E. coli in Ground Beef - FSIS Data and Risk

USDA-FSIS recently updated their data on E. coli O157:H7 in ground beef and trim through July 8, 2012 (http://www.fsis.usda.gov/Science/RGBC_STEC_Results/index.asp).  In order to get a visual representation of the risk associated with ground beef, the year-end results were plotted.  Only routine samples were evaluated for ground beef (both federal plant and retail).  Based upon this sampling, E. coli O157:H7 is found in approximately 0.1% to 0.2% of ground beef samples.

This rate is a lower than the percent positive found in trim (beef trim that goes into ground beef).  For 2011, trim verification yielded a 0.64% positive and thru 7/2012, 0.53%.

The results indicate that interventions put in place by the meat industry have had an impact in reducing the level of E. coli in ground beef, however, from a consumer's perspective, careful handling and preparation is required.  Specifically, cleaning hands and food contact surfaces when handling and preparing, and cooking to the proper internal temperature of 160ºF.

Issues with meat processing availability as local demand increases

This USDA-ERS report, Slaughter and Processing Options and Issues for Locally Sourced Meat, (http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/ldp/2012/06Jun/ldpm21601/ldpm21601.pdf), points out what we have seen for some time - the lack of ‘local’ animal processing capabilities. This has become more of an issue as the trend to local food increases. An important point made in the report is whether a local facility can be viable when taking into account potential inconsistency in supply and the difficulty of determining actual consumer demand. Not discussed to any great extent are the regulatory challenges.

 Abstract

Demand for locally sourced meats has increased in recent years, although it remains a small share of total demand. This report evaluates the availability of slaughter and processing facilities for local meat production and the extent to which these may constrain or support growth in demand for locally sourced meats. Types, number, location, and other salient characteristics of slaughter and processing facilities are outlined by State. Further disaggregation of facilities by capacity and annual volume by species also provides information on slaughter and processing options for local meat producer/marketers. Findings suggest that access to Federal or State-inspected slaughter and processing facilities is limited in some parts of the country. In addition, alternative small-scale slaughter and processing facilities may not be economically feasible in all areas due to a lack of consistent throughput. Alternative methods for slaughter and processing geared toward local markets—such as the use of mobile slaughter units (MSUs) and local and regional market aggregators—can help meet some of the need for increased slaughter and processing capacity in localized areas and enable the growth of small livestock producers marketing product to consumers in their region or community. However, growth in small-scale slaughter and processing facilities depends on whether producers in need of these services can provide enough throughput, for enough of the year, and pay a high enough fee for the services to make such facilities economically viable. This, in turn, depends on the strength of consumer demand for local meats in the coming years.

FSIS issues verification testing for Non O157 STECs

FSIS has just issued the Verification Testing for Non-O157 STEC for Beef Trimmings. While this new wrinkle in the E. coli-Beef trim issue has caused a lot of concern, the anticipated outcome may not come anywhere close to the hype.  

Domestic product http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/rdad/FSISNotices/29-12.pdf
Imported http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/rdad/FSISNotices/30-12.pdf

Background - On June 4th, FSIS will begin testing for six non-0157 serogroups (O26, O45, O103, O111, O121, and O145) in addition to O157:H7. Like E. coli O157:H7, these E. coli serogroups are viewed as adulterants in non-intact raw beef products and product components (raw ground beef and beef trim).

A few interesting notes:
1) FSIS does not expect establishments to reassess their HACCP plans because of this testing implementation. (Facilities should address non-O157 STEC in their Hazard Analysis.)

2) FSIS will not schedule a for-cause FSA in response to a non-O157 positive sample result. Outside of that, FSIS will follow Directive 10,010.3 Rev 3 including resampling. (And corrective action for positive product, which will include holding and dispositioning of positive product). http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/rdad/FSISDirectives/10010.1Rev3.pdf

3) “FSIS recognizes that establishments will begin taking steps to address non-O157 STECs in their HACCP systems and performing activities to gather data to validate that their food safety systems are adequately designed to control non-O157 STECs. Establishments are to document and identify in their initial validation activity plans the time frame in which they will have accumulated sufficient data to conclude that their food safety systems are demonstrated to be adequate to control for the relevant non-O157 STECs”.

4) FSIS will not require establishments to adjust their existing testing programs for non-O157 STEC.

5) A confirmed positive is an isolate that has stx and eae genes and one or more of the target serogroup genes (O45, O26, O113, etc.). A positive is not just a positive for the genes, but the bacterium must be isolated and biochemically confirmed, so establishments should be prepared to deal with false positives.