About Douglas Powell

A former professor of food safety and the publisher of barfblog.com, Powell is passionate about food, has five daughters, and is an OK goaltender in pickup hockey. Download Doug’s CV here. Dr. Douglas Powell editor, barfblog.com retired professor, food safety 3/289 Annerley Rd Annerley, Queensland 4103 dpowell29@gmail.com 61478222221 I am based in Brisbane, Australia, 15 hours ahead of Eastern Standard Time

Vibrio in seafood goes up

There has been an increase in reported outbreaks and cases of foodborne disease attributed to pathogenic Vibrio species. As a result, there have been several instances where the presence of pathogenic Vibrio spp. in seafood has led to a disruption in international trade.

The number of Vibrio species being recognized as potential human pathogens is increasing. The food safety concerns associated with these microorganisms have led to the need for microbiological risk assessment to support risk management decision making for their control.

Vibrio parahaemolyticus is considered to be part of the autochthonous microflora in the estuarine and coastal environments in tropical to temperate zones. Food safety concerns have been particularly evident with V. parahaemolyticus. There have been a series of pandemic outbreaks of V. parahaemolyticus foodborne illnesses due to the consumption of seafood. In addition, outbreaks of V. parahaemolyticus have occurred in regions of the world where it was previously unreported. The vast majority of strains isolated from patients with clinical illness produce a thermostable direct haemolysin (TDH) encoded by the tdh gene. Clinical strains may also produce a TDH-related haemolysin (TRH) encoded by the trh gene. It has therefore been considered that those strains that possess the tdh and/or trh genes and produce TDH and/or TRH should be considered those most likely to be pathogenic. V. vulnificus can occasionally cause mild gastroenteritis in healthy individuals following consumption of raw bivalve molluscs. It can cause primary septicaemia in individuals with chronic pre-existing conditions, especially liver disease or alcoholism, diabetes, haemochromatosis and HIV/AIDS. This can be a serious, often fatal, disease with one of the highest fatality rates of any known foodborne bacterial pathogen.

The 41st Session of the Codex Committee on Food Hygiene (CCFH) requested FAO/WHO to convene an expert meeting to address a number of issues relating to V. parahaemolyticus and V. vulnificus including:

  • conduct validation of the predictive risk models developed by the United States of America based on FAO/WHO risk assessments, with a view to constructing more applicable models for wider use among member countries, including adjustments for strain virulence variations and ecological factors; xi
  • review the available information on testing methodology and recommend microbiological methods for Vibrio spp. used to monitor the levels of pathogenic Vibrio spp. in seafood and/or water;
  • conduct validation of growth rates and doubling times for V. parahaemolyticus and V. vulnificus in Crassostrea virginica (Eastern or American oyster) using strains isolated from different parts of the world and different bivalve molluscan species.

The requested expert meeting was held on 13-17 September 2010, and this report is the outcome of this meeting. Rather than undertaking a validation exercise, the meeting considered it more appropriate to undertake an evaluation of the existing risk calculators with a view to determining the context to which they are applicable and potential modifications that would need to be made to extend their application beyond that context. A simplified calculator tool could then be developed to answer other specific questions routinely. This would be dependent on the availability of the appropriate data and effort must be directed towards this. The development of microbiological monitoring methods, particularly molecular methods for V. parahaemolyticus and V. vulnificus is evolving rapidly. This means the identification of any single method for the purposes of monitoring these pathogens is challenging and also of limited value as the method is likely to be surpassed within a few years. Therefore, rather than making any single recommendation, the meeting considered it more appropriate to indicate a few of the monitoring options available while the final decision on the method selected will depend to a great extent on the specific purpose of the monitoring activity, the cost, the speed with which results are required and the technical capacity of the laboratory.

The meeting considered that monitoring seawater for V. parahaemolyticus and V. vulnificus in bivalve growth and harvest areas has limited value in terms of predicting the presence of these pathogens in bivalves. A linear relationship between levels of the vibrios in seawater and bivalves was not found and whatever relationship does exist can vary between region, the Vibrio spp. etc. Also, the levels of Vibrio species of concern in seawater tend to be very low. This presents a further challenge as the method used would need to have an appropriate level of sensitivity for their detection. Nevertheless, this does not preclude the testing of seawater for these vibrios; for example, in certain situations testing can provide an understanding of the aquatic microflora in growing areas. Monitoring of seafood for these pathogenic vibrios was considered the most appropriate way to get insight into the xii levels of the pathogens in these commodities at the time of harvest. Monitoring on an ongoing basis could be expensive, so consideration could be given to undertaking a study over the course of a year and using this as a means to establish a relationship between total and pathogenic V. parahaemolyticus and V. vulnificus in the seafood and abiotic factors such as water temperature and salinity. Once such a relationship is established for the harvest area of interest measuring these abiotic factors may be a more cost-effective way of monitoring.

The meeting undertook an evaluation exercise rather than attempting to validate the existing growth models. The experts considered the JEMRA growth model for V. vulnificus and the FDA growth model for V. parahaemolyticus were appropriate for estimating growth in the American oyster (Crassostrea virginica). The JEMRA growth model for V. vulnificus was appropriate for estimating growth in at least one other oyster species, Crassostrea ariakensis. The FDA model for V. parahaemolyticus was also appropriate for estimating growth in at least one other oyster species, Crassostrea gigas, but was not appropriate for predicting growth in the Sydney rock oyster (Saccostrea glomerata). There was some evidence that the V. parahaemolyticus models currently used over predict growth at higher temperatures (e.g. > 25 °C) in live oysters. This phenomenon requires further investigation. Growth model studies were primarily undertaken using natural populations of V. parahaemolyticus as these were considered to be the most representative. Data were limited and inconsistent with respect to the impact of the strain on growth rate although recent studies in live oysters suggest differences exist between populations possessing tdh/trh (pathogenic) versus total or non-pathogenic populations of V. parahaemolyticus.

There was no data to evaluate the performance of the growth models in any other oyster species or other filter feeding shellfish or other seafood and as such its use in these products could not be supported. If the models are used there should be a clear understanding of the associated uncertainty. This indicated a data gap which needs to be addressed before the risk assessments could be expanded in a meaningful manner.

Risk assessment tools for vibrio parahaemolyticus and vibrio vulnificus associated with seafood, 2020

FAO and WHO

https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/330867/9789240000186-eng.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

Don’t eat dogs: China finally agrees

China signaled that it is planning to officially ban the eating of dogs after the species was omitted from a list of animals approved for human consumption.

The Ministry of Agriculture published a draft version of the list on Wednesday, which lays out what animals will be allowed to be bred for meat, fur and medical use, and includes species such as deer, ostriches and foxes.

The ministry is seeking public feedback on the draft list until May 8, it said.

In its statement, the ministry specifically noted the omission of dogs, saying that public concern about the issue and a growing awareness of animal protection had contributed to the species being left off.

In the Chinese city of Wuhan, the wet market that spawned the pandemic which has brought the world to its knees now slumbers quietly behind a tidy-looking blue-and-white partition.

The eating of dogs has become an increasingly controversial issue in China as pet ownership has surged. 

It has been further brought to the fore by the coronavirus, which was first identified in patients linked to market in the city of Wuhan where non-traditional animals were sold for food.

Spitting on food, even in UAE, is not cool

Dude, I just said it wasn’t cool to spit in food.

Ruba Haza of The National reports a bakery worker has been tested for the coronavirus after he was caught on camera spitting in the bread he was preparing, police said.

They said the worker was detained after Ajman Municipality and Planning Department received a video from a customer.

The worker was brought to the Al Jarf Police Station and was tested for Covid-19 as a precautionary measure.

The bakery was shut down by the municipality for flouting food hygiene rules.

From the duh files: Spitting on food in a grocery store is not cool

Asher Klein of NBC Boston reports a man who allegedly coughed and spit at a Stop & Shop in Kingston, Massachusetts, before getting into a fight there Saturday afternoon has been taken to a hospital for evaluation and may face charges, police said.

A witness to the incident said the man was coughing and spitting on food at the supermarket. He shared video to Facebook showing two men holding another one down, with one of Stop & Shop’s hazard-spotting robots hovering nearby.

“Some guy at Stop and Shop in Kingston was coughing and spitting on the produce, he didn’t last long. He fought an employee and good customers took him down until the cops arrived,” the witness, Kyle Mann, wrote in the post.

Store officials have discarded potentially affected product and conducted a deep cleaning and sanitizing of all impacted areas, according to the statement. Additionally, the Board of Health has inspected the store and affirmed it is safe for shoppers.

The accused spitter has been told that police are moving to accuse him of crimes that may involve assault and battery and destroying property.

A Pennsylvania grocery store had to throw out tens of thousands of dollars worth of food late last month after a woman walked inside and “proceeded to purposely cough on our fresh produce, and a small section of our bakery, meat case and grocery.”

(And we had a lovely 1-hour of John Prine songs yesterday at my weekly music therapy session, but I forgot this one. As one of my Canadian daughters likes to say, we’ll just put that down as a dementia moment — dp).

John Prine, Who Chronicled the Human Condition in Song, Dies at 73

John Prine, the raspy-voiced country-folk singer whose ingenious lyrics to songs by turns poignant, angry and comic made him a favorite of Bob Dylan, Kris Kristofferson and others, died Tuesday at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn. He was 73.

The cause was complications from Covid-19, his family said.

Human-to-cat COVID-19 virus transmission: Belgium

My Guelph (that’s in Canada) friend, hockey buddy and veterinarian, Scott Weese, has done an admirable job of updating the world on pets and coronavirus through his Worms and Germs Blog.

He notes that a cat in Belgium, owned by a person with COVID-19, has tested positive for the virus. The cat developed diarrhea, vomiting and respiratory difficulty about 1 week after the owner got sick, and SARS-CoV-2 was found in the cat’s feces. It’s not clear whether the test used was PCR (which can detected live or dead virus) or virus isolation (which only detects live virus), or if other samples were also tested. It’s also not clear whether the cat was sick because of the infection with SARS-CoV-2 or whether it had some other co-incidental problem (or whether the cat is still alive or not).  They were clear that this is another suspected case of human-to-animal transmission, and not the other way around.

Is this surprising?

Not really. We’ve been saying there’s likely going to be some human-to-pet transmission, and cats have been a concern because they are theoretically a susceptible species based on analysis of the virus and cell receptors.

Is this concerning?

I don’t have any more concern today than I did before this report, since it was likely that this was going to happen, and animals (still) presumably pose very limited risk. An infected cat isn’t a big concern in the household since the person who exposed the cat in the first place is the main risk. This virus is being transmitted very effectively person-person, so animals likely play little role, if any in the grand scheme of things.  But we still want to take basic steps to keep the risk as low as possible.

So, what do we do?

The same thing we’ve been saying all along. If you’re sick, stay away from animals just like you would other people. If you have COVID-19 and have been around your pets, keep your pets inside and away from other people. While the risk of transmission to or from a pet is low, we don’t want an exposed pet tracking this virus out of the household (just like we don’t want an infected person doing that).

This is completely unsurprising. It doesn’t mean things are changing or that we have more risk today than yesterday. It just emphasizes again the importance of paying attention to basic infection control measures.

If you’re worried about getting COVID-19, worry about your human contacts, not your pets. Keep pets away from high risk people, but otherwise, your risk is from exposure to people, not your pet.

Salmonella in poop on produce

Heightened concerns about wildlife on produce farms and possible introduction of pathogens to the food supply have resulted in required actions following intrusion events. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the survival of Salmonella in feces from cattle and various wild animals (feral pigs, waterfowl, deer, and raccoons) in California, Delaware, Florida, and Ohio.

Feces were inoculated with rifampin-resistant Salmonella enterica cocktails that included six serotypes: Typhimurium, Montevideo, Anatum, Javiana, Braenderup, and Newport (104 to 106 CFU/g). Fecal samples were stored at ambient temperature. Populations were enumerated for up to 1 year (364 days) by spread plating onto tryptic soy agar supplemented with rifampin. When no colonies were detected, samples were enriched. Colonies were banked on various sampling days based on availability of serotyping in each state. During the 364-day storage period, Salmonella populations decreased to ≤2.0 log CFU/g by day 84 in pig, waterfowl, and raccoon feces from all states. Salmonella populations in cattle and deer feces were 3.3 to 6.1 log CFU/g on day 336 or 364; however, in Ohio Salmonella was not detected after 120 days. Salmonella serotypes Anatum, Braenderup, and Javiana were the predominant serotypes throughout the storage period in all animal feces and states. Determination of appropriate risk mitigation strategies following animal intrusions can improve our understanding of pathogen survival in animal feces.

Survival of salmonella in various wild animal feces that may contaminate produce, 01 April 2020

Journal of Food Protection

Topalcengiz Z1,2Spanninger PM3Jeamsripong S4,5Persad AK6,7Buchanan RL8Saha J2LeJEUNE J7Jay-Russell MT4,9Kniel KE3Danyluk MD2.

DOI:10.4315/0362-028X.JFP-19-302

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32221570

(Oh, and I have a young lady who comes over every week for musical therapy, and we’ve been going through my greatest hits of the 1960s and 70s, so I just post whatever video I want now. Freedom of the press belongs to whoever owns one.)

Proper handwashing requires proper tools: Alton Brown’s handwashing tutorial is funny, informative, and a little bit gory

Everyone says wash your hands in the wake of Coronavirus.

But proper handwashing requires proper tools.

I go to my local grocery store (when I’m let out of the house, and usually only with a carerer) and the bathroom for the shops has these stupid Dysan machines that just blow microbes around.

I got my job at Kansas State in 2005 because their handwashing thingies just blew stuff around, I wrote something up, they hired me, I did enough work to become full professor, and then they fired me.

Whatever.

Every time there is some weird outbreak at a local school, the first thing I do is check out the bathrooms – that’s right, I’m the creepy guy watching you kids wash their hands – and invariably they have no soap and no paper towel (the later is required for the friction).

Even the 20 seconds is probably overstating things: Can you imagine working in food service and having to wash your hands for 20-30 seconds every time you did something food safety risky?

You can keep imagining because you wouldn’t be working long.

Yes, wash your hands, my daughters have all had this engrained in them, but keep the messaging on a level people might actually follow.

Good Eats host Alton Brown is here to explain it in a 4-plus minute video that illustrates why soap is a solid line of defense against viruses, that demonstrates how to wash every square inch of your mitts, and that wraps up with one of the most surprising endings you’ll see outside of an M. Night Shyamalan flick.

“I’m happy that someone finally wants to talk about handwashing,” he says within the first minute. “I’ve been wanting to do a handwashing video for twenty years, but everybody was like ‘Oh no, hygiene’s boring, do cheese pulls.’ What do you think is going to save us now? Cheese pulls, nanorobots, lasers, hot yoga? I don’t think so.”

We did one 20 years ago.

So yeah, what might give us a shot at getting through… all of this is a bar of soap. (Regular soap, Brown emphasizes, not hand sanitizer. “Not the stuff you’ve been fighting over in drugstore parking lots,” he adds.)

Brown says that he actually travels with his own bar of soap, carrying it with him in a small tin. He also keeps his own zip-sealed bag of paper towels handy, to ensure that he can dry his hands properly too. (So take that, Dyson Airblade!) His handwashing technique takes a full 30 seconds to complete, and he adds a few ticks to the 20-second-minimum wash that has previously been suggested. He goes through a number of steps, for the front and backs of the hands, in-between the fingers, and under the nails. There are a lot of five-counts, but it works. And if that fails to do the job? Well, that’s where Brown’s sense of humor takes a darker turn.

I carry a tip-sensitive digital thermometer wherever I go.

Zoonoses in Minnesota

Prospective, population-based surveillance to systematically ascertain exposures to food production animals or their environments among Minnesota residents with sporadic, domestically acquired, laboratory-confirmed enteric zoonotic pathogen infections was conducted from 2012 through 2016.

Twenty-three percent (n = 1708) of the 7560 enteric disease cases in the study reported an animal agriculture exposure in their incubation period, including 60% (344/571) of Cryptosporidium parvum cases, 28% (934/3391) of Campylobacter cases, 22% (85/383) of Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli (STEC) O157 cases, 16% (83/521) of non-O157 STEC cases, 10% (253/2575) of non-typhoidal Salmonella enterica cases and 8% (9/119) of Yersinia enterocolitica cases. Living and/or working on a farm accounted for 61% of cases with an agricultural exposure, followed by visiting a private farm (29% of cases) and visiting a public animal agriculture venue (10% of cases). Cattle were the most common animal type in agricultural exposures, reported by 72% of cases.

The estimated cumulative incidence of zoonotic enteric infections for people who live and/or work on farms with food production animals in Minnesota during 2012–2016 was 147 per 10 000 population, vs. 18.5 per 10 000 for other Minnesotans. The burden of enteric zoonoses among people with animal agriculture exposures appears to be far greater than previously appreciated.

Animal agriculture exposures among Minnesota residents with zoonotic enteric infections, 2012-2016, 17 December 2019

Epidemiology and Infection

CA Klumb, JM Scheftel and KE Smith

https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/2F76B12833C41C4F63153CC4315C22F0/S0950268819002309a.pdf/animal_agriculture_exposures_among_minnesota_residents_with_zoonotic_enteric_infections_20122016.pdf