Food Safety Talk 157: 1000 Jars of Jam (Live from MSU)

Posted on by
Reply

Study says: Communication is most important skill for public-health types

Posted on by
Reply

The professional development of environmental public health professionals in Canada is guided by a set of 133 discipline-specific competencies. Given the diversity of practice in environmental public health, certain competencies may be more important to job effectiveness depending on a practitioner’s context. However, the most important competencies to job effectiveness by context are unknown. Thus, the objectives of this study were to prioritize the discipline-specific competencies according to their importance to job effectiveness, and determine if importance varied by demographic variables.

A quantitative discrete-choice method termed best–worst scaling was used to determine the relative importance of competencies. Discrete choice information was electronically collected and analyzed using Hierarchical Bayesian analysis.

Our analysis indicates that communication was most important to job effectiveness relative to the other categories. Competency statements within each category differed in their importance to job effectiveness. Further, management and front-line practitioners differed in the importance placed on five of the eight categories.

This information can be used to guide new training opportunities, thereby investing in the capacity of environmental health professionals to better protect population health.

Prioritizing professional competencies in environmental public health: A best-worst scaling experiment

Aug. 2018

Environmental Health Review, vol. 61 no. 2, pg 50-63

Lauren E. Wallar,* Scott A. McEwen,* Jan M. Sargeant,* Nicola J. Mercer,† Andrew Papadopoulos*

 https://doi.org/10.5864/d2018-014

http://pubs.ciphi.ca/doi/abs/10.5864/d2018-014

Salmonella strikes down wedding guests in Georgia

Posted on by
Reply

All 100 guests at a wedding in the Georgian Batumi were sickened with Salmonella as reported by the TV channel Rustavi 2.

It is reported that all the injured were taken to a local hospital.

It is noted that the cause of poisoning are the bacteria Salmonella, it is not reported exactly which dish they could be.

Director of the Center for public health of Adjara Nino Nizharadze said that the bacteria Salmonella could be a cream cake, if temperature for storage of dairy products broke.

At the same time in the food Agency of the country declare that when the experts of the Agency came to the restaurant, where the wedding, the food was gone.

As previously reported “FACTS” in the Russian Federation the staff of the Mariinsky theatre poisoned chicken liver with Salmonella.

Woman in India ‘kills party guests with poisoned food because they ridiculed her cooking’

Posted on by
Reply

Pradnya Survase, of Khalapur, faces the death penalty after five guests died at the feast in Mahad, in Raigad district, on June 18. Police said Survase intended to kill her husband, her mother-in-law, two sisters-in-law, along with her mother-in-law’s sister and her husband after they ‘regularly insulted’ her complexion and cooking.

Pradnya Survase is alleged to have poisoned family members with pesticides in dal. According to authorities, Survase allegedly mixed snake poison into a container of dal that was then served to guests, which left 88 people in hospital and led to the deaths of five.

Vishwajeet Kaingade, senior police inspector of Khalapur police station, told the Hindustan Times: ‘Pradnya claims that since her marriage two years ago, she has been insulted regularly for her dark complexion and accused of not being able to cook well.’ Survase, divorced from her first husband, also believes relatives had damaged her second marriage. She is alleged to have served poisoned dal to the guests. Around 120 people were invited to the housewarming and a village cook prepared food which was served from 2.30pm until 11.30pm. But those who ate later in the day began complaining of nausea, vomiting and stomach ache just a few hours later. The newspaper reports that 88 people were hospitalised and four children, aged between seven and 13, died along with 53-year-old Gopinath Nakure, two of whom were related to Survase. Vilash Thikrey, a 13-year-old who survived the poisoning, remembers the dal tasting ‘bitter’. 

Diamondbacks pitcher took the mound with poop in his pants

Posted on by
Reply

Archie Bradley, a relief pitcher for the Arizona Diamondbacks, told Yahoo Sports’ MLB Podcast he pooped his pants in a game this season shortly before taking the mound. The tale came up while discussing Adrian Houser, the Milwaukee Brewers pitcher who recently barfed on the field. Bradley had a story that definitely one-upped Houser’s.

“I was warming up to go in a game. I knew I had the next hitter. I knew he was on deck. The at-bat was kinda taking a little bit. As a bullpen guy in these big situations, I call ’em nervous pees, where like I don’t have to pee a lot, but I know I have to pee before I go in the game. I can’t believe I’m telling you this,” Bradley told Yahoo Sports.

“So it’s a 2-2 count, and I’m like, ‘Man, I have to pee. I have to go pee.’ So I run in our bathroom real quick, I’m ready to go. I’m trying to pee and I actually s–t my pants. Like right before I’m about to go in the game, I pooped my pants. I’m like, ‘Oh my gosh.’ I know I’m a pitch away from going in the game, so I’m scrambling to clean myself up. I get it cleaned up the best I can, button my pants up, and our bullpen coach, Mike Fetters, says, ‘Hey, you’re in the game.’ So I’m jogging into the game to pitch with poop in my pants essentially.

“It was the most uncomfortable I’ve ever been on the mound. And I actually had a good inning. I had a clean inning, and I walked in the dugout and I was like, ‘Guys, I just [expletive] myself.’ They didn’t believe me, then the bullpen came in and they’re like, ‘Oh my God, you had to see this.’”

How produce gets contaminated in the field: A review

Posted on by
Reply

Foodborne illness resulting from the consumption of contaminated fresh produce is a common phenomenon and has severe effects on human health together with severe economic and social impacts.

The implications of foodborne diseases associated with fresh produce have urged research into the numerous ways and mechanisms through which pathogens may gain access to produce, thereby compromising microbiological safety.

This review provides a background on the various sources and pathways through which pathogenic bacteria contaminate fresh produce; the survival and proliferation of pathogens on fresh produce while growing and potential methods to reduce microbial contamination before harvest.

Some of the established bacterial contamination sources include contaminated manure, irrigation water, soil, livestock/ wildlife, and numerous factors influence the incidence, fate, transport, survival and proliferation of pathogens in the wide variety of sources where they are found. Once pathogenic bacteria have been introduced into the growing environment, they can colonize and persist on fresh produce using a variety of mechanisms.

Overall, microbiological hazards are significant; therefore, ways to reduce sources of contamination and a deeper understanding of pathogen survival and growth on fresh produce in the field are required to reduce risk to human health and the associated economic consequences.

 

Sources and contamination routes of microbial pathogens to fresh produce during field cultivation: A review

Food Microbiology, vol. 73, pg. 177-208

Oluwadara Alegbeleye, Ian Singleton and Anderson Sant’Ana

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fm.2018.01.003

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0740002017310158?via%3Dihub

Will it mean fewer sick people? Trump’s plan to consolidate federal food safety efforts won’t work

Posted on by
Reply

Timothy D. Lytton, Associate Dean for Research & Faculty Development and Distinguished University Professor & Professor of Law at Georgia State University College of Law writes in this contributed op-ed that:

The Trump administration on June 21 unveiled an ambitious plan to consolidate federal food safety efforts within the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Currently, 15 agencies throughout the federal government administer 35 different laws related to food safety under the oversight of nine congressional committees.

The administration calls this system “illogical” and “fragmented.”

“While [the USDA’s Food Safety Inspection Service] has regulatory responsibility for the safety of liquid eggs, [the Food and Drug Administration in the Department of Health and Human Services] has regulatory responsibility for the safety of eggs while they are inside of their shells,” the document explains. “FDA regulates cheese pizza, but if there is pepperoni on top, it falls under the jurisdiction of FSIS; FDA regulates closed-faced meat sandwiches, while FSIS regulates open-faced meat sandwiches.”

Concern about this state of affairs has been fueling similar consolidation proposals for decades.

But my research for a forthcoming book on the U.S. food safety system suggests that the Trump administration plan faces a number of challenges that make a major reorganization of federal food safety regulation both impractical and undesirable.

The curious division of labor between the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration dates back to the passage of two laws enacted in 1906.

The Meat Inspection Act mandated inspection of all beef carcasses. The Pure Food and Drug Act prohibited the sale of adulterated food in interstate commerce.

Initially, both laws were implemented by officials at the USDA. Its Bureau of Animal Industry placed inspectors trained in veterinary science at every meat plant. Meanwhile, its Bureau of Chemistry employed laboratory scientists to test foods for adulteration.

In 1940, Franklin Roosevelt moved the Bureau of Chemistry, by then renamed the Food and Drug Administration, out of the USDA and into the Federal Security Agency, which later became the Department of Health and Human Services. Today, the FDA is responsible for overseeing the production of most foods other than meat and poultry.

Separately, the Bureau of Animal Industry was renamed the Food Safety Inspection Service, which is still responsible for all meat and poultry inspections.

Concerns about regulatory fragmentation grew as Congress assigned new tasks related to food safety to a variety of other agencies.

For example, Congress instructed the Federal Trade Commission to regulate food advertising, the Environmental Protection Agency to set pesticide tolerances and the National Marine Fisheries Service to inspect seafood.

Proponents of putting food safety under the roof of a single agency have argued that the current system causes confusion because different agencies produce inconsistent standards.

They further allege that overlapping jurisdictions create inefficiencies and that inadequate coordination leaves gaps in coverage. They also worry that the involvement of so many different actors diffuses political accountability.

The first high-profile proposal to consolidate federal food safety regulation was made in 1949, during the Truman administration, when a presidential commission recommended transferring food safety oversight to the USDA, just as the Trump administration has.

In 1972, consumer activist Ralph Nader advocated creating a new consumer safety agency to oversee food safety. And a few years later, a Senate committee recommended moving the USDA’s food safety responsibilities to the FDA.

Those are just three examples of more than 20 such proposals from both sides of the political aisle, including one by President Barack Obama in 2015.

None of these consolidation efforts succeeded for the same reasons the current one is unlikely to work now.

First of all, the many congressional committees that currently oversee agencies that regulate food safety are unlikely to support any reorganization that would reduce their power. Congressional oversight affords lawmakers who serve on committees opportunities to help interest groups and constituents in exchange for political support.

Similarly, industry associations are unlikely to support a reorganization that would disrupt their relationships with existing agencies. Consolidation threatens to reduce their access and influence over agency decisions.

In addition to the political obstacles to consolidation, there are practical problems. Merely merging the 5,000 food safety officials in the FDA and the 9,200 officials in the FSIS under the oversight of a single administrator would not eliminate the differences in jurisdiction, powers and expertise responsible for the current bureaucratic fragmentation. Meaningful consolidation would require a complete overhaul of federal food safety laws and regulations, a task of extraordinary legal and political complexity.

Moreover, consolidating food safety efforts in a single agency might create new forms of fragmentation. For example, transferring the FDA Center for Veterinary Medicine’s program for regulating drug residues in beef and poultry to the USDA would separate it from the FDA’s veterinary drug approval program.

And finally, reorganization is costly and would take years for the different agency teams newly working together to develop bonds of trust and cooperation. And these costs would have to be paid upfront, without a clear idea of whether the expected gains will ever pay off.

Consolidation need not be all or nothing.

For example, some have proposed more modest consolidation of inspection services, policy planning and communications that would be less costly and not so difficult.

Nonetheless, Congress has shown little interest in considering any bureaucratic reorganization of federal food safety regulation, even a partial consolidation.

In other words, the Trump administration may have to settle for the less ambitious goal of better interagency coordination, which offers an alternative way to address concerns about duplication and coverage gaps. This more modest approach would not, however, address the persistent problem of fragmentation.

In food safety, as in other regulatory reform arenas, it may turn out that half a loaf is better than none.

Yes E. coli is natural: Texas Natural Meats recalls frozen raw ground beef products for E. coli O103

Posted on by
Reply

Texas Natural Meats, a Lott, Texas establishment, is recalling approximately 489 pounds of frozen raw, ground beef products that may be contaminated with Shiga toxin-producing E. coli (STEC) O103, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced today.

The frozen raw, ground beef items were produced on Aug. 8, 2017.  The following products are subject to recall:  [View Label (PDF only)]
1.00-lb. bags of “Green Field Farms Rogers Texas Ground Beef.”  The bags display the “PRODUCTION DATE 08.08.2017” and also display the “EXPIRATION DATE 08.08.2020.”  The bags are labeled “COOK USE ONLY” with the instruction “DO NOT refreeze after defrosting.”  
The products subject to recall bear establishment number “EST. 34449” inside the USDA mark of inspection. These items were shipped to a retailer who sold the product at a farmer’s market in Roger, Texas.
The problem was discovered on June 19, 2018 by FSIS during routine inspection activities. The product was tested by the establishment and found to be positive for STEC O103 under their sampling program. …

The only way to confirm that ground beef is cooked to a temperature high enough to kill harmful bacteria is to use a food thermometer that measures internal temperature, http://1.usa.gov/1cDxcDQ.

7 dead, 1 miscarriage: New control measures to be set up on Australian rockmelon farms

Posted on by
Reply

My thoughts go to Australian rockmelon growers because they’ve been sold down the stream.

In April, thousands of rockmelons were left to rot in paddocks near Geraldton on the Western Australian coast, record low prices and lost markets meant they were simply not worth picking.

Grower Carol Metcalf said the rows of rotting melons were the result of the listeria outbreak on a rockmelon farm more than 3,500 kilometres away in New South Wales.

Under a new plan released this week, all rockmelon farms in Australia will be inspected and work will be undertaken on each individual farm to ensure that the highest standards are implemented and maintained.

At the time of the outbreak on February this year, the NSW Food Authority speculated that the most likely cause of the listeria outbreak was contaminated soil possibly not being properly washed off the skin of the fruit.

In addition it was thought that a weather event may have increased the listeria bacteria on the product.

But the formal investigation into the cause of the outbreak has not been completed by the NSW Food Authority and therefore the official report on the cause has still not been released.

What is planned is visits to all Australian rockmelon growers and packing sheds to review and audit current practice and critical control points and provide one-on-one food safety consultations with growers, managers and key farm staff.

The development of a melon food safety Best-Practice Guide, was informed by the findings from consultations, feedback from retailers and other key stakeholder groups.

The development of a ‘toolbox’ for grower use including risk assessment templates, training guides, food safety posters and record sheets to support food safety programs — this will be housed on the Australian Melon Association website.

Regional roadshows in key growing regions will highlight the availability and contents of the toolbox and Best Practice Guide.

A helpdesk to provide technical support to growers, packers and other stakeholders will also be developed.

Australian Melon Association industry development manager Dianne Fullelove said the new initiatives would ensure that every rockmelon grower in Australia had the highest level of food safety possible.

“NSW DPI will lead the project and the key is that they will visit every farm and work with every grower to fix any problems or issues.

“We want to make food safety as good as it can be,” Ms Fullelove said.

“This new initiative will make that reputation even stronger and give our growers sure-fire tools to support our product integrity for decades to come.

“This move will put us ahead of the game.”

Food safety isn’t a game, not when your product contributes to the death of seven people and one miscarriage.

Why are melon growers relying on government to visit farms (oh, right, money).

They should hire their own people to be out front on any food safety issue; government is the last source to rely on. And don’t act like this is something new: There have been plenty of outbreaks of Listeria and Salmonella on rockmelon over the years.

(A table of rockmelon-related outbreaks is available here.)

Some basic questions that have yet to be answered:

  • was the farm prone to flooding and near any livestock operations;
  • what soil amendments, like manure, were used;
  • after harvest were the rockmelons placed in a dump tank;
  • was the water in the dump tank regularly monitored for chlorine levels;
  • did a proper handwashing program exist at the packing shed;
  • were conveyor belts cleaned and tested;
  • did condensation form on the ceiling of the packing shed;
  • were transportation vehicles properly cooled and monitored;
  • was the Listeria in whole cantaloupe or pre-cut; and,
  • was the rockmelon stored at proper temperatures at retail?

Stop waiting for change to happen and take charge, without relying on government: Your growers are still losing money.

Probiotics as a means to improve the safety of cantoloupes

Posted on by
Reply

A couple of weeks ago I was hit with a horrible case of strep throat. I was off from work for week, stuck in bed with a fever hovering around 40C. Naturally, the doctor prescribed some potent antibiotics which took care of the strep and essentially everything else. My naturopath prescribed probiotics to deal with the aftermath. A food safety researcher and his team from College of Agriculture, Health, and Natural Resources are looking at probiotics to improve the safety of cantoloupes.

Elaina Hancock reports

Just as probiotics can bring a wide range of benefits to your health, they can also make produce safer, according to new UConn research on cantaloupes.
This is good news, because the bumpy, net-like surface of a cantaloupe provides plenty of hiding places for bacteria to attach and weather the washing and disinfection steps in processing, allowing safe passage for pathogens to consumers’ plates.
This corrugated surface is likely the reason why cantaloupes have frequently hit the headlines in the past 10 to 15 years as the source of foodborne illness, says Professor Kumar Venkitanarayanan, a food safety specialist in the College of Agriculture, Health, and Natural Resources, who has been researching ways to improve the microbial safety of cantaloupes.
Chlorine is used as an industry standard for disinfecting fresh fruits and vegetables to improve safety and shelf-life of the food, says Venkitanarayanan. Chlorine is effective, but not 100 percent effective, especially in the case of cantaloupes.
In an earlier study on the efficacy of different chemical disinfectants for the tricky-to-clean cantaloupe, Venkitanarayanan and his team of researchers came across something surprising.
The experiments involved washing one group of cantaloupes with chlorine, and omitting the chlorine wash on another, then inoculating both groups with typical foodborne illness-causing bacteria, such as Salmonella or Listeria. Surprisingly, the results showed the pathogenic bacteria were more persistent on the surfaces of the cantaloupes that were treated with chlorine.
“Chlorine was not only not very effective at removing the pathogens, but maybe it removed the normal beneficial bacterial flora, the probiotics,” says Venkitanarayanan. Probiotics that may be keeping pathogenic bacteria from establishing themselves on the fruit.
Probiotics are used widely these days in hopes of improving various aspects of health, from digestion to depression, but they are also used in the prevention of plant disease and for improving soil health, and Venkitanarayanan says he became interested in applying these principles to food safety.
He and his research team set out to look at probiotics that have been used effectively as biosanitizers for the control of plant and soil pathogens. Settling on five to eight types of bacteria, they tested the abilities of these probiotics to prevent the growth of pathogenic bacteria on circular rinds of cantaloupe.
The researchers then inoculated the rinds with either the pathogen, the probiotics, or both. They simulated what would happen to the cantaloupe in the environment, by keeping the rinds at room temperature, as they would be in the field or in a store’s produce section.
“The results were that the probiotics worked very well,” says Venkitanarayanan says. “They were effective in reducing the pathogen, and the probiotics survived well on the surface.”
And the probiotics surpassed chlorine’s efficacy in disinfecting the surface of the cantaloupe.
In addition to the potential for avoiding the use of chemical disinfectants on produce, probiotics also bring environmental benefits.
“Chemical means of disinfection can be helpful, but we don’t know what long-term effects they have on the soil bacteria if disinfectants are applied pre-harvest,” says Venkitanarayanan. “With probiotics, we know they are helpful for the soil.”
Although the study itself was small, he says the results are paving the way for further studies into probiotic applications for food safety. For example, he notes that many of these same probiotics help prevent biofilm formation. This is a concern because Listeria, a common foodborne illness-causing bacteria, can form biofilms in processing plants.
Currently, the team are looking into different types of probiotics, experimenting with different mixes to find the most effective candidates for future studies. They are also looking at ways to ease the process of applying the probiotics.
“It is not easy to work with the whole cantaloupes,” Venkitanarayanan says. “It’s difficult to mimic the uniform application we get when working with the smaller rind discs. That is what we need to optimize now.”
Probiotic sprays for produce are not yet available for use at home, but to learn about other food safety practices you can implement now, visit the UConn College of Agriculture, Health, and Natural Resources’ Food Safety website.