Anyone can bitch. My colleagues and I try to provide solutions.
So Ben, Casey and I jumped at the chance to write the concluding chapter for a new book, "The Produce Contamination Problem: Causes and Solutions," slated for release July 15 from Academic Press.
"We should eat fresh produce because it’s good for us, but it’s also a significant cause of foodborne illness," said Doug Powell, an associate professor of food safety at Kansas State University.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently reported that when leafy vegetables are counted with fruits and nuts, they account for the majority of foodborne disease outbreaks in 2006. Together, these types of produce are blamed for 33 percent of outbreaks. In comparison, poultry was the culprit of 21 percent of outbreaks that year.
One of the main things the authors convey is that the tomato grown in your home garden is as likely to make you sick as is the tomato purchased at a big-box grocery store or discount chain.
"Everyone is big on their local garden, but it’s no different whether I have a thousand acres or a little plot in my backyard," Powell said. "You have to keep dog, cat and bird poop out of the product you eat."
Although factory farms often take the blame for outbreaks, Powell points out that the contaminated spinach circulating in 2006 came from a farm with a 70-head cattle operation.
"It was nothing near to being a factory farm, but cattle were kept next to the spinach," he said.
"With produce, anything that comes in contact with it has the potential to contaminate, whether it’s people’s hands, irrigation water or manure.”
The authors suggest that changes in food safety practices have to begin with producers.
"Other than asking questions about food safety practices, there isn’t much consumers can do," Powell said. "Contamination has to be prevented on the farm."
That’s good, because this year has brought a new crop of unrealistic expectations about the microbial safety of fresh produce, created primarily by the largest producer of fresh produce, California.
Meanwhile, a bunch of Taco Bell franchisees won damages from their insurance company over a 2006 E. coli O157:H7 outbreak involving California bagged lettuce when the judge ruled that the lettuce should be considered an ingredient, which would be covered by the policy, instead of a product, which would not be covered.
The Onion, in this satirical-but-a-little-to-close-to-reality piece, has the perfect solution for Taco Bell.
Is E. coli O157:H7 associated with things other than feedlot cattle?
I had a few people call me recently, saying, I saw that movie, Food, Inc., which says that E. coli O157:H7 is predominately in feedlot cattle because of the grain they are fed, and that’s how the bug came to exist. So how did it get into Nestle cookie dough?
It’s sort of a mantra of raw milk enthusiasts and wannabe food safety types that E. coli O157:H7 is a product of feedlot cattle, and that grass-fed creatures are benign entities for the dinner plate.
A blogger yesterday wrote, “… hamburger tainted by e-coli, a virus that breeds in a cow’s stomach when it is feed grain instead of grass (which, of course, most cows are nowadays in order to fatten them quickly and cheaply).”
It’s a bacterium, not a virus.
Nicholas Kristof, a columnist for the N.Y. Times, wrote yesterday, on Sunday, June 21/09, that, “There is some evidence that pathogens, including E. coli, become much more common in factory farming operations. Move feedlot cattle out to a pasture for five days, and they will lose 80 percent of the E. coli in their gut, the film says.”
That evidence is about as strong as the whisps of evidence compiled by Danny Sugarman that The Doors’ frontman Jim Morrisson is still alive and didn’t die from excess in a Paris bathtub in 1971. But, every teenager goes through their Doors phase (I can only find the clip below in Spanish, but Canada’s The Guess Who stands up much better with the hindsight of time; they know they are drunken buffoons, and not a drunken buffoon trying to be a poet).
Scientific uncertainty can easily be exploited by the certainty of filmmakers, who cherry pick facts and flourish on rhetoric. And I guess if it’s repeated ad nauseum for 11 years by writers from the N.Y. Times to your-favorite-bullshit blogger it becomes fact.
That line, “Move feedlot cattle out to a pasture for five days, and they will lose 80 percent of the E. coli in their gut,” comes from a 1998 paper published in the journal Science by Diez-Gonzalez of Cornell University, and colleagues.
Since September 1998, there has been conflicting information on the effect of diet on E. coli shedding from cattle. The conflict arises in part from the effect of diet on the ability of E. coli to develop acid resistance. … Diez-Gonzalez et. al demonstrated that feeding a high-grain diet to cattle results in an acidic environment in the colon. Because the animals incompletely digested the starch in grains, some starch was able to reach the colon where it fermented, producing fermentation acids. The researchers believe an acidic environment selects for or induces acid resistance among the Escherichia coli population. … Diez-Gonzalez et al. concluded that if cattle were given hay for a brief period (five days) immediately before slaughter, the risk of foodborne E. coli infection would be significantly reduced because the acidity in the colon is greatly reduced. "Our studies indicate that cattle could be given hay for a brief period immediately before slaughter to significantly reduce the risk of food-borne E. coli infection."
The Science article received mainstream media attention, and was covered by the Associated Press and The New York Times, as well as scientific releases and reports. In the Irish Times, it was cited as the basis for concluding that because Irish cattle are fed a grass-based diet rather than grain, Ireland has a low incidence of E. coli O157:H7. Hancock et al. contend that this conclusion is unsupported or contradicted by several lines of evidence. The E. coli that contaminate beef typically originate from the hide, the hooves, or the equipment used in slaughter and processing rather than directly from the colon, and likely replicate in environments unlike the colon. Therefore, the induced acid resistance of E. coli contaminating beef is likely to be unrelated to the pH of its ancestral colonic environment. The E. coli O157:H7 bacterium uses several mechanisms to survive acid environments, some of which are innate and are not influenced by environment . Although acid resistance is likely a factor in an infective dose, induced acid resistance has not been shown to be a factor in E. coli O157:H7 infectivity by experimental (dose-inoculation) or observational (epidemiological) data . Therefore, acid resistance induced by exposure to weak acid may not influence the virulence of this pathogen.
Published data on E. coli O157:H7 tends to contradict or does not support the effects of the dietary change proposed by Diez-Gonzalez et al. In a recent study on three different grain diets (85% cracked corn, 15% whole cottonseed and 70% barley, or 85% barley), the fecal pH of the animals fed the corn diet was significantly lower (P < 0.05) than the fecal pH of the animals fed the cottonseed and barley and barley diets, likely resulting in a less suitable environment for E. coli O157:H7 in the hindgut of the corn fed animals (2000, Buchko et al). In the Journal of Food Protection, researchers concluded that changing from grain to a high roughage diet did not produce a change in the E. coli concentration that was large enough to deliver a drastic improvement in beef carcass hygiene. Sheep experiencing an abrupt diet change have higher concentrations and increased shedding of fecal E. coli O157:H7 for longer periods than sheep fed a consistent high-grain diet. Another study compared the duration of shedding E. coli O157:H7 isolates by hay-fed and grain-fed steers experimentally inoculated with E. coli O157:H7 as well as the acid resistance of the bacteria. The hay-fed animals shed E. coli O157:H7 longer than the grain-fed animals, and irrespective of diet, these bacteria were equally acid resistant.
These results suggest that the proposed dietary change would actually increase contamination with E. coli O157:H7. Also, the 1,000-fold reductions in total fecal E. coli demonstrated by Diez-Gonzales et al. are far greater than those recorded in cattle experiencing similar ration changes . Finally, extensive surveys show that grain-fed feedlot cattle have no higher E. coli O157:H7 infection prevalence than similarly aged dairy cattle fed forage (hay) diets. Abrupt feed change immediately before slaughter could have unexpected deleterious effects. The proposed diet change has the potential to increase the risk of bovine salmonella infections, a potential source of food poisoning. The dietary change results in sharply reduced volatile fatty acid concentrations in the large intestine as well as changes in the bacteria, allowing for colonization of Salmonella.
See, that’s a really long explanation. It’s not as soothing as, change cattle diet, disease prevented. And that was written nine years ago.
Mike Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy and professor in the School of Public Health at the University of Minnesota wrote a cleaner critique in 2007 in the Minneapolis-St. Paul Star Tribune:
"Russo cited conclusions from a 1998 study from Cornell University that cattle fed a diet of grass, not grain, had very few E. coli, and that those bacteria that survived in the cattle feces would not survive in the human when eaten in undercooked meat, particularly hamburger. This statement is based on a study of only three cows rotated on different diets and for which the researchers did not even test for E. coli O157:H7. Unfortunately, the authors extrapolated these incredibly sparse results to the entire cattle industry. The Cornell study is uncorroborated in numerous published scientific papers from renowned research groups around the world. Finally, work conducted by the Minnesota Department of Health as part of a national study on foodborne disease recently showed that eating red meat from local farms was a significant risk factor for E. coli infection. …
And as my colleague David Renter wrote in Sept. 2006,
"Cattle raised on diets of ‘grass, hay and other fibrous forage’ do contain E. coli O157:H7 bacteria in their feces as do other animals including deer, sheep, goats, bison, opossum, raccoons, birds, and many others.
"Cattle diet can affect levels of E. coli O157:H7, but this is a complex issue that has been and continues to be studied by many scientists. To suggest switching cattle from grain to forage based on a small piece of the scientific evidence is inappropriate and irresponsible. Several pieces of evidence suggest that such a change would not eliminate and may even increase E. coli O157:H7 in cattle.
"The current spinach outbreak may be traced back to cattle manure, but there are many other potential sources. Simplistically attacking one facet of livestock production may be politically expedient, but instead provides a false sense of security and ignores the biological realities of E. coli O157:H7. In 1999, for example, 90 children were felled by E. coli O157:H7 at a fair in London, Ont. The source? A goat at a petting zoo, hardly an intensively farmed animal."
Last time I looked, E. coli O157:H7 and about 60 other shiga-producing E. coli that are known to cause illness in humans are present in about 10 per cent of all ruminants – cattle, sheep, goats, deer, elk -– and I can point to outbreaks associated with all of those species. Pigs, chickens, humans, birds and rodents have all been shown to be carriers of shiga-producing E. coli but the resevoir appears to be ruminants. The final report of the fall 2006 spinach outbreak identifies nearby grass-fed beef cattle as the likely source of the E. coli O157:H7 that sickened 200 and killed 4.
How the E. coli O157:H7 got into the cookie dough remains to be seen. Biology is complex and constantly changing – even at farmer’s markets, which was the big solution of Food, Inc. But it’s only a movie.
That Cornell paper can be found here:
Diez-Gonzalez, Francisco, Todd R. Callaway, Menas G. Kizoulis, James B. Russell. Grain Feeding and the Dissemination of Acid-Resistance Escherichia coli from Cattle. Science: Sept 11, 1998. Volume 281, Number 5383, pages 1666-1668.
The New York Times picked up on the burgeoning food safety conspiracy theory business that’s been flooding the Intertubes.
There’s been a lot of outbreaks of foodborne illness and a lot of people barfing. So politicians have been busy bill-making bees, with numerous proposals before the U.S. House and Senate.
As the Times story put it,
“… small farmers, who are most accountable for their food’s freshness and health, may suffer the heaviest burden under proposed new food rules. … Small farmers argue that they are already much more accountable to their customers for the quality of their product than are mass-production facilities, and that they will be crushed under the weight of well-meaning laws aimed at large industrial offenders.”
Farmers, regardless of size, are accountable for food’s freshness and health, and more importantly, the microbial food safety of that food. Farmers, big and small, are accountable to their customers. Small is not better, and there is no evidence that smaller is safer. Small, local, organic, whatever, can be microbiologically safe, but that requires attention to sources of dangerous microorganisms and effective measures to reduce levels of risk – regardless of farm size.
And before someone chimes in with the smaller-is-easier-to-trace-and-contain line, there is no evidence to support that argument other than wishful thinking. To make an effective comparison, the number of illnesses per conventional or local/small/organic meal consumed would have to be calculated. And because a lot more people eat, say, conventional tomatoes compared to local/small/organic tomatoes, illnesses with conventional product are more likely to be detected. The data simply is not available to make any meaningful comparison.
What can be said is that local/small/organic is a lifestyle choice. And like any lifestyle choice, go for it but play safe. Try not to make people barf and even embrace evidence-based microbiologically safe food. Sales will probably increase.
Back to the story. Alexis Baden-Mayer, political director of the Organic Consumers Association, said,
"Organic standards specifically say you are supposed to cultivate the wild land on your farm, and having the area filter water has a lot of benefits. One of the principles is just that — we’re going to farm in a way that’s not disruptive to nature."
Farming is not natural; any type of farming is disruptive to nature. So produce food in a way that minimizes the impact on the natural environment, and doesn’t make people barf. But that isn’t what organic is about. As Katija and I showed in our 2004 paper, organic guidelines could be adjusted to incorporate microbial food safety standards, but as they stand, organic standards are a specification for growing organic — not microbiologically safe — food.
The best and most dangerous mythology in the story is this:
Critics say the rules unfairly penalize small farmers who grow crops and raise cattle on the same farm, while failing to address what they believe is the root of the E. coli problem — large, mismanaged feedlots that cram cattle together and spew waste runoff.
A percentage of all ruminants carry E. coli O157:H7. Feedlots are an easy target. But there are lots of outbreaks. Like E. coli O157:H7 in spinach in 2006 that sickened 200 and killed at least three. The source of the E. coli O157:H7 in the transitional organic spinach was a neighboring cow-calf operation – not a feedlot.
Whenever a university or company talks about recreating itself to be more excellent, I’m reminded of Homer Simpson winning the First Annual Montgomery Burns Award for Outstanding Achievement in the Field of Excellence.
Homer is awarded $2,000 and agrees to loan the money to his bitter half-brother, Herb Powell (no relation) who becomes rich again by making a machine to translate a baby’s babbling into actual English. Amy figures she’s already mastered the sounds of baby Sorenne and can differentiate the cries for “I need to be fed” and “I just had a huge dump.”
With that in mind, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger was honored yesterday with the California Leafy Greens Marketing Agreement “Golden Checkmark” Award for his leadership and support of mandatory government inspection of food safety systems within the produce industry.
Joe Pezzini, a leafy greens farmer and chairman of the California Leafy Greens Marketing Agreement Board said that with the creation of the California Leafy Greens Marketing Agreement, a system is now in place which involves mandatory government inspections to ensure food safety practices are being followed by California leafy greens farmers. Since the LGMA’s inception in April 2007 nearly 1,000 audits of California leafy greens farms have been conducted by government inspectors.
The same government inspectors that visited Peanut Corporation of America in Georgia? Or William Tudor’s butcher shop in Wales?
I thought it was the producer’s job to provide a safe product, not the babysitter’s.
Monterey County, California’s, Agricultural Field Toilet Inspection Program requires clean toilets, hand-washing stations and drinking water for Monterey County’s workers, enforcing long-standing state laws with new resolve.
The increased inspections are meant to encourage good hygiene among workers and to prevent crops from being contaminated.
Lourdes Bosquez, Salinas office supervisor of Consumer Health Protection Services, said, "We used to do this in the ’80s and ’90s. Now, with the E. coli outbreaks, we thought it was important that we brought the program back."
Farmers will need Health Department permits for their field toilets by Jan. 1.
Judith Redmond, co-owner of Full Belly Farm in Yolo County, and president of the Community Alliance with Family Farmers, perpetuated a few leafy green myths in the Sacramento Bee yesterday.
Redmond writes that,
"Much of California-grown "leafy greens," including spinach and lettuce, now go to the bagged salad mix market. This transformation from fresh to processed salads has created lucrative new and distant markets, but also has set the stage for heightened food safety concerns that do not exist with traditionally grown salad."
Dangerous microorganisms do not discriminate between lettuce and spinach bound for processing into a bag or shipped as is. Yes, processing can amplify problems once they exist, but control of microorganisms begins on the farm. Period.
Redmond says, "Data provided by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and analyzed by the Community Alliance with Family Farmers show that since 1999, 98.5 percent of E. coli illnesses from leafy greens in California have been traced to processed, bagged salad."
"Our soil is full of life that wards off diseases and human pathogens."
I’ve heard this before, how organic soils are rich with microbial life that out-compete the bad bugs like E. coli O157:H7. I have seen no data to support this assertion.
Redmond says,
"… we must understand what it is about modern agricultural practices that has resulted in increasing problems with this super-bug, and what new interventions are needed to reduce its levels on our food and in the agricultural environment. This is likely to involve a hard look at industrialized cattle operations …."
USA Today writers Elizabeth Weise and Julie Schmit report in a Pulitzer-worthy series of features and stories today about the fall 2006 E. coli O157:H7 outbreak related to bagged spinach.
The stories provide an excellent overview of the problems with fresh produce, the impacts on the industry, and the devastating effects on those sickened.
There’s a variety of solutions offered, but no are really effective. To really create a culture that values microbiologically safe food, start marketing food safety at retail.
This video is a product of the Food Safety Family Swingers and it exemplifies our attempts at getting the message out using our creative resources. Doug and I wrote the song together while thinking about the spinach E. coli O157:H7 outbreak in the fall of 2006 and what caused it. It really boils down to our favorite message: Don’t eat poop.
Poop in the Field Lyrics POOP IN THE FIELD (YOU GIVE SPINACH A BAD NAME)
A convenient product is what you sell you promise me freshness then put me through hell diarrhea’s got a hold on me when my washroom’s a prison I can’t break free – Whoa — the bag’s the smoking gun, yeah Whoa — now I’ve got the runs No one can save me the damage is done! – Poop in the field, manure’s to blame You give spinach a bad name I ate it fresh and it gave me pain You give spinach… a bad name. – Leafy greens touched my lips Blood black stool on my fingertips Pre-washed marketing is just a lie ‘Cause ready to eat means ready to die! – Whoa — the bag’s the smoking gun, yeah Whoa — now I’ve got the runs No one can save me, the damage is done! – Poop in the field, manure’s to blame You give spinach a bad name I ate it fresh, it gave me pain You give spinach a bad name…
.jpg)
"We should eat fresh produce because it’s good for us, but it’s also a significant cause of foodborne illness," said Doug Powell, an associate professor of food safety at Kansas State University..jpg)
It’s sort of a mantra of raw milk enthusiasts and wannabe food safety types that E. coli O157:H7 is a product of feedlot cattle, and that grass-fed creatures are benign entities for the dinner plate.(1).jpg)
That line, “Move feedlot cattle out to a pasture for five days, and they will lose 80 percent of the E. coli in their gut,” comes from a 1998 paper published in the journal Science by Diez-Gonzalez of Cornell University, and colleagues..jpg)
As the Times story put it,.jpg)
What can be said is that local/small/organic is a lifestyle choice. And like any lifestyle choice, go for it but play safe. Try not to make people barf and even embrace evidence-based microbiologically safe food. Sales will probably increase..jpg)
The best and most dangerous mythology in the story is this:.jpg)
Whenever a university or company talks about recreating itself to be more excellent, I’m reminded of Homer Simpson winning the First Annual Montgomery Burns Award for Outstanding Achievement in the Field of Excellence.
Jon Stewart was poking fun at critics of President Obama’s stimulus package on The Daily Show last night, and came up with this quip:
Monterey County, California’s, 
.jpg)
Judith Redmond, co-owner of Full Belly Farm in Yolo County, and president of the Community Alliance with Family Farmers, perpetuated a few leafy green myths in the .jpg)
USA Today writers Elizabeth Weise and Julie Schmit report in a