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
Police got a report of a burglary in progress on Patricia Court, and began searching in the area for a suspect.
A Schwan’s driver told officers he saw the suspect running down an alley and officers said they found and detained Caporale two blocks away.
The victim showed officers surveillance video and said Caporale is seen breaking a gate, going into the back porch and coming out holding a television, then returning and taking a leather Harley-Davidson jacket.
Police said the backdoor of the garage and entry door to the kitchen were kicked in.
The victim also showed officers where the intruder had defecated on the living room floor.
Arrest records shows a previous conviction for burglary and arrests for burglary, theft, assault of an officer and resisting arrest.
In Massachusetts, an Ashland woman was discovered to be the serial pooper in Natick.
An Ashland woman has been charged with eight counts of destruction of property for defecating in public around Natick, according to WHDH.
Andrea Grocer left piles of poop near the Natick Outdoor Store over the last few months, police said.
Grocer, 51, was arrested on Wednesday when police spotted her squatting in a parking lot just before 7 a.m., Lt. Cara Rossi told the station.
Police stepped up patrols in the area to catch the pooper recently. Police found toilet paper at some scenes, so they were able to rule out an animal.
This isn’t the first time an outdoor pooper has had a run-in with police. In 2018, poop found near a New Jersey school’s track confused an entire town — until police figured out the school system’s superintendent was behind the deeds.
But, Thomas Tramaglini likely wasn’t doing it for fun. He was an avid runner, and some speculated he was experiencing a phenomenon known as “runner’s trots.” A jogger from Colorado Springs, Colo., was nicknamed “the mad pooper” in 2017. A 51-year-old woman named Andrea Grocer has run in recent races in Massachusetts — including a No. 86 finish in the 2019 Cape Cod Half Marathon and a 52:24.3 time in the 2019 New Balance Falmouth Road Race last August — but police have not confirmed if the Natick poopings have an athletic connection.
We conducted a recent investigation in Quebec, Canada, concerning Canadian deer hunters who went to the United States to hunt deer and returned with symptoms of fever, severe headache, myalgia, and articular pain of undetermined etiology. Further investigation identified that a group of 10 hunters from Quebec attended a hunting retreat in Illinois (USA) during November 22–December 4, 2018.
Six of the 10 hunters had similar symptoms and illness onset dates. Serologic tests indicated a recent toxoplasmosis infection for all symptomatic hunters, and the risk factor identified was consumption of undercooked deer meat. Among asymptomatic hunters, 2 were already immune to toxoplasmosis, 1 was not immune, and the immune status of 1 remains unknown. Outbreaks of acute toxoplasmosis infection are rare in North America, but physicians should be aware that such outbreaks could become more common.
Acute toxoplasmosis among Canadian deer hunters associated with consumption of undercooked deer meat hunted in the U.S.
Several types of mettwurst, manufactured by a South Australian Company, have been recalled after it was discovered the products may be contaminated with harmful bacteria.
Wintulichs, based in Gawler, recalled their Metwurst Garlic 300g, 375g, 500g, 700g, Mettwurst Plain 700g and Mettwurst Pepperoni 375g products.
Food Standards Australia New Zealand say the products have been sold at Woolworths, IGA and independent stores across SA.
The recall is due to incorrect pH and water activity levels, which may lead to microbial contamination and could cause illness if consumed.
Customers should return the products to the place of purchase for a full refund.
In Australia and around the world, the incidence of reported foodborne illness is on the increase. Regularly cited estimates suggest that Australia is plagued with over two million cases of foodborne illness each year, costing the community in excess of $1 billion annually.
Based on the case studies cited here and a thorough examination of a variety of documents disseminated for public consumption, government and industry in Australia are well aware of the challenges posed by greater public awareness of foodborne illness. They are also well aware of risk communication basics and seem eager to enter the public fray on contentious issues. The primary challenge for government and industry will be to provide evidence that approaches to managing microbial foodborne risks are indeed mitigating and reducing levels of risk; that actions are matching words.
There is a further challenge in impressing upon all producers and processors the importance of food safety vigilance, as well as the need for a comprehensive crisis management plan for critical food safety issues.
On Feb. 1, 1995, the first report of a food poisoning outbreak in Australia involving the death of a child from hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS) after eating contaminated mettwurst reached the national press. The next day, the causative organism was identified in news stories as E. coli 0111, a Shiga-toxin E. coli (STEC) which was previously thought to be destroyed by the acidity in fermented sausage products like mettwurst, an uncooked, semi-dry fermented sausage. By Feb. 3, 1995, the child was identified as a four-year-old girl and the number sickened in the outbreak was estimated at 21.
The manager of the company that allegedly produced the contaminated mettwurst had to hire security guards to protect his family home as threats continued to be made on his life, and the social actors began jockeying for position in the public discourse. The company, Garibaldi, blamed a slaughterhouse for providing the contaminated product, while the State’s chief meat hygiene officer insisted that meat inspections and slaughtering techniques in Australian abattoirs were “top class and only getting better.”
On Feb. 4, just three days after the initial, national report, the South Australian state government announced it was implementing new food regulations effective March 1, 1995. The federal government followed suit the next day, announcing intentions to bolster food processing standards and launching a full inquiry. Even the coroner investigating the death of the girl said on Feb. 9 that investigations relating to inquests usually took about three months to complete, but he would start the hearing the next day if possible.
By Feb. 6, 1995, Garibaldi Smallgoods declared bankruptcy. Sales of smallgoods like mettwurst were down anywhere from 50 to 100 per cent according to the National Smallgoods Council.
The outbreak of E. coli O111 and the reverberations fundamentally changed the public discussion of foodborne illness in Australia, much as similar outbreaks of STEC in Japan, the U.K. and the U.S. subsequently altered public perception, regulatory efforts and industry pronouncements in those countries. The pattern of public reporting and response followed a similar pattern of reporting on the medical implications of the illness, attempts to determine causation and finger pointing. Such patterns of reporting are valid; when people are sick and in some cases dying from the food they consume, people want to know why. The results altered both the scientific and public landscapes regarding microbial foodborne illness, and can inform future risk communication and management efforts.
In all, 173 people were stricken by foodborne illness linked to consumption of mettwurst manufactured by Garibaldi smallgoods. Twenty-three people, mainly children, developed HUS, and one died. Although sporadic cases of HUS had been previously reported, this was the first outbreak of this condition recognized in Australia.
Once public attention focused on Garibaldi as the source of the offending foodstuff, the company quickly deflected criticism, blaming an unnamed Victorian-based company of supplying contaminated raw meat, and citing historical precedent as proof of safety. Garibaldi’s administration manager Neville Mead was quoted as saying that he was confident hygiene and processing at the plant were up to standard, adding, “We stand by our processing. We’ve done this process now for 24 years and it’s proved successful.” Such blind faith in tradition, even in the face of changing science-based recommendations, even in the face of tragedy, is often a hallmark of outbreaks of foodborne illness, reflecting the deep cultural and social mythologies that are associated with food.
However, given the uncertainties at the time, a spokesman with the Australian Meat and Livestock Association appropriately rejected such allegations, saying, “I believe it is irresponsible of them (Garibaldi) to make that statement when there is absolutely no evidence of that at all.” Likewise, Victorian Meat Authority chairman John Watson said his officers were investigating Garibaldi’s claims, but that even if the raw meat had come from
Victoria, the supplier may not necessarily be the source of the disease, but rather it could be based in Garibaldi’s processing techniques.
Similarly, when Garibaldi accused the watchdog South Australian Health Commission of dragging its feet with investigations, Health Minister, Dr. Michael Armitage responded by publicly stating that, “They indicated to us that they wanted their lawyers first to be involved before they provided us with information (concerning the mettwurst). It was only (after) earlier this week, under the Food Act, we issued a demand for that information, that we got it. So indeed, I would put it to Garibaldi that the boot is completely on the other foot.”
Likewise, South Australia’s chief meat hygiene officer, Robin Van de Graaff rejected such claims, saying that, “These organisms are part of a large family of bugs that are normal inhabitants of the gut of farm animals … If a tragedy like this occurs it is usually because, and it no doubt is in this case, not because of a small amount of contamination at the point of slaughter but because of the method of handling and processing after that.” The statements of government regulators would be subsequently validated.
One ad, as noted by the Miami Herald, was posted on Facebook’s Marketplace with “garrobo,” another word for lizard used in Latin American countries, being sold for $1.
Iguanas have been spotted all over Florida grounds, parking lots and pools after low temperatures in the 30s and 40s F hit the Sunshine State.
The National Weather Service on Tuesday warned locals about “iguanas falling from trees” — not something they typically forecast.
Low temperatures stun — they don’t necessarily kill — iguanas, which are an invasive species in Florida.
If the animals are hanging out in trees when they’re stunned, they lose their grip and fall to the ground below.
When temperatures warm up, most of the iguanas that were stunned are expected to wake up. Because iguanas are cold-blooded, the cold weather causes their metabolism to slow down. The reptiles become lethargic as temperatures drop from the warm weather they’re used to.
Iguanas, or “chicken of the trees,” are considered an “economical source of protein” by the University of Florida’s Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences.
A catering firm that “spoiled” a couple’s wedding day with a salmonella-ridden hog roast has been ordered to pay nearly £250,000.
In total, 58 guests fell ill after tucking into the meaty centrepiece at Vicki and Phil Kemp’s reception.
The pair were so ill they had to cancel their Dominican Republic honeymoon, Cannock Magistrates’ Court heard.
Galloping Gourmet Ltd admitted two food safety offences, was fined £200,000 and ordered to pay £49,936 in costs.
Lichfield District Council, which identified the salmonella outbreak, described the contaminated meat as “dangerously undercooked”.
It added the firm had not taken customers’ health and safety seriously enough.
IT technician Mr Kemp, 35, of Burntwood, Lichfield, said in a statement: “My illness lasted around 10 days all in all, but the symptoms were so bad that we had no option but to cancel our honeymoon. I was totally devastated.
When I tell people lizards and snakes are Salmonella factories, they look at me like I’m hysterical.
Maybe they’ll listen to Scott Weese, a veterinary professor at the University of Guelph and author of the Worms and Germs Blog.
Weese writes, contact with reptiles such as geckos has been a known risk factor for human salmonellosis for years. That’s a big part of the reason for recommending that high risk people (i.e. those less than 5 years of age, over 65 years of age, pregnant, or immunocompromised) have no contact (direct or indirect) with reptiles.
In this outbreak (Koski et al, Zoonoses and Public Health 2019), Salmonella Fluntern was the cause of infection in 12 people in 4 US states (Oregon, California, Iowa and New York). The median age of those affected was 5 years, with a range from less than 1 to 58 years of age (so much for the “keep young kids away from reptiles” recommendation). No one died, but 3 people (25%) were hospitalized. Most people reported contact with leopard geckos, and the same bacterium was isolated from a gecko owned by one affected person.
No common source of geckos was identified and their bacteria were different enough genetically that a point source isn’t likely. Other gecko- or reptile-associated Salmonella Fluntern isolates were identified in bacterial databases from Europe. So, this suggests that Salmonella Fluntern is a reptile (or even gecko) associated strain, posing a broad risk to reptile/gecko owners.
This report doesn’t change any recommendations, but just shows (again) the issues that are involved. Reptiles shouldn’t be in high risk households. People with reptiles need to use some basic hygiene precautions to reduce their risk of infection. It’s not rocket science, but it’s often neglected.
More information about reducing the risk of infection associated with reptiles can be found in on the Worms & Germs Resources – Pets page.
The European Food Safety Agency (EFSA) reports nearly one in three foodborne outbreaks in the EU in 2018 were caused by Salmonella. This is one of the main findings of the annual report on trends and sources of zoonoses published today by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC).
In 2018, EU Member States reported 5,146 foodborne outbreaks affecting 48,365 people. A foodborne disease outbreak is an incident during which at least two people contract the same illness from the same contaminated food or drink.
Slovakia, Spain and Poland accounted for 67% of the 1,581 Salmonella outbreaks. These outbreaks were mainly linked to eggs.
“Findings from our latest Eurobarometer show that less than one third of European citizens rank food poisoning from bacteria among their top five concerns when it comes to food safety. The number of reported outbreaks suggests that there’s room for raising awareness among consumers as many foodborne illnesses are preventable by improving hygiene measures when handling and preparing food” said EFSA’s chief scientist Marta Hugas.
Salmonellosis was the second most commonly reported gastrointestinal infection in humans in the EU (91,857 cases reported), after campylobacteriosis (246,571).
The prevalence of Salmonella in poultry and poultry products is a source of concern for the poultry industry, consumers and regulatory agencies. Most consumers buy their poultry in parts (legs, drumsticks, wings, etc.), and not whole carcasses. The rate of Salmonella contamination has been shown to be higher in parts as compared to whole carcasses. The intent of this project was to evaluate poultry parts (cut pieces) coming out of second unit processing to see if that product has increased Salmonella prevalence compared with whole poultry carcasses processed in the same plant. The main goal of this study was to evaluate potential contamination patterns and track the origin of Salmonella on the second processed (cut) poultry parts.
The project had the three objectives: 1.) Identify risk factors leading to Salmonella contamination in post-chilled whole poultry carcasses and poultry parts; 2.)Â Identify high-risk areas or steps during processing that promote Salmonella dissemination on cut chicken pieces during second unit processing; 3.) Use the findings to create a model for predicting cross-contamination during second unit processing.
Data collected showed that contamination patterns are different on skin-covered chicken parts versus chicken parts with no skin. Findings suggest that skin-covered chicken parts promote the presence and survival of Salmonella spp., especially in suboptimal concentrations of disinfectant. This allows for the increased possibility of cross-contamination. Assessments of the collected strains suggested the presence of ‘persisters’, or Salmonella strains strongly associated with environmental samples that survive the sanitation process and are present on equipment for an extended time. Poultry parts resulting from second processing had more Salmonella than incoming carcasses, but the source appeared to be the processing equipment. Results indicate that the predominant Salmonella patterns and isolates are significantly associated with the persistent strains on the processing line.
The solution seems to reside with stringent environmental sampling plans and appropriate follow-up actions that can eliminate persistent strains. When antimicrobial treatment such as chlorine is applied, chlorine concentration and contact time with the poultry carcass are important factors to eliminate Salmonella on carcasses and parts.
Evaluation of risk factors associated with salmonella spp. contamination in post-chilled carcasses and secondary processing products in a poultry plant, July 2019
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control reports on November 15, 2019, Central Valley Meat Co. in Hanford, Calif. Recalled 34,222 pounds of ground beef that may be contaminated with Salmonella Dublin.
Recalled beef was produced on July 23, 2019, and shipped to retail locations in California.
Products are labelled as Stater Bros Ground Beef brand with the establishment number “EST. 6063A.”
Do not eat recalled ground beef. Check your home for it, including your freezer. Return it to the store or throw it away.
If you don’t know if the ground beef you have at home was recalled, contact the store where it was purchased to find out if it was recalled.
Restaurants and retailers should not serve or sell recalled beef and should check food storage and freezers for it.
If possible, retailers who received recalled beef should contact their customers to alert them of the recall.
Never try to cook recalled meat to make it safe.
At this time, a single supplier, distributor, or brand of ground beef has not been identified that can account for all the illnesses in this outbreak.
Foodborne illnesses in this province already account for 41,000 visits to hospital emergency rooms and 137,000 more to physicians’ offices each year. Contaminated food kills about 70 people in Ontario annually and sends another 6,600 to hospital.
Symptoms of foodborne illnesses range from mild nausea and stomach pains to, in rare cases, long-term health problems, and even death. Most people have had a mild case of food poisoning at one time or another without being aware of it— according to 2014 Public Health Ontario statistics, an estimated 96% of cases go unreported. Contamination of food can happen at any point in the food-supply chain, from the farm to transport to preparation and packaging. Meat, for example, can be rendered unfit by unclean conditions at slaughterhouses, or by contamination at meat-processing plants. Water runoff and sprays containing bacteria, pesticides, and other chemicals can affect the purity of farm produce. In addition, food at “food premises,” which Ontario law defines as any “premises where food or milk is manufactured, processed, prepared, stored, handled, displayed, distributed, transported, sold or offered for sale,” can be contaminated with bacteria from the use of unsanitary utensils and improper cooking methods. In Ontario, prevention of foodborne illness is the responsibility of all three levels of government, which license and inspect food producers and food premises as follows:
• Meat, produce, fish and dairy produced, processed and consumed only in Ontario are generally the responsibility of the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (Ministry of Agriculture).
• Food premises are inspected by 35 Public Health Units in municipalities across Ontario that are funded by the Ontario Ministry of Health and by the municipalities in which they are based.
• Food imported into Ontario from other provinces or countries, or produced in Ontario for export outside the province, is inspected by the federal Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA). Forty-five percent of agriculture food products sold in Ontario are produced or processed within the province; the remaining half is imported from other provinces and countries, which means it is licensed and inspected by the federal CFIA. It is important that the Ministry of Agriculture do an effective job of licensing and inspecting producers to ensure that food produced in this province for sale to Ontarians is free of any contamination that might affect their health. Similarly, the Public Health Units have an important responsibility to make sure that 338 Chapter 3
• VFM Section 3.06 food is handled hygienically and prepared correctly to protect consumers. The Ministry of Agriculture spent about $39.5 million in the 2018/19 fiscal year on foodsafety licensing, inspections and other related services, while the Ministry of Health and municipalities spent about $63.1 million the same year to fund the Public Health Units. Total average annual spending by the two ministries and municipalities over the last five years on food safety was about $105.7 million. While the risk of a mass foodborne-illness outbreak in Ontario is likely low, small-scale food incidents could have the potential to occur because it would take only one diseased animal or one unclean restaurant. Our audit identified several areas where improvements could further minimize food-safety risks to Ontarians. We noted, for example, the following issues with respect to Ministry of Agriculture licensing and inspection of Ontario producers:
• Ninety-eight percent of meat tested negative for harmful drug residue, but in the 2% of cases of positive drug-residue test results, there was no follow-up with the farmers who raised the animals to prevent repeat occurrences. Since April 2015, about 300 meat samples (representing about 2% of the meat tested) taken from provincially inspected slaughterhouses were found to contain drug residues above prescribed standards. The lack of an appropriate process to follow up and educate farmers whose animals have tested positive increases the risk of such meat entering the food chain.
• Some pesticides banned for use in groundskeeping for health and safety reasons are found in Ontario-grown produce in levels exceeding Health Canada’s allowable limits. The Cosmetic Pesticides Ban Act lists 131 pesticides that cannot be used for cosmetic groundskeeping, in parks and yards, for example, because of potential health and environmental concerns. However, their use is allowed in agriculture for operational and economic reasons. Between 2014 and 2018, the Ministry of Agriculture tested about 1,200 Ontario-grown produce samples and found residues of 14 banned pesticides that exceeded Health Canada limits a total of 76 times.
• Current legislation provides limited enforcement tools to compel fish processors to address food-safety infractions, resulting in repeat offences. Fish processors who sell only in Ontario do not require a licence to operate. The Ministry of Agriculture, therefore, may not be able to close them because there is no licence to revoke if inspectors identify serious food-safety deficiencies. The Ministry also has no legal power to issue fines or compliance orders. Our sample review of 182 inspection reports on fish-processing plants found that two-thirds of the infractions noted in 2018/19 were repeat offences that had also been observed in each of the two previous years.
• The Ministry of Agriculture did not receive sufficient information to provide sufficient oversight of the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO). The Ministry delegated inspection of cow-milk producers to the DFO in 1998. However, the Ministry did not consistently receive sufficient information from DFO to provide adequate oversight of the organization. We found that DFO’s reports to the Ministry were high-level summaries that did not specifically identify non-compliant producers whose test samples repeatedly exceeded regulatory bacteria limits. In addition, the reports did not say what actions DFO took to address the issue of repeat offenders.
• The Ministry of Agriculture did not have complete details about the activities of produce farmers in Ontario to select appropriate producers for sample-testing. The Ministry’s inventory of farmers did not contain complete information on production volumes, type of crops grown, and where the produce Food Safety Inspection Programs 339 Chapter 3
• VFM Section 3.06 was sold. Such data would be useful to determine a risk-based food-sample-testing plan. We noted the following issues with Public Health Units, which are responsible to inspect food premises:
• Public Health Units did not investigate complaints of foodborne illnesses on a timely basis. Based on our review of inspection reports from 2016 to 2018 at five Public Health Units, we found that for those foodborne-illness complaints that required food premises inspections, the Public Health Units consistently did not inspect 20% of food premises within two days of receiving the complaint. The Public Health Units we visited informed us that a two-day timeline is considered a best practice.
• Different inspection-grading systems for food premises among Public Health Units provided inconsistent information to the public across Ontario. The degree of public disclosure of inspection results for food premises, along with the inspection-grading systems used by the 35 Health Units, varied across the province. The variations can be confusing to the public.
• While not all special events require inspections, only about 12% of them within the jurisdictions of the five Public Health Units we visited were inspected in 2018, and only about 15% in 2017. Public Health Units are required to assess food safety risks at temporary food premises, which include special events such as summer fairs and festivals, to determine if these premises require an inspection. However, we found that there are currently no minimum provincial requirements for the frequency of inspections of special events as there are for fixed food premises, such as restaurants. According to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, special events can be high risk because the usual safety features of a kitchen, such as the ability to monitor food temperatures and washing facilities, may not be available at outdoor events.
• Some food premises were never inspected until Public Health Units received complaints from the public. The lists of food premises kept by the five Health Units were not up to date. At the five Health Units we visited, we found 253 complaints received between 2016 and 2018 relating to food premises whose existence the Health Units were unaware of until they received the complaints. There were also several areas where current regulations and standards may be insufficient. For example:
• Businesses operating solely within Ontario can market their products as “organic” even if they are not certified to the Canadian Organic Standards. The CFIA requires certification for products labelled as organic when they are sold across provincial or international borders—but Ontario allows the sale of non-certified products labelled as organic within the province. In comparison, Quebec, Manitoba, Alberta, British Columbia, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia all have laws requiring that organic food be certified to the Canadian Organic Standards even when it is sold only within their borders. Based on our research, there are at least 34 organic producers in Ontario that are not certified to the Canadian Organic Standards but are advertising their products as “organic.” The majority of these organic growers sell their products through farmers’ markets. We also noted that routine sample testing of produce for pesticides residue is not required for the CFIA organic certification process. • Sheep milk and non-chicken eggs are not subject to mandatory regulation or inspection for quality assurance. Milk from cows and goats, along with eggs from chickens, is regulated and inspected by the federal or Ontario governments, or both. However, 340 Chapter 3
•VFM Section 3.06 there is no mandatory regulation or inspection of milk from sheep and water-buffalo, or of eggs from other fowl. In comparison, Manitoba and Alberta regulate all animals kept for the purpose of producing milk. Finally, we noted gaps in the inspections carried out by the different government entities responsible for food safety. We found, for example, that although the Ministry of Agriculture and the CFIA check for federal food-labelling requirements regarding allergens in provincial food-processing plants, they do not verify other labelling requirements, such as place of origin and nutritional value.
Police got a report of a burglary in progress on Patricia Court, and began searching in the area for a suspect.
An Ashland woman has been charged with eight counts of destruction of property for defecating in public around Natick, according to WHDH.
