UK man takes legal action in E. coli holiday horror

Clive Campbell, of Sompting Road, booked the trip-of-a-lifetime to a coastal resort in Mexico through a major airline as a package deal to celebrate his wife Caroline’s 60th birthday.

clive.campbellBut it was only a day after returning to Lancing that Clive, 63, was admitted to intensive care at Worthing Hospital after he developed gastric symptoms and a fever.

Staff at the hospital diagnosed him with sepsis and hemolytic Uremic Syndrome (HUS), a severe complication of an E. coli infection that can lead to kidney failure.

Clive said: “To fall seriously ill immediately after coming back to the UK and end up spending three weeks in hospital has meant the memories of the holiday and Caroline’s 60th birthday have been ruined forever.”

Last year, Clive spoke to the Herald about his ordeal and said the infection had likely come from the beach in Mexico. This prompted him to launch a campaign across West Sussex beaches urging residents to wash their hands after visiting the seafront.

Hoping to have the backing of West Sussex County Council, Clive’s campaign was short-lived and his posters, which were illegally pinned to wall on the seafront, were removed.

Now, one year on, Clive said contracting E. coli has badly affected his work life.

“They won’t let me get back to my job. I’m an advanced scaffolder, but it’s too hard and heavy for me to do, so I’ve gone back on the market looking for a job,” he said.

But Clive said there is a lot of age discrimination when it comes to employment.

“Who’s is going to hire me at 63? In the last year I’ve been dipping into my savings,” he added.

Although Clive initially believed the beach was where he contracted the infection, he has since questioned the cleanliness of the resort.

He said: “The hotel really wasn’t up to the standards we had expected and we were left disappointed.”

The couple claimed to see birds inside one of the restaurants. Clive also reported that some of the chilled food, such as cheese and meats, were often served at room temperature.

Clive is currently seeking legal action against the airline.

Raw still risky: Sick people from E. coli O157 in raw milk in NZ

While the raw milk dairy disciples of the Australian state of Victoria continue to press ahead with claims of unfairness after a government crackdown – because a kid died and others were injured – and Internet quacks spout nutrition horse manure, a raw milk dairy farmer in New Zealand was asked to stop sales after two outbreaks of illness linked to his product.

wholy.moo.nzThe regulators couldn’t be more Canadian unless they said pretty please.

NZ Ministry for Primary Industries director-general Martyn Dunn says Wholy Moo owner, Chris Lethbridge, was asked to stop sales after he was the focus of two compliance investigations in the past six months following two outbreaks of foodborne illness in the Auckland and Northland regions.

“Both outbreaks involved children as well as adults.”

Numbers?

Mr. Wholy Moo told the Advocate last week that he was closing down over compliance costs that were expensive and prohibitive.

“In both cases, the patients reported regularly drinking Wholy Moo raw milk, and MPI investigated.

colbert.raw_.milk_“The more recent outbreak involved patients getting sick from STEC E. coli O157:H7, a strain of bacteria that, in severe cases, can lead to death.”

MPI and the local district health board were able to test Wholy Moo milk for pathogens and test results have showed that the milk contained STEC E. coli O157:H7.

Since the investigation, Mr Lethbridge has advised MPI that he has chosen to stop his operations.

However, Mr Lethbridge denies that the illnesses have been proven to be linked with his milk product.

“We all get sick but just because they were drinking raw milk means they [raw milk suppliers] get picked on. MPI think they have proven [a link between the illnesses and his product] but I can’t see how they have.”

Mr Lethbridge said he is 99.9 per cent the E. coli was not in his milk when he sold it.

With such statistical prowess, Mr Lethbridge should enter the lottery.

He’d be rich.

Childcare centers and water primary source of dangerous E. coli in Ireland

Verotoxigenic Escherichia coli (VTEC) are significant for their low infectious dose, their potential clinical severity and the frequency with which they generate outbreaks.

dirty.jobs.daycare.e.coliTo describe the relative importance of different outbreak transmission routes for VTEC infection in Ireland, we reviewed outbreak notification data for the period 2004–2012, describing the burden and characteristics of foodborne, waterborne, animal contact and person-to-person outbreaks.

Outbreaks where person-to-person spread was reported as the sole transmission route accounted for more than half of all outbreaks and outbreaks cases, most notably in childcare facilities. The next most significant transmission route was waterborne spread from untreated or poorly treated private water supplies.

The focus for reducing incidence of VTEC should be on reducing waterborne and person-to-person transmission, by publicizing Health Service Executive materials developed for consumers on private well management, and for childcare facility managers and public health professionals on prevention of person-to-person spread.

Verotoxigenic Escherichia coli transmission in Ireland: a review of notified outbreaks, 2004–2012

Epidemiology and Infection, Volume 144, Issue 5, April 2016, pages 917-926, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0950268815002034

Garvey, A. Carroll, E. McNamara, and P. J. McKeown

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=10216060&utm_source=Issue_Alert&utm_medium=RSS&utm_campaign=HYG

60 sickened: Lawsuit filed in Wash. fair E. coli outbreak

The Bellingham Herald reports that the families of six children sickened in the E. coli outbreak at the Milk Makers Fest last April are suing the organizer of the event, the organization behind the Lynden fairgrounds, and the Lynden School District.

handwash.UK.petting.zoo.09A total of 60 people likely were ill, according to a report issued by the CDC in October.

The lawsuit is being filed in Whatcom County Superior Court against the Whatcom County Dairy Women, Northwest Washington Fair Association and the Lynden School District.

It argues that the organizations failed to protect children from being infected by Shiga toxin-producing E. coli O157:H7, the strain that sickened them, because they didn’t follow established public health rules and guidelines, including from the National Association of State Public Heath Veterinarians and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Such measures are meant to reduce illness in people who come into contact with farm animals.

“Why don’t you do what the law says you should do and what public health has indicated works?” said attorney Bruce Clark, who represents the families, in an interview.

He said there was an enormous wealth of information that showed this outbreak could have been prevented. “It’s a darn shame it happened,” Clark said.

Attorneys for the organizations couldn’t be reached for comment on the lawsuit.

About 1,325 Whatcom County first-grade students, plus the teachers and parents who accompanied them, from all school districts in Whatcom County went to the Milk Makers Fest April 21-23 at the Northwest Washington Fair & Event Center in Lynden. The festival had been going on for 22 years by then.

The event was designed to introduce young students to farming. It also gave them a chance to pet farm animals, including small horses, sheep, rabbits, chickens and a calf. There was a hay maze and scavenger hunt as well.

People who helped set up and take down the event — on April 20 and 24 — also were among those who were sickened. Some of those who attended the event later spread it to others who hadn’t, including family members.

Of the total number of people who were ill, 25 were confirmed through tests and 35 were probable. Eleven were hospitalized. Six developed hemolytic uremic syndrome, a life-threatening complication. No one died.

The organizations also didn’t make sure all children washed their hands with soap and water after leaving the dairy barn and before eating or drinking, nor were they told to keep their fingers out of their mouths until they washed their hands, according to the lawsuit.

The CDC report in October stated that animals, including cattle, had been exhibited in the barn during previous events and that before the dairy education event, tractors, scrapers and leaf blowers were used to move manure to a bunker at the north end of the barn.

The group that used the barn before that was identified as the Whatcom Youth Fair in the lawsuit, which states that the fairgrounds had given the group the option of cleaning the barn themselves or paying a fee to have it cleaned.

“You’re basically blowing bacteria through your facility,” Clark said of using leaf blowers.

A table of petting zoo outbreaks is available at https://barfblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Petting-Zoo-Outbreaks-Table-4-8-14.xlsx.

Best practices for planning events encouraging human-animal interactions

Zoonoses and Public Health 62:90-99, 2015

G. Erdozain , K. KuKanich , B. Chapman  and D. Powell

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/zph.12117/abstract?deniedAccess

Educational events encouraging human–animal interaction include the risk of zoonotic disease transmission. It is estimated that 14% of all disease in the US caused by Campylobacter spp., Cryptosporidium spp., Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli (STEC) O157, non-O157 STECs, Listeria monocytogenes, nontyphoidal Salmonella enterica and Yersinia enterocolitica were attributable to animal contact. This article reviews best practices for organizing events where human–animal interactions are encouraged, with the objective of lowering the risk of zoonotic disease transmission.

petting.zoo.guidelines

Women more at risk than men of developing HUS from STEC E. coli in Japan

Shiga-toxin-producing Escherichia coli (STEC) infections usually cause hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS) equally in male and female children. This study investigated the localization of globotriaosylceramide (Gb3) in human brain and kidney tissues removed from forensic autopsy cases in Japan.

e.coli.japanA fatal case was used as a positive control in an outbreak of diarrheal disease caused by STEC O157:H7 in a kindergarten in Urawa in 1990. Positive immunodetection of Gb3 was significantly more frequent in female than in male distal and collecting renal tubules.

To correlate this finding with a clinical outcome, a retrospective analysis of the predictors of renal failure in the 162 patients of two outbreaks in Japan was performed: one in Tochigi in 2002 and the other in Kagawa Prefecture in 2005.

This study concludes renal failure, including HUS, was significantly associated with female sex, and the odds ratio was 4·06 compared to male patients in the two outbreaks. From 2006 to 2009 in Japan, the risk factor of HUS associated with STEC infection was analyzed. The number of males and females and the proportion of females who developed HUS were calculated by age and year from 2006 to 2009. In 2006, 2007 and 2009 in adults aged >20 years, adult women were significantly more at risk of developing HUS in Japan.

Risk of hemolytic uremic syndrome caused by shiga-toxin-producing Escherichia coli infection in adult women in Japan

Epidemiology and Infection, Volume 144, Issue 5, April 2016, Pages 952-961, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0950268815002289 

Fujii, T. Mizoue, T. Kita, H. Kishimoto, K. Joh, Y. Nakada, S. Ugajin, Y. Naya, T. Nakamura, Y. Tada, N. Okabe, Y. Maruyama, K. Saitoh, and Y. Kurozawa

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=10216096&utm_source=Issue_Alert&utm_medium=RSS&utm_campaign=HYG

How many people barf from poop on produce? FDA wants a risk assessment

Here’s one from the barfblog.com archives, and now that we’ve surpassed 70,000 direct subscribers in 70 countries, it’s worth a mention.

powell.kids_.ge_.sweet_.corn_.cider_.001-1024x775Oh, and FDA announced Friday it’s going to take another look at pathogens in produce from manure.

In the fall of 1998, I accompanied one of my then four daughters on a kindergarten trip to the farm. After petting the animals and touring the crops – I questioned the fresh manure on the strawberries that were about to be picked – we were assured that all the food produced was natural. We then returned for unpasteurized apple cider. The host served the cider in a coffee urn, heated, so my concern about it being unpasteurized was abated. I asked: “Did you serve the cider heated because you heard about other outbreaks and were concerned about liability?” She responded, “No. The stuff starts to smell when it’s a few weeks old and heating removes the smell.”

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is requesting scientific data, information, and comments that would assist the Agency in its plan to develop a risk assessment for produce grown in fields or other growing areas amended with untreated biological soil amendments of animal origin (including raw manure).

The risk assessment will evaluate and, if feasible, quantify the risk of human illness associated with consumption of produce grown in fields or other growing areas amended with untreated biological soil amendments of animal origin that are potentially contaminated with enteric pathogens, such as Escherichia coli O157:H7 or Salmonella. The risk assessment also will evaluate the impact of certain interventions, such as use of a time interval between application of the soil amendment and crop harvest, on the predicted risk. The risk assessment is intended to inform policy decisions with regard to produce safety.

organic-manure1Dates: Submit either electronic or written comments and scientific data and information by May 3, 2016.

The instructions for how to submit comments are available in the Federal Register notice as is additional supplementary information:

Biological soil amendments of animal origin (BSAAO) can be a source of contamination of produce with pathogens that can cause human illness. Human pathogens in BSAAO, once introduced to the growing environment, may be inactivated at a rate that is dependent upon a number of environmental, regional, and other agricultural and ecological factors. The rate of pathogen population decline over time is also influenced by the types of BSAAO and application methods. Furthermore, the types of produce and whether or not BSAAO may come into contact with a harvestable portion of the crop influences the likelihood of pathogen transfer from the amended soil to produce (Ref. 1).

Some produce farms use untreated BSAAO for various reasons, including that they are inexpensive, readily available, and rich nutrient sources for growing crops. Whether it is feasible for a farm to use untreated BSAAO as a principal nutrient source depends on numerous factors, including whether there is a required time interval between application and harvest and the length of such an interval (which may affect the nutrients retained or available from BSAAO), and crop nutrient demand (i.e., the nutrients needed to support crop growth). Typical examples of untreated BSAAO are raw cattle manure, poultry litter, swine slurry, and horse manure. FDA acknowledges that required application intervals for certain uses of untreated BSAAO could influence the number of crop cycles a farm is able to undertake each year and/or the choices farms make regarding which type of amendment to apply (e.g., raw manure, composted manure, or other nutrient sources).

In January 2013, based in part upon authority provided by the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act, we published a proposed Produce Safety Rule entitled “Standards for the Growing, Harvesting, Packing, and Holding of Produce for Human Consumption” (78 FR 3504, January 16, 2013). Among other provisions related to BSAAO, the proposed rule included at § 112.56(a)(1)(i) (21 CFR 112.56(a)(1)(i)) a 9-month minimum application interval for untreated BSAAO applied in a manner that does not contact covered produce during application and minimizes the potential for contact with covered produce after application (78 FR 3504 at 3637). In response to public comments, we withdrew this proposed 9-month minimum application interval in a supplemental proposed rulemaking that we published on September 29, 2014 (79 FR 58434 at 58457 through 58461). In the supplemental proposed rule, we acknowledged the limited body of currently available scientific evidence relating to the proposed 9-month interval and the need for additional research in this area, and described our planned risk assessment and research agenda (79 FR 58434 at 58460 through 58461). Accordingly, we deferred our decision on an appropriate minimum application interval.

dont.eat.poopOn November 27, 2015, we published a final Produce Safety Rule entitled “Standards for the Growing, Harvesting, Packing, and Holding of Produce for Human Consumption,” (80 FR 74354). The final rule is now codified at 21 CFR part 112. In the preamble to the final rule, we restated our decision with respect to the appropriate minimum BSAAO application interval (80 FR 74354 at 74463). We reserved one of the provisions in the final rule’s Subpart F (Biological Soil Amendments of Animal Origin and Human Waste) because we continue to believe that a quantitative application interval standard is necessary and anticipate locating such a future standard in that provision. As finalized, the Produce Safety Rule establishes that there is no minimum application interval required when untreated BSAAO are applied in a manner that does not contact covered produce during or after application (§ 112.56(a)(1)(ii)), and the minimum application interval is [reserved] when applied in a manner that does not contact produce during application and minimizes the potential for contact with produce after application (§ 112.56(a)(1)(i))

FDA, in consultation with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, is conducting a risk assessment to evaluate the risk of human illness associated with the consumption of produce grown in growing areas amended with untreated BSAAO that are potentially contaminated with enteric pathogens such as E. coli O157:H7 or Salmonella. The risk assessment will evaluate the impact of different agricultural and ecological conditions and certain interventions, such as use of a time interval or intervals between application of untreated BSAAO and crop harvest, on the predicted risk. The risk assessment will take into account available data and information on relevant steps in the produce food safety continuum including: The initial prevalence and levels of pathogens in untreated BSAAO; the methods used to apply untreated BSAAO to soils; pathogen survival (and growth) in untreated BSAAO and soils amended with untreated BSAAO; pathogen transfer to produce grown in amended soils; pathogen survival and growth on produce; and pathogen survival, growth, and cross-contamination during storage and other steps in the supply chain (e.g., washing). The risk assessment will include characterization of the variability and uncertainty of pathogen survival and growth under different agricultural and ecological conditions (e.g., soil types, application methods, or geographic locations/climatic factors) and time intervals between application of untreated BSAAO and crop harvest. The risk assessment is intended to inform policy decisions with regard to produce safety.

FDA is requesting comments and scientific data and other information relevant to this risk assessment. We are particularly interested in scientific data and information concerning, but not limited to, the following factors that may affect the risk of human illness associated with the consumption of produce grown in fields or other growing areas amended with untreated BSAAO (including raw manure):

  1. Data on the prevalence and levels of pathogens.
  2. The frequency of detecting the presence of pathogens in untreated BSAAO and soil amended with BSAAO, such as Salmonella in poultry litter, and E. coli O157:H7 and other pathogenic Shiga-toxin producing E. coli in cattle manure. Samples may be obtained at different stages of untreated BSAAO storage prior to application, or after application. If available, for each data point, we also invite information regarding the following:

The type of untreated BSAAO (e.g., animal origin and content);

how the untreated BSAAO, including raw manure, was sampled and handled prior to analysis;

the size of the analytical unit (i.e., detection limit) and test method;

the number of positives, the total number of samples, and the time period in which the testing was conducted; and sampling protocol (e.g., simple random, stratified random, targeted).

  1. The pathogen concentration, i.e., the number of pathogen cells per amount (unit volume or weight), in contaminated untreated BSAAO or soil amended with untreated BSAAO, especially cattle manure and poultry litter. If available, for each data point, we ask that the data be provided in unaggregated form and that Most Probable Number (MPN) patterns as well as raw data (e.g., number of positive and negative tubes per serial dilution) be provided.
  2. Data and information on survival of pathogens (e.g., Salmonella, E. coli O157:H7), and pathogen transfer to produce.
  3. Kinetic data that describe the survival (or inactivation) or growth of pathogens in untreated BSAAO, especially cattle manure and poultry litter;
  4. Kinetic data that describe the survival (or inactivation) or growth of pathogens in soil amended with untreated BSAAO, especially cattle manure and poultry litter, as influenced by soil type, untreated BSAAO type, application method, geographic locations/climatic factors (e.g., temperature, days of sunlight, intensity of solar irradiation, moisture, rainfall) and other factors;
  5. The mechanisms for pathogen transfer from soils to specific types or categories of produce, such as leafy greens, or to produce generally, and associated transfer coefficients, including irrigation and rain water splash, direct contact between produce and soil, machinery or people or animals contaminated by soil and directly contacting produce during growth and harvest of produce;
  6. Pathogen transfer rates (i.e., transfer coefficients) from amended soils to specific types or categories of produce, such as leafy greens, or to produce generally, as influenced by soil type, untreated BSAAO type, application method, climate factors, commodity type or any other pertinent factors not listed here;
  7. The survival of pathogens on produce in the field or other growing area before harvest; and
  8. The variability in the survival of different Salmonella serotypes, different subtypes of E. coli O157:H7, or other pathogens of public health significance in amended soils under field, greenhouse, or laboratory conditions.
  9. On-farm practices with regard to the use of untreated BSAAO, including, but not limited to, the following aspects.
  10. The extent to which untreated BSAAO are used in different regions in the United States, as well outside the United States in regions that export produce to the United States;
  11. The types of untreated BSAAO and the soil type, and associated physical and chemical parameters (including but not exclusive to nutrient content, moisture and pH); and the crops typically grown in each BSAAO-amended soil type;
  12. Characterization of the proportion of produce farms that have one or more soil types per geographical location;
  13. The amount of untreated BSAAO applied per unit surface (e.g., per acre) or the ratio of untreated BSAAO/soil, including typical ratio and variability by commodity type, including, for example, row crops such as leafy greens;
  14. The time of year, number of applications, and amount of untreated BSAAO that are applied;
  15. The method of application (e.g., surface, incorporated), and whether or not the amended soil is covered (e.g., with plastic mulch);
  16. Produce commodity type and cropping cycles;
  17. Climate conditions and irrigation practices after soil is amended, before and after planting; and
  18. The crop density (e.g., the number of rows per bed, and the distance between adjacent rows in a bed), distance between two crop beds (furrow width), and the influence of such factors on pathogen transfer.
  19. Harvesting, handling, and storage conditions that may affect pathogen detection and levels, survival, growth, or inactivation between harvest and retail sale along the farm-to-fork continuum.
  20. cow.poop2The harvesting practices and the average conditions as well as the range of climactic conditions prior to harvesting (e.g., time and temperature, rain events) under which produce is handled in the field and in packing operations;
  21. The survival, growth, or inactivation of pathogens on produce (including, for example, specific commodities or categories such as leafy greens, or produce generally) during transportation and storage;
  22. Typical storage conditions (e.g., time, temperature) for produce (including, for example, specific commodities or categories, such as leafy greens, or produce generally), from harvest until consumer purchase and whether and how those storage conditions affect pathogen levels; and
  23. The types and concentration of antimicrobial chemicals or other treatments, if any, applied to the water used for wash or transport of produce during farm or other distribution operations prior to retail, and the efficacy of these treatments in reducing pathogen levels, as well as the likelihood of cross-contamination during wash or transport.
  24. Storage conditions such as times and temperatures that may affect pathogen growth and/or survival during transportation and storage of produce in the consumer’s home, and consumer handling practices with respect to produce after purchase, including data and information on consumer washing practices.

We are also interested in other comments concerning, but not limited to, the types of untreated BSAAO, produce commodities, relevant agricultural and ecological conditions, and appropriate mitigation strategies that the Agency should consider in the risk assessment.

Reference

Food and Drug Administration, 2015. “Final Qualitative Assessment of Risk to Public Health from On-Farm Contamination of Produce.” Available at: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Food/FoodScienceResearch/RiskSafetyAssessment/UCM470780.pdf. Accessed January 20, 2016.

WWJD? Chipotle’s organic food

It’s a question I never ask myself: what would jesus do?

But the Christian Post wants to know, should Christians eat Chipotle’s organic food?

dogma.buddy.christDr. James A. Wanliss, professor of physics at Presbyterian College, Clinton, SC. writes in  this opinion piece that even though Chipotle is not 100 percent organic, the organic label is an important piece of their growth strategy. It’s great for business. Organic food sales in America — Chipotle is part of this — have risen by about twenty percent annually, making this the fastest growing slice of the food market.

Chipotle advertising before and since the crisis promises “Food with Integrity.” This is an interesting choice for a marketing slogan. Would anyone in their right mind want to eat food at a restaurant without integrity?

Chipotle frames the consumer choice as a moral one and uses a form of virtue signaling to draw customers. “We’re good and moral and if you buy our food you’re good too.”

It’s a smart marketing strategy. It recognizes that a culture obsessed with outward appearance of virtue will purchase more of a product they believe demonstrates virtue.

In short, customers buy more Chipotle when they identify with trigger words like organic, natural, locally sourced, sustainable, non-GMO, and so on.

Whatever the future holds for Chipotle the case raises interesting cultural questions.

In developed nations organic food seems largely a fad of the wealthy. By contrast in poor nations there is frequently no choice — everyone eats organic because cow dung, with its E. coli, is often all there is to fertilize crops. Nearly all of Africa’s farms live the slow food dream and are de facto “organic.”

Whatever the pros and cons, there is nothing inherently wrong with a preference to eat food fertilized with cow manure rather than with a nonbiological fertilizer.

Why, in wealthy nations, is this food market growing so fast? Organic food is typically 50 percent more expensive than alternatives. It is clearly not an economic decision. Something greater enters into decision making, something moral, even spiritual.

Perhaps it is because organic is associated with “natural.” Who wants to eat something labeled chemical, modified, synthetic, or unnatural?

wwjd.clerks.IIWhether the visceral reaction is correct or not is beside the point. Organic food gets the benefit of the doubt and is generally considered pure, good, just the way God made it, because it is unsullied by the “improvements” of humans.

But in fact, all things being equal organic food is not necessarily more health giving. Organic produce contains natural pesticides, usually more than in produce grown using conventional pest management. At least, with conventional produce, one can wash off synthetic pesticide residues.

Try questioning the rationale of organic food at your local raw, whole, or organic market (or your church) and discover, as one reporter did, that some find this “not just akin to doubting the virtues of motherhood, but to reveal indifference to the poisoning of the nation and the fate of the planet.”

The assumption that Mother Nature always knows best is an important factor in the explosive growth in the organic market. For many it’s no longer just about food but about a sense of moral satisfaction, even a kind of righteousness.

Just cook it doesn’t cut it: 2-year-old dies from E. coli related HUS in Argentina

Health Minister of the province Roberto Schwartz confirmed the death of a 2-year-old admitted Feb. 21, 2016 to the San Luis Hospital with characteristic symptoms of hemolytic uremic syndrome.

hemolytic-uremic-syndromeSchwartz, who described the outbreak as “sporadic,” said the province has the inputs and technology needed to diagnose and treat the disease, which occurs by exposure to bacteria in poorly cooked meat or through (poor) food processing. The minister recommended using domestic prevention measures such as cooking red meats, especially hamburgers, sausages and meatballs, at a suitable temperature, and washing hands before handling food, as well as appropriate kitchen hygiene to avoid cross-contamination of food.

The case that triggered the alert was preceded by that of a child from Mendoza, who vacationed in San Luis and entered the hospital on Jan. 28, 2016 with the same diagnosis, although it is unclear whether the cases are related.

51 sick, 5 with HUS in Romania E. coli O26 outbreak

Five children have been developed hemolytic uremic syndrome amongst a total of 51 sick children — 43 younger than two-years-old — at Marie Curie Hospital in Bucharest due to E. coli O26.

Lactate-100--naturale--fabricate-la-BradetRomanian minister of agriculture Achim Irimescu said Monday E. coli O26 was discovered in dairy products in Arges County especially in cottage cheese produced by ‘Lactate Bradet.’

At the same time, The National Veterinary Authority for Food Safety (ANSVSA) sent a press release by which they said that on 25 February joint teams made up of inspectors from Arges and Dolj started the action of taking samples which were sent to be analysed to the Institute for Public Health (IISPV).

According to the results of the inquiry, in which 194 samples analysed up to that date, E.coli O26 was found in a chicken sample taken from the fridge of one of the persons under inquiry. The meat came from chickens raised in the household of the respective person (Bacau county).

At the same time, the bacteria was discovered in samples taken from 25 kg of cottage cheese produced by a dairy unit in Arges (Lactate Bradet).

Good on ya: National Zoo temporarily closes kids’ farm due to E. coli

The National Zoo says it’s had to temporarily close its Kids’ Farm exhibit—essentially a petting zoo—because of E. coli.

In a release issued on Monday afternoon, the Smithsonian facility explains that on Feb. 18, a “routine fecal screening process” for goats showed signs of the bacteria. Although the goats were then removed from public view, follow-up tests confirmed E. coli in four goats and one cow last Friday.

“Based on these results, the Kids’ Farm was immediately quarantined and staff started appropriate protective measures, including treating all the farm animals with antibiotics,” the zoo says. The exhibit will reopen after zoo vets get “three consecutive weeks of negative test results.”

“As most people know, E. coli is everywhere in our environment,” Brandie Smith, an associate director at the zoo, explains in the release. “Because it is so common, we routinely test our animals. It’s unfortunate that we have to close the Kids’ Farm temporarily, but we’re taking the right preventative measures for our guests, staff and the animals.”

A table of petting zoo outbreaks is available at https://barfblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Petting-Zoo-Outbreaks-Table-4-8-14.xlsx.

Best practices for planning events encouraging human-animal interactions

G. Erdozain , K. KuKanich , B. Chapman  and D. Powell. 2015. Zoonoses and Public Health 62:90-99.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/zph.12117/abstract?deniedAccess

Educational events encouraging human–animal interaction include the risk of zoonotic disease transmission. It is estimated that 14% of all disease in the US caused by Campylobacter spp., Cryptosporidium spp., Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli (STEC) O157, non-O157 STECs, Listeria monocytogenes, nontyphoidal Salmonella enterica and Yersinia enterocolitica were attributable to animal contact. This article reviews best practices for organizing events where human–animal interactions are encouraged, with the objective of lowering the risk of zoonotic disease transmission.

petting.zoo_.guidelines