Fw: [BITES-L] bites Nov. 16/10
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
From: Doug Powell <dpowell@KSU.EDU>
Sender: Bites <BITES-L@LISTSERV.KSU.EDU>
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 12:54:56 -0600
To: BITES-L@LISTSERV.KSU.EDU<BITES-L@LISTSERV.KSU.EDU>
ReplyTo: Doug Powell <dpowell@KSU.EDU>
Subject: [BITES-L] bites Nov. 16/10
bites Nov. 16/10
Health officials confirm E. coli in cheese samples
Calls from fake health inspectors in NC a fraud scam
MINNESOTA: Preliminary cattle-vaccine results show promise: Cargill
US: Two easy moves for the lame duck
US: Food groups oppose exempting small, local shops from safety protocols
US: Local food supply chains use diverse business models to satisfy demand
how to subscribe
Health officials confirm E. coli in cheese samples
16.nov.10
barfblog
Doug Powell
http://barfblog.foodsafety.ksu.edu/blog/145135/10/11/16/health-officials-confirm-e-coli-cheese-samples
The New Mexico Department of Health has confirmed an outbreak strain of E. coli O157:H7 in an intact sample of cheese sold at Costco stores.
The Alamogordo Daily News and Associated Press say the outbreak strain had been isolated at other laboratories in already opened packages of cheese, but this is the first confirmation from an intact cheese sample.
The findings confirm what scientists have found in the past: 60-days don't mean much when the cheese is made from unpasteurized or raw milk (see abstract below; thanks Carl).
The Bravo Farms Dutch Style Raw Milk Gouda Cheese was offered for sale and for in-store tasting between Oct. 5 and Nov. 1 at Costco stores in Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada and the San Diego, Calif., area.
Health officials say at least 37 people from five states have become sick with E. coli since mid-October. Cases in New Mexico include a 41-year-old man, a 7-year-old girl from Bernalillo County and a 4-year-old boy from Valencia County who are all recovering. Arizona has 19 cases reported, Colorado has 10, California has 3 and Nevada has two. Nationally there have been 15 reported hospitalizations, one case of hemolytic uremic syndrome and no deaths.
People who have any of the cheese should not eat it. People should return the cheese to the place of purchase or dispose of it in a closed plastic bag placed in a sealed trash can. This will prevent people or animals from eating it.
Survival of a five-strain cocktail of Escherichia coli O157:H7 during the 60-day aging period of cheddar cheese made from unpasteurized milk
May 2006
Journal of Food Protection, Volume 69, Number 5 pp. 990-998(9)
Schlesser, J.E.; Gerdes, R.; Ravishankar, S.; Madsen, K.; Mowbray, J.; Teo, A.Y.L.
Abstract:
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration Standard of Identity for Cheddar cheeses requires pasteurization of the milk, or as an alternative treatment, a minimum 60-day aging at ‰¥2°C for cheeses made from unpasteurized milk, to reduce the number of viable pathogens that may be present to an acceptable risk. The objective of this study was to investigate the adequacy of the 60-day minimum aging to reduce the numbers of viable pathogens and evaluate milk subpasteurization heat treatment as a process to improve the safety of Cheddar cheeses made from unpasteurized milk. Cheddar cheese was made from unpasteurized milk inoculated with 101 to 105 CFU/ml of a five-strain cocktail of acid-tolerant Escherichia coli O157:H7. Samples were collected during the cheese manufacturing process. After pressing, the cheese blocks were packaged into plastic bags, vacuum sealed, and aged at 7°C. After 1 week, the cheese blocks were cut into smaller-size uniform pieces and then vacuum sealed in clear plastic pouches. Samples were plated and enumerated for E. coli O157:H7. Populations of E. coli O157:H7 increased during the cheese-making operations. Population of E. coli O157:H7 in cheese aged for 60 and 120 days at 7°C decreased less than 1 and 2 log, respectively. These studies confirm previous reports that show 60-day aging is inadequate to eliminate E. coli O157:H7 during cheese ripening. Subpasteurization heat-treatment runs were conducted at 148°F (64.4°C) for 17.5 s on milk inoculated with E. coli O157:H7 at 105 CFU/ml. These heat-treatment runs resulted in a 5-log E. coli O157: H7 reduction.
http://www.newswest9.com/Global/story.asp?S=13509569
http://www.alamogordonews.com/ci_16623679
http://www.barfblog.com/blog/145115/10/11/15/cheese-and-food-safety-risk
http://www.foodprotection.org/QuickLinks.htm
Calls from fake health inspectors in NC a fraud scam
16.nov.10
barfblog
Ben Chapman
http://barfblog.com/blog/145134/10/11/16/calls-fake-health-inspectors-nc-fraud-scam
My buddy Larry Michael with the NC Dept of Environment and Natural Resources, Food Protection Branch is quoted in an AP story as warning restaurant operators in NC to be wary of someone posing as health inspector and calling for business information.Officials say someone is calling restaurants claiming to be a health inspector or other government official with new inspection procedures. They give the restaurants a code and tell them to provide the information when they get an automated call or when an inspector visits.
Larry says that the business information is being used to create dummy accounts for online shopping and auction sites.
This scam has beeen reported all over the U.S. and Canada. Back in June officials in Washington state also reported the information phishing:
The first caller tells the restaurant that it will receive an automated call providing a numeric confirmation code. A second caller, claiming to be a health inspector, requests the code and seeks to set up an in-person restaurant inspection. The caller threatens fines if the restaurant doesn't cooperate.
http://www.wwaytv3.com/nc_health_officials_warn_restaurant_inspection_scam%20/11/2010
http://blog.seattlepi.com/boomerconsumer/archives/212933.asp
MINNESOTA: Preliminary cattle-vaccine results show promise: Cargill
15.nov.10
Meatingplace
Tom Johnston
http://www.meatingplace.com/MembersOnly/webNews/details.aspx?item=19756
Cargill said today it will enter a second stage of testing vaccines intended to reduce E. coli O157:H7 occurrence in cattle, following promising results in the project's first round. Dan Schaefer, Cargill assistant vice president for beef research and development, told the food and feed safety committee of the United States Animal Health Association in Minneapolis on Sunday that researchers saw a favorable immune-system response to the vaccine and the cattle had no adverse reaction. "[We] believe there is enough evidence to move forward with a second vaccine trial and anticipate doing so in summer 2011 at a Midwest beef processing facility supplied by mid-size feedlots in the region," Schaefer said, according to a Cargill news release. "We're determining the best way to proceed with this science-based, evolutionary process, which we hope will lead to validating the potential value of vaccine as another food safety tool for beef production." The first trial in 2010, at a cost of $1 million, entailed vaccination of the entire cattle supply from 10 feedlots dedicated to slaughter at the company's Fort Morgan, Colo., plant from May through August. Of the 85,000 head of cattle, nearly 60,000 head received two doses of the vaccine, one upon arrival at the feedlot and one about 90 days before harvesting. The remaining cattle received a single dose and served as buffers before and after those cycling through the feedlots and that had received two doses.
Buffers allowed Cargill to establish scientific controls to test the effect of whole-feedlot vaccination under commercial conditions. Replicating the first trial will be a challenge given the number of factors that can potentially influence the effectiveness of a vaccine for reducing E. coli in beef cattle. Among them are weather, geography, seasonality, animal and herd care and management and vaccine dosage. Moreover, Cargill noted a low level of E. coli O157:H7 in the beef produced at Fort Morgan from the non-vaccinated cattle while vaccinated cattle were being harvested. That, Schaefer said, might influence the significance of the data now being analyzed by independent researchers at Kansas State and Texas Tech universities, the USDA's Meat Animal Research Center and the Beef Checkoff, results of which will likely be available early next year.
They're trying to better understand the meaning and value of the reduction in E. coli in beef from the vaccinated cattle, compared with beef from non-vaccinated animals. This vaccine trial marked the first completed pre-harvest intervention trial that monitored activity from the time of vaccination through measurements in meat. "The low level of E. coli O157:H7 in the beef from control cattle is something we need to take into consideration when we analyze the data to determine the vaccine's true impact and potential," Schaefer said. "The scientist in me tells me much more research remains to be conducted before we can draw any meaningful conclusions about the long-term efficacy of vaccine use to reduce any strain of bacteria potentially found in beef that could pose health risks to consumers."
US: Two easy moves for the lame duck
15.nov.10
New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/16/opinion/16tue4.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss
The lame-duck Congress, according to this editorial, needs to approve two food-related measures that are badly needed to protect the nation's health. The good news is that a version of each has already passed one chamber, and both have strong bipartisan support.
The Senate needs to approve a House food safety bill that would significantly strengthen the Food and Drug Administration's ability to combat food-borne illnesses, including giving it the authority to recall contaminated products and other tools to prevent contaminated foods from reaching the marketplace in the first place.
This bill has strong bipartisan support. But a few senators, led by Jon Tester, a Democrat of Montana, appear determined to tack on an amendment exempting from safety standards a significant number of produce items and processed foods. That would weaken the F.D.A.'s ability to protect Americans' health. The Senate needs to approve the bill without this amendment.
US: Food groups oppose exempting small, local shops from safety protocols
15.nov.10
Meatingplace
Rita Jane Gabbett
http://www.meatingplace.com/MembersOnly/webNews/details.aspx?item=19753
More than 30 groups representing poultry, meat and other fresh food makers sent a letter today to legislators asking them to oppose an amendment to the Food Safety Modernization Act that would exempt some small food producers, such as farmers' market vendors, from certain food safety protocols. A copy was made available to Meatingplace.
"We believe an operation's size, the growing practices used, or its proximity to customers does not determine whether the food offered is safe," the groups said in a letter to Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), who chairs the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee and ranking minority committee member Sen. Michael Enzi (R-Wy.). "What matters is that the operation implements prudent product safety practices, whether the product is purchased at a roadside stand, a farmers' market or a large supermarket.
"We believe technical assistance, training, extended transition timeframes for compliance and financial support are more appropriate ways to assist small businesses throughout the food distribution chain to comply with important food safety standards," the letter added.
Groups signing the letter included, among others, the American Meat Institute, National Chicken Council, National Meat Association, National Pork Producers Council and National Turkey Federation.
US: Local food supply chains use diverse business models to satisfy demand
01.dec.10
Amber Waves
Michael S. Hand
http://www.ers.usda.gov/AmberWaves/December10/Features/SupplyChains.htm#2010-11-15
Case studies show that as demand has increased, local foods are reaching consumers through an expanding array of supply chain arrangements and marketing outlets.
Consumers demanding locally produced food have often had only a few options for buying food produced by nearby farms, including roadside stands, farmers' markets, and Community Supported Agriculture (CSAs) programs. These market outlets—typically distributing small volumes of specialized products—stand in stark contrast to large supermarkets and other mainstream outlets that distribute the vast majority of food consumed at home in the United States.
As demand has increased, however, local foods are reaching consumers through an expanding array of supply chain arrangements and marketing outlets. Local foods may be sold in supermarkets; in small specialty stores or regional grocery chains; in restaurants, schools, or hospitals; or through a variety of direct-to-consumer outlets (see "Varied Interests Drive Growing Popularity of Local Foods").
Although many definitions and examples of local food supply chains exist, "local" generally refers to food sourced from nearby farms and producers. Proximity between consumers and producers is an essential component of any local food supply chain, yet the structure of these supply chains can take numerous forms.
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 @ 4:32 PM
0 Comments
