Fw: [BITES-L] bites Sep. 13/10
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
From: Doug Powell <dpowell@KSU.EDU>
Sender: Bites <BITES-L@LISTSERV.KSU.EDU>
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 17:42:32 -0500
To: BITES-L@LISTSERV.KSU.EDU<BITES-L@LISTSERV.KSU.EDU>
ReplyTo: Doug Powell <dpowell@KSU.EDU>
Subject: [BITES-L] bites Sep. 13/10
bites Sep. 13/10
Handwashing studies offer conflicting results
Something in the air: disinfecting hand gels don't help against H1N1
Are hand sanitizers better than handwashing against the common cold?
US: USDA, FDA employees report food safety interference: survey
No time to relax on food safety, EU says
US: STECs – are they adulterants or not?
UKRAINE: Number of Ukrainian schoolchildren hospitalized with food poisoning reaches 63
MALTA food safety notifications down last year
Hearing on "The Outbreak of Salmonella in Eggs"
ITALY: Lati Food storage model to reduce contamination
US: AMIF pushes CDC to update foodborne illness numbers
how to subscribe
Handwashing studies offer conflicting results
13.sep.10
barfblog
Doug Powell
http://www.barfblog.com/blog/144100/10/09/13/handwashing-studies-offer-conflicting-results
I'm confused with these conflicting handwashing studies.
And, as Les Nessman of WKRP in Cinncinatti said, when I get confused, I watch television. It somehow makes things simple. Television is never confusing.
This morning it was alcohol-based sanitizers didn't do much to limit the spread of the H1N1 virus, but worked well against cold viruses (the sanitizers also sorta suck against norovirus).
Later today, it was the results of another of those creepy make-grad-students-hand –out-in-public-bathrooms studies, to see if people actually wash their hands, which found that 85 per cent of adults washed their hands in public restrooms, the highest number since the studies began in 1996.
But it's a far cry from the 96% of adults who say they always wash their hands in public restrooms, based on a separate telephone survey conducted at the same time.
Men do a lot worse than women overall — just 77% scrubbed up, compared with 93% of women.
The study was sponsored by the American Society for Microbiology and the American Cleaning Institute (formerly the Soap and Detergent Association). It involved discreetly observing 6,028 adults in public restrooms in August to see whether they washed their hands.
Great. More people are attempting to wash their hands. But are they doing it correctly? Does any attempt count, or only if handwashing is done according to government prescriptions. But is the best way to wash hands? Can't people with PhDs agree?
No.
A study by researchers at the University of Bradford and published in the current Journal of Applied Microbiology evaluated three kinds of hand drying and their effect on transfer of bacteria from the hands to other surfaces: paper towels, traditional hand dryers, which rely on evaporation, and a new model of hand dryer, which rapidly strips water off the hands using high velocity air jets.
In this study the researchers quantified the effects of hand drying by measuring the number of bacteria on different parts of the hands before and after different drying methods. Volunteers were asked to wash their hands and place them onto contact plates that were then incubated to measure bacterial growth. The volunteers were then asked to dry their hands using either hand towels or one of three hand dryers, with or without rubbing their hands together, and levels of bacteria were re-measured.
The researchers found the most effective way of keeping bacterial counts low, when drying hands, was using paper towels. Amongst the electric dryers, the model that rapidly stripped the moisture off the hands was best for reducing transfer of bacteria to other surfaces.
Yet tomorrow's N.Y. Times reports it's a draw, and that "the best available evidence suggests that as far as germs go, the method of drying is less important than the amount of time invested: the longer the better."
So my pants would be fine as long as I used them enough.
Dr. O. Peter Snyder at the St. Paul-based Hospitality Institute of Technology and Management summarized key aspects of handwashing and drying in a paper available at, http://www.hi-tm.com/Documents/Safehands.html. Snyder says that after hands are washed and rinsed, they must be thoroughly dried.
Blow dryers should not be used because they accumulate microorganisms from toilet aerosols, and can cause contamination of hands as they are dried by the drier (Knights, et al., 1993; Redway,et al., 1994).
Snyder notes that it is also apparent that many individuals do not dry their hands thoroughly when using a blow drier; hence, moisture, which is conducive to microbial growth, remains on hands, or people dry their hands on their clothing.
Proper handwashing requires access to the proper tools – and that means vigorously running water, soap and paper towel.
We've reviewed the literature on handwashing and how best to motivate people to wash hands, and conclude in a paper to be published shortly that,
"Although the role of hand hygiene in preventing infectious disease is well recognized, studies repeatedly show that compliance remains low. … Education and training have been cited often as essential to developing and maintaining hand hygiene compliance but, with few exceptions, this approach has not produced sustained improvement. … Hand hygiene was enhanced by provoking emotive sensations of discomfort, unpleasantness and disgust. Evidence suggests handwashing is a ritualized behavior mainly carried out as self-protection from infection and that patterns of handwashing behavior are likely established in childhood. Therefore, interventions that focus on culture, perception and behavior change may prove to be the most successful. How that success is measured must be carefully considered, as there is no standardized method for measuring hand hygiene compliance and current techniques have significant limitations."
http://barfblog.foodsafety.ksu.edu/blog/144088/10/09/13/something-air-disinfecting-hand-gels-dont-help-against-h1n1
http://www.usatoday.com/yourlife/health/2010-09-13-handwashing14_ST_N.htm?csp=34news&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+UsatodaycomHealth-TopStories+%28News+-+Health+-+Top+Stories%29
http://barfblog.foodsafety.ksu.edu/blog/143988/10/09/08/dry-hands-or-spread-bacteria-paper-towel-better-blowers
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/14/health/14real.html?_r=2&partner=rss&emc=rss
http://barfblog.foodsafety.ksu.edu/blog/139540/08/02/07/dude-wash-your-hands
Something in the air: disinfecting hand gels don't help against H1N1
13.sep.10
barfblog
Doug Powell
http://www.barfblog.com/blog/144088/10/09/13/something-air-disinfecting-hand-gels-dont-help-against-h1n1
AFP reports the regular use of alcohol-based disinfecting hand gels authorities recommended during the swine flu pandemic has little effect on the disease's infection rate, according to a US study.
The findings suggest that the pandemic virus A (H1N1) and similar strains may be most effectively transmitted in the air, rather than by contact with infected surfaces, the authors of the study said.
"An alcohol hand disinfectant with enhanced antiviral activity failed to significantly reduce the frequency of infection with either rhinovirus or influenza," wrote the authors of the study presented on Sunday at the Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy (ICAAC) in Boston.
Participants in the study disinfected their hands roughly every three hours over ten weeks between August 25 and November 9, 2009. Of that group, 42 out of 100 contracted rhinovirus infections, compared to 51 out of 100 in the control group.
Similarly, 12 of those regularly disinfecting their hands contracted the so-called swine flu, compared to 15 in the control group.
"The hand treatment also did not significantly reduce the frequency of illnesses caused by the viruses," said the authors of the study led by Ronald Turner of the University of Virginia.
The study was financed by the Dial Corporation, which makes various care and cleaning products, including alcohol-based hand sanitizer.
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-world/disinfecting-hand-gels-dont-help-20100913-157bn.html
Are hand sanitizers better than handwashing against the common cold?
13.sep.10
American Society for Microbiology
A new study suggests that hand sanitizers containing ethanol are much more effective at removing rhinovirus from hands than washing with soap and water. Sanitizers containing both ethanol and organic acids significantly reduced recovery of the virus from hands and rhinovirus infection up to 4 hours following application. The researchers from the University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville and Dial Corporation, Scottsdale, Arizona detail their findings in the March 2010 issue of the journal Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy.
Rhinovirus is the known cause of approximately 30 to 35% of common cold cases in adults. Hand-to-hand contact is one of the main avenues of transmission contributing to the spread of rhinovirus infections. In the study researchers compared the effects of hand washing with soap and water and an ethanol-based hand sanitizer by contaminating the fingers of healthy volunteers with rhinovirus and then randomly grouping them and administering one of six hand treatments. The experiments ranged from a control group who had no treatment, several groups who washed their hands for differing amounts of time (some with soap, some without), and several who used varying amounts of hand sanitizer. Results showed that the ethanol hand sanitizer removed approximately 80% of detectable rhinovirus from hands and was much more effective than no treatment, water alone, or soap and water. Soap and water removed rhinovirus from 31% of hands.
Further, researchers added organic acids to the ethanol-based sanitizer and analyzed its ability to provide persistent antiviral activity against rhinovirus following application. Results showed that the sanitizer containing both organic acids and ethanol inactivated the virus on hands and prevented infection 2 to 4 hours following application.
"The ethanol-containing hand disinfectants were significantly more effective than hand washing with water or with soap and water for removal of detectable rhinovirus for the hands in this study," say the researchers. "Furthermore, a formula containing organic acids and ethanol resulted in residual activity that significantly reduced virus recovery from the hands and rhinovirus infection for up to 4 hours after application."
(R.B. Turner, J.L. Fuls, N.D. Rodgers. 2010. Effectiveness of hand sanitizers with and without organic acids for removal of rhinovirus from hands. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, 54. 3: 1363-1364.)
US: USDA, FDA employees report food safety interference: survey
13.sep.10
Meatingplace
Dani Friedland
http://www.meatingplace.com/MembersOnly/webNews/details.aspx?item=18447
USDA and Food and Drug Administration employees responsible for various aspects of food safety regulation report situations in which their scientific work has been affected by other influences, according to a recent survey by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS).
The survey asked individuals who work in food safety for the two agencies whether they had encountered corporate, political and other interference in their work over the past year.
Ten percent of respondents said they had "frequently" or "occasionally" gotten requests from decision-makers within their agency to "inappropriately exclude or alter technical information or conclusions in an agency scientific document," while 16 percent said they had "frequently" or "occasionally" experienced "a selective or incomplete use of data to justify a specific regulatory outcome."
In terms of pressure from outside their agencies, one in four respondents reported frequently or occasionally experiencing "situations where corporate interests have forced the withdrawal or significant modification of an agency policy or action designed to protect consumers or public health" in the past year. On the other hand, 23 percent said they had "seldom" had this experience.
Twenty-two percent reported similar situations in which nongovernmental interests — such as advocacy groups — influenced policy or actions, while 20 percent reported they had seldom had that issue.
The responses did not vary significantly between the two agencies, with the exception of four questions. Respondents who worked at the USDA were more likely to report having adequate resources, and they were more likely to say that they were acting effectively to protect the public from foodborne illness. Respondents from the FDA, meanwhile, were more likely to say that members of Congress had forced the withdrawal of or significant changes to policy, and to report instances of businesses not providing necessary information to investigators.
"The administration can act decisively by making a scientific integrity plan," Francesca Grifo, director of the Scientific Integrity Program at the UCS, said during a briefing Monday morning. UCS is environmental advocacy organization.
A link to the 46-question survey was sent to 8,122 people who work on food safety at the FDA and the USDA in March 2010. More than half of the 1,710 who responded have worked at their agency for 11 or more years. The Union of Concerned Scientists met with officials at the USDA and the FDA prior to conducting the survey, and both agencies told staff they could complete the surveys on their own time.
No time to relax on food safety, EU says
13.sep.10
UPI
http://www.upi.com/Science_News/Resource-Wars/2010/09/13/No-time-to-relax-on-food-safety-EU-says/UPI-25641284382374/
BRUSSELS -- Members of the European Union can't afford to relax on food safety issues despite a lower number of reported serious concerns, a commissioner said.
There was a 12 percent increase in the number of notifications sent to Europe's Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed for 2009 when compared with the previous year. Of the 8,000 notifications sent, however, only 557 were for serious risks.
John Dalli, the European commissioner for health and consumer policy, said there was no reason to relax, however.
"We cannot rest on our laurels when it comes to food safety, even if 2009 is the first year (in a long time) without any significant incidents being reported in the RASFF," he said in a statement.
US: STECs – are they adulterants or not?
13.sep.10
Meatingplace
James Marsden
http://www.meatingplace.com/MembersOnly/blog/BlogDetail.aspx?topicID=7433&BlogID=11
STECs (Non-E. coli O157:H7 Shiga Toxin Producing E. coli strains) have recently been very much in the news.
The question is: Should they, like E. coli O157:H7 be declared as adulterants? I hesitate to take on this topic because it is controversial and divisive. However, there is, one point on which I believe there is consensus: everyone recognizes that STECs do pose a public health risk and need to be addressed.
On the question of whether STEC's should be classified as adulterants, it is important to consider that USDA already has the authority under the Meat Inspection Act to declare a meat product adulterated if "it bears or contains any poisonous or deleterious substance which may render it injurious to health." USDA demonstrated this authority two weeks ago in the recall of 8,500 lbs. of raw ground beef that was contaminated with E. coli O26.
Perhaps a better question should be: Does USDA's FSIS need to officially declare STEC's as adulterants in raw beef products in order to best protect the public health?
There are a few practical obstacles to this course, one being that only a few labs are equipped to test for STECs. Another obstacle is the unique legal standing that has been assigned to E. coli O157:H7 as the result of industry's challenge to USDA's decision to declare this pathogen an adulterant back in 1993. A federal court ruled in favor of USDA, specifically on the issue of E. coli O157:H7 in raw ground beef – there is some question whether that ruling would apply to STECs?
The American Meat Institute in a letter to Agriculture Secretary Vilsack outlined eight actions that it believes should be taken by USDA to address STECs. (See Meatingplace article:. http://www.meatingplace.com/MembersOnly/webNews/details.aspx?item=17987
These recommendations actually make a lot of sense, especially the suggestion that USDA should promulgate a long overdue regulation on E. coli in raw beef products. The only real difference of opinion between public health advocates and AMI is one of timing. AMI wants USDA to fully study the problem before addressing the adulteration question while many public health advocates take the position that STECs could be declared as adulterants while FSIS goes through the process of conducting risk assessments and rule-making. It is difficult to argue that we can afford to wait years before STECs are addressed or just react to cases and outbreaks as they arise.
Probably, the best course at this point would be to treat STECs exactly as we do E. coli O157:H7 because they have the same potential to cause serious disease and even death. This would not require a formal announcement by FSIS or even a major change in policy. An expansion of the current policies on E. coli O157:H7 should be sufficient (using the authority given to USDA under the Meat Inspection Act). Again, this is really nothing new. FSIS has the authority and responsibility to act when pathogens in meat and poultry products threaten the public health, regardless of whether they have been officially designated as "adulterants". Take the recent Salmonella recall in raw beef as an example.
The meat industry is already taking steps eliminate E. coli O157:H7 from beef carcasses, ground beef and other raw beef products. Presumably, the interventions used to inactivate the O157:H7 strain will also control STECs (although this needs to be confirmed).
USDA labs and other micro testing labs should develop procedures for testing STECs, including rapid methods. By expanding testing capabilities, USDA and industry can test for STEC's to verify that control measures are effective.
In a recent New York Times story on STECs, a spokesperson for AMI acknowledged the fact that STECs pose a public health risk, but stated that we are not in a crisis situation. I submit that we shouldn't wait for a crisis to deal with the problem. USDA and the meat industry should take steps now to minimize or eliminate the risk of STECs in meat products.
UKRAINE: Number of Ukrainian schoolchildren hospitalized with food poisoning reaches 63
12.sep.10
RIA Novosti
http://en.rian.ru/exsoviet/20100912/160564619.html
The number of children hospitalized for food poisoning in the Crimean city of Yevpatoria on the Black Sea has reached 63, the Ukrainian Emergencies Ministry's press service said on Sunday.
The children became ill on Friday after eating poorly prepared macaroni with meat and eggs for lunch. In all, 167 children ate in the school cafeteria.
MALTA food safety notifications down last year
13.sep.10
Times of Malta
Ivan Camilleri
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20100913/local/malta-food-safety-notifications-down-last-year
Malta's Food Safety Commission last year informed the EU of 18 notifications on bad food found on the local market and said that in some cases it had to refuse the importation of foodstuffs.
The rejects included butter infested with mould imported from the UK and bad fish and squid imported from Senegal and China, which were not kept at the right temperature.
The commission also had to intervene various times to inform the public about salmonella in Maltese sausages and other barred substances in local grapes and bottled water.
According to the annual report of the EU's Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF), in 2009 Malta registered a drop in the number of notifications passed to Brussels. There had been more than 30 such notifications in 2008.
In contrast, there was an increase in the number of total notifications in the EU, reaching nearly 8,000, up 12 per cent on 2008.
Hearing on "The Outbreak of Salmonella in Eggs"
13.sep.10
Media-Newswire.com
http://media-newswire.com/release_1127333.html
The Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations will hold a hearing entitled "The Outbreak of Salmonella in Eggs" on Tuesday, September 21, 2010, at 11:00 a.m. in room 2123 of the Rayburn House Office Building. The hearing will examine the recent Salmonella outbreak associated with eggs produced by Wright County Egg and Hillandale Farms of Iowa.
INVITED WITNESSES
Austin DeCoster, Owner, Wright County Egg
Orland Bethel, President, Hillandale Farms of Iowa
Michael R. Taylor, Deputy Commissioner for Foods, Food and Drug Administration
WHEN: 11:00 a.m. on Tuesday, September 21
ITALY: Lati Food storage model to reduce contamination
13.sep.10
LogisticsWeek
http://logisticsweek.com/news/2010/09/lati-food-storage-model-to-reduce-contamination/
Lati has developed an injection-mouldable compound which it claims reduces the risk of food contamination during processing.
The Italian firm said its MDT grades for injection-moulded storage container applications reduce contamination risks and have been designed for better performance compared with traditional ferromagnetic fillers.
The homogeneous dispersion of active fillers can trace small chunks and parts of an object, potentially arising out of any breakage, wear and tear or rough handling on the factory floor, the company said.
US: AMIF pushes CDC to update foodborne illness numbers
13.sep.10
Meatingplace
Dani Friedland
http://www.meatingplace.com/MembersOnly/webNews/details.aspx?item=18428
The American Meat Institute Foundation has sent a letter to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to revise foodborne illness statistics.
"In order to improve food safety and further reduce the risk of foodborne illness, it is absolutely critical to have the most accurate estimation of foodborne disease as the cause of illness, hospitalizations and deaths," AMIF Director of Scientific Affairs Betsy Booren wrote in a letter to the CDC.
The data commonly cited by public health officials, regulatory agencies and congressional staff is from 1999, when the Mead et al. "Food-Related Illness and Death in the United States" report estimated that food causes 76 million illnesses, 325,000 hospitalizations and 5,000 deaths annually. Recently released CDC analysis of illnesses reported in 2008 show roughly 100,000 illnesses.
An update to the Mead et al. report has been in the works since before 2007.
AMI said the discrepancy could be due to adjustment for underreporting of foodborne illness in the 1999 report, which it says are no longer valid because public health reporting has changed over the last 20 years. Plus, AMI said, the last ten years have seen newer and more accurate methods for microorganism detection and other safety improvements.
"This objective data allows food safety stakeholders to allocate food safety resources and scientifically justify the decisions made in their food safety system," Booren wrote. "By having timely, credible food attribution data, the food industry can accurately identify and improve any food safety gaps that may exist. It also may help to identify emerging foodborne risks, especially when such risks have not been previously associated with specific foods. This rapid adjustment to improve food safety can only occur if accurate data is made available as soon as possible to all food safety stakeholders."
bites is produced by Dr. Douglas Powell and food safety friends at Kansas State University. For further information, please contact dpowell@ksu.edu or check out bites.ksu.edu.
TO SUBSCRIBE to the listserv version of bites, send mail to:
(subscription is free)
listserv@listserv.ksu.edu
leave subject line blank
in the body of the message type:
subscribe bites-L firstname lastname
i.e. subscribe bites-L Doug Powell
TO UNSUBSCRIBE from the listserv version of bites, send mail to:
listserv@listserv.ksu.edu
leave subject line blank
in the body of the message type: signoff bites-L
archived at http://archives.foodsafety.ksu.edu/fsnet-archives.htm and bites.ksu.edu
posted by Tom Karst @ 7:21 PM
0 Comments
