Craig Hedberg, guest barfblogger: The most dangerous states for eating out-not!

On Friday March 14, 2008, Healthinspections.com published their ranking of the most dangerous states for eating out.  The ranking was based on an analysis of 2006 foodborne outbreak surveillance data compiled by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).   The five most dangerous states for eating out, according to this analysis, were Florida, California, Minnesota, Ohio, and New York.   Florida and California were cited as having the most dangerous restaurants for the third year in a row.  This is wrong, wrong, wrong.

Florida, California, and New York are three of the four largest states in the nation.  Ohio ranks 7th.  More people mean more restaurants.  More restaurants mean more outbreaks in restaurants.  It really is that simple. 

If you turn the number of outbreaks into a rate that compares outbreaks per million population, or outbreaks per 1,000 eating and drinking establishments (see table below) the rankings change.

As you can plainly see from this table, Minnesota is twice as dangerous for eating out as any of the other states, right? Wrong again.

Minnesota has the highest rate of reported outbreaks because it has the most aggressive and effective public health surveillance system for foodborne illnesses.  This is an example of the tree falling in the woods problem.  Falling trees generate sound waves, but if no one is there to hear them, they don’t generate any sound.  In Minnesota, we may not actually have more falling trees, but we’re out there listening for them.  

One important source for hearing about outbreaks in restaurants is from the restaurants themselves.  Because many environmental health specialists in Minnesota view themselves as teachers rather than enforcers, they take the time to get to know the restaurant operators and listen to their problems.  This, in turn, fosters a relationship of trust where restaurant operators actually report illness complaints to the local health department.  Outbreaks are identified, problems are corrected, and we all learn a little bit more about the constantly changing challenges of making food safe. 

In this ranking, being at the top of the list is a good thing.

Craig Hedberg is a foodborne disease epidemiologist and Associate Professor in the Division of Environmental Health Sciences at the University of Minnesota School of Public Health.

How to properly cook hamburgers

The best way to make a hamburger is debatable. In my opinion adding Swiss cheese, pickles, onions, and mustard to a burger nearly perfects it. The one other ingredient? Temperature.
Cooking burgers to 160°F is the only sure way to tell that it is fully cooked. Cooking hamburgers to 160°F kills unwanted microorganisms such as E. coli O157:H7, a deadly ingredient. The U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention estimates 61 deaths a year from E. coli, and thousands more ill. Ground beef was recalled 19 different times in 2007 for E. coli contamination.
E. coli O157:H7 loves hiding in the intestines of animals, such as cows. During slaughter, if workers do not follow safe practices it can get onto the cuts of meat. Steaks can be cooked to varying degrees of doneness because any potential for microorganisms exists only on the surface. However, with ground beef the muscle is mixed up and the organisms are spread throughout the meat.
When cooking, don’t rely on the burger’s appearance to tell if it is done. Many people think a burger that is no longer pink is a done burger. This is not the case as pointed out in many studies (here, here, and here). Sometimes burgers look done well before they hit 160°F.
To measure the temperature of a burger, go out and buy a tip sensitive digital thermometer. Remove the burger from the grill or stove and insert the thermometer into the side of the meat all the way to the center. Wait until the thermometer reads 160°F before serving. Add the toppings of your choice, and enjoy!

Podcast 1
Podcast 2


References
Hunt, M.C., O. Sørheim, E. Slinde. Color and Heat Denaturation of Myoglobin Forms in Ground Beef. Journal of Food Science Volume 64 Issue 5 Page 847-851, September 1999.
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1365-2621.1999.tb15925.x?prevSearch=authorsfield%3A%28M.C.+Hunt%29

Ryan, Suzanne M., Mark Seyfert, Melvin C. Hunt, Richard A. Mancini. Influence of Cooking Rate, Endpoint Temperature, Post-cook Hold Time, and Myoglobin Redox State on Internal Color Development of Cooked Ground Beef Patties. Journal of Food Science. Volume 71 Issue 3 Page C216-C221, April 2006
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1365-2621.2006.tb15620.x?prevSearch=authorsfield%3A%28M.C.+Hunt%29

Seyfert, M., R.A. Mancini, M.C. Hunt. Internal Premature Browning in Cooked Ground Beef Patties from High-Oxygen Modified-Atmosphere Packaging. Journal of Food Science. Volume 69 Issue 9 Page C721-C725, December 2004
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1365-2621.2004.tb09923.x?prevSearch=authorsfield%3A%28M.C.+Hunt%29

Michele Samarya-Timm, guest barfblogger: Hillary Clinton loves handwashing

On 60 Minutes this week, Hillary Clinton stated:  My two secrets to staying healthy: wash your hands all the time. And, if you can’t, use Purell or one of the sanitizers."

Great statement, but should handwashing be a health "secret?"

Wouldn’t it be so beneficial to all Americans if our presidential hopefuls spent time concentrating on spreading a campaign message that would really matter – the importance of regular handwashing? After all, isn’t handwashing universal healthcare at its most fundamental level?   

And wouldn’t it be wonderful if every political debate included statements on how a national handwashing campaign is needed for the protection of all Americans? And if funding of handwashing campaigns was a prime component in every politician’s platform?

Hillary’s handwashing admission is a start, but it’s doubtful anyone will change their hand hygiene behaviors based on one statement by one politician.  In the interim, we all need to keep on spreading our handwashing platform, until the message causes real change around us.   

I’m glad America received a 5-second sound bite on handwashing. However, it is consistent handwashing actions and handwashing messages that speak volumes.  When it comes to public health, I’ll always vote for soap.

Michéle Samarya-Timm is a Health Educator for the Franklin Township Health Department in New Jersey.

Guest barfblogger, Silvia Dominguez: Live from Rutgers raw milk seminar series

The sale of raw milk is currently illegal in the state of New Jersey, but local groups, such as Garden State Raw Milk, are campaigning towards legalization. The Rutgers New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station is hosting of a seminar series on raw milk to inform the public on this topic.
On February 6th, the seminar series started with a presentation by Mark McAfee, from the organic dairy farm Organic Pastures (California): “Raw Milk, mother nature’s inconvenient truth”. Mr. McAfee discussed the health benefits of raw milk consumption as well as the personal satisfaction and commercial advantages of organic farming.

Throughout the talk, emphasis was put on the safe history of raw milk consumption with respect to pathogen contamination and association with foodborne outbreaks, and on the seemingly overwhelming health benefits of the consumption of raw milk as opposed to FDA-approved pasteurized milk. According to Mr. McAfee, raw milk represents an inconvenient truth to big dairies, pharmaceutical companies, western medicine in general and long-distribution chains. Though all these entities may have a commercial interest in keeping raw milk illegal, the consumer would be the one to benefit from its commercialization. Cases were mentioned of raw milk consumers who recovered from diseases such as allergies, lactose intolerance, Crohn’s disease or asthma which were unable to be cured by western medicine. Western medicine was claimed to only treat the symptoms of disease, whereas exercise and the consumption of unprocessed foods, such as organic raw milk, help prevent disease. The ability of raw milk to enhance the immune system is the most generally claimed reason for its health benefits. According to Mr. McAfee, among the factors that contribute to organic raw milk’s beneficial effects are its high content of animal fat (from grass-fed, not grain-fed cows), enzymes, beneficial bacteria, as well as vitamins and minerals. All of these are of course important components of a healthy diet, which are minimized in the standard American diet (aka  “S.A.D.”).

In particular, the example of pasteurized milk was used to describe the “harmful” effects of commercial processing. Apart from the destruction of enzymes and probiotic bacteria, it was implied that pasteurization covers for unsanitary processing practices, and that pasteurized product is an easy target for pathogens such as L. monocytogenes. Furthermore, the prevalence in recent times of immune system diseases was correlated with the consumption of processed food products. Unfortunately, scientific evidence is not abundant due to the limited number of research grants available and the implications of doing research against the interests of official agencies.

A number of benefits of organic farming were also mentioned, and from an economic point of view it was emphasized that a market exists for raw milk products, in which a consumer is willing to pay ~$5 per half gallon of organic raw milk.

My personal conclusion of this presentation is that although organic raw milk may represent a more wholesome alternative to pasteurized milk, and has traditionally been consumed raw for centuries, the current state of technology is able to produce microbiologically-safe, nutritious milk readily available to large, wide-spread populations in a cost-efficient manner. The presence of raw milk in the market may be a rightful and, if properly produced, safe alternative to consumers and farmers.

Silvia is a Graduate Assistant at Rutgers University and is looking forward to the upcoming seminars! ("Raw Milk Wars, Government’s Attempt to Dictate What Foods We Can Consume" on 2/20, and “Raw Milk, A Microbiology Primer” on 4/3).

Safe Food Cafe – Tailgating Tips


This video comes from November when the iFSN checked out the food practices performed at a K-State tailgate. Our team didn’t win, but it was great to discuss food safety topics with serious grillers and sometimes, serious drinkers.

Best wishes to the University of Kansas — not Kansas State — which is playing in the Orange Bowl tonight in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, against Virginia Tech. It was a magical season for the Kansas Jayhawks until they met that other Big 12 powerhouse, Missouri.

And for you crazy, KU kids frolicking in the Florida sun, use a digital, tip-sensitive thermometer when sticking it in. Always.

Safe Food Caf? – Petting zoos and their risk

The International Food Safety Network’s Safe Food Café campaign has returned with a new video aimed at petting zoos. E. coli outbreaks have been linked to petting zoos in recent years that have resulted in hundreds ill. This has resulted in safety measures being stepped up around the animals. Make sure to stay tuned to The Safe Food Café on YouTube for more reports.

Stephanie Maurer, guest barfblogger: See monkey? No touchy!

On Sunday, December 2nd,  a woman was bitten in North Carolina when she reached out to touch a pet monkey, according to a story found at KCRA.com. “In the blink of an eye the monkey attacked, biting her cheek just below her right eye.
‘It bit the top of my eyelid and it just kind of latched onto my cheek,’ she said.”

This just goes to show that you should always ask the owner of animal if it is OK to pet the animal before you touch it.  Also, it shows that people should leave their pet monkeys at home instead of taking them to a convenience store.

Stephanie is a soon to be graduate of Kansas State University, with a Bachelor’s in Animal Science, a minor in French, and a Certificate in Equine Studies.  She doesn’t poke strange animals.

Bill Marler, guest barfblogger: Topps – Lessons America Forgot from Upton Sinclair’s “Jungle”

In October, Topps Meat Company, founded in 1940, went out of business. That was after Topps had recalled nearly 22 million pounds of frozen hamburger contaminated with E. coli and 40 people across the U.S. had become ill.
 
Tort deformers decried the “tragedy” that is this Topps’ collapse – that a business went under and employees had lost their jobs.  Yes, a company bankrupt and unemployment are tragic.  What makes it more so is that the catastrophic breakdown in the food-safety chain at Topps could have and should have been prevented by Topps management.
 
It’s been a century since Utpon Sinclair published the “Jungle,” which exposed the contaminated underbelly of the American meat industry.  Reform quickly followed.  America got the Pure Food and Drug and Meat Inspection Acts.  In the early 1990s, when these safeguards failed – e.g. Jack in the Box E. coli outbreak – again there was a public push for improving food safety.
 
The U.S.D.A. Food and Inspection Service responded with creating and aggressively enforcing the mandatory Risk Management System.  Derived from research and operations in the American space program, this approach HACCP prevented new outbreaks by establishing check-points at every phase of meat processing.  In addition, the agency classified the presence of E. coli O157:H7 as an adulterant under the Meat Inspection Act.  Until recently, the meat contamination problem seemed fixed.
 
Had Topps complied with the letter and spirit of HACCP, it would not have processed contaminated meat in 2005 and again in 2007.  So, why hadn’t Topps done what was the right thing to do for it and its now unemployed?  We will be researching that question for years.
 
My theory is that Topps’ leadership might have chosen to take short-cuts on systemic food-safety procedures.  Therefore, contamination which should have been detected early in meat processing wasn’t.  The result wasn’t pretty: Food-poisoned consumers went through the agony that E. coli inflicts.  They had incorrectly trusted that label “Inspected by the U.S.D.A.” as guaranteeing safety.
 
Over a century, two waves of reform in ensuring the safety of the American food supply chain have given business a total systems approach.  That approach works if management follows the rules.  Unfortunately, employees at Topps who lost their means of making a living were among those punished – severely. 
Will other businesses be able to learn that century-old lesson: Inattention to proper food processing will be the kiss of death for their brand name, profitability and, yes, very existence.
 
Bill Marler has been a lawyer representing E. coli victims, mainly children, since 1993.