Comprehensive News List
General Food Safety News/ Outbreak News/ Recall News/ New Methods 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


Job Opennings


Click here fore more information and Register today!!

2010 Food Safety Training Class Schedule
Basic and Advanced HACCP San Francisco, CA, August 2 - 4
Basic HACCP Houston TX , August 16 and 17
Basic HACCPChicago, IL, August 30 and 31
Basic HACCPLos Angeles, CA. September 9 and 10
Basic HACCPCamden, New Jersey, September 13 and 14
Chicago, IL, September 27 and 28
Basic HACCPVisalia, CA., October 4 and 5
Basic HACCPYuma, AZ, October 11 and 12
Basic HACCPChicago, IL, October 25 and 26
Redondo Beach, CA, November 4-5, 2010
with 5th International Conference

Basic HACCPChicago, IL. November 29 and 30
Basic HACCPLos Angeles, CA, December 6 and 7
Basic HACCPVisalia, CA, December 13 and 14

How Goes Peak E. coli Season?
by Dan Flynn | Jul 26, 2010
Four years ago, there were almost no recalls of beef for E. coli O157:H7 contamination and later the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta reported on a big drop in illnesses from the pathogen.
Just a year later, in 2007, the number of E. coli O157:H7 recalls, outbreaks, and illnesses exploded. Beef recalled for E. coli O157:H7 contamination totaled almost 34 million pounds in 2007.
The spike in E. coli contamination sent regulators, researchers, and the industry all out looking for the cause. Just over 7 million pounds of recalled beef was added to the total in 2008 to bring the total to over 40 million for just two years.
Then last year, the levels fell back to Earth with just over 1.1 million pounds of E. coli-contaminated beef recalled in 2009.
That brings us to 2010. On one hand, this year's total beef recalls for E. coli total over 6.1 million to date, bringing the four-year total to over 48 million pounds.
However, the largest recalls in this year's total were for 5.764 million pounds of beef from California's Huntington Meat Packing Co. last Jan. 18 and Feb. 12. At the time, USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) said the Huntington recalls were associated with an ongoing criminal investigation.
Since the big Huntington recalls last winter, there have only been another half dozen E coli-related recalls totaling 389,476 pounds of beef and bison. Only 105,476 pounds have been recalled this summer, including 66,776 of bison from Colorado's Rocky Mountain Natural Meats.
E. coli O157:H7 knows no season, but is a season-peaking phenomenon. Food safety attorney Bill Marler knows this not only from his law practice, but from the research he has done on the subject. He points to these studies into E. coli "seasonality in humans."
-A review of E. coli O157:H7 diarrhea in the U.S. by Slutsker et al (1997) found that E. coli O157:H7 was isolated most frequently from patients during the summer months.
-Results from an epidemiologic review of E. coli O157:H7 outbreaks in the U.S. (1982-2002) showed that outbreaks involving ground beef peaked in summer months (Rangel et al, 2005).
-In a review of non-O157 Shiga toxin-producing E. coli infections in the US from 1983-2002 revealed that these infections also were most frequent during the summer (Brooks et al, 2005).
-In Scotland, HUS and E. coli O157:H7 infections peaked in patients under 15 years of age in July/August, followed by a plateau from June to September (Douglas et al, 1997). The prevalence in Scottish beef cattle at slaughter was found to be highest during the winter, but the concentration of E. coli O157:H7 (number of bacteria shed in cattle feces) was highest during the warmer months (Ogden et al, 2004).
Marler also found support for "seasonality in ruminants" in these findings:
-Numerous studies in cattle indicate that fecal shedding of E. coli O157:H7 is typically low in the winter, increases in the spring, peaks during the summer and tapers off in the fall (Edrington et al, 2006; Hancock et al, 2001; Hussein et al, 2005, etc.).
-Barkocy-Gallagher et al (2003) found that the prevalence of E. coli O157:H7 in cattle feces peaked in the summer, and prevalence on hides (a known risk factor for beef contamination) was highest from spring through fall.
-A survey of ground beef samples in the US showed that they were 3 times more likely to be contaminated with E. coli O157:H7 from June - September (Chapman, et al 2001).
-A survey in the UK found that the majority of retail meats that tested positive for E. coli O157:H7 were collected between May and September.
Among the reasons Marler thinks there are seasonal differences in the prevalence of O157:H7 in both humans and cattle are:
-Differences in handling and cooking food, or differences in consumption patterns during the summer, especially ground beef (outdoor BBQs, picnics, summer camps).
-Higher prevalence of E. coli O157:H7 in cattle feces and hides entering the slaughterhouse.
-More outbreaks linked to swimming pools, recreational water, and agriculture fairs during the summer.
-Speculation that temperature may affect shedding or survival in feces (warmer months promoting survival and/or growth of E. coli O157:H7).
-Studies by Edrington et al (2006 and 2008) suggested that day length and effects on hormones such as melatonin secretion from the gastrointestinal tracts might be the underlying mechanism for seasonality in cattle. The authors hypothesized that the seasonal variation is a result of physiological responses within the host animal to changing day-length. Hormones have been shown to play a role in the regulation of bacterial populations and host immunity.
This is why there is so much interest in monitoring what is actually happening on the E. coli front during the summer months. Fewer recalls are usually going to translate into fewer outbreaks and illnesses.
This summer's trend line is pretty positive, according to Drew Falkenstein, one of Marler's associates.
"Compared to recent years, only two summer recalls totaling just under 40,000 pounds of product--particularly when the recalls were not known to be associated with any illnesses--is progress indeed," Falkenstein says.

General Food Safety News
Outbreak News

Recall News
New Methods News

Has the nail been driven into the coffin of the conventional wisdom that grass-fed beef is safer than grain-fed beef?
Source: 2008 I posted, ¡°Grass-Fed vs Grain-Fed Beef and the Holy Grail: A Literature Review,¡± in which I raised the question if grass-fed beef is safer that grain-fed. My concern was, as I said, that Quotes like these were becoming more common on the Internet and recent media reports:
¡°Products from grass-fed animals are safer than food from conventionally-raised animals.¡± Eatwild, 2008
¡°Research has shown that the strains of E. coli most devastating to humans are the product of feedlots, not cows. This is due to the animals being forced to eat an unnatural diet, and not their natural choice, grass.¡± Grass-Fed Beef: Safer and Healthier, Animal Welfare Approved, June 15, 2008
My conclusion of the literature review was: In summary, the scientific evidence at this time does not support a broad conclusion that grass feeding significantly reduces the risk of E. coli O157:H7 or other dangerous foodborne pathogens from entering the food chain. However, more research is needed to better understand the influence of diet, especially the use of different types of grains in animal feed.
Now a recent abstract entitled, ¡°Contamination Rates and Antimicrobial Resistance in Bacteria Isolated from ¡°Grass-Fed¡± Labeled Beef Products¡± by Jiayi Zhang, Samantha K. Wall, Li Xu, Paul D. Ebner in Foodborne Pathogens and Disease, once again puts into question the conventional wisdom that somehow grass-fed cows are safer than grain-fed cows. Here is the abstract in part:
Abstract: Grass-fed and organic beef products make up a growing share of the beef market in the United States. While processing, animal handling, and farm management play large roles in determining the safety of final beef products, grass-fed beef products are often marketed as safer alternatives to grain-finished beef products based on the potential effects of all-forage diets on host microbiota.
We conducted a series of experiments examining bacterial contamination rates in 50 beef products labeled as ¡°grass-fed¡± versus 50 conventionally raised retail beef products.
Coliform concentrations did not differ between conventional and grass-fed beef (conventional: 2.6 log10 CFU/mL rinsate; grass-fed: 2.7 log10 CFU/mL rinsate). The percentages of Escherichia coli positive samples did not differ between the two groups (44% vs. 44%). Enterococcus spp., were frequently isolated from both grass-fed beef products (44%) and conventional beef products (62%; p = 0.07). No Salmonella or E. coli O157:H7 isolates were recovered from any of the meat samples. Enterococcus spp. isolates from conventional beef were more frequently resistant to daptomycin and linezolid (p < 0.05). Resistance to some antimicrobials (e.g., chloramphenicol, erythromycin, flavomycin, penicillin, and tetracyline) was high in Enterococcus spp. isolated from both conventional and grass-fed beef.
There were no differences in the percentages of antimicrobial resistant E. coli isolates between the two groups. Taken together, these data indicate that there are no clear food safety advantages to grass-fed beef products over conventional beef products.
Perhaps more research is still needed. The sample size of this recent study was small. Perhaps Food Safety News should do a larger one?

3M Presents Food Safety Symposium at IAFP
(St. Paul, MN)?3M Food Safety will present a symposium on Key Trends in 21st Century Food Safety during the IAFP Annual Meeting in August.

All IAFP attendees are invited to attend the presentation at the Anaheim Hilton Pacific Ballroom, Monday, August 2, from 6:30-8 p.m. Speaker Frank Yiannas, Vice President of Food Safety at Walmart, will offer a unique perspective on key trends affecting the future of food safety, success in a changing environment, emerging issues and leading-edge prevention strategies.

3M is the leader of innovative solutions that help the food industry optimize the quality and safety of their products to enable consumer protection. At every step, 3M provides solutions that help mitigate risk, improve operational efficiencies and impact the bottom line.

Christine Schweitzer

Measuring Pathogens in Poultry
by Chuck Jolley | Jul 27, 2010
Shouldn't we test for pathogens closer to where the public actually buys their meat and poultry?
In one of his periodic blogs (subscription required). Dr. Richard Raymond made a statement about testing poultry parts for pathogens that is stunning in its simplicity. Politically speaking, though, it's potentially a 10.0 on the Richter scale. He wrote, "Deputy Mande wants something that will help 'government and held accountable by the public' and he wants it measured. Great, I say measure what we eat--poultry parts--just like the beef industry must test and measure ground beef, not carcasses. Get poultry testing to the end product and closer to the consumer. Let's recognize consumers' buying habits of the 21st century and 'measure' what they buy and eat."
He was writing about the pair of FSIS/FDA/CDC joint public meetings to hear stakeholders' thoughts on how to measure progress in food safety. One was held July 21 in Chicago and the other will be held October 20, 2010, in Portland, Oregon. His final question: Do I need to go to Portland, or does this count as my presentation?
Dr. Raymond, I think you need to book a flight to the West coast.
Right now, the meat and poultry industry conducts a vigorous program of production site testing. Processing chicken? Test for Salmonella right then and there--look at the whole bird but don't worry about its pieces and parts right now. Grinding beef? Take a sample immediately and ask a lab for a report on the possible presence of E. coli O157:H7. The hoped for results of course, are that all the products leaving the point of production are pathogen-free. It helps get companies like Tyson and JBS off the legal tenterhooks of lawyers like Bill Marler and lets their top management sleep a little better at night.
But Raymond is suggesting that we take a major, way overdue long step and 'measure what they (the public) buy and eat.'
We don't do that very well. Never have. Probably never will.
The public rarely buys and eats the direct production of a Tyson or a JBS plant. They buy what Kroger and Wal-Mart puts in the cold case. Sure, they'll purchase the occasional tube of ground beef placed straight into the case by a supermarket clerk but the larger purchases are the one- and two-pound re-ground and repackaged product produced in the back room. And how often do you see a few chicken breasts or a half-dozen legs still in an unopened Tyson package?
If Dr. Raymond wants to accurately measure what the public buys and eats, what he's really asking is supermarkets be held to the same rigorous standards as Tyson. It's something that industry has stoutly resisted for reasons that are short-sighted. It keeps the legal responsibility out of their pocketbook and firmly in the hands of Tyson, JBS, Cargill, etc. It does nothing to improve food safety in America.
Sure it's an added expense for retailers and it would mean adding qualified personnel at thousands of points of production. But let's be honest here. If we're all really that interested in presenting a pathogen-free-as-humanly-possible product to the consuming public, checking for pathogens at the point where the product is actually transferred to the consuming public only makes good sense.
But with apologies to Ronald Reagan, "there I go again." I'm still trying to link the phrase 'good sense' with American politics.
Want a bone-chilling food safety comment? I asked Dr. Raymond for some final thoughts on the future of testing poultry parts. "FSIS won't test parts because the results would show at least 25 percent contamination with no way to reduce that statistic," he said. "But they really need to do it to see if dropping the rates on carcasses (a Bush Initiative) has any impact whatsoever and so they and industry can be held accountable with real and pertinent numbers."

Tribune article highlights post-recall risks to consumer health
Posted on July 27, 2010 by Drew Falkenstein
Steve Mills, a reporter with the Chicago Tribune and frequent contributor to the national food safety dialogue, wrote an excellent analysis of post-recall risks to consumer health for today's edition of the Tribune. The problem: equal parts stores not getting recalled products off of shelves, manufacturers not being able to retrieve recalled product, and consumers not getting word that a product has been recalled.
In addition to the ConAgra pot pie Salmonella outbreak in 2007, Mills highlights several major outbreaks and/or recalls that have occurred in the last several years:
In 2009, for instance, when the U.S. Department of Agriculture was involved in 59 recalls in which the amount of food sought and recovered was known, 56 came up short of the amount they identified as potentially tainted or produced at a time when factory controls were lax.
Two of those efforts highlight how far short recalls can fall. Last July a Denver processor announced a recall of more than 460,000 pounds of ground beef tied to a salmonella outbreak but recovered only 119,000 pounds. In October a New York processor announced a recall of 545,000 pounds of ground beef tied to an outbreak of E. coli; it recovered 795 pounds, according to the USDA.With today's global distribution, this is a problem
To put a finer point on it, in the 2007 ConAgra pot pie salmonella outbreak that ultimately sickened over 400 people with confirmed illnesses, the CDC found that many, many people became ill after the recall was announced. Here is a chart that shows how many became ill before and after the recall announcement:
Another situation that warrants mention is the 2010 ConAgra (actually, Marie Callendar's brand) cheesy chicken and rice frozen entree Salmonella outbreak and recall. In a June 2010 press release, the Oregon Department of Health announced concern that retailers had not yet removed all recalled product from store shelves. The statement read:
Public health officials repeated today that an outbreak of salmonellosis has been linked to a boxed frozen entree product manufactured by ConAgra Foods, Inc. under the Marie Callender label. The Cheesy Chicken & Rice item has been identified as the likely source of the outbreak, which has sickened at least 30 people in 15 states. Health officials worry that the entree has not have been removed from grocery store shelves. Consumers may also still have the product in their freezers.
¡°We¡¯re concerned that people and some retailers may not have gotten this information,¡± said Emilio DeBess, a senior epidemiologist at the Oregon Public Health Division. ¡°This product was sold at grocery stores throughout Oregon and elsewhere. Consumers who have any of the Cheesy Chicken & Rice entrees in their home freezers need to throw them out or return them to the store. Retailers that have this product in their stores need to get them out of circulation immediately.
"Oregon Department of Agriculture inspectors checked in a number of stores on Tuesday and found the recalled product still available in a limited number of stores," DeBess added. "To protect consumers, store managers need to be vigilant about responding to recall notices."
As with many problems that we currently face in our food supply, this one is particularly potent in large part because of the nature of our production and distribution systems. But despite the wider audience for these problems due to books like The Omnivore's Dilemma and movies like Food, Inc., it's a problem that's not going away. Bottom line is that manufacturers and retailers need to improve traceability and their dedication to the public health measure of actually making sure that information about recalls actually reaches consumers.
Moreover, this is a discussion that is not only long overdue (see 2007 ConAgra pot pie outbreak), but has been raised multiple times before. Phyllis Entis, at recently made several recommendations to address the problem:
1. Provide a retail distribution list for all recalls. The list should include food service outlets, restaurants, cafes, and institutional kitchens ? not just retail stores.
2. Require retail stores to post a prominent recall notice on the store shelf or refrigerator/freezer where the recalled product is typically displayed. This is already done in some countries, including the United Kingdom.
3. Fine retailers who ignore recall notices and neglect to remove recalled products from sale. This has been done in Australia.
4. Post on FDA and USDA web sites in a timely fashion the reports for all inspections during which "significant violations" or "significant deviations" were noted (FDA does this selectively, based on its perception of the public's interest in the results of specific inspections).
5. Post on FDA and USDA web sites in a timely fashion all Warning Letters and other enforcement actions taken (FDA posts Warning Letters, although not always timely).
I would also add a report back requirement for retailers--i.e. that the retailer must report back to (agency/recalling company) within a certain number of days of receiving notice of a recall through dedicated channels, plus fines for each day that the retailer does not report back as required. Something for the FDA to consider when the Food Safety Modernization Act is finally passed.

Despite Recalls, Tainted Food Sometimes on Shelves
Efforts to alert, protect the public often fall far short.
Until three years ago, Kenneth Maxwell enjoyed Banquet chicken and turkey pot pies so much he ate them three or four times a week. They were easy to prepare, and Maxwell could eat one for lunch and quickly return to work as an electrician.
When cases of salmonella poisoning led the pies' manufacturer, ConAgra Foods, to issue a product recall in the fall of 2007, Maxwell did not hear about it and continued to eat them. He bought several pot pies about two weeks after the recall was launched, when they should have been pulled from store shelves, and became violently ill, he said.
Maxwell's experience reflects common problems with food recalls: They routinely fail to recover all of the product they seek and, according to experts, sometimes even leave tainted foods in stores, putting consumers at risk of becoming ill from potentially deadly food-borne pathogens.
In 2009, for instance, when the U.S. Department of Agriculture was involved in 59 recalls in which the amount of food sought and recovered was known, 56 came up short of the amount they identified as potentially tainted or produced at a time when factory controls were lax.
Two of those efforts highlight how far short recalls can fall. Last July a Denver processor announced a recall of more than 460,000 pounds of ground beef tied to a salmonella outbreak but recovered only 119,000 pounds. In October a New York processor announced a recall of 545,000 pounds of ground beef tied to an outbreak of E. coli; it recovered 795 pounds, according to the USDA.
Because recalls are described as voluntary, some experts say the owners of supermarkets, especially smaller stores, can mistakenly believe it is acceptable to leave recalled products on the shelves.
And while the federal government publishes notices about recalls, it depends on the news media, manufacturers and retailers to spread the news. Many consumers are unaware a product has been recalled.
"I wouldn't have eaten them otherwise," Maxwell, of Crescent, Iowa, said of the pot pies.
Some supermarkets and big-box stores, such as Costco, use the information they have compiled about customers to notify shoppers who have purchased recalled products, in some instances even telephoning them to warn them about potentially tainted food.
But others do not, which food safety and consumer advocates find frustrating.
"The companies take your information for marketing, but they won't contact you in a recall," said Donna Rosenbaum of the food safety group Safe Tables Our Priority, or STOP. "As far as I'm concerned, that's just wrong to market to consumers ? to use all that information for profit ? but not to then protect their health."
A spokesman for Jewel-Osco's corporate parent said relying on the media, posting shelf notices and making sure store employees are prepared to answer customers' questions all have worked with recalls in the past.
Safeway, the parent of Dominick's food stores, contacts shoppers directly in some recalls ? typically smaller ones, said spokesman Brian Dowling. But in larger recalls, he said the company's stores rely on other methods to get the word out, such as notices on store shelves and stories in newspapers and on TV and radio. Calling all the people in a large recall would be too difficult, he said.
"One size doesn't fit all," Dowling said. "We look at what information we have and consider how to best and most quickly provide information to our customers."
The USDA, researchers and food safety advocates say the urgency and the reach of recalls must be improved if recalls are to be more effective and the number of Americans sickened by food-borne pathogens is to decline.
Some consumers simply ignore recalls. A study conducted last year by a professor at Rutgers University found that 12 percent of U.S. consumers ate food they knew had been the subject of a recall.
A USDA spokesman said that in spite of the department's best efforts, "some consumers may still eat and become ill from a product listed for recall."
One reason is that people often don't get sick right away from contaminated food, meaning a week or more can pass before an illness develops and is reported to health officials ? a first step to detecting an outbreak and launching a recall. In the meantime, tainted food is still being sold and eaten.
The ConAgra recall was launched on Oct. 11, 2007, after illnesses caused by salmonella were found around the country. At least 272 people were sickened by the pot pies.Maxwell, 59, said he bought his from the Super Saver in Council Bluffs, Iowa, not far from the home he shares with his wife, Betty, in late October, about two weeks after the recall began. He said he did not keep a receipt for the pot pies because they were a regular part of his shopping.
On Nov. 6, he said, he microwaved a pot pie, and a few days later he got sick, first with nausea and then with diarrhea. Because he had no health insurance, Maxwell did not immediately seek medical attention. But Betty Maxwell called an ambulance when he was not recovering after several days. Maxwell said his wife later also became sick, apparently from treating him.
A ConAgra spokeswoman said the company confirmed that the Super Saver where Maxwell bought the pot pies had been notified of a recall. An official at B&R Stores Inc., the Nebraska-based company that owns Super Saver, said its policy is to pull a product as soon as it is recalled, but it did not have records regarding the pot pie recall and its manager at the Council Bluffs store did not remember the recall specifically.
The company said it had no customer complaint on file from the Maxwells. The Maxwells never sued ConAgra but settled a claim against the company for an undisclosed amount in August 2008, according to food safety attorney William Marler, whose firm has sued manufacturers across the country and who represented the Maxwells.
The Maxwells said they have not eaten a Banquet pot pie since the recall.

New Food Safety Registry A Success So Far, FDA Says
Source: Angel ReyesAttorney
(866) 735-1102 Ext 495Posted by Angel ReyesJuly 30, 2010 1:08 PM
0 CommentsPrint ArticleSubscribe
The Food and Drug Administration¡¯s (FDA) new electronic food registry has helped to prevent more than 100 potential food safety problems in its first months in operation, according to a new report released by the agency.
The Reportable Food Registry (RFR), mandated by Congress, requires food manufacturers, distributors, packers and processors to report to a government Web site any safety problems involving food (including pet food) that is likely to result in serious adverse health events.

From September 2009, when the registry launched, to March 2010, a total of 125 food safety reports were received. In turn, these reports generated 1,638 subsequent reports from suppliers or recipients of a food or feed. The report helps the agency and food industry to locate hazardous foods in the supply chain and prevent them from reaching consumers.
Below is a breakdown of the 125 Food Safety reports:
Salmonella - 37 percent
Undeclared Allergens (or intolerances) - 35 percent
Listeria monocytogenes - 13 percent
The 11 different commodity categories involved were: 14 animal feed/pet food, 12 seafood, 11 spices and seasonings, and 10 dairy products.

Don't Eat That! Most Americans Worry About Safety of Food Supply
More than 60 percent of survey respondents express concern about food contamination.

WASHINGTON ? According to a survey conducted for National Public Radio by Reuters and released earlier this week, a large percentage of Americans are concerned about the safety of the food they eat, NPR reports.
Recent recalls of tainted lettuce and ground beef contaminated with E. coli are just two food-related events that have 61 percent of NPR's respondents "concerned" about contamination of the food supply, with 51 percent worried most about meat and 23 percent concerned about produce (milk, by comparison, elicited concerns from just four percent of respondents).
The recent Gulf oil spill has raised fears of seafood contamination, with more than one-third of the survey's respondents saying their fears have increased over the past three months, roughly the time that oil has been spilling into the Gulf of Mexico.
As for ways to improve food safety, the responses varied. More people said food companies need to improve their internal checks than those who called for stricter oversight or penalties.
As for the provision in the bipartisan food safety bill that passed the House last year, whereby the FDA is given power to force food companies to recall tainted products, eighty percent expressed support for the legislation.
Ten percent of the survey's respondents reported getting sick from food in the last six months, with more than a quarter of those having to seek medical care.

Emerging food safety issues 2010: What's lurking on the horizon?
Related topics: Quality & Safety
Are you prepared for the next sudan-1 or melamine scandal? What are the food safety risks threatening the food supply chains of tomorrow, and do you have the technical and financial resources to deal with them?
Find out the answers to these questions and many more at Emerging Food Safety Issues 2010 the new conference from sister publication Food Manufacture.
Chaired by Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI) technical committee chairman Kevin Swoffer, a recognised expert on food safety standards, Emerging Food Safety Issues 2010 is a must-attend event for anyone involved in food safety issues, from technical, hygiene and quality managers to production and operations managers, regulatory managers and financial directors.

Topics explored in this exciting new conference include:

How to minimise the risks of food safety incidents as supply chains become more global
How to ensure strict hygiene standards are maintained and audits are fit for purpose as budgets get squeezed
How to reduce salt, fat and sugar without creating a food safety problem
How to stay on top of Campylobacter and Listeria
How to optimise HACCP procedures and ensure staff are properly trained
How new and novel technologies can help you stay safe
Confirmed speakers include:

Dr Tobin Robinson, head of emerging risks unit, European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)
Tim Smith, chief executive, Food Standards Agency (FSA)
Dr Sandra Stringer, senior research associate, BBSRC
Geoff Spriegel, director, BRC Global Standards
Debra Smith, research manager, Campden BRI
Dave Smith, partner, Eversheds
Simon Houghton-Dodd, head of quality and sustainability, Tate & Lyle Sugars Europe; vice chairman, SOFHT
Chris Grimes, SALSA scheme director
Craig Leadley, new products and technologies manager, Campden BRI
David Young, partner, Eversheds
Alec Kyriakides, head of quality, safety & supplier performance, Sainsbury¡¯s

Washing Raw Chicken Increases Food Poisoning Risk
by Jennifer Lawinski, Posted Jul 26th 2010 @ 2:00PM
Read more:
You might want to think twice before rinsing off raw chicken in your kitchen sink.
Recent studies by the British Food Standards Agency show that rinsing chicken can potentially spread bacteria on work surfaces in a three-foot radius, The Daily Telegraph reported. The report says up to 75 percent of consumers wash poultry before consuming it.
The FSA says 65 percent of raw chicken is contaminated with campylobacer, the most common cause of food poisoning, the paper reported. And while cooking will kill the bug, Campylobacter causes more than 300,000 cases of food poisoning and 15,000 hospitalizations a year in England and Wales.
That means washing your bird can spread harmful bacteria around your kitchen, potentially contaminating other foods in your kitchen that may not be cooked before eating.
The FSA is looking into ways to reduce contamination across the chicken production line, including disinfecting chickens with an antimicrobial wash -- a method not yet approved in the EU.
"Washing raw poultry is a common kitchen mistake, and it simply isn't necessary," an FSA spokeswoman told the Telegraph.
"Tap water won't get rid of the germs that cause food poisoning but they will be killed by thorough cooking. By washing your raw bird, you're actually more likely to spread the germs around the kitchen than get rid of them."
Read more:

Main Page
Sponsorship Qustions

ist of Newsletters

To subscribe this Food Safety Newsletter

Copyright (C). All rights reserved