FSnet Aug. 28/08
Listeria
found in 2 QUEBEC cheeses: Health officials link 9 cases of
listeriosis to recalled cheese, probe 1 death
CANADA:
Health Hazard Alert – Certain Kirkland Signature brand
platters may contain Listeria monocytogenes
OHIO: BLOG:
Don’t eat that sandwich!
CANADA: Meat
inspection standards for domestic, export markets may differ
CANADA: Root
cause of outbreak may never be known, Maple Leaf president
says
Obligations
to report outbreaks of foodborne disease under the
International Health Regulations
CALIFORNIA:
Raw milk debate continues with SB201
how to
subscribe
Listeria
found in 2 QUEBEC cheeses: Health officials link 9 cases of
listeriosis to recalled cheese, probe 1 death
27.aug.08
CBC.ca News
CBC News
http://www.cbc.ca/consumer/story/2008/08/27/listeria-cheeses.html
Two brands of Quebec-made cheese have been pulled from store
shelves after provincial health officials found
contamination from a strain of listeria.
Quebec's Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food ordered
the recall Tuesday of two soft cheeses — Riopelle de l'Île
and Mont-Jacob.
Ministry officials warned consumers not to eat Riopelle de
l'Île cheese purchased at Aux Petits Délices in Quebec City
between Aug. 6 and Aug. 11. A similar warning was issued for
Mont-Jacob sold with an Aug. 29 best before date at
Octofruit Maître Gourmet in Ste-Thérèse.
Officials said the strain of listeria is different from the
one found in meat products from Maple Leaf Foods that has
been linked to a nationwide listeriosis outbreak and 15
deaths.
Horatio Arruda, Quebec's public health director, said there
are at least nine cases of listeriosis associated with the
recalled cheeses.
Officials are awaiting test results from a man who died
Tuesday night to determine whether the death is linked to
contaminated cheese.
Guy Auclair, the department's director of food inspection,
said inspectors used information provided by people who
contracted listeriosis to zero in on the stores.
Auclair said provincial inspectors have visited the cheese
manufacturing factories and are awaiting test results.
Officials have yet to determine how listeria came into
contact with the cheese.
CANADA:
Health Hazard Alert – Certain Kirkland Signature brand
platters may contain Listeria monocytogenes
27.aug.08
Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Ottawa -- The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) and
Costco Wholesale Canada Ltd are warning the public not to
serve or consume the Kirkland Signature brand platters
described below because these products may be contaminated
with Listeria monocytogenes.
This recall is being initiated as these platters contain a
ready-to-eat deli meat product recalled by Maple Leaf
Consumer Foods, Burlington, ON. There have been no reported
illnesses associated with the consumption of these platters.
The following Kirkland Signature brand platters are affected
by this alert:
Product / UPC / Best Before Dates (up to and including)
Kirkland Signature Croissant Platter / 0 00000 29048 7 /
08.AU.28
Kirkland Signature Meat & Cheese Platter / 0 0000 10683 2 /
08.AU.29
These platters were sold through Costco Wholesale stores
nationally.
Food contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes may not look
or smell spoiled. Consumption of food contaminated with this
bacteria may cause listeriosis, a foodborne illness.
Listeriosis can cause high fever, severe headache, neck
stiffness and nausea. Pregnant women, the elderly and people
with weakened immune systems are particularly at risk.
Infected pregnant women may experience only a mild, flu-like
illness, however, infections during pregnancy can lead to
premature delivery, infection of the newborn, or even
stillbirth.
Costco Wholesale Canada Ltd, Ottawa, Ontario, is voluntarily
recalling the affected products from the marketplace. Costco
Canada is in the process of contacting all members, who
purchased these products, by phone. The CFIA is monitoring
the effectiveness of the recall.
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).
For information on Listeria monocytogenes, visit the Food
Facts web page
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.
OHIO: BLOG:
Don’t eat that sandwich!
27.aug.08
Capitol Blog
mkovac
http://blogs.dixcdn.com/capitalblog/?p=4287
From the Ohio Dept. of Ag:
Reynoldsburg, Ohio -- Ohio Department of Agriculture’s (ODA)
Consumer Analytical Laboratory today confirmed a positive
test for Listeria monocytogenes, a dangerous foodborne
bacterium, in a submarine sandwich collected from a Circle K
store located at 36391 Vine Street in Willoughby, Ohio. No
known human illness has been associated with this
confirmation.
“The Ohio Department of Agriculture, through its regulatory
authority, is entrusted with the foremost responsibility of
safeguarding the health of Ohio’s food supply, consumers,
environment, animals and plants,” said ODA Director Robert
Boggs. “This confirmation is another example of the extent
to which the department’s daily efforts protect consumers
from food-borne illnesses.”
A sample of an American Submarine sandwich was taken by an
ODA food safety inspector on Aug. 18, from the Circle K
store in Lake County. The sandwich provider for Circle K
stores, Landshire, Inc. of Bellville, Ill., has requested
all stores immediately remove the product from their
shelves.
As part of ODA’s efforts to safeguard Ohio’s food supply,
routine food samples are taken from retail food
establishments, distribution warehouses, and other locations
throughout the state and are brought back to the
department’s state-of-the-art laboratories. Department
scientists conduct tests to detect foodborne bacteria, such
as Listeria monocytogenes, E. coli O157:H7, and Salmonella.
The Listeria monocytogenes found in the food sample is a
bacterium that can cause serious and sometimes fatal
infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and
others with weakened immune systems. Although healthy
individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms such as high
fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain
and diarrhea, listeriosis can cause miscarriages and
stillbirths among pregnant women.
For more information on the product withdrawal, call
Landshire, Inc. at 618-398-8122.
CANADA: Meat
inspection standards for domestic, export markets may differ
27.aug.08
The Gazette
Sarah Schmidt
http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/story.html?id=b413d33d-0bf9-4c52-8d0a-dd97841fe331
Ottawa -- The Canadian Food Inspection Agency is moving
forward on a plan to create different rules for provincially
registered meat plants despite industry concerns about less
rigorous inspection standards.
The new rules would allow them to ship their products to
other provinces but ban them from international markets.
The initiative under the agency's Meat Program Review is
being developed as CFIA grapples with a growing outbreak of
a food-borne illness traced to contaminated meat produced at
a federally inspected plant in Toronto operating under new
inspection rules. The Compliance Verification System, in
place at federally regulated meat plants since March 31,
requires government inspectors to assume a role akin to an
auditor, where they review company paperwork to make sure
the company's food-safety protocols are done properly at
critical points during production.
The Canadian Poultry and Egg Processors Council says the
organization is concerned that under the current proposal to
expand market access for internal trade, standards at
provincially certified plants would be less prescriptive and
"could become eligible for interprovincial trade of their
products without being held to the rigours and standards" of
CFIA-inspected plants.
"Frankly, that scares us a bit," president Robin Horel said
in an interview Wednesday.
He added he remains concerned about the plan, currently in
the "ideas stages," despite assurances over the last year
from the CFIA that different standards at meat plants won't
mean lower standards.
Deborah Stark, assistant deputy minister for food safety at
Ontario's Ministry of Agriculture, says if the move toward
national standards is implemented, inspection standards will
not be "less from a food safety perspective."
CANADA: Root
cause of outbreak may never be known, Maple Leaf president
says
27.aug.08
Globe and Mail
Tu Thanh Ha and Bill Curry
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080827.wmeat28/BNStory/National/home
Toronto and Ottawa -- The cause of the deadly listeria
contamination at a Toronto meat plant may never be fully
pinned down, the head of the food company said Wednesday as
he faced questions about how much of the bacteria was
detected at the facility before the outbreak.
“I have a team of experts that has been on site for three
days, looked at all the data and they have yet to be able to
say what they feel is the root cause,” said Michael McCain,
president of Maple Leaf Foods.
He later added: “I think they'll be able to narrow the scope
into a range of possibilities, but I don't think they'll be
able to come up with a definitive answer.”
Listeria is pervasive but only deadly at high doses. Mr.
McCain said “there was nothing out of the norm” in test
results preceding the outbreak.
The Canadian Food Inspection Agency would have been
informed, he said. “They review [Maple Leaf's]records on a
regular basis and they review our remedial plans and
actions.”
“I absolutely do not believe that this is a failure of the
Canadian food safety system or the regulators,” Mr. McCain
said. “Knowing that there is a desire to assign blame, I
want to reiterate that the buck stops right here.”
In Ottawa, officials said they hadn't decided what would
happen to all the recalled meat. One senior CFIA manager
said recalled meat can sometimes be fed to animals.
“I'm not suggesting that that is an option in this case.
When product is recalled, then a range of options can be
employed,” said Paul Mayers, the associate vice-president of
the agency. “Disposal and destruction is one of those
options. Product may go to rendering … and through
rendering, then that product can be reworked, the listeria
would be destroyed and that product could then be used in
the production of animal feed provided that the product
meets our requirements.”
Mr. Mayers disputed union claims that a new policy brought
in March 31 has CFIA inspectors swamped in paperwork and
unable to spend much time doing physical inspections on the
plant floor.
Federal agriculture minister Gerry Ritz announced Wednesday
that his government intends to hire 58 additional meat
inspectors before the end of the fiscal year.
Maple Leaf followed food industry standards in not testing
its product directly but testing the plant's environment,
its chief executive said.
If a positive swab is recorded, remedial steps are then
taken until three consecutive negative results are returned.
But the products are not tested, Mr. McCain said.
He was reminded by a reporter that, at that point, the
untested meat had already been shipped out of the plant.
“Just because it's gone out the door, you don't know, you
simply don't know, there's no statistical way to test that
product adequately,” Mr. McCain replied.
“To test a product, you destroy the product. To test 100 per
cent of the product means you destroy 100 per cent of your
product.”
A U.S. expert on listeria, the microbiologist Elliot Ryser,
said food processors emphasize environmental testing but
could also test their products, depending on where the
pathogen was detected.
For example, finding listeria in a floor drain is
troublesome because the bacteria could be dispersed in an
aerosolized form, but it is not as crucial as finding it in
a meat slicer, he said.
Obligations
to report outbreaks of foodborne disease under the
International Health Regulations
01.sep.08
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Vol 14, No 9
Martyn Kirk, Comments to Author Jennie Musto, Joy Gregory,
and Kathleen Fullerton
http://www.cdc.gov/eid/content/14/9/1440.htm
Abstract
Every year, Australia identifies 2–3 outbreaks associated
with imported foods. To examine national authorities'
obligations under the International Health Regulations
(2005), we reviewed outbreaks in 2001–2007 that implicated
internationally distributed foods. Under these regulations,
7 (50%) of 14 outbreaks would have required notification to
the World Health Organization.
Author affiliations: Australian Government Department of
Health & Ageing, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory,
Australia (M. Kirk, K. Fullerton); Australian National
University, Canberra (M. Kirk); New South Wales Department
of Health, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia (J. Musto);
and Department of Human Services, Melbourne, Victoria,
Australia (J. Gregory)
CALIFORNIA:
Raw milk debate continues with SB201
27.aug.08
Marler Blog
Bill Marler
http://www.marlerblog.com/2008/08/articles/lawyer-oped/raw-milk-debate-continues-with-sb201/index.html
Dear Senator,
I am writing to you because I have grave concerns with a
bill currently before you – SB201. I urge that you vote
against the bill as written.
Raw milk is at the center of a nationwide controversy over
its potential value as a nutritional food versus the severe
illnesses that can result from contaminated product.
Pasteurization was developed to rid dairy products of
pathogens like toxic E. coli as well as to assure a longer,
safer shelf life (see attached History of Raw Milk). Raw
milk tainted with E. coli O157:H7 has already sickened
children in this state. Today a woman lies in a hospital in
Northern California on a ventilator after consuming raw milk
contaminated with Campylobacter. If a product as potentially
dangerous as raw milk is to be legally sold to the consumer,
regulation must be air-tight, and penalties for violations
must be enforceable by regulators charged with protecting
the public health.
SB 201 as currently written has the following fatal flaws:
1) HACCP - The bill proposes that raw milk be regulated by a
HACCP protocol. HACCP—Hazard Analysis Critical Control
Point—is a food safety and self-inspection system that
describes procedures for producing potentially dangerous
foods. There are national HACCP protocols in place for
juice, meat, poultry, and seafood processing, but none for
raw milk. Developing a HACCP protocol can take years, even
when the industry being regulated agrees with the government
assessments of risk. Companies will be free to produce raw
milk under minimal regulation until the HACCP plan is ready.
Further, the bill specifically precludes CDFA from taking
action on high coliform counts even if coliform testing was
determined to be part of the approved raw milk HACCP plan.
2) SSOP – HACCP plans do not necessarily include sanitation
procedures and environmental monitoring. This is the purview
of the SSOP (Sanitation Standard Operating Procedure), which
is absent from SB201. Mandating HACCP without mandating SSOP
is a half measure, at best.
3) Enforcement is not spelled out in the current version of
the bill. Not what would happen to a producer who broke the
HACCP protocols (when in place) nor to repeat violators.
4) Colostrum (Also called first milk, this is the milk
produced in pregnancy and right after birth. It is high in
carbohydrates, protein, and antibodies and low in fat.) The
current bill does not even address this ‘growth area’ of raw
products. Under the bill, unregulated colostrum could be
sold and marketed as a stand-alone product, in a raw
colostrum/milk mixture, or as an ingredient in other foods.
There is no scientific reason to treat colostrum differently
from raw milk. Omitting colostrum from SB 201 would allow a
producer to add a small amount of colostrum to raw milk,
label the product as colostrum, and sidestep the intent of
the new law. (At least one California raw milk company has
already used this work-around to circumvent federal law
prohibiting interstate shipment of raw milk to consumers.
http://www.organicpastures.com/faq.html - item #14.)
5) Pathogen Regulation – the bill prevents CDFA from taking
regulatory action on the detection of pathogens unless the
amount is “sufficient to cause illness in humans.” This
leaves the door wide open for argument about what level of
verotoxigenic E. coli, Salmonella, Campylobacter or Listeria
is necessary to cause disease. Legislators must not tie the
hands of CDPH and CDFA by limiting their enforcement powers
to an undefined amount “sufficient to cause illness in
humans.”
• The minimum infectious dose for many pathogens depends on
several factors including (a) the infectivity and virulence
of the specific strain, (b) the size, age, and
immune-competent status of the victim, (c) foods ingested
along with the pathogen, and (d) compounding factors such as
the use of antacids.
• It is often technically difficult to detect the presence
of a pathogen in a random sample of ‘finished product.’ Even
in a fluid like raw milk, the pathogens are not likely to be
uniformly distributed throughout a production lot. The
probability that a certain level of pathogen will be found
by product testing is very low—unless the contamination is
very high. Rather than a vague standard of “sufficient to
cause illness in humans,” SB 201 should mandate a zero
tolerance rule for any level of infectious bacterial
pathogen.
6) Ban the sale of raw milk from cows with symptoms of
clinical mastitis – Milk and colostrum are virtually
bacteria free when they leave the udder, except in the case
of an animal suffering from clinical or sub-clinical
mastitis. Cows with mastitis shed bacteria—E. coli and
Staphylococcus aureus, among others—into their colostrum and
milk, and no raw milk should be sold from them. This is not
addressed in SB201.
7) Standard plate count – SB 201 should not eliminate the
mandated 15,000 per milliliter standard plate (or bacteria)
count limit for grade A raw milk. The existing law, AB1735,
mandates both coliform limit and a bacterial count limit for
raw milk. SB201 not only offers a way for raw milk dairies
to opt out of the total coliform limit, but in doing so, it
emasculates the standard plate count provision of AB1735 by
prohibiting the use of standard plate counts for enforcement
purposes.
• Most pathogens –E. coli O157:H7 being a notable
exception—are not coliforms, and most coliforms are not
pathogens. At best, the coliform group of bacteria can be
viewed as an indicator of possible environmental
contamination or temperature mishandling of raw milk.
• Coliforms began their role as “indicator” bacteria as a
stand-in for direct detection of pathogens in potable water.
This test was chosen for convenience. When drinking water
monitoring began, direct enumeration of E. coli – a
surrogate for potential Salmonella contamination – was a
long and costly process.
• Dairy microbiologists adopted coliforms – a group of
microbes that are both prevalent in the environment and are
heat-sensitive – as a convenient indicator of inadequate
pasteurization and of post-process contamination. The ease,
convenience, and low cost of coliform enumeration also added
to the popularity of this test. Nevertheless, the presence
of coliforms in pasteurized milk was not viewed as direct
indicator of the presence of a pathogen; rather, an elevated
coliform count was looked upon as an indicator of something
having gone wrong in the manufacturing process.
• While a coliform standard makes sense in pasteurized milk,
the decision to apply a coliform test to raw milk is
questionable, at best. Many of the bacterial contaminants
and most of the pathogens that have been reported in raw
milk are non-coliforms. An elevated “total” bacterial count
would be at least equally effective as an indicator of
unsanitary practices or poor temperature control.
8) SB201 does not reiterate requirements carried forward
from existing laws.
• SB201 does not provide guidance on what requirements must
be met for retail raw milk and raw colostrum under the
follow circumstances: (a) while a dairy’s HACCP plan is
under development or under revision as the result of a
suspension or revocation of approval, (b) while a dairy’s
HACCP plan is under initial review by CDFA and/or CDPH, (c)
in the event that CDFA and/or CDPH suspends or revokes its
approval of a dairy’s HACCP plan, or (d) while a suspension
or revocation of a dairy’s HACCP plan is under appeal. Under
these circumstances, a dairy that has opted for the HACCP
alternative might be considered to be exempt from the
coliform rule even when an approved HACCP plan is not
actively in place.
• SB201 should be amended to incorporate explicitly all of
the provisions Sections 33527, 35783, 35783.1, 35861 and
35891 of the Food and Agricultural Code, and should state
unequivocally that the standard plate count, somatic cell
count and coliform count limits are enforceable unless an
approved HACCP plan is in place and has been implemented by
a dairy farm that produces and processes raw milk.
9) Unanswered questions – critically important issues which
are either not addressed or not clearly spelled out:
a) What tests would be used? Screening, confirmatory, or
both?
b) How sensitive and specific are the tests to be used?
c) Do the tests need to be approved by the AOAC or other
equivalent certifying body?
d) Why only test bi-weekly for E. coli O157:H7? The last raw
milk recalls were due to Campylobacter and Listeria
contamination.
e) What happens if no quick test is approved to detect E.
coli O157:H7 in raw milk?
f) Is the tested product held until the results are in? If
not, why not?
g) What happens if a test is positive? Total product recall?
What protocol?
Senator, I urge you to vote against this bill. It is vitally
important to have regulation in California on raw milk, but
approving this bill will set flawed and unfinished processes
into law. We urge you to press for clarity, detail, and
precision in a final version that will regulate the raw milk
industry from the moment it is signed into law, rather than
the current version, which only passes the difficult
decisions into other, unknown hands.
Attachments:
• Peer-reviewed literature - pro
• Peer-reviewed literature – con
• CDC list of outbreaks associated with unpasteurized milk
or cheese, 1973-2007
• History of Raw Milk
• Escherichia coli O157:H7 Infections in Children Associated
with Raw Milk and Raw Colostrum from Cows – California, 2006
(CDC-MMWR)
References:
1. Barbano, D.M., Y. Ma, M.V. Santos. 2006. Influence of Raw
Milk Quality on Fluid Milk Shelf Life. J. Dairy Sci. 89(E.
Suppl.):E15-E19.
2. Berriatua, E., I. Ziluaga, C. Miguel-Virto, P. Uribarren,
R. Juste, S. Laevens, P. Vandamme, J.R.W. Govan. 2001.
Outbreak of Subclinical Mastitis in a Flock of Dairy Sheep
Associated with Burkholderia cepacia Complex Infection. J.
Clin. Microbiol. 39:990-994.
3. Christen, G.L., P.M. Davidson, J.S. McAllister, L.A.
Roth. 1992. Chapter 7. Coliform and Other Indicator
Bacteria. In: Standard Methods for the Examination of Dairy
Products, 16th edition (R.T. Marshall, ed.). American Public
Health Association, Washington, DC.
4. Corlett, D.A., Jr. 1998. HACCP User’s Manual. Aspen
Publishers, Inc., Gaithersburg, MD.
5. Entis, P. 2007. Appendix A. A Microbial Who’s Who. In:
Food Safety: Old Habits, New Perspectives. ASM Press,
Washington, DC.
6. Holm, C., L. Jepsen, M. Larsen, L. Jespersen. 2004.
Predominant Microflora of Downgraded Danish Bulk Tank Milk.
J. Dairy Sci. 87:1151-1157.
7. Hutchison, M.L., D.J.I. Thomas, A. Moore, D.R. Jackson,
I. Ohnstad. 2005. An Evaluation of Raw Milk Microorganisms
as Markers of On-Farm Hygiene Practices Related to Milking.
J. Food Prot. 68:764-772.
8. International Commission on Microbiological
Specifications for Foods. 1986. Microorganisms in Foods. 2.
Sampling for Microbiological Analysis:Principles and
Specific Applications, 2nd ed. University of Toronto Press,
Toronto, Canada.
9. Jay, J.M. 2000. Chapter 20. Indicators of Food Microbial
Quality and Safety. In: Modern Food Microbiology, 6th ed.
Aspen Publishers, Inc. Gaithersburg, MD.
10. Jay, J.M. 2000. Chapter 25. Foodborne Listeriosis. In:
Modern Food Microbiology, 6th ed. Aspen Publishers, Inc.
Gaithersburg, MD.
11. Jay, J.M. 2000. Chapter 28. Foodborne Gastroenteritis
Caused by Vibrio, Yersinia, and Campylobacter Species. In:
Modern Food Microbiology, 6th ed. Aspen Publishers, Inc.
Gaithersburg, MD.
12. Jayarao, B.M., and L. Wang. 1999. A Study on the
Prevalence of Gram-Negative Bacteria in Bulk Tank Milk. J.
Dairy Sci. 82:2620-2624.
13. Kornacki, J.L., and J.L. Johnson. 2001. Chapter 8.
Enterobacteriaceae, Coliforms, and Escherichia coli as
Quality and Safety Indicators. In: Compendium of Methods for
the Microbiological Examination of Foods, 4th edition (F.P.
Downes & K. Ito, eds.). American Public Health Association,
Washington, DC.
14. Murphy, R.Y., and R.A. Seward. 2004. Process Control and
Sampling for Escherichia coli O157:H7 in Beef Trimmings. J.
Food Prot. 67:1755-1759.
15. Stewart, S., S. Godden, R. Bey, P. Rapnicki, J. Fetrow,
R. Farnsworth, M. Scanlon, Y. Arnold, L. Clow, K. Mueller,
C. Ferrouillet. 2005. Preventing Bacterial Contamination and
Proliferation During the Harvest, Storage, and Feeding of
Fresh Bovine Colostrum. J. Dairy Sci. 88:2571-2578.
16. Tamplin, M.L. 2005. Inactivation of Escherichia coli
O157:H7 in Simulated Human Gastric Fluid. Appl. Env.
Microbiol. 71:320-325.
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: CropLife
Canada, Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural
Affairs , New Zealand Food Safety Authority, Monsanto
Canada, and the Ontario Cattlemen's Association.
Fsnet is supported at the Silver-plate Fork level by: The
National Restaurant Association, Unilever, Sholl Group/Green
Giant Fresh, Feedlot Health Management Services, McDonald's,
and Syngenta Crop Protection Canada.
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
|
|