CDC reports that more than 100 people in 19 states are ill from Salmonella Bareilly. CDC states that, this time, at there is no confirmed link to any product. But various news reports state that sushi (spicy tuna rolls) are being looked at closely.
Multistate Outbreak of Salmonella Bareilly InfectionsCDC, Apr 6
http://www.cdc.gov/salmonella/bareilly-04-12/index.html
Highlights
· A total of 100 persons infected with the outbreak strain of Salmonella Bareilly have been reported from 19 states and the District of Columbia.
· The number of ill persons identified in each state is as follows: Alabama (2), Arkansas (1), Connecticut (5), District of Columbia (2), Georgia (4), Illinois (9), Louisiana (2), Maryland (10), Massachusetts (4), Mississippi (1), Missouri (1), New Jersey (7), New York (23), North Carolina (2), Pennsylvania (3), Rhode Island (4), South Carolina (3), Texas (3), Virginia (5), and Wisconsin (9).
· 10 ill persons have been hospitalized, and no deaths have been reported.
· The investigation has not conclusively identified a food source.
· The investigation is ongoing into individual food items and their sources.
CDC and FDA are working together on the investigation and will provide updates as soon as they are available.
· If a specific food source is identified for this outbreak, public health officials will alert the public and take further steps to prevent additional illnesses.
More salmonella cases reported in outbreak
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-more-salmonella-cases-reported-in-outbreak-20120406,0,4200695.story
By Ryan Haggerty Tribune reporter
Chicago Tribune
1:35 p.m. CDT, April 6, 2012
Seven more people have been confirmed as victims of a nationwide salmonella outbreak, including one more person in Chicago, state and federal health officials announced today.
In all, 100 people across the country and nine in Illinois have been made ill in the outbreak, whose source has still not been determined, officials with the Centers for Disease Control said.
The outbreak, which was first confirmed Wednesday, involves salmonella bareilly, an unusual strain of the salmonella bacterium, CDC officials said.
It has been connected to reported illnesses that have occurred between Jan. 28 and March 25 in 19 states, plus the District of Columbia. Those affected said they had eaten sushi, sashimi or similar foods in the week before their symptoms began, according to the CDC.
Monday, April 9, 2012
Thursday, April 5, 2012
FDA releases 2nd edition of Bad Bug Book
FDA has recently released the second edition of the Bad Bug Book.
http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Food/FoodSafety/FoodborneIllness/FodborneIllnessFoodbornePathogensNaturalToxins/BadBugBook/UCM297627.pdf
This is a great online reference for foodborne pathogens and toxins (bacteria, viruses, parasites, and natural toxins). There are 5 new chapters in this book – below is a quick summaries of each (as well as grayanotoxin). Each chapter also has an insert – For Consumers: A Snapshot – that provides an overview of each pathogen.
Cronobacter - Causes illness, including bacteremia and meningitis, primarily in infants and immocompromised adults. Can survive in low moisture foods, and has been an issue in powdered infant formulas. “The illness it causes is rare, but when it occurs, infants younger than 2 months old are at highest risk. The death rate is high, from 10 percent to 80 percent… It can then multiply after liquid is added to the formula, especially if the formula is stored at an incorrect temperature, and cause illness in babies who drink it..” To avoid illness in infants, it is important to follow food safety instructions when preparing infant formula.
Enterococcus, “Anyone can become infected with the Enterococcus bacterium, but the people most likely to suffer serious problems are those who already have other serious illnesses. In otherwise healthy people, it may cause diarrhea, cramps, nausea, vomiting, fever, and chills, starting 2 to 36 hours after they eat contaminated food. Enterococcus can be passed to people in different ways, and not much is yet known about how often it’s transmitted by food. But it is known that meat and milk that aren’t processed or cooked properly or that are handled in unsanitary ways are among the foods that can transmit it. A major concern about Enterococcus is that it has become resistant to some antibiotics that were used to treat it – that is, those antibiotics no longer kill it. You can help protect yourself from getting foodborne illness from this and other bacteria or viruses by following basic food-safety tips; for example, by not using unpasteurized (“raw”) milk or certain cheeses and other food made from it, by thoroughly cooking meat or food that contains meat, and by washing your hands, kitchen equipment, and other surfaces before and after you handle food.”
Francisella tularensis, “The bacterium Francisella tularensis causes a disease called tularemia (nicknamed “rabbit fever”). Tularemia can take different forms, depending on how the bacterium enters the body. If it enters through the mouth when a person eats or drinks contaminated food or water, it can cause tularemia that affects the throat or intestines, although this is an uncommon form of the disease. Symptoms of this type range from mild to severe in otherwise healthy people, and it rarely causes death. In the more serious cases, untreated throat infection may spread to vital organs (such as the lungs, brain, or liver), and may cause extensive bowel damage, with bleeding and infection of the bloodstream, especially in people with weak immune systems. People can develop tularemia of the throat or intestines by eating undercooked meat from an infected animal (particularly rabbits) or drinking contaminated water. Eating food or drinking water contaminated by animal waste, such as rodent droppings, also can cause this form of tularemia and many other diseases. Cooking food well is one of the safety tips that can help protect you from getting this form of tularemia, especially if you eat the kind of wild animals known to be carriers, such as rabbits.”
Phytohaemagglutinin, “Eating undercooked bean can cause you to have extreme nausea, severe vomiting, and diarrhea. They contain a protein that’s found naturally in many plants (and animals, including humans), where it performs important functions. But when it reaches high levels in some plants, particularly kidney beans, the protein can act as a toxin. Cooking the beans properly destroys the toxin. Don’t use slow cookers (the kinds of pots that you plug in and that cook food at low temperatures for several hours) to cook these beans or dishes that contain them. Slow cookers don’t get hot enough to destroy the toxin in kidney beans. Studies done by British scientists suggest that beans should be soaked in water for at least 5 hours, the water poured away, and the beans boiled in fresh water for at least 30 minutes.”
Venomous fish, “lionfish (Pterois volitans), a known venomous species from the Pacific Ocean, recently has become invasive and over-abundant along the U.S. south Atlantic coast and in the waters surrounding several Caribbean island countries, presenting new opportunities for human consumption.”
Grayanotoxins – “If bees make their honey from the pollen and nectar of flowers from some types of rhododendron, the honey may contain grayanotoxin, a substance poisonous to humans. Other plants from the same family that may contain it, in the Eastern part of the U.S., include mountain laurel and sheep laurel. Sickness that results from eating honey that contains grayanotoxin is sometimes called “mad honey” poisoning. It has occurred in the past in the U.S., but now appears to be very rare here. Nausea and vomiting are common symptoms of grayanotoxin poisoning. A rarer symptom is burning, tingling, and numbness around the mouth. The toxin affects nerve cells, including not only the nerves that affect the brain, but also those that affect the heart and other muscles. For this reason, grayanotoxin poisoning causes not only problems like dizziness, weakness, confusion, vision disturbances, and heavy sweating and saliva flow, but also irregular or very slow heartbeat, low blood pressure, and fainting. These poisonings are rarely fatal.”
http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Food/FoodSafety/FoodborneIllness/FodborneIllnessFoodbornePathogensNaturalToxins/BadBugBook/UCM297627.pdf
This is a great online reference for foodborne pathogens and toxins (bacteria, viruses, parasites, and natural toxins). There are 5 new chapters in this book – below is a quick summaries of each (as well as grayanotoxin). Each chapter also has an insert – For Consumers: A Snapshot – that provides an overview of each pathogen.
Cronobacter - Causes illness, including bacteremia and meningitis, primarily in infants and immocompromised adults. Can survive in low moisture foods, and has been an issue in powdered infant formulas. “The illness it causes is rare, but when it occurs, infants younger than 2 months old are at highest risk. The death rate is high, from 10 percent to 80 percent… It can then multiply after liquid is added to the formula, especially if the formula is stored at an incorrect temperature, and cause illness in babies who drink it..” To avoid illness in infants, it is important to follow food safety instructions when preparing infant formula.
Enterococcus, “Anyone can become infected with the Enterococcus bacterium, but the people most likely to suffer serious problems are those who already have other serious illnesses. In otherwise healthy people, it may cause diarrhea, cramps, nausea, vomiting, fever, and chills, starting 2 to 36 hours after they eat contaminated food. Enterococcus can be passed to people in different ways, and not much is yet known about how often it’s transmitted by food. But it is known that meat and milk that aren’t processed or cooked properly or that are handled in unsanitary ways are among the foods that can transmit it. A major concern about Enterococcus is that it has become resistant to some antibiotics that were used to treat it – that is, those antibiotics no longer kill it. You can help protect yourself from getting foodborne illness from this and other bacteria or viruses by following basic food-safety tips; for example, by not using unpasteurized (“raw”) milk or certain cheeses and other food made from it, by thoroughly cooking meat or food that contains meat, and by washing your hands, kitchen equipment, and other surfaces before and after you handle food.”
Francisella tularensis, “The bacterium Francisella tularensis causes a disease called tularemia (nicknamed “rabbit fever”). Tularemia can take different forms, depending on how the bacterium enters the body. If it enters through the mouth when a person eats or drinks contaminated food or water, it can cause tularemia that affects the throat or intestines, although this is an uncommon form of the disease. Symptoms of this type range from mild to severe in otherwise healthy people, and it rarely causes death. In the more serious cases, untreated throat infection may spread to vital organs (such as the lungs, brain, or liver), and may cause extensive bowel damage, with bleeding and infection of the bloodstream, especially in people with weak immune systems. People can develop tularemia of the throat or intestines by eating undercooked meat from an infected animal (particularly rabbits) or drinking contaminated water. Eating food or drinking water contaminated by animal waste, such as rodent droppings, also can cause this form of tularemia and many other diseases. Cooking food well is one of the safety tips that can help protect you from getting this form of tularemia, especially if you eat the kind of wild animals known to be carriers, such as rabbits.”
Phytohaemagglutinin, “Eating undercooked bean can cause you to have extreme nausea, severe vomiting, and diarrhea. They contain a protein that’s found naturally in many plants (and animals, including humans), where it performs important functions. But when it reaches high levels in some plants, particularly kidney beans, the protein can act as a toxin. Cooking the beans properly destroys the toxin. Don’t use slow cookers (the kinds of pots that you plug in and that cook food at low temperatures for several hours) to cook these beans or dishes that contain them. Slow cookers don’t get hot enough to destroy the toxin in kidney beans. Studies done by British scientists suggest that beans should be soaked in water for at least 5 hours, the water poured away, and the beans boiled in fresh water for at least 30 minutes.”
Venomous fish, “lionfish (Pterois volitans), a known venomous species from the Pacific Ocean, recently has become invasive and over-abundant along the U.S. south Atlantic coast and in the waters surrounding several Caribbean island countries, presenting new opportunities for human consumption.”
Grayanotoxins – “If bees make their honey from the pollen and nectar of flowers from some types of rhododendron, the honey may contain grayanotoxin, a substance poisonous to humans. Other plants from the same family that may contain it, in the Eastern part of the U.S., include mountain laurel and sheep laurel. Sickness that results from eating honey that contains grayanotoxin is sometimes called “mad honey” poisoning. It has occurred in the past in the U.S., but now appears to be very rare here. Nausea and vomiting are common symptoms of grayanotoxin poisoning. A rarer symptom is burning, tingling, and numbness around the mouth. The toxin affects nerve cells, including not only the nerves that affect the brain, but also those that affect the heart and other muscles. For this reason, grayanotoxin poisoning causes not only problems like dizziness, weakness, confusion, vision disturbances, and heavy sweating and saliva flow, but also irregular or very slow heartbeat, low blood pressure, and fainting. These poisonings are rarely fatal.”
Monday, April 2, 2012
60 Minutes segment "Is Sugar Toxic?"
In case you missed it, here is the 60 Minutes segment on sugar, ‘Is Sugar Toxic?’.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B56Gpf1f5_A
Too much sugar is bad, that is hard to deny. But with consumers having made it such a big component of their diet, will they be willing to change their diet? Hopefully segments like this will get people to think about their diet with the goal of reducing sugar….significantly.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B56Gpf1f5_A
Too much sugar is bad, that is hard to deny. But with consumers having made it such a big component of their diet, will they be willing to change their diet? Hopefully segments like this will get people to think about their diet with the goal of reducing sugar….significantly.
FDA will not ban BPA at this time
The controversy will continue as FDA has decided not to ban BPA from food packaging materials at this time (due to inconclusive evidence). A ban would have had a huge impact on the food supply, as companies rushed to find suitable replacements. Continued study will occur.
U.S. Denies Request to Ban Chemical in Food PackagingBloomberg
By Jack Kaskey - Mar 30, 2012 6:07 PM ETFri Mar 30 22:07:58 GMT 2012
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-30/u-s-denies-request-to-ban-chemical-in-food-and-drink-packaging.html
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration rejected a request to ban a contested chemical from cans and other packaging because opponents didn’t provide enough data to support a rule change.
Continued study of bisphenol A, known as BPA, including completion of federal studies currently in progress, is the most appropriate course of action, the agency said in an e-mail today. The chemical has been used in epoxy linings since the 1960s to extend the shelf life of canned foods and beverages.
Manufacturers of baby bottles and cups have stopped using polycarbonate containing BPA in response to consumer concerns it may affect children. Campbell Soup Co. (CPB) is among food makers phasing out the use of BPA, while beverage companies such asCoca-Cola Co. (KO) have kept the chemical, saying it’s safe.
“The information provided in your petition was not sufficient to persuade FDA, at this time, to initiate rulemaking to prohibit the use of BPA in human food and food packaging,”David H. Horsey, an acting associate FDA commissioner, said today in a letter to the Natural Resources Defense Council.
NRDC, a New York-based environmental advocacy group, petitioned the FDA in 2008 to ban its use in food and drinks packaging. BPA, produced by combining phenol and acetone, mimics the female hormone estrogen and may affect the brain and prostate gland in fetuses and young children, according to theNational Institutes of Health.
Quickly Processed
A ban would hurt profits at can-maker Silgan Holdings Inc. (SLGN)and others in the $60 billion industry, Ghansham Panjabi, an analyst at Robert W. Baird & Co., said before the FDA announcement. The biggest U.S. producer of BPA is Saudi Basic Industries Corp. (SABIC), followed by Bayer AG (BAYN) and Dow Chemical Co. (DOW)
About 4.7 million metric tons of BPA valued at about $8 billion will be produced this year, according to a report by GlobalData, a London-based publisher of business intelligence. Three times as much BPA goes into polycarbonate plastics, used in items ranging from plastic bottles to DVDs, as is used in epoxy resins.
The FDA plans to complete an updated safety review of BPA this year and will make any changes to the chemical’s status based on the science, Douglas Karas, an agency spokesman, said in an e-mail. People of all ages metabolize and rid their bodies of BPA faster than rodents used in studies, he said.
Federally funded research confirms that the human body quickly processes and eliminates BPA, making it “very unlikely” that the chemical causes harm, the American Chemistry Council, a Washington-based industry group, said in a statement today.
‘Dangerously Off Course’
Sarah Janssen, a senior scientist at the NRDC, said the FDA’s denial of a ban shows “a major overhaul” of chemical regulation is needed. The Environmental Working Group, a Washington-based advocacy group, said consumers can no longer trust the FDA to protect the health of their families.
“The agency has veered dangerously off course,” Jane Houlihan, the group’s senior vice president for research, said today in a statement. “Pregnant women and new parents should no longer think FDA has their backs.”
The North American Metal Packaging Alliance, a Washington-based industry group, praised the FDA’s decision.
“A ban without conclusive scientific evidence of risk would compromise the safety of canned foods and beverages,” John Rost, the alliance’s chairman, said in an e-mailed statement.
To contact the reporter on this story: Jack Kaskey in Houston at jkaskey@bloomberg.net
U.S. Denies Request to Ban Chemical in Food PackagingBloomberg
By Jack Kaskey - Mar 30, 2012 6:07 PM ETFri Mar 30 22:07:58 GMT 2012
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-30/u-s-denies-request-to-ban-chemical-in-food-and-drink-packaging.html
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration rejected a request to ban a contested chemical from cans and other packaging because opponents didn’t provide enough data to support a rule change.
Continued study of bisphenol A, known as BPA, including completion of federal studies currently in progress, is the most appropriate course of action, the agency said in an e-mail today. The chemical has been used in epoxy linings since the 1960s to extend the shelf life of canned foods and beverages.
Manufacturers of baby bottles and cups have stopped using polycarbonate containing BPA in response to consumer concerns it may affect children. Campbell Soup Co. (CPB) is among food makers phasing out the use of BPA, while beverage companies such asCoca-Cola Co. (KO) have kept the chemical, saying it’s safe.
“The information provided in your petition was not sufficient to persuade FDA, at this time, to initiate rulemaking to prohibit the use of BPA in human food and food packaging,”David H. Horsey, an acting associate FDA commissioner, said today in a letter to the Natural Resources Defense Council.
NRDC, a New York-based environmental advocacy group, petitioned the FDA in 2008 to ban its use in food and drinks packaging. BPA, produced by combining phenol and acetone, mimics the female hormone estrogen and may affect the brain and prostate gland in fetuses and young children, according to theNational Institutes of Health.
Quickly Processed
A ban would hurt profits at can-maker Silgan Holdings Inc. (SLGN)and others in the $60 billion industry, Ghansham Panjabi, an analyst at Robert W. Baird & Co., said before the FDA announcement. The biggest U.S. producer of BPA is Saudi Basic Industries Corp. (SABIC), followed by Bayer AG (BAYN) and Dow Chemical Co. (DOW)
About 4.7 million metric tons of BPA valued at about $8 billion will be produced this year, according to a report by GlobalData, a London-based publisher of business intelligence. Three times as much BPA goes into polycarbonate plastics, used in items ranging from plastic bottles to DVDs, as is used in epoxy resins.
The FDA plans to complete an updated safety review of BPA this year and will make any changes to the chemical’s status based on the science, Douglas Karas, an agency spokesman, said in an e-mail. People of all ages metabolize and rid their bodies of BPA faster than rodents used in studies, he said.
Federally funded research confirms that the human body quickly processes and eliminates BPA, making it “very unlikely” that the chemical causes harm, the American Chemistry Council, a Washington-based industry group, said in a statement today.
‘Dangerously Off Course’
Sarah Janssen, a senior scientist at the NRDC, said the FDA’s denial of a ban shows “a major overhaul” of chemical regulation is needed. The Environmental Working Group, a Washington-based advocacy group, said consumers can no longer trust the FDA to protect the health of their families.
“The agency has veered dangerously off course,” Jane Houlihan, the group’s senior vice president for research, said today in a statement. “Pregnant women and new parents should no longer think FDA has their backs.”
The North American Metal Packaging Alliance, a Washington-based industry group, praised the FDA’s decision.
“A ban without conclusive scientific evidence of risk would compromise the safety of canned foods and beverages,” John Rost, the alliance’s chairman, said in an e-mailed statement.
To contact the reporter on this story: Jack Kaskey in Houston at jkaskey@bloomberg.net
2 cases of botulism linked to tofu
Tofu, sold in NY City, has been linked to 2 cases of botulism. The tofu was purchased by a couple in a NY City store. The tofu was displayed in a non-refrigerated, water filled bin. This is the first cases of botulism in NYC in more than 15 years.
‘Tofu is made by coagulating soy milk and pressing the resulting curds. The process begins by soaking, grinding, boiling and straining dried or fresh soybeans. Coagulation of the protein and oil (emulsion) suspended in the boiled soy milk is the most important step in the production of tofu. This process is accomplished with the aid of coagulants. Two types of coagulants (salts and acids) are used commercially. The third type of coagulant, enzymes, is not yet used commercially but shows potential for producing both firm and "silken" tofu’. (adapted from Wikeapedia).
Clostridium botulinum spores would survive the boiling and then be able to grow in the non-refrigerated product (in the absence of a secondary inhibitor. Tofu products vary greatly, even in terms of inclusion of antimicrobial parameters.) The spores will germinate and grow in the protein rich, non-refrigerated product. The product sitting in water would ensure a sufficient water activity as well as help support an anaerobic environment, both essential for C. botulinum. As C. botulinum grows, it produces a neurotoxin. If ingested, the neurotoxin enters the bloodstream and shuts down muscle function, potentially leading to death through the inability of the victim to breath.
Tofu is a considered a potentially hazardous food (TCS food) and thus requires refrigeration during distribution, at retail, and by the consumer.
Tofu suspected of giving botulism to two people in QueensBotulism is a rare but potentially fatal foodborne illness
By Kerry Wills / NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
Saturday, March 31, 2012, 2:18 AM
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/queens/tofu-suspected-giving-botulism-people-queens-article-1.1053799#ixzz1qtIZYyHM
Two people got botulism - a rare but potentially fatal foodborne illness - after buying tofu at a store in Flushing.
‘Tofu is made by coagulating soy milk and pressing the resulting curds. The process begins by soaking, grinding, boiling and straining dried or fresh soybeans. Coagulation of the protein and oil (emulsion) suspended in the boiled soy milk is the most important step in the production of tofu. This process is accomplished with the aid of coagulants. Two types of coagulants (salts and acids) are used commercially. The third type of coagulant, enzymes, is not yet used commercially but shows potential for producing both firm and "silken" tofu’. (adapted from Wikeapedia).
Clostridium botulinum spores would survive the boiling and then be able to grow in the non-refrigerated product (in the absence of a secondary inhibitor. Tofu products vary greatly, even in terms of inclusion of antimicrobial parameters.) The spores will germinate and grow in the protein rich, non-refrigerated product. The product sitting in water would ensure a sufficient water activity as well as help support an anaerobic environment, both essential for C. botulinum. As C. botulinum grows, it produces a neurotoxin. If ingested, the neurotoxin enters the bloodstream and shuts down muscle function, potentially leading to death through the inability of the victim to breath.
Tofu is a considered a potentially hazardous food (TCS food) and thus requires refrigeration during distribution, at retail, and by the consumer.
Tofu suspected of giving botulism to two people in QueensBotulism is a rare but potentially fatal foodborne illness
By Kerry Wills / NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
Saturday, March 31, 2012, 2:18 AM
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/queens/tofu-suspected-giving-botulism-people-queens-article-1.1053799#ixzz1qtIZYyHM
Two people got botulism - a rare but potentially fatal foodborne illness - after buying tofu at a store in Flushing.
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
CDC research shows outbreaks linked to imported foods increasing
The US currently imports about 16% of food consumed. For seafood, that figure is about 85%. Currently about 1% of imported food is checked by the FDA at the port of entry. Over a 5 year period (2005 to 2010), there have been 39 outbreaks and close to 2400 illnesses linked to imported foods.
While we get a glimpse of the risk associated with imported foods through outbreak reports, it is hard to really know the true extent. FDA has limited capabilities, especially with import analysis, although the Food Safety Modernization Act includes measures which will help support FDA.
Much of it comes down to making sure those who import those food products. Are they doing what they need to do to ensure their foreign suppliers have capable food safety systems in place? Are they conducting verification testing?
As consumers, we try to by local where we can, but there is still demand to have an assortment of fruits, vegetables and seafood year round. And do we do ourselves a disservice by forgoing these items just because it is from another county in that we are giving up important components of a healthy diet?
CDC research shows outbreaks linked to imported foods increasing
Fish and spices the most common sources
March 14, 2012
http://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2012/p0314_foodborne.html
Foodborne disease outbreaks caused by imported food appeared to rise in 2009 and 2010, and nearly half of the outbreaks implicated foods imported from areas which previously had not been associated with outbreaks, according to research from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, presented today at the International Conference on Emerging Infectious Diseases in Atlanta.
While we get a glimpse of the risk associated with imported foods through outbreak reports, it is hard to really know the true extent. FDA has limited capabilities, especially with import analysis, although the Food Safety Modernization Act includes measures which will help support FDA.
Much of it comes down to making sure those who import those food products. Are they doing what they need to do to ensure their foreign suppliers have capable food safety systems in place? Are they conducting verification testing?
As consumers, we try to by local where we can, but there is still demand to have an assortment of fruits, vegetables and seafood year round. And do we do ourselves a disservice by forgoing these items just because it is from another county in that we are giving up important components of a healthy diet?
CDC research shows outbreaks linked to imported foods increasing
Fish and spices the most common sources
March 14, 2012
http://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2012/p0314_foodborne.html
Foodborne disease outbreaks caused by imported food appeared to rise in 2009 and 2010, and nearly half of the outbreaks implicated foods imported from areas which previously had not been associated with outbreaks, according to research from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, presented today at the International Conference on Emerging Infectious Diseases in Atlanta.
Lean Finely Textured Beef ( AKA Pink Slime) is safe
It is hard to miss the hysteria around so called ‘pink slime’, or to be technically correct , lean finely texturized beef, or LFTB. LFTB is basically meat protein that is recovered from fat trimmings that would have otherwise been lost. In the process of butchering a cow, fat is trimmed away. In trimming, it is hard to get only fat with no meat protein attached. The LFTB process was developed to separate that meat protein from the fat. Ammonium hydroxide is used as a processing aid to keep microbial levels in control.
The meat protein that is generated is finely ground, so it appears more as a paste than what we would call meat. Is it safe? Like any meat product, as long as it is cooked correctly, it is safe. The ammonium hydroxide is a GRAS (generally recognized as safe) chemical and when used at these very low levels, poses no health risk.
The issue is primarily related to the appearance, and once it was dubbed pink slime, it became difficult for consumers to accept. Because of this, many fast food chains discontinued its use (it was added in a small percentage to give more burger for the dollar.) Meat provided for school systems also buy beef with LFTB as a way to keep the cost of food down. Granted, it is not very appealing to look at. But neither are many other food ingredients when seen being used in food production. And, it is a process that recovers value from the byproducts, instead of wasting it.
Dr. Mills of Penn State Animal Science provides some nice comments regarding LFTB.
http://live.psu.edu/story/58528
Here is a link that reviews the safety of ammonium hydroxide.
http://www.foodinsight.org/Resources/Detail.aspx?topic=Questions_and_Answers_about_Ammonium_Hydroxide_Use_in_Food_Production
The meat protein that is generated is finely ground, so it appears more as a paste than what we would call meat. Is it safe? Like any meat product, as long as it is cooked correctly, it is safe. The ammonium hydroxide is a GRAS (generally recognized as safe) chemical and when used at these very low levels, poses no health risk.
The issue is primarily related to the appearance, and once it was dubbed pink slime, it became difficult for consumers to accept. Because of this, many fast food chains discontinued its use (it was added in a small percentage to give more burger for the dollar.) Meat provided for school systems also buy beef with LFTB as a way to keep the cost of food down. Granted, it is not very appealing to look at. But neither are many other food ingredients when seen being used in food production. And, it is a process that recovers value from the byproducts, instead of wasting it.
Dr. Mills of Penn State Animal Science provides some nice comments regarding LFTB.
http://live.psu.edu/story/58528
Here is a link that reviews the safety of ammonium hydroxide.
http://www.foodinsight.org/Resources/Detail.aspx?topic=Questions_and_Answers_about_Ammonium_Hydroxide_Use_in_Food_Production
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
Cola, BPA, and Our Aversion to Risk
Recently, Campbell Soup made the decision to move away from cans that contain BPA the lining. Was it justified? FDA initially concluded that BPA was not a risk, but after public pressure, they are reevaluating its safety.
Another controversy brewing is the caramel color that gives cola soft drinks their brown color. The chemical, 4-methylimidazole (4-MI), is formed when the caramel color is manufactured. According the FDA, the levels found in soda are well below any concern. The FDA spokesman, Doug Karas stated "A consumer would have to consume well over a thousand cans of soda a day to reach the doses administered in the studies that have shown links to cancer in rodents”. However, the consumer watchdog group, Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), doesn’t agree. They have petitioned FDA to have 4-MI banned.
How do the risks associated with certain chemicals in our food stack up against non-food related risks? For the consumer, this question is difficult to answer. In evaluating the risk associated with a chemical, numerous studies are completed. The scientists issue reports and from these reports, numerous interpretations are made, including ones by industry associations, consumer advocacy groups, and government agencies. Then some of these interpretations make their way to the consumer, either through the mass media (TV, newsprint) or through social media (websites, blogs).
The studies that are conducted to determine risk are rarely perfect. Animal models, where large quantities are injected into small animals such as rats, are often used for toxicity determinations. With these, there is always a question of how realistic it is when compared to humans and their normal living conditions. When large scale human surveys are used to determine risk, it is often difficult to control all of the variables including what people eat, their daily habits, and their genetic makeup. In the end, we hope that conclusions that are drawn are done are unbiased and done in the best interest of the public.
Public opinion polls have been done that show that that is an increasing concern in the consumers’ perception of food hazards. The apparent lack of trust on these technical risk assessments and this can be linked to a number of factors. One is the stories that are reported in the news media and how they are reported. In addition to television and print news, many people now use the internet for their information. On the internet, we see the whole gamut of information, from the scientific studies themselves to the totally unscientific opinion pieces.
One of the primary fears that people have is cancer. Certainly past tragedies provide an underpinning for the public’s concern. Asbestos and tobacco are two examples of cancer related items that have received a high level of media coverage and have led to people being skeptical. So when a linkage is made between a chemical in food and cancer in the news or the media, it will get attention. The question of the level of risk, however, is often more difficult to discern.
How should one respond? First, consumers should inform themselves as best they can by using valid sources of information. It is also important to understand the bias of those providing the information, and try to obtain a balance in what is read. Remember that the information out there is rarely clear cut, so it is important for consumers to make a determination where they feel comfortable.
Links
http://healthland.time.com/2012/03/06/soda-wars-can-the-color-in-your-cola-give-your-cancer/?iid=hl-main-lede?xid=gonewsedit#ixzz1oRRVsFCH
http://www.forbes.com/sites/amywestervelt/2012/03/05/under-pressure-from-parents-advocacy-groups-campbells-goes-bpa-free/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/henrymiller/2011/10/25/bpa-is-still-ok/
Another controversy brewing is the caramel color that gives cola soft drinks their brown color. The chemical, 4-methylimidazole (4-MI), is formed when the caramel color is manufactured. According the FDA, the levels found in soda are well below any concern. The FDA spokesman, Doug Karas stated "A consumer would have to consume well over a thousand cans of soda a day to reach the doses administered in the studies that have shown links to cancer in rodents”. However, the consumer watchdog group, Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), doesn’t agree. They have petitioned FDA to have 4-MI banned.
How do the risks associated with certain chemicals in our food stack up against non-food related risks? For the consumer, this question is difficult to answer. In evaluating the risk associated with a chemical, numerous studies are completed. The scientists issue reports and from these reports, numerous interpretations are made, including ones by industry associations, consumer advocacy groups, and government agencies. Then some of these interpretations make their way to the consumer, either through the mass media (TV, newsprint) or through social media (websites, blogs).
The studies that are conducted to determine risk are rarely perfect. Animal models, where large quantities are injected into small animals such as rats, are often used for toxicity determinations. With these, there is always a question of how realistic it is when compared to humans and their normal living conditions. When large scale human surveys are used to determine risk, it is often difficult to control all of the variables including what people eat, their daily habits, and their genetic makeup. In the end, we hope that conclusions that are drawn are done are unbiased and done in the best interest of the public.
Public opinion polls have been done that show that that is an increasing concern in the consumers’ perception of food hazards. The apparent lack of trust on these technical risk assessments and this can be linked to a number of factors. One is the stories that are reported in the news media and how they are reported. In addition to television and print news, many people now use the internet for their information. On the internet, we see the whole gamut of information, from the scientific studies themselves to the totally unscientific opinion pieces.
One of the primary fears that people have is cancer. Certainly past tragedies provide an underpinning for the public’s concern. Asbestos and tobacco are two examples of cancer related items that have received a high level of media coverage and have led to people being skeptical. So when a linkage is made between a chemical in food and cancer in the news or the media, it will get attention. The question of the level of risk, however, is often more difficult to discern.
How should one respond? First, consumers should inform themselves as best they can by using valid sources of information. It is also important to understand the bias of those providing the information, and try to obtain a balance in what is read. Remember that the information out there is rarely clear cut, so it is important for consumers to make a determination where they feel comfortable.
Links
http://healthland.time.com/2012/03/06/soda-wars-can-the-color-in-your-cola-give-your-cancer/?iid=hl-main-lede?xid=gonewsedit#ixzz1oRRVsFCH
http://www.forbes.com/sites/amywestervelt/2012/03/05/under-pressure-from-parents-advocacy-groups-campbells-goes-bpa-free/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/henrymiller/2011/10/25/bpa-is-still-ok/
Monday, March 5, 2012
Social Media Taking Over for Mom
The Progressive Grocer discusses a study" Clicks & Cravings: The Impact of Social Technology on Food Culture, which finds social/digital media is replacing Mom as the go-to culinary source of knowledge for many people." These surveys are great references - we sense that more people are using social media as a tool for deciding what to eat, how to prepare it, and then chatting about it with others, but here is a study to support those notions.
http://www.progressivegrocer.com/top-stories/headlines/consumer-insights/id34891/social-media-redefining-our-relationship-with-food/
"The study was jointly developed and conducted by consumer research firm The Hartman Group and Publicis Consultants USA, a food and nutrition marketing agency. Study results show almost half of consumers learn about food via social networking sites, such as Twitter and Facebook, and 40 percent learn about food via websites, apps or blogs."
Impact on food safety - the internet is the wild west of information, where anyone can write anything. It is alway important for people to use trusted sites, and to review information provided in that recipe against validated information (foodsafety.gov for example). If a recipe suggests that you undercook an item, for example to cook chicken to 150F instead of 165F, you should consider not using that recipe.
http://www.progressivegrocer.com/top-stories/headlines/consumer-insights/id34891/social-media-redefining-our-relationship-with-food/
"The study was jointly developed and conducted by consumer research firm The Hartman Group and Publicis Consultants USA, a food and nutrition marketing agency. Study results show almost half of consumers learn about food via social networking sites, such as Twitter and Facebook, and 40 percent learn about food via websites, apps or blogs."
Impact on food safety - the internet is the wild west of information, where anyone can write anything. It is alway important for people to use trusted sites, and to review information provided in that recipe against validated information (foodsafety.gov for example). If a recipe suggests that you undercook an item, for example to cook chicken to 150F instead of 165F, you should consider not using that recipe.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)