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

8/5
2011
ISSUE:458

Sponsors







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


Job Opennings

 

Trainings from FoodHACCP.com
Basic and Advanced HACCP, Basic Food Safety Microbiology, and International Conference for Food Safety and Quality. To check more information, click on picture


To check more information, click on picture



Food Safety: Is it time to seriously consider routine use of irradiation?
Source : http://www.agweekly.com/articles/2011/08/01/news/opinion/opin46.txt
Byby Daryl E. Ray and Harwood Schaffer , (8. Jul. 2011)
In response to our previous columns—http://agpolicy.org/articles11.html—on the devastating E. coli 0104:H4 outbreak in Germany, a reporter called and asked the obvious question: “Can this happen in the US?” While we are neither pathologists nor epidemiologists, everything that we have read indicates that the answer is “Yes.” We have nothing in place to prevent this type of outbreak.
That said, there is still a lot to be learned about the particular configuration of this version of E. coli. Specifically, researchers are searching for information that will allow us to understand why this particular version of the disease has been so deadly and has left so many others with hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS), a kidney disease that will reshape the rest of their lives. As of Friday, June 17, 2011 the death toll from this outbreak had reached 39. In addition, 839 people out of at least 3,517 reported illnesses had come down with HUS.
In addition, while German scientists appear certain that bean sprouts were the vector for the disease, they have not identified the means by which the bean sprouts became contaminated with the E. coli. E. coli is an enteric bacteria and bean sprouts have no gut. Ultimately it had to come from the gut of a warm-blooded animal. To complicate the issue, the seeds that were used to produce the sprouts were sourced from Southern Europe, Asia, as well as Germany, making the tracking of the ultimate source exceedingly difficult.
The answers to all of these questions may identify policy needs beyond those we will discuss in this column.
Let’s begin our analysis by looking at the person who prepares the food for consumption. We start here because in everything we have read there is a set of bloggers who argue that proper hand and product washing, cross-contamination prevention, and thorough cooking are the solution to preventing outbreaks of food-borne illnesses.
We certainly agree that each of these is an important last step in the prevention of food-borne illnesses though we are not sure how to vigorously scrub bean sprouts and lettuce for 20 seconds. And we are unlikely to use cooked lettuce in a salad. At the same time, it appears a worker in a commercial kitchen, who became infected from the bean sprouts and spread the disease to other workers, amplifying the German outbreak. There is no substitution for good personal and kitchen hygiene practices in the prevention of the spread of illness.

  

But personal and kitchen hygiene are not enough, although it is the last line of defense. What’s critical is that the food that the ultimate preparer receives —here we are talking about food that has the potential to be contaminated with pathogens responsible for causing food-borne illnesses—has gone through a scientifically validated step to kill the bacteria that are responsible for food-borne illnesses.
This goes beyond testing. While sample-testing foods for these pathogens is important as may be designating them as adulterants, these steps alone will not eliminate them from entering the food system. The purpose of testing is to verify that the scientifically validated kill step is being properly implemented and identify when it is not. The purpose of designating various pathogens as adulterants is to make sure that once identified the affected product does not enter the food system.
What does that mean? It means that the washes that are used to reduce bacterial contamination—while they are important and have reduced the incidence of disease—are simply not enough. Washing may remove pathogens and reduce their number but it does not kill them. And in the case of vegetables, some incidents have pointed to pathogens in the wash water as the source of the contamination.
The use of irradiation would provide such a kill step. The American Meat Institute has even called for it. The problem is the use of irradiation is deemed to be an additive and thus listed on the label. Some consumers are turned off by the radura symbol that is used to indicate that the food has been irradiated. The symbol is required even if the irradiation is produced by an x-ray beam.
Yet, there are other “kill-step” approaches that need not be identified on the label. For example, even though harsh chemicals may be used in carcass washes in slaughterhouses, these chemical washes are considered to be a process (not additives) and thus need not be listed.
Irradiation is already used on much of the spices we use because it is more effective than fumigation in the killing of small pests that are difficult to remove by any other means. In the case of spices and some other products, the use of the radura symbol is not required.
Some oppose the use of irradiation, or want to continue the display of the radura symbol associated with it, because they attribute the development and spread of food pathogens to “the overcrowded and unsanitary conditions on factory farms that make animals susceptible to disease, and to the filthy conditions in slaughterhouses that endanger the health of people who eat that meat.” They worry that routine use of irradiation “would detract attention from improving negative health-related conditions in the production and slaughter of meat animals.”
There is some concern that the beams used in the irradiation cause chemical changes in the product that is detrimental to human health. Also, because irradiation kills bacteria, it has the effect of extending shelf-life of food products. For some, this is an advantage, while others see it as a way for the “industrial food system” to extend its control over the food system at the expense of local producers for whom the use of such a process might be prohibitively expensive.
We have no problem with the development of regulations and market-driven changes—reflecting changes in consumer preferences and attitudes—that reduce the likelihood that animals are raised in overcrowded, unsanitary, and inhumane conditions. Regardless of impetus, farmers would have to take these concerns seriously and make adjustments in their production practices if they are to retain the confidence of their consumers.
Likewise we support the development of continued development of processes that reduce the incidence of fecal contamination in the slaughter process and ensure the proper handling and sanitation of carcasses that have been externally contaminated.
We also support the development of local food systems and farmer markets.
In the end the question for us comes down to ensuring the delivery of safe food to the person who prepares the food for final consumption, be that a restaurant, caterer, or household cook.
While we acknowledge that there may be some risk with irradiation, the decision comes down to the number of unnecessary illnesses and deaths that can be prevented by the institution of a proven technology that we already use for some food products.
If current estimates are anywhere close, the numbers of illnesses and deaths that could be prevented by the use of irradiation—in combination with sanitary healthy growing conditions, proper slaughter and food processing practices, and the use of safe food handling and preparation practices at the consumer/restaurant level—is staggering.
Daryll E. Ray holds the Blasingame Chair of Excellence in Agricultural Policy, Institute of Agriculture, University of Tennessee, and is the Director of UT’s Agricultural Policy Analysis Center (APAC). Harwood D. Schaffer is a Research Assistant Professor at APAC. (865) 974-7407; Fax: (865) 974-7298; dray@utk.edu and hdschaffer@utk.edu; http://www.agpolicy.org

Does Turkey have a Salmonella Problem - Again?
Source : http://www.marlerblog.com/case-news/does-cargill-have-a-salmonella-turkey-problem/
by Bill Marler (July 31, 2011 )

I am at the 100th meeting of the International Association for Food Protection (IAFP) in Milwaukee (See our booth). All the talk of course was about food safety as I gave the opening speech this morning about the Food Safety Modernization Act and handed out $40,000 in scholarships to local, state and international health departments this evening.
However, the talk was also about yet another health advisory by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) that was issued Friday night due to concerns about illnesses caused by Salmonella Heidelberg that may be associated with use and consumption of ground turkey. The alert was initiated after there was an association between consumption of ground turkey products and an estimated 77 illnesses reported in 26 states. Yet, the name of the manufacturer was not named by the FSIS. Interestingly, just a few months ago Jennie-O Turkey Store, a Willmar, Minn. Establishment (owned by Hormel), recalled 54,960 pounds of frozen, raw turkey burger products. At the time the Wisconsin Department of Health and Family Services notified FSIS of a patient diagnosed with salmonellosis caused by Salmonella serotype Hadar. The investigation expanded to include 12 people in Arizona, California, Colorado, Georgia, Illincarois, Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio, Washington, and Wisconsin who also have been diagnosed with Salmonella Hadar infection. Well, Monday is just around the corner.

Japanese rice to be tested for radioactive caesium
Source : http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2011/8/1/worldupdates/2011-08-01T163710Z_01_NOOTR_RTRMDNC_0_-585608-1&sec=Worldupdates
ByBy Yuko Takeo (August 1, 2011 )
More than a dozen regional governments in Japan will conduct tests to determine whether locally grown rice contains too much radioactive caesium, farm ministry officials said on Monday, as food safety worries spill into the country's traditional staple.
Public fears over radiation in food have grown after the world's worst nuclear crisis in 25 years at Fukushima plant in northeast Japan, and excessive levels of radiation have been found in beef, vegetables, tea, milk, seafood and water. The government on Monday ordered Iwate prefecture in northern Japan to halt shipments of beef cattle after radiation exceeding safety standards was found in some Iwate beef, expanding the target of shipment ban from Fukushima and Miyagi.
For rice, at least 14 prefectural governments in north and east Japan, which account for more than 40 percent of the country's total rice output, will test their rice before their harvest season to determine whether levels of caesium exceeds the safety standards, a farm ministry official said. If the level of caesium in rice exceeds the government-imposed cap of 500 becquerels per kilogram, shipments from locally produced rice will be halted, the official added. "Continuous consumption of rice containing caesium above the government-imposed limit of 500 becquerels per kg over a year will result in internal radiation exposure above 5 millisieverts, one of the more conservative standards for radiation exposure set by the International Commission on Radiological Protection," said the Japanese health ministry. One becquerel means the activity of a quantity of radioactive material in which one nucleus decays per second. Japan, which produced about 8.3 million tonnes of rice last year for food consumption, mostly consumes its own produce, though it exported some 1,900 tonnes last year to countries including Hong Kong, Singapore and Taiwan.
Chiba prefecture, north of Tokyo which has an early harvest deadline, plans to carry out its tests in the next two days, said Shigetoshi Abe, a Chiba prefectural government official, adding the central government's response has been too slow. "We had been telling the central government that tests will be needed for Chiba as quickly as possible at least a month and a half ago," he said. Abe is not overly worried about the test results, but said Chiba will conduct extra tests for rice showing caesium levels of 200 becquerels per kilogram or more, given the importance of rice in the Japanese diet, after the initial rounds of checks are done. News of the tests comes as farmers in northern Japan are already struggling with multiple environmental pressures, including those in Niigata and Fukushima, which saw heavy rainfall last week. "I am more worried about the effects of harmful rumours spreading concerning radiation," said a Fukushima rice farmer, who declined to be named due to worries about the reputation of his grain. (Additional reporting by Chikako Mogi, Yoko Kubota and Kiyoshi Takenaka; Editing by Ramthan Hussain)

"Dead Milk" 23, "Magic Milk" 202
Source : http://www.marlerblog.com/lawyer-oped/dead-milk-23-magic-milk-202/
by Bill Marler ( July 30, 2011 )
I was asked to talk with Sally Fallon Morrell on the Kojo Nnamdi show on WAMU Public Radio in D.C. last week in what the host determined to be the "Raw Milk Wars." The producer who called me said that she had tried to find someone, anyone, in public health to go on the show, but everyone refused. So, she was left with me.
Sally, who has become famous for her pronouncement that raw milk is "magic" was pleasant enough, as was the host and the callers – even my friend Harry. Some the comments on the WAMU were a bit harsh, but after two decades of being a lawyer, I am more than used to that. I especially warm to the comments by members of the "Teat Party."
I was struck by a number of things that Sally said during the show. One assertion she said made me think I need to do the experiment she suggested of putting Campylobacter in raw milk, leaving it in the fridge for two days with the bottle cap off, and like magic, the Campylobacter disappears.
I was not at all surprised that she mentioned that between 1% and 3% of people in the U.S. consume raw milk – recent CDC's FoodNet data supports that. This gets me back to "Dead Milk" 23, "Magic Milk" 202 – who is winning? I have been keeping track of "Outbreaks, Illnesses and Recalls Linked to Raw (Unpasteurized) and Pasteurized Dairy Products, United States since January 1, 2010 – July 30, 2011."
Here is the breakdown:
Outbreaks
18 raw dairy outbreaks with 202 illnesses, 24 hospitalizations, and no deaths (16 fluid raw milk, 2 aged raw milk cheese)
1 pasteurized dairy outbreak with 23 illnesses, 2 hospitalizations, and no deaths
1 queso fresco Mexican-style cheese outbreak with 5 illnesses and hospitalizations, no deaths
3 sporadic illnesses and hospitalizations from illegal Mexican-style cheese, no deaths
Recalls (no illnesses reported)
11 raw dairy (5 fluid raw milk, 6 aged raw milk cheese)
6 queso fresco Mexican-style cheese
1 chocolate milk due to inadequate pasteurization
1 imported Italian cheese made from pasteurized milk
I know, I know David, some of the raw milk outbreaks and recalls are from raw milk that is intended to be pasteurized, but someone simply could not wait and drank it raw. However, many of the above outbreaks and recalls came from raw milk truly intended to be consumed that way, and the outbreaks and recalls still happened. Given the amount of pasteurized milk and cheese consumed in the U.S. yearly versus the amount of raw milk and cheese consumed, 23 illnesses (although unacceptable) sure seems like the winning side when then raw milk side is sickening 202.
I am sure that David, Young Bill or Sally might well dispute the numbers above or claim the outbreaks did not happen, or the recalls were not necessary, or there is simply a grand conspiracy to try and pry the glass of raw milk or slice of cheese out of their cold dead hands. That is a debate public health should be engaged in.
There is one assertion – well, lie – that Sally made that I cannot let pass. She flatly said that the 2006 E. coli O157:H7 outbreak that sickened two of my clients severely, was not linked to Organic Pastures Dairy raw milk – Sally, it was. Here are the facts – not the "magic:"
On September 18, 2006, the California Department of Health Services (CDHS) opened an investigation of a possible outbreak of E. coli O157:H7 infections after receiving reports of two patients who had been hospitalized with HUS. One was culture confirmed as infected with E. coli O157:H7. Interviews revealed that both patients had consumed unpasteurized cow milk sold by Organic Pastures in the week prior to the onset of illness. In the following days, four additional cases of E. coli O157:H7 were identified. All of the additional cases had consumed raw milk or raw cow product sold by Organic Pastures. Isolates of the E. coli O157:H7 cultured from the five culture-positive patients had indistinguishable "genetic fingerprints" as determined by pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE) testing. These PFGE patterns were new to the national PulseNet database. In other words, the pattern associated with all of these children was unique, and had not been seen before in conjunction with any other outbreaks of E. coli O157:H7. In addition, the PFGE pattern differed markedly from the patterns associated with the outbreak of E. coli O157:H7 associated with Dole fresh-bagged baby spinach that had peaked a few weeks prior to these illnesses.
CDHS conducted an epidemiological and environmental investigation of the cluster of illnesses.A review of 50 consecutive E. coli O157:H7 cases reported to CDHS from October 2004 to June 2006 revealed that 46 of 47 cases asked about raw milk consumption reported no raw milk consumption. In contrast, five of the six patients in the cluster being investigated reported definite consumption of Organic Pastures raw dairy products. The sixth denied consuming the raw milk, but his family routinely consumed Organic Pastures raw milk during the suspected time frame. Two of the children (one that was stool culture negative for E. coli O157:H7) developed Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome.
The California Department of Food and Agriculture conducted an environmental investigation. As part of the investigation, fecal samples were collected from dairy cows at Organic Pastures. E. coli O157:H7 was isolated from five of the samples, although the PFGE patterns differed from the pattern associated with the outbreak. Testing of Organic Pastures product revealed abnormally high aerobic plate counts and fecal coliform counts. CDHS ultimately concluded: "the source of infection for these children was likely raw milk products produced by the dairy." The CDC published this report in 2008. And, if you want to dig deeper into that outbreak, see this post: "Organic Pastures Dairy E. coli O157:H7 Raw Milk Product Outbreak 2006." Download the documents, read them and realize that the defendant had no response – no facts and no experts to support Sally's contention that the illnesses were caused by spinach. Given that all of the six consumed Organic Pastures raw milk and not all of the six consumed spinach and none of them consumed Dole spinach, it is time for Sally to stop the big lie. It is past time for the raw milk industry – yes, you are an industry – to embrace the facts and embrace the truth about raw milk outbreaks. It is time to put the conspiracy theories away and learn from mistakes. Learning is the only way to avoid being on the loosing side of outbreaks and that is something we all can agree is worth it. For more information about raw milk, visit www.realrawmilkfacts.com or see our poster we are presenting at IAFP.

Raw Milk Threat Continues in Alaska
Source :http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2011/08/outbreak-tied-to-raw-milk-continues-in-alaska/
by News Desk( Aug 01, 2011)
At least 18 people have now been sickened in an outbreak of Campylobacter infection associated with raw milk from a cow-share farm in Alaska's Matanuska-Susitna (Mat-Su) Valley, according to an updated epidemiology bulletin from the state Department of Health and Social Services. The Alaskan outbreak, first reported in late June, is ongoing and remains a threat to consumers, the June 28 update states. Four people were initially reported to be sick with campylobacteriosis; the 18 now affected include seven lab-confirmed cases and 11 suspected cases. Laboratory results combined with the epidemiological finding that raw milk consumption from the same dairy (identified as "Farm A") is the only exposure common to all the cases "confirms the conclusion that this outbreak is due to consumption of Farm A raw dairy products," the bulletin states. Campylobacter jejuni bacteria isolated in manure samples from the grazing field and in the calf barn matched the bacteria isolated from the seven laboratory-confirmed patients, as identified by pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE), the health department said. Milk samples from the bulk tank, collected on June 22 and 27, tested negative for Campylobacter but positive for Listeria monocytogenes, the bulletin reported. None of the raw milk actually consumed by the ill persons was available for testing. "It is not surprising that C. jejuni was not detected in Farm A bulk tank samples because C. jejuni is notoriously difficult to culture from environmental specimens other than raw stool, and few campylobacteriosis outbreak investigations yield laboratory confirmation of an implicated food source such as raw milk or produce," the Alaska public health officials wrote. "Contamination might have resulted from introduction of manure into the milk or cream at some point in time from milking to filling the containers, or a cow (or cows) with an infected udder may be intermittently shedding Campylobacter directly into the milk," the bulletin added. "Regardless of the exact mechanism of contamination, with confirmed cases reporting consumption of dairy products over an 8-week period from May to July, this outbreak poses an ongoing threat to Farm A raw dairy product consumers." Alaska state law does not permit the sale of unpasteurized milk, but does allow owning shares of an animal to obtain raw milk -- which does not have to be tested before it is distributed, an Alaska Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS) spokesman said in an earlier news release.

Only one deadly strain of E. coli is illegal
Source : http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/food/2011-07-25-ecoli-testing_n.htm
By Elizabeth Weise(July, 27, 2011)
The food-safety world knows there are a half-dozen or more lethal forms of E. coli ending up in our meat or on our leafy greens that are so virulent they can send people to the hospital and even kill them.
But in the United States only one, E. coli O157:H7, is officially termed an adulterant, meaning any raw ground beef that tests positive for it cannot be sold for human consumption. There's no requirement that companies test for the other lethal strains, and it's not illegal for them to be in the food.
And that, says a growing chorus of lawmakers, food-safety and consumer advocates, needs to change. But attempts by these legislators and interest groups to broaden the types of E. coli strains that are specifically subject to federal regulation so far haven't succeeded.
"We cannot afford to wait for a tragic outbreak before taking action," Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., said earlier this month in a letter to the secretary of Agriculture.
In the absence of specific federal oversight, however, some companies have begun their own testing for these pathogens to protect consumers and their own bottom lines.
First out of the chute was Costco, which began testing its ground beef two months ago. Beef Products Inc., the nation's largest supplier of lean beef, began testing on July 18.
There's also movement in the produce and leafy greens world, where multiple producers and retailers have been testing for E. coli O157:H7 since the spinach outbreak that almost wiped out the leafy green vegetable market in 2006.
In the past few months, newly available tests have made it possible to check for a broader number of the microbes and they now include the harmful group of E. coli strains beyond O157:H7 known as the Big Six.
The reasons these bugs aren't currently regulated are a mix of politics, money and plain biology - the bacteria are constantly evolving and turning up in new and nastier forms, making writing rules about them a bit of a nightmare.
For example, the German E. coli variant that sickened more than 4,075 in Europe and killed 50, including one Arizona resident who traveled to Germany, wasn't known before this spring. It's only the latest in a list of E. coli types that can get into food and kill people.
If you've been hit by one of the unregulated forms of E. coli, you know they can be as nasty as the one that is illegal. Just ask Richard Cardinale. The 19-year-old Ohio State University student was studying for a math exam last year when he got stomach pains "so unbearable" he couldn't do anything but lie in bed.
By morning he knew something was seriously wrong, and he went to the emergency room. He was having bloody diarrhea and was in such pain he couldn't stand up. "It was scary, it was so severe," he says. Cardinale spent the night in the hospital. It took him more than a week and a half to recover.
The infection that laid him low was a lesser-known E. coli, O145. That particular outbreak sickened as many as 33 people in Ohio, Michigan and New York. It was later linked to romaine lettuce. Cardinale was one of several students at Ohio State who were sickened after eating at a newly opened salad bar on campus.
Why only O157:H7?
There are literally thousands of forms of E. coli that live harmlessly in the guts of mammals. But in 1993, the E. coli O157:H7 variant, which had been seen only a few times before, caused an outbreak linked to undercooked hamburgers at Jack in the Box restaurants on the West Coast that killed four children and sickened more than 700. USDA decided to single out E. coli O157:H7 because it was especially virulent and seemed to cause illness when present even in very small amounts in hamburger. It can cause abdominal pain, bloody diarrhea, kidney failure and death.
So, in 1994, the Department of Agriculture, which oversees meat safety, declared that E. coli O157:H7 in ground beef was an adulterant. Beef producers have to have systems in place to eliminate it, and cook, treat or destroy any product that contained it. That's a different stance than the one taken by the Food and Drug Administration, which oversees pretty much all foods but meat. On July 3, FDA, in the middle of the German E. coli outbreak, made a low-key statement that any strain of E. coli that makes humans acutely ill in food was illegal. It didn't go so far as to call them an adulterant, but made clear they weren't allowed in any foods the agency oversaw, which is most ready-to-eat products. The catch is that the FDA doesn't test products, so there's no way to know when a product is contaminated. The Food Safety Modernization Act, which begins to go into effect later this year, will require companies to show they're putting safeguards into place, but doesn't specifically mention these pathogens.
If all this seems a little confusing, it is. Food-safety advocates want both the USDA and the FDA to agree that these most common forms of E. coli known to harm humans should be labeled as adulterants.
As it stands now, any meat that tests positive for the O157:H7 form of E. coli has to be removed from the market. But for other types of E. coli that are known to harm humans, it takes an illness to trigger a recall, says Nancy Donley, of STOP Foodborne Illness, a food-safety advocacy group started by parents who've lost children to these pathogens. "This is clearly not as it should be," she says.
The push to get these debilitating but non-O157:H7 forms of E. coli regulated has been coming for a long time. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has long required they be reported.
Petitions to label these other forms of E. coli as adulterants came from petitions filed in 2009 by Seattle food-safety lawyer Bill Marler and in February of 2010 by the STOP Foodborne Illness group.
Then in January the USDA submitted a request to the White House Office of Management and Budget so that it could create new rules on these E. coli subtypes.
OMB is "actively working to move this through the standard process," says spokeswoman Margaret Reilly.
Now, members of Congress are losing patience. Rep. DeLauro has asked Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack to declare the Big Six as adulterants in ground beef. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., last month introduced legislation that would require the USDA to target all high-risk pathogens and all currently unregulated strains of E. coli found in the meat supply that have been proved to cause food-borne illnesses. She has also asked OMB to allow the USDA to require testing for the strains.
Industry moves ahead
But as tests become available, some companies aren't waiting for the feds to act. In the last six months, test kits for leafy greens have become available for the Big Six E. coli variants from IEH Laboratories in Lake Forest Park, Wash.; DuPont Qualicon in Wilmington Del.; and BioControl Systems in Bellevue, Wash.; and others are in the works. For ground beef, they're in late testing phase or became available in the past two months. In just the past two weeks, tests for the German E. coli O104:H4 variant hit the market.
IEH Laboratories has been testing for a broad range of these pathogenic E. colis for years now. "We had been finding a lot of these things in products right and left," says President Mansour Samadpour.
Most forms of E. coli are harmless, but they're known for their ability to grab genes and thus borrow attributes from other organisms. The O157:H7 strain grabbed a gene that produces the Shiga toxin. The German E. coli variant not only has Shiga toxin but another that helps it latch onto cells in the walls of the gut, so the toxins build up and destroy the tissue.
Industry comment
The meat industry says it's too early to declare the various dangerous E. coli subtypes as adulterants.
"We don't have a true baseline determining the prevalence of these organisms in the beef supply," says Betsy Booren of the American Meat Institute (AMI) Foundation, the research arm of AMI. Without knowing how common they are, it's impossible to say whether they should be considered adulterants, she says.
AMI believes that testing for E. coli O157:H7 in many ways takes the place of testing for a broader range of E. coli variants, because if you get a positive for E. coli O157:H7, you know there's been fecal contamination and so other variants might be there as well.
National Cattlemen's Beef Association research Vice President J.O. "Bo" Reagan says the group supports "collaborative food-safety research to ensure we have the latest science and knowledge to guide our industry forward." Whether a company wants to test or not should be its own decision, he says.
Why is there push-back against testing? One reason is cost, says STOP's Donley. Mandatory testing costs money; so does correcting a problem if one is found.
In meat, contaminated product can be cooked and sold, but it's worth a lot less than fresh meat, Donley says. That's why FDA and USDA need to step in, she says: "We're counting on these agencies to put the public's health and safety first, and it can't be concerned on the industry's bottom line."




6th
International Conference for
Food Safety and Quality

November 8-9, 2011
Holiday Inn Chicago O'Hare Hotel
5615 North Cumberland Avenue, Chicago, Illinois 60631

Major Topic: Detection Methods for
Microbiological/Chemical Hazards for Food Safety and Quality

20% registration fee off by 8/31/2011
Registration

Tuesday, November 8, 2011
Conference Place: Holiday Inn (Conference Room)

7:00 - 8:30 Registration and Breakfast (Juice, Tea, Coffee) and Poster Display
(***Exhibitors displaying time : 7:00-9:00 AM***)

8:40 - 9:00 Opening Announcement


Program
Section A. Importance of Detection Methods for Food Safety and Quality

9:00 - 9:50 - The Importance of detection methods for food safety and quality

Michael Doyle
University of Georgia



9:50 - 10:40 - Advanced Detection methods for food safety and quality


Mansel Griffiths
University of Geulph
Editor of AEM



10:40 - 11:00 -
Coffee Break in Exhibitors' Section


11:00 - 11:50 - Current Foodborne Outbreak and legal issues


William D. Marler, Esq.
MarlerClark attorneys at Law



11:50 - 12:00: Exhibitos Presentation and GROUP PICTURE

12:00 - 1:00: Lunch buffet will be supported (Holiday Inn, Dinning Room)


Section B. Detection methods for Food Allergen Residues

1:00 - 1:50 - Detection of Food Allergen Residues in Processed Foods and Food Processing Facilities

Stephen Taylor
University of Nebraska
Director - Food Allergy Research and Resource Program



1:50 - 2:20 - Rapid Testing for Allergen Control Programs
Presentation by Ryan Waters
Charm Science

2:20 - 2:30 - Break / Visit Companies' Booth


Section C. Molecular/Immunoassay methods for Detection of Microbiological and Chemical hazards

2:30 - 3:10 - Costco Way for Food Safety and Quality

Robin Forgey
Food Safety Quality Manager
Costco



3:10 - 3:50 -
Novel biosensor technologies for high throughput screening of pathogens and toxins

A. Bhurnia
Professor, Purdue University

 


3:50 - 4:10- Innovative detection methods with immunoassay based method
Presented by SDI




4:10 -4:30 - Novel nucleic acid testing methods for industrial applications
Presented by Roka Bioscience



4:30 - 5:30 - Panel Discussion (All key speakers will be joined)

Stan Bailey
2008 IAFP President, bioMerieux





5:30
- Adjourn



Wed. November 9, 2011
Conference Place: Holiday Inn (Conference Room)

7:00 - 8:30 Registration and Breakfast (Juice, Tea, Coffee) and Poster Display
8:40 - 9:00 Poster Competition Award



Section D. Importance of conventional/biochemical detection methods for Food safety and Quality

9:00 - 9:40 - Rapid Methods/Automation and a Look into the Future

Daniel Y.C. Fung
Director of Rapid Methods and Automation in Microbiology Workshop (KSU)
Professor, Kansas State University



9:40 - 10:20 -
Rapid Methods and Automation Workshop for 30 years

P.C. Vasavada
Director of Rapid Methods and Automation in Microbiology Workshop (UW)
Professor, University of Wisconsin



10:20 - 10:40 - Coffee Break in Exhibitors' Section

10:40 - 10:50 - Presentation Title from Company presentation

bioMerieux

11:00 - 11:30 - New demands for Rapid and Automative Detection Methods for Food Safety

Stan Bailey
2008 IAFP President, bioMerieux

 

11:30 - 12:00 - Rapid methods for monitoring microbial numbers for food industries

Gregory Siragusa
Senior Principal Scientist
Danisco USA

 

12:00 -12:20 - Innovative methods for detection of microbiological/chemical hazards for food safety

Dupont Qualicon


12:20 - 1:30
- Lunch buffet will be supported (Holiday Inn, Dinning Room)


Section E. Impacts of Advanced/Conventional Detection methods on Food Industries

1:30 - 2:10 - Impact of detection methods for food industries

Robert Koeritzer
2006 AOAC President




2:10 - 2:30 - Application of several detection methods for Food industries

remel

2:30 - 2:40 - Coffee Break in Exhibitors' Section

2:40 - 3:10 - The importance of detection procedures for food safety by 3rd party

Erdogan Ceylan
Director, Silliker



3:10 - 4:00 Application of Rapid Methods for Food Industries

Paul Hall
IAFP President (2004)
President, AIV Consulting LLC.


4:00 - 4:30 - Attendees' Certificate / Adjourn







Main Page
Sponsorship Qustions

ist of Newsletters

To subscribe this Food Safety Newsletter

Copyright (C). All rights reserved FoodHACCP.com.