Monthly Archives: April 2012

North Carolina food regs to be in line with food code; rules built on science are good

Posted on by
Reply

My initiation into the real world of food production was in the vegetable production industry. As a 22-year-old naive graduate student Doug sent me out to Leamington Ontario (that’s in Canada) with Amber Bailey, to see whether I could work with greenhouse producers on keeping their wash water and employee’s hands clean. That trip turned into a MSc project and I spent three years working with almost 200 farmers on risk-reduction practices as I took product and water samples.

On one of those visits a farmer wanted to talk about food safety regulations, especially whether farms would ever see the type of regulation restaurants do. He said that a law might help provide some uniformity to how farmers managed risk and could provide a level playing field (because even in 2002 they were seeing inconsistent audits/auditors) but he finished by saying something like, "I don’t really want to be regulated like restaurants, with inspectors who have never been on a farm sniffing around here looking for problems."

My experience on the farms (and then in restaurants) also taught me that getting someone to change what they do is a lot easier if you can describe the evidence behind the new practice. Telling folks about outbreaks and data in a compelling way matters.

The folks I encounter regardless of sector, still ask a lot of questions about the whys behind a particular rule or guidance.

Later this year, according to Thomas Goldsmith of the News & Observer, North Carolina will be adopting the FDA Model Food Code by reference – which means the state’s food service rules will be based on the best available science, will update automatically with subsequent versions of the code.

A useful food safety regulation has a nod to risk calculations (probability and consequences) and is built on some sort of evidence (whether that be strong outbreak investigation data or laboratory data). The FDA model food code, for the most part, fits this.

The Model Food Code also provides the best example of how to systematically evaluate the times, temperatures and practices and make recommendations for revision when new information comes up (the biannual Conference for Food Protection provides this nice framework).

Cold food will have to be kept colder. Restaurant employees who have certain symptoms won’t be allowed to work. And cooks won’t touch ready-to-eat food with bare hands, but only with gloves, deli paper or tongs.

These are just a few of the changes that will accompany North Carolina’s expected adoption of federal Food and Drug Administration guidelines that will replace a much-amended set of regulations dating from 1976, state and local officials said.

Developed by the FDA in collaboration with scientists, academics, industry representatives and physicians, the Food Code is revised every four years based on the most up-to-date science available, said Larry Michael, head of the food protection program at the state division.

“The approach in the past involved an endless process of revising the rules and standards,” Michael said. “This proved to be inefficient.

A 2010 survey in Wake County reinforced the need for new guidelines, said Andre Pierce, environmental health and safety director for county environmental services. About 90 percent of restaurants and other food-service places didn’t have the kinds of policies to keep sick workers home that are included in the federal code.

Physical conditions that rule out working in food service are diarrhea, vomiting, sore throat with fever, jaundice and lesions with pus.
Some provisions, such as keeping cold food at 41 degrees instead of 45 degrees, will be phased in to give restaurants time to comply. The code also will require that every establishment have a certified food-safety manager on site at all times.

The state estimates that compliance will cost the food service industry $5.5 million during the first four years but that restaurants and other establishments will realize benefits that can’t be quantified from not making people sick. Industry figures state that an outbreak of foodborne illness costs a restaurant an average of $75,000.

Meanwhile, during the same four-year period, the state is expected to save $6 million compared to current costs of dealing with such outbreaks.

Given repeated, widely publicized incidents of foodborne illness, many restaurants already follow the provisions of the FDA code, said Alyssa Barkley, director of health and safety for the North Carolina Restaurant and Lodging Association. “I have been at the table for a couple of years throughout this process,” said Barkley, whose background is in public health. “We have been at the table making sure that the rules that are adopted aren’t going to be a major burden on businesses.”

5 sick, 2 kids with HUS; raw milk common theme in Missouri E. coli outbreak

Posted on by
1

The Columbia Tribune reports a Boone County, Missouri, 2-year-old infected with E. coli remained hospitalized this morning in Columbia as one of five Central Missouri residents battling the bacteria.

Geni Alexander, public information officer for the Columbia/Boone County Department of Public Health and Human Services, said the 2-year-old is one of three Boone County residents with either a confirmed or suspected case of the illness.

Alexander said health officials have determined that consumption of raw dairy products was the only common link for possible exposure among the three Boone County victims. She did not disclose the gender of the victims.

"Each person was identified as a raw dairy consumer," Alexander said, "but we can’t say they all got it from the same place."

The Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services is investigating an increase in cases of Shiga toxin-producing E. coli in Central Missouri from late March through early April. In addition to the Boone County 2-year-old, state health officials reported Thursday that a 17-month-old toddler also developed symptoms of hemolytic uremic syndrome, or HUS, a severe condition that can lead to permanent kidney damage in some who survive the illness.

Alexander said the victims of the three Boone County cases range in age from 2 to 31. The 17-month-old victim is not a Boone County resident, she said.

"In public health, we always advise to stay away from those raw dairy products," she said.

A table of raw milk related outbreaks is available at http://bites.ksu.edu/rawmilk.

If the hygiene hypothesis is real, does it matter?

Posted on by
4

The most frequently asked question with public and scientific crowds at any food safety jamfest I’ve done over the past 20 years: Is food too clean?

It comes from that adage, what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger.

But what if it kills you? Or causes irreparable damage, like 8-year-old Brit, Elisabeth Willoughby, who contracted toxocariasis, probably from contact with dog doo while crawling in the park as an infant. Her right eye was permanently scarred by the roundworm parasite.

Watching daughter Sorenne slowly recover from whatever made her stronger the other night via 14 vomits and five diarrheal episodes reinforced, to me, how little is known.

The concept of exposing people to germs at an early age to build immunity is known as the hygiene hypothesis.

I’m not an immunologist, but the idea makes biological sense; I do, however, get concerned with the details, and generalizations.

Medical types have suggested that the hygiene hypothesis explains the global increase of allergic and autoimmune diseases in urban settings. It has also been suggested that the hypothesis explains the changes that have occurred in society and environmental exposures, such as giving antibiotics early in life.

Researchers at Brigham and Women’s Hospital (BWH) reported in Science last month that exposing germ-free mice to microbes during their first weeks of life, but not when exposed later in adult life, led to a normalized immune system and prevention of diseases.

Moreover, the protection provided by early-life exposure to microbes was long-lasting, as predicted by the hygiene hypothesis.

"These studies show the critical importance of proper immune conditioning by microbes during the earliest periods of life," said Richard Blumberg, MD, chief for the BWH Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Endoscopy, and co-senior study author, in collaboration with Dennis Kasper, MD, director of BWH’s Channing Laboratory and co-senior study author. "Also now knowing a potential mechanism will allow scientists to potentially identify the microbial factors important in determining protection from allergic and autoimmune diseases later in life."

Does that mean if your kid gets an infectious disease later in life, parents are negligent for not exposing them to a little infectious disease earlier in life?

It all sounds romantically agrarian – a little dirt is good for you – until specifics get in the way; specifics like, it’s your kid.

My answer to questioning minds goes something like this:

We know immune systems take several years to develop in young children, and things start to go downhill after 55. (Freedom 55?) A little dirt may be good for kids, but there will always be some who, through genetics, environment and other unknowns, will be more susceptible to disease than others. And we’re not smart enough to know who those individuals are. The good ole’ days usually included stories about a family that lost a kid. And it was probably some kind of infectious disease. Western societies have enough science and enough affluence to decide, one is too many.

Then there’s the policy. I can’t image the agriculture minister or secretary announcing that investments in a lot of this food safety stuff would be better spent on other societal priorities. We’ve done a cost-benefit analysis and decided it’s better for everyone to get a little sick. We’re going to lose a few, and we don’t know who those few (or many) are, but it’s a cost-effective approach.

T. Olszak, D. An, S. Zeissig, M. P. Vera, J. Richter, A. Franke, J. N. Glickman, R. Siebert, R. M. Baron, D. L. Kasper, R. S. Blumberg. Microbial exposure during early life has persistent effects on natural killer T cell function. Science, 2012; DOI: 10.1126/science.1219328

How to wash produce and what consumers say they do

Posted on by
Reply

Surveys still suck.

But at least researchers from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration recognize the limitations of self-reported food safety behavior, in this case applied to produce washing practices in the kitchen. From a recent paper in Food Protection Trends:

“Although washing does not guarantee removal of pathogens if the item has become contaminated, it increases the likelihood that pathogens will be removed, compared with not washing or using washing methods that are not recommended. Soaking and use of any type of cleaner are not recommended washing methods. Soaking does not remove contami¬nants as effectively as rubbing or rinsing produce under running water. Cleaners not meant for produce can introduce chemical contaminants, and produce washes are considered no more effective than water. Unlike other types of produce, almost all bagged, pre-cut let¬tuce in the market place is pre-washed. For bagged, pre-cut lettuce that is labeled as pre-washed, additional washing is not recommended as it is not likely to en¬hance safety and introduces the op¬portunity for cross-contamination of the product with pathogens that may be in the home kitchen. …

“This study has some strengths and limitations. One of the limitations is that the data are self-reported. We rely on consumers’ ability to both remember what they do and convey it accurately. Self-reporting is also subject to the de¬sire to give socially desirable responses; an observational study of consumer produce washing showed that far fewer consumers actually wash produce than report doing so in surveys. Also, the findings would have been more use¬ful if we had asked consumers why they washed cantaloupes and bagged, pre-cut lettuce. Finally, our survey suffered from the increasingly common problem of low response rates for household sur¬veys, although this does not necessarily bias the survey results. Some of the main strengths of this study are the sampling method, large sample size and weighting strategy, which allows our findings to be representative of the population. This allows us to make comparisons at the population level.

“Food Safety practices should be¬gin on the farm and be rigorously ap¬plied along the entire chain so that food products are safe for human consump¬tion without the need for extraordinary measures. Consumers, however, are the critical endpoint along the food supply chain. Educational efforts with respect to product washing should focus on explaining why it is important to wash hard rind produce such as cantaloupe be¬fore cutting, but not rewashing produce that is ready to be eaten.”

The abstract is below:

Consumer vegetable and fruit washing practices in the United States, 2006 and 2010
Food Protection Trends, Vol. 32, No. 4, Pages 164–172
Linda Verrill, Amy M. Lando 1 and Kellie M. O’Connell
Vegetables and fruits may become contaminated with pathogens anywhere along the farm-to-plate continuum. Therefore, the FDA recommends that vegetables and fruits that have not already been washed be washed by the consumer before slicing or consuming them. The FDA included in its 2006 and 2010 Food Safety Survey a series of questions about purchasing and washing of strawberries, tomatoes, cantaloupes, and bagged, pre-cut lettuce. The Food Safety Survey is a telephone survey tracking consumers’ knowledge, attitudes and behaviors related to food safety. In 2006, of those who buy these products, 98% wash strawberries, 97% wash tomatoes, 57% wash cantaloupes and 54% wash bagged pre-cut lettuce. Overall, for both years, more women than men wash cantaloupes, and more men than women wash bagged pre-cut lettuce. Cantaloupe washing declined from 2006 to 2010 for men, while lettuce washing increased for women in the same period. Targeted education campaigns should emphasize the importance of washing produce, especially fruits with hard rinds.

Pink slime, yellow journalism and the amplification of risk

Posted on by
5

Public discussion of pink slime – LFTB, yo! — has denigrated into an Internet-energized caricature faster than the U.S. found itself at war with Spain over Cuba in 1898.

Technology will do that; but the basic framing of the public and political dialogue is the same, with contributions from hacks on many sides in the absence of data.

Is pink slime, or lean finely textured beef – safe and sustainable? Probably.

Does it make other beef safer when added to ground meat to make hamburger? Probably not.

Jim Dickson and colleagues at Iowa State verified the process works back in 2002. Within the food science nerd community, there has been some chatting about the rigor of the study but that’s normal: dispute and dissent, backed by evidence, is what makes science great (Niebuhr, S. and J.S. Dickson. 2002. Impact of pH Enhancement on the Populations of Salmonella, Listeria and Escherichia coli O157:H7 in Boneless Lean Beef Trimmings. Journal of Food Protection 66:874-877).

The politically-inspired formation of public opinion – the rhetoric – is an ancient art a lot easier to engage in rather than the actual grind of generating data.

Food is political, but it should be informed by data; and that data should be public.

There is a paucity of data about pink slime that is publicly available, so statements like it’s safe, or it’s gross, are difficult to quantify.

But many have no problem using pink slime as a launching pad to further validate their own personal agendas, and, I guess, make them feel better.

The cooking tips of Mark Bittman are occasionally useful. But like most entertainers, his forays into social policy sorta suck, error-ridden and conspiracy laden.

From his perch at the New York Times, Bittman once again proclaims industrial production is the root of all evil, because “E. coli, found in the digestive tracts of cattle, is common on factory farms where cattle are fed only grain.”

That’s nothing more than a political opinion, using selective or barely-existent science. Dangerous strains of E. coli happen, in all ruminants, so telling people it’s OK to eat ground hamburger at 120F may appeal to personal choice, until someone barfs. It’s bad science and bad policy. Bittman’s a repeat offender, placing politics and porn before evidence-based safety, and uses pink slime as a launching pad for a screed about antibiotic resistant pathogens in the food supply.

So do activist groups, some of whom say pink slime is nothing, the feds really want to reduce the amount of veterinary inspection at slaughter plants and that’s the real issue.

So do those who rail against media excess, employing rhetoric to write in excessive columns for media, that pink slime’s all a manufactured scare and people should go back to sleep.

Those who have recently discovered the Internet after Al Gore invented it in 1995 sagely state that social media makes everything happen really, really, really fast.

The derogatory phrase, yellow journalism, is credited to newspaper owners Slick Willy Randolph ‘Rosebud’ Hearst and the slightly creepy Joseph Pulitzer. The wiki version is that at the close of the 19th century, those two were fighting a circulation battle in New York City, and made their stories about alleged atrocities in Spanish-Cuba credible by self assertion and providing false names, dates, and locations of skirmishes and atrocities committed by the Spanish. Papers also claimed that their facts could be substantiated by the government.

Beef Product Inc., the makers of pink slime, when not lashing out at the meida, were quick to say government testing validated their views, and U.S. Department of Agriculture types said thousands of tests had not found the dangerous bugs – at least not the ones they were looking for. Relying on government validation builds suspicion rather than trust. If BPI has the safety data, make it public.

Amplification of messages through media is nothing new, especially if those messages support a pre-existing world-view.

In 1988, the Kaspersons and colleagues first formalized the theory of the social amplification of risk, which helps explain why minor technical risks become major public risks (see abstract below). Social media just accelerates the speed at which people can confirm their own pre-existing bias. It’s always been there, now it’s faster. Companies that expect to profit from the sale of food or wares may eventually catch up; maybe even the commentators.

The politicization and follow-the-leader soundbites of pink slime are worthy of a Monty Python skit. And leave that Welsh tart alone.

The social amplification of risk: A conceptual framework
Risk Analysis, Volume 8, Issue 2, pages 177–187, June 1988
Roger E. Kasperson, Ortwin Renn, Paul Slovic, Halina S. Brown, Jacque Emel, Robert Goble, Jeanne X. Kasperson, Samuel Ratick
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1988.tb01168.x/abstract
Abstract
One of the most perplexing problems in risk analysis is why some relatively minor risks or risk events, as assessed by technical experts, often elicit strong public concerns and result in substantial impacts upon society and economy. This article sets forth a conceptual framework that seeks to link systematically the technical assessment of risk with psychological, sociological, and cultural perspectives of risk perception and risk-related behavior. The main thesis is that hazards interact with psychological, social, institutional, and cultural processes in ways that may amplify or attenuate public responses to the risk or risk event. A structural description of the social amplification of risk is now possible. Amplification occurs at two stages: in the transfer of information about the risk, and in the response mechanisms of society. Signals about risk are processed by individual and social amplification stations, including the scientist who communicates the risk assessment, the news media, cultural groups, interpersonal networks, and others. Key steps of amplifications can be identified at each stage. The amplified risk leads to behavioral responses, which, in turn, result in secondary impacts. Models are presented that portray the elements and linkages in the proposed conceptual framework.
 

Easter chick or egg or Salmonella?

Posted on by
1

Health officials are again bracing for yet another wave of illness linked to Easter gifts of baby chicks and ducklings.

Last year 68 people got salmonella in 20 states from handling baby chicks and ducklings, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Almost a third were under age 6.

CDC’s Casey Barton Bahravesh told USA Today’s Elizabeth Weise there have been more than 35 U.S. outbreaks of salmonella caused by exposure to chicks, ducklings and other live poultry since 1990, and most of those who got sick were young children.

If you’re buying chicks, ask if the seller tests them for salmonella, says Douglas Powell, a professor of food safety at Kansas State University in Manhattan, Kan. "If they look at you like you’re crazy, you shouldn’t buy from them."

Stores say customers don’t always think through what they’ll do with a chick when it becomes a chicken. The surge in interest in backyard laying flocks has helped, because there are more friends and family willing to take in a cute chick that’s now a not-so-cute pullet, says Les Phillips of MyPetChicken.com, an online poultry supplier. But some chick buyers still "end up taking them to the local pet store to try to re-home them."

Half of all chicks are boys, and boy chicks grow up to be crowing roosters that can live for up to five years.

If that chick goes on to produce eggs, Professor Ben Chapman of North Carolina State University says hard boiled eggs used in egg hunts shouldn’t be eaten afterwards because the shells can crack, allowing bacteria to enter.

Officials at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration estimated 142,000 illnesses are caused each year by consumption of eggs contaminated with Salmonella, and that even eggs with clean, un-cracked shells may occasionally contain the bacteria Salmonella.

The FDA recommends to:
— Buy eggs only if sold from a refrigerator or refrigerated case.
— Open the carton and make sure that the eggs are clean and the shells are not cracked.
— Refrigerate promptly.
— Store eggs in their original carton and use them within three weeks for best quality.
— Wash hands, utensils, equipment, and work surfaces with hot, soapy water before and after they come in contact with eggs and egg-containing foods.
— Cook eggs until both the yolk and the white are firm. Scrambled eggs should not be runny.
— Casseroles and other dishes containing eggs should be cooked to 160 degrees F.
— For recipes that call for eggs that are raw or undercooked when the dish is served — Caesar salad dressing and homemade ice cream — use either shell eggs that have been treated to destroy Salmonella, by pasteurization or another approved method, or pasteurized egg products.

107 sick; norovirus confirmed in outbreak at Cebolla’s Mexican Grill in Indiana

Posted on by
Reply

The Fort Wayne-Allen County Department of Health confirmed Friday 107 people were sickened by norovirus at Cebolla’s Mexican Grill, 5930 W. Jefferson Blvd, up for the original 20.

The situation at Cebolla’s was believed to have developed March 25. Symptoms of the virus – nausea, stomach cramps, vomiting and diarrhea – begin 24-48 hours after exposure. Cebolla’s management has continued to cooperate through the investigation.

People are sick, but no one is saying how many; Salmonella outbreak in Canada linked to beef

Posted on by
Reply

CFIA sucks at writing press releases.

Information that other health agencies consider pertinent in a suspected outbreak of foodborne illness, like the number of suspected sick people, or how a positive test for a food product was obtained, are rarely included, leaving journalists and others to guess. It fuels suspicion, conspiracy theories and perceptions of incompetence, anything but confidence.

So this is part of what CFIA issues about 4 a.m. EST.

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) and Intercity Packers (East) Ltd are warning the public, distributors and food service establishments not to consume, sell, serve or use the beef burger meat mix described below because the product may be contaminated with Salmonella.

The affected product, Intercity Packers Ltd brand Beef Burger Meat Mix 80/20, is sold in 5 kg cases (each containing 2 x 2.5 kg units) bearing UPC 90066172180172 and lot code 046. The affected product can be identified by the Establishment number (EST) 503 that appears on the outer cases. The chubs inside the case do not carry any label.

This product has been distributed to public and commercial food establishments in Ontario and Newfoundland and possibly retailers in Newfoundland. Consumers in Newfoundland are advised to check with their store of purchase to determine if they have the affected product.

This is an ongoing food safety investigation. Provincial and local public health authorities are investigating an outbreak of Salmonella illnesses in Ottawa and southern Ontario in collaboration with federal health partners including the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Health Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada.

Nuevo Folleto Informativo: riesgos alimentarios durante las pascuas

Posted on by
Reply

Traducido por Gonzalo Erdozain

Resumen del folleto informativo mas reciente:

– El lavado de manos luego de tocar animalitos (incluyendo aquellos adorables), reduce el riesgo de enfermedad. Los niños pueden enfermar luego de tocar dichos animales y ponerse las manos en la boca o tocar alimentos.
– Los huevos pueden portar Salmonella y deben ser cocidos a 145°F por 15 segundos para reducir el riesgo, o hasta que la yema se endurezca.
– Huevos crudos, intactos, deben ser almacenados a temperaturas iguales, o menores a 45°F.
– En recetas que requieran huevos crudos, use huevos pasteurizados en su lugar, para reducir el riesgo.

Los folletos informativos son creados semanalmente y puestos en restaurantes, tiendas y granjas, y son usados para entrenar y educar a través del mundo. Si usted quiere proponer un tema o mandar fotos para los folletos, contacte a Ben Chapman a benjamin_chapman@ncsu.edu.

Puede seguir las historias de los folletos informativos y barfblog en twitter
@benjaminchapman y @barfblog.

My muddy crab and the fishy tale behind eating fish on Friday

Posted on by
Reply

I’m not partial to a particular religion but do enjoy a good yarn; and a muddie.

Maria Goody of NPR’s food blog writes: “It sounds like the plot of a Dan Brown thriller: A powerful medieval pope makes a secret pact to prop up the fishing industry that ultimately alters global economics. The result: Millions of Catholics around the world end up eating fish on Fridays as part of a religious observance.

"Many people have searched the Vatican archives on this, but they have found nothing," says Brian Fagan, a professor emeritus of archaeology at the University of California, Santa Barbara, whose book, Fish On Friday, explores the impact of this practice on Western culture.

“According to Christian teaching, Jesus died on a Friday, and his death redeemed a sinful world. People have written of fasting on Friday to commemorate this sacrifice as early as the first century.

“Technically, it’s the flesh of warm-blooded animals that’s off limits — an animal "that, in a sense, sacrificed its life for us, if you will," explains Michael Foley, an associate professor at Baylor University and author of Why Do Catholics Eat Fish On Friday?

“Fish are coldblooded, so they’re considered fair game. "If you were inclined to eat a reptile on Friday," Foley tells The Salt, "you could do that, too."

“As the number of meatless days piled up on the medieval Christian calendar — not just Fridays but Wednesdays and Saturdays, Advent and Lent, and other holy days — the hunger for fish grew. Indeed, fish fasting days became central to the growth of the global fishing industry. But not because of a pope and his secret pact.

“By the time King Henry VIII ascended the throne in 1509, fish dominated the menu for a good part of the year. As one 15th century English schoolboy lamented in his notebook: "Though wyll not beleve how werey I am off fysshe, and how moch I desir to that flesch were cum in ageyn."

But after Henry became smitten with Anne Boleyn, English fish-eating took a nosedive. The king broke off from the Roman Catholic Church, declared himself the head of the Church of England and divorced his wife so he could marry Anne. Suddenly, eating fish had become political. Fish was seen as a " ‘popish flesh’ that lost favour as fast as Anglicism took root," as Kate Colquhoun recounts in her book Taste: The Story of Britain Through Its Cooking.

“Fishermen were hurting. So much so that when Henry’s young son, Edward VI, took over in 1547, fast days were reinstated by law — "for worldly and civil policy, to spare flesh, and use fish, for the benefit of the commonwealth, where many be fishers, and use the trade of living."

Whatever the reason, people eat a lot of fish on Fridays. Especially Good Friday.

The Sydney Fish Market, by the shores of the harbor at Pyrmont, expected to sell 350 tonnes of fresh seafood this week as families prepared their Easter feasts.

I contributed in Brisbane by visiting our fish monger and trying a muddie on my own.

Mud crabs and variations are available in the estuaries of Africa, Australia and Asia. In Queensland, muddies are “relatively common and generally prized above other seafood” at least according to wiki.

But not as plentiful as lobster once was in the U.S. — a bottom-feeding animal no civilized 19th-century American would want to eat. David Foster Wallace explained in his 2004 essay “Consider the Lobster,” an abundance of lobsters in the Northeast meant that they were cheap food, which could be fed to prisoners. In fact, there were laws against feeding too much lobster to prisoners, as it was seen as cruel and unusual punishment; “like feeding them rats.”

Muddies are not priced like rats.

At the Sydney Fish Market, retired truck driver Ray Mathews, 68, said his trader friends never revealed how business was going, even if the cash flow was very much in the black.

"Everyone tells you they’ve had a bad week. When you see someone going fishing, he won’t tell you where he’s going," he said.

Today I may get some barramundi and scallops; I have a tendency to overdo things.

Safe and semi-adventurous.