Category Archives: Food Safety Policy

EU to ban olive oil jugs from restaurants under guise of hygiene

Posted on by
Reply

The European Union is to ban olive oil jugs and dipping bowls from restaurant tables in a move described by one of Britain’s top cooks as authoritarian and damaging to artisanal food makers.

The small glass jugs filled with green or gold coloured extra virgin olive oil are familiar and traditional for restaurant goers across Europe but they will be Olive-oil-bottle-smbanned from 1 January 2014 after a decision taken in an obscure Brussels committee earlier this week.

From next year olive oil “presented at a restaurant table” must be in pre-packaged, factory bottles with a tamper-proof dispensing nozzle and labeling in line with EU industrial standards.

The use of classic, refillable glass jugs or glazed terracotta dipping bowls and the choice of a restaurateur to buy olive oil from a small artisan producer or family business will be outlawed.

Sam Clark, the food writer, chef and proprietor of the award winning Moro restaurant in London, told The Daily Telegraph that the ban would stop him serving his customers specially selected Spanish olive oil in dipping bowls with bread when they are seated at their table.

“This will affect us. It is about choice and freedom of choice. We buy our oil, which we have selected from a farm in Spain, to serve our customers,” he said

“Yet more packaging is not going to be eco-friendly and will limit choice to more mass produced products.”

The European Commissions justification for the ban, under special Common Agriculture Policy regulations, is “hygiene” and to protect the “image of olive oil” with a measure that will benefit struggling industrial producers in Spain, Italy, Greece and Portugal.

From the beginning of next year, Britain, which abstained during a vote of national food experts on the issues on Tuesday, must enforce the ban via local authority food inspections of restaurants.

Officials defended the ban as a protection for consumers who would know that they were getting a safe, guaranteed product with proper labeling of its olive.oil.dippingorigin and with tamper-proof, hygienic dispensers.

“This is to guarantee the quality and authenticity of the olive oil put at the disposal of consumers. The aim is to better inform and protect consumer. We also expect hygiene to be improved too,” said an official.

Then I want space-aged smartphone food verification labels on every item ordered at a restaurant.

Have there been any microbial outbreaks to support such a ban?

More E. coli testing, labels for tenderized beef, but questions remain in Canadian food safety plans

Posted on by
Reply

Canada is strengthening its E. coli testing in summer months and will mandate labeling of mechanically or needle tenderized beef, but some omissions are notable.

• The changes only apply to meat produced at federal plants inspected by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. How do consumers know which is which?

• The labeling requirements only apply to cuts that are tenderized at a CFIA-regulated slaughterhouse. What about cuts that are treated further down the supply system? Health Canada says it’s working on it.

• Most notable, the expanded testing for E. coli only applies to the O157:H7/NM serotype (details of the changes are at http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/fssa/meavia/man/ch4/annexoe.shtml). There is no mention of testing for other shiga-toxin producing E. coli (STECs) such as the big six (O26, O45, O103, O111, O121 and O145) which were declared adulterants by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. I’m fairly sure that those slaughterhouses that want to continue exporting to the U.S. will have to meet U.S. testing requirements. As a consumer I’d like to know which meat has been produced under such a system of testing.

The changes follow an outbreak of E. coli O157:H7 last fall that sickened 18 people. Contaminated product was produced at XL Foods of Alberta and led to the largest meat recall in Canadian history. Several of those sickened were tenderizingPage-282x300thought to have consumed needle-tenderized product (with this technique, outside becomes inside, like hamburger, so should be cooked to 165F for safety reasons; I don’t know anyone that spends on the expense of a roast and then cooks to 165F).

Ritz said, “Canada has a world-class food safety system and our Government is committed to taking real steps to make it even stronger.”

Uh-huh.

Ritz said of labeling of mechanical tenderization beef, “It’s common sense, but it needs to be out there.”

Uh-huh.

“Can we guarantee there’ll never be anymore (outbreaks)? No. Anybody that tells you you can is lying to you. It wouldn’t matter how much money, how many people you have on the lines, there’s too many moving parts to Chicago_meat_inspection_swift_co_1906-268x300guarantee an absolute. But at the end of the day, we want to take every precaution we can.”

Uh-huh.

A table of non- E. coli O157 STEC outbreaks is available at http://bites.ksu.edu/nonO157outbreaks

Lovely and nostalgic, but have risks been reduced? Old McMicky’s Farm reopens in Florida

Posted on by
Reply

The Tampa Tribune says that Old McMicky’s Farm, the original petting zoo that survived while surrounding acreage was grabbed for development, only to succumb to an E. coli scare and a decline in visitors, has been resurrected – by a homebuilder.

That E. coli scare was in 2005 and was quite real and sickened at least 78 people who petted farm animals at three fairs in Florida and apparently amy_s_lamb_aug_12scared everyone away.

The outbreak was traced back to infected sheep, goats and cows provided by Ag Venture Farm Shows of Plant City.

So countywide, parents stopped taking their kids to farms. PTAs canceled animal appearances at spring festivals. And the Hillsborough County School District imposed a moratorium on all field trips to petting zoos and farms.

Petting farms like Old McMicky’s — which typically served more than 32,000 Pasco, Hillsborough and Pinellas schoolchildren a year — lost so much business, they were in danger of going under. And some did.

At the time, Janice Rodda, president and program manager for Old McMicky’s Farm said, “We don’t know what to do. … We’ve been in business since 1991 without ever a sickness. I try to tell the parents: Do you avoid all restaurants if one restaurant has E. coli? Why are you canceling from us?”

Such a communication strategy was probably a contributing factor to declining attendance; instead of telling wary parents the staff at Old McMicky’s took a number of preventative steps and had a thorough understanding of zoonotic risk, Rodda went to the ole standby, we’ve done things this way forever and never had a problem.

Not good enough.

So when Ralph Zuckerman of Palm Harbor, Old McMicky’s new owner, says he’s not going to build houses on the land but recreate the petting zoo bit and petting zoo 1describes it as “old-fashioned, traditional fun in a beautiful natural setting,” I wonder if he has really assessed the risks.

Zuckerman, owner of Avalon Building Corp., Tarpon Springs, bought the land in 2006 from the couple who had operated McMicky’s for 15 years.

One recent morning, 120 children, ages 5 and 6, from South Tampa’s Roosevelt Elementary School, their teachers and 60 parents arrived for the day’s first tour of the farm rebuilt “in the old Florida traditional style.”

“We’re very excited this has reopened,” said Roosevelt kindergarten teacher, Pam Militello. “I think it’s great, because it’s hands-on, they’re getting to actually experience touching the animals,” she said midway through the tour.

“A real important part of the farm,” Zuckerman said, is his 1,000 Kids program, which opens the farm to children with or health problems or other disabilities. “Bring them out for great day on the farm, on us, no charge,” he said. “They and their families can take a break from whatever they’re going through and create some fun times and great memories.”

A table of petting zoo related outbreaks is available at http://bites.ksu.edu/petting-zoos-outbreaks.

Raw milk farmer raided in Australia, UK to re-examine vending machine sales

Posted on by
1

As South Australia cracks down on raw milk sales, the UK Food Standards Agency had dropped charges against The Moo Man after he agreed to stop selling the milk on non-farm premises.

The Sussex Express explains London store Selfridges along with the star of The Moo Man, dairy farmer Stephen Hook had charges dropped while colbert.raw.milkofficials decide whether to change the law and allow raw milk sales in UK vending machines.

Not so in the state of South Australia, where it is illegal to sell raw milk, so consumers have adopted the North American tactic of buying shares in a cow.

David Basham, president of the South Australian Dairyfarmers Association told ABC News that as an industry they don’t want to see raw milk sold as they see the health risks as too great.

Geoff Raven from Biosecurity SA says that they have asked the dairy farmer involved to become an accredited farmer, who would then not be allowed to offer untreated milk to consumers.

The four main causes of serious childhood diarrhea

Posted on by
Reply

Just four pathogens underpin most cases of serious diarrhea in children—the second leading killer of young children worldwide—according to a study published today in The Lancet.

Nature.com reports that out of nearly 40 diarrhea-causing germs, the researchers identified four primary culprits: rotavirus, Cryptosporidium, a toxic type of Escherichia coli, and Shigella. The winnowing of the list could allow health experts to design targeted health campaigns.

“I think what we have done is allow doctors and public health experts to prioritize and potentially save thousands of lives,” says Karen Kotloff, a pediatrician at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, and first author of the study. Diarrheal diseases kill an estimated 800,000 young children each year, second only to pneumonia, which kills around 1.2 million.

It’s like unprotected sex; many vets sickened by animals they treat

Posted on by
Reply

Erstwhile veterinarian Gonzalo starts a year of clinical rotations today.

This is the time when veterinary students mysteriously diagnose themselves with whatever ailment the animals have.

ace-venturaApparently in some cases it’s true.

Almost one in two vets contract infections from animals they treat because of bad hygiene practices, a study has found.

Research by the University of Sydney’s Veterinary Science department shows poor infection control has led to 44.9 per cent of vets contracting an infectious disease during their career.

More than 75 per cent of the 344 veterinarians questioned used masks, gowns or gloves when performing surgery, dental work and post-mortem examinations.

However, about half (40 to 70 per cent) didn’t use adequate protection when treating animals with respiratory, neurological, gastrointestinal and dermatological disease.

“Our profession appears to have a complacent attitude towards the use of personal protection,” said the study’s author, Dr Navneet Dhand.

“Not using appropriate protection when necessary is just like having unprotected sex with a stranger and thinking that it will be alright.”

 

Woolworths caught selling out of date food in Adelaide

Posted on by
Reply

This is not your parent’s Woolworths. In Australia and New Zealand, Woolworths, related in name only, is the largest retailer. The other big supermarket is Coles. They both suck at food safety, based on personal observation, public talks full of sanctimonious nonsense that anyone could see through, and crap food.

Recently, Woolworths was cited for selling foods that were well past their use-by dates. Two different incidents were noted of Asian lamb and rice pre-packaged woolworths_logomeals that were purchased almost two weeks after their use-by date. The store responsible for the sales is located in Adelaide.

According to food safety law, all foods must contain a sell-by or use-by date. Any items that could become dangerous to consume from bacteria or other contamination after a certain amount of time must contain a use-by date for consumer safety. All other foods should include a sell-by date. This date will only say the food may not be as good. It doesn’t indicate any danger or contamination.

In this instance, with Woolworths, the food had a distinct use-by date, indicating that consumption of the pre-packaged meals could result in danger to the consumer health. This means that the supermarket giant was in breach of food safety codes 1.2.5 set forth by the Australia and New Zealand Food Standards Commission. According to Australian law, this breach of code can result in fines up to $250,000 total.

Woolworths used two different methods of defence while admitting their error: no one became ill from eating the two packages of expired foods and the problem was a result of staff error. Woolworths went on to explain that the staff of the store in question has since undergone intensive training on the proper way to handle any expired foods. The company admitted to the wrong doing but explained how they worked to handle the matter quickly.

The magistrate judge who handled the case stated to the press that the company would be the subject of seriously negative publicity and he felt this was a much better punishment than any fine he could charge. While Woolworths was not charged with any conviction, they were forced to pay the minimal fine to show that they committed wrongdoing.

Supermarkets cash in on unfounded fears about food and health

Posted on by
Reply

Earthbound Farm senior vice president Will Daniels told the Baltimore Food Safety Summit that food safety should not be a competitive advantage, and to prove that, Earthbound Farm plans to open its wash line and facilities to competitors.

But that does nothing for consumers, the schleps who go buy bagged lettuce at the supermarket.

Food safety should be marketed at retail; it’s the only way consumers can lettuce.skull.norosupport those producers who pay more attention to food safety than the others.

Instead, what dominates at retail is negative marketing.

The Guardian asks, Do I choose the product that is “free from artificial sweetener” or has “no MSG”? What about the one that “contains no GM” or is “paraben-free”?

But these are false choices: supermarkets are misinforming their customers about health risks. There is no scientific evidence to support rumors about adverse health effects from the flavor enhancer monosodium glutamate (MSG), or from foods containing material from plants that were genetically modified, or from the sweetener aspartame, or from parabens, which are used to preserve toiletries.

By marketing products as “free from” supermarkets are playing on people’s fears, which are based on the rumors that have circulated about these substances.

Frustrated by this cynical marketing, a group of junior researchers that I coordinate (the Voice of Young Science network) wrote an open letter calling on supermarkets to stop misleading customers and review their negative claim policies.

Good for them.

Negative marketing by supermarkets based on unsubstantiated concerns exploits people’s attempts to choose healthy products, even pushing them towards alternatives that may not be good for them. It undermines our efforts to help people make sense of stories about food. Products and policies based on evidence are vital to give customers a real, informed choice. Supermarkets need to promote evidence not unfounded fears.

And for all the food safety types racking up frequent flyer miles and talking at endless meetings, do something substantive: market microbial food safety at retail.

food.safe.culture.market

What makes great students: Gonzalo Erdozain

Posted on by
1

When a student shows up (electronically or in person) and says, I woke up this morning and decided I didn’t want to work in advertising any more and want to be a veterinarian, I pay attention.

Probably because it’s vaguely similar to what I did 25 years ago.

Gonzalo Erdozain, who’s taking the weekend off before entering clinics for his fourth year of his veterinary degree, also completed his Masters of Public Health gonzalo.pic.may13on Thursday.

And he’s married and has a 1-year-old.

So it’s sorta similar to what I did all those years ago.

The thesis was a no-brainer. He’s already got one paper published and a second under review, both focused on petting zoos and zoonotic disease transmission.

These are the colleagues that make university enjoyable; the rest of it sorta sucks.

Erdozain G, Kukanich K, Chapman B, Powell D. 2012. Observation of public health risk behaviours, risk communication and hand hygiene at Kansas and Missouri petting zoos – 2010-2011. Zoonoses Public Health. 2012 Jul 30. doi: 10.1111/j.1863-2378.2012.01531.x. [Epub ahead of print]

Abstract below:

Observation of public health risk behaviors, risk communication and hand hygiene at Kansas and Missouri petting zoos – 2010-2011Outbreaks of human illness have been linked to visiting settings with animal contact throughout developed countries. This paper details an observational study of hand hygiene tool availability and recommendations; frequency of risky behavior; and, handwashing attempts by visitors in Kansas (9) and Missouri (4), U.S., petting zoos. Handwashing signs and hand hygiene stations were available at the exit of animal-contact areas in 10/13 and 8/13 petting zoos respectively. Risky behaviors were observed being performed at all petting zoos by at least one visitor. Frequently observed behaviors were: children (10/13 petting zoos) and adults (9/13 petting zoos) touching hands to face within animal-contact areas; animals licking children’s and adults’ hands (7/13 and 4/13 petting zoos, respectively); and children and adults drinking within animal-contact areas (5/13 petting zoos each). Of 574 visitors observed for hand hygiene when exiting animal-contact areas, 37% (n=214) of individuals attempted some type of hand hygiene, with male adults, female adults, and children attempting at similar rates (32%, 40%, and 37% respectively). Visitors were 4.8x more likely to wash their hands when a staff member was present within or at the exit to the animal-contact area (136/231, 59%) than when no staff member was present (78/343, 23%; p<0.001, OR=4.863, 95% C.I.=3.380-6.998). Visitors at zoos with a fence as a partial barrier to human-animal contact were 2.3x more likely to wash their hands (188/460, 40.9%) than visitors allowed to enter the animals’ yard for contact (26/114, 22.8%; p<0.001, OR= 2.339, 95% CI= 1.454-3.763). Inconsistencies existed in tool availability, signage, and supervision of animal-contact. Risk communication was poor, with few petting zoos outlining risks associated with animal-contact, or providing recommendations for precautions to be taken to reduce these risks.

Fewer barfing: estimates of foodborne illness in Canada

Posted on by
1

Following the lead of the U.S., Canada has significantly reduced its estimate of annual foodborne illness rates – the number of people barfing each year from food – from 11 million to 4 million, or 1-in-8 people each year.

The current U.S. estimate is 48 million annual cases or 1-in-6 people, down from 76 million or 1-in-4 people.

In both cases, the downward estimates reflect changes in methodologies rather than actual decreases in illness; or maybe there are fewer people barfing, it’s restaurant_food_crap_garbage_10-297x300impossible to compare.

A paper was published in Foodborne Pathogens and Disease yesterday (abstract below) and highlights published in a press release, with excerpts below.

The Public Health Agency of Canada estimates that each year roughly one in eight Canadians (or four million people) get sick due to domestically acquired food-borne diseases. This estimate provides the most accurate picture yet of which food-borne bacteria, viruses, and parasites (“pathogens” – why the dick fingers?) are causing the most illnesses in Canada, as well as estimating the number of foodborne illnesses without a known cause.

In general, Canada has a very safe food supply; however, this estimate shows that there is still work to be done to prevent and control foodborne illness in Canada, to focus efforts on pathogens which cause the greatest burden and to better understand foodborne illness without a known cause.

The Agency has estimates for two major groups of foodborne illnesses:

Known foodborne pathogens: There are 30 pathogens known to cause foodborne illness. Many of these pathogens are tracked by public health systems that monitor cases of illness.

To estimate the total number of food-borne illnesses, the Agency estimated the number of illnesses caused by both known foodborne pathogens and unspecified agents.

In general, to be captured in a Canadian surveillance system a sick individual must: seek care; have a sample (stool, urine or blood) requested; and submit a sample for testing. In addition, the sample must be tested with a test capable of identifying the causative agent; and finally the positive test result must be reported to the surveillance system. Surveillance systems only capture a small portion of total illnesses given all these necessary steps (i.e. there is under-diagnosis and under-reporting taking place).

The Agency’s 2013 estimates of illnesses from food-borne diseases in Canada are more accurate than the estimates published in 2008 of 11 million episodes of foodborne illness each year based on better data and methodologies. The 2008 estimates used values from earlier United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates applied to a Canadian estimate of the average number of esti-fig5-engepisodes of acute gastrointestinal illness per person occurring each year. In addition, the methodology used for the 2013 estimates is different from that used in 2008. As a result of these differences, no strict side-by-side comparison can be made between the two sets of estimates. The 2013 estimates do not mean that there is less foodborne illness occurring, but rather, that more accurate estimates are now possible.

Estimates of the burden of foodborne illness in Canada for 30 specified pathogens and unspecified agents, circa 2006

10.may.13

Foodborne Pathogens and Disease

M. Kate Thomas, Regan Murray, Logan Flockhart, Katarina Pintar, Frank Pollari, Aamir Fazil, Andrea Nesbitt, and Barbara Marshall

http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/fpd.2012.1389

ABSTRACT

Estimates of foodborne illness are important for setting food safety priorities and making public health policies. The objective of this analysis is to estimate domestically acquired, foodborne illness in Canada, while identifying data gaps and areas for further research. Estimates of illness due to 30 pathogens and unspecified agents were based on data from the 2000–2010 time period from Canadian surveillance systems, relevant international literature, and the Canadian census population for 2006. The modeling approach required accounting for under-reporting and underdiagnosis and to estimate the proportion of illness domestically acquired and through foodborne transmission. To account for uncertainty, Monte Carlo simulations were performed to generate a mean estimate and 90% credible interval. It is estimated that each year there are 1.6 million (1.2–2.0 million) and 2.4 million (1.8–3.0 million) episodes of domestically acquired foodborne illness related to 30 known pathogens and unspecified agents, respectively, for a total estimate of 4.0 million (3.1–5.0 million) episodes of domestically acquired foodborne illness in Canada. Norovirus, Clostridium perfringens, Campylobacter spp., and nontyphoidal Salmonella spp. are the leading pathogens and account for approximately 90% of the pathogen-specific total. Approximately one in eight Canadians experience an episode of domestically acquired foodborne illness each year in Canada. These estimates cannot be compared with prior crude estimates