Food Safety News

Making School Food Healthier

aweisbecker@marlerclark.com (Andy Weisbecker) — Wed, 01 Sep 2010 01:59:04 -0800

Some kids have already started attending classes, and most will be back in school after Labor Day. Many parents may justifiably be wondering about recent efforts to improve the quality of the food served to their children in these schools.

According to an Institute of Medicine Report released in October 2009, school-age children eat too many discretionary calories, too few fruits and vegetables--particularly dark green and dark orange fruits and vegetables, too few whole grains and low-fat dairy products, and too many solid fats and sugars. Today more than 30 percent of American children are obese, and the risks to children's health are also risks to the economy, with billions of dollars spent each year treating obesity-related conditions like heart disease, diabetes, and cancer. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have identified increased fresh fruit and vegetable consumption as one of six top strategies to control and prevent obesity.

In February, 2010, First Lady Michelle Obama launched the Let's Move! campaign to solve the childhood obesity epidemic within a generation. As part of this effort, President Barack Obama established the Task Force on Childhood Obesity to develop and implement an interagency action plan to solve the problem of childhood obesity within a generation. The action plan's goal is to return to a childhood obesity rate of just 5 percent by 2030, which was the rate before childhood obesity first began to rise in the late 1970s. In May, Mrs. Obama and members of the Childhood Obesity Task Force unveiled the Task Force action plan: Solving the Problem of Childhood Obesity Within a Generation. A key recommendation of the action plan was to provide healthy food in schools, through improvements in federally supported school lunches and breakfasts; upgrading the nutritional quality of other foods sold in schools; and improving nutrition education and the overall health of the school environment.

Passage of the pending Child Nutrition Act is the legislative centerpiece of Let's Move! By passing strong reauthorization legislation, the Administration hopes to reduce hunger, promote access to healthy food, and improve the overall health and nutrition of children. Congress is still working to complete the reauthorization of the Child Nutrition Act, the major federal legislation that determines school food policy and resources. The Act is reauthorized only once every five years, and is therefore an important opportunity to shape the future of school food. The School Breakfast Program and the National School Lunch Program are permanently authorized. However the other child nutrition programs that affect school nutrition operators must be reauthorized every five years. The Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act of 2004 expired on September 30, 2009, but was extended until September 30, 2010. [1]

On August 5, 2010, the Senate unanimously passed its version of the Child Nutrition Act. The bill would partially fulfill President Obama's request for $10 billion in additional funding for child nutrition programs by providing $4.5 billion over the next decade. The bill now moves on to the House. The House version of the bill has already passed through committee, and the final bill will need to pass the House by September 30, before the current program expires. The House version of the bill costs $8 billion over ten years, but does not yet have sufficient offsets.

The Senate's version of the legislation reauthorizes federal child nutrition programs, sets nutritional standards for all food sold in schools, and increases the reimbursement rate--for the first time in over three decades--by approximately 6 cents a meal. The Act would expand the number of low-income children who are eligible for free or reduced-price school meals, largely by streamlining the paperwork required to receive the meals. It would also expand a program to provide after-school meals to at-risk children. Foods sold in schools would be required to meet new nutrition guidelines, whether sold in the school lunch line or in vending machines. Schools would still be allowed to sell pizza and other favorites, though schools may have to substitute healthier ingredients to qualify. School vending machines could be prohibited from selling the candy bars and high-sugar sodas that have long provided revenue for extracurricular programs.

Improved school lunch advocates have praised the Senate's efforts, but also argue that the House should push for implementation of its own broader and more comprehensive reauthorization bill. One criticism of the Senate bill is that it makes strong investments in improved nutrition but does not make needed investments in program access. The Senate bill would expand after school suppers nationwide and would facilitate enrollment in free school meals, but would do little to address other gap periods when children are known to lack access to food: breakfast, weekends, and summer. The House Education and Labor Committee approved a strong bill in July, the Improving Nutrition for America's Children Act of 2010 (H.R.5504). This bill includes the same improvements to nutritional quality as the Senate bill but does far more to invest in increased program access. The House bill would significantly increase access to food at breakfast, after school, on weekends, and during the summer. [2]

Another significant criticism of the Senate bill is that the Senate's bill's programs would be partially paid for from another important family-assistance program, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)--the former Food Stamp Program. SNAP serves more than 40 million low-income Americans each month, half of them children. As 107 members of Congress wrote in a recent letter to Speaker Pelosi, cutting food assistance for families to pay for food assistance for children would essentially be robbing Peter to pay Paul. [2]

In addition to the pending proposed federal legislation, numerous and diverse efforts to improve the quality of food served in schools are taking place in other forums, on a national, state, and local level. On August 23, 2010, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack encouraged schools throughout the country to participate in the Healthier US School Challenge (HUSSC), an initiative that helps improve the health and nutrition of children. USDA created the HUSSC to recognize schools that maintain healthy school environments by improving the quality of meals and increasing physical activity and nutrition education. USDA's Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) provides schools monetary incentives for earning HUSSC certification, and a range of educational and technical assistance materials that promote consumption of fruits and vegetables and other key aspects of the Dietary Guidelines--including a Menu Planner for Healthy School Meals. On August 25, 2010, the Agriculture Secretary also announced that USDA will establish a People's Garden School Pilot Program to develop and run community gardens at eligible high-poverty schools. Through this program, students involved in the gardens would learn agriculture production practices, diet, and nutrition, learning outcomes would be evaluated. [3]

As an example of action on the local level, in May 2010 the Council of the District of Columbia unanimously passed the Healthy Schools Act of 2010. The Act is intended to substantially improve the health, wellness, and nutrition of the public and charter school students in the District of Columbia, and took effect when the 2010-2011 school year began on August 23, 2010.   More than 55 percent of the residents of the District of Columbia are overweight or obese--including nearly half of all children. In some wards, the rate of overweight and obesity exceeds 70 percent. The Healthy Schools Act will, in part: require all school meals to meet the USDA Healthier US Gold Level standards; require all school meals to meet the Institute of Medicine's nutritional standards for saturated fat, trans fat, and sodium; improve the quality of school meals by providing an additional 10 cents for each breakfast and lunch meal served; and establish a farm-to-school program, providing an additional 5 cents for each lunch meal that includes local foods. [4]

Local food is gaining a stronger foothold in U.S. schools as the result of changes in government legislation and procurement rules, and the work of organizations such as the Farm to School Network--which fosters and institutionalizes programs that link local farms with schools. Changes to federal and state legislation and procurement rules are making it easier for schools to access locally produced foods for government-funded meal programs. The Farm to School Network has worked successfully to strengthen ties between local farmers and schools. Since 2004, it's estimated that U.S. farm-to-school programs have increased from just 400 to more than 2,000 across 45 states, involving nearly 9,000 schools and more than 2,000 school districts. A 2009 survey by the School Nutrition Association shows that 34 percent of schools across the country are serving locally sourced foods, either occasionally or every day, while an additional 22 percent plan to do so. [5]

Farm to school programs improve nutrition for children that participate in the school lunch program and lead to significant changes in their eating habits. Farm to school programs also offer immediate and long-term economic benefits; according to a study in Oregon, every dollar school districts spent on purchases of local food stimulated an additional eighty-seven cents in economic activity. A farm to school program was first authorized by the Child Nutrition Act reauthorization of 2004, but funds were never appropriated for the effort. In 2010, the Senate's version of the Child Nutrition Act provides $40 million for farm to school programs. [6]

Celebrity chefs are also getting involved, drawing increased attention to the need for increased school food quality, and providing individual solutions. In June, hundreds of chefs gathered at the White House to launch a national adopt-a-school program. Dubbed "Chefs Move to Schools", the initiative has attracted both stars of the culinary universe--Rachael Ray, Tom Colicchio and Cat Cora--and also a number of other chefs who staff corporate kitchens, food banks, and culinary schools. Nearly 1,000 chefs have signed on to the program. To date, they have already begun teaching cooking classes to hundreds of students and parents, have helped to plant school gardens, and have established a nonprofit catering service with a mission to create healthful, affordable food for public school cafeterias. [7]

Jamie Oliver's Food Revolution television show recently won an Emmy at the Emmy ceremony in Hollywood. Oliver, a British celebrity chef turned health activist, has used the success of his show to publicize the launch of his petition to change the menus in public school lunch halls and to reign in the obesity epidemic. Even though his show only consisted of six episodes, it gathered a significant following and numerous awards. [7]

It is obviously far too early to determine if Michelle Obama's ambitious goal to significantly decrease childhood obesity within a generation is realistic. A critical step towards that goal will be the passage of a comprehensive and robust Child Nutrition Act prior to the present September 30 deadline. Some of the organizations that are presently providing means to contact Congress requesting the passage of a comprehensive Child Nutrition Act in the next few weeks include: the School Nutrition Association, www.schoolnutrition.org the Healthy Schools Campaign, www.healthyschoolscampaign.org, and the National Farm to School Network www.farmtoschool.org.

References:

[1]   "USDA Encourages Schools to Take the Healthier US School Challenge to Help Improve the Nutrition of School Children Nationwide", USDA Press Release, August 24, 2010.

[2]   "Why the House Child Nutrition Bill is Better for Children", Vicki B. Escarra (CEO of Feeding America), posted August 24, 2010, The Huffington Post.

[3]   "USDA Announces Funding to Expand School Community Gardens and Garden-Based Learning Opportunities", USDA Press Release, August 25, 2010.

[4]   "Healthy Schools Act of 2010", Press Release, Mary Cheh, Ward 3 DC Council.

[5]   "Local Food Makes Gains in U.S. Schools", Valerie Ward, August 13, 2010, http://greenliving.suite101.com/article.cfm/local-food-makes-gains-in-us-schools#ixzz0xZ9sz1W7.

[6]   "41 Organizations Urge Congress to Fund Farm to School Nutrition Program", May 4, 2010, National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.

[7]   "Chefs Move to Schools: A nutritious program kids can sink their teeth into", Jane Black, Washington Post, June 4, 2010.

Publisher's Platform: Magic Wand

bmarler@marlerclark.com (Bill Marler) — Mon, 30 Aug 2010 01:59:03 -0800

What if I had a food safety magic wand?

The other morning when I was prepping in another studio to talk with another cable channel about yet another food crisis--this time the recall of a half of a billion Salmonella-tainted eggs that had already sickened at least 1,400--I was asked by a young producer, "Attorney Marler, if you had a magic wand, what would you do to make food safer?"

My first thought (to myself) was, "How the hell do I know, I'm just an ambulance chasing barracuda looking to destroy some poor helpless food manufacturing corporation that just poisoned a bunch of people, cost retail chains hundreds of millions of dollars in recall costs, and damaged its entire sector's image and sales?"

But then I thought some more. I thought about my nearly eighteen years spent dismantling those helpless corporations to secure medical expenses and lost wages for clients whose lives were destroyed, or ended, because they did something we all do about three times a day: they ate food. I thought about the ICU's I had been in and witnessed the panic in a parent's eye as a doctor coldly explained the need for kidney dialysis, or the reasons to stop life support because their child's brain had stopped functioning. I thought about the heroic struggles in rehab as a brain-injured client learned to brush her hair and teeth, or learn to walk again as the family looked hopefully on. I thought about the fear that these families have as they wonder how they will cope with a disabled future without the resources to pay for it.

And, then I thought, "Give me the damn wand!"

First, I would increase criminal sanctions for poisoning your customers. If a CEO of a food manufacturer takes unreasonable risks with the public's health, and people get severely sick or die, that CEO should spend time in jail. For goodness sake, we make kids do hard time for smoking dope, yet we do nothing to a CEO who sickens several hundred and kills nine by knowingly shipping Salmonella-tainted peanut butter (Yes, Mr. Parnell, I am thinking of you).

Second, I would financially-incentivize food manufacturers and retailers to produce and buy safer food. I would give them tax breaks for food safety interventions that have been proven to make our food both safer and healthier.

Third, I would encourage transparency in food safety; consumers need to know who produces and sells the safest and healthiest food, not just who produces and sells the cheapest food. Quality needs to replace quantity in the American diet.

Fourth, I would assure that our food regulations were even and flexible for all players--small and large, foreign and domestic. Safety would be paramount, but innovation--especially, those focused on energy consumption, environmental concerns and sustainability--must be encouraged.

Fifth, give local, state and federal inspectors the resources to enforce the regulations fairly and as frequently as necessary to assure compliance. Make all inspections - especially product tests - transparent. Manufacturers and retailers need to work in virtual glass houses. Food production and food safety needs to be seen by all.

Sixth, I would elevate public health to the height it deserves. We need to encourage cooperation between all levels of public health in charge of educating the public on safe food handling. We also need to encourage coordination to those charged with surveillance of foodborne and bioterrorism events. We need to stop outbreaks earlier and prevent the spread of disease.

Damn, my wand arm is tired. I know I missed some things and likely emphasized ideas that others would not, but I am tired now and still have an ambulance to chase.

Food Colors: A Spectrum of Thoughts

info@foodinsight.org (International Food Information Council Foundation) — Fri, 27 Aug 2010 01:59:04 -0800

When I think of food colors, I instantly think of baking cookies with my mom and sisters during the holidays as a kid. My sisters and I would always get into fights over who got to squeeze the brightly colored tubes of food coloring into the batter. And of course, I recalled the days of summer. As my childhood summers mostly consisted of long days outside at the pool or playing games of "kick the can" with friends, frozen popsicles were our number one choice to cool down from the summer heat. All of these memories are full of color - or, I should say, colorful food. I don't think my fond memories from childhood would be the same without these summer and holiday favorites, and they would not be the same without their familiar color.

So, what is a food color? A food color, or color additive, is any dye, pigment or substance that imparts color when added or applied to a food, drug, cosmetic, or the human body. Foods like packaged macaroni and cheese, flavored yogurts, fruit juices, ketchup and other sauces and dressings, sports drinks, and treats such as candy and frozen popsicles use food colors to add or enhance their color. Can you imagine any of these foods without their trademark colors? Many foods would have no color at all or would appear dull without food colors to make them more appealing.

However, food colors have been the subject of occasional controversy. In the early 1970s a study raised concerns about a potential link between food colors and increased hyperactivity in children. However, numerous scientific studies and reviews conducted since then have found no causal link between consumption of food colors and ADHD in children.

The safety of food colors has long been established. All color additives currently used in food and beverage products in the U.S. have been reviewed for safety and approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. FDA and other regulatory bodies around the world, as well as most experts and researchers, agree that the scientific evidence does not support a link between color additives and cancer. A few studies dating back to the 1960s suggested a link; however, the results were attributed to other factors and not the colors.

A food supply without the use of food colors would mean no colorful icing on holiday cookies or birthday cakes, a summer without colorful frozen popsicles, and less visually appealing foods. Food colors are a safe way to add color to our plates and also contribute to the enjoyment of our food, which is something that I believe we should not take for granted.

What were some of your favorite fun-colored foods growing up?

Editor's Note: "Food Colors: A Spectrum of Thoughts" by Matt Thoman originally appeared on the International Food Information Council Foundation's Food Insights blog on August 20, 2010

Finding STECs in an Emotional Hay Stack

CRJolley@msn.com (Chuck Jolley) — Wed, 25 Aug 2010 01:59:04 -0800

I am a fan of the meat industry's efforts to identify and eliminate sources of foodborne illness. The work done to end the scourge of E. coli O157:H7 alone has tapped the best scientific minds around the world and cost millions of dollars. Processing plants have reconstructed their production lines, added costly but necessary kill steps, and changed the way the entire distribution system works. The results have been truly phenomenal; not at 100 percent yet and it never will be, but very close to what it can be.

But the industry's efforts still have a problem and it's one of perception. I've often said the science behind what the industry does is sound and trumps the emotional appeals used by anti-meat groups. Those emotional appeals, unfortunately, often win the day and here's why: People eat with their hearts and souls. When a family member is struck with a foodborne illness and lingers near death, people react to the tragedy with their hearts and souls. They take no comfort in the fact that only an incredibly small proportion of meals result in illness or premature death. They take even less comfort in the fact that a number of those deaths and illnesses might have been due to food mishandling on their part.

Case in Point: Back when I was teaching a course on crisis management for the meat industry and using real world incidents as discussion points, one of the people in the class got overly agitated about the public relations fall out caused by the death of a young boy.

"Why should my company have to suffer when it's clear that the cause was undercooking food in the home?" he exclaimed.

I said, "Would you like to stand up in front of a group of reporters, point to the grieving mother and tell them that it's all her fault? That she actually killed her five-year-old?"

A comment like his comes across as cold and unfeeling. It's business suicide. And as Jim Marsden, a well-known and highly respected meat science researcher at Kansas State University said, "'Just cook it' isn't the answer."

Here is a harsh, non-scientific fact: Science can only take you so far with the public. There comes a time when emotion takes the argument. With all the work the food industry has done to eliminate foodborne illnesses, it's often seen as lacking in resolve. The food industry has to appear to take charge of the foodborne illness issue and not be seen as dragging its feet. The AMI letter sent to USDA Secretary Vilsack sends the wrong emotional message.

The letter says, "Designating non-O157:H7 shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli (STEC) as adulterants would result in a regulatory program that will do more harm than good."

The public will ask, "For whom? My family or the meat business?"

AMI took the position that "Non-O157:H7 STEC's in beef products may be a reason for potential public health concern, but it is not a public health emergency."

The public will say, "For my children, a potential public health concern is a public health emergency."

The letter outlined 8 specific steps that the USDA should complete before considering STEC's as adulterants:

1. Focus on Prevention
2. Conduct a Comprehensive Public Health Risk Assessment
3. Validate Analytical Laboratory Test Methods
4. Conduct a Baseline Survey of Non-O157:H7 STECs on Beef Products
5. Measure Progress Based on the Public Health Outcome
6. Expedite Approval of New Microbial Interventions
7. Determine Impact on International Trade
8. Provide an Open and Transparent Public Policy Process

All eight are valid points that need to be addressed as quickly as possible. Steps #3 and #6 are especially critical. Even if the USDA were to take an immediate step of declaring STECs to be adulterants, there are no valid tests or preventive technologies available. If a processor can't test for STECs and eliminate them when present, the government can't force the issue.

But I can see it coming already. Critics will immediately jump on the points made in the letter as just another effort by the meat industry to shirk its responsibility; to make food safety a financial, profit-and-loss decision and take the focus off of it as a serious public health issue. The AMI hit the science squarely on the head but missed the emotional issue completely.

Publisher's Platform

bmarler@marlerclark.com (Bill Marler) — Sun, 22 Aug 2010 23:01:04 -0800

The House and Senate Agriculture and U.S. Food and Drug Administration Oversight Committees should hold joint hearings on the Salmonella egg fiasco.

As I said to the Associate Press yesterday, "The history of ignoring the law makes the sickening of 1,300 and the forced recall of 550 million eggs shockingly understandable." I was talking about the owner of the largest egg farm at the center of this massive recall and outbreak of Salmonella Enteriditis. As the AP found, the owner, Austin "Jack" DeCoster, is no stranger to controversy in his food and farm operations:

- In 1997, DeCoster Egg Farms agreed to pay $2 million in fines to settle citations brought in 1996 for health and safety violations at DeCoster's farm in Turner, Maine. Then-Labor Secretary Robert Reich said conditions were "as dangerous and oppressive as any sweatshop." He cited unguarded machinery, electrical hazards, exposure to harmful bacteria, and other unsanitary conditions.

- In 2000, Iowa designated DeCoster a "habitual violator" of environmental regulations for problems that included hog manure runoff into waterways. The label made him subject to increased penalties and prohibited him from building new farms.

- In 2002, the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission announced a more than $1.5 million settlement of an employment discrimination lawsuit against DeCoster Farms on behalf of Mexican women who reported they were subjected to sexual harassment, including rape, abuse, and retaliation by some supervisory workers at DeCoster's Wright County plants.

- In 2007, 51 workers were arrested during an immigration raid at six DeCoster egg farms. The farm had been the subject of at least three previous raids.

- In June 2010, Maine Contract Farming, the successor company to DeCoster Egg Farms, agreed in state court to pay $25,000 in penalties and to make a one-time payment of $100,000 to the Maine Department of Agriculture over animal cruelty allegations that were spurred by a hidden camera investigation by an animal welfare organization.

Yesterday, according to the Washington Post, Rosa DeLauro (D-CT), announced plans to ask the Food and Drug Administration and Agriculture Department about DeCoster. DeLauro's questions are aimed at getting more information about how much federal regulators knew about DeCoster's poor compliance record and what steps were taken to ensure safety at DeCoster's facilities.

I think questions should be asked. Actually--a lot of questions. However, in addition to Congresswoman DeLauro's, I would ask the FDA and U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service together (hence the joint hearing), who was in charge of what in inspecting the DeCoster farms prior to the beginning of the Salmonella outbreak in late May? Will that jurisdiction change now that the ìEgg Ruleî (also known as ìFederal Register Final Rule (July 9, 2009, 74 FR 33030): Prevention of Salmonella Enteritidis in Shell Eggs During Production, Storage, and Transportationî) is in effect? Is this apparent ìjoint jurisdictionî between FDA and FSIS the best way of assuring the public that eggs will be safer? Are resources sufficient to assure the public that the most is being done to protect them and prevent a similar debachle from happening?

For good measure, I would ask DeCoster to come and explain (under oath) to the Committee if his farms were complying with the spirit and/or letter of the ìEgg Ruleî before the recall and outbreak. Here are the highlights of the Rule:

• Buy chicks and young hens only from suppliers who monitor for Salmonella bacteria;

• Establish rodent, pest control, and biosecurity measures to prevent the spread of bacteria throughout the farm by people and equipment;

• Conduct testing in the poultry house for Salmonella Enteritidis. If the tests find the bacterium, a representative sample of the eggs must be tested over an eight-week time period (four tests at two-week intervals); if any of the four egg tests is positive, the producer must further process the eggs to destroy the bacteria, or divert the eggs to a non-food use;

• Clean and disinfect poultry houses that have tested positive for Salmonella Enteritidis;

• Refrigerate eggs at 45 degrees F during storage and transportation no later than 36 hours after the eggs are laid (this requirement also applies to egg producers whose eggs receive a treatment, such as pasteurization);

• Environmental Testing for Salmonella Enteritidis. There are specific requirements on when and how to test for the pathogen and coordination with pullet testing; and,

• Egg Testing for Salmonella Enteritidis. Whenever you have reason to know/suspect of presence of Salmonella Enteritidis. Two week intervals in positive poultry houses.

The FDA said that if DeCoster had been following the ìEgg Ruleî this outbreak would not have happened. Really? His farms really were not trying to follow the common sense ideas above before this happened? If he was following the Rule, where was the error made? Or, is there something wrong with the Rule?

Much to talk about, much to learn.

On Bears and Food Security Part V: The Solution

info@howlingduckranch.com (Kristeva Dowling) — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 01:59:06 -0800

The solution:

"Lasting success requires both HUMANS and BEARS to change their behaviors otherwise bears will continually get into trouble." --Southwest Alberta Bear Management Program

I began this series because of a discussion the British Columbia Food Security Network was having about how to make bears and fruit trees get along. Members in Powell River, BC were being told by their local Ministry of Environment Conservation Officers to cut down their fruit trees and then being threatened with fines if they did not comply.

As a farmer, a food provisioner, and someone who is passionate about food security and community development, I was concerned by this attitude of the regional Conservation Officers. Because it is not policy (yet) on the Ministry of Environment's site, it makes me wonder why these Conservation Officers are suggesting this as a reasonable solution to the human-bear conflict. I believe it is because they are convinced by some of the myths I have outlined in previous articles (see part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4 of the series), in particular, the theory that humans can control bear behavior if we remove all the attractants, which is simply not true.

Furthermore, it is a ridiculous fantasy that we can live 'in harmony' with wildlife. As one Bear Smart BC program coordinator told me during an interview, "Living with large predators has its limitations and we can't expect people to ignore the risks associated with bear/human conflict." Sadly, the only outcome of these 'animal-centric' ideas is for humans to be held hostage to the bears which, thanks to changes in legislation in Canada, now have the backing of the Conservation Officers and, thanks to the preservationist media agenda, now have the backing of the public at large.

The New Jersey example proves that the act of withdrawing is futile (see New Jersey Bear Problem); despite the mammoth efforts to control city garbage, the state's bear problem is worse than ever!

As the New Jersey example shows, once you have habituated bears and then remove the attractants (food, garbage, barbeques, fruit trees) outside your home, bears will enter houses, because they are accustomed to acquiring food at those locations and are no longer afraid of humans. Instead, they see human settlements as a source of food. "We don't know exactly how long it takes for a habituated bear to become 'human food conditioned' but in some observations of specific bears we have estimated it took approximately 10 days," the Bear Smart BC program coordinator told me.

What is worse, they may even consider your property part of their home range territory and defend it aggressively. While not strictly territorial by nature, bears do conduct a modified form of territorial defense (what some bear behavior experts call 'home range' defense), where a bear will defend access to resources such as the best salmon spawning rivers, the best berry patches, or other areas with rich sources of food (resources) and they will defend those areas aggressively.

This home range defense is an important distinction in bear behavior that has implications for our food security. When you develop a food secure piece of ground in bear territory, you could find yourself (or your yard/farm) being considered part of a bear's 'home-range' territory. If your yard is in prime bear habitat then it is not likely that you will end up with a young, inexperienced (or marginalized) bear, but you could end up with an older, more experienced (and thus more aggressive) bear laying claim to your fruit trees. It is even likely to be a dominant female with cubs. She may not be able to hold prime river access, but because your farm/yard/trees are close to the river, she can lay claim to that habitat. In other words, you could end up with a bear that is willing to fight aggressively to keep (or take) the access to the fruit trees. Females with cubs are an even more dangerous situation because of the 'cub-defense' behavior--the most common type of bear aggression towards people that results in injury.

Younger or more inexperienced bears can sometimes be deterred more easily (with bear bangers, or dogs, loud noises, electric fences, and so on) but more experienced and/or determined bears (especially females with cubs) will not be so easily deterred--especially if they have had access to this food source over time.

For the most part, it is the younger bears which are being forced to access people's yards (around cities and less wild spaces) but it is certainly not always the case. The typical bear to get into trouble with people is a sub-adult between 2 to 5 years old for Black Bears, and 3 to 5 years old for Grizzlies. Black bear cubs stay with the sow for two years and Grizzly cubs stay three years. After that they are forced to fend for themselves and at that point they become very vulnerable. Sub-adults are vulnerable to predation by other bears, cougars, and wolves, so they are forced further away from their original home range territory. Sub-adult males are bolder than females and they are usually the first source of the conflict. The next ones to get up close to homes are sows with cubs. These sows approach human development for the same reasons that sub-adults do, to stay away from predators, especially dominant male bears.

Because of this, they choose "safe zones" where the dominant males (as well as other predators) are less likely to be present. Drawn in by their strong sense of smell to the odors around homes, these bears explore for opportunities. Because we are no longer trapping, snaring, and shooting these intruders, these bears quickly learn that human settlements are a safe haven so they push the envelope. It is here that the trouble begins and finding a solution becomes paramount.

We can categorize bears, regardless of species, in three ways.

1. Wild--No previous experience with humans.

2. Human Wise--They know what humans are; they have seen them, smelled, and heard them.

3. Habituated--These bears are accustomed to being around people and have learned not to fear them. These are by far the most dangerous kind of bear to deal with.

Wild bears and human wise bears are not problem bears, only potentially problem bears. Problem bears are habituated bears. In order to address those bears effectively, humans have to accept that we are part of the problem and change our behaviors accordingly.

If we want to keep these animals alive then a mammoth effort in lifestyle change is required. Step one is to acknowledge that we are in competition with them for resources (food, land, access to food sources, waterways, etc--even if we are vegan) and step two is to act accordingly. Here are the four main ways we may minimize the human-bear conflict:

1. We can stop habituating bears to our food sources by not putting any food into garbage cans in our neighborhoods or into community garbage dumps.

Professor Stephen Herrero found villagers in Italy surrounded by mountains and bears, who, despite growing much of their own food, keeping fruit trees, and composting in they own yards, do not have bear problems. He documents his experience in the village in his book, Bear Attacks Revised: their cause and avoidance. The people in these Italian mountain communities put NO food garbage into their dumps! Not a drop. In addition, the households compost all their own food and thus the bears do not become accustomed to human waste food in the towns or at the dumps. They also defend their settlements so the bears know not to come to town and that humans are a threat.

2. We can keep bears wild by delineating preservation areas for bears where humans are not allowed to go.

As a May 2010 Sierra Club Canada Media Release so rightly states, we must "... protect adequate amounts of grizzly bear habitat and restrict the number of open routes and motorized access in other places."

3. We can make bears more human wise by defending our territory aggressively.

Enter The Wind River Bear Institute and its 'Parters-in-Life' program.

An innovative leader in this work, the Wind River Bear Institute uses non-lethal methods of reducing the human-bear conflict problems. The institute's goal is to teach the bears and humans how to avoid conflict. Its mission is 'to reduce human-caused bear mortality and conflicts worldwide to ensure the continued survival of all species of bears for future generations'. When a 'nuisance' bear shows up, a dog trainer and team are dispatched to aggressively defend the property and/or human settlement a bear is encroaching upon.

This technique is called 'bear shepherding': the idea behind it is to teach bears to recognize that humans have territorial boundaries and they are not welcome inside them. Of her program, Hunt says, "We have developed a system for teaching safe, meaningful lessons to bears and use a variety of loud noises, rubber projectiles and Karelian Bear Dog (KBD) Wildlife Service Dogs (WSDs) to safely 'herd' bears out of off-limit areas such as roadways, campgrounds, developed sites, and back country camps."

It is the aim of The Wind River Bear Institute (WRBI) to successfully 'retrain' the bears to recognize humans and see them as a threat to be avoided. "Because our lessons are based on wild bear behavior, the bears are taught to view us as much like a dominant bear and learn to avoid human developed sites as 'our' territory." Because the technique is based in wild animal behavior, it can be used as a template for other animals that pose human-wildlife conflict. The WRBI has also used this shepherding technique with cougars, moose, big horn sheep, and wolves.

Enter the government.

Our government officials could put more money into supporting programs like the Partners-in-Life, and have Conservation Officers trained to do Bear Shepherding. We could also give back land owners some power through policy changes, and allow them to defend their territory as a preventative measure. This could entail trapping, snaring, and shooting if necessary. Property owners should not have to wait until a bear is habituated to their land before something can be done. They should not have to wait until the bear has broken into their chicken shed and killed every chicken before a Conservation Officer is dispatched to 'deal' with the problem bear. After all, once the chickens are all dead the bear is no longer a problem!

Destroying the bears is not the only way to deal with them, but sadly, sometimes it is the only solution. Habituated bears are very difficult to discourage. A Bear Smart BC program coordinator admitted, "some bears get too possessive and aggressive around people's homes and there is no other solution but to destroy them... As a program our first responsibility is to human safety." He is speaking from experience, not from emotion.

Why not simply relocate problem bears? An article in the Journal of Wildlife Management by Blanchard and Knight (1995) states, "Because of low survival and high return rates [of relocated bears], transporting grizzly bears should be considered a final action to eliminate a conflict situation." Many relocated bears die either by fighting with other bears in their newly relocated to territory, or by fighting with bears whose territory they have to cross in order to get back to their own home range territory. Because of the low survival rate (and the high resource use and transportation costs), bear biologist Carrie Hunt implores, "relocation and destruction must fade into history as something we do as an exception rather than the norm."

4. We can control our population growth.

We must control our population and limit our growth, period. Otherwise, there will be no space left for bears or any other wild creatures to thrive.

What you 'can' do:

Removing food sources from bears has its merits and does make a positive difference in reducing conflict. The Bear Smart BC program has been working with bear-resistant garbage can makers who have developed some successful and innovative solutions. In order for any container to received bear-resistant status it must undergo stringent testing through the Living with Wildlife with Wildlife Foundation in Wyoming. Standards are posted online. One particular maker, Tye Dee Bins, makes metal bins that, during test trials, no bear could get into no matter how hard it tried.

Electric fencing has come a long way over recent years and installation is the key to dissuading bears from trying to reach a garden, fruit trees, or even barns. Bear Smart has obtained effective electric fencing from Gallagher Fencing, a New Zealand Company which came to BC and trained the Bear Smart Program Delivery Specialists on the proper installation of electric fencing. It is paramount that the bears do not defeat the fence when they attempt to access food. In the Kootenays, BC, Grizzlies had been attacking chicken coops and pig pens, so Bear Smart BC staff responded to complaints and erected a Gallagher electric fence. After one successful electric shot, they find that the bears get the message and never return. The down side to the electric fencing is its high cost.

Antibiotics, HUS, and Gastroenteritis

bclark@marlerclark.com (Bruce Clark) — Mon, 16 Aug 2010 01:59:03 -0800

The issue of whether antibiotics used to treat Shiga toxin-producing E. coli increase the risk of the hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS) has been a vexing one. But beyond E. coli, antibiotic use in general for treatment of infectious gastroenteritis poses conflicting risks and benefits. Since it is hard for even the most diligent medical practitioner to keep abreast of current medical research, consumers of medical services may find it helpful to review some of these issues.

The first study that looked at whether antibiotic use increased the risk of HUS in children was published in 2000. [1] The study found that antibiotic use was a strong and independent risk for the development of HUS regardless of the severity of the inciting infection. Two years later, a meta-analysis of nine pooled studies found no effect in the risk for HUS with antibiotic use. [2] But the analysis noted that limitations in the studies examined limited interpretation of the data.

More recent studies indicate that the risk of HUS is increased by the use of some antibiotics. The differing mechanisms of action in different antibiotics impact the production of Shiga toxin (Stx) differentially. [3]

In a study that used piglets as a model for human infection, ciprofloxacin (Cipro) increased the production of Shiga toxin 2 (Stx2) but not the production of Stx1. Azithromycin [4] caused no significant increase in Shiga toxin production. After treatment with ciprofloxacin, infected piglets had diarrhea and the severe fatal neurological symptoms associated with Stx2 intoxication. "Characteristic petechial hemorrhages in the cerebellum were more severe in ciprofloxacin-treated animals than in control animals. In contrast, azithromycin-treated piglets survived the infection and had little or no brain hemorrhaging." [5]

The study concludes that: "The increased in vitro toxin production caused by ciprofloxacin was strongly correlated with death and an increased rate of cerebellar hemorrhage, in contrast to the effect of azithromycin. The piglet is a suitable model for determining the effectiveness and safety of antibiotics available to treat patients." [6]

A just published study [7] assessed Stx production in the presence of different types of antibiotics. The authors report that: "Sub-inhibitory levels of antibiotics that target DNA synthesis [8], including ciprofloxacin (CIP) increased Stx production, while antibiotics that target the cell wall, transcription, or translation did not....Remarkably, very high levels of Stx were detected even when growth of O157:H7 was completely suppressed by CIP. In contrast, azithromycin (AZM) significantly reduced Stx levels even when O157:H7 viability remained high." [9]

So the evidence mounts that the class of antibiotic that includes Cipro (a fluoroquinolone) may drive the risk of HUS through increased Stx production. However, it is important to note that antibiotics are clearly indicated for some gram negative bacterial infections of the gut including infections such as Campylobacter jejuni and Shigella, which clinically resemble E. coli O157:H7 enteritis. Further, antibiotic use in the elderly, immune compromised, and those with co-morbidities may be indicated even if the face of a Shiga toxin-producing infection. Thus, wholesale avoidance of antimicrobials for infectious diarrhea is not prudent, but identification of the infectious agent before antibiotic administration is very helpful.

Antibiotics are often prescribed to patients who have presumed bacterial gastroenteritis without consideration of the effects beyond the acute illness. Because antibiotics can dramatically affect the native bacteria in the intestines, they have the potential to increase a patient's risk of infection. Persons who are already receiving antimicrobial treatment are more susceptible to infection with drug-resistant pathogens. [10]

Few of us consider the effects of bacteria on the natural flora of our intestinal tracts--unless one develops post-infection GI problems. But the use of antibiotics has effects well past the time of consumption and may leave the user vulnerable to opportunistic bacterial pathogens.

Experiments done with mice show that antibiotic treatment alters the gut flora but does not eliminate it. [11] The effects of antimicrobials on microflora vary with the type of antibiotic and the location--the small intestine versus the beginning and end of the large intestine. The graph below shows the recovery of aerobic bacteria after withdrawal of antibiotics in the mice. There was a rapid overgrowth of aerobic bacteria which steadily fell over the next three weeks.

The same study shows the relative numbers of Salmonella in the GI tract after antibiotic treatment of the mice for one week. Three days after Salmonella bacteria were inoculated in the gut of the mice they were sacrificed in order to assess the extent of introduction of Salmonella colonization. While results varied by antibiotic, all antibiotics used increased the presence of Salmonella versus controls. [12]

The disruption of intestinal mucosa, among other things, appears to increase host susceptibility to Salmonella infection. As the Discussion section of the study emphasizes, even careful use of antibiotics poses potential risks:

"Even routine and appropriate use of antibiotics may have a detrimental impact on the host microbial ecosystem, which is important for host mucosal protection....Oral Salmonella challenge of antibiotic-treated mice resulted in comparable increases in intestinal Salmonella colonization, enteritis, and invasion irrespective of the antibiotic combinations used.... Despite the rapid recovery of several measurable parameters of the biome, residual subtle alterations in bacterial composition can persist and result in profoundly enhanced susceptibility to bacterial enteritis." [13]

Cirpo is a widely prescribed antibiotic for bacterial infections of the GI tract. It is often prescribed as empirical treatment--treatment before a diagnosis is confirmed--which can be problematic if the diagnosis is infection with Shiga toxin-producing E. coli. Presented with a patient suffering bloody diarrhea, the clinician is probably advised to avoid Cipro and choose an antimicrobial with a different mechanism of action if antibiotic treatment is deemed necessary. A person suffering gastroenteritis who is offered antibiotic treatment is well-served to ask questions about potential deleterious effects.

And for those Cipro users who don't worry about the microbiotic flora of their intestines, you may want to watch your joints. In July 2008, the FDA directed the maker of Cipro to add a black box warning to the drug's label about increased risk of developing tendinitis and tendon rupture in patients taking fluoroquinolones.

References

1. Wong CS et al. The risk of the hemolytic-uremic syndrome after antibiotic treatment of Escherichia coli O157:H7 infections. N Engl J Med 2000 Jun 29 342 1930 -1936. This cohort study found a 14 fold increase in the risk of HUS when antibiotics were used.

2. Safdar N, et al. Risk of hemolytic uremic syndrome after antibiotic treatment of Escherichia coli O157:H7 enteritis. JAMA 2002;288(8):996-1001.

3. McGannon CM et al, Different classes of antibiotics differentially influence Shiga toxin production Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. doi:10.1128/AAC.01783-09. Published online ahead of print: http://aac.asm.org/cgi/content/abstract/AAC.01783-09v1.

4. Azithromycin prevents bacteria from growing by interfering with their protein synthesis. It is a macrolide antibiotic chemically related to erythromycin and clarithromycin. It is among the more widely prescribed antibiotics in the US.

5. Zhang Q et al, Gnotobiotic piglet infection model for evaluating the safe use of antibiotics against Escherichia coli O157:H7 infection. J Infect Dis. 2009 Feb 15;199(4):486-93.

6. Id.

7. Supra, note 3.

8. Cipro kills bacteria by interfering with an enzyme (DNA gyrase) that causes DNA to unwind and duplicate and thus stops cell division.

9. Supra, note 3.

10. Mølbak K. Human health consequences of antimicrobial drug-resistant Salmonella and other foodborne pathogens. Clin Infect Dis. Dec 1 2005;41(11):1613-20.

11. Croswell A, et al, Prolonged Impact of Antibiotics on Intestinal Microbial Ecology and Susceptibility to Enteric Salmonella Infection. Infect Immun. 2009 July; 77(7): 2741-2753.

12. DSI = distal small intestine and LI = large intestine.

13. Id.

Why Public Health Matters

marion.nestle@nyu.edu (Marion Nestle) — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 01:59:03 -0800

I received a couple of requests to define "public health" last week from readers [of Food Politics] Anthro and MA. As MA puts it,

"Maybe...we need a definition of "public health." I view my health as a private matter, my food choices as a private matter, and an expression of my freedom. To me, public health is not an individual concern, it's a corporate (group) concern - government, schools, companies, farms, etc. Public health includes things like properly working sewer systems, sanitation, water quality, and air quality.   Marion - can we get a definition of 'public health' from you, as Anthro suggested?"

My definition of public health isn't much different from mainstream definitions. But to me, public health is a critically important expression of democracy, and the antithesis of a "corporate" concern. Public health approaches promote good health for everyone, not just those who can afford it or are educated enough to make appropriate choices.

A standard definition such as the one given in Wikipedia, says that public health is about promoting health and preventing disease through societal choices and efforts. Public health deals with health at the population level, rather than at the level of individual personal responsibility, and it emphasizes prevention rather than treatment.

In my experience teaching public health nutrition, the concept of public health is sometimes hard for people to grasp, especially since populations are made up of individuals. I like to explain it this way: public health makes it easier for individuals to make healthful food choices for themselves and their families. Or to put it another way, public health makes better food choices the default.

The classic example of a public health intervention is water chlorination. As individuals, we could all boil our own drinking water to kill harmful organisms but this requires us to have stoves, pots, and fuel, and to know how to boil water. For many people, having to do this would be an intolerable burden and responsibility. Instead, some societies choose to take public health measures to ensure that drinking water is safe at the tap for everyone.

Other food examples: milk Pasteurization, banning of trans fats, food labeling.

The particular example that elicited the question has to do with food safety.   We, as a society, could insist that food producers take measures to ensure that their products are free of harmful microorganisms (public health), or we could teach individuals how to manage food safety in the home or restaurants and cook foods properly (personal responsibility).

Preventing obesity is another example: We could, as a society, take measures to make it easier for people to eat more healthfully and be more active (public health) or leave it up to individuals to do this for themselves (personal responsibility). Many of the arguments about suggested public health measures to prevent obesity are about how best to balance society's needs with individual rights. But as I see it, the proposals aim to tweak societal choices that have already been made: which crops receive farm subsidies, for example.

An exceptionally clear example is how to avoid toxic levels of methylmercury in fish.   We can teach pregnant women to recognize which fish are high in methylmercury and hope this works well enough so they will avoid buying such fish (personal responsibility) or we could-as a society-require coal-burning power plants to scrub their emissions so mercury doesn't get into ocean or lake waters in the first place (public health).

Obviously, both public health and individual approaches are necessary, but the overall objective of public health is to make it much, much easier for individuals to make better health choices without having to think about them.

Because public health applies to everyone, it is essentially democratic.   And that's one of the reasons why I think it matters so much.

"Why Public Health Matters" by Marion Nestle was originally published on Food Politics August 8, 2010. Republished with permission from the author.

Manipulating Mankind

pdoggy@midrivers.com (John Munsell) — Tue, 10 Aug 2010 01:59:03 -0800

"There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact." -- Mark Twain

If only Mark Twain were alive today, he would have a field day commenting on what the U.S. Department of Agriculture considers to be "scientific".

Subsequent to the Jack In The Box E. coli outbreak in 1993, USDA desperately and hurriedly implemented the current Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) protocol of deregulated meat inspection. HACCP was originally invented by Pillsbury, focused on the production of consistently safe food for NASA and the Army. Pillsbury's HACCP required "Kill Steps" during food production, meaning that the food had to be subjected to a kill step such as fully cooking or irradiation, effectively killing all pathogens. Pillsbury's HACCP system was truly based in science, and creates safe food.

USDA intentionally changed the Pillsbury protocol, but of course, retained the right to classify its HACCP imposter as allegedly being "science-based". USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) demands that all federally inspected plants implement USDA-style HACCP. Thus, FSIS requires that HACCP be used for all raw meat and poultry, which by definition does not utilize kill steps, but still qualifies for USDA-style HACCP.

Raw meat and poultry carry pathogens, such as E. coli and Salmonella. These enteric bacteria originate in animals' intestines, and can easily be deposited onto dressed carcasses via sloppy kill floor dressing procedures. FSIS knowingly allows such enteric bacteria to be shipped into commerce from the source-originating slaughter plants. The agency's endorsement of shipping E. coli O157:H7 to downstream further processing plants, retail meat markets, and restaurants is an interesting case study.

A high percentage of beef shipped into commerce from slaughter plants is in the form of vacuum-packed intact cuts of meat, known as boxed beef. FSIS allows such intact cuts, which are surface contaminated with E. coli O157:H7, to be shipped from the source slaughter plants to downstream further processing establishments. FSIS blithely dismisses E. coli to be a mere contaminant when found on the surface of intact cuts. However, when the downstream processor such as retail meat markets and restaurants process the intact cuts into steaks, roasts and ground beef which is laced with the previously-existing E. coli, FSIS nonchalantly concludes that the heretofore harmless E. coli have supernaturally morphed into adulterants. FSIS places all blame for the existence of these pathogens on the downstream entity, accusing them of being noncompliant with sanitary food processing protocol.

How did this absurd turn of events occur? To answer this, we must briefly review statements made by FSIS in the 1990s as it tortured its definition of "science" in order to implement the agency's pre-determined meat inspection system desired by FSIS.

In a series of meat industry conferences to publicly discuss USDA-style HACCP in the 1990s, FSIS stated that the agency's role would change under HACCP to include the following:

1. Under HACCP, the agency's role would become "hands off", instead of the traditional "hands on" role FSIS had previously embraced.

2. Under HACCP, the agency would no longer police the industry, but the industry would police itself.

3. Under HACCP, the agency would disband its previous command and control authority.

4. Under HACCP, each plant could write its own HACCP Plan, and that the agency could not dictate what must be in these individually customized HACCP Plans.

History has shown that FSIS is fully compliant with these four pre-HACCP promises, but only at the largest plants which enjoy political clout and deep pockets. Conversely, FSIS has used HACCP to hyper-regulate and hagride small plants, a startling number of which have exited USDA inspection.

One advantage HACCP gifted to FSIS was insulating the agency from liability for pathogens and outbreaks. How could the agency be held even partially responsible for pathogens in the food supply when the agency was limited to a "hands off" non-involvement role, could no longer police the industry, and no longer enjoyed command and control authority? FSIS can't be responsible for meat it never inspected! Another advantage is the comfort granted to the agency to embrace a semi-retired stance at the big packers, greatly reducing the delicate discomfort involved in challenging the largest plants when problems arise. FSIS remains unaware of recurring problems, because it is relieved of its previous hands on policing role, coupled with loss of command and control authority.

During these afore-mentioned industry conferences, the agency made continuous references to the fact that USDA-style HACCP is "science based", which allegedly would diminish the shipment of pathogens into commerce. When conference attendees pressed FSIS spokespeople to explain why USDA-style HACCP is based in science, the agency explained that microbiological testing would be an integral part of HACCP. FSIS spokespeople explained that HACCP would require extensive testing both by the agency, and by the meat plants. In the 56 years my plant had operated prior to HACCP, I had never collected one meat sample for microbial analysis. After HACCP's implementation, both the agency and I have collected multiple dozens of samples for microbial tests. Testing became the heart and soul of USDA-style HACCP.

On January 26, 1998, the largest packing plants implemented HACCP. A mere six days later, on February 1, 1998, FSIS issued Directive 10,010.1 which essentially exempted the large plants from agency-conducted microbial testing. Plants killing thousands of beef daily became off-limits for FSIS sampling. Meanwhile, the agency continued to test at smaller plants. FSIS bureaucrats thus define "science" differently at small plants, compared to large plants. What was the natural consequence of exempting large plants from USDA testing?

A superlative example of the impact of exempting large plants from agency-conducted sampling was exposed during the 19.1 million pound recall of E. coli-contaminated meat from the ConAgra plant in Greeley, Colorado in June 2002. Exempted from agency-conducted sampling, ConAgra implemented a "multiple hurdle pathogen intervention system" which ostensibly "virtually sterilized carcasses", as printed in a ConAgra marketing brochure. Subsequent to the 19.1 million pound recall, the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) investigated the circumstances surrounding the recall. One quote from OIG's scathing report is, "Data was available to both ConAgra and USDA in the period prior to the recall that indicated that E. coli contamination was becoming a CONTINUOUS (emphasis added) problem at ConAgra." Instead of virtually sterilizing carcasses, ConAgra was continuously contaminating carcasses. In the 100 days prior to the recall, ConAgra's in-house testing revealed the presence of E. coli in meat on 34 of those days. However, ConAgra did not implement corrective actions to prevent recurrences, and USDA did not mandate corrective actions, having been relegated to a "Hands Off" role absent command and control.

When critics reveal these glaring and intentional oversights, FSIS responds by stating that USDA-style HACCP is based in "science". Therefore, anyone revealing problems with USDA-style HACCP is discredited as being opposed to scientific advancements. No one wants to be classified as opposed to science. FSIS uses this lame excuse as an opportunity to silence all its critics, since who can argue with science?

Whenever any USDA official claims that agency policies are science-based, red flags should go up everywhere. While the agency piously proclaims that its policies utilize an "abundance of caution", evidence continues to reveal the agency operates under an "abandance" of caution, while hiding behind USDA-style HACCP's skirt. The agency's slovenly recumbent lack of oversight at large plants is justified by its desire to maintain a "hands off" meat non-inspection role, its unwillingness to police the industry, and abhorrence at the prospect of using command and control authority at the largest slaughter entities. The Big 4 meat slaughter companies kill 88 percent of our feedlot cattle, constituting a substantial adversary to an agency--which is paralyzed by the fear of litigation from the Big 4.

"Science" to FSIS means agency semi-retirement at the largest slaughter entities. This is a primary reason for our ongoing outbreaks and recurring recalls. History has proven that USDA-style HACCP is NOT science-based, but based in political science and science fiction. This is precisely the problem to which Mark Twain referred by extracting wholesale conjectures from a small investment of fact. USDA intentionally bastardized Pillsbury's HACCP program, while disingenuously classifying the agency's deregulated system of non-inspection as "science-based". Consumers continue to pay the price for such sleight of hand.

Oh what a twisted web we weave, when at first we intend to deceive.

Wedding Bell Blues

aweisbecker@marlerclark.com (Andy Weisbecker) — Mon, 09 Aug 2010 01:59:04 -0800

No one wants the 'Wedding Bell Blues.' [1]

My son is getting married in mid-August, and the related preparations are starting to pick up a sense of greater urgency. I have been instructed not to interfere. Accordingly, I had a bit of time to follow up on the related morbid question that occurred to me; generally, what is the available CDC published data associating foodborne illness outbreaks with wedding celebrations?

The first relatively recent reference addressed an outbreak in Fayette County, Kentucky. In August 1990, 42 (65 percent) of 65 persons became ill with gastroenteritis following a restaurant brunch for a wedding party on August 11. Twenty-three ill persons sought medical care; four were hospitalized. The median incubation period was 28 hours. Stool cultures from seven patients yielded Salmonella Enteriditis (SE); all five SE isolates tested were phage type 8. Eating eggs benedict with hollandaise sauce was the only food exposure statistically associated with illness. Review of food handling practices at the restaurant indicated that eggs used in the hollandaise had been pooled, incompletely cooked, and served more than 1 hour after preparation. [2]

From July 21 through September 3, 1990, 90 (36 percent) of 250 persons who attended or ate food taken from a wedding in Des Moines, Iowa, on July 14 developed trichinosis. Most (approximately 95 percent) of the 250 persons had immigrated to the United States since 1975 from Southeast Asian countries. Of those who became ill, 52 (58 percent) were treated by physicians; one of the 52 was hospitalized. Case histories were obtained from 39 ill and 13 well persons who attended the wedding. Of the 39 ill persons, 34 (87 percent) ate uncooked pork sausage; no other foods were associated with illness. The sausage had been prepared from 120 pounds of commercially purchased pork and was served uncooked, as is customary for that food item in Southeast Asian culture. Interestingly, only four (4 percent) of 107 persons who attended the wedding and were interviewed knew about trichinosis or about the potential hazards of eating undercooked pork. [3]

On June 24, 1995, a total of 76 persons attended a catered wedding reception in Suffolk County, New York. Following the reception, attendees contacted the local health department to report onset of a gastrointestinal illness. Salmonella group D was isolated from stools of the 13 persons who submitted specimens; 11 of the 13 isolates further typed were identified as Salmonella Enteritidis. An investigation by the Suffolk County Health Department involved the 28 ill attendees and the 12 well attendees that were contacted. Twenty-six (93 percent) of 28 persons who had eaten Caesar salad became ill, compared with two (17 percent) of 12 persons who had not eaten the salad. The Caesar salad dressing was prepared with 18 raw shell eggs, olive oil, lemon juice, anchovies, Romano cheese, and Worcestershire sauce at 11:30 a.m. on June 24. The mixture was held unrefrigerated at the catering establishment for 2 hours, and was then placed in an unrefrigerated van until delivered and served at the reception at 6 p.m. [4]

On May 15, 1997, the Westchester County Health Department in New York was notified of two laboratory-confirmed cases of cyclosporiasis and other cases of diarrheal illness among persons who attended a wedding reception on April 20 at a private residence in the county. Of the 140 persons interviewed, 20 (14 percent) had illness that met the case definition; four cases were laboratory-confirmed. Eating raspberries was the exposure most strongly associated with risk for illness in univariate analysis and was the only exposure significantly associated with risk for illness in multivariate logistic regression analysis. The raspberries had not been washed. [5]

On June 10, 2000, a total of 83 persons attended a catered wedding reception in Pennsylvania. Approximately 8 days later, the bride notified the local health department that she, her husband, and many guests at the reception had a gastrointestinal illness. Stool specimens from attendees were positive for oocysts of the coccidian parasite Cyclospora cayetanensis, and an epidemiologic investigation was begun by the Philadelphia Department of Public Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Fifty-four (68.4 percent) of the 79 interviewed guests and members of the wedding party met the case definition. The wedding cake, which had a cream filling that included raspberries, was the food item most strongly associated with illness (multivariate relative risk, 5.9; 95 percent confidence interval, 3.6 to 10.5). Leftover cake was positive for Cyclospora DNA by polymerase chain reaction analyses. Sequencing of the amplified fragments confirmed that the organism was Cyclospora cayetanensis. [6]

On July 18, 2001, the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene received a complaint of illness from a person who ate at a wedding celebration on July 14; S. Uganda was isolated from the stool of another wedding attendee. By early August, a distinct strain of S. Uganda had been isolated from 11 New York City residents with illness onsets occurring June 24-August 4. All 11 case-patients were of Hispanic ethnicity, and 6 of 10 interviewed reported having eaten roast pork from a New York City restaurant in the 3 days before illness onset. Additionally, roast pork from that restaurant had been served at the wedding named in the initial consumer complaint. A sample of leftover roast pork from the wedding was positive for the same strain of S. Uganda as the one isolated from patients. At the time of a sanitary inspection initiated by the consumer complaint, raw pork was held at inadequate temperatures at the restaurant, and thermometers were inadequately used during cooking and hot-holding. Potential sources of cross-contamination, surfaces and wiping cloths, were not properly sanitized. The same S. Uganda strain found in patients was isolated from a cooked pork sample collected from the restaurant on July 18. [7]

The CDC has compiled more related recent data, available at its Foodborne Outbreak Online Database. The Database is designed to allow the public direct access to information on foodborne outbreaks reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Most outbreaks are reported to the National Outbreak Reporting System (NORS) by the state, local, territorial, or tribal health department that conducted the outbreak investigation. Outbreak reporting is voluntary. Multi-state outbreaks are generally reported to NORS by CDC. Clearly, there are far more outbreaks that simply have not been reported to the CDC, as outbreak reporting is in fact voluntary.

The Database identifies outbreaks from 1999 through 2007 in part by location, including a "wedding" location category. The wedding reception database indicates the CDC was notified of approximately 65 outbreaks associated with weddings during that time frame, with 2301 persons becoming ill, and 52 being hospitalized. The vast majority of these outbreaks associated with weddings unsurprisingly occurred during the spring and summer months. Thirty-seven outbreaks, over 50 percent, involved confirmed or suspected norovirus cases; eight outbreaks were attributed to a number of Salmonella strains. The implicated vehicles were quite varied, and included strawberries, chicken dishes, antipasti, roast beef, salads, cakes, and ice water.   [8]

Foodborne illness outbreaks are obviously not associated with weddings only in the United States. A review of recent related articles identified an outbreak in March, 2010, in Vadodara, India, where as many as 150 persons suffered from food poisoning after eating a wedding feast including dal, rice, laddu and various vegetables. In May, 2010, wedding food also hospitalized at least one hundred people in Northern India. Apparently, for astrological reasons, a lot of weddings in India take place during May and June, the hottest months. Food spoils very quickly, and it is common for many wedding guests to become ill. In July, 2010, approximately four hundred people attending a wedding feast in the Kabylie region of Algeria became violently ill, with sixty wedding guests being hospitalized. Again, the summer heat increases the number of illnesses due to improperly stored or outdated food. Additionally, during the summer season and Ramadan, meals are often prepared and served outdoors, increasing the risk of foodborne illnesses.

Going with professional and experienced caterers may be the wise choice. Even there, however, there is the risk of a foodborne illness outbreak. A recent story on msnbc.com reported new CDC figures showing that illnesses from reported outbreaks of food poisoning linked to catering outpace those from restaurants or home cooking. Dana Cole, a CDC researcher quoted in the story, provided data indicating that between 1998 and 2008 there were 833 outbreaks of foodborne illness traced to caterers, causing 29,738 illnesses, 345 hospitalizations, and 4 deaths. Proportionately, the outbreaks from catering are higher than the 22,600 illnesses from 1,546 reported home cooking outbreaks and the 101,907 illnesses from 7,921 outbreaks in restaurants and delis. In fact, according to Cole, there are 36 illnesses for every outbreak caused by catering compared with 13 illnesses per outbreak from restaurants or home-prepared meals. [9]

A recent paper presented the microbiological and epidemiologic results of a large Clostridium perfringens outbreak in England, in July 2009, occurring simultaneously at two weddings that used the same caterer. The outbreak involved several London locations and required coordination across multiple agencies. A case-control study was carried out to analyze possible associations between the food consumed and becoming ill. Food, environmental, and stool samples were tested for common causative agents, including enterotoxigenic C. perfringens. The clinical presentation and the epidemiologic findings were compatible with C. perfringens food poisoning and C. perfringens enterotoxin was detected in stool samples from two cases. The case-control study found statistically significant associations between becoming ill and eating either a specific chicken or lamb dish prepared by the same food handler of the implicated catering company. [10]

I am pretty confident no one associated with my son's wedding will read this article before the wedding. I will inevitably be thinking about it, though, when I grab another canape` from a passing tray.

REFERENCES:

[1]   "Wedding Bell Blues" is a song written and recorded by Laura Nyro in 1966. It became a number one hit for The 5th Dimension in 1969, spending three weeks as number one on the U.S. pop singles chart in November, 1969, and subsequently becoming a popular phrase in American culture.

[2]   "Epidemiologic Notes and Reports Update: Salmonella enteritidis Infections and Shell Eggs -- United States, 1990", MMWR, December 21, 1990 / 39(50); 909-912.

[3]   "Epidemiologic Notes and Reports Trichinella spiralis Infection -- United States, 1990", MMWR, February 01, 1991 / 40[4]; 57-60.

[4]   "Outbreaks of Salmonella Serotype Enteritidis Infection Associated with Consumption of Raw Shell Eggs -- United States, 1994-1995", MMWR, August 30, 1996 / 45(34); 737-742.

[5]   "Update: Outbreaks of Cyclosporiasis -- United States, 1997", MMWR, May 30, 1997 / 46(21); 461-462.

[6]   Ho AY, Lopez AS, Eberhart MG, Levenson R, Finkel BS, da Silva AJ, et al. "Outbreak of cyclosporiasis associated with imported raspberries, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 2000", Emerg Infect Dis, Vol. 8, No. 8, August 2002.

[7]   Jones RC, Reddy V, Kornstein L, Fernandez JR, Stavinsky F, Agasan A, et al. "Salmonella enterica serotype Uganda infection in New York City and Chicago", Emerg Infect Dis, Vol. 10, No. 9, September 2004.

[8]   OutbreakNet Foodborne Outbreak Online Database, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, at http://wwwn.cdc.gov/foodborneoutbreaks/.

[9]   "Caterers dish up more cases of food poisoning", JoNel Aleccia, msnbc.com, 7/30/2010.

[10]   Eriksen J, Zenner D, Anderson SR, Grant K, Kumar D. "Clostridium perfringens in London, July 2009: two weddings and an outbreak". Euro Surveill. 2010;15(25):pii=19598.
Available online: http://www.eurosurveillance.org/ViewArticle.aspx?ArticleId=19598

Navigating Food Nanotechnology

info@foodinsight.org (International Food Information Council Foundation) — Thu, 05 Aug 2010 01:59:05 -0800

I'm back in Washington, D.C. after a trip to the wonderful city of Chicago to attend the Institute of Food Technologists (IFT) 2010 Annual Meeting & Food Expo, where food science experts from around the world representing academia, industry, and government gather to learn about the latest innovations in food science and technology. While I gained several new insights pertaining to the latest food science innovations at the conference, what impressed me the most was an introductory session on food nanoscience. There's a lot to learn about the potential benefits of this emerging technology. The following is a brief overview of what I learned.

Defining Nanotechnology

It's hard to begin a discussion regarding nanotechnology without a foundational definition. While the most referenced definition comes from the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI), a simplified definition of nanotechnology is "a science that involves the design and application of structures, devices and systems on an extremely small scale, called the nanoscale - that is, billionths of a meter, or about 1-millionth the size of a pinhead." Many of us would probably envision nanomaterials as products or components synthesized in a lab; however, nanoscale components occur naturally as well (i.e. casein proteins in milk).

Nanotechnology Applications in Food and Agriculture

While nanotechnology has revolutionized the fields of medicine, electronics, energy, and defense, its application in food science is relatively new, as most of the research in this area is in its infancy. That said, developmental research is pointing toward a promising future for the application of nanotechnology in both food and agricultural production. A few of the potential benefits of food nanoscience include:

• Improved food safety
• Enhanced food quality and stability
• Advanced ingredient and nutrient delivery systems in food products
• Improved processing and packaging systems
• Reduced energy use and environmental impact
• Increased supply and availability of food

While research to date in this area is promising, as with any emerging field of research, ongoing studies are warranted to better understand food nanotechnology and its potential benefits, its safety in various applications, and its potential risks.

Communicating About Nanotechnology in Food

As food nanoscience research and development continues to move forward, communicators cannot lose sight of the lens through which consumers view this emerging area of technology. IFIC's own research on perceptions of food technology found that when consumers were asked to share their knowledge of nanotechnology for food applications without being given any other information, nearly two-thirds (66%) said they had heard or read "Nothing at all" about the technology. However, when provided with a definition of nanotechnology and examples of its potential benefits for improved food safety, quality, and nutrition, half of consumers (49%) were favorable toward the technology. These results indicate that proactively communicating with consumers about nanotechnology and its potential benefits will be critical in ensuring comprehension and ultimately support for the use of nanotechnology in food.

The world will face substantial resource challenges over the next fifty years, including access to and availability of energy, water, and food. Will nanotechnology provide solutions to these challenges? After attending IFT, I believe that nanotechnology is one of several food technologies that will help to address these challenges. What benefits do you expect to see from nanotechnology in the future?

Editor's Note: Navigating Food Nanotechnology by Kerry Robinson, RD, originally appeared on the International Food Information Council Foundation's Food Insights blog on July 26, 2010.

Publishers Platform

bmarler@marlerclark.com (Bill Marler) — Mon, 02 Aug 2010 01:59:04 -0800

I received this email this weekend in response to an interview I gave recently about raw milk to "Food Manufacturing" online:

Farm fresh? All the rage? natural food craze? certified organic is a buzzword? You make the lifestyle of eating pure, unpesticide treated, unindustrialized, unprocessed food seem like a generational fad like acid washed denim or cabbage patch dolls. Those use words like you in your ridiculous article are afraid of the truth and just don't want to know about it. So keep eating your corn feed beef, your pesticide-salads and your oreo cookies, you industrial eaters because you seem to not care about your bodies or your kids health or the future of the earth.

Actually, I get more than a few emails like this. Most do a bit better at spelling and punctuation, but nearly all are from raw milk proponents, producers, or consumers (although there are a few from the anti-S. 510 cabal). Some, but not all, have a level of passion that borders on violence. Perhaps not directed at me, but generally in the "do not tread on me"--"tea party" shouting that we have been subjected to over the last year.

Frankly, I was perplexed at the "yell fest" that passed for discussion of whether we should expand health care to the 40 million of our fellow citizens without health insurance. I am shocked at how we scream at each other via email or blog comments about raw milk or honest differences about how food safety legislation should be modeled. It is like screaming at and belittling each other at the dinner table--albeit, a very large table.

What is with all this anger over food? I mean, honestly, it seems like there are bigger fish to fry. What about the wars? Global warming? Energy policy?

But, folks are angry about their view of food--especially the proponents of raw milk (affectionately, "raw milkies") and the anti-S. 510 folks (affectionately, "organic tea baggers"). Both groups view themselves as victims of big government and big business bent on reducing them to servitude or extinction. They cannot see that perhaps, just perhaps, people who see the dangers of raw milk or the value of S. 510, might simply have an honest disagreement with those that see raw milk as the nectar of the gods or S. 510 as more than a method of lining the pockets of Monsanto. But, hey, that is just me.

So, do the yelling, threats and belittling of the anti raw milk/pro S. 510 crowd actually work? Are some convinced that those that yell the loudest have the best arguments? Or, do some simply shy away from their positions after being the target of a nasty blog post or scathing email or comment? I think some do. I know I have been tempted to simply focus on other pressing issues surrounding food safety--there are many--and let folks guzzle raw milk to their heart's content and let S. 510 die a lingering death.

But, that is not my style. Even as a child when told to do A I usually did B. When the raw milk party calls me a tool of big dairy or an ambulance chaser, I come back with reasoned pros and cons of raw milk consumption, videos of raw milk consumers sickened, and a website--Real Raw Milk Facts--dedicated to having a reasoned discussion about raw milk. I am also beginning to work on a raw milk retail sampling project to test its safety.

As for S. 510, the nastier the emails from small producers who want little or no food safety regulation, the more money I donate to political campaigns, the more trips I take to DC, and the more often I fund victim visits to their favorite senator.

And, to do the above, I hardly raise my voice. Well, once in awhile I do.

On Restaurant Grades: Giving an F to Josh Ozersky

dstearns@marlerclark.com (Denis Stearns) — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 01:59:03 -0800

In coming up with topics for my opinion-pieces here at Food Safety News, I have been trying not to be so critical--which is to say, trying not to build a topic around me criticizing someone for their opinions or proposals. For as I observed in my last piece, The Perils of Punditry, there is not much good to be accomplished by "off-the-cuff opinion-making and online sophistry."[1] A perfect case in point--and the thing that got me right back to the business of criticizing--is the recent opinion-piece, Giving an F to New York's Restaurant Grading System, by Josh Ozersky published online at Time.com.[2] In the piece, Ozersky decries the posting of letter grades, based on a restaurant's most recent health inspection, as being akin to Hester Prynne "being...shamed for all the world to see."

To put it mildly, Ozersky's piece is so silly it almost seems like intentional satire, along the lines of Jonathan Swift's A Modest Proposal.[3] To put it less mildly, it is brain-numbingly asinine. Take, for example, the assertion that "New York and L.A. have become downright draconian in their urge to oversee the inner workings of small businesses like restaurants." But what has really changed here about how restaurants are overseen? Why, nothing at all. The regulations remain essentially the same, based as they are on the FDA Model Food Code, and the Food Establishment Inspection Report, which have existed in their current format since 1993.[4] Moreover, residents of New York City have for quite some time been able to look online for copies of a restaurant's recent inspection reports.[5] So, really, the only thing that is changing is that the results of the inspection are translated into a letter-grade, and restaurants must now prominently post the grade in the front window.

But with this one change, Ozersky has been prompted to announce that he "hate[s] to see regulation enforced in such an arbitrary and imperious way." Even worse, according to Ozersky, the "new letter-grading system will only further encourage the big chain restaurants that are serving crappy food zapped by microwaves." Yes, I can see it now. Mario Batali will be forced to close Babbo, only to have it replaced by an Applebee's restaurant. To say that Ozersky is being just a little hysterical in his hyperbole is quite the understatement.

Hyperbole is not all that Ozersky relies upon for his rant. He also trots out a few false analogies, like the one where he equates restaurant inspectors (or, in his words, "health department functionaries") with "the stone-faced meter matron" who is utterly indifferent to his "explanation of why I was about to move my car." Of course, Ozersky's analogy might be somewhat less inapt (and less inept) if the failure to move one's car had the potential cause an outbreak of foodborne illness. But since it does not, perhaps the "indifference to cooking" of which he accuses restaurant inspectors might not be such a bad thing--that is, when it saves lives. Ozersky is, however, much too busy complaining about the imagined absence of "tender mozzarella and piquant salami" to give much weight to the presence of Salmonella or E. coli O157:H7.

Perhaps sensing that his rant against restaurant letter-grades has devolved into a plea to abolish all food safety regulations, and to leave the poor chefs alone, Ozersky feigns recognition of the necessity of some regulation as he ends his essay, writing:

"Still, as imperious and ill-advised as many of the city's health-department rules may be, no one would argue that there shouldn't be any oversight of what we're fed in restaurants. Chefs left to themselves won't take the time to keep pork from rubbing up against chicken, despite the manifest hazards of [S]almonella. But to grade restaurants using a system that rewards nuked food over slow cooking? That seems merely mean. Is it some thwarted, fugitive Tea Party impulse that I feel kicking inside me? Or simple well-earned skepticism, as I wonder, Who grades the graders? I need the health department to watch out for me. I know that. But I don't need them to publicly humiliate small businesses in order to do so."

So, apparently Ozersky prefers that the humiliation of a near-failed inspection be kept private, and the results of such an inspection safeguarded from the prying eyes of potential customers. I mean, otherwise, customers might just reward restaurants who pass their inspections with flying colors, and avoid dining in restaurants that do not. And, otherwise, a customer who sees a restaurant with a C-grade might pull out her smart-phone and check for herself what the inspection reports says, and then make her dining decision according. And, otherwise, market forces would reward restaurants who invest in safety and training while punishing those that do not. And, otherwise, the safety and cleanliness of restaurants would increase as a result of great transparency and accountability in the market place.

But never mind about all of that. Ozersky is worried about the health department hassling the a few chefs who want to cook sous vide without being bothered with the "need to draw up a hazard plan worthy of Three Mile Island." I mean, come on, what's a little botulism among friends? Because that is the significant food safety risk that the health department is attempting to protect the public from by requiring the chefs who use this low-temperature cooking process to think carefully about before using the public as unwitting guinea pigs.[6] Thus, far from being indifferent to cooking, as Ozersky accuses, health inspectors are simply putting the priority straight. No matter how delicious and innovative the food, if it is contaminated with a deadly pathogen, I guarantee that you would rather not eat it.

Bon Appétit!

1. http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2010/06/the-perils-of-punditry-everyone-has-an-opinion/

2. http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2005191,00.html

3. The complete title of Swift's famous (or infamous) essay is A Modest Proposal For Preventing the Children of Poor People in Ireland from Being a Burden to Their Parents or Country, and for Making Them Beneficial to the Publick. See Wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal Written in 1729, Swift mocks the authority of British officials by suggesting that the Irish could solve their economic problems by selling their children as food for the rich, writing "A young healthy child well nursed, is, at a year old, a most delicious nourishing and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled; and I make no doubt that it will equally serve in a fricassee, or a ragout."

4. http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodSafety/RetailFoodProtection/FoodCode/default.htm With the input of the Association of Food and Drug Officials (AFD), the Food Code is updated regularly. Since being issued in 1993, 49 of 50 states have adopted a version of the Code, covering 95.5% of US population. http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodSafety/RetailFoodProtection/FederalStateCooperativePrograms/ucm108156.htm The current version of the model Food Establishment Inspection Report can be found here: http://www.foodprotect.org/media/guide/CFPFoodEstabInspFormCommFormAppxA.pdf And the NYC version is here: www.nyc.gov/html/doh/downloads/pdf/inspect/foodservicescoresheet.pdf

5. The website is maintained by the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. http://167.153.150.32/RI/web/index.do;jsessionid=3D16B2434E13AFC783E1E451DB231664?method=goldenAppleList

6. Here is the risk posed by sous vide cooking, when done improperly, as described by one talented New York chef who somehow managed to survive the bother of getting his restaurant's hazard plan approved by the health department. According to Chef Daniel Angerer, Dangerous bacteria such as botulism can thrive and grow in an oxygen free environment as in sous-vide cooked foods - hence the HACCP plan. "If food does not get handled properly a contamination of botulism can occur which leads to violent illness and death could even result." See Chef Angerer's complete blog-post about sous vide here: http://chefdanielangerer.typepad.com/chef_daniel_angerers_blog/2010/05/my-love-affair-with-the-department-of-health-.html

Measuring Pathogens in Poultry

CRJolley@msn.com (Chuck Jolley) — Tue, 27 Jul 2010 01:59:04 -0800

Shouldn't we test for pathogens closer to where the public actually buys their meat and poultry?

In one of his periodic Meatingplace.com blogs (subscription required). Dr. Richard Raymond made a statement about testing poultry parts for pathogens that is stunning in its simplicity. Politically speaking, though, it's potentially a 10.0 on the Richter scale. He wrote, "Deputy Mande wants something that will help 'government and industry...be held accountable by the public' and he wants it measured. Great, I say measure what we eat--poultry parts--just like the beef industry must test and measure ground beef, not carcasses. Get poultry testing to the end product and closer to the consumer. Let's recognize consumers' buying habits of the 21st century and 'measure' what they buy and eat."

He was writing about the pair of FSIS/FDA/CDC joint public meetings to hear stakeholders' thoughts on how to measure progress in food safety. One was held July 21 in Chicago and the other will be held October 20, 2010, in Portland, Oregon. His final question: Do I need to go to Portland, or does this count as my presentation?

Dr. Raymond, I think you need to book a flight to the West coast.

Right now, the meat and poultry industry conducts a vigorous program of production site testing. Processing chicken? Test for Salmonella right then and there--look at the whole bird but don't worry about its pieces and parts right now. Grinding beef? Take a sample immediately and ask a lab for a report on the possible presence of E. coli O157:H7. The hoped for results of course, are that all the products leaving the point of production are pathogen-free. It helps get companies like Tyson and JBS off the legal tenterhooks of lawyers like Bill Marler and lets their top management sleep a little better at night.

But Raymond is suggesting that we take a major, way overdue long step and 'measure what they (the public) buy and eat.'

We don't do that very well. Never have. Probably never will.

The public rarely buys and eats the direct production of a Tyson or a JBS plant. They buy what Kroger and Wal-Mart puts in the cold case. Sure, they'll purchase the occasional tube of ground beef placed straight into the case by a supermarket clerk but the larger purchases are the one- and two-pound re-ground and repackaged product produced in the back room. And how often do you see a few chicken breasts or a half-dozen legs still in an unopened Tyson package?

If Dr. Raymond wants to accurately measure what the public buys and eats, what he's really asking is supermarkets be held to the same rigorous standards as Tyson. It's something that industry has stoutly resisted for reasons that are short-sighted. It keeps the legal responsibility out of their pocketbook and firmly in the hands of Tyson, JBS, Cargill, etc. It does nothing to improve food safety in America.

Sure it's an added expense for retailers and it would mean adding qualified personnel at thousands of points of production. But let's be honest here. If we're all really that interested in presenting a pathogen-free-as-humanly-possible product to the consuming public, checking for pathogens at the point where the product is actually transferred to the consuming public only makes good sense.

But with apologies to Ronald Reagan, "there I go again." I'm still trying to link the phrase 'good sense' with American politics.

Want a bone-chilling food safety comment? I asked Dr. Raymond for some final thoughts on the future of testing poultry parts. "FSIS won't test parts because the results would show at least 25 percent contamination with no way to reduce that statistic," he said. "But they really need to do it to see if dropping the rates on carcasses (a Bush Initiative) has any impact whatsoever and so they and industry can be held accountable with real and pertinent numbers."

Publisher's Platform

bmarler@marlerclark.com (Bill Marler) — Mon, 26 Jul 2010 01:59:04 -0800

Has the nail been driven into the coffin of the conventional wisdom that grass-fed beef is safer than grain-fed beef?

In 2008 I posted "Grass-Fed vs Grain-Fed Beef and the Holy Grail: A Literature Review," in which I raised the question if grass-fed beef is safer that grain-fed, on my blog. My concern was, as I said, that quotes like these were becoming more common on the Internet and recent media reports:

"Products from grass-fed animals are safer than food from conventionally-raised animals." Eatwild, 2008

"Research has shown that the strains of E. coli most devastating to humans are the product of feedlots, not cows. This is due to the animals being forced to eat an unnatural diet, and not their natural choice, grass." Grass-Fed Beef: Safer and Healthier, Animal Welfare Approved, June 15, 2008

My conclusion of the literature review was: In summary, the scientific evidence at this time does not support a broad conclusion that grass feeding significantly reduces the risk of E. coli O157:H7 or other dangerous foodborne pathogens from entering the food chain. However, more research is needed to better understand the influence of diet, especially the use of different types of grains in animal feed.

Now a recent abstract entitled, "Contamination Rates and Antimicrobial Resistance in Bacteria Isolated from "Grass-Fed" Labeled Beef Products" by Jiayi Zhang, Samantha K. Wall, Li Xu, Paul D. Ebner in Foodborne Pathogens and Disease, once again puts into question the conventional wisdom that somehow grass-fed cows are safer than grain-fed cows. Here is the abstract in part:

"Grass-fed and organic beef products make up a growing share of the beef market in the United States. While processing, animal handling, and farm management play large roles in determining the safety of final beef products, grass-fed beef products are often marketed as safer alternatives to grain-finished beef products based on the potential effects of all-forage diets on host microbiota.

"We conducted a series of experiments examining bacterial contamination rates in 50 beef products labeled as "grass-fed" versus 50 conventionally raised retail beef products.

"Coliform concentrations did not differ between conventional and grass-fed beef (conventional: 2.6 log10 CFU/mL rinsate; grass-fed: 2.7 log10 CFU/mL rinsate). The percentages of Escherichia coli positive samples did not differ between the two groups (44% vs. 44%). Enterococcus spp., were frequently isolated from both grass-fed beef products (44%) and conventional beef products (62%; p = 0.07). No Salmonella or E. coli O157:H7 isolates were recovered from any of the meat samples. Enterococcus spp. isolates from conventional beef were more frequently resistant to daptomycin and linezolid (p < 0.05). Resistance to some antimicrobials (e.g., chloramphenicol, erythromycin, flavomycin, penicillin, and tetracyline) was high in Enterococcus spp. isolated from both conventional and grass-fed beef.

"There were no differences in the percentages of antimicrobial resistant E. coli isolates between the two groups. Taken together, these data indicate that there are no clear food safety advantages to grass-fed beef products over conventional beef products."

Perhaps more research is still needed. The sample size of this recent study was small. Perhaps Food Safety News should do a larger one?

A Summer with Less E. coli?

dfalkenstein@marlerclark.com (Drew Falkenstein) — Fri, 23 Jul 2010 01:59:04 -0800

At the risk of jinxing the apparent success, it is worthy of note that, excluding the recent problem with bison meat, ground beef and other beef products have been conspicuously absent from the news this summer. This is a significant step for an industry that collectively recalled millions of pounds of meat products in 2007, 2008, and 2009 due to E. coli O157:H7 contamination. Hopefully the success is not pure luck or chance, but is instead attributable to meaningful manufacturing advances that have truly helped to reduce the bacterial load on retail meat products.

To be more specific, the FSIS-USDA website contains reference to only two summer beef product recalls. The first was a June 22 recall by Crown I Enterprises from NY of about 3,700 pounds of ground beef. The second was a June 23 recall by South Gate Meat Co from CA of 35,000 pounds of ground beef.

Compared to recent years, only two summer recalls totalling just under 40,000 pounds of product--particularly when the recalls were not known to be associated with any illnesses--is progress indeed. In 2007, beef companies recalled over twenty-nine million pounds of meat, including Cargill's recall of nearly one million pounds of hamburger patties, one of which sickened Stephanie Smith. 2008 saw at least sixteen recalls of beef products, totaling at least 2,361,295 pounds of meat. And in 2009, beef companies recalled almost 2 million pounds of meat due to various contamination and processing problems.

(Notably, the year began very poorly for meat. Winco, Beltex Meat Co, Montclair Meat Co., Huntington Meat Co, and several other businesses recalled over 5,000,000 pounds of meat products between January and May.)

Is the apparent success really progress? Or is it simply too good to be true? We've got another month and a half of summer left in Seattle; a little longer most other places. If the apparent success really is success, maybe Marler Clark will represent no HUS victims sickened in the summer by ground beef products for the first time in a long time.

Editor's Note: "Ground beef and E. coli this summer" by Drew Falkenstein originally appeared at Food Poison Journal on July 22, 2010.

Buffets and Cross-Contamination

ccaywood@marlerclark.com (Colin Caywood) — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 01:59:03 -0800

Buffets. The word alone causes a smile to appear on my face. I can still recall with vivid clarity the new buffet restaurant that opened in my hometown when I was a young boy, and the bizarre obsession to experience it that overtook me and my friends. I pled with my parents--tears may have been involved--for just the opportunity to dine there. Finally, after my incessant whining, Mom and Dad caved and took me to the magical restaurant. The place had it all. Piles of creamy white mashed potatoes, juicy slabs of roast beef, bottomless creamed corn, and bowl after bowl of chocolate and vanilla soft-serve ice cream that you could top with every candy and cookie piece imaginable. It was--in a word--glorious. Even today, I cannot travel to Las Vegas without at least one trip down a gut-busting food smorgasbord.

Of course, as any buffet connoisseur knows, there are some amazing buffets out there to be experienced, with food quality equal to or better than one can find at some of the very best restaurants. There are also some very, VERY bad buffets, the type I imagine people are sent to as court-ordered punishment for misdeeds. But regardless of whether you are enjoying a $60 lobster and champagne dinner buffet or a $4.99 roadside-kill version, there is at least one thing all buffets have in common: cross-contamination risk. Cue the wah-wah sound.

I hate to knock one of my favorite childhood dining experiences, but the simple truth is that buffets can be risky. They have been linked to countless incidents of foodborne illness. Here are just a few examples:

• In 2001, local Minnesota health departments noted a cluster of E. coli O157:H7 cases in Douglas and Pope County. All of the cases required hospitalization due to the severity of their infections. After investigating, epidemiologists discovered that all of the case-patients had dined at the same Chinese buffet restaurant in Alexandria, MN.

• In 2002, a large Salmonella outbreak occurred at a buffet restaurant in Spruce Pine, North Carolina. Hamburger steak with gravy, fried chicken, and ham all tested positive for the presence of Salmonella Heidelberg. Two employees were found to be infected with the same strain of Salmonella Heidelberg. Both had eaten food that had been prepared at the restaurant so it was not clear if they were the source of the outbreak or if they were victims, like the patrons.

• In 2003, multiple people, residing in several states, became ill with Shigella after their stay at a hotel in Westminster, Colorado. Several groups were affected, including hotel staff, a veterans' group, a wedding group, and other hotel guests. The same strain of Shigella was detected among the culture-confirmed cases. The investigation determined that the illnesses were associated with eating from the breakfast buffet.

These are but a few cases where buffet dining resulted in an outbreak of illnesses. So what is it about buffets that creates the perfect mechanism for spreading foodborne bacteria and viruses? Again, it all comes back to cross-contamination. Cross-contamination is the transfer of disease-causing microorganisms, such as bacteria and viruses, from one food to another. This transfer can happen in a variety of ways. For example, contaminated food may come in direct contact with other foods, or one food's juices may drip contaminated liquid on another food. Cross-contamination can also occur when a person with unclean hands touches a food item or utensil, thus spreading bacteria or viruses on their hands to everyone else who comes in contact with that food or utensil.

The self-serve format of buffet restaurants practically invites such cross-contamination issues. Think of it this way. In a good restaurant kitchen, the employees are well trained in proper food handling practices. They all wear gloves, and replace them with a fresh pair any time they touch their face, hair, or anything unclean. They wash their hands frequently, especially after each bathroom use or after touching anything unclean. Their employers have very clear ill employee policies in place, and the employees follow those policies.

At a buffet-style restaurant, however, in addition to the usual food service employees, there is you. That's right, YOU are one of the food servers at a buffet, and so is every other man, woman, and child eating at the establishment. Think of all the serving spoons and forks you must touch just to fill your plate with a delicious sampling of foods. Now think about all the other people sitting around you who touched that exact same spoon or folk. I know you and your family are diligent hand washers, but what about everyone else? Ever found a serving utensil floating in the food dish? Or even the handle sitting slightly askew and touching the food? That is cross-contamination and you do not want to put that food in your mouth.

Other important dangers for buffet dining involve proper temperature maintenance. Quite simply, hot foods need to be kept hot, and cold foods need to be kept cold. Government food agencies recommend that hot foods be held at 140 F or warmer, while cold foods should be held at 40 F or colder. Trouble arises when the food's temperature rises above 40 F or below 140 F. It is in this range that bacteria potentially present in small amounts can quickly grow and multiply, making it dangerous to consume and significantly increasing the risk of illness to consumers. The presentation and serving style of buffets makes proper food holding temperature practices very difficult.

While there is no way to guarantee that your buffet dining experience will not result in a serious foodborne illness, there are a few things everyone can do to minimize their risk when dining at a buffet-style restaurant.

• Before hitting the buffet line, and ideally after dishing up, everyone at the table should take a side trip to the bathroom for a thorough hand washing with lots of soap and hot water.

• Do not eat foods that are not being kept appropriately hot or cold, and notify an employee who can remedy the situation if you note a problem.

• Do not eat foods that have obviously been sitting out for long periods of time.

• If you notice a utensil handle resting in the tray or touching the food, do not pull it out and use it. Immediately notify an employee so that the food can be removed and replaced with a fresh batch of food and a clean serving utensil.

Remember, unlike pathogens that cause food to spoil, the potentially deadly bacteria and viruses that live on foods and food preparation surfaces cannot be smelled or tasted. Prevention and safe food handling is the only way to decrease your risk of becoming ill from a foodborne pathogen.

Don't Let Food Allergies Stand in the Way of Fun!

info@foodinsight.org (International Food Information Council Foundation) — Fri, 16 Jul 2010 01:59:04 -0800

Summer vacation is upon us, and kids will start enjoying the long days by playing outside, going to sleepovers and pool parties, and seeking air conditioning and independence at the mall or the movie theater. For parents of food-allergic children the lack of structure and supervision is certainly a cause for concern: how can I keep my child safe? Fortunately, summer fun doesn't have to stop on account of food allergies. With some planning, food allergic children, and their parents, can safely enjoy the summer!

For the Parents of Food Allergic Kids:

* Prepare a detailed list of allergens and associated foods for your child to carry with them and to provide to caretakers or chaperones;

* Develop a food allergy action plan for your child's activities (e.g., little league, swimming lessons, etc...);

o The Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Network (FAAN) has a Food Allergy Action Plan form that you can fill out or use as a guide: http://www.foodallergy.org/files/FAAP.pdf.

* Determine where epinephrine auto-injectors will be stored, who will access, when and by whom it should be administered, and follow-up care.

o It is very important to train caretakers on how to use the auto-injector.

Complete any protocol that will allow your child to carry an epinephrine auto-injector at all times.

The Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Network has resources on training a babysitter regarding food allergies;

For Food Allergic Individuals:

* Disclose allergies to chaperone, babysitter, or adult in charge;

* Carry at least one epinephrine auto-injector if permitted;

o If not, ensure easy access to one in the event of a reaction.

* Bring "safe" food with you in case you will not have access to safe food while away from home;

* Enlist a friend who understands your situation to look out for you and stick with you if you need to remove yourself from a situation;

o Here is information on Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Network's "Be a Pal" program: http://www.foodallergy.org/page/be-a-pal-program-link-to-girl-scout-patch.

* Find out how one food allergic individual manages her food allergies while enjoying food centered events.

For Non-Food Allergic Individuals:

* Understand that food allergies are potentially life threatening and should not be taken lightly;

* Appreciate that when parents of food allergic children express concern or seek your assistance they are trying to keep their children safe and need your help to do so;

o Ask questions if you do not understand.

* Ask parents or guests of food allergies and how you can help in the food allergy management;

o This may entail avoiding the use of specific ingredients or labeling dishes that contain these ingredients.

* Don't be offended if a food allergic guest brings food from home or does not eat your food.

Editor's Note: "Don't Let Food Allergies Stand in the Way of Summer Fun!" by Katie Burns was originally published on the International Food Information Council Foundation's Nutrition Blog on June 25, 2010.

The Flavoring of Infant Eating Patterns

aweisbecker@marlerclark.com (Andy Weisbecker) — Wed, 14 Jul 2010 01:59:04 -0800

Recent media coverage focused on the failed attempt by Mead Johnson to introduce a chocolate flavored drink for toddlers. Mead Johnson launched its Enfagrow vanilla flavor in July, 2009, and chocolate was added in February, 2010. The product was for toddlers who have been weaned off breast milk or infant formula. The formula was especially designed for finicky toddlers who may not get enough vitamins and nutrients through their diet, according to the company. [1]

Parents, nutritionists, and food bloggers, however, immediately voiced concern over the 19 grams of sugar found in each 6-ounce serving, saying products like this contribute to the current obesity epidemic surrounding the nation. When infants are ready to be weaned, sometime after 12 months old, they are ready for nutritious table food, not formula, according to nutritionists, who encourage parents to expose toddlers to a wide range of foods. Critics asserted that infants and toddlers do not need formula--instead, they need to transition from mother's milk to eating nutritious table foods, drinking milk, and developing healthy eating behaviors. Toddlers are unpredictable, and what they need are patience, understanding, and plenty of fruits and vegetables, whole grains, protein, and dairy, not an expensive formula supplement drink. Critics claimed that, with obesity rampant around the world, children should not be introduced at young ages to hyper-sweet and hyper-palatable foods like sugar-sweetened fortified chocolate milk. [2]

Following the outcry, Mead Johnson announced on June 9, 2010, that it would pull its Enfagrow Premium chocolate toddler formula off store shelves. The chocolate version was discontinued after four months because of "the whole emotional evocative nature of chocolate," said Mead Johnson spokesman Chris Perille. "It's more associated with candy and sweets and things potentially not as beneficial. Flavor was more in conflict with a nutritious product." In a prepared statement, Mead Johnson said there had been "some misunderstanding and mischaracterization regarding the intended consumer" of the product. "The resulting debate has distracted attention from the overall benefits of the brand." [1]

The controversy made me curious about the capacity of infants to taste and differentiate between flavors. How and when do they develop that capacity, and do flavors really have a significant impact on what they are willing to eat?

A 2001 study tested the hypothesis that experience with a flavor in amniotic fluid or breast milk modifies the infants' acceptance and enjoyment of similarly flavored foods at weaning. Pregnant women who planned on breast-feeding their infants were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 groups, consuming various combinations of carrot juice and water for 3 consecutive weeks during the last trimester of pregnancy and then again during the first 2 months of lactation. The infants were later videotaped as they were fed cereal prepared with water or carrot juice.   The results demonstrated that the infants who had exposure to the flavor of carrots in either amniotic fluid or breast milk behaved differently in response to that flavor in a food base than did non-exposed control infants. The study concluded that prenatal and early postnatal exposure to a flavor enhanced the infants' enjoyment of that flavor in solid foods during weaning. These very early flavor experiences could provide the foundation for cultural and ethnic differences in cuisine. [3]

A study published in 2004 sought to determine why early experience by infants with formulas establishes subsequent preferences.   Infants whose parents had chosen to formula-feed them were randomized into 1 of 4 groups by the second week of life. One group was fed a milk-based formula, whereas another was fed a particularly unpleasant tasting protein hydrolysate formula. The remaining groups were fed the unpleasant formula for 3 months and the milk-based formula for 4 months.   After 7 months of exposure, infants were videotaped on 3 separate days while feeding on the different formulas. The results indicated that previous exposure to the unpleasant tasting formula significantly enhanced its subsequent acceptance, and that seven months of exposure led to greater acceptance than did 3 months. The study concluded that such early variation in feeding, including varying exposures to different flavors in amniotic fluid and mothers' milk, may underlie individual differences in food acceptability throughout the life span. [4]

The responses of children to certain tastes differ markedly from adults, including heightened preferences for sweet tasting and greater rejection of bitter tasting foods. A 2005 study tested the hypothesis that genetic variations in a newly discovered taste gene, as well as cultural differences, are associated with differences in sensitivity to bitter taste and preferences for sucrose and sweet-tasting foods.   The results indicated that variations in the taste receptor gene accounted for a major portion of individual differences in bitterness perception in both children and adults, as well as a portion of individual differences in preferences for sweet flavors in children but not in adults. These findings underscore the genotype effects on behavioral outcomes in children, especially as they relate to taste preferences, and that cultural forces may sometimes override the genotypic effects in adults. New knowledge about the molecular basis of food likes and dislikes in children may suggest strategies to overcome diet-induced diseases. [5]

A 2007 study sought to evaluate the effects of breastfeeding and dietary experiences on acceptance of a fruit and a green vegetable by 4- to 8-month-old infants. Forty-five infants, 44 percent of whom were breastfed, were assigned randomly to 1 of 2 treatment groups. One group was fed green beans, and the other was fed green beans and then peaches at the same time of day for 8 consecutive days. Acceptance of both foods, as determined by a variety of measures, was assessed before and after the home-exposure period. The study results indicated that breastfeeding confers an advantage in initial acceptance of a food, but only if mothers eat the food regularly. Once weaned, infants who receive repeated dietary exposure to a food eat more of it and may learn to like its flavor. However, because infants initially display facial expressions of distaste in response to certain flavors, caregivers may hesitate to continue offering these foods. The study concluded that parents should be encouraged to provide their infants with repeated opportunities to taste fruits and vegetables, and should focus not only on their infants' facial expressions but also on their willingness to continue feeding. [6]

These findings regarding the impacts of flavor tasting by infants and children on their eating habits take on greater importance given the acknowledged overweight and obesity epidemic afflicting our children. The rapid increase in the prevalence of childhood obesity has alarmed public health agencies, health care clinicians, health care researchers, and the general public. On the basis of measured heights and weights from US children assessed approximately every 5 years, obesity prevalence has increased from roughly 5 percent in 1963 to 1970 to 17 percent in 2003 to 2004.   The obesity epidemic has also disproportionately affected some racial/ethnic groups. In 2003-2004, the prevalence rates were particularly high among African American girls (24 percent) and among Mexican American boys (22 percent). Rates have also increased among Native American and Asian American youths. Generally, greater obesity prevalence among adolescents has also been associated with poverty. [7]

A 2009 study in fact demonstrates the likely association with rapid early weight gain and subsequent obesity. The goal of the study was to examine the associations of weight-for-length at birth and at 6 months with obesity at 3 years of age.   The study concluded that more rapid increases in weight for length in the first 6 months of life were associated with sharply increased risk of obesity at 3 years of age. Changes in weight status in infancy may thus influence risk of later obesity more than weight status at birth. [8]

The potential impact of early exposure by infants and toddlers to enhanced sweet flavors could thus significantly affect their life-long food predispositions and related health aspects. Some more double chocolate fudge ice cream, kids?

References:

1. "Chocolate Toddler 'Formula' Pulled After Sugar Uproar", Susan Donaldson James, ABC NEWS, June 10, 2010.

2. http://www.theatlantic.com/food/archive/2010/05/chocolate-formula-baby-doesnt-know-best/56919 . The Atlantic Monthly Group, May 19, 2010.

3. Julie A. Mennella, PhD, Coren P. Jagnow, MS, and Gary K. Beauchamp, PhD, "Prenatal and Postnatal Flavor Learning by Human Infants", Pediatrics, Vol. 107 No. 6, June 2001.

4. Julie A. Mennella, PhD, Cara E. Griffin, and Gary K. Beauchamp, PhD, "Flavor Programming During Infancy", Pediatrics, Vol. 113 No. 4, April 2004.

5. Julie A. Mennella, PhD, M. Yanina Pepino, PhD, and Danielle R. Reed, PhD, "Genetic and Environmental Determinants of Bitter Perception and Sweet Preferences", Pediatrics, Vol. 115 No. 2, February 2005.

6. Catherine A. Forestell, PhD, and Julie A. Mennella, PhD, "Early Determinants of Fruit and Vegetable Acceptance", Pediatrics, Vol. 120, No. 6, February 2007.

7. Sarah E. Barlow, MD, MPH, and the Expert Committee, "Expert Committee Recommendations Regarding the Prevention, Assessment, and Treatment of Child and Adolescent Overweight and Obesity: Summary Report", Pediatrics, Vol. 120, Supplement 4, December 2007.

8. Elsie M. Taveras, Sheryl L. Rifas-Shiman, Mandy Belfort, Ken Kleinman, Emily Oken and Matthew Gillman, "Weight Status in the First 6 Months of Life and Obesity at 3 Years of Age", Pediatrics, Vol. 123, Number 4, April 2009.

The Legal Implications of Secondary Infections

dbabcock@marlerclark.com (Dave Babcock) — Mon, 12 Jul 2010 01:59:04 -0800

When contaminated food is placed into the stream of commerce, it is not only those who consume the food who will become injured.   For every serving of lettuce or ground beef contaminated with E. coli O157:H7 and each serving of sprouts or peanut butter contaminated with Salmonella, there is a significant chance that someone beyond the consumer of the product will fall ill.   Along with the diarrhea and vomiting that accompany food poisoning comes the spread of the bacterial or viral pathogen that caused the original illness. This, in turn, leads to additional infections in those with contact with the sick person or their surroundings, including family members, co-workers, school, and daycare mates.

This phenomenon is referred to as "secondary infection" and is very common. Person-to-person transmission of foodborne pathogens is both common and exceedingly well-documented.[1,2] Secondary transmission cases are well understood in the scientific community to be an inevitable part of any foodborne illness outbreak.[3] Epidemiologists who have worked with us at Marler Clark have estimated to me that at least one in ten cases in an outbreak is likely to be a secondary infection.

What then are the legal consequences that flow from secondary infection? The short answer is that the producers and sellers of contaminated food are no less liable to victims of secondary infection than they are to those who actually purchased and ate the food.

The first legal hurdle for a secondary infection victim was cleared nearly one hundred years ago, when the requirement of "privity" was removed from claims of injury from products.   Under the old privity requirements, only those who had a direct contractual relationship to the seller (i.e. the buyer) had the legal right to make claims. Under such a requirement, even a consumer of contaminated food who was not the direct purchaser would have been without remedy. Famed New York judge Benjamin Cardozo did away with this requirement in the case of MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co. (1916), involving a car's defective wheel. Judge Cardozo's ruling only directly impacted New York law, but other states followed.   In Washington, the lack of a privity requirement is spelled out directly by statute.   "A claim may be asserted under this chapter even though the claimant did not buy the product from, or enter into any contractual relationship with, the product seller." RCW 7.72.010(5).

More recently, manufacturers and sellers of contaminated food have attempted to argue that they cannot be held liable where the victim had no direct contact with the product.   In a case tried by the attorneys at Marler Clark, this argument was rejected on appeal by the Washington Courts. The victim in the case was a four-year-old girl who suffered an E. coli O157:H7 infection (and developed hemolytic uremic syndrome).   The source of the E. coli O157:H7 outbreak was ground beef in a taco-meal, but the victim did not eat the meal. Rather she had repeated contacts with two children who ate the meal, one of whom became infected. The defendant argued to the appeals court that it could not be held liable where the injured party had no actual contact with the defective product (i.e. the taco meal).   The court disagreed. The court likened the girl's claim to a victim in a previous case that had been injured while assisting the victim of someone injured in an accident caused by a defective motorcycle. The court explained the reasoning in allowing both claims under product liability law:

"There, as here, [the claimant] had no direct contact with the [product] . He was neither a driver nor a passenger. He was not struck by the [motorcycle]. The court nonetheless held there were no policy reasons demonstrating [the defendant's] 'liability should be cut off as a matter of law.' Nor do we find any policy reasons to end the [defendant's] liability here. The [Product Liability] Act does not limit "claimants" to those who have direct contact with the product. Indeed, the Act broadly defines the class of persons who may bring a product liability claim." Almquist v. Finley Sch. Dist. No. 53, 114 Wn. App. 395 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002)

Defendants are likewise very unlikely to be successful with arguments based on the legal concept of "foreseeability."   It is unlikely that the foreseeability of particular harm and injury can be a defense in a product liability claim.   Even if the defense is generally available, however, it would not be successful in the secondary infection context; as such outcomes are entirely predictable.

Secondary infections are a predictable outcome of the sale of contaminated food.   A person sickened as the result of a secondary infection that can demonstrate the product source of the original illness has a claim that is well founded in both law and science.

References

1. See e.g. K. Ludwig, "Outbreak of Escherichia coli O157:H7 Infection in a Large Family," Eur. J. Clin. Microb. Infect. Dis. Vol. 16, at 238-41 (1997)

2. P. Rowe, "Diarrhea in Close Contacts As a Risk Factor for Childhood Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome," Epidem. Infect. 110:9-16 (1993).

3. See E. Belongia, et al., "Transmission of Escherichia coli O157:H7 Infection in Minnesota Child-Care Facilities," JAMA, at 887 (Feb. 17, 1993) (describing the inevitable spread of illness from primary to secondary cases).