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