According to news reports (link below), health officials from Georgia and CDC are investigating an outbreak of E. coli O145 that has made 14 ill across 6 southern states (GA, AL, TN, FL, CA and LA). One 21-month-old girl from New Orleans has died as a result of complications of infection. The source of this outbreak is not yet known.
E. coli O145, like the E. coli O157:H7 strains can cause severe diarrhea as well as damage kidney function. It has not been linked to as many outbreaks as the O157 strain, but was responsible for the 2010 outbreak linked to shredded romaine lettuce where there 26 confirmed cases and 7 probable. http://www.cdc.gov/ecoli/2010/ecoli_o145/index.html
USDA identifies this O145 strain along with O157 and 5 other STEC strains as adulterants and began testing for these strains on meat trimmings on June 4, 2012. From the USDA May 31st news release (below): “ The additional strains that will be treated as adulterants beginning today are Shiga-toxin producing E. coli (STEC) serogroups O26, O45, O103, O111, O121 and O145. Like E. coli O157:H7, these serogroups can cause severe illness and even death, and young children and the elderly are at highest risk.”
E. coli outbreak in six states sickens 14, kills childJune 8, 2012 1:21 PM CBS News Staff
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-57449652-10391704/e-coli-outbreak-in-six-states-sickens-14-kills-child/
(CBS/AP) - Health officials are investigating a mysterious and scattered outbreak of the E. coli bacteria linked to 14 illnesses and one death.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said no form of contaminated food or other cause has been identified in the illnesses, which occurred in April and May. They are spread among six states.
Three people were hospitalized. One - a child in the New Orleans area - died last week. The Georgia Department of Public Health on Wednesday confirmed to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution the state has five confirmed cases with one sufferer needing hospitalization.
The outbreak strain is E. coli 0145, a dangerous but not well-known type of bacteria. The strain was fingered in a 2010 outbreak that sickened more than two dozen people in at least five states. The most commonly identified strain in North America is E. coli O157, and has been responsible for numerous outbreaks.
Some strains of E. coli are harmless, but others can cause serious and potentially lethal illnesses, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. E. coli infection typically causes stomach cramps, diarrhea (sometimes bloody), vomiting, and mild fever. Some kinds of E. coli can cause diarrhea, while others cause urinary tract infections, respiratory illness and pneumonia, and other illnesses.
Symptoms typically appear within four days, though sometimes the "incubation period" can last a week.
Friday, June 8, 2012
Monday, June 4, 2012
Insurance and Foodborne Illness Outbreaks
When a foodborne illness outbreak occurs, having insurance, and enough insurance, can be the difference between a company surviving or not. Below is an article on liability insurance with regard to Jensen Farms and the cantaloupe outbreak.
Many firms carry liability insurance, which helps to cover claims in the event of a foodborne illness case. In some cases, such as with the cantaloupe outbreak, Jensen Farms had an insufficient amount of insurance to cover the deaths resulting from Listeria infection.
Liability insurance is different from recall insurance, which is needed to cover the cost of a recall. Recalls can be extremely costly, especially when large amounts of product must be recalled. Topps Meats (E. coli O157:H7) had insufficient recall insurance to cover the massive recall (21.7 million pounds of ground meat) after their product was linked to a foodborne illness outbreak.
It is hard to plan for the worst, and even to plan for the unthinkable. Of course, investing in the company’s food safety program could go a long way in preventing issues like this in the first place.
Liability insurance: How much is enough? by Tim Linden The Produce Newshttp://producenews.com/index.php/news-dep-menu/test-featured/7945-liability-insurance-how-much-is-enough
Colorado-based Jensen Farms, which was the source of the Listeria-tainted cantaloupes that sickened and killed scores of people last year, recently filed for bankruptcy protection as there is no way its liability insurance coverage will cover the claims arising from the case.
Bill Marler of Marler Clark, a well-known Seattle-based attorney who specializes in foodborne illness cases, said that if all 146 people sickened or killed file claims, the damages would be in the neighborhood of $150 million. Though it baffles him as to why, in these types of cases, typically less than half of the victims do file claims.
In this case about 50 claims have been filed so far, representing about two-thirds of the deaths and only about 25 percent of the illnesses. Virtually everyone who fell ill was hospitalized, he said, so basically every one of the 146 people have legitimate expenses caused by the eating of those cantaloupes.
Still, he estimates that the total damages for the 55 or so claims that will be filed would be about $75 million — only half of the potential damages but still much more than the $2.5 million liability insurance coverage that Jensen owns.
Mr. Marler said that as part of the bankruptcy proceedings, Jensen Farms will put that $2.5 million in a trust fund that will be administered by a special master and distributed to the claimants in some equitable way.
In this case, Greg Nelson, director of commercial lines for Western Growers Insurance Services, based in Irvine, CA, said it was virtually impossible for the Colorado firm to have enough liability insurance to cover the damages.
“In the first place, it would be very difficult to find an insurance company to write that large of a policy for a company of that size,” he said. “And secondly, it would be very expensive.”
Mr. Nelson said that general business liability insurance, which covers product liability, costs about $1,000 to $2,000 per year for each $1 million in coverage. So even if Jensen Farms could have found a policy for $100 million, it would have cost them between $100,000 and $200,000 per year.
The Western Growers executive said that for most companies of that size, it would not be a prudent business decision. “How much a company buys is strictly a business decision,” he said.
While he said that there is no rule of thumb, most produce firms have policies in the $1 million to $2 million range, though it is not uncommon for some of the mid-size or larger companies to have $5 million to $10 million in liability coverage.
And Mr. Nelson said that the largest companies in the industry might have $25 million to $50 million policies, especially if they sell to the larger retailers, which demand that type of coverage from some of their customers.
He said that the average company should start with the value of their firm when determining how much coverage to buy. A firm with about $10 million in assets might have a $10 million general business liability policy. More coverage than that might be difficult to justify as a business decision when what is being protected against is a very rare occurrence.
After all, a catastrophic event like the Listeria outbreak tied to cantaloupes is almost a one-in-a-million occurrence.
“I’d rather see them spend the money on prevention so that they don’t have a problem,” he said.
Many firms carry liability insurance, which helps to cover claims in the event of a foodborne illness case. In some cases, such as with the cantaloupe outbreak, Jensen Farms had an insufficient amount of insurance to cover the deaths resulting from Listeria infection.
Liability insurance is different from recall insurance, which is needed to cover the cost of a recall. Recalls can be extremely costly, especially when large amounts of product must be recalled. Topps Meats (E. coli O157:H7) had insufficient recall insurance to cover the massive recall (21.7 million pounds of ground meat) after their product was linked to a foodborne illness outbreak.
It is hard to plan for the worst, and even to plan for the unthinkable. Of course, investing in the company’s food safety program could go a long way in preventing issues like this in the first place.
Liability insurance: How much is enough? by Tim Linden The Produce Newshttp://producenews.com/index.php/news-dep-menu/test-featured/7945-liability-insurance-how-much-is-enough
Colorado-based Jensen Farms, which was the source of the Listeria-tainted cantaloupes that sickened and killed scores of people last year, recently filed for bankruptcy protection as there is no way its liability insurance coverage will cover the claims arising from the case.
Bill Marler of Marler Clark, a well-known Seattle-based attorney who specializes in foodborne illness cases, said that if all 146 people sickened or killed file claims, the damages would be in the neighborhood of $150 million. Though it baffles him as to why, in these types of cases, typically less than half of the victims do file claims.
In this case about 50 claims have been filed so far, representing about two-thirds of the deaths and only about 25 percent of the illnesses. Virtually everyone who fell ill was hospitalized, he said, so basically every one of the 146 people have legitimate expenses caused by the eating of those cantaloupes.
Still, he estimates that the total damages for the 55 or so claims that will be filed would be about $75 million — only half of the potential damages but still much more than the $2.5 million liability insurance coverage that Jensen owns.
Mr. Marler said that as part of the bankruptcy proceedings, Jensen Farms will put that $2.5 million in a trust fund that will be administered by a special master and distributed to the claimants in some equitable way.
In this case, Greg Nelson, director of commercial lines for Western Growers Insurance Services, based in Irvine, CA, said it was virtually impossible for the Colorado firm to have enough liability insurance to cover the damages.
“In the first place, it would be very difficult to find an insurance company to write that large of a policy for a company of that size,” he said. “And secondly, it would be very expensive.”
Mr. Nelson said that general business liability insurance, which covers product liability, costs about $1,000 to $2,000 per year for each $1 million in coverage. So even if Jensen Farms could have found a policy for $100 million, it would have cost them between $100,000 and $200,000 per year.
The Western Growers executive said that for most companies of that size, it would not be a prudent business decision. “How much a company buys is strictly a business decision,” he said.
While he said that there is no rule of thumb, most produce firms have policies in the $1 million to $2 million range, though it is not uncommon for some of the mid-size or larger companies to have $5 million to $10 million in liability coverage.
And Mr. Nelson said that the largest companies in the industry might have $25 million to $50 million policies, especially if they sell to the larger retailers, which demand that type of coverage from some of their customers.
He said that the average company should start with the value of their firm when determining how much coverage to buy. A firm with about $10 million in assets might have a $10 million general business liability policy. More coverage than that might be difficult to justify as a business decision when what is being protected against is a very rare occurrence.
After all, a catastrophic event like the Listeria outbreak tied to cantaloupes is almost a one-in-a-million occurrence.
“I’d rather see them spend the money on prevention so that they don’t have a problem,” he said.
Friday, June 1, 2012
Hotel Chain uses UV ligh to clean?
Will you choose your next hotel because they use UV light to protect you from bacteria and viruses? You can say that using UV light is probably better than not using it, all things being equal. UV light will sanitize (not clean) surfaces, however, if that surface is not first cleaned (water, soap) and that surface is dirty, that dirt can block the killing effect of UV light. UV light will not penetrate solids and can be absorbed by plastics and glass. While UV has a history of use for sanitizing room air and drinking water, it can be next to useless against bacteria down in a carpet, or situated inside of a poop particle. Cleaning with water and detergent is still key, especially where soils (food, human waste particles, dirt or grime) have built up.
Certainly a positive is that the UV light will may help the maid see urine stains or organics such as poop particles, provided they are big enough and the person is looking closely.
As for me, I will take a clean carpet, freshly laundered sheets, a bed lacking extra-ordinary smells that challenge the olfactories, and the absence of Cimex lectularius.
CSI hotel room: Best Western goes high-tech to cleanBy Barbara DeLollis, USA TODAYhttp://travel.usatoday.com/hotels/story/2012-05-30/CSI-hotel-room-Best-Western-goes-high-tech-to-clean/55270430/1
Don't be surprised if the housekeepers look like characters out of CSI the next time you stay at a Best Western hotel.
In response to what it says is travelers' insistence on cleanliness, Best Western is equipping its housekeeping crews with equipment you'd most likely see on the forensic investigation TV series: black lights to detect biological matter otherwise unseen by the human eye, and ultraviolet light wands to zap it.
For possibly the dirtiest object in your room — the TV remote control — there will be disposable wraps.
Best Western says it's taking the steps partly because research from Booz & Company shows that travelers desire a hotel's cleanliness over customer service, style and design.
But it's also reacting to the times, in which hotels and supermarkets place hand sanitizer in visible places for germ-obsessed customers
People also have become more skeptical about cleanliness because of headlines about e-coli, norovirus and bird flu, says Ron Pohl, a Best Western vice president.
"It used to be that you walked into a guest room and saw a stain on carpet, you'd think the room's dirty," Pohl says. "Today, guests don't see any stains, but they still question how clean the room is."
Best Western plans to have its new cleaning techniques in all its 2,200 hotels in North America by year's end. Today, about half the hotels — including properties in Tempe, Ariz., and Boston — have adopted it, Pohl says.
Best Western is ahead of the other hotel groups in its price range with its cleanliness approach, says Bjorn Hanson, dean of New York University'?s hospitality school. And, he says, "it can have an effect on market share."
The program has already made guests happier, according to Best Western's internal measures. For hotels already using the wands, Pohl says, guest satisfaction for cleanliness of the room rose by 12% and for the overall experience, by 13%. Guests are also 12% more likely to recommend their hotel, he says internal surveys show.
At the Best Western Plus in Tempe, the black lights have changed the way housekeepers clean, because they highlight bacteria in places that may not otherwise be cleaned, says owner Rich Schnakenberg. The corner of a bathroom vanity, for instance, may now get extra attention.
"That's very important to a woman who is putting on her makeup," he says.
Schnakenberg says the hotel has prided itself on cleanliness. But "while we felt it was clean, in some customers' minds, maybe it wasn't," he says.
He credits the program with travelers staying longer, an increase in the average length of stay increasing to 2.3 days vs. 1.6 days. "If they like it here, they stay a little longer," he says.
The anti-microbial properties of the ultraviolet light have been used since the 1930s to kill germs. While it's invisible, it's intense enough to kill 99.9% of the germs responsible for causing illness, including E-coli, H1N1, salmonella and norovirus.
Certainly a positive is that the UV light will may help the maid see urine stains or organics such as poop particles, provided they are big enough and the person is looking closely.
As for me, I will take a clean carpet, freshly laundered sheets, a bed lacking extra-ordinary smells that challenge the olfactories, and the absence of Cimex lectularius.
CSI hotel room: Best Western goes high-tech to cleanBy Barbara DeLollis, USA TODAYhttp://travel.usatoday.com/hotels/story/2012-05-30/CSI-hotel-room-Best-Western-goes-high-tech-to-clean/55270430/1
Don't be surprised if the housekeepers look like characters out of CSI the next time you stay at a Best Western hotel.
In response to what it says is travelers' insistence on cleanliness, Best Western is equipping its housekeeping crews with equipment you'd most likely see on the forensic investigation TV series: black lights to detect biological matter otherwise unseen by the human eye, and ultraviolet light wands to zap it.
For possibly the dirtiest object in your room — the TV remote control — there will be disposable wraps.
Best Western says it's taking the steps partly because research from Booz & Company shows that travelers desire a hotel's cleanliness over customer service, style and design.
But it's also reacting to the times, in which hotels and supermarkets place hand sanitizer in visible places for germ-obsessed customers
People also have become more skeptical about cleanliness because of headlines about e-coli, norovirus and bird flu, says Ron Pohl, a Best Western vice president.
"It used to be that you walked into a guest room and saw a stain on carpet, you'd think the room's dirty," Pohl says. "Today, guests don't see any stains, but they still question how clean the room is."
Best Western plans to have its new cleaning techniques in all its 2,200 hotels in North America by year's end. Today, about half the hotels — including properties in Tempe, Ariz., and Boston — have adopted it, Pohl says.
Best Western is ahead of the other hotel groups in its price range with its cleanliness approach, says Bjorn Hanson, dean of New York University'?s hospitality school. And, he says, "it can have an effect on market share."
The program has already made guests happier, according to Best Western's internal measures. For hotels already using the wands, Pohl says, guest satisfaction for cleanliness of the room rose by 12% and for the overall experience, by 13%. Guests are also 12% more likely to recommend their hotel, he says internal surveys show.
At the Best Western Plus in Tempe, the black lights have changed the way housekeepers clean, because they highlight bacteria in places that may not otherwise be cleaned, says owner Rich Schnakenberg. The corner of a bathroom vanity, for instance, may now get extra attention.
"That's very important to a woman who is putting on her makeup," he says.
Schnakenberg says the hotel has prided itself on cleanliness. But "while we felt it was clean, in some customers' minds, maybe it wasn't," he says.
He credits the program with travelers staying longer, an increase in the average length of stay increasing to 2.3 days vs. 1.6 days. "If they like it here, they stay a little longer," he says.
The anti-microbial properties of the ultraviolet light have been used since the 1930s to kill germs. While it's invisible, it's intense enough to kill 99.9% of the germs responsible for causing illness, including E-coli, H1N1, salmonella and norovirus.
Thursday, May 31, 2012
USDA Program Report indicates that pesticides on food are not a risk in US Food Supply
In a report on USDA’s monitoring program for pesticide residues in food, USDA states that pesticides do not pose a safety concern in foods. Pesticide usage is actively controlled by EPA, FDA and USDA.
USDA Releases 2010 Annual Summary for Pesticide Data ProgramReport confirms that U.S. food does not pose a safety concern based upon pesticide residues.
http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5049944
WASHINGTON, May 25, 2012 -- The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has posted data from the 2010 Pesticide Data Program (PDP) Annual Summary. This information, along with an explanatory guide for consumers, can be found at www.ams.usda.gov/pdp. The 2010 PDP report confirms that food does not pose a safety concern based upon pesticide residues.
In May of 1991, USDA initiated the PDP to test commodities in the U.S. food supply for pesticide residues. Since passage of the 1996 Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA), one of PDP’s focuses has been on testing foods that are most likely consumed by infants and children. AMS partners with cooperating state agencies to collect and analyze pesticide residue levels on selected foods. In implementing the FQPA, the EPA uses data from the PDP to enhance its programs for food safety and help evaluate dietary exposure to pesticides.
Each year, USDA and EPA work together to identify foods to be tested on a rotating basis. In 2010, surveys were conducted on a variety of foods including fresh and processed fruit and vegetables, oats, eggs, catfish, baby food, groundwater, and treated and untreated drinking water. Similar to previous years, the 2010 report shows that overall pesticide residues found on foods tested are at levels well below the tolerances set by the EPA. The report does show that residues exceeding the tolerance were detected in 0.25 percent of the samples tested. For baby food – included for the first time in this report – the data showed that no residues were found that exceeded the tolerance levels. Some residues were found with no established tolerance levels but the extremely low levels of those residues are not a food safety risk, and the presence of such residues does not pose a safety concern.
Statement from EPA:
“The data confirms EPA’s success in phasing- out pesticides used in children’s food for safer pesticides and pest control techniques. The very small amounts of pesticide residues found in the baby food samples were well below levels that are harmful to children.”
Statement from FDA:
“The U.S. Food and Drug Administration assesses whether pesticide chemical residues found on food may be unlawful under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and determines if followup is necessary under its own regulatory pesticide program. FDA is able to conduct its own tests, interpret the reported violations, and determine if additional testing is needed in order to take enforcement action, as appropriate. Based on the PDP data from this report, parents and caregivers can continue to feed infants their regular baby foods without being concerned about the possible presence of unlawful pesticide chemical residues.”
Statement from USDA:
“Age-old advice remains the same: eat more fruits and vegetables and wash them before you do so. Health and nutrition experts encourage the consumption of fruits and vegetables in every meal as part of a healthy diet. This message is affirmed in the Dietary Guidelines for Americans released last year, in USDA’s My Plate, as well as federal nutrition guidance that urges people to make half their plate fruits and vegetables.”
Since its inception, the program has tested 105 commodities including fresh and processed fruit and vegetables, meat and poultry, grains, catfish, rice, specialty products, and water. The data is a valuable tool for consumers, food producers and processors, chemical manufacturers, environmental interest groups, and food safety organizations.
The findings of the Pesticide Data Program Annual Summary, Calendar Year 2010 can be downloaded at www.ams.usda.gov/pdp. Printed copies of it will be available later this year and can be obtained by writing to the Monitoring Programs Division, Science and Technology, Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA, 8609 Sudley Rd., Suite 206, Manassas, VA 20110; by faxing (703) 369-0678; by calling (703) 330-2300, Ext. 110; or by submitting an e-mail request to amsmpo.data@ams.usda.gov.
USDA Releases 2010 Annual Summary for Pesticide Data ProgramReport confirms that U.S. food does not pose a safety concern based upon pesticide residues.
http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5049944
WASHINGTON, May 25, 2012 -- The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has posted data from the 2010 Pesticide Data Program (PDP) Annual Summary. This information, along with an explanatory guide for consumers, can be found at www.ams.usda.gov/pdp. The 2010 PDP report confirms that food does not pose a safety concern based upon pesticide residues.
In May of 1991, USDA initiated the PDP to test commodities in the U.S. food supply for pesticide residues. Since passage of the 1996 Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA), one of PDP’s focuses has been on testing foods that are most likely consumed by infants and children. AMS partners with cooperating state agencies to collect and analyze pesticide residue levels on selected foods. In implementing the FQPA, the EPA uses data from the PDP to enhance its programs for food safety and help evaluate dietary exposure to pesticides.
Each year, USDA and EPA work together to identify foods to be tested on a rotating basis. In 2010, surveys were conducted on a variety of foods including fresh and processed fruit and vegetables, oats, eggs, catfish, baby food, groundwater, and treated and untreated drinking water. Similar to previous years, the 2010 report shows that overall pesticide residues found on foods tested are at levels well below the tolerances set by the EPA. The report does show that residues exceeding the tolerance were detected in 0.25 percent of the samples tested. For baby food – included for the first time in this report – the data showed that no residues were found that exceeded the tolerance levels. Some residues were found with no established tolerance levels but the extremely low levels of those residues are not a food safety risk, and the presence of such residues does not pose a safety concern.
Statement from EPA:
“The data confirms EPA’s success in phasing- out pesticides used in children’s food for safer pesticides and pest control techniques. The very small amounts of pesticide residues found in the baby food samples were well below levels that are harmful to children.”
Statement from FDA:
“The U.S. Food and Drug Administration assesses whether pesticide chemical residues found on food may be unlawful under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and determines if followup is necessary under its own regulatory pesticide program. FDA is able to conduct its own tests, interpret the reported violations, and determine if additional testing is needed in order to take enforcement action, as appropriate. Based on the PDP data from this report, parents and caregivers can continue to feed infants their regular baby foods without being concerned about the possible presence of unlawful pesticide chemical residues.”
Statement from USDA:
“Age-old advice remains the same: eat more fruits and vegetables and wash them before you do so. Health and nutrition experts encourage the consumption of fruits and vegetables in every meal as part of a healthy diet. This message is affirmed in the Dietary Guidelines for Americans released last year, in USDA’s My Plate, as well as federal nutrition guidance that urges people to make half their plate fruits and vegetables.”
Since its inception, the program has tested 105 commodities including fresh and processed fruit and vegetables, meat and poultry, grains, catfish, rice, specialty products, and water. The data is a valuable tool for consumers, food producers and processors, chemical manufacturers, environmental interest groups, and food safety organizations.
The findings of the Pesticide Data Program Annual Summary, Calendar Year 2010 can be downloaded at www.ams.usda.gov/pdp. Printed copies of it will be available later this year and can be obtained by writing to the Monitoring Programs Division, Science and Technology, Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA, 8609 Sudley Rd., Suite 206, Manassas, VA 20110; by faxing (703) 369-0678; by calling (703) 330-2300, Ext. 110; or by submitting an e-mail request to amsmpo.data@ams.usda.gov.
'Meat glue' issue involves wide misunderstanding, expert contends
Penn State's Dr. Ed Mills on that which is called 'meat glue'.
http://live.psu.edu/story/59874#nw4
Thursday, May 24, 2012
UNIVERSITY PARK, Pa. -- The sticking point when it comes to the current furor over the use of products given the unappetizing name "meat glue" by critics of the food industry, is labeling, according to a meat expert in Penn State's College of Agricultural Sciences.
Operators of meat-processing plants, out of necessity, adhere to a strict policy of accuracy when it comes to listing ingredients in products, said Edward Mills, associate professor of dairy and animal science. In facilities inspected by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, truth in labeling is very serious business.
"In the current jargon, what is being called 'meat glue' is not a processing aide, but is an ingredient," said Mills, who teaches food science courses on the science and technology of meat, poultry and seafood. "If enzymes are used as binding agents, they must be listed on the label."
He explained that in a USDA-inspected plant, the labeling is reviewed by a government inspector, and the operator is not likely to risk being charged with fraudulent labeling. "The operator could face not only a product recall or having his plant shut down, but he could go to jail if he intentionally omitted ingredients from a label."
"Meat glues" -- generally two different products known by the trade names Activa or Fibrimex -- commonly are used to connect pieces of fresh meat to make more uniform, attractive servings. Activa, Mills said, is a white powder form of a natural protein cross-linking enzyme called transglutaminase.
The transglutaminase enzyme is found naturally in many biological systems, including the human body. The commercial form of transglutaminase, marketed as Activa, is derived from a microorganism. Fibrimex is a natural protein cross-linking system derived from pig or beef blood. Its natural function is to coagulate or clot blood in response to injury.
"In theory, you could use this stuff to reassemble any pieces of meat into a larger piece," he said. "But the reality is that there are only certain products where it is economically feasible to use it because it is fairly expensive. What is being called 'meat glue' largely is being used to make portion-controlled, fresh-meat cuts."
As examples, he cited the binding of beef or pork tenderloins. Because these pieces of meat have irregular shapes, connecting two together results in cuts yielding slices that are more uniform and attractive.
"One use that has found pretty wide acceptance is the making of what we call restructured or reformed filet mignon," Mills said. "A tenderloin at one end is large and round but tapers to a wide, flat shape. So what is done with some frequency is to take to two tenderloins, turn one around and apply Activa powder to the surface.
"Then the two cuts are put together, wrapped with plastic for few hours or overnight until the transglutaminase enzyme in Activa forms cross-links between the two protein surfaces. The result is a long cylinder of tenderloin that is the same dimension and shape from one end to the other -- yielding nice round slices of filet mignon."
Mills noted that a similar process is conducted with turkey breasts, which are notoriously irregular in shape. Generally these products are being sold in the restaurant, food-service and institutional markets, where uniformity of shape is very important, he said.
But meat glue is not used in boneless hams or most cold cuts, Mills stressed. Reports that meat glue is found in up to a third of products such as bologna and luncheon meats are wildly inaccurate, he contended.
"There are many restructured meat products available on the market, but the vast majority are formed using the natural tendency of the muscle to re-adhere due to protein coagulation upon cooking," he said.
"So essentially all boneless hams -- which are restructured products that consist of meat pieces bound together -- don't include meat glue, but rather salt-soluble protein as a binding agent that is extracted from the meat surface during a process called massaging, or tumbling."
There is one aspect of the debate about meat glue and restructured meats that Mills suggests is important for consumers to understand, and that is adequate cooking. Restructured meats should be cooked thoroughly -- like hamburgers and not like steaks -- which makes it critical that cooks and chefs read the labels and know the difference.
"When a meat such as filet mignon is reassembled or reformed -- when part of the surface becomes the center -- microorganisms are trapped inside," he said. "So it is really important that you be aware of what you're cooking and cook it appropriately."
Mills advises against cooking restructured meats to a very rare degree of doneness. He said such products still may be cooked to medium-rare (defined by USDA as 145 degrees Fahrenheit) safely, but they must be held at that temperature for four minutes before serving.
"When a chef or cook chooses to use restructured, fresh-meat cuts, he or she should adjust cooking procedures and make sure that others in the kitchen are aware of those changes to avoid the risk of foodborne infection," he said.
http://live.psu.edu/story/59874#nw4
Thursday, May 24, 2012
Products called 'meat glue' commonly are used to connect pieces of fresh meat to make more uniform, attractive servings.
UNIVERSITY PARK, Pa. -- The sticking point when it comes to the current furor over the use of products given the unappetizing name "meat glue" by critics of the food industry, is labeling, according to a meat expert in Penn State's College of Agricultural Sciences.
Operators of meat-processing plants, out of necessity, adhere to a strict policy of accuracy when it comes to listing ingredients in products, said Edward Mills, associate professor of dairy and animal science. In facilities inspected by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, truth in labeling is very serious business.
"In the current jargon, what is being called 'meat glue' is not a processing aide, but is an ingredient," said Mills, who teaches food science courses on the science and technology of meat, poultry and seafood. "If enzymes are used as binding agents, they must be listed on the label."
He explained that in a USDA-inspected plant, the labeling is reviewed by a government inspector, and the operator is not likely to risk being charged with fraudulent labeling. "The operator could face not only a product recall or having his plant shut down, but he could go to jail if he intentionally omitted ingredients from a label."
"Meat glues" -- generally two different products known by the trade names Activa or Fibrimex -- commonly are used to connect pieces of fresh meat to make more uniform, attractive servings. Activa, Mills said, is a white powder form of a natural protein cross-linking enzyme called transglutaminase.
The transglutaminase enzyme is found naturally in many biological systems, including the human body. The commercial form of transglutaminase, marketed as Activa, is derived from a microorganism. Fibrimex is a natural protein cross-linking system derived from pig or beef blood. Its natural function is to coagulate or clot blood in response to injury.
"In theory, you could use this stuff to reassemble any pieces of meat into a larger piece," he said. "But the reality is that there are only certain products where it is economically feasible to use it because it is fairly expensive. What is being called 'meat glue' largely is being used to make portion-controlled, fresh-meat cuts."
As examples, he cited the binding of beef or pork tenderloins. Because these pieces of meat have irregular shapes, connecting two together results in cuts yielding slices that are more uniform and attractive.
"One use that has found pretty wide acceptance is the making of what we call restructured or reformed filet mignon," Mills said. "A tenderloin at one end is large and round but tapers to a wide, flat shape. So what is done with some frequency is to take to two tenderloins, turn one around and apply Activa powder to the surface.
"Then the two cuts are put together, wrapped with plastic for few hours or overnight until the transglutaminase enzyme in Activa forms cross-links between the two protein surfaces. The result is a long cylinder of tenderloin that is the same dimension and shape from one end to the other -- yielding nice round slices of filet mignon."
Mills noted that a similar process is conducted with turkey breasts, which are notoriously irregular in shape. Generally these products are being sold in the restaurant, food-service and institutional markets, where uniformity of shape is very important, he said.
But meat glue is not used in boneless hams or most cold cuts, Mills stressed. Reports that meat glue is found in up to a third of products such as bologna and luncheon meats are wildly inaccurate, he contended.
"There are many restructured meat products available on the market, but the vast majority are formed using the natural tendency of the muscle to re-adhere due to protein coagulation upon cooking," he said.
"So essentially all boneless hams -- which are restructured products that consist of meat pieces bound together -- don't include meat glue, but rather salt-soluble protein as a binding agent that is extracted from the meat surface during a process called massaging, or tumbling."
There is one aspect of the debate about meat glue and restructured meats that Mills suggests is important for consumers to understand, and that is adequate cooking. Restructured meats should be cooked thoroughly -- like hamburgers and not like steaks -- which makes it critical that cooks and chefs read the labels and know the difference.
"When a meat such as filet mignon is reassembled or reformed -- when part of the surface becomes the center -- microorganisms are trapped inside," he said. "So it is really important that you be aware of what you're cooking and cook it appropriately."
Mills advises against cooking restructured meats to a very rare degree of doneness. He said such products still may be cooked to medium-rare (defined by USDA as 145 degrees Fahrenheit) safely, but they must be held at that temperature for four minutes before serving.
"When a chef or cook chooses to use restructured, fresh-meat cuts, he or she should adjust cooking procedures and make sure that others in the kitchen are aware of those changes to avoid the risk of foodborne infection," he said.
Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Tuna exposed to radioactive contamination detected
By now, you have seen the reports that tuna exposed to radioactive debris from the Japan nuclear disaster, have migrated across the ocean to California.
Unfortunately, you might think it is much worse if you just read a headline, such as this one from a blog on the Wall Street Journal website: Swimming to a Sushi Shop Near You: Radioactive Tuna? (http://blogs.wsj.com/japanrealtime/2012/05/29/swimming-to-a-sushi-shop-near-you-radioactive-tuna/)
But most all agree, including the authors of the study, that the levels of radioactivity pose little risk.
From Madigan, etal (2012) Pacific bluefin tuna transport Fukushima-derived radionuclides from Japan to California, PNAS (www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1204859109)
“Radiocesium concentrations of post-Fukushima PBFT reported here were more than an order of magnitude below the recently changed Japanese safety limit of 100 Bq kg−1 wet wt (about 400 Bq kg−1 dry wt)….
Thus, even though 2011 PBFT [post reactor exposed fish] showed a 10-fold increase in radiocesium concentrations, 134Cs and 137Cs would still likely provide low doses of radioactivity relative to naturally occurring radionuclides, particularly 210Po and 40K.”
Clearly, scientists will continue to monitor seafood including a larger study this summer. But this is no reason to stop eating tuna.
Unfortunately, you might think it is much worse if you just read a headline, such as this one from a blog on the Wall Street Journal website: Swimming to a Sushi Shop Near You: Radioactive Tuna? (http://blogs.wsj.com/japanrealtime/2012/05/29/swimming-to-a-sushi-shop-near-you-radioactive-tuna/)
But most all agree, including the authors of the study, that the levels of radioactivity pose little risk.
From Madigan, etal (2012) Pacific bluefin tuna transport Fukushima-derived radionuclides from Japan to California, PNAS (www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1204859109)
“Radiocesium concentrations of post-Fukushima PBFT reported here were more than an order of magnitude below the recently changed Japanese safety limit of 100 Bq kg−1 wet wt (about 400 Bq kg−1 dry wt)….
Thus, even though 2011 PBFT [post reactor exposed fish] showed a 10-fold increase in radiocesium concentrations, 134Cs and 137Cs would still likely provide low doses of radioactivity relative to naturally occurring radionuclides, particularly 210Po and 40K.”
Clearly, scientists will continue to monitor seafood including a larger study this summer. But this is no reason to stop eating tuna.
Friday, May 25, 2012
Avoid outdoor cooking mistakes that can make people sick
Friday, May 25, 2012
http://live.psu.edu/story/59886
UNIVERSITY PARK, Pa. -- This time of year marks the migration of dining to the great outdoors -- truly summer grilling and picnicking remain a great American passion. But do it wisely, urges a food-safety expert in Penn State's College of Agricultural Sciences, and avoid common mistakes that make people sick every year. Whether you are just cooking burgers on the grill or laying out an elaborate picnic spread, preparing and eating food outdoors can present opportunities for foodborne illness to spread, said Martin Bucknavage, Penn State extension food-safety specialist.
"If you are not careful handling and preparing food outside, you can make a mistake that might result in people getting sick," he said. "Just taking a few simple precautions will insure that you, your family and guests have a great outdoor dining experience."
Bucknavage cited a few common errors people make:
--Not using a thermometer to check if foods are properly cooked. "The most reliable way to see if a hamburger or piece of chicken is cooked is to use a thermometer," he said. "Unfortunately, folks often rely on color to see if a burger is done, and this will not work.
"Each year, people get infected by E. coli or Salmonella because the food was not cooked to a temperature that kills these organisms."
First, buy a good digital thermometer. Then insert the thermometer into the thickest part of the meat to determine if it has reached the proper temperature. For hamburgers, cook to an internal temperature of at least 160 F; for chicken or other poultry, such as turkey, cook to an internal temperature of at least 165 F.
--Not keeping food cold. When you go on a picnic, be sure to keep perishable foods cold, including sandwiches, sliced tomatoes, cut lettuce and sliced melons. When it is 80 or 90 degrees outside, bacteria can grow very rapidly. Put all perishable foods in a cooler with ice packs or bags of ice.
"Staphylococcus aureus is one organism, if present, that will grow and produce a toxin causing you to become extremely ill," Bucknavage explained. "By keeping foods at a temperature below 40 F, we can minimize potential issues."
--Not keeping raw and cooked foods separate. This one is vital but is often overlooked, Bucknavage warned. When packing a cooler, it is important to keep raw foods -- especially raw meats -- in a separate cooler from ready-to-eat foods (foods that will be eaten without any further cooking).
"Too often, we try to pack everything in one cooler, and the juices from the raw meats leak onto fruits, cans of soda or buns," he said. "These raw meat juices often contain pathogenic bacteria, such as Salmonella and E. coli, and can cause infection when you consume foods or beverages that have become contaminated."
Along with this, keep utensils that have been used to handle raw meats separate from those used for ready-to-eat foods.
--Not properly washing hands. "This one sounds obvious, but you'd be amazed at how often hands are a source of contamination in outdoor food preparation -- if only because it is sometimes difficult to find a place to thoroughly wash them using soap," Bucknavage said.
If you directly handle raw meats, or if your hands touch unclean surfaces, you must wash them before touching other foods or utensils. "So, be sure to have a means for washing hands if they become soiled, especially from handling raw meats," he said. "If away from home, have a source of water available along with some soap. And don't just count on antiseptic wipes."
While wipes can help, they cannot be counted on solely to remove the material that can harbor bacteria.
http://live.psu.edu/story/59886
UNIVERSITY PARK, Pa. -- This time of year marks the migration of dining to the great outdoors -- truly summer grilling and picnicking remain a great American passion. But do it wisely, urges a food-safety expert in Penn State's College of Agricultural Sciences, and avoid common mistakes that make people sick every year. Whether you are just cooking burgers on the grill or laying out an elaborate picnic spread, preparing and eating food outdoors can present opportunities for foodborne illness to spread, said Martin Bucknavage, Penn State extension food-safety specialist.
"If you are not careful handling and preparing food outside, you can make a mistake that might result in people getting sick," he said. "Just taking a few simple precautions will insure that you, your family and guests have a great outdoor dining experience."
Bucknavage cited a few common errors people make:
--Not using a thermometer to check if foods are properly cooked. "The most reliable way to see if a hamburger or piece of chicken is cooked is to use a thermometer," he said. "Unfortunately, folks often rely on color to see if a burger is done, and this will not work.
"Each year, people get infected by E. coli or Salmonella because the food was not cooked to a temperature that kills these organisms."
First, buy a good digital thermometer. Then insert the thermometer into the thickest part of the meat to determine if it has reached the proper temperature. For hamburgers, cook to an internal temperature of at least 160 F; for chicken or other poultry, such as turkey, cook to an internal temperature of at least 165 F.
--Not keeping food cold. When you go on a picnic, be sure to keep perishable foods cold, including sandwiches, sliced tomatoes, cut lettuce and sliced melons. When it is 80 or 90 degrees outside, bacteria can grow very rapidly. Put all perishable foods in a cooler with ice packs or bags of ice.
"Staphylococcus aureus is one organism, if present, that will grow and produce a toxin causing you to become extremely ill," Bucknavage explained. "By keeping foods at a temperature below 40 F, we can minimize potential issues."
--Not keeping raw and cooked foods separate. This one is vital but is often overlooked, Bucknavage warned. When packing a cooler, it is important to keep raw foods -- especially raw meats -- in a separate cooler from ready-to-eat foods (foods that will be eaten without any further cooking).
"Too often, we try to pack everything in one cooler, and the juices from the raw meats leak onto fruits, cans of soda or buns," he said. "These raw meat juices often contain pathogenic bacteria, such as Salmonella and E. coli, and can cause infection when you consume foods or beverages that have become contaminated."
Along with this, keep utensils that have been used to handle raw meats separate from those used for ready-to-eat foods.
--Not properly washing hands. "This one sounds obvious, but you'd be amazed at how often hands are a source of contamination in outdoor food preparation -- if only because it is sometimes difficult to find a place to thoroughly wash them using soap," Bucknavage said.
If you directly handle raw meats, or if your hands touch unclean surfaces, you must wash them before touching other foods or utensils. "So, be sure to have a means for washing hands if they become soiled, especially from handling raw meats," he said. "If away from home, have a source of water available along with some soap. And don't just count on antiseptic wipes."
While wipes can help, they cannot be counted on solely to remove the material that can harbor bacteria.
Thursday, May 24, 2012
Bags of Organic Baby Spinach Recalled due to Salmonella Positive Test
Bags of organic baby spinach produced in California are being recalled due to a positive test result for Salmonella. The test was conducted by US Department of Ag. There are no known illnesses at this point. Product was packed under tow different brands and those shipped to over 20 states.
Interesting, the packer of the spinach, Taylor Farms, was the pioneer of Smartwash.
http://www.newleaffoods.com/index.html
Smartwash, a produce washing system, was developed to reduce the level of pathogenic bacteria that can become associated with produce such as spinach in the field (think birds). There is an original formula and an organic formula.
Salmonella test leads to Taylor Farms spinach recall
The Packer 05/23/2012 9:26:49 AM
http://www.thepacker.com/fruit-vegetable-news/Salmonella-test-leads-to-Taylor-Farms-spinach-recall-153078505.html
Mike Hornick
Taylor Farms Retail Inc. is voluntarily recalling organic baby spinach after a random sample tested positive for salmonella by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
The product appeared in 5-ounce clamshells under the Private Selection label and 10-ounce clamshells with the Marketside label. Best-by dates are May 25, according to a news release.
No illnesses have been reported. The recalled items shipped from Salinas, Calif.-based Taylor Farms Retail Inc., on May 9 and May 10, according to the release.
The brands are private labels: Wal-Mart has Marketside and Kroger Co. has Private Selection.
The Private Selection product was distributed in Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon, Texas, Utah, Washington and Wyoming. The UPC numbers are 0-11110-91128-5; package codes are TFRS 130B 1503 KT34 and TFRS 130B 1803 KT34.
The Marketside product was distributed in Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Mississippi, Montana, New Mexico, Nevada, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah and Wyoming. The Universal Produce Code is 6-8113132900-2; the package code is TFRS 130B16.
The company is cooperating with the Food and Drug Administration and California Department of Public Health on the recall, according to the release
FDA Recall – Firm Press Releasehttp://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm305203.htm
Salinas Firm Initiates A Voluntary Recall Because Of Possible Health Risk
Contact:
Consumer:
866-508-7048
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE - May 22, 2012 - Taylor Farms Retail, Inc. is initiating a voluntary recall of Organic Baby Spinach with the potential to be contaminated with Salmonella following a random test conducted on a finished package of spinach by USDA.
Salmonella is an organism which can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems. Healthy people may experience fever, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea (which may be bloody), and abdominal pain. In rare cases the organism can get into the bloodstream and cause more serious complications.
The items subject to the recall include:
Interesting, the packer of the spinach, Taylor Farms, was the pioneer of Smartwash.
http://www.newleaffoods.com/index.html
Smartwash, a produce washing system, was developed to reduce the level of pathogenic bacteria that can become associated with produce such as spinach in the field (think birds). There is an original formula and an organic formula.
Salmonella test leads to Taylor Farms spinach recall
The Packer 05/23/2012 9:26:49 AM
http://www.thepacker.com/fruit-vegetable-news/Salmonella-test-leads-to-Taylor-Farms-spinach-recall-153078505.html
Mike Hornick
Taylor Farms Retail Inc. is voluntarily recalling organic baby spinach after a random sample tested positive for salmonella by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
The product appeared in 5-ounce clamshells under the Private Selection label and 10-ounce clamshells with the Marketside label. Best-by dates are May 25, according to a news release.
No illnesses have been reported. The recalled items shipped from Salinas, Calif.-based Taylor Farms Retail Inc., on May 9 and May 10, according to the release.
The brands are private labels: Wal-Mart has Marketside and Kroger Co. has Private Selection.
The Private Selection product was distributed in Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon, Texas, Utah, Washington and Wyoming. The UPC numbers are 0-11110-91128-5; package codes are TFRS 130B 1503 KT34 and TFRS 130B 1803 KT34.
The Marketside product was distributed in Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Mississippi, Montana, New Mexico, Nevada, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah and Wyoming. The Universal Produce Code is 6-8113132900-2; the package code is TFRS 130B16.
The company is cooperating with the Food and Drug Administration and California Department of Public Health on the recall, according to the release
FDA Recall – Firm Press Releasehttp://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm305203.htm
Salinas Firm Initiates A Voluntary Recall Because Of Possible Health Risk
Contact:
Consumer:
866-508-7048
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE - May 22, 2012 - Taylor Farms Retail, Inc. is initiating a voluntary recall of Organic Baby Spinach with the potential to be contaminated with Salmonella following a random test conducted on a finished package of spinach by USDA.
Salmonella is an organism which can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems. Healthy people may experience fever, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea (which may be bloody), and abdominal pain. In rare cases the organism can get into the bloodstream and cause more serious complications.
The items subject to the recall include:
Wednesday, May 23, 2012
Pet treats linked to illness in dogs?
In an MSNBC report, 1,000 dogs have become sickened by jerky pet treats made in China. Numerous other news outlets have written reports based upon the MSNBC report (USA Today news release below). At this point there are no associated recalls.
Of course, it is best to go to the original source, which is the FDA report. FDA indicates that extensive testing was done on these treats, but they have not found anything associated with these products that could cause illness to this point. Upon further reading of the FDA news release, one may get the sense that an issue may be related to overfeeding a protein dense product such as jerky. Think about it, if you ate enough jerky to constitute a high proportion of your daily food intake, your kidneys and liver would be getting a serious workout, and after a few days, you would be in a serious world of hurt. And like many dog owners, including myself, we have a tendency (or need) to give our dogs that extra treat, or two, or three…….
While FDA continues to analyze products (and perhaps something will show up), it is important to follow the FDA recommendations (below).
FDA RELEASE
http://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/SafetyHealth/ProductSafetyInformation/ucm295445.htm
Questions and Answers Regarding Chicken Jerky Treats from China
Why did FDA issue a cautionary update in November 2011?In 2011, FDA saw an increase in the number of complaints it received of dog illnesses associated with consumption of chicken jerky products imported from China.
FDA previously issued a cautionary warning regarding chicken jerky products to consumers in September 2007 and a Preliminary Animal Health Notification in December of 2008. The number of complaints being received dropped off during the latter part of 2009 and most of 2010. However in 2011, FDA once again started seeing the number of complaints rise to the levels of concern that prompted release of our earlier warnings.
Since the issuance of the CVM Update on November 18, 2011, the agency has received numerous additional complaints regarding chicken jerky products.
What are the products involved?The cautionary update specifically refers to chicken jerky products that are imported from China. These dried chicken jerky products, intended for dogs, may also be sold as tenders, strips or treats.
What are the signs of illness that are being reported?The signs that may be associated with chicken jerky products include decreased appetite; decreased activity; vomiting; diarrhea, sometimes with blood; increased water consumption and/or increased urination. These signs may occur within hours to days of feeding the products.
Laboratory tests may indicate kidney problems, including Fanconi-like syndrome. Although many dogs appear to recover, some reports to the FDA have involved dogs that have died.
FDA continues to investigate the problem and its origin. Some of the illnesses reported may be the result of causes other than eating chicken jerky.
What is FDA testing for?Since 2007, FDA has been actively investigating the cause of illness in pets reported in association with the consumption of chicken jerky products. Samples have been tested by FDA laboratories, by the Veterinary Laboratory Response Network (Vet-LRN), and by other animal health diagnostic laboratories in the U.S for multiple chemical and microbiological contaminants.
Product samples were tested for Salmonella, metals, furans, pesticides, antibiotics, mycotoxins, rodenticides, nephrotoxins (such as aristolochic acid, maleic acid, paraquat, ethylene glycol, diethylene glycol, toxic hydrocarbons, melamine and related triazines) and were screened for other chemicals and poisonous compounds. DNA verification was conducted on these samples to confirm the presence of poultry in the treats. Samples have also been submitted for nutritional composition (which includes glycerol concentrations), vitamin D excess and enterotoxin analysis. Some samples from recent cases (2011-2012) have been submitted for multiple tests and we are awaiting results. More samples are in the process of being collected for testing.
What are the results of testing?Samples collected from all over the United States have been tested for a wide variety of substances and to date, scientists have not been able to determine a definitive cause for the reported illnesses.
Has there been any indication that metal contamination in chicken jerky products may be the cause of illness in dogs?FDA’s previous testing of chicken jerky product samples did not show toxic levels of metals. In addition, results from March 2012 toxic metal analyses, which included tests for heavy metals, have again shown samples of chicken jerky products to be negative for toxic metals.
Of course, it is best to go to the original source, which is the FDA report. FDA indicates that extensive testing was done on these treats, but they have not found anything associated with these products that could cause illness to this point. Upon further reading of the FDA news release, one may get the sense that an issue may be related to overfeeding a protein dense product such as jerky. Think about it, if you ate enough jerky to constitute a high proportion of your daily food intake, your kidneys and liver would be getting a serious workout, and after a few days, you would be in a serious world of hurt. And like many dog owners, including myself, we have a tendency (or need) to give our dogs that extra treat, or two, or three…….
While FDA continues to analyze products (and perhaps something will show up), it is important to follow the FDA recommendations (below).
FDA RELEASE
http://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/SafetyHealth/ProductSafetyInformation/ucm295445.htm
Questions and Answers Regarding Chicken Jerky Treats from China
Why did FDA issue a cautionary update in November 2011?In 2011, FDA saw an increase in the number of complaints it received of dog illnesses associated with consumption of chicken jerky products imported from China.
FDA previously issued a cautionary warning regarding chicken jerky products to consumers in September 2007 and a Preliminary Animal Health Notification in December of 2008. The number of complaints being received dropped off during the latter part of 2009 and most of 2010. However in 2011, FDA once again started seeing the number of complaints rise to the levels of concern that prompted release of our earlier warnings.
Since the issuance of the CVM Update on November 18, 2011, the agency has received numerous additional complaints regarding chicken jerky products.
What are the products involved?The cautionary update specifically refers to chicken jerky products that are imported from China. These dried chicken jerky products, intended for dogs, may also be sold as tenders, strips or treats.
What are the signs of illness that are being reported?The signs that may be associated with chicken jerky products include decreased appetite; decreased activity; vomiting; diarrhea, sometimes with blood; increased water consumption and/or increased urination. These signs may occur within hours to days of feeding the products.
Laboratory tests may indicate kidney problems, including Fanconi-like syndrome. Although many dogs appear to recover, some reports to the FDA have involved dogs that have died.
FDA continues to investigate the problem and its origin. Some of the illnesses reported may be the result of causes other than eating chicken jerky.
What is FDA testing for?Since 2007, FDA has been actively investigating the cause of illness in pets reported in association with the consumption of chicken jerky products. Samples have been tested by FDA laboratories, by the Veterinary Laboratory Response Network (Vet-LRN), and by other animal health diagnostic laboratories in the U.S for multiple chemical and microbiological contaminants.
Product samples were tested for Salmonella, metals, furans, pesticides, antibiotics, mycotoxins, rodenticides, nephrotoxins (such as aristolochic acid, maleic acid, paraquat, ethylene glycol, diethylene glycol, toxic hydrocarbons, melamine and related triazines) and were screened for other chemicals and poisonous compounds. DNA verification was conducted on these samples to confirm the presence of poultry in the treats. Samples have also been submitted for nutritional composition (which includes glycerol concentrations), vitamin D excess and enterotoxin analysis. Some samples from recent cases (2011-2012) have been submitted for multiple tests and we are awaiting results. More samples are in the process of being collected for testing.
What are the results of testing?Samples collected from all over the United States have been tested for a wide variety of substances and to date, scientists have not been able to determine a definitive cause for the reported illnesses.
Has there been any indication that metal contamination in chicken jerky products may be the cause of illness in dogs?FDA’s previous testing of chicken jerky product samples did not show toxic levels of metals. In addition, results from March 2012 toxic metal analyses, which included tests for heavy metals, have again shown samples of chicken jerky products to be negative for toxic metals.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)