Tag Archives: Poultry

Who’s to blame? Campy cases up almost 50% in UK, Ireland

Posted on by
1

Wales Online reports that sloppy food hygiene at home has been blamed for a worrying increase in cases of campylobacter food poisoning.

Carried by chickens, it is thought large numbers of raw chickens sold in supermarkets are infected with campylobacter, which can be spread to other foods in the kitchen via cross-contamination.

Tom Humphrey, a professorial fellow in food safety at the University of Liverpool, said: “Campylobacter doesn’t need any exaggerating; we don’t need to big up its importance. My daughter got it when she was seven and lost 7kg in two days. She was passing nothing but blood.

Official figures show there were 70,000 cases of campylobacter illnesses in the UK in 2010; the latest figures for Wales show there are some 3,000 a year but it is thought for every one reported case, a further 10 go unreported.

There were 2,440 official cases notified in the Republic of Ireland last year, a rise of 46.9pc over 2010.

Humphrey said because most poultry had campylobacter, “The importance, therefore, is very much on the careful handling of poultry. Studies have found campylobacter on domestic dishcloths, which is symptomatic of what is happening in the kitchen. We tend to take things for granted and can be a bit sloppy when it comes to food hygiene at home.

“All cows have campylobacter and all milk will have cow poo in it, if you don’t heat it, there’s a risk of campylobacter.

“Kittens and puppies can get diarrhea caused by campylobacter and, particularly for young children, being in contact with that is a risk factor.

“But overwhelmingly, the biggest factor is the consumption of under-cooked chicken – this makes up between 50% and 80% of cases.”

He added that intervention on the farm is the key to controlling campylobacter in chickens.

So is it the farm, home kitchens, food service, everywhere, what’s the message?

Poultry inspection changes proposed; see me, hear me, touch me, feel me don’t work so well with bacterial detection

Posted on by
Reply

In about three hours, as I blissfully sleep, U.S. ag-types will take to the PR circuit to advance a new program for poultry inspection.

According to Bloomberg, the U.S. would increase oversight of poultry processors’ sanitary practices and contamination controls instead of visually checking each chicken and turkey for scabs and sores under a plan that would save the industry $250 million a year.

U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack said the proposal, to be presented today, may prevent 5,200 foodborne illnesses a year by modernizing and making the system more efficient by taking the emphasis off visual imperfections that can harm poultry sales rather than improve safety.

“It’s obviously about safer food and fewer foodborne illnesses,” Vilsack said in an interview. “It’s also about reducing the cost of production in an effective way without redundancy or compromising safety.”

The U.S. would save as much as $40 million a year within two or three years, in part through the elimination of inspection jobs, Vilsack said. Last week, the secretary announced a reorganization of his agency that would lower spending by about $150 million a year, or 1 percent of the department’s budget. The public will have 90 days to comment on the proposal.

The USDA would continue to inspect poultry carcasses at the end of the production line before they are chilled and will be on site at all times, Vilsack said. Slaughter operators have the option of requesting the U.S. continue visual inspections for blemishes, according to the proposed regulation.

Gary Mickelson, a spokesman for Tyson Foods Inc. (TSN), in an e-mail. Tyson, based in Springdale, Arkansas and the largest U.S. chicken producer by volume, participated in the pilot program testing the new inspection rules.

“This modified system reduces redundancies between company and USDA inspection efforts and gives USDA’s staff more flexibility to focus on other things that verify the effectiveness of our food safety activities,” said Mickelson, adding that Tyson has not yet seen the proposed regulation.

The pilot program with 25 poultry processors conducted over more than a decade found no increased risk of injuries to workers from the faster production line and showed the effort to be successful, said Elisabeth Hagen, undersecretary for food safety at the USDA, in an interview.

Inspectors began visually inspecting poultry for physical defects in 1906, before it was possible to detect microbial contamination that can’t be seen and poses a hazard, he said.

Salmonella stays with chickens, from birth to kitchen

Posted on by
Reply

 News21 is part of a national Knight-Carnegie university reporting project that worked on a bunch of food safety stories over the summer. I spent a lot of time on the phone with these students, as did many others. One of the results was published in the Washington Post over the weekend; excerpts below.

On a late June morning, thousands of newborn chicks in a West Virginia chicken house huddled together for warmth, forming a fuzzy, moving yellow carpet.

Over the next two months, these chicks pecked at the dirt, nibbled on pellets, grew up. They were packed into crates, trucked to a slaughterhouse, cut into parts and sent to a distribution center for shipment to supermarkets and restaurants.

At every step along the way, some of those chickens were infected with salmonella, a pathogen that lives in the intestinal tracts of birds and other animals and can easily spread. Invisible, tasteless and odorless, it doesn’t make the chickens sick. But transferred to humans, it can lead to salmonellosis — an infection that causes diarrhea, fever and stomach cramps, and, in severe cases, can spread from the intestines to the bloodstream.

A look at how the nation’s food safety system operates in the case of salmonella-infected poultry shows how a combination of industry practices and gaps in government oversight results in a fractured effort that leaves the ultimate responsibility for safe food with the consumer.

Food safety experts and poultry scientists say that salmonella control must start on the farm, but federal food safety inspectors never set foot there. The Agriculture Department’s Food Safety and Inspection Service lacks the legal authority to test for salmonella on farms or to require farmers to have a food safety plan.
As a result, attempts to prevent salmonella are done voluntarily by farmers or because poultry processing companies ask them to — leading to a patchwork of efforts, some of which work better than others.

Stan Bailey, a retired USDA microbiologist, said that during his career, he noticed that some companies worked harder than others on food safety. “I think different people have different attitudes on how much they’re willing to spend,” he said.

And no matter how much salmonella USDA finds in raw meat, it cannot be kept off the market.

Children under four have highest incidence of campylobacter in Ireland

Posted on by
Reply

Children under 4-years-old present the highest incidence of illness from campylobacter the Food Safety Authority of Ireland said yesterday.

The authority’s scientific committee published a report recommending increased controls by poultry producers, retailers and consumers to reduce illness.

The bacteria found in the intestinal tract of birds causes four times more illness than salmonella in Ireland, the authority said.

More than 1,600 cases were reported in Ireland last year but the reality was much higher as there was “substantial under-reporting”, authority chief executive Prof Alan Reilly said. “What is particularly worrying is that we are seeing one-to-four-year-old Irish children having the highest incidence of the illness. There were 165 cases per 100,000 of the population within that age group reported in 2009,” Prof Reilly said.
 

Gonzalo Erdozain: Real housewife of New Jersey or not, don’t wash your poultry

Posted on by
1

The only positive thing about working on the couch while my wife watches Real Housewives of New Jersey is that sooner or later, they will screw something up, and I can blog about it.

This week’s episode wasn’t any different. Teresa (right, exactly as shown), one of the many wives, was hosting Thanksgiving dinner for the family. After visiting a local poultry farm, and feeling sorry for the live turkey, she decided to buy a turkey that had been slaughtered the day before. The issue however is not animal welfare, but the food safety atrocity she committed next by washing her turkey in the sink –- this is somebody who has published two cooking books. It has been proven that bacteria can travel up to 3 feet from the sink, highly increasing the risk of cross-contamination.

On a positive note, she was actually shown using a thermometer – it wasn’t digital, but at least she was using one.
 

Fewer sick people? USDA sets new performance standards for salmonella and campylobacter in poultry

Posted on by
Reply

I’m a fan of performance standards, quality control, continuous improvement – all those things that can measure risk reduction.

(And why zero tolerances sorta suck.)

But keep it real.

“FSIS estimates that approximately 5,000 illnesses will be prevented each year under the new Campylobacter standards, and approximately 20,000 illnesses will be prevented under the revised Salmonella standards each year.”

Standards good, extrapolations based on … who knows what, bad.

Judge for yourselves. The press release is below. Full details have been published in the federal register and are available at
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/rdad/FRPubs/2009-0029.pdf

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) today announced implementation of revised and new performance standards aimed at reducing the prevalence of Salmonella and Campylobacter in young chickens and turkeys. The improved standards will become effective in July 2011. With the new standards, FSIS is encouraging establishments slaughtering chicken and turkey to make continued reductions in the occurrence of pathogens – namely Salmonella and Campylobacter – in the products they produce.

After two years of enforcing the new standards, FSIS estimates that approximately 5,000 illnesses will be prevented each year under the new Campylobacter standards, and approximately 20,000 illnesses will be prevented under the revised Salmonella standards each year.

"These improved standards are a stronger buffer between foodborne illnesses and our consumers, especially our most vulnerable consumers – children, the elderly and those with weakened immune systems," said Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack. "There is no more important mission at USDA than ensuring the safety of our food, and we are working every day to lower the danger of foodborne illness. The new standards announced today mark an important step in our efforts to protect consumers by further reducing the incidence of Salmonella and opening a new front in the fight against Campylobacter."

FSIS developed stricter performance standards using recently completed nationwide studies that measure the baseline prevalence of Salmonella and Campylobacter in young chickens and turkeys prepared for market. The studies indicated that, despite improvements, there was still a risk of consumers being exposed to these pathogens through poultry.

"While the industry has made significant strides in recent years, far too many Americans continue to fall victim to these foodborne illnesses," said Under Secretary for Food Safety Dr. Elisabeth Hagen. "These improved standards will drive the industry to do better. They are tough but achievable. And when fully implemented, they will prevent tens of thousands of Americans from getting sick."

President Obama’s Food Safety Working Group (FSWG) developed three core principles to help guide food safety in the United States: prioritizing prevention, strengthening surveillance and enforcement, and improving response and recovery. In its overall mission to ensure a safe food supply for the public, and in response to the FSWG, FSIS developed the stricter performance standards to cut the Salmonella risk in poultry products.

Food poison risk from poultry packaging

Posted on by
3

Food safety types in Birmingham, U.K. have found that 40 per cent of all plastic packaging containing chicken in Birmingham contained food poisoning bacteria.

In a survey of 20 supermarkets, convenience stores and butcher’s shops throughout the city, food safety officials found that eight were contaminated on the outside of the packet.

They also found seven chickens were contaminated inside the wrapping, while one tested positive for salmonella. There was no link between those infected inside and outside the packaging.

Team manager Nick Lowe said, “Our message to consumers is that handling the packaging should be regarded as just as likely to cause food poisoning and touching the raw meat.”

Once handled in a supermarket the bacteria can be passed on through trolley handles, shopping bags and transferred to other foods. In one supermarket a pool of juice collected on the chiller shelf was also contaminated.
 

You can’t overcook turkey that’s what the gravy is for: failures in food safety policy

Posted on by
Reply

Is today Thanksgiving in Canada, or is it tomorrow? Either way, Monday’s a holiday up there, bring on the turkey and side dishes.

But questions remain: what is the safest way to cook a turkey or chicken?

Thawing and preparing the bird to minimize cross-contamination present their own microbiological issues. Today, however, the big, really big news is that the Canadian government has spoken: poultry should be cooked to an end-temperature of 82C of 180F, not the 85C or 185F previously recommended (maybe they’ll change the advice). The U.S. says 165F or 74C.

I’m not so concerned about the specifics – there are lots of microbiologists who can make those arguments. I am concerned about taxpayer-funded public health organizations and rather spectacular failings in accountability.

For those who want to follow the British advice and cook their birds until they are piping hot, I refer you to Martin Mull’s History of White People, where it was concluded, “You can’t overcook turkey. That’s what the gravy is for.”

Color is also a lousy indicator. The only way to tell a bird has reached a microbiologically temperature is using a tip-sensitive digital thermometer. But at what temperature is poultry microbiologically safe? Should I make extra gravy?

Health Canada and government agencies in many countries issue all kinds of consumer advice: don’t smoke; wear condoms (but don’t flush them down the toilet); floss.

There are reams of consumer food safety advice, but sometimes, the PhDs from different countries disagree on the recommendation. That’s normal, scientists disagree all the time. But to ensure confidence in those consumer recommendations, it’s best to have a process that says, “Look, you may not agree with what we decided, but here’s how we came to that conclusion, and here are the assumptions we made, so you take a shot at it and see if you can do better.” That’s the fancy way to describe the role of value assumptions in risk assessments and overall risk analysis.

For over a decade I have been politely asking Health Canada how they determine consumer recommendations for preparing poultry. What is the best way to thaw poultry? How do they determine the safe end-point internal temperature? What references do they use? (This discussion is specific to consumer practices in the home, not in food service).

I’ve never received an answer.

At one point I was less polite, and wrote a piece entitled, Health Canada pulls holiday recommendations from its ass. One of my favorites.

Either Health Canada media and science types I talked to didn’t know, or weren’t telling.

The process inspired no confidence.

In the U.S. in 2006, the recommended end-point cooking temperature for all poultry was lowered to 165F from the previous 180F. This was based on recommendations by the National Advisory Committee on Microbiological Criteria for Foods. Where the 180F recommendation came from , no one really knows. Diane Van, manager of the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture Meat and Poultry Hotline, was quoted as saying in a Nov. 2006 L.A. Times story about the old 180F advice, "I’ve looked all over and I really have no idea. I think it happened sometime back in the 1980s, but I don’t know what it was based on."

At least that’s honest.

In Canada, the Health Canada recommendation for whole poultry is 185F. How was that temperature decided? Are there peer-reviewed journal articles that were used to develop that recommendation? Do bacteria behave differently north of the 49th parallel?

Given such inconsistencies, and the utter lack of accountability, why would consumers be expected to blindly follow what some governmental agency proclaims?

On Thursday, Oct. 7, 2010, seven Health Canada types had a paper published in the journal, Food Protection Trends, outlining Health Canada’s recommendation for the safe endpoint temperature when cooking whole raw poultry. The abstract is at the end of this post.

The curtain has been pulled back. Being in Kansas, I could use some Wizard of Oz metaphors, but won’t. And I wouldn’t say the three studies were “recently performed” as they were conducted in 2003-2007, 2000, and 1994.

Now, what is the process within Health Canada to translate scientific evidence into public policy recommendations? I expect that answer in another 10 years.

Safe endpoint temperature for cooking whole raw poultry: Health Canada recommendation
01.oct.10
Food ProtectionTrends,Vol.30, No.9, Pages 580–587
Gosia K. Kozak, Helene Couture, Thomas Gleeson, Kim Hopkins, Pauiett Maikie, Thuy Phan and Jeffrey M. Farber
ABSTRACT
Poultry is a known carrier of Salmonella. however, it can be safely consumed when cooked to an appropriate internal temperature. The United States Department of agriculture and some Canadian provinces recommend 74°C, whereas health Canada currently recommends 85°C, as a safe internal temperature for cooking raw whole poultry, a difference that can potentially create consumer confusion. To address this, health Canada evaluated three studies recently performed in Canada to examine the survival of Salmonella in raw inoculated whole poultry (stuffed and unstuffed whole chicken and turkey), at six different endpoint temperatures. It was found that 82°C was a safe endpoint cooking temperature for whole unstuffed and stuffed poultry. The studies found that variability exists between and within ovens, and that shorter cooking times typically resulted in positive Salmonella tests in poultry. The thickest part of the breast was determined to be the optimum location for temperature measurement, as it was the last to reach the desired endpoint temperature. Thigh readings were often inaccurate and difficult to perform. As a result of the evaluation of these studies, Health Canada will likely be recommending changing its endpoint temperature recommendation for raw whole poultry to 82C, as measured in the thickest part of the breast.

What’s in a label? Is chicken injected with salt and water ‘all-natural’

Posted on by
1

Food is 21st century snake oil.

And shopping for food can be so confusing.

Natural, organic, local, antioxidants, welfare-friendly, whole wheat made predominantly with white flour, hormone-free, hucksterism of whatever kind.

Juliana Barbassa of Associated Press reports today that a disagreement among poultry producers about whether chicken injected with salt, water and other ingredients can be promoted as "natural" has prompted federal officials to consider changing labeling guidelines.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture had maintained that if chicken wasn’t flavored artificially or preserved with chemicals, it could carry the word "natural" on the package.

But the agency agreed to take another look at its policy after some producers, politicians and health advocates noted that about one-third of chicken sold in the U.S. was injected with additives that could represent up to 15 percent of the meat’s weight, doubling or tripling its sodium content. Some argue that could mislead or potentially harm consumers who must limit their salt intake.

The USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service plans to issue new proposed rules this fall.

Perdue, the nation’s third largest poultry producer, is among those pushing for a change. The company has joined a group called the Truthful Labeling Coalition, which has hired a lobbyist and launched an advertising campaign.

The two largest chicken processors, Pilgrim’s Pride and Tyson Foods, are among those that affix "natural" labels to chicken injected with extra salt and water.

A buyer perusing the chicken counter at a San Francisco supermarket agreed.

Muembo Muanza, 30, said he read the label and considered the price but never thought to check the salt content when buying fresh chicken.

"If it says natural, I expect it to be all natural – nothing but chicken," he said.

I’d be more interested if food-types would start marketing based on microbial food safety.

UK consumers still washing whole chicken –they shouldn’t, cross-contamination risk

Posted on by
2

An estimated three quarters of consumers who buy whole chickens wash them, potentially spreading bacteria on to work surfaces for up to a 3ft radius, research by Which? has revealed.

The Telegraph reports the most recent figures from the Food Standards Agency (FSA) suggest that 65% of raw shop-bought chicken is contaminated with campylobacter.

And while most government agencies now advise against washing chickens, cookbooks and Internet recipes are full of it (bad advice and poop).

An FSA spokeswoman said,

”Washing raw poultry is a common kitchen mistake, and it simply isn’t necessary. … By washing your raw bird, you’re actually more likely to spread the germs around the kitchen than get rid of them.”

Here’s another common kitchen mistake, courtesy of the FSA: piping hot is not a food safety indicator and color is a lousy indicator. Use a tip-sensitive digital thermometer.