Proactive postings

While many cities grapple with the desirability of restaurant inspection disclosure, a new City of Milwaukee Web site is offering the first-of-its-kind digital system that enables visitors to review health inspection records of city restaurants, food stores and other outlets that sell food.

Alderman Michael Murphy was quoted as saying "The great thing about this new Web site is that it provides timely information on the current City of Milwaukee Health Department (MHD) codes compliance of any restaurant, tavern, or food store in the city. So, if you have any questions about the cleanliness or condition of a particular city business selling food, you just go online and review the reports for yourself."

Kudos to Milwaukee for embracing disclosure.

Awesome alliteration: Denver doggie dining

Denver is the latest big city to pursue doggie dining.

In response to a petition on behalf of a local café, Denver Department of Environmental Health spokeswoman Ellen Dumm said the meeting was pushed back to Sept. 13 so the city can research possibilities for a variance or a rule change, "We would rather have a rule change. That would allow restaurants that are interested in doing it to pursue it."

We say, the evidence suggests that dogs can and should be allowed on restaurant patios — but only at the discretion of restaurant staff and only if staff and owners follow the Florida protocol.

Raw milk: Live free or die

That’s the state slogan for New Hampshire, one which the raw milk foodies have adopted as a rallying cry, especially when confronted with cases of children sickened from raw milk.

But this is coming from the "vitriolic barfblog" as labeled by one advocate of all things raw.

Sure, we may be vitriolic but always point back to the microbial food safety issue and we can always cite the best available evidence.

Sally Squires of the Washington Post writes this morning that,

"From 1998 to 2005, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention tied 45 outbreaks of food-borne disease to raw milk or to cheese made with unpasteurized milk. More than 1,000 people became ill, 104 were hospitalized and two died, according to the CDC."

In July, scientists from the U.S. Department of Agriculture reported test results for raw milk collected from 861 farms in 21 states. Nearly a quarter contained bacteria linked to human illness, including 5 percent with listeria, 3 percent with salmonella and 4 percent with types of E. coli that can cause diarrhea and other gastrointestinal illnesses. Less than 1 percent of samples had the most dangerous form of E. coli, 0157:H7.

"There are definitely measurable levels [of unhealthy bacteria] and they are probably more prevalent than what we are seeing," said Jeffrey Karns, a microbiologist at the USDA’s Environmental Microbial Safety Laboratory in Beltsville, who led the study."

That doesn’t bother Sally Fallon, president of the Weston A. Price Foundation, a District-based organization that has been leading the charge to make raw milk available to consumers.

"We’re not talking about raw milk from a typical conventional dairy," she says. "That milk could pose a danger. But milk from cows fed on pastures actually have their own antimicrobial components that keep it safe."

"People say that small farms have happy cows that don’t have pathogens," Karns says, but he adds that there is no evidence to support that contention.

To concur. Sally Fallon and the foundation she represents engage in scientific cherry picking, selectively citing science and ignoring the outbreak side of the equation. E. coli O157:H7 is a natural resident of approximately 10 per cent of all ruminants — the spinach outbreak of 2006 should have put that notion that natural is by default, better, to rest.
 
Back in New Hampshire, raw milk advocates are vying for looser regulations on its sale to keep up with growing demand.

But as Brae Surgeoner and I have written,

"Raw milk producers want to afford consumers more options and choice is good. But as the 19th-century English utilitarian philosopher John Stuart Mill noted, absolute choice has limits, stating, "If it (in this case the consumption of raw unpasteurized milk) only directly affects the person undertaking the action, then society has no right to intervene, even if it feels the actor is harming himself." Excused from Mill’s libertarian principle are those people who are incapable of self-government — children.

Science can be used to enhance what nature provided. Further, society has a responsibility to the many — philosopher Mill also articulated how the needs of the many outweighed the needs of the one — to use knowledge to minimize harm. Adults, do whatever you think works to ensure a natural and healthy lifestyle, but please don’t impose your dietary regimes on those incapable of protecting themselves: your kids."

Food safety is hard to inspect for

Carly Weeks of CanWest writes today that our food isn’t nearly as safe as we might think. Weeks discusses the risk-based nature of inspection (which is good) but also suggests that we need more oversight or inspection or something to make sure the food that arrives on the tables doesn’t make us sick (I’m not convinced).  I was cited in the article as saying:

 "There’s lots of different factors that lead to food-borne illness. The things that make people sick are hard to inspect for."

Performance measures on handwashing, cross-contamination, and a culture of food safety that promotes good practices, are difficult to gather during an inspection. And it’s pretty well impossible to look at the end product and try to assess the practices that it was produced under. 

Weeks writes that CFIA is inspecting 100% of the leafy greens that come from other countries — but is that a worthwhile investment? What does it really tell consumers?  Has inspection prevented any outbreaks? In the restaurant inspection literature Cruz and colleagues suggest that inspection results do little to predict the likelihood of an outbreak.  Is there any reason to think end product inspection, with less data, is any better?

This is really a food industry issue, I want to see what they are doing to protect their brands, how they foster organizational change within their firms — and with their suppliers — that goes beyond inspection.

Local = safe? Show me the data

The Montreal Gazette is the latest media outlet to plunge into the if-food-from-China-makes-us-sick-we-should-buy-local issue.

Paul Mayers, executive director of the animal products directorate at the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, was quoted as saying, "Continued globalization means our responsibilities continue to grow. Regulatory systems in different countries are at different stages of evolution. We realize not all countries have systems that are as developed as ours."

I’m not sure how developed the Canadian regulatory system is. The scientific expertise is there, but when it comes to sharing that information with consumers, the system seems far from developed.

Even the story notes that "the Canadian Food Inspection Agency doesn’t release numbers on how many shipments it inspects or how many inspectors it employs. Nor does it track food-safety violations by country."

The story cites me, Doug Powell, an associate professor and director of the International Food Safety Network at Kansas State University, as saying the food supply is as safe as it’s ever been, adding, "It doesn’t matter whether we get our food from around the corner or around the world." Powell said it’s up to consumers to ask questions, but said increased government inspection is not the answer. "You can’t test your way to a safe food supply," said Powell, who believes ensuring food safety is the responsibility of the private sector. "Making people sick is bad for business."

Actually, the rest of the quote was, "you want to verify that producers and processors are actually doing what they are supposed to be doing" but the reporter didn’t seem to like that.

There is a growing assumption visible in media coverage and marketing, that local equates with safe. I was at the Manhattan (Kansas, that is) market with Amy last Saturday morning. Producers, large or small, should be able to describe their efforts to manage microbiological risks. Back in Guelph, Ontario, I used to ask the guy who sold fresh apple cider what he did to control risk (this, in the aftermath of the 1996 Odwalla juice-E. coli O157:H7 outbreak) and he could describe the small microbiological lab he had set up on his farm and the testing and sampling procedures he used. If consumers want unpasteurized cider, that’s the kind of question and answer they might want to be interested in.

Regardless of the source, have some sort of verification that it is microbiologically safe.

Food miles are fashionable; where’s the safety?

Trying to include considerations of microbial food safety — the things that make people barf — when encountering the dogma of fervent foodies is an occupational hazard. Over the years I’ve been slandered, threatened with lawsuits and harm to my person. Taking on the natural-organic-local cabal — including the Food Network which didn’t like our analysis of food safety errors on cooking shows — can be challenging.

So James E. McWilliams should be prepared for lively correspondence. McWilliams, the author of “A Revolution in Eating: How the Quest for Food Shaped America” and a contributing writer for The Texas Observer, writes in a N.Y. Times op-ed this morning that reducing food miles — how far food has traveled before you buy it — is not necessarily better for the environment.

"There are many good reasons for eating local — freshness, purity, taste, community cohesion and preserving open space — but none of these benefits compares to the much-touted claim that eating local reduces fossil fuel consumption."

"As concerned consumers and environmentalists, we must … be prepared to accept that buying local is not necessarily beneficial for the environment. As much as this claim violates one of our most sacred assumptions, life cycle assessments offer far more valuable measurements to gauge the environmental impact of eating. While there will always be good reasons to encourage the growth of sustainable local food systems, we must also allow them to develop in tandem with what could be their equally sustainable global counterparts. We must accept the fact, in short, that distance is not the enemy of awareness."

Brilliant. But once again, the notion of microbiological safety is absent from the discussion. How about sourcing food from the place that can yield the fewest number of sick people?

Do you come here often???

Food safety has made it to Cosmopolitan magazine, in a uniquely Cosmo way. As past of its Conversation Starter series, number 80 is,

"Your kitchen sponge harbors millions of harmful bacteria like E. coli and salmonella that will make you sick. Luckily, now you can instantly sanitize the germ magnet with a zap of your microwave. Heating it for just two minutes will kill 99 percent of the bacteria, a University of Florida study found."

This could lead to additional conversations such as plastic versus wood cutting boards, the risk of raw sprouts, and soon, a relationship is forged.

Noble Rot: Sounds hot, but is it safe?

huitlacocheIn Gourmet magazine’s TV series Diary of a Foodie, episode 15 focuses on the good molds used in developing certain foods. I recorded the show last night to find out if any food safety would be mentioned, and we watched it today while eating Doug’s homemade baguettes and some mold-covered camembert made in the U.S. with pasteurized milk.

Narrator: “The smell of rot – that ripe funk of a humid cellar – is heaven to any cheese affineur.”  (Affinage is the process of aging or ripening of cheese).

Taking us to the Parisian cheese shop of famed fromagère Marie-Anne Cantin, the first host says, “Mold is like alchemy in food.” It changes food “magically.” Yes, mold is good for a lot of things. It does participate in some magical cheese making. Cantin explains the varieties of penicillium and how they are introduced to a different cheeses. The host says that mold protects the cheese so “bad things don’t get into it. So it’s actually good for you.”

This is all fascinating, but the safety of it is not addressed. Instead the show focuses on issues of taste and legality. In the U.S. raw milk cheeses have to be aged at least 60 days, because, as Cantin says in untranslated French, “Americans are a little afraid.” The host comforts the viewers saying that serious foodies are trying to change this law.

The show goes on to explore the Botrytis grape mold used in making great Sauterne and other dessert wines, homemade yogurt made from a 19th century culture at the Schimmel Bakery (Narrator: “Edible bacteria adds delicious pungent flavor and some are quite simply good for you”), how rotten potatoes can be used to make bread with the “most old-fashioned flavor,” and  … rotten corn.

Narrator: “While some will scream ‘health risk’ at the sight of huitlacoché’s mushrooming black spores, in Mexico these infected corn kernels are considered a delicacy.”

At Santa Monica’s Border Grill, huitlacoché it’s used in quesadillas for the “adventurous” crowd. Huitlachoché is the mold growing on corn kernels. The kernels blow up into a mushrooms that are cut off the cob, chopped up, and cooked. The chefs say it’s sweet and smoky tasting. According to one of the chef’s theories, “The more different things you eat, the healthier you’ll be.”

The only food safety advice comes across quite casually towards the end of the show in another cheese and sausage shop that tries to import foods unknown in the U.S. White fluffy mold on the sausage is OK, green or black mold on air-dried beef is bad.

Anyway – mold is everywhere. “It’s natural,” says Cantin.

Mold may be natural, but some of it, can make you sick. Mycotoxins, poisonous toxins that can make you sick, grow on grain, nuts, celery, grape juice, apples, and other produce. Aflotoxin, a type of mycotoxin that can grow on peanuts and corn, is cancer causing. According to the USDA website, “The U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the USDA monitor peanuts and field corn for aflatoxin and can remove any food or feed with unacceptable levels of it.”

Molds can cause allergic and respiratory problems, and the USDA advises not to buy moldy foods, “Examine food well before you buy it. Check food in glass jars, look at the stem areas on fresh produce, and avoid bruised produce. Notify the store manager about mold on foods!” The USDA site http://www.fsis.usda.gov/Fact_Sheets/Molds_On_Food/index.asp has an excellent chart about which foods, when moldy, should be discarded and which can be spared. It also explains why.

In addition, Louisiana State University advises, “Mushrooms in lawns and moldy foods can be health hazards for your dogs, according to LSU AgCenter veterinarian Dr. Steve Nicholson.”

It’s safest to know your molds, the good and the bad, as well as their associated risks before you eat them or feed them to your children or dogs.

Organic industry reaps new profits from ‘fear factor’ of food recalls

The Montreal Gazette today reports that product recalls are like a death knell for food firms, but for a niche segment of the food industry, recalls aren’t a thing to be feared – in fact, they are cause for celebration.
Maryellen Molyneaux, president of the Natural Marketing Institute, after speaking at the annual Institute of Food Technologists conference this week, was quoted as saying, "Food scares are always good for the organic industry. You can look at that historically."
Carly Weeks writes that organic food companies often reap the benefit when the traditional, mainstream market is hit with a scandal about tainted food or contaminated products. It’s a trend she says the organic industry likes to refer to as the "fear factor" – more consumers are turning to their products because they’re losing faith in what traditional grocers have to offer.
"Organic" refers to a method used to produce foods rather than to characteristics of the food itself. Thus, no distinctions should be made between organically and non-organically produced food products in terms of safety. Producers, yes, but production systems, no.

Produce primary source of foodborne illness: Doyle

Michael Doyle, food safety expert with the Institute of Food Technologists and director of Center for Food Safety at the University of Georgia, told the IFT Annual Meeting & Food Expo that, "Produce is where much of the action has occurred."

In the 25 years preceding 1997, there were 190 outbreaks of foodborne illness associated with fresh produce. In the five years that followed, that number jumped to 249. The list of offenders varied from lettuce, melons and seed sprouts to apple juice, orange juice and tomatoes.

Doyle predicts that produce and other foods from plants will be the dominant vehicles for foodborne illnesses, accounting for more than 50 percent of all illnesses currently estimated at more than 70 million cases a year.