FSnet Oct. 6/07
BARFBLOG:
Thawing, and cooking, turkey

MARLER BLOG:
The US beef supply is safe?

NEW JERSEY:
After extensive beef recall, Topps goes out of business

MINNESOTA:
Sam's Club beef recalled after illnesses

Meat recall
definite pointer to growing E. coli menace in the USA

PENNSYLVANIA:
Worker may be origin of BETHLEHEM eatery sickness

MAINE seafood
company indicted

Scientists:
Appendix protects good germs

ATLANTA:
Recycling potty water a step closer

GERMANY:
Early swimming increases diarrhea risk for babies

Undeclared
milk in Charlemagne Chocolatiers Bio Organic Chocolates

how to
subscribe
BARFBLOG:
Thawing, and cooking, turkey
06.oct.07
barfblog
Doug Powell
http://barfblog.foodsafety.ksu.edu/2007/10/articles/food-safety-communication/thawing-and-cooking-turkey/index.html
A previous post
http://barfblog.foodsafety.ksu.edu/2007/10/articles/food-safety-communication/how-to-thaw-poultry-ignore-government/
generated several responses, but this is to big to post as a
response.
So it's a blog post on its own.
I have been asking Health Canada politely for a decade how
they determine consumer recommendations for preparing
poultry. What is the best way to thaw poultry? How do they
determine the safe end-point internal temperature? What
references do they use? (This discussion, like the original
Health Canada press release, is specific to consumer
practices in the home, not in food service).
I've never received an answer.
So when Health Canada issues press releases saying consumers
should do this and not do this, I wonder, what is that based
on?
In the U.S. in 2006, the recommended end-point cooking
temperature for all poultry was lowered to 165F from the
previous 180F. This was based on recommendations by the
National Advisory Committee on Microbiological Criteria for
Foods. Where the 180F recommendation came from , no one
really knows. Diane Van, manager of the U.S. Dept. of
Agriculture Meat and Poultry Hotline, was quoted as saying
in a Nov. 2006 L.A. Times story about the old 180F advice,
"I've looked all over and I really have no idea. I think it
happened sometime back in the 1980s, but I don't know what
it was based on."
http://www.latimes.com/features/food/la-fo-calcookside15nov15,1,5713420.story?coll=la-headlines-food
At least that's honest.
In Canada, the Health Canada recommendation for whole
poultry is 185F. How was that temperature decided? Are there
peer-reviewed journal articles that were used to develop
that recommendation? Do bacteria behave differently north of
the 49th parallel?
Health Canada says in its Canadian Thanksgiving press
release that consumers should,
Use a food thermometer, and cook turkey until the
temperature of the thickest part of the breast or thigh is
at least 85ºC (185ºF).
http://www.marketwire.com/mw/release.do?id=777675
A Health Canada press release dated June 21, 2007 says,
Traditional visual cues like colour are not a guarantee that
food is safe. Don't guess! (Use) a digital instant-read food
thermometer to check when meat and poultry are safe to eat.
http://www.marketwire.com/mw/release.do?id=744820
Yet a search of the Health Canada website today brought up a
suggested dinner recipe that says,
Hot and spicy! Cook boneless chicken strips in a skillet
until juices run clear and meat is browned.
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/food-guide-aliment/using-utiliser/suggestions/index_e.html
Given such inconsistencies, and the utter lack of
accountability, why would consumers be expected to blindly
follow what some governmental agency proclaims?
Twenty dollars is too much to view the paper. It's below. I
can e-mail it as an attachment if you contact me directly.
I'll respond to the questions about staph in another post.
And in the Sunflower Bowl this afternoon, Kansas State
(ranked 24, but not for long) lost to University of Kansas
30-24.
Lacroix BJ, Li KW, Powell DA. 2003. Consumer food handling
recommendations: is thawing of turkey a food safety issue?
Canadian Journal of Dietetic Practice and Research, 64(2):
59-61.
Comparison of findings for thawing turkey and consumer food
handling recommendations: is thawing of turkey a food safety
issue?
Lacroix, B. J., Li, K.W.M. and Powell, D.A.
Abstract
While it is important that dietitians and other health or
food professionals provide consistent messages to the public
about food safety, it is equally important that the
information be evidence-based. Conflicting recommendations
are evident when both consumer publications from food safety
advisory groups and the scientific literature are reviewed.
In addition, there are caveats attached to the various
methods. The presence of pathogens, spoilage microorganisms
and contamination of the work area are the major concerns in
thawing turkey. While several methods including thawing on
the counter at ambient temperatures can be employed for
thawing turkey, however, it is adequate cooking, validated
with a meat thermometer, that is the more critical step.
Based on these findings, it is difficult for food and health
professionals to provide clients or consumers with clear,
consistent, evidence-based messages. Further research is
required to corroborate best practices in a kitchen setting.
This paper is of interest to professionals who counsel
clients at high-risk for foodborne illness or consumers
about safe preparation of foods such as turkey
Comparison of findings for thawing turkey to consumer food
handling recommendations: Is thawing of turkey a safety
issue?
Introduction
Inadequate thawing of turkeys, coupled with undercooking was
found to be an important factor in many salmonellosis
outbreaks (1). Health Canada reports 10,000 - 30,000 actual
cases annually of foodborne illness with an estimated number
of two million (2, 3). Confounding these estimates is
underreporting - acknowledged to be as many 100 unreported
cases for each one reported (4). Because Canadians
purportedly eat turkey more than once a month (5), there is
the potential for mishandling. Canadians also vary in what
is deemed safe: in a 1998 study (6), most (87%) thought that
thawing turkey in the refrigerator was safe while 5% thought
it unsafe and another 57% considered thawing at room
temperature to be an unsafe practice while 29% considered it
safe.
Pathogens, spoilage microorganisms and contamination of the
food preparation area are the major food safety concerns.
There are six methods of thawing, each with it’s own caveat.
(Due to space restrictions, not all methods are discussed).
The purpose of this report is to document inconsistencies in
home thawing recommendations for turkey and refute the
importance placed on these recommendations.
Food Safety Issues
Pathogenic microorganisms associated with turkey include
salmonella, campylobacter, staphylococcus and Listeria (7);
however, thorough cooking eliminates most pathogens (1).
While not expected to grow in raw turkey (1, 8, 9),
staphylococcus when present is generally the consequence of
handling by an infected person and illness results because
heating will not destroy toxins produced (9). Clostridium
perfringens may be of concern because spores, if present in
the dressing can survive roasting temperatures and their
outgrowth in mishandled stuffing and meat cause foodborne
illness (10).
In 1968, the United States Department of Agriculture (11)
concluded that ambient air temperature thawing was
satisfactory as long as precautions were taken (which were
not stated). Beneficial effects of insulating overwraps were
also noted. Lee (1) recommended that smaller turkeys, 4.7 kg
(10 lb), be thawed at room temperature 23-27ºC (73-80ºF) on
the counter no more than 12 hours and a maximum of 18 hours
for 11.9 kg (26 lb) turkeys. Even better results were
achieved when turkeys were wrapped in 8 sheets of newspaper
for 18-20 hours on the counter. The Argentinean experience
concluded that thawing chickens at ambient temperatures of
22ºC (72ºF) for 14 hours or less (to an internal temperature
of 4.4ºC/40ºF, 3.5 cm/11/3 in. within the breast) was a safe
procedure (12).
A longer time is required to thaw turkeys in the
refrigerator where the temperatures may vary (12).
Consequently, growth of pseudomonas spoilage bacteria (12)
causing changes in odour, texture, colour and sliminess may
result (9). The possibility of such changes is greater if
other directions suggesting 26-33 hours/kg (12-15 hours/lb)
for meat/poultry were followed (13).
A further concern is bringing pathogenic microorganisms into
the kitchen that could lead to contamination of surfaces (1)
and further cross contamination.
Recommendations
Lee (1) stated that thorough cooking of an unstuffed turkey
to 82ºC/180ºF should result in little risk if thawing was
complete as any pathogenic vegetative cells present would be
destroyed, as well as make it esthetically pleasing. It is
presumed that the thawed turkeys will most likely be roasted
in an oven.
The current recommendations on thawing poultry developed by
different agencies in Canada are similar (5, 13, 14), in
that they adamantly state not to thaw at room temperature,
(and comment to cook immediately if thawed in the
microwave). It is not clear whether these recommendations
are based on scientific data or simply someone’s best guess
as no references are provided.
Recommended methods such as the use of standing water (5,
14, 15) have not been tested, and the experimental method of
running water (1, 12) is not generally recommended in Canada
although it is mentioned for “a more rapid thaw” (13),
rather than a tested method. However, no one has addressed
the large volumes of running water used or the contaminated
wastewater that results.
Conclusion
This paper briefly summarizes the literature currently
available for in-home thawing of poultry (1, 11, 12). The
studies cautioned about drawing conclusions from direct
comparisons because of small sample sizes - often only a
single bird per treatment.
As the justification for current thawing recommendations
appears inadequate, the question becomes is the emphasis on
thawing turkey at refrigerator temperatures warranted.
Providing the caveats have been heeded, the need is to cook
turkey thoroughly and validate with a meat thermometer. If
not completely thawed prior to cooking, adequate end-point
temperatures for safety will not be reached within the
recommended time given for roasting thawed or fresh turkey.
Further, recommended endpoint temperatures vary (1, 8, 14),
as do the locations for taking the temperature, all of which
may cause confusion for consumers. There is no information
available on how long to cook partially thawed turkey.
However, partial cooking of turkey is to be avoided under
all circumstances as this could provide ideal conditions for
pathogen growth. Further research is necessary to validate
best practices in a home kitchen setting. Based on these
findings, it is difficult for food and health professionals
to provide clients or consumers with clear, consistent,
evidence-based messages.
Relevance to practice
Turkey, a delicious and nutritious low-fat food choice
recommended by many dietitians (10, 16), need not be the
source of foodborne illness if handled properly and cooked
adequately. Dietitians in the role of highly credible
educators on issues related to food and water safety (17)
need to emphasize the use of a meat thermometer to validate
temperatures for various foods. Because of the extent of
conflicting information dietitians should make it a priority
to work with various stakeholders to develop and validate
best practices for handling foods such as turkey safely. In
future, greater emphasis should be placed on the
time-temperature relationships in thawing rather than the
place thawed. In order to provide consumers with clear,
consistent information based on science, additional evidence
is needed for alternative thawing methods, dealing with
partially thawed turkey, thermometer placement within the
turkey, consistent endpoint temperatures and the estimated
times to reach them.
Sidebar 1
Methods of thawing poultry at home
1) at ambient temperatures on the counter without an
overwrap
2) on the counter with an overwrap (or paper bag)
3) in the refrigerator
4) under running water
5) in standing water and changing the water at various
intervals
6) in the microwave
References
1. Lee M. Methods and Risks of Defrosting Turkeys. Environ.
Health Rev. 1993;(Winter):96-100.
2. Health Canada. Health Canada Policy - Food Safety
Assessment Program. Available from
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/food-aliment/fsa-esa/e_policy.html;
accessed 13 April 2002.
3. Health Canada. Policy Development for Raw Foods of Animal
Origin.. Available from
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/food-aliment/mh-dm/mhe-dme/rfao-aoca/e_rfao.html;
accessed 13 April 2002.
4. Farber JM, Todd ECD. Safe Handling of Foods. New York:
Marcel Dekker; 2000. 552p.
5. The Canadian Turkey Marketing Agency. How to thaw and
prepare…/Did you know... Available from
http://www.turkeytuesdays.ca: accessed 13 April 2002.
6. Canadian Food Inspection Agency. 1998 Safe Food Handling
Study, a Report for Canadian Food Inspection Agency.
Environics Research Group Limited. Available from
http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/corpaffr/publications/1998environics/study_texte.shtml;
accessed 13 April 2002.
7. Consumer Education and Information. Food Safety of Turkey
... from Farm to Table. Food Safety Inspection Service,
United States Department of Agriculture. Available from
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OA/pubs/focustky.htm; accessed 13
April 2002.
8. Snyder OP. HACCP and slow-roasting turkeys. Hospitality
Institute of Technology and Management (HITM). Available
from http://www.hi-tm.com/Documents/Turkey.html; accessed 13
April 2002.
9. Ray B. Fundamental Food Microbiology. Boca Raton,
Florida: CRC Press; 1996. 516p.
10. Eckner KF, Zottola EA, Gravani RB. The microbiology of
slow-roasted, stuffed turkeys. Dairy Food
Sanit.1988;8(7):344-7.
11. Klose AA, Lineweaver H, Palmer HH. Thawing Turkeys at
Ambient Air Temperatures. Food tech 1968;22:108-12.
12. Jimenez SM, Pirovani ME, Salsi MS, Tiburzi MC, Snyder
OP. The Effect of Different Thawing Methods on the Growth of
Bacteria in Chicken. Dairyfood environ sanit
2000;20(9):678-83.
13. Canadian Partnership For Consumer Food Safety Education.
Fight BAC! Go to Consumer Centre, Tools. 1998. Available
from
http://www.canfightbac.org/english/class/chilloute.shtml;
accessed 13 April 2002. Copies of the Chill Out brochure can
also be ordered from the Beef Information Centre from
http://www.beefinfo.org, accessed 13 April 2002.
14. Canadian Food Inspection Agency. Food Safety Facts for
Turkey. Available from
http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/corpaffr/foodfacts/turkeye.shtml:
accessed 13 April 2002.
15. It’s your health. Let's Talk Turkey. Health! Canada
Magazine December, 2000. Also available from
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/food-aliment/mh-dm/iyh-avs/e_let_s_talk_turkey.html;
accessed 13 April 2002.
16. Manitoba Turkey Producers. Nutrition. Available from
http://www.turkey.mb.ca/nutrition.html; accessed 29 May
2002.
17. Ingham S, Thies ML. Food and Water Safety - Position of
ADA. J Am Diet Assoc 1997;97:184-9. Available from
http://www.eatright.com/adap0297.html; accessed 13 April
2002.
MARLER BLOG:
The US beef supply is safe?
06.oct.07
Marler Blog
Bill Marler
http://www.marlerblog.com/2007/10/articles/lawyer-oped/the-us-beef-supply-is-safe/index.html
Dr. Richard Raymond, Under Secretary for Food Safety at the
USDA/FSIS told us last week: “our meat supply is the safest
in the world.” This when in the past days Topps, a company
in operation for nearly 70 years closes its doors and
recalls 21 million pounds of ground meat after sickening 30,
and Cargil, one of the largest food producers in the US,
recalls hamburger after sickening 4 children in Minnesota.
”The US beef supply is safe?” Well, I suppose the thought is
that if the lie is big enough we will not notice?
Earlier this year J. Patrick Boyle, President and Chief
Executive of the American Meat Institute, wrote in part in
the New York Times: “Since 1999, the incidence of E. coli in
ground beef samples tested by the Agriculture Department has
declined by 80 percent to a fraction of a percent, a level
once thought impossible.” In January 2007 I agreed with Mr.
Boyle. In fact, according to the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention, E. coli outbreaks linked to tainted meat
declined by some 42 percent over the last five years.
Perhaps our beef was safer in January but something has
changed, and it has not changed for the better.
A decade ago most of my clients were sickened by E.
coli-tainted meat. In fact, between 1993 and 2002 I
represented hundreds of children with acute kidney failure
caused by consuming E. coli-tainted ground beef. And, then
it nearly stopped. For the last five years there were few
recalls or illnesses tied to ground beef. I touted the meat
industry as a model of what an industry could do that was
right to protect consumers.
But then it changed this spring. Since April of this year,
30 million pounds of red meat, mostly ground beef products,
has been recalled. To put that in perspective, that is
enough red meat to make 120 million hamburgers. E. coli
illnesses once on a downturn have spiked. Kids are getting
sick, seriously sick, again – nearly 100 since April. Topps
Meat Company expanded its 300,00-pound recall to include 21
million pounds of ground beef. This recall tops the Con Agra
recall of 19 million pounds in 2002 that sickened over forty
and killed one and is just under the 25 million pounds
recalled by now-bankrupt Hudson Foods in 1997.
We also learned in the past few days that Dr. Raymond’s food
safety bureaucracy knew weeks in advance that our meat
supply might be tainted by Topps meat and did not alert the
public until dozens of children had already become ill. And
he tells us: ”the US beef supply is safe?”
One would think that with hundreds of Americans poisoned
that Dr. Raymond would not be acting as the “cheerleader in
chief” for the beef industry, but would be asking one simple
question – “What is going on?” Clearly, the USDA/FSIS seems
incapable of asking simple questions.
Congress needs to act now. It is time for Congress to accept
a leadership role and call hearings on “How safe is our meat
supply, really?” Hearings need to not only explore the
reasons for the past months’ outbreaks, but also to help
prevent the next one. Congress must reach out to all facets
of the meat industry, from “farm to fork,” to consumers who
bear the burden of illnesses, and to academics and
regulators to find reasonable, workable solutions to prevent
the next meat-related illnesses. More regulation may not
help. Testing all products may not be feasible. More funding
for the CDC and USDA may not be enough. And, more research
at universities may not find all of the answers. But,
getting everyone concerned to the same table is a start.
Several times a month Bill Marler, a Seattle lawyer, through
his non-profit, Outbreak Inc., speaks to industry and
government on why it is important to prevent foodborne
illnesses. He is also a frequent commentator on food
litigation and food safety on www.marlerblog.com.
NEW JERSEY:
After extensive beef recall, Topps goes out of business
06.oct.07
N.Y. Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/06/us/06topps.html?ref=us
Ken Belson and Kareem Fahim
Topps Meat Company, one of the country’s largest
manufacturers of frozen hamburgers, was cited as saying
yesterday that it was going out of business a week after it
pulled back more than 21.7 million pounds of ground beef
products in one of the largest meat recalls in recent years.
In a statement, Anthony D’Urso, the chief operating officer
at Topps, in Elizabeth, N.J., said that the company “cannot
overcome the reality of a recall this large. … This has been
a shocking and sobering experience for everyone."
Executives at Topps, which made frozen hamburgers and other
meat products for supermarkets and mass merchandisers,
declined to discuss how and why the company collapsed so
quickly, or whether they could have taken steps earlier to
protect consumers or to head off the plant’s closure.
Amanda Eamich, a spokeswoman for the United States
Department of Agriculture, was cited as saying yesterday
that on Thursday the department had served Topps with a
“notice of intended enforcement,” a move just short of
suspending the rest of the company’s meat production. Topps
had stopped producing ground meat as of Sept. 26, but had
continued to produce meat products like steaks.
Ms. Eamich said the agency had taken the action because of
“inadequate process controls” in the company’s non-ground
meat production line.
The story goes on to say that yesterday, garage doors at the
company’s plant were shut, and the window blinds were pulled
down. Some workers inside peeked out. Officials held a
barbecue where Topps hamburgers were cooked well done,
according to Evelyn Hidalgo, a human resources manager. The
hamburgers were “delicious,” she said, adding that workers
toasted the company as they munched on them.
Gene Grabowski, who runs the crisis and litigation practice
at Levick Strategic Communications and has handled more than
120 recalls, was quoted as saying, "Recalls used to be
rolling waves hitting the beach, and now they are tsunamis
that choke off the oxygen. This is not a giant and not
diversified, so when a tsunami hits, it doesn’t have much of
a chance."
According to industry experts, the size of the Topps recall
was probably related to the company’s practice of “carrying
over” meat from one day’s production to the next, without
giving the older meat a separate batch number. The practice
is not in itself illegal or unsafe, the experts said, but in
the event of a problem, like an identified case of E. coli,
the mixing of several days’ production makes it harder for
officials to know the extent of the contamination.
Michele Williams, a spokeswoman for Topps, declined to
comment on whether Topps carries over meat without giving it
a separate batch number. But Ms. Eamich, the Agriculture
Department spokeswoman, said the company did carry over
beef.
MINNESOTA:
Sam's Club beef recalled after illnesses
05.oct.07
Associated Press
Minneapolis -- Company and health officials were cited as
saying Friday that the Sam's Club warehouse chain pulled a
brand of ground beef patties from its shelves nationwide
after four children who ate the food, produced by Cargill
Inc., developed E. coli illness.
Cargill has also asked customers to return any remaining
patties purchased after Aug. 26 to the store or destroy
them.
The children became ill between Sept. 10 and Sept. 20 after
eating ground beef patties that were bought frozen under the
name American Chef's Selection Angus Beef Patties from three
Sam's Club stores in the Twin Cities area.
Sam's Clu voluntarily removed the product from its stores
nationwide after the illnesses were reported.
Heidi Kassenborg, acting director of the dairy and food
inspection division of the Minnesota Department of
Agriculture, was quoted as saying, "We can't be certain that
meat from other stores is not involved, since the brand ...
was likely sold at other Sam's Club locations."
The patties were produced by Cargill and had an expiration
date of Feb. 12, 2008, Sam's Club said in a statement. They
were coded UPC 0002874907056 Item #700141.
Two of the children were hospitalized; one remains in the
hospital and the other has been discharged, the Health
Department said.
Cargill spokesman Mark Klein was cited as saying the company
has been cooperating with state Department of Health and the
U.S. Department of Agriculture to determine the scope of the
issue.
Cargill learned of the issue Friday, when a compliance
officer from the federal Agriculture Department visited the
company's ground beef facility in Butler, Wis., Klein said.
Officials had traced the patties back to that plant.
Meat recall
definite pointer to growing E. coli menace in the USA
06.oct.07
Money Times
Daisy Sarma
http://www.themoneytimes.com/articles/20071003/meat_recall_definite_pointer_to_growing_e_coli_menace_in_the_usa-id-1010606.html
There has been a spate of recalls of various products across
the USA in the past few months, from Chinese-made toys for
fear of lead exposure to food products owing to E coli
contamination. The latest such recall has been 21.7 million
pounds of ground beef.
The story says that the recurring recalls of various food
products seems to be an indicator of one thing, a possible
rise in E. coli contamination in the US food industry. Last
week, Topps Meat made the second biggest ground beef recall
in recent times in America, when it called back 21.5 million
pounds of hamburgers. The highest volume of such a recall
was in 1997, when Hudson Foods recalled 25 million pounds of
ground beef.
Safety was an issue in the beef industry in the early 90s.
That was also when the industry went through its first E
coli-related crisis. However, after that tough period, the
industry cranked up its food safety standards to such a high
level that it has since been referred to as a model even by
the critics.
This summer, however, the American Meat Institute (AMI) has
said there has been a marginal increase in the positive
results for E coli tests. Vice president of the AMI
foundation, Randy Huffman, said this detection had been the
catalyst for the AMI to increase its efforts and focus.
The story says that USDA tests about 8,000 products a year
for E. coli O157:H7. This stringent testing has been mainly
responsible for bringing down the number of positive cases
by over 73 percent. However, compared to the results over
the past three years, 2007 has seen a marginally higher
number of positive cases.
While Huffman said the increase was probably a random
occurrence, the leading plaintiff attorney for E coli
related cases in the U.S., Bill Marler, was cited as saying
this was not likely a random event and that something had
changed somewhere, and definitely not for the better.
With the Topps recall, the focus would now shift in a big
way again to existing industry practices. This is more so
because of the large volume of meat involved.
PENNSYLVANIA:
Worker may be origin of BETHLEHEM eatery sickness
06.oct.07
Morning Daily Call
Daryl Nerl
http://www.mcall.com/news/local/all-b1_4illness.6078978oct06,0,3209001.story
Bethlehem health officials were cited as saying they believe
that an outbreak of nausea, vomiting and diarrhea can be
traced to an employee of a downtown restaurant who tested
positive for a highly contagious virus.
Jessica Lucas, the environmental health manager for the
city, was cited as saying that the restaurant, Tortilla Flat
on Main Street, reopened Thursday night, while the employee
was directed to stay away until two stool samples test
negative for the norovirus.
Restaurant personnel have thrown out all of Tortilla Flat's
food and thoroughly cleaned and disinfected all of the
surfaces inside, said Lucas, who praised owner Ben Colunga
for his voluntary cooperation with city officials. There was
still enough uncertainty in the city's deduction for Lucas
to call it a hypothesis while the investigation continues.
The city is unaware of anyone else who has experienced
symptoms since Tuesday, Lucas said. However, the Health
Bureau's investigation showed 11 more victims that
contracted symptoms between Sunday and Tuesday, bringing the
total number of cases to 41.
Lucas and city Community and Economic Development Director
Tony Hanna was cited as crediting officials at Moravian
College with acting quickly to clean and disinfect areas
around the campus where students had become ill, preventing
further spreading.
City officials were first alerted to the viral outbreak on
Sunday night after several Moravian students were
hospitalized with ''stomach flu'' symptoms. All of them had
eaten lunch Saturday at Tortilla Flat with a group of more
than 20 Moravian students and faculty members -- many of
whom would also get sick.
Eighteen people sought medical attention, Lucas said. While
not all 41 people infected ate at the restaurant, it is
believed that others who were infected had contact with
people who did, she said. It is not known how the restaurant
employee became infected.
MAINE seafood
company indicted
06.oct.07
Associated Press
New York -- Federal authorities were cited as indicting
Kip's Seafood Company and its owner, Karl S. Crute Sr on
charges that it shipped thousands of pounds of potentially
dangerous shellfish to fish dealers in Philadelphia and New
York who sold it to restaurants and other businesses.
Investigators were cited as saying that in September 2003
the Maine company shipped 10 loads of shellfish after its
interstate license was suspended because the water used to
wash the seafood at its plant was unclean.
The indictment said Crute obtained approximately 800
interstate certification tags from Young's Shellfish Company
in Maine. All shellfish is required by law to have tags so
authorities can track it back to the location where it was
harvested in case the water was contaminated.
Donald A. Feith, an assistant U.S. attorney in New Hampshire
where the indictment was filed, was cited as saying Kip's
Seafood used the Young's Shellfish tags to try to deceive
law enforcement, adding, 'The tagging system that was
circumvented was an important part of the health system. If
someone had gotten sick, health officials wouldn't have been
able to trace it back to Kip's Seafood."
Feith was unaware of anyone getting sick from the shellfish.
Scientists:
Appendix protects good germs
06.oct.07
New York Times/Associated Press
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Appendixs-Purpose.html
http://barfblog.foodsafety.ksu.edu/2007/10/articles/wacky-and-strange-but-true/a-purpose-for-your-appendix/index.html
WASHINGTON -- Surgeons and immunologists at Duke University
Medical School were cited as publishing online in a
scientific journal this week the idea that the troublesome
and seemingly useless appendix produces and protects good
germs for your gut.
Two years ago, 321,000 Americans were hospitalized with
appendicitis, according to the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention.
The function of the appendix seems related to the massive
amount of bacteria populating the human digestive system,
according to the study in the Journal of Theoretical
Biology. There are more bacteria than human cells in the
typical body. Most of it is good and helps digest food.
But sometimes the flora of bacteria in the intestines die or
are purged. Diseases such as cholera or amoebic dysentery
would clear the gut of useful bacteria. The appendix's job
is to reboot the digestive system in that case.
Duke surgery professor Bill Parker, a study co-author, was
quoted as saying the appendix ''acts as a good safe house
for bacteria,'' and that its location -- just below the
normal one-way flow of food and germs in the large intestine
in a sort of gut cul-de-sac -- helps support the theory.
Also, the worm-shaped organ outgrowth acts like a bacteria
factory, cultivating the good germs, Parker said.
That use is not needed in a modern industrialized society,
Parker said. If a person's gut flora dies, they can usually
repopulate it easily with germs they pick up from other
people, he said. But before dense populations in modern
times and during epidemics of cholera that affected a whole
region, it wasn't as easy to grow back that bacteria and the
appendix came in handy.
In less developed countries, where the appendix may be still
useful, the rate of appendicitis is lower than in the U.S.,
other studies have shown, Parker said.
He said the appendix may be another case of an overly
hygienic society triggering an overreaction by the body's
immune system.
ATLANTA:
Recycling potty water a step closer
06.oct.07
Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Ben Smith
http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/shared-blogs/ajc/gwinnetttalk/entries/2007/10/06/recycling_potty.html
The Army Corps of Engineers on Friday gave Gwinnett County
the go-ahead to run pipe from the F. Wayne Hill Water
Resources Center to Lake Lanier.
Here’s the straight poop: The new pipeline will enable the
county to send the contents of your toilet back to metro
Atlanta’s reservoir, where it can be converted to drinking
water.
No, no, no. The icky stuff won’t go straight back to the
lake. It will be “reclaimed,” county officials say. That
means it’ll be made clean enough to drink again.
The reclamation system, which is expected to go online by
late 2009, is expected to return 10 million gallons of water
daily to the lake.
GERMANY:
Early swimming increases diarrhea risk for babies
05.oct.07
MedPage Today
Michael Smith, Senior Staff Writer
http://www.medpagetoday.com/Pediatrics/GeneralPediatrics/tb/6893
NEUHERBERG, Germany -- Babies taken swimming in public pools
in the first year of life have an increased risk of
diarrhea, researchers here said.
Action Points
* Explain to interested patients that hygiene at public
pools is important in preventing outbreaks of disease.
* Note that this study suggests that babies who spent a lot
of time in the pool in the first year of their lives may be
at increased risk of gastrointestinal illness.
* Note that there is currently no standard for pool
sanitation in the United States, although the CDC is in the
process of creating guidelines.
An observational study of more than 2,100 children in
Germany also showed a trend toward more otitis media and
respiratory diseases, found Yvonne Schoefer, M.D., of
Germany's National Research Center for Environment and
Health, and colleagues.
On the other hand, there was no increased risk of atopic
disease, Dr. Schoefer and colleagues reported in the October
issue of the International Journal of Hygiene and
Environmental Health.
The finding is important, Dr. Schoefer and colleagues said,
because of an increase in parents and infants taking part in
what's known as "baby-swimming."
"Babies and young children are more vulnerable to toxins
because their lungs and immune systems have not yet
matured," Dr. Schoefer said.
The idea of baby-swimming is not limited to Germany. USA
Swimming this year launched a program aimed at getting kids
into the water at a young age, as part of a nationwide
water-safety initiative.
The German study looked at a prospective birth cohort of
2,192 six-year-olds and asked their parents when they had
started to swim and what doctor-diagnosed illnesses they had
suffered.
A multivariate regression analysis showed children who
didn't swim regularly during their first year:
* Had a significantly lower risk of diarrhea. The odds ratio
was 0.68, with a 95% confidence interval from 0.54 to 0.85.
* Appeared to have a lower risk of otitis media. The odds
ratio was 0.81, but the 95% confidence interval - from 0.62
to 1.05 - crossed unity.
* Appeared to have a lower risk of respiratory diseases. The
odds ratio was 0.85, but again the confidence interval --
0.67 to 1.09 - crossed unity.
* Had a significantly higher risk of asthma by age six,
although there was no other clear association with atopic
dermatitis or hay fever. The odds ratio was 2.15, with a 95%
confidence interval from 1.16 to 3.99.
Dr. Schoefer and colleagues noted that the link with asthma
could well be explained by reverse causality - babies who
had breathing difficulties might not be taken to the pool in
the first place.
"The study shows that allowing babies to swim is possibly
not as harmless with regard to infections as has been
presumed till now," noted co-author Joachim Heinrich, Ph.D.,
also of the research center here.
"Clearly, swimming (in pools) is associated with a variety
of different illnesses," commented Michael Beach, Ph.D.,
acting associate director for healthy water at the CDC in
Atlanta.
The problem is two-fold, he said. On one hand, bathers often
don't take showers before swimming, meaning they bring
potential pathogens into what he called "communal bathing."
On the other hand, pools are often poorly maintained. A 2002
CDC study found that only half of pools that were inspected
that year were free of health violations, although Dr. Beach
cautioned that most violations were minor. Only about 8.5%
of pools and 11% of spas were closed for health concerns, he
said.
Interestingly, he added, there is no national standard for
pool sanitation, although the CDC is in the process of
drafting a set of model guidelines. Currently, though, most
pools in the U.S. use between one and three parts per
million of chlorine as a decontaminant.
The pools in the German study used about 0.2 parts per
million of chlorine, the researchers said.
Undeclared
milk in Charlemagne Chocolatiers Bio Organic Chocolates
05.oct.07
Canadian Food Inspection Agency
www.inspection.gc.ca
OTTAWA -- The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) is
warning people with allergies to milk protein not to consume
Charlemagne Chocolatiers Bio Organic Chocolates described
below. The affected products may contain milk which is not
declared on the label.
The following Charlemagne Chocolatiers Chocolates, imported
from Belgium are affected by this alert:
Product
Size
UPC
Code
Plain Bio Organic
50 g
5 425001 204014
Batch code : 6154
Best Before: 31/12/07
Cinnamon Bio Organic
50 g
5 425001 204052
Batch code : 6173
Best Before : 31/12/07
Coffee Bio Organic
50 g
5 425001 204038
Batch code : 6175
Best Before : 31/12/07
These products are known to have been distributed in Quebec
and Ontario but may have been distributed nationally.
There have been no reported illnesses associated with the
consumption of these products.
Consumption of these products may cause a serious or
life-threatening reaction in persons with allergies to milk
protein.
For more information, consumers and industry can call the
CFIA at 1-800-442-2342 / TTY 1-800-465-7735 (8:00 a.m. to
8:00 p.m. Eastern time, Monday to Friday).
Fsnet is produced by the
International Food Safety Network at Kansas State
University, and is supported at the Gold Fork level by:
Marler-Clark.
Fsnet is supported at the Sterling Fork level by:
Monsanto Canada, CropLife Canada, National Restaurant
Association, Dairy Farmers of Canada and the Ontario
Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs.
Fsnet is supported at the Silver-plate Fork level by:
National Pork Board, Canadian Animal Health Institute,
Syngenta Crop Protection Canada, Ontario Farm Animal
Council, Pritzker Ruohonen Law Firm, Casco Inc., Sholl
Group/Green Giant Fresh, Ontario Agri-Food Technologies,
American Air Liquide, Feedlot Health Management Services,
University of Florida Pesticide Office, and Canadian
Institute of Public Health Inspectors (Ontario Branch) Inc.
Fsnet is supported at the Stainless Fork level by:
Canadian Cattlemen's Association, Gorton¹s Inc., National
Turkey Federation, International Association for Food
Protection, American Dairy Queen Corporation, New Science
Management, University of Oklahoma, Oregon State University
Department of Forest Science, City of Vernon, CA, and
Nutrition Action Healthletter, Center for Science in the
Public Interest.
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/en/donations.php. 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
archived at
http://archives.foodsafety.ksu.edu/fsnet-archives.htm
|
|