Comprehensive News List
General Food Safety News/ Outbreak News/ Recall News/ New Methods News/
News/ On-Line Slides/ Job Information/Internet Journal of Food Safety



Sponsorship Q/A

Click here
to go
Main Page


Click here
to go
List of Newsletters

To subscribe this Food Safety Newsletter,
Click here


On-Line Slides

Internet Journal of Food Saety


Job Openings



Posted on December 31, 2007 by Bill Marler
Source of Article:
Winston Churchill once said, ¡°There is no finer investment for any community than putting milk into babies.¡± Perhaps he was right, but at the turn of the 20th century, the process of pasteurizing milk was still in its infancy, and the safety of milk was a preeminent public health challenge. As people in the United States moved from the countryside into cities, their milk supply became increasingly unhealthy. Milk from cows in the country was transported further and stored at higher temperatures than in the past. Milk produced closer to cities came from cows kept under crowded and unsanitary conditions, and as a result, many city residents, especially children, were increasingly getting sick and dying after consuming contaminated milk. (1)
Public health reformers and activists of the late 19th century put milk at the top of their agenda, and the safety of the milk supply increasingly became a matter of regular public concern, discussed in newspapers, medical journals, public health circles, and the legal system. In a 1914 decision, the Illinois Supreme Court described the importance of the question, saying, "There is no article of food in more general use than milk; none whose impurity or unwholesomeness may more quickly, more widely, and more seriously affect the health of those who use it" Koy v. City of Chicago , 104 N.E. 1104 (1914).
Urban areas were first to act, but by 1920, milk regulations had reached every part of the country, with regulations beginning to appear in state statutes. The U.S. Public Health Service considered milk health to be such a high priority that it drafted the Model Milk Health Ordinance and promoted it actively for adoption at the local level (U.S. Public Health Service, 1939). (1)

Milk producers and sellers attacked the first regulations as unconstitutional and unwarranted governmental limitations on their rights to produce and sell their products as they wished. In response, local and state authorities relied on their intrinsic legal police power duty and authority to protect the public¡¯s welfare. Presented with growing evidence of the potential danger created by the sale of raw milk, most courts found these regulations to be valid, as a legitimate exercise of the government¡¯s police power.
In the representative case of Pfeffer v. Milwaukee, 171 Wis. 514 (1920), milk dealers claimed that a Milwaukee ordinance requiring that all milk sold within the city be pasteurized would hurt their business, and that the ordinance was an invalid exercise of the police power because it did not promote the public health. The Wisconsin Supreme Court, however, disagreed. ¡°Public health demands that milk and all milk products should be pure and wholesome. It is also common knowledge that milk containing deleterious organisms is an unsuitable article of food. Milk is known to be a product easily infected with germ life and to require special attention and treatment in its production and distribution for consumption as an article of food. Scientific knowledge concerning these facts and the best method of pasteurizing milk for human use in course of production and distribution as a pure and wholesome food is so generally understood and known that courts take judicial notice of these facts.¡±

The regulation of raw milk sales in the first half of the 20th century proved to be a major public health success in this country. In 1938, milk-borne outbreaks constituted approximately 25% of all disease-outbreaks from contaminated food and water. As of 2005, that figure was down to about 1%.
Outbreaks of illness linked to the consumption of contaminated milk did continue, however. The ban on the sale of raw milk was not universal because at the time no federal law or regulation prohibited the sale of raw milk on a national level. The regulatory scheme controlling the sale of raw milk on a state and local level was spotty; some states banned the sale of milk that was not pasteurized, some states did not. In states that did not ban the sale of raw milk, some cities and counties did. The ability to sell and purchase raw milk was thus determined more by the social and political nature of the individual jurisdiction than by scientific knowledge. The impact of regulations was clear: forty (87%) of the forty-six raw milk outbreaks reported by the CDC during the period from 1973 through 1992 occurred in states in which the intrastate sale of raw milk was legal. (2)

Efforts to comprehensively ban the sale of raw milk continued. In 1973, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) proposed and adopted a regulation requiring that all milk moving in interstate commerce be pasteurized; but ¡°certified¡± raw milk became exempt from the regulation after FDA received an objection from a producer of certified raw milk. Between 1974 and 1982, FDA accumulated evidence of the association of certified raw milk with human disease, and in 1982, began drafting a proposed regulation to ban all interstate sales of raw milk and raw milk products. In an attached memorandum supporting the regulation, FDA concluded that consumption of raw milk "presents a significant public health problem" and that pasteurization was the only feasible way to assure the safety of milk. The proposed regulation, however, was again not adopted. (3)

Public Citizen v. Heckler, 602 F. Supp. 611 (1985) was filed on September 19, 1984. Public Citizen, a public service organization, the American Public Health Association, and others brought the suit to compel the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to ban all domestic sales of raw milk and raw milk products. Claiming that federal officials had long known of serious risks to human health from consumption of raw milk, plaintiffs contended that the Secretary had unreasonably delayed her decision, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. The Court¡¯s opinion was explicitly direct, and its ruling simple. ¡°The facts here speak for themselves and need little elaboration. Officials at the highest levels of the Department of Health and Human Services have concluded that certified raw milk poses a serious threat to the public health. Leading health organizations are unanimous in proposing that sales of any raw milk should be banned. ¡¦ The Department's justification for its continued delay is lame at best and irresponsible at worst. ¡®When the public health may be at stake, the agency must move expeditiously to consider and resolve the issues before it.¡¯ Public Citizen Health Research Group v. Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 740 F.2d at 34. The Department has wholly failed to meet that mandate here.¡± The court then ordered that the Department publish a proposed regulation within 60 days of its order.

On August 10, 1987, the FDA published in 21 CFR Part 1240.61, a final regulation mandating the pasteurization of all milk and milk products in final package form for direct human consumption. This regulation banned the shipping of raw milk in interstate commerce, and became effective September 9, 1987. In the Federal Register notification for the final rule to 21 CFR Part 1240.61, the FDA made a number of findings, including the following: "Raw milk, no matter how carefully produced, may be unsafe." (3)

Today, it is a violation of federal law to sell raw milk packaged for consumer use across state lines (interstate commerce), but each state regulates the sale of raw milk within the state (intrastate), and some states allow it to be sold. Nationally, the distinctions between applicable laws in individual states are bewildering. In 2006, 25 states had laws making the sale of raw milk for human consumption illegal. In the remaining states, dairy operations may sell raw milk to local retail food stores or to consumers directly from the farm, or at agricultural fairs or other community events, depending on the state law. Restrictions vary from specific labeling requirements, to requirements that milk only be bought with personal bottles, to purchase of raw milk through cow shares exclusively, to permitting a sale only with a written prescription from a doctor, to sales of raw goat milk only, and to sales of a limited daily quantity only if made without advertising. Even in states that prohibit intrastate sales of raw milk, some people have tried to circumvent the law by "cow sharing¡± or "cow leasing."

Because raw milk sales have not been outlawed altogether, outbreaks associated with raw milk continue to occur. There have been numerous documented outbreaks of E. coli, Salmonella, and Campylobacter infections directly linked to the consumption of unpasteurized milk in the past 20 years. During 1998--2005, a total of 45 outbreaks of foodborne illness were reported to CDC in which unpasteurized milk (or cheese suspected to have been made from unpasteurized milk) was implicated. These outbreaks accounted for 1,007 illnesses, 104 hospitalizations, and two deaths (CDC, unpublished data, 2007). (4) Because not all cases of foodborne illness are recognized and reported, the actual number of illnesses associated with unpasteurized milk likely is greater. In December 2005, following an outbreak that sickened at least nineteen people in Washington State, the FDA again publicly warned consumers to avoid drinking raw milk. (5)

Government regulation of the food industry is commonly accepted as a means both to protect public health and to maintain public confidence in the food supply. Despite its great success in reducing raw milk outbreaks during the past hundred years, government regulation and enforcement has not yet succeeded in wholly eradicating the sale of raw milk. The sale of raw milk continues to be legal, in some form or another, in almost half of our states, and the attendant risk of raw milk-related outbreaks therefore also continues to be present.

(1) R. Wright, P. Huck, ¡°Counting Cases About Milk, Our ¡°Most Nearly perfect Food,¡± 36 Law & Soc¡¯y Rev 51 (2002).
(2) M L Headrick, et al,¡± The epidemiology of raw milk-associated foodborne disease outbreaks reported in the United States, 1973 through 1992¡±, Am J Public Health. 1998 August; 88(: 1219?1221.
(3) ¡°Sale/Consumption of Raw Milk-Position Statement,¡± U. S. Food and Drug Administration, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, March 19, 2003.
(4) ¡°Salmonella Typhimurium Infection Associated with Raw Milk and Cheese Consumption --- Pennsylvania, 2007¡±, MMWR, (CDC), November 9, 2007 / 56(44);1161-1164.
(5) ¡°FDA Warns Consumers to Avoid Drinking Raw Milk¡±, FDA NEWS, December 16, 2005.
Thanks to Andy Weisbecker in my office.

Even More on the Raw Milk Debate - Dee Creek Farms
Posted on December 31, 2007 by Bill Marler
Source of Article:
Here is another installment giving some background on another case where we have brought claims on behalf of children sickened by raw milk. In both this case and Grace Harbor Farms, confidential settlements were reached with the owners and insurance carriers. For more information on outbreaks related to raw milk, please see attached from my friends at
In early December 2005 public health officials in Clark County, Washington became aware of four children who resided in the county who had been diagnosed with E. coli O157:H7. Clark County Public Health (CCPH) notified the Washington State Department of Health (WDOH) of a possible outbreak on December 8. By December 9 county officials suspected that all four children had acquired their infection by consuming unpasteurized milk obtained from Dee Creek Farm, a small, unlicensed dairy located in neighboring Cowlitz County. The following Monday, December 12 health officers at the Cowlitz County Health Department (CCHD) issued a health advisory to area health care practitioners and clinics alerting them to the outbreak. By December 14 the number of ill persons had risen to 11 persons, including 9 children between the ages of 5 and 13. Of the five children who had required hospitalization, four remained hospitalized and were in serious condition after developing HUS (acute kidney failure). All 11 individuals had consumed unpasteurized milk provided by Dee Creek Farm.
The Washington State Department of Agriculture (WSDA) conducted three on-site visits to the farm. Numerous samples were collected and tested for E. coli O157:H7 at the WSDA laboratory. E. coli O157:H7 was detected in 7 samples. Two milk samples were positive for the bacteria. Four environmental swabs were positive. These were taken from a mat in the milking area, the muddy area at the entrance to the milking area, and mud on the ground just inside of the door to the milking area. PFGE analysis was conducted on the 7 isolates obtained from culture of the environmental samples and compared to PFGE results of isolates obtained from ill humans. Test results of human and environmental samples were indistinguishable by analysis with two restriction enzymes.

FDA looks to NC in developing plan to better protect U.S.'s food
The Associated Press
Related Content
Source of Article:
RALEIGH, N.C. --North Carolina food safety officials check store shelves each week to test for contaminated foods, and emergency plans are drafted in case of a widespread contaminated food supply.
The process, which continues to find problems that lead to recalls, has caught the attention of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which is now working with North Carolina officials to develop a system to better protect the nation's food supply.
The North Carolina Department of Agriculture launched its food monitoring program in 2005, responding to concerns that terrorists could contaminate food. Now the program has a heavy focus on routinely catching food products - both imported and produced domestically - that may have bacteria, pesticides and other potentially harmful contaminants. The testing has been successful, but concerning. In two years, the state has found staphylococcus, E.coli and salmonella bacteria in soft cheeses, undeclared allergens in imported raisins and illegal antibiotics in foreign-raised fish. In each case, the state's tests led to recalls. "We want consumers, when they visit stores, to have confidence that the products they are purchasing are safe," said Joe Reardon, director of the state agriculture department's food and drug safety division. "If we wait until the consumer reports a problem, we have missed an opportunity to recall the product before there is a public health consequence." The FDA tests only about 1 percent of imported foods, according to the agency, so states are left to do much of the work. Food safety officers in North Carolina make weekly trips to grocery stores and other food markets to buy food most prone to contamination, such as soft cheeses and seafood. The products are then tested in a Raleigh laboratory. The state has also developed an emergency defense system, which was used in August when an outbreak of botulism triggered a nationwide recall of canned chili and beef stew manufactured by Castleberry Food Co.
State officials were immediately sent into the field to recover the items. Reardon said the effort recovered about 35,000 cans of food, including products that would have been sent to day cares and schools or packed for Boy Scout camping trips.
North Carolina collected more cans than the FDA recovered in all other 49 states, Reardon said.
But industry observers note that surveillance won't ever completely protect consumers from unsafe imports. "There's no way we can test all products," said David Green, an associate professor of food safety at North Carolina State University.

Byron Dorgan and Mike Enzi: New rule is a threat to beef safety in U.S.
The USDA is going to allow imports that may increase the risk of mad cow disease, undoing years of efforts to ensure quality.
Last update: January 1, 2008 - 5:42 PM
Source of Article:
From hamburgers at lunch to steaks at dinner, many Americans consume some form of beef every week. Millions around the world do the same.
American livestock producers work hard to ensure that the beef they produce is the best and safest in the world, and it is. As a result, consumers worldwide buy American beef with confidence. However, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) could harm the work of American livestock producers with its recent approval of a rule that allows imported beef from Canada with higher risk for mad cow disease into our country.
That rule change threatens the American beef "brand" because of Canada's ongoing experience with bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), otherwise known as mad cow disease. Twelve cases of BSE have been detected in Canadian-born cattle, eight since the beginning of last year, the latest of which was announced on Dec. 18. Resuming unrestricted imports for this higher-risk beef means that when consumers -- in America or around the globe -- buy our beef, they won't know for certain that they are getting the product that U.S. producers worked so hard to keep safe.
Clearly, that will cause some consumers to look elsewhere, with considerable harm to the U.S. beef industry.
The USDA previously allowed cattle younger than 30 months of age to be imported from Canada. This age restriction was important, because younger animals are less likely to be at risk for BSE infection. The new rule, adopted Nov. 19, allows all animals born after March 1, 1999, to enter the United States, and it also allows beef from animals that were slaughtered in Canada to be imported into the United States without an age restriction.
In recent months, American consumers have come face to face with the reality that food products from other nations can be tainted and diseased. Our food-safety procedures need more scrutiny, not less.
American ranchers have worked hard to earn the confidence that consumers in America and around the globe rightfully have in the quality and safety of American beef. Government policies should do nothing to diminish that.
Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., and Mike Enzi, R-Wy., have introduced a resolution in the Senate that would halt implementation of the USDA rule.

Botulism in Duck Foie Gras
Wednesday, January 02, 2008
FRANCE - French authorities are investigating a case of botulism contamination in a batch of Foie Gras.
Source of Article:
The French agriculture ministry said that Clostridium botulinum, the pathogen responsible for botulism, had been found by the national laboratory in a batch of duck foie gras under the Monfort label. The product has been recalled from the market and a warning has been issued by the manufacturers.
ThePoultrySite News Desk

Food safety certifications dangerously lag industry activity
22:40' 01/01/2008 (GMT+7)
Source of Article:
VietNamNet Bridge - To improve food quality and safety, HCMC People¡¯s Committee regulations now require all food producers and distributors have food hygiene and safety certifications as less than 35% of such operations currently have the papers required.
The HCMC Office for Food Hygiene and Safety reported only some 8,300 of over 24,000 food producers and distribution citywide have food hygiene and safety certification.
An unnamed Tan Binh District Medical Office representative blamed limited public awareness of the importance of the food hygiene and safety, insufficient funding of medical bureaucracies and the amount of paperwork they must handle.
Only some 700 of almost 1,650 food seller in the district had obtained certifications.
A delegate from Thu Duc district explained that only 385 out of 2,000 food sellers in Thu Duc were certified because most of them are sidewalk eateries, canteens and street vendors that can hardly afford VND200,000 for certification.
Department of Health Deputy Director Le Truong Gian noted on December 31 that the deadline for food seller to obtain the papers required had already been extended twice since June this year. Now, the city has little choice but to enforce the regulations more strictly.
Gian emphasized the Department of Health will work the People¡¯s Committee to resolve related internal urban administration problems before city health inspectors move on to unchecked food processing sites, shops and restaurants.
Fines of VND10-15 million are to be imposed on violators, added Gian.
Yet, several questions about the program¡¯s effectiveness remain. How long will it take to inspect the 13,800 shops that have not yet registered for safety certification? Who will take responsibility for related public health problems in the meantime? How can mobile vendors be covered? More could be listed.

Food Safety and Quality Related Job Openings
NIR/Analytical Services Manager ? Land O¡¯Lakes, Inc. - Shoreview, MN
Sanitation Manager ? Malt-O-Meal - Northfield, MN
Food Safety Consultant - Agricultural Consulting Services, Inc. ? Rochester, NY
Quality Control Supervisor - Channel Fish Co. ? Boston, MA
Food Safety Programs Director ? Food Marketing Institute - Crystal City, VA
Food Chemist/ Nutritional Chemist ? EMSL Analytical, Inc. - Indianapolis, IN
QA/QC Manager - Carl Buddig and Company ? South Holland, IL

Food Safety and Quality Related Job Openings

Food safety center on cards (China Daily)
Updated: 2008-01-03 09:28
Source of Article:
The capital will establish a food safety command center for this year's Olympic ., a senior official from the city's industry and commerce authority said yesterday.
The Beijing Municipal Food Safety Supervision and Coordination Office will set up the food safety center with support from the Organizing Committee of the Beijing Olympics, the Olympic Security Command Center and staff at major . venues.
The center will be responsible for overseeing food safety during the . and issue alerts should any risks arise, Zhang Zhikuan, chief of the Beijing municipal administration for industry and commerce, said at a work conference yesterday.
Officials at the conference said food for the . will be classified into 345 items in 10 categories, with each item checked against specific technical standards.
"Precautions must be taken to avert any trace of terrorist attacks on our food supply chain," Zhang told the meeting
Officials will also be mobilized to ensure the protection of intellectual property rights, consumer rights and assist the many foreigners expected to visit the capital during the event.
Authorities will focus their inspections on Olympic venues, hotels and restaurants to ensure food quality, Zhang, who is also head of the city's office for food safety coordination, said.
Food quality will be closely monitored and systems are in place to enable city authorities to trace suspect food back to its source, he said.
The move is part of the commitment Beijing made to the International Olympic Committee to guarantee food safety during the ..

Truck With Possible E. Coli Tainted Beef Stolen, Consumers Warned
Featured Article
Main Category: Nutrition / Diet News
Article Date: 29 Dec 2007 - 0:00 PST
Source of Article:
American Fresh Foods has announced that a truck loaded with 14,800 pounds of ground beef, some of it possibly infected with E. coli O157:H7, was stolen last Thursday. People have been advised to refrain from buying ground beef from dubious vendors. The refrigerated truck had been parked in the company's car park when it was stolen.
The company stressed that its regular meat products that are sold through normal retail outlets are safe. A company spokesman said there is concern for public safety regarding the stolen truck, because apart from their being possibly tainted produce inside, the truck was carrying a limited supply of refrigeration fuel, raising the chances that the produce could go rotten very quickly.
The company added that it is working closely with the USDA (US Department of Agriculture) and local authorities.
Below is a description of the products to look out for, they form part of this alert:
-- 73/27 Ground Beef
2 lbs approx weight packages
sell-by date 12.30.07
production times 14:27 - 15:28

-- 80/20 Ground Beef Chuck
2 lbs approx weight packages
sell-by date12.31.07
production times between 13:40 - 14:27

-- 85/15 Ground Beef Round
1 lb approx weight packages
sell-by date of 12.31.07
production times between 13:51 - 17:01

-- 90/10 Ground Beef Sirloin
1 lb approx weight packages
sell-by date of 12.31.07
production times between 13:49 - 15:35

-- 96/04 Extra Lean Ground Beef 4% Fat
1 lb approx weight packages
sell-by date of 12.31.07
production times 14:25 - 17:22

-- 73/27 100% Ground Beef; Rework Map
40 lbs net wt. box

-- Chuck 100% Ground Beef; Rework Map
260 lbs net wt. combo bin

-- Sirloin 100% Ground Beef; Rework
370 lbs net wt. combo bin

All the produce listed above was produced on 19th December.

about E. coli O157:H7 (Escherichia coli O157:H7)
E. coli O157:H7 is a strain (enterohemorrhagic) of Escherichia coli, a bacterium. It is a cause of foodborne illness. About 73,000 people are infected and 61 people die each year in the USA.
Infected young children and elderly people are the most susceptible to complications, such as bloody diarrhea, occasionally kidney failure, and hemolytic uremic syndrome (red blood cells are destroyed).
In most cases, however, the infected person will just experience abdominal pains, usually no fever, and diarrhea - the illness resolves within a week or so. In some cases the infected person will have no symptoms at all and never knew he/she had been infected.
The most common cause of human infection is the consumption of undercooked, contaminated ground beef, unpasteurized milk, swimming in contaminated water, drinking contaminated water, and eating contaminated vegetables.
Cooking any contaminated foods thoroughly will destroy the E. coli.
Preparing ground beef for safe consumption (USDA)
-- Before and after you handle it wash your hands with warm soapy water for at least 20 seconds.
-- Wash cutting boards, utensils and dishes with hot soapy water.
-- Do not use the same cutting board for raw meat and other foods you are going to eat.
-- Clean spills immediately.
-- Do not let the raw meat near any foods that you are not going to cook.
-- Make sure ground meat patties have been cooked to a safe internal temperature of 160 F.
-- Do not rely on the meat's color to tell you whether it has been cooked to a high enough temperature. Color is not a reliable indicator.
-- The only way you can be really sure your meat has been cooked well enough to kill the bacteria is to use a thermometer to measure the internal temperature.
-- On a hot day (over 90 F) refrigerate the meat within one hour of purchasing it. On non-hot days do this within two hours of purchasing it.
-- Any meat you do not consume after cooking has to be refrigerated within two hours after cooking.

Norovirus Stomach Bug Sweeping UK
Article Date: 03 Jan 2008 - 11:00 PST
Source of Article:
Reports are coming in of a seasonal stomach bug that is sweeping the UK and infecting some 100,000 people a week, a figure that may rise to 200,000 a week, according to health experts.
In a bid to contain the spread of the norovirus, sometimes called winter vomiting disease, the Royal College of General Practitioners (RGCP) is urging people are not to return to work until 48 hours after the symptoms have stopped, according to a Guardian news report.
They are especially being asked not to go near places holding vulnerable people in large numbers such as care homes, clinics and hospitals.
According to BBC News, the Health Protection Agency (HPA) said the number of cases this season is the highest they have seen since 2002.
A spokesperson for NHS Direct, the online and telephone based public health service told the Guardian that 5 per cent of the 270,000 calls received between 21st December and 1st January were about the illness, which is the most common cause of gastroenteritis in the UK.
Norovirus is an infectious illness that can be passed from person to person and also by touching surfaces like door handles, light switches, table tops and toilets that have been frequently touched by infected people.
Infection by norovirus is usually mild, with symptoms developing up to 48 hours after infection. Most people make a full recovery within 2 to 3 days and don't need treatment, but vulnerable groups like small children and the elderly are at risk of dehydration and may need hospital care.
Anyone can get norovirus but it is more common in enclosed spaces where lots of potentially vulnerable people congregate for long periods such as hospitals, schools, nurseries and care homes.
RGCP chairman, professor Steve Field told the Guardian that hospitals have been "inundated" by people referred by their GP or going direct to the emergency department.
While the currently infected numbers are about 100,00 people a week, this could go up to 200,000 a week when UK children go back to school next week and start bringing the virus home and infecting their parents said Field.
He advised people to "stay at home, take paracetamol and drink plenty of fluids".
Washing your hands regularly and staying at home until you are clear of symptoms for 48 hours should help to considerably reduce the chance of you passing the virus onto others.
Professor Peter Borriello, Director of the HPA's Centre for Infections said in a press release issued by the Agency who anticipated this surge in cases two months ago that:
"Good hygiene is important in preventing yourself or others from becoming infected; this includes thorough hand washing especially after using the toilet, and any contaminated surface should be thoroughly disinfected after an episode of illness."
"Food preparation should also be avoided until three days after symptoms have disappeared. Unfortunately there is no specific treatment for norovirus apart from letting the illness run its course, therefore it is important to drink plenty of fluids to prevent dehydration especially in the very young or elderly," he added.
The HPA said experts estimate that norovirus affects about 1 million people in the UK each year, but "the figures for both outbreaks and sporadic cases is likely to be an underestimate".
Sources: BBC News, Guardian, HPA website, NHS Direct.
Written by: Catharine Paddock

Eco-Safe Receives R-1000 Product Approval From the National Sanitation Foundation
Market Wire Comtex Source of Article:
LOS ANGELES, CA, Jan 07, 2008 (MARKET WIRE via COMTEX) -- Eco-Safe Systems USA, Inc. (PINKSHEETS: ESFS) is pleased to announce receipt of Product Approval for Registration of its R-1000 Ozone Disinfection System for Restaurants, from the National Sanitation Foundation (NSF International), a continuation of the USDA product approval program.
This Registration in NSF International's "White Book" is the culmination of interaction between Eco-Safe's technical staff and NSF International, resulting in the certification that the Eco-Safe R-1000 System meets all federal regulatory requirements for food disinfection.
Registration in the Federal "White Book" is routinely required by municipal and county inspectors in establishments where food is prepared for the public.
Michael Elliot, President of Eco-Safe Systems USA, Inc., said, "This restaurant unit registration now opens the door for Eco-Safe to proceed beyond the 'testing stage' with potential customers, and begin selling in the huge US restaurant market, which should significantly add to Eco-Safe's annual gross sales. To this end, the R-1000 has just been installed for testing at two restaurant chains with over 100 restaurants, in addition to the continuing tests with the fast-food chains with over 4000 locations."
A copy of the NSF International registration certificate for theR-1000 may be viewed at:
Eco-Safe Systems, a publicly traded company, is a leader in Ozone food-safety and water-disinfection systems with services ranging from food disinfection to water reclamation and water desalinization. Eco-Safe's patent-pending process raises the bar on food safety and environmental sustain ability while decreasing costs and risks to businesses, the public and the planet.
The foregoing contains forward-looking information within the meaning of The Private Securities Litigation Act of 1995. Such forward-looking statements involve certain risks and uncertainties. The actual results may differ materially from such forward-looking statements. The company does not undertake to publicly update or revise its forward-looking statements even if experience or future changes make it clear that any projected results (expressed or implied) will not be realized.

Seair being used to eliminate E. coli from California irrigation water
Source of Article:
EDMONTON, Jan. 7 /CNW/ - Seair Inc. (SDS:TSX Venture Exchange) is pleased to announce it has selected Ozone Science Design ("OSD") of Paso Robles, California to distribute and integrate Seair products with its ozone-based sanitation systems. OSD has recently commenced testing of a Seair ozone diffusion system to eliminate E. coli from irrigation water used on vegetable crops. The test is being conducted with a California based spinach grower. Harold Kinasewich, President and CEO of Seair states, "We are delighted to have OSD as part of our distributor network. Their many years of experience
and expertise in working with ozone matches well with Seair's ability to efficiently diffuse large quantities of ozone into fluid. That combination should be a cost effective means to eliminate potentially harmful bacteria, such as from E. coli contamination, from water used to irrigate field crops, including strawberries, onions, spinach, lettuce and many other crops." Ozone is a powerful natural sterilant that, if properly diffused into
water, can safely be used to oxidize unwanted contaminants, including harmful bacteria such as E. coli, and to produce enriched aerobic water.

About Seair
Seair is a leading developer of patent protected diffusion and sterilization technologies which allow for the efficient diffusion of gases into a liquid, thereby facilitating numerous applications in a wide variety of industries including wastewater treatment, pulp and paper, food processing, aquaculture, agriculture/horticulture, sterilization, golf course irrigation
and pond treatment, animal enhancement and oil and gas. Seair's primary focus is developing and selling equipment that diffuses gases, such as oxygen, ozone or carbon dioxide, into a liquid, resulting in a supersaturate solution. The major difference between Seair and other diffusion technologies is Seair's ability to achieve extremely small bubble size, which in turn allows for the mass transfer of gas to fluid. The result is a stable condition where gases remain in solution for extended periods of time, leading to increased
productivity and lower operating costs. Seair provides diffusion-enhanced portable wastewater treatment plants through its subsidiary, Seair Septic. Parties interested in obtaining further information or receiving news releases and corporate documents from Seair may email such request to or visit the Seair website at
This news release may contain certain forward-looking statements that reflect the current views and/or expectations of Seair Inc. with respect to its performance, business or future events. Such statements are subject to a number of risks, uncertainties and assumptions. Actual results and events may vary.

Main Page
Sponsorship Qustions
List of Newsletters
To subscribe this Food Safety Newsletter

Copyright (C). All rights reserved