after a
routine inspection detected salmonella, a type of bacteria that causes food
poisoning.
Company spokeswoman Stephanie Moritz said Hershey was contacting the plant's 500
employees Friday and many of them will be back on the job Monday. The rest will
be back later in the week, but their start day will depend on their shifts and
jobs. The chocolate shop attached to the plant will also reopen Monday.
Moritz said the plant will begin production next week using a new supplier of
soy lecithin, the ingredient the company found to be the source of the
contamination during its internal investigation. Soy lecithin is an emulsifying
agent used to help chocolate flow during the manufacturing process.
Garfield Balsom, who is with the office of food safety and recall at Canadian
Food Inspection Agency, said the agency completed its investigation of the
contamination and agrees that the soy lecithin was the cause.
Moritz said the company worked closely with the agency during the shutdown in
order to clean the plant.
U
of I scientist helping processors keep E. coli out of meat
01.dec.06
AgriNews Online
http://www.agrinews-pubs.com/display.asp?section=D5AB8F1927085300E41A4DA17C4AEB0F72A503B47DAC924D&Article=782AF00CE040B69EE81183EC6DA490C2C6CA03E4F04F7242
URBANA — A University of Illinois food scientist has discovered that certain
solutions used by meat processors to extend shelf life actually do double duty
as antimicrobial agents, killing such virulent foodborne pathogens as E. coli
0157:H7.
That’s important because E. coli can be spread via recycled solutions used to
tenderize and enhance flavor in steaks, chops, and other cuts of meat, said U of
I food science professor Susan Brewer.
The problem motivated Brewer and her graduate students to study the process used
to inject meat with enhancement solutions before they’re offered to consumers.
And the results, published in the Journal of Food Science and Meat Science, have
interested industry representatives.
“We wanted to find a point in the process at which we could exert some kind of
control to keep foodborne pathogens from becoming a problem,” said Brewer.
Brewer said that needle injection has been widely used for decades to tenderize
meats, and more recently the fresh-meat industry has adopted the use of
enhancement solutions, a practice that poultry and ham processors have used for
years with very few problems.
“A certain amount of fat makes meat juicy and tasty, but in recent years
consumers have been demanding leaner and leaner cuts of meat. Processors are now
using the needles that tenderize steaks and chops to inject solutions that make
the meat taste better and last longer,” she said.
Picture a continuous end-line process in which needles inject cuts of meat with
flavor boosters and shelf-life extenders. A basin catches fluid that goes
through the meat or runs off the surface, and the solution is recycled into the
system.
“With needle injection, organisms that exist on the outside of a piece of meat
can get poked down into the meat where they’re less likely to be killed if
consumers like their meat on the rare side,” said Brewer.
Also, as the needles inject one piece of meat after another, they can spread
contamination from one piece of meat to another, and recycled enhancement
solution can further complicate the spread of pathogens.
At this point, Brewer and her graduate students inserted themselves into the
process to learn how contamination was likely to occur and how it could be
controlled.
The scientists did two studies; in the first, they contaminated the surface of
meat with E. coli K12, an indicator organism for its more dangerous relative, to
observe the pathogen’s progress as meat went through the system.
“We inoculated meat at various microbial loads, with some seriously nasty
surface contamination on some pieces of meat,” she said.
In the second study, they added E. coli K12 into the enhancement solution
itself, experimenting with different components and combinations.
The scientists found that some solutions used to extend the shelf-life of meat
also were effective at killing bacteria. “In certain solutions containing
sodium lactate or sodium diacetate, bacteria cells couldn’t grow and were
substantially reduced. These shelf-life enhancers definitely work, and it really
doesn’t make any difference whether the steak itself or the solution is
contaminated,” Brewer said.
Brewer says the threat level for such meat cuts as chops, steaks and roasts is
not high, although ground meat not cooked to high temperatures can be dangerous.
“You’re always safe cooking red meat to 160 degrees, but if you have
questions about food safety, check the USDA’s Meat and Poultry Hotline at
www.usda.gov,” she said.
“The meat industry has been very proactive in attempting to prevent
contamination of their products. They have an awful lot to lose if such an
outbreak occurs,” she said.
“But consumers should realize that the cook is the last point of control for
eliminating these toxic organisms,” she added.
“If meat is cooked until it’s well done, you won’t have a problem. These
organisms are living cells, and they’re fairly easily destroyed by heat, even
E. coli 0157:H7,” she said.
Co-authors of the published papers were Brewer and graduate students C. L.
Nicholalde, D. D. Paulson, M. C. Rojas, A. J. Stetzer, E. M. Tucker, R. A.
Wicklund, and S. E. Wicklund.
Food
Defense: International collaboration in a critical area of biodefense
30.nov.06
US Department of State
Marc L. Ostfield, Senior Advisor for Bioterrorism, Biodefense, and Health
Security
http://www.state.gov/g/oes/rls/rm/2006/77206.htm
Remarks to the European Institute: Transatlantic Dimensions of Biodefense
Cooperation and Collaboration Event
Washington, DC
Introduction
Good morning. I'd like to thank the European Institute for the opportunity to
speak today about food defense and the importance of international cooperation
and collaboration to protect the food supply from intentional contamination.
Our food supply and distribution system is global in nature and poses a
relatively soft target offering many points at which it could be deliberately
contaminated. We often don't realize the extent to which this is true since food
appears at the table without much thought about how it got there. It is only
when there is the rare case of contamination and consequential recall that we
realize how far and wide food items are distributed or the extent to which they
are processed. As a result, it is not necessarily obvious to the consumer that
the food supply and distribution system are vulnerable to deliberate
contamination. Furthermore, characteristics of certain foods may make them more
attractive targets because contamination of those foods increases the potential
number of people impacted. Fortunately, while the food supply and distribution
system are soft targets, there are many steps nations can and have taken
individually and collectively to harden these targets and better enhance
national and international food defense.
Distinguishing between Food Defense, Food Safety, and Food Security
Before I go further with my remarks, it's important at this juncture to clarify
the terminology I will use. It has been our experience that there are some
seemingly similar terms used to refer to protecting the food supply against
intentional contamination. But, each of the terms means something fairly
different, and the use and misuse of the various terms can cause confusion.
The term Food Defense encompasses the steps taken to minimize or mitigate the
threat of deliberate contamination of the food supply, and includes identifying
points of vulnerability and working to strengthen infrastructure, thereby,
making the food supply a less attractive and, more importantly, less vulnerable
target. Controls in support of Food Defense include physical security, for
example, monitoring the premises for suspicious activity, or locking chemical
storage facilities; personnel security, for example, screening employees, use of
name badges; and operational security, for example, monitoring production to
prevent sabotage, use of tamper-evident packaging.
This is distinct from Food Safety, which focuses on setting standards for
industry regarding the safety of food, good manufacturing practices, quality
control of agricultural products, and promotion of trade in food products.
Control strategies to enhance food safety can also be distinct from those
involved in food defense and include: risk management strategies such as Good
Agricultural Practices (GAP); Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP); good hygiene
practices (GHP)/ Sanitation Standard Operating Procedures (SSOP); and Hazard
Analysis Critical Control Points (HACCP) to prevent or reduce microbial,
chemical, or physical contamination.
Finally, Food Defense is also distinct from Food Security which is defined by
the World Health Organization and others as “when all people at all times have
access to sufficient, safe, nutritious food to maintain a healthy and active
life.” In other words, Food Security is a concept that is often discussed in
terms of dealing with famine or other national or international food shortages.
Many have used these terms interchangeably and, I would argue, erroneously,
creating confusion during both national and international policy discussions.
Our focus today is on Food Defense and on the ways in which it intersects with
international collaboration.
Food Defense – What is the Issue?
There is a genuine terrorist threat to the global food supply, both at the
production and processing stages. In May 2002, the World Health Assembly
recognized this threat when it stated that “the malicious contamination of
food for terrorist purposes is a real and current threat, and deliberate
contamination of food at one location could have global public health
implications.” Evidence suggests that terrorist groups have considered the
food supply as a target. Before the September 11 terrorist attacks in the United
States, many modern bioterrorism attacks were perpetrated using food products
with the express purpose of extortion, corporate sabotage, terrorism, political
influence, destruction of brand or company image, and/or destruction of an
economic sector. Materials discovered since September 11, 2001 at Al Qaeda
training camps in Afghanistan show knowledge of specific agents that could be
used to contaminate the food supply (their sources, maintenance, growth and
toxicity) and the potential of the food supply for the distribution of those
agents.
The food supply is a relatively soft target offering many points at which it
could be deliberately contaminated. In today's marketplace, food is mass
produced and rapidly distributed throughout the world; if contaminated, it could
cause morbidity and/or mortality on a global scale. Characteristics of certain
foods make them more attractive targets because contamination of those foods
increases the potential number of people impacted. Vulnerable food products
include those that are mixed during production allowing uniform distribution of
an agent throughout the product; those with a short shelf-life, increasing the
chance that the food will be consumed prior to detection of contamination; those
that are easily accessible to a terrorist (e.g., open access to food production
facilities, or unlocked trucks, etc.); and those that are made in large batches
allowing great volumes to be contaminated at one time. Furthermore, a number of
agents could be used to contaminate food, ranging from microbial agents
typically seen in unintentional outbreaks of foodborne illness, pathogenic
organisms not normally associated with food consumption, to organisms that have
been genetically modified to be more lethal, to highly toxic chemical agents.
A motivated terrorist organization can work to acquire/recruit individuals with
the scientific training, technical know-how, fiscal support, and high level
planning to produce or procure a wide array of specified agents and the
terrorist organization may add contaminants directly to the food or to an
ingredient.
It's clear from the historical evidence that the food supply does present an
appealing target to those who would wish to cause harm to human health, economic
well being, or sociopolitical stability. The deliberate contamination of the
food supply is neither a new nor novel threat. Throughout history, we have seen
episodes of intentional contamination sicken many individuals; and we've seen
these episodes not necessarily with the intent to kill, but rather, to cause
economic loss. For instance, in 1978, deliberate contamination of Israeli citrus
with the heavy metal mercury resulted in a dozen or so children being
hospitalized in the Netherlands and West Germany. Terrorists stated they were
targeting the Israeli economy.
Other U.S. and international examples in recent history include:
In 1984, the Rajneeshee religious group contaminated salad bars in the U.S.
state of Oregon in hopes of affecting the outcome of a local election. This
incident caused 751 cases of salmonellosis and resulted in the hospitalization
of 45 of the victims.
That same year, Japan also dealt with deliberate contamination when someone
contaminated candy in an attempt to extort money from the manufacturer.
More recently, China had to address this issue when, in 2002, 40 people died and
200 individuals were hospitalized in Nanjing after the owner of a fast-food
outlet poisoned a competitor's breakfast foods with rat poison.
One year earlier, 120 people in China were sickened when the owners of a noodle
factory reportedly laced their food with rat poison.
In Canada in 1970, a postgraduate student tainted his roommates' food with the
parasite Ascaris suum. Four of the victims became seriously ill; two of these
suffered acute respiratory failure.
Other incidents in the United States include an incident in 1996 in which a
disgruntled laboratory worker deliberately contaminated food to be consumed by
co-workers with Shigella dysenteria type 2, causing illness in 12 people. Four
of the victims had to be hospitalized and five others were treated in hospital
emergency rooms.
Furthermore, in May 2003, a supermarket employee pleaded guilty to intentionally
contaminating 200 pounds of ground beef with an insecticide containing nicotine.
Although the tainted meat was sold in only one store, 111 people, including
approximately 40 children, were sickened.
These are only some examples of deliberate attacks; it is believed that other
attacks with more limited impact may go undetected.
A deliberate attack on food could and would be devastating, especially if a
dangerous agent were used. If one looks at incidences of accidental
contamination, it is not hard to extrapolate the extent of damage from a
deliberate attack. Given the global movement of food, contaminated food can be
distributed throughout numerous countries as seen in 1996 and 1997 when
thousands of people in 21 states within the U.S. and two Canadian provinces
became infected with the parasite Cyclospora after eating Guatemalan raspberries
unintentionally contaminated with the pathogen. A deliberate attack on food
using highly toxic or pathogenic agents, such as the deliberate contamination of
Israeli citrus, could be even more devastating, with illnesses becoming deaths.
By now, we are all familiar with the recent E. coli O157:H7 outbreaks from
contaminated spinach, leading to a national recall in the U.S. At last count, 26
states were affected, 204 people were sickened, and 3 people died. And the
impact of this incident was international in scope. Like the U.S., Canada, for
example, ended up advising consumers not to eat U.S. spinach. By some estimates,
this outbreak may cost up to $74 million. Even a rumor or hoax can have a
significant impact, as we saw in 2001 when rumors surfaced about Foot and Mouth
Disease in Kansas. That rumor resulted in an estimated $50 million loss.
Thus, in addition to the public health impacts of intentional food
contamination, the economic consequences could also be staggering. An attack on
the food supply would only have to sicken or kill a few individuals to have far
reaching and substantial economic consequences, including direct costs for
response to an attack, disruption of food distribution, trade restrictions,
long-term loss of consumer confidence, and ultimately, loss of market-share to a
competing company or nation. Any of these consequences might carry a heavy
economic and political toll. For example, in 1998, an unintentional
contamination in the U.S. of 16,000 metric tons of frankfurters and luncheon
meats potentially contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes cost the producer
$50-70 million. The company spent at least another $100 million in the following
two years to improve food production and convince consumers that its products
were safe. The deliberate contamination in the United States in 1982 of the pain
reliever Tylenol with cyanide resulted in seven deaths. This incident resulted
in a significant and permanent loss of the company's market share. While not a
food product, this illustrates the potential consequences of a deliberate
attack. A widespread or pervasive attack would likely have even farther reaching
consequences. And a perceived threat or hoax can cause the same kind of economic
and political damage without a contaminated food product ever reaching a store
shelf.
Though the direct and indirect costs associated with the food sabotage are
difficult to fully track or anticipate, reports from unintentional contamination
incidents are important indicators of the possible economic consequences if a
large-scale deliberate event were to occur. The U.S. Department of Agriculture,
for example, estimates that food-borne illnesses linked to just five pathogens
cost the U.S. economy $6.9 billion annually. The psychological effects on
consumer behavior as a result of fear and anxiety over the possibility of a
contaminated food product (loss in consumer confidence) can also have a ripple
effect on other aspects of the economy. Given that agriculture and food supply
and distribution systems are a positive contributor collectively to the U.S.
economy, a significant attack on the food supply could have strong negative
impact on the economy. This problem is not exclusive to the U.S. Given Europe's
experience with natural outbreaks of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy ( BSE or
“Mad Cow Disease”) and incidences such as the Belgium dioxin contamination
episode in 1999, European officials are acutely aware of the potential impact of
a deliberate contamination in terms of human life, shorter term economic cost,
permanent market loss, and potential political fall-out would be significant.
While the human death toll from CJD in the UK was relatively low (158), the
linkage between BSE and human health led to international bans of British beef
imports, depressed markets for British beef, crippled the UK's cattle industry,
and destroyed consumer confidence in the UK's ability to handle a health and
agriculture threat. These outcomes ultimately resulted in the creation of a new
food regulation authority in the UK . In fact, several years ago during a
meeting with counterterrorism officials from a European partner, when we began
talking about agroterrorism and food defense issues, they said they were
comfortable with the conversation provided that we did not utter the phrases
“Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD)” and “Bioterrorism” in the same sentence,
such was the concern about the consequences of even hinting at the possibility
of using the disease as a deliberate bioterrorism attack.
U.S. National and International Food Defense Efforts
To begin making the food supply system less attractive to a potential terrorist,
the U.S. has begun taking many proactive steps.
Within the U.S., we are taking a multi-pronged approach.
At the national policy level, Homeland Security Presidential Directive/HSPD 9
established a national policy to defend the agriculture and food system against
terrorist attacks, major disasters, and other emergencies. This Presidential
Directive gives key federal agencies responsibility for identifying and
prioritizing sector-critical infrastructure and key resources for establishing
protection requirements; developing awareness and early warning capabilities to
recognize threats; mitigating vulnerabilities at critical production and
processing nodes; enhancing screening procedures for domestic and imported
products; and enhancing response and recovery procedures
The Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of
2002 (usually referred to as The Bioterrorism Act) established national
provisions to inspect food offered for import at ports of entry into the U.S,
with the greatest priority given to inspections to detect the intentional
contamination of food. Regulations to enhance Food Defense under the
Bioterrorism Act provide for the registration of food facilities, prior
notification of imported food shipments, establishment and maintenance of
records, and administrative detention of any food for up to 30 days when there
is credible evidence that the food poses a serious threat to humans or animals
Vulnerability assessments, the U.S. Departments of Agriculture, Homeland
Security, the Department of Health and Human Services' Food and Drug
Administration, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation are working closely
together with the private sector to identify the most critical nodes or
vulnerabilities along the food supply and production system, using the
vulnerability assessment tool, CARVER + Shock. EPA has also used this tool to
analyze the drinking water infrastructure in the US. CARVER is an acronym which
stands for Criticality, Accessibility, Recuperability, Vulnerability, Effect,
and Recognizability -- all attributes used to evaluate the effectiveness of a
target for terrorist attack. In addition to CARVER, the tool evaluates a seventh
attribute, the combined health, economic, and psychological impacts, or the
“Shock” attributes of an attack.
Surveillance, the U.S. has established individual diagnostic laboratory networks
which monitor human, animal, and plant health, as well as the food and water
supplies. These individual networks are now working together under the
Integrated Consortium of Laboratory Networks, or ICLN and play a significant
role in monitoring the food supply as it moves from “farm to fork.” This
increasing ability to quickly identify outbreaks of foodborne illness helps
ensure that outbreaks or unusual patterns of illness are investigated quickly.
As part of this surveillance, the U.S. is increasing national participation in
the first Internet-based food safety system: eLEXNET (Electronic Laboratory
Exchange Network). This shared electronic data system consolidates and shares
microbial food contamination findings among federal, state and local
laboratories. Helping ensure increased speed, awareness, and coordination to
prevent or respond to deliberate threats to the food supply.
Working with private industry to reduce threats and contain outbreaks of
foodborne illness. In this process, U.S. agencies have issued new industry
guidance on security measures, and have encouraged specific additional industry
security measures in response to the increased threat level. These guidances
help food producers, warehouses, importers, stores, restaurants, and other food
establishments minimize the risk that their food will be subject to intentional
contamination or tampering.
Intelligence gathering/Information sharing – The Strategic Partnership Program
Agroterrorism (SPPA) initiative is a close collaboration between the partners I
just highlighted. One of its goals is to gather information to enhance existing
tools that both USG and industry employ as well as provide stakeholders with
comprehensive reports including warnings and indicators, key vulnerabilities,
and potential mitigation strategies.
In addition to this work within the U.S. , we have also begun raising the issue
of Food Defense internationally. In my international travels, I often hear
skepticism about U.S. perceptions of the threat of bioterrorism or of the needed
actions. The degree to which bioterrorism is seen to be a significant security
threat affects our individual and collective willingness to invest resources in
biodefense. And the nature of each other's threat assessment will help structure
the kinds of programs put in place to defend against bioterrorism.
But, we have found that Food Defense is often the exception to this
international skepticism. When raising food defense and agroterrorism issues,
officials overseas seem to “get it” and often indicate that they share the
same concerns, probably because of the potential widespread consequences to an
economy and the supporting infrastructure.
For example, in 2004, the U.S. introduced bioterrorism onto the agenda for the
G8 leaders, leading to the G8 leaders' statement that year covering the issue of
“Defending Against Bioterrorism.” One component of that work articulated by
G8 leaders was to increase protection of the global food supply. In 2005, G8
nations built on this policy foundation and put together some of the first-ever
international technical and policy events looking at initial steps in food
defense.
Taking this work even further, a t U.S. initiative, the Asia Pacific Economic
Cooperation (APEC) forum has enthusiastically embraced the Food Defense issue.
This year, for the first time ever, all 21 APEC economies signed onto a
U.S.-Australia-Chile co-sponsored Food Defense Initiative to “Mitigate the
Terrorist Threat to the APEC Food Supply.” Earlier this month, technical and
policy officials from 17 APEC economies, as well as the private sector, met in
Bangkok to review food defense vulnerability assessment methodologies. And less
than two weeks ago, the APEC leaders statement welcomed new U.S.-led APEC
initiatives to protect our food supply systems from deliberate contamination. We
view the APEC Food Defense Initiative as extremely promising work, but it is
only a first step. We are planning for APEC economies to further share
strategies and work next year to develop Food Defense best practices or
recommendations for the region.
Challenges to International Food Defense-Related Discussions
We face several key challenges when discussing food defense internationally:
looking at increased awareness, and at international collaboration in response
to an event (real or a hoax).
Overall, I have found international colleagues, for the most part, to be
receptive and enthusiastic to collaborate on food defense. At the same time,
even among close allies, I have been surprised by some of the questions and
concerns that international colleagues have raised. For example, proposing food
defense collaboration can lead to the question “What do you know that I
don't?” The U.S. must often explain that, even in the absence of a specific
threat to a particular food or area, we believe that putting the time, energy,
and resources into food defense represents a prudent contribution to all of our
efforts to combat bioterrorism as well as protect against unintentional food
contamination, simultaneously helping strengthen overall protections for the
global food supply system.
Additionally, sometimes international partners voice concerns (or, more often,
hint at concerns) that collaborative work on Food Defense will affect
cross-border trade somehow inadvertently creating unexpected trade restrictions
or barriers. In these international discussions, it is important to recognize
the ways that implementing new or enhanced food defense measures might affect
various components of the food industry, especially small and medium
enterprises. At the APEC Food Defense workshop in Bangkok earlier this month,
for example, some participants representing both the public and private sectors
were concerned about ways that possible enhanced regulation and oversight could
affect the global trade in food and agriculture. It is clear, though, that some
multinational companies as well as the largest exporters are already paying
attention to the political landscape in countries to which they are exporting
and understanding that Food Defense is a legitimate concern for governments. For
example, some representatives from Australia have indicated that they have
modified some Australian practices in responses to the U.S. ' 2002 Bioterrorism
Act and its food import screening measures. Small and medium enterprises must
begin to address these same concerns to remain competitive in the global
marketplace.
In the event of a terrorist attack (or even a hoax), the international
challenges could be different. As we all know, internal coordination for any
government may often be particularly difficult in the midst of a crisis,
especially if multiple ministries or sectors are involved as would be the case
in the event of an attack on the food supply. Now imagine having to coordinate
not one, but multiple countries in response or mitigation. Bans on food imports,
and the potentially permanent loss of markets, could be immediate impacts of
such a situation. Furthermore, not being able to effectively coordinate a food
defense response among multiple nations has the potential to create, in the
short term, tension among trade partners, and over the longer term, lasting
diplomatic tensions.
Prevention of and response to an international food contamination event in
Europe poses challenges different from those in any other region of the world,
due to the role of the European Union in cross-border coordination. The EU's
role has been rigorously tested by real-life events such as BSE and others as
mentioned previously. On some issues, the added layer of coordination and
regulation by the EU can save lives and protect economic interests. Perhaps
there are lessons for the rest of the world to learn from the EU's ability to
coordinate food defense work across borders. It is also possible that there are
ways that the EU can leverage its ability to coordinate across nations to be
even more effective on food defense issues.
One final challenge to stimulating and continuing this international dialogue is
that of competing priorities. Food Defense, prudent as it may be, is simply not
high on the agenda for some nations. For some countries, food safety issues are
perceived as a more significant concern enough that it makes it difficult to get
some countries to look beyond food safety concerns to protecting the food supply
from deliberate contamination. Identifying the synergies, then, between food
defense and food safety are critical to helping nations identify ways in which
the needs may not be competing but may instead be interdependent -- helping
strengthen mechanisms for both national protection and international
cooperation.
Key Recommendations
There are a number of ways that nations and the international community can work
together to address the challenges of food defense and international
cooperation:
Strengthen public-private partnerships to address food defense. Much of the
expertise and relevant infrastructure for food defense is in the private sector.
Thus, their buy-in, leadership, and partnership are key to hardening the soft
targets. In the context of the recent APEC Food Defense workshop in Bangkok ,
for example, the participation of the private sector was vital to the meeting's
success -- illuminating some of the ways in which governments and private
industry are interdependent, and that it is in their mutual interest to develop
cooperative strategies to protect the food supply.
Multi-sectoral engagement is essential. Many government agencies, many different
disciplines, many parts of society all play critical roles in defending against
the terrorist threat to the food supply. Food defense efforts in the U.S.
include coordination and collaboration among Agriculture, Health, Homeland
Security, Intelligence, Environment, and Law Enforcement -- and also include
substantial involvement by the private sector. In addition to working with
national entities within the U.S. , systems must also ensure that local
authorities such as law enforcement or public health are equally involved.
“Translate” this multi-sectoral engagement into cross-border cooperation. In
the event of an attack on the food supply requiring an international response,
it will be imperative that all sides -- and all nations involved -- are equally
coordinating their efforts. In order to improve multi-sectoral interoperability,
we need to be working now to develop, promote, and conduct regular
transnational, multi-sectoral training courses and exercises on preventing,
preparing for, containing, and responding to attacks on the food supply. Due to
the existence of the EU, in some respects Europe is ahead of the world on this
issue.
Communication is key. There are two parts to this recommendation. The first is
the need for creating and enhancing effective risk communication to the general
public (consumers), both domestically and internationally. Without such
communication, governments and private industry will have great difficulty
mitigating the impact of a deliberate attack on the food supply. People need to
make sense of random and terrifying events, but attacks on food may elude quick
and easy explanation – presenting an unprecedented challenge for policymakers
both nationally and internationally. Frank, open, and transparent dialogue
between nations will also be critical addressing any potential impact on trade,
as well as handling the crisis as it unfolds.
Information sharing particularly when a nation suspects a potential threat to
the food supply and distribution system. Thus, we need to be working now to
strengthen national and international abilities to identify and quickly detect
unusual disturbances in the farm to fork continuum which could indicate a
bioterrorist attack and the ability to rapidly share that information with
appropriate national and international policymakers.
Fortunately, if I may use an agricultural metaphor, we are starting to see
international food defense cooperation efforts bear fruit. Thanks to food
defense initiatives like those within the G8 and APEC, nations are talking to
each other in a productive manner about protecting the food supply from
deliberate contamination -- and are working to identify ways to collaborate. As
governments, we are also starting to see the private sector -- at least the very
largest multi-national firms -- begin to incorporate food defense practices
around the globe.
Finally, I'd like to leave you with three sets of questions for your
consideration in this morning's discussion.
First, what are ways to help motivate and develop international collaboration on
food defense issues? Where are the natural synergies between nations? What are
the obstacles to enhanced global cooperation, and what should we collectively be
doing to address those obstacles? Can the EU serve as a leader and a model in
these efforts?
Second, what are the best ways to involve the private sector in the ongoing
discussion? Are there effective strategies to “incentivize” voluntary
adoption of food defense practices? What are some of the lessons we may learn
from similar endeavors in the past, from other security practices, or from
collaboration with other industries?
And, finally, what are the implications of food defense strategies for
international trade? There are clear linkages -- and potential impacts. How do
we best ensure that enhanced food defense does not interfere with continued and
growing global commerce? What are the ways to make these efforts complementary
and not conflicting?
Thank you again for this opportunity to talk about our vision for international
cooperation on food defense -- and I look forward to this morning's discussion.
FSnet is produced by the Food Safety Network at
Kansas State University and the University of Guelph, and is supported at the
Gold Fork level by: Marler Clark, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Public
Health Agency of Canada (Microbial Food Safety Risk Assessment Unit), the
Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food and AGCare
FSnet is supported at the Sterling Fork level by: Dairy Farmers of Canada,
Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, Food Safety Division, Chicken
Farmers of Ontario and the Ontario Cattlemen's Association
Fsnet is supported at the Silver-plate Fork level by: National Pork Board, Food
Safety & Security at Kansas State University, Canadian Animal Health
Institute, New Zealand Food Safety Authority, JIFSAN, Pfizer Animal Health,
Keystone Foods LLC, National Restaurant Association, USDA/Food Information
Center, National Cattlemen's Beef Association, Department of Primary Industries
Victoria (Australia), American Air Liquide, Traincan, Inc. and the Council for
Biotechnology Information
FSnet is supported at the Stainless Fork level by: Kerry (Canada) Inc., Ag-West
Bio Inc, Dunkin' Brands, Inc., Australian Food Safety Centre of Excellence,
Ontario Agri-Food Technologies, Canadian Institute of Public Health Inspectors
Ontario Branch Inc., Ontario Food Protection Association, Food Products
Association, University of Oklahoma College of Law, Certified Laboratories,
Inc., Centrus International, Inc., Sensient Flavors, Inc., National Turkey
Federation, Culex Management, Inc., International Association for Food
Protection, Canadian Livestock Genetics Association, Casco, Inc., BlueWater
Seafoods, International Commission on Microbiological Specifications of Foods,
International Food Focus, Ltd., Chemical Metrology Group of the National
Research Council, Parmalat Australia Pty Ltd., New Science Management, Inc.,
City of Vernon, CA, Global Public Affairs, Farmington Valley Health District,
County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health and the Food Safety
Policy Center at Michigan State University.
The Food Safety Network's Canadian toll-free line for obtaining food safety
information: 1-866-50-FSNET (1-866-503-7638)
The Food Safety Network presents a unique opportunity to bring together all
those associated with agriculture and food, to enhance the safety of the food
supply. To provide financial support to the Food Safety Network, please visit
http://www.foodsafety.ksu.edu/donation.html. For information on collaboration
or fee-for-service opportunities, please contact Dr. Doug Powell:
dpowell@ksu.edu
To subscribe to the html version of FSnet, send mail to:
(subscription is free)
listserv@listserv.ksu.edu
leave subject line blank
in the body of the message type:
subscribe fsnet-L firstname lastname
i.e. subscribe fsnet-L Doug Powell
(replace fsnet-L with fsnettext to subscribe to the text version)
To unsubscribe to the html version of FSnet, send mail to:
listserv@listserv.ksu.edu
leave subject line blank
in the body of the message type: signoff fsnet-L
(replace fsnet-L with fsnettext to unsubscribe from the text version)
For more information about the FSnet research program, please contact:
Dr. Douglas Powell
associate professor
dept. diagnostic medicine/pathobiology
Kansas State University
Manhattan, KS
66506
cell: 785-317-0560
fax: 785-532-4039
dpowell@ksu.edu
http://www.foodsafety.ksu.edu
http://www.foodsafety.ksu.edu
archived at http://archives.foodsafety.ksu.edu/fsnet-archives.htm