STECs in Sweden on beef and leafy vegetables

This study investigated the occurrence of Shiga toxin-producing E. coli (STEC) in beef and leafy greens available on the Swedish market. New data are required for assessing the public health risk of STEC in food, which could be used for developing risk management strategies.

beef.stecFood samples were collected at retail stores, importers, outlets and the markets. Samples of minced or whole meat from cattle collected were fresh or frozen from 2010 to 2011. The beef sample collection included products from the most common countries or regions exporting beef to Sweden. The collection of leafy greens consisted of domestic and imported products that were available on the Swedish market from 2012 to 2013.

Detection of virulence genes (stx 1, stx 2, eae) and genes specific for different serogroups (O26, O103, O111, O145 and O157) was performed by real-time PCR followed by isolation of bacteria from the stx -positive enriched samples by use of immunomagnetic separation. STEC bacteria were overpriced isolated by an immunoblot thing method. All STEC isolated from the food samples were serotyped.

STEC was isolated from 23 (13 percent) of the 177 imported beef samples tested. Approximately 3 percent of the beef samples contained STEC on positive stx 2 and eae, both of which are important markers for the probability of the bacteria to  cause severe disease. In total, 27 STEC were isolated, belonging to 14 different serogroups. STEC O26 was most common (approximately 2 percent of the beef samples), whereas STEC O157, frequently implicated in STEC-related foodborne outbreaks in Sweden, was found in two (one percent) of the beef samples.

swedish-chefThe enrichment broth of 11 (approximately 2 percent) of the 630 samples from leafy greens were tested positive for stx 1 and / or stx 2 by PCR analysis; however, no bacteria were isolated. Presumptive STEC was detected in co-enriched samples from bothering domestic and imported products. E. coli was found in 68 (39 percent) out of 174 and 14 (30 percent) out of 46 samples of imported and English leafy greens, respectively, indicating that the proportion of stx -positive E. coli into the samples was low.

Salmonella in Europe lowest in Sweden, highest in Spain

We developed a model that enabled a back-calculation of the annual salmonellosis seroincidence from measurements of Salmonella antibodies and applied this model to 9677 serum samples collected from populations in 13 European countries. We found a 10-fold difference in the seroincidence, which was lowest in Sweden (0.06 infections per person-year), Finland (0.07), and Denmark (0.08) and highest in Spain (0.61), followed by Poland (0.55).

chickenThese numbers were not correlated with the reported national incidence of Salmonella infections in humans but were correlated with prevalence data of Salmonella in laying hens (P < .001), broilers (P < .001), and slaughter pigs (P = .03). Seroincidence also correlated with Swedish data on the country-specific risk of travel-associated Salmonella infections (P = .001). Estimates based on seroepidemiological methods are well suited to measure the force of transmission of Salmonella to human populations, in particular relevant for assessments where data include notifications from areas, states or countries with diverse characteristics of the Salmonella surveillance.

 Seroincidence of human infections with nontyphoid Salmonella compared with data from public health surveillance and food animals in 13 European countries

Clin Infect Dis. (2014) 59 (11): 1599-1606 first published online August 6, 2014

http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/59/11/1599.full

FoodNet Canada not part of surveillance system, but found E. coli-tainted beef that was recalled days after positive test

The federal system designed to keep Canadian food safe to eat failed in December to prevent ground beef contaminated with E. coli from being offered for sale to consumers.

beef.processingCBC News reports that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency’s December recall of 31,000 pounds of ground beef followed a positive test of a random sample by a federally-co-ordinated public health surveillance program, CBC News has learned. It was not a result of any inspection work performed by the CFIA, whose job it is to prevent tainted meat from entering the marketplace.

The recall also was not widely publicized until the morning of Dec. 2 — three or four days after the “use by” dates of the packaged meat had passed.

That timeline suggests the entire food safety system managed by CFIA failed to either detect E. coli-tainted meat in a federally regulated processing facility or recall the problem batch until after any of the fresh meat had likely been consumed or thrown out.

The details of the recall prompted an angry reaction from NDP agriculture critic Malcolm Allen.

“That’s not a safety inspection system, that’s actually just a failure,” he said. “If by the time they actually make a recall,  it’s days after the best before date, there’s nothing on the shelf to recall.  

“It’s either been bought, in people’s freezers, been consumed, or the retailer themselves removed it — not because they knew it was unsafe but because the best before date expired and they took it off the shelf themselves.”

The meat was shipped by Cargill Meat Solutions from its Calgary processing plant to Walmart stores across the four Western provinces on Nov. 19 and 20.

That facility is federally inspected, but the systems in place there apparently did not detect any E. coli.

dude.its.beefIn a statement, Cargill said it maintained a “robust food safety program.”

“We are currently reviewing our processing and testing procedures as part of our investigation to determine if any changes are appropriate,” the statement said. 

The CFIA says its investigation is ongoing. It said it was impossible to predict how long that work will take.

“We are taking all necessary steps in order to protect Canadians from the risks posed by E. coli,” the agency offered in a statement.

But those steps appear, in this case, to have not yielded effective results.

Rather, it was the work of FoodNet Canada that revealed some of Cargill’s meat had been contaminated.

The little known organization is a federally-run public health program that performs surveillance for infectious enteric disease caused by bacteria, viruses or other parasitic micro-organism such as E. coli.

It does the work in three so-called “sentinel sites” in Canada, including B.C.’s lower mainland, where it monitors public health, samples water and tests manure from farms where animals are raised for human consumption.

FoodNet also collects random samples of meat and produce from grocery stores, says Dr. Frank Pollari, the program’s manager.

“We’re just trying to see what the end product looks like, what the consumer is getting,” he said. “We randomly select the retailers, and then [staff] go out to those and select the specific package that we get, and they ship it to our labs.”

Recall 3 days after meat tested positive

Pollari says it was one of those samples of Cargill meat from a B.C. Walmart that first tested positive for E. coli.

That early result was sent to the CFIA on Nov. 28. 

That was the first of two consecutive “use by” dates with which the meat had been labelled.

CFIA says it began an investigation immediately. But, the meat was not ordered recalled until after confirmatory test results were known on Dec. 1.

Then the agency asked for a risk assessment to be performed.  The results of that analysis came back late on Dec. 1.

The news release announcing the recall to consumers was dated that same day, but was not sent out by distribution services until the next morning — three full days after the first packages of meat would have begun to pass their best before dates.

In a statement Sunday, CFIA media relations manager Guy Gravelle suggested the recall was the result of a normal process.

steak-groundbeef-istock-300“As a result of the federal system and measures we have in place, the CFIA was able to recall these products based on routine retail sampling,” Gravelle wrote in an e-mail. 

“This food recall was made before any reported illnesses and to date there have been no illnesses.”

But FoodNet, which found the bad meat, is not technically part of the food safety system. 

It is an adjunct — a surveillance program, designed to provide scientific data and public health information to the government and to the food sector.

“Our job is to feed the information back to those who can and do make the difference in putting in interventions,” Pollari said.

Federal Health Minister Rona Ambrose is responsible for the CFIA, and, ultimately, for FoodNet Canada, as well.

In a statement, her office said, “Canada has one of the safest and healthiest food systems in the world.”

Uh –huh.

Bruno’s not-so Best with botulism risk: Advisory for customers of Canada’s Finest at Sea Ocean Products

Vancouver Coastal Health is warning customers of Finest at Sea Ocean Products not to consume certain ready to eat seafood products.

Four different varieties of fish products sold under the brand name “Bruno’s Best” have been recalled because they could potentially grow Clostridium botulinum. The products were sold at Finest at Sea’s 4675 Arbutus and 1805 Mast Tower, Granville Island locations in Vancouver, B.C., between June 1 and October 7, 2014. Customers are being advised to either throw the products out or return them to either of these stores.

During an inspection, inspectors discovered that these products were not processed using a validated method consistent with food safety standards. The retailer has stopped selling the items and is fully cooperating.

no illnesses associated with the consumption of the recalled products have been reported.

The following Bruno’s Best products, sold in various weights, are affected by this alert:

botulism-seafood-warning

UK supermarkets named and shamed over Campylobacter on chicken contamination

The UK Food Standards Agency (FSA) has published the cumulative results from the first two quarters of its year-long survey of campylobacter on fresh chickens.

FunkyChickenHiIndividual results by major retailer have also been published.

Retailers aren’t happy.

One of the companies that has helped develop a way to flash freeze the surface of birds to kill campylobacter bacteria after slaughter, Bernard Matthews, said that retailers had been resistant to the extra cost, which is about 4-5p per bird.

However, the Co-op, Marks & Spencer, Asda and Sainsbury’s all told the Guardian they were supporting the trials of technology which rapidly chills or steams the surface of a chicken to significantly reduce levels of campylobacter.

Tesco said it would be helping to fund a full-scale trial of rapid chill technology with one of its suppliers from January to test feasibility on a commercial scale.

Andrew Large, chief executive of the British Poultry Council, which represents the largest producers and processors, said the industry was focusing on about 10 measures that looked promising, but he warned that there was “no silver bullet” to end campylobacter contamination.

The results to date show:

18% of chickens tested positive for campylobacter above the highest level of contamination

70% of chickens tested positive for the presence of campylobacter

6% of packaging tested positive for the presence of campylobacter with only one sample at the highest level of contamination (>1,000 cfu/g)

chicken* Above 1,000 colony forming units per gram (>1,000 cfu/g). These units indicate the degree of contamination on each sample.

In total, 1,995 samples of fresh whole chilled chickens have now been tested, with packaging also tested for most of these samples. Data show variations between retailers but none are meeting the end-of-production target for reducing campylobacter.

This 12-month survey, running from February 2014 to February 2015, will test 4,000 samples of whole chickens bought from UK retail outlets and smaller independent stores and butchers.

Campylobacter is killed by thorough cooking; however it is the most common form of food poisoning in the UK, affecting an estimated 280,000 people a year. Poultry is the source of the majority of these cases.

But-just-cook-it doesn’t cut it and fails to account for cross-contamination.

In response, a number of retailers have introduced ‘roast in the bag’ chickens which help limit cross-contamination by minimizing the handling of the raw chicken in the home.

The FSA advises that the data for individual retailers have to be interpreted carefully. Confidence intervals are given for each retailer and the ‘others’ category. These show the likely range of the results allowing for the number of samples taken.

At this half-way stage in the survey the results show, taking the confidence intervals into account, that Tesco is the only one of the main retailers which has a lower incidence of chicken contaminated with campylobacter at the highest level (>1,000 cfu/g), compared to the industry average. Asda is the only main retailer which has a higher incidence of chicken that is contaminated by campylobacter at the highest level, compared to the industry average. However, the results suggest that none of the retailers is achieving the joint industry end-of-production target for reducing campylobacter.

chicken.thermAnd what FSA chicken advice would be complete without a recommendation to  “make sure chicken is steaming hot all the way through before serving. Cut in to the thickest part of the meat and check that it is steaming hot with no pink meat and that the juices run clear.”

This is ridiculous advice from a supposedly science-based agency: use a tip-sensitive digital thermometer.

Meanwhile, The Guardian revealed this week that Tim Smith, the former boss of the FSA who left the regulator to become a director of Tesco, is said to have contacted a senior official in the Department of Health in June to warn that the FSA’s plans could provoke a major food scare, in an apparent breach of the terms approved by David Cameron for his move to industry.

And Tim Lang, a professor of food policy at London’s City University, told The Guardian the results are schocking and that “public should refuse to buy poultry until this is sorted out. This is a public health scandal easily on a par to those of the 1980s and 1990s and reminds me of the outrage over food adulteration and contamination in the mid 19th century. Have we really sunk back to that level?”

Dear British public, be outraged, act, withhold your money until you can have confidence in what you consume. This may not be orthodox public health strategy but it is definitely what history shows works when standards are as dire as these results show them to be.

Drivers of uncertainty in estimates of foodborne gastroenteritis incidence

Background: Estimates of the incidence of foodborne illness are increasingly used at national and international levels to quantify the burden of disease and advocate for improvements in food safety. The calculation of such estimates involves multiple datasets and several disease multipliers, applied to dozens of pathogens. Unsurprisingly, this process often produces wide interval estimates.

infinity.dogmaMaterials and Methods: Using a model of foodborne gastroenteritis in Australia, we calculate the contribution of both data and multipliers to the width of the interval. We then compare pathogen-specific estimates of the proportion of gastroenteritis that is foodborne from national-level studies conducted in Canada, Greece, France, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

Results: Overall, we estimate that 74% (range 63–92%) of the interval width for foodborne gastroenteritis in Australia is a result of uncertainty in the proportion of gastroenteritis that is due to contaminated food. Across national studies, we find considerable variability in point estimates and the width of interval estimates for the foodborne proportion for relatively common pathogens such as Salmonella spp., Campylobacter spp., and norovirus.

Conclusions: While some uncertainty in estimates of gastroenteritis incidence is inevitable, an understanding of the drivers of this uncertainty can help to focus further research. In particular, this work highlights the value of studies quantifying the routes of transmission for common pathogens.

Foodborne Pathogens and Disease. -Not available-, ahead of print. doi:10.1089/fpd.2014.1816.

Glass Kathryn, Ford Laura, and Kirk Martyn D.

http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/fpd.2014.1816

Outbreaks associated with cantaloupe, watermelon, and honeydew in the United States, 1973–2011

Fresh fruits and vegetables are an important part of a healthy diet. Melons have been associated with enteric infections. We reviewed outbreaks reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Foodborne Disease Outbreak Surveillance System during 1973–2011 in which the implicated food was a single melon type. We also reviewed published literature and records obtained from investigating agencies.

melon.berriesDuring 1973–2011, 34 outbreaks caused by a single melon type were reported, resulting in 3602 illnesses, 322 hospitalizations, 46 deaths, and 3 fetal losses. Cantaloupes accounted for 19 outbreaks (56%), followed by watermelons (13, 38%) and honeydew (2, 6%). Melon-associated outbreaks increased from 0.5 outbreaks per year during 1973–1991 to 1.3 during 1992–2011. Salmonella was the most common etiology reported (19, 56%), followed by norovirus (5, 15%).

Among 13 outbreaks with information available, melons imported from Mexico and Central America were implicated in 9 outbreaks (69%) and domestically grown melons were implicated in 4 outbreaks (31%). The point of contamination was known for 20 outbreaks; contamination occurred most commonly during growth, harvesting, processing, or packaging (13, 65%). Preventive measures focused on reducing bacterial contamination of melons both domestically and internationally could decrease the number and severity of melon-associated outbreaks.

Foodborne Pathogens and Disease [ahead of print]

Walsh Kelly A., Bennett Sarah D., Mahovic Michael, and Gould L. Hannah

http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/fpd.2014.1812

Don’t diss stool samples: Detecting foodborne diseases is most important

My friend Dr Peter K. Embarek, senior scientist with the Department of Food Safety and Zoonoses (animal diseases which can be communicated to humans) at the World Health Organisation (WHO) and head of the International Food Safety Authorities Network (Infosan) Management of WHO, was in Dubai recently to attend the ninth Dubai International Food Safety Conference. Sajila Saseendran spoke to him about food safety in Dubai and elsewhere

ben.stool.sample.nov.09What are your recommendations after attending the sessions and the symposium for health professionals in Dubai at the conference?

We need to be much better at detecting cases of foodborne diseases and there, everybody has a role to play, especially the customers.

Each time they suffer from either diarrhoea or typical food poisoning symptoms, they should not be afraid to go to the doctor or the hospital and report it. Maybe for them, it is not important. They will recover quickly and forget about it. But it might be part of large outbreaks. If we don’t detect single cases, we will never figure out if there was an outbreak involving many people.

We can only find out (outbreaks) if people come forward with their cases…. For the time being, we have not enough of that basic information (from patients and hospitals). And therefore, on the food side, we try to prevent everything. But we are not very focused. All the work done to make our food supply safer could be much more efficient if we had a better understanding of the disease side of it.

Does surveillance play an important role?

Yes. Surveillance and prevention should work much closer, exchange information and data so we can understand and prevent better the real risks from the perceived risks.

In Dubai, the surveillance developed by the Dubai Municipality and DHA has had positive results. But there are gaps in reporting, testing and diagnosis. What are your comments?

Worldwide, many of the bugs that are making us sick are difficult to cultivate or detect (in lab tests). Often we don’t have good methods to detect them. We only know a few of them and are capable of detecting them easily.

Therefore we should not wait until we get a laboratory result. We should start reporting based on symptoms. Then we can go back and figure out the source of the disease…. Sometimes it is easier to pick up the bacteria or viruses from the food. Therefore it is important not to wait until the lab results, but already based on the symptoms start reporting immediately.

stool.sample.ben.nov.09We have heard of many doctors haphazardly diagnosing cases of diarrhoea and vomiting as food poisoning. Also, we have had fatal cases of pesticide poisoning which were treated as food poisoning. How do you balance between starting symptomatic treatment and avoiding misdiagnosis?

For that we have to change the minds of the doctors and nurses who are trained to treat patients. They are not trained to prevent diseases. On the other hand, we, the food safety professionals, are trained to prevent foodborne disease and food poisoning. We have to reconcile these two different philosophies and sensitise and explain to the medical sector — the doctors and nurses — why it is important to report the cases immediately.

Their role is to treat the patients. They should also understand it is important to prevent future cases. A lot of things can be done if they start giving us the figures. Then we can start investigation and understand what the problems on the food side are and fix them.

The Dubai International Food Safety  conference heard that many doctors here are reluctant to ask for stool tests. How big a problem is it? What should be the yardstick?

I can understand that in many cases they think that it is not wise to do stool test because by the time they get the response from the lab, the person would have recovered and gone home. Then, it will not be used to define the treatment.

I think the tendency is to do the stool testing when the case is very severe, or lasts for many days and cannot disappear by itself. Then they need to find the source (through lab test). But it is still important for them to do that (stool test) on a more routine basis.

So we can find out how many cases of salmonella poisoning or campylobacter poisoning we have or whatever else is behind the cases and get a much more detailed picture of the different causes. The change in attitude in sensing the need for testing is more important.

How do you analyse the foodborne diseases surveillance system in Dubai?

Everything is very fast here in Dubai, including the development of foodborne disease surveillance and the improvement of food safety. I think Dubai has embarked on a very positive trend. All efforts made during the conferences are proving that Dubai is on the right track. I am very confident that we will see a much more robust system developing here in the coming years.

What has been done is very impressive on the education and training sides. But we have to move on, which is to make it a more scientific and informed system. And there, we need data, we need data, and we need data. That will come from the industry and inspection services on the food side. But that should also come from the disease side.

How important is food safety for Dubai considering the fact that it is a hub linking the East and the West?

Both Dubai and Abu Dhabi are two big hubs where a lot of people are moving in and out of the country and going to the rest of the world. A big factor is that you also have major airlines that are flying across the globe. So, of course, there is the risk that an outbreak starts here and people take it with them to somewhere else.

You can also have it the other way round that somebody brings it here and fall sick here but the source is not here, but in his or her country. That is why it is so important to link Dubai and Abu Dhabi and the other agencies in the emirates with the rest of the world … so they can work together and share data.

It (Dubai) is becoming a global village. Both people and the food are moving all over the place and you cannot pretend to develop a very nice system for Dubai alone.

How closely are you working with Dubai and Abu Dhabi with regards to Infosan?

Very well! As you know, we have them as members of the network. In 2010, Abu Dhabi hosted the first global meet of all the members of the Infosan network. The agenda was to develop the network for the coming years. This year, the network is celebrating its 10th anniversary. We are trying to organise another global meeting of all the members very soon.

With Ebola, we are not seeing many reports about Mers, except for a few from Saudi Arabia. What do think about the implications of Mers here? Is it still a threat?

Absolutely! It is still a threat. We are seeing a lot of cases again since the end of summer in the region. We have also some hospital outbreaks in Saudi Arabia. We haven’t found the way to avoid people getting infected in the first place. We know that camels are playing a role. But, we don’t know exactly how people get infected There are several other uncertainties. So, we need to work on all these issues.

Separation of church (hockey) and state: Micro results for Canada, 2012-2013

As part of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency’s (CFIA) annual testing of various food products, a report released today shows that more than 99 per cent of a wide variety of food samples tested were compliant with Canadian guidelines and standards for microbial hazards and extraneous materials.

canada.gretzgy.colbertThe CFIA’s National Microbiological Monitoring Program (NMMP) tests a wide range of commodities for multiple hazards, including microbial hazards, such as Listeria monocytogenes and Salmonella, and extraneous material, such as glass and metal objects. The testing carried out under the NMMP includes domestic and imported red meat and poultry products, shell eggs and egg products, dairy products, fresh fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetable products.

When potential food safety concerns are detected they are assessed to determine the level of risk posed to consumers and the appropriate follow-up action. These actions may include notifying the producer or importer, additional inspections, or further directed sampling. If Health Canada determines that a product poses a health risk to consumers, a product recall is initiated.

The overall finding of this survey suggests that the vast majority of food sold in the Canadian marketplace is produced and handled under good manufacturing practices. However, contamination of foods with disease-causing microorganisms could sporadically occur. Consumers should follow these safety tips when handling, preparing and storing food at Healthy Canadians.

Quick Facts

    • 99.4 per cent of 4,980 samples of domestic and imported food products were compliant with Canadian guidelines and standards.
    • The NMMP also collected wash water samples and surface swabs within various food production environments. These environmental samples are used to verify that food products are produced under sanitary conditions. 99.7 per cent of 1,892 environmental samples were compliant.

Follow the poop: Stool analysis must to detect food poisoning

Of the 1,122 cases of common food-borne illnesses reported in 2013, 550 (48.9 per cent) were just recorded as food poisoning as the pathogens were not identified through culture tests.

stool.sample.ben.nov.09Hundreds of suspected food poisoning cases in Dubai go undiagnosed primarily because of the reluctance of doctors in conducting stool tests, experts have opined.

Last year, almost 50 per cent of food-borne illnesses were classified as food poisoning cases without the confirmation of their pathogens, the 9th Dubai International Food Safety Conference (DIFSC) heard on Tuesday.

Dr Fatima Omer, specialist registrar at the Preventive Services Centre of the Dubai Health Authority (DHA), said of the 1,122 cases of common food-borne illnesses reported in 2013, 550 (48.9 per cent) were just recorded as food poisoning as the pathogens were not identified through culture tests. One of the main reasons for this was cited as the reluctance from doctors in conducting stool tests.

“Doctors are reluctant to give stool samples for lab tests and very often they ask for testing salmonella and dysentery only,” she noted during a presentation on the ‘Role and responsibilities of hospitals in enhancing food-borne disease surveillance and reporting’.

Director of Public Health and Safety Department at DHA’s Health Policy and Strategy Sector Dr Wasif Mohammed Alam said it becomes difficult to find out the source of infection when the pathogen causing a food-borne illness outbreak is not diagnosed.

“The problem can be fixed only when the source is identified. So, we should be careful about recording the history of patients showing symptoms of food poisoning and we must ask for stool analysis,” he told the conference.