Fw: [BITES-L] bites Nov. 22/10
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
From: Doug Powell <dpowell@KSU.EDU>
Sender: Bites <BITES-L@LISTSERV.KSU.EDU>
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 12:49:11 -0600
To: BITES-L@LISTSERV.KSU.EDU<BITES-L@LISTSERV.KSU.EDU>
ReplyTo: Doug Powell <dpowell@KSU.EDU>
Subject: [BITES-L] bites Nov. 22/10
bites Nov. 22/10
Whole Foods safety sucks but they care …
Sécurité des aliments des repas de fêtes
Rodents have been here: Colorado school cafeteria inspections
UK: Surya Foods recalls Island Sun Semolina due to potential contamination as a result of rodent infestation
Dead cockroaches found in food safety log at Waterloo's Chinese Canteen
US: 76 million food borne illnesses last year. Really?
What's on your plate? CANADA lags in tracing food for safety and profit
Determinants of cross-contamination during home food preparation
MISSOURI: MU food scientists develop faster, more accurate test for salmonella
Implementation of targeted interventions to control Escherichia coli O157:H7 in a commercial abattoir
Reporting of methodological features in observational studies of pre-harvest food safety
how to subscribe
Whole Foods safety sucks but they care …
21.nov.10
barfblog
Doug Powell
http://www.barfblog.com/blog/145226/10/11/21/whole-foods-safety-sucks-they-care-%E2%80%A6
I bought a turkey yesterday for Thursday's Thanksgiving food orgy – 15 pounds at $0.68 per pound at Dillions supermarket in Manhattan (Kansas).
We usually don't go anywhere because the town is more serene with the students gone, and we host a dinner for various international stragglers with nowhere else to go.
At least I didn't have to go to Whole Foods. Terrible food safety and so insufferable.
For the past couple of weeks, Whole Foods has been pushing their turkeys like some form of food porn crack, and repeating the following statements as mantra:
"No antibiotics — ever
No supplemental growth hormones*
No animal byproducts in feed
"*Federal regulations prohibit the use of hormones when raising poultry"
Whole Foods lets birds suffer if they are sick, and follows the law by not using hormones. Should sick animals be deprived antibiotics? Wouldn't that go against animal welfare standards? I don't see how this is the basis for an advertizing campaign. Federal regulators may want to have a look, seeing as they cracked down on Tyson's BS claims that they didn't use antibiotics in poultry production that no one else used.
Whole Foods does have a bunch of homespun tales about turkeys raised by farmers the way our grandparents did it. Apparently society has learned nothing about food production over the past 60 years?
Whole Foods also has a thing against modern technology like freezing, and says it only sells fresh birds – big cross-contamination problem
I bought fresh birds a couple of times in the 1990s, and concluded they were overpriced and sucked. Same with fresh pasta. Some things are meant to be preserved using technology.
But this marketing is aimed directly at the consumers' pocketbook.
"It just makes sense that the more care and time that goes into raising the turkeys, the more they will cost."
Good for you if people will pay.
The Chicago Tribune reports that Whole Foods is also piloting a new humane meat-rating system in the South and scheduled for national expansion early next year. If the six-step, color-coded labeling system works as planned, it could allow American consumers at many supermarket chains unprecedented levels of specificity when it comes to choosing meat to match their principles.
I'd really like to be able to choose meat and other foods by levels of microbial contamination. American retailers will market anything to make a buck, but why not reward those producers, processors and retailers who consistently deliver food that doesn't make people barf.
"Developed by the Global Animal Partnership, a nonprofit group made up of farmers, scientists, retailers, sustainability experts and animal welfare advocates, the rating system aims to address growing consumer concerns over the way animals are raised for food. It could also, not coincidentally, boost sales for certified farmers and participating stores, likely to include another unidentified major national retailer and restaurant group in the coming year, according to the nonprofit.
"Its six-step approach establishes baseline standards for all meat sold in the store, while offering producers an opportunity to achieve higher ratings as their animal welfare standards improve based on the program's benchmarks.
"So, for example, the highest rating (5+, colored green) would go to a chicken that, among other things, had been bred, hatched and raised on a single farm, lived year-round on pasture covered with at least 75 percent vegetation and had legs that were healthy enough to support it by the time it reached market weight.
"And the lowest rating (1, colored yellow) would reflect adherence to several dozen baseline provisions about feed, antibiotics and treatment, but also a provision that the animal must not have been caged or crowded."
The Whole Foods folks could have learned something from those studying restaurant inspection disclosure and the use of colors or grading schemes. I also expect absolutely no verification that the system communicates to shoppers what was intended.
"We get an enormous amount of questions from customers who want to know everything about the meat and animals, really detailed questions," said Anne Malleau, global animal production and welfare coordinator for Whole Foods Market. But the program is also aimed at customers who don't want the gory details so much as assurances that their "food has been humanely produced," Malleau said.
Although the company has no set formula for pricing GAP levels, it did share some examples from an Atlanta-area store that started rolling out the program in 2009. Grain-fed rib-eye steak rated a Step 1 costs $14.99 lb., while local grass-fed rib-eye, rated Step 4, costs $15.99 lb. And Canadian bone-in pork chops rated Step 1 cost $6.99 lb., while local bone-in pork chops rated Step 4 cost $7.99 lb.
Who pays that? And relying on auditors? You have heard of Peanut Corporation of America and DeCoster eggs and dozens of other outbreaks. Anne, who used to go to the University of Guelph and even hang out with the folks in my lab (above, right, exactly as shown) I want microbiologically safe food. That's something I'd pay for.
http://barfblog.foodsafety.ksu.edu/blog/142784/10/06/26/whole-foods-still-sucks-food-safety
http://blog.wholefoodsmarket.com/2010/11/a-bird-for-every-budget/
http://barfblog.foodsafety.ksu.edu/blog/140868/10/02/15/safe-food-food-doesn't-make-you-barf-don't-it-make-your-own-definition
http://barfblog.foodsafety.ksu.edu/blog/138113/08/05/01/court-says-tyson-chicken-antibiotic-claims-must-stop
http://blog.wholefoodsmarket.com/2010/11/our-turkey-farmers-2/
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-1114-meat-ranking-20101115,0,4256344.story
http://blog.wholefoodsmarket.com/2010/11/our-turkey-farmers/
Sécurité des aliments des repas de fêtes
22.nov.10
barfblog
Doug Powell
http://barfblog.foodsafety.ksu.edu/blog/145229/10/11/22/sécurité-des-aliments-des-repas-de-fêtes
Une récente éclosion de maladies d'origine alimentaire au Kansas touchant 159 personnes a été liée à un dîner au cours duquel de la dinde a été servie dans une église. Les symptômes comprenaient vomissements, diarrhées et crampes abdominales – un vrai cadeau de fête. Aucun aliment particulier n'a été identifié.
Les repas de fêtes ont été liés à des éclosions de nombreux pathogènes, tels que Salmonella, Campylobacter, Clostridium perfringens et Staphylococcus aureus. La cuisson pour un nombre de personnes plus grand que de coutume, soit à la maison ou dans une cuisine collective, peut conduire à des erreurs au détriment de la sécurité des aliments.
Que pouvez-vous faire ?
Nettoyer et désinfecter les ustensiles et les surfaces de travail après avoir préparé la dinde crue pour le rôtissage. Lavez-vous les mains après avoir manipulé de la viande crue ou de la volaille. Ne lavez pas votre dinde. Des recherches récentes ont montré que lors du lavage de la volaille, les agents pathogènes peuvent se propager un mètre autour de l'évier, ce qui pourrait inclure des plats déjà préparés.
La couleur n'est pas un indicateur de sécurité ou de cuisson. Souvent il y a des suggestions dans les recettes au sujet de la dinde comme « le jus doit être clair ». C'est un mythe. La seule façon de savoir si la dinde est cuite est d'utiliser un thermomètre digital à une sonde sensible et lire au moins 74°C. Piquer la sonde en plusieurs points mais soyez sûr que le thermomètre ne touche pas les os car cela peut donner une mauvaise lecture de la température.
Conserver au réfrigérateur les restes de dinde dans les deux heures après la sortie du four. La dinde devrait être refroidie à 5°C rapidement. Le mieux est de mettre les restes de dinde en tranches dans des sacs refermables d'un litre ou de plus petite taille. Les sacs doivent être entreposés à plat au réfrigérateur pour permettre à l'air froid de circuler. Certaines bactéries formant des spores vont croître et former des toxines si elles sont conservées à température ambiante trop longtemps.
Pour plus d'information contactez Ben Chapman, benjamin_chapman@ncsu.edu ou Doug Powell, dpowell@ksu.edu
Rodents have been here: Colorado school cafeteria inspections
21.nov.10
barfblog
Doug Powell
http://barfblog.foodsafety.ksu.edu/blog/145227/10/11/22/rodents-have-been-here-colorado-school-cafeteria-inspections
Inspections of some Colorado school cafeterias in the last two years have turned up evidence of everything from rodents to fecal matter -- issues that are considered "critical violations," according to local health departments.
Tom Butts of the Tri- County Health Department, told CBS4 school cafeterias, "in general they are some of our better operated facilities. They have lots of people watching them."
But that scrutiny doesn't guarantee cleanliness.
At Denver's South High School, a 2009 city inspection of the cafeteria revealed "evidence of rodents ... in the facility. Rodent droppings are found in the dry storage along the walls on the floor."
South High School principal Steve Wera told CBS4 the problems have been addressed, adding, "We've made the appropriate changes. We can do better, we need to do better at this so I made sure we did."
Wera said since those problems were discovered the school brought in a new lunchroom manager and made other staff changes.
http://cbs4denver.com/investigates/school.cafeterias.rodents.2.2018519.html
UK: Surya Foods recalls Island Sun Semolina due to potential contamination as a result of rodent infestation
22.nov.10
FSA
http://www.food.gov.uk/enforcement/alerts/2010/nov/islandsunsemolina
Product:
Island Sun Semolina, 500g
Risk:
The product may be contaminated as a result of rodent infestation at the manufacturer.
Best Before End:
All date codes
Pack Size:
500g
Action taken by the Company:
The company is recalling all date codes of the product from consumers as a precautionary measure. Product recall notices are being displayed in stores that sell the product, explaining why the products have been recalled and how customers can get a full refund.
No other Surya Foods products are known to be affected.
Advice to consumers:
If you have purchased Island Sun Semolina 500g, please do not consume the product. For refund information please contact the store where it was purchased.
Dead cockroaches found in food safety log at Waterloo's Chinese Canteen
22.nov.10
barfblog
Doug Powell
http://www.barfblog.com/blog/145228/10/11/22/dead-cockroaches-found-food-safety-log-waterloo%E2%80%99s-chinese-canteen
The owner of the Chinese Canteen in Waterloo Road, London (the U.K. one, not Canada) has been ordered to pay nearly £5,000 after food safety inspectors found mouse droppings, dead cockroaches and dirty surfaces and utensils at the premises.
London SE1 reports that at one inspection environmental health officers from Southwark Council spotted two dead cockroaches squashed in the food safety log as well as seeing one crawling across a surface used for food preparation.
The owner of the Chinese Canteen pleaded guilty to seven separate food safety offences at Camberwell Green Magistrates Court on Friday 12 November.
George Colairo, proprietor of the restaurant since 1998, was ordered to pay £2,000 for the seven offences, in addition to nearly £3,000 for the full legal costs for Southwark Council.
In June of this year food safety inspectors from Southwark Council visited the premises, and discovered the mouse droppings and evidence of cockroaches.
Environmental health officers also spotted cooked meat on a shelf in a dirty sieve, with the run off liquid dripping into a bowl of open cooked noodles below.
They also saw cooked foods, such as cooked meat and prawn crackers, being kept in dirty, used cardboard boxes, food handlers not washing their hands as often as necessary or sanitising surfaces to protect food safety and food being left open in containers with no – or ill fitting – lids
After a warning to clean up the premises immediately they returned the next day to find none of the necessary action had taken place and the business was shut down.
http://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/4955
US: 76 million food borne illnesses last year. Really?
22.nov.10
Meatingplace
Richard Raymond
http://www.meatingplace.com/MembersOnly/blog/BlogDetail.aspx?topicID=8171&BlogID=10
(The views and opinions expressed in this blog are strictly those of the author.)
I have blogged on this before, but those politicians pushing for a change in food safety keep stating that "Last year, 76 million Americans were sickened by a food borne illness and 5,000 died" and that "our food safety system is a threat to the public's health".
They seem to be following the premise that to create change, first you must create a sense of urgency, as explained in John Kotter's book, "Leading Change".
As long as they keep trying to create that sense of urgency with shaky numbers, I will keep blogging away with some facts:
First Fact: Their numbers come from an article in the CDC's "Emerging Infectious Diseases" journal published in September, 1999 and used data from FoodNet gathered from 1996-1998. That's a fact.
Second Fact: In the CDC's own "Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report" (MMWR) of April 2010, they report that when comparing food borne infection rates from the same reporting time period as noted in the first fact, (that is: 1996-1998), to 2009, infection rates for Yersinia were down 53 percent, Shigella had decreased by 55 percent, Campylobacter was down 30 percent, Listeria 26 percent, Salmonella down by 10 percent, and our nemesis, E coli O157:H7, was down 41 percent and food borne illnesses from the O157 STEC were below the goal set in Healthy People 2010. And these are facts.
Third Fact: In the same MMWR report, the following statement is made: "In 2009, a total of 17,468 laboratory confirmed cases of infection were identified." Period. This, too, is a Fact.
It is necessary to point out these were the total cases of lab confirmed food borne illnesses indentified in the FoodNet surveillance population located in ten states and totaling 45.5 million people, or 15 percent of the US population. But even if we take 17,468 and multiply it times 6.6 to account for the other 85 percent of us, we still would only have 115,088 "laboratory confirmed illnesses" identified. And that is a long way from 73 million. BTW, the 73 million is NOT a fact. It is a mathematical theory.
Lastly, I have blogged before about the fuzzy math that gets us from 100,000 laboratory confirmed victims to 73 million ill and how we get from 2,000 deaths from known pathogens to 5,000 deaths from food borne illnesses. But there two other quotes regarding the number of deaths that I want to leave you all to ponder, and they are the following statements made by CDC in the "Emerging Infectious Diseases" article of 1999 that is so often misrepresented by those wanting change:
"Like illnesses and hospitalizations, deaths are also underreported." (I do not portray this as a Fact). The authors go on to say "first calculating the number of deaths among reported cases, then doubling this figure to account for unreported deaths.." Say what?
It has been awhile since I hung a stethoscope around my neck, but way back then we were still reporting every single death by filling out a death certificate that included the cause(s) of death.
I am not implying we cannot nor should not change, but let's make the changes based on facts, not political double speak.
What's on your plate? CANADA lags in tracing food for safety and profit
22.nov.10
The Globe and Mail
Jessica Leeder
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/time-to-lead/global-food/whats-on-your-plate-canada-lags-in-tracing-food-for-safety-and-profit/article1807777/
Have you ever wondered about the story behind your steak? What about the precise GPS co-ordinates of the orchard your apple came from, or how long ago the "fresh" seafood at your grocer was actually plucked from the sea? Look closely at the labels. Some of your food is trying to tell you its tale, in code (your smart phone can decipher it).
Savvy food companies, driven by a spate of high-profile recalls and an increasingly competitive market, have
begun publicly flaunting their farm-to-fork "traceability." Translated from industry jargon, that means their ability to trace and to catalogue, step by complicated step, the journey food takes from the moment it leaves the farm (or
sea) until it arrives on a plate.
Neither the United States nor Canada has laws forcing food companies to maintain such systems, although they are compulsory in parts of Europe and Japan, where leading retailers are using traceability to cash in. In North America, exposing that information chain to consumers - and using it to court the most discerning - is a brand new marketing strategy. But U.S. companies are far outpacing their sluggish Canadian counterparts in experimenting with it.
While "traceable" produce is still a rare find in Canadian grocery stores, retailers across the United States, led by the grocery chain Kroger, are trying to gain a competitive advantage by using high-tech stickers that help them go beyond simplistic claims of being local and sustainable. Instead, consumers who buy the products can download specific harvest and slaughter dates, GPS field and fishing locations - even farmer biographies.
There is no question this appeals to niche segments.
"We want to know where our food comes from and how it's grown. This is not going away," celebrity chef Michael Smith told a recent gathering of food manufacturers in Toronto. Consumers "want transparency and they're willing to pay more for it," he said.
But will the masses buy it? This is a key question for both the agri-food industry, and the increasing number of traceability experts who orbit it.
For years, traceability has been tied almost exclusively to food safety.
The concept picked up momentum when fears over bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE, or mad-cow disease) began to spread through Britain, Japan and Canada. Voluntarily, the beef industry implemented animal tagging to enable quick trace-backs of problem animals.
But the increasing onslaught of food safety scares - beef, spinach, tomatoes, peanuts, eggs - has elevated traceability to an industry buzzword and, in some countries, law.
"We have enormous trust in the system. We predominantly think our food is safe. People don't go into grocery stores and think about it," said David Sparling, professor of agri-food innovation and regulation with the Ivey School of Business at the University of Western Ontario.
While food safety sells in Japan, there is skepticism over whether the concept will make it in North American markets.
Determinants of cross-contamination during home food preparation
22.nov.10
British Food Journal, Vol. 113 Iss: 2
Jean Kennedy, Aisling Nolan, Sarah Gibney, Stephen O'Brien, M. Ann S. McMahon, Kenneth McKenzie, Brendan Healy, David McDowell, Seamus Fanning, Patrick G. Wall
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?issn=0007-070x&volume=113&issue=2&articleid=1895874&show=abstract
Purpose - All raw food entering the home has the potential to harbour pathogens. The specific behaviours linked to the transfer of pathogens which can cause food borne illness is not clearly understood.
Design/methodology/approach - In this study the potential for transfer of E. coli and Campylobacter was monitored in a simulated domestic kitchen environment while food preparation was filmed (n = 60). A survey was also administered which included questions on food risk perceptions, food safety knowledge and perceived utility of correct food handling behaviour in the prevention of food borne disease.
Findings - Results show that bacteria brought into the home on food can transfer to surfaces in the kitchen environment and to prepared food. Furthermore, specific unsafe food handling practices are associated with the presence of pathogens on these surfaces and food. A higher perceived risk of food borne illness was associated with being older. A higher frequency of cooking was associated with higher food safety knowledge scores. Higher levels of perceived utility of correct food handling practices were associated with higher levels of educational attainment and age.
Practical implications - This study suggests that food safety campaigns should focus on informing the young and less educated public about the potential of raw food, kitchen surfaces and hands to harbour and spread pathogens, as well as the actual risks and utility of food handling behaviours.
Originality/value - This paper is the first to include a verifiable audit of specific consumer behaviours which explain the transfer of bacteria around the kitchen environment and to prepared food.
MISSOURI: MU food scientists develop faster, more accurate test for salmonella
19.nov.10
University of Missouri
Azlin Mustapha
http://extension.missouri.edu/news/DisplayStory.aspx?N=984
COLUMBIA, Mo. -- There is such a thing as a bad egg, and it often has to do with salmonella.
A University of Missouri researcher hopes a new laboratory test will help the poultry industry find salmonella bacteria in chicken and eggs before they get to market.
The test is not only much faster than traditional methods, it detects only live salmonella, which should result in fewer unnecessary recalls of poultry.
"The advantage of this method is that it's rapid, so you can get the results within 12 hours versus five days with the traditional method," said Azlin Mustapha, associate professor of food science at the MU College of Agriculture, Food and Natural Resources.
"DNA-based methods are available right now that can get the company results in a shorter amount of time, but these methods do not differentiate between the live and the dead salmonella," she said. "Live salmonella are the ones that can kill consumers, not the dead ones, but false positives can result in a large number of unnecessary food recalls."
There are about 40,000 reported cases of salmonella-related food poisoning in the U.S. every year, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. While most victims suffer from diarrhea, vomiting, fever and abdominal cramps, severe cases spread from the intestines to the bloodstream and can cause death. The CDC estimates that about 400 people die each year with acute salmonellosis.
The new test was developed by Mustapha and MU graduate student Luxin Wang. Their process modifies an existing technique called polymerase chain reaction (PCR), which zeroes in on pieces of DNA from a specific organism, such as salmonella bacteria, and multiplies that DNA by several orders of magnitude, generating thousands to millions of copies, making it easier to detect and accurately measure.
Mustapha's modification adds a dye to the food sample before it is tested. The dye can't penetrate live cells, but it can enter dead cells, where it binds to DNA molecules, making them insoluble and therefore invisible to PCR tests.
This process mirrors one that Mustapha developed to detect E. coli in beef in 2009. That test currently is used by the Missouri Department of Agriculture testing laboratory and the USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service has showed interest in it.
"The technique can allow the poultry industry accurately and rapidly test for contamination before the product is shipped," Mustapha said. "For elderly and immunocompromised individuals, this is very important because they are sensitive and more susceptible."
Details are available in a recently published article in the Journal of Food Science.
Implementation of targeted interventions to control Escherichia coli O157:H7 in a commercial abattoir
21.nov.10
Meat Science
Corri L. Rekow, Mindy M. Brashears, J. Chance Brooks, Guy H. Loneragan, Sara E. Gragg and Mark F. Miller
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T9G-51HMX5T-1&_user=10&_coverDate=11%2F21%2F2010&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=0725f9b82f343b7bab2e848aac644efc&searchtype=a
Abstract
The objective of this study was to define locations on the carcass with highest contamination of E. coli O157 throughout the harvest process and implement targeted interventions to reduce or eliminate contamination. To establish a pathogen baseline, samples were collected at the foreshank, hindshank, inside round, neck and midline area and evaluated for E. coli O157:H7 presence. Environmental samples were also collected in the harvest area and the fabrication area of the facility. E. coli O157:H7 prevalence was highest on the foreshank, hindshank and inside rounds in the baseline study and steam vacuums/cones were implemented as an intervention in these specific areas on the harvest floor. At pre-evisceration, foreshank prevalence of E. coli O157:H7 was significantly (P<0.05) reduced from 21.7% to 3.1% after the application of steam interventions. At the final rail, foreshank prevalence in the baseline study was 4.2% while no E. coli O157:H7 was detected post-intervention implementation. E. coli O157:H7 on hindshanks and inside rounds was significantly reduced after intervention implementation from 24.2 to 11.5% and 37.5 to 16.7%, respectively at the final rail. Pathogen contamination of environmental samples collected in fabrication declined from 6.7% to 0.7% after slaughter interventions were implemented. Data indicate the identifying areas of contamination on the carcass and implementing interventions can significantly reduce E. coli O157 on the carcasses and in the fabrication environment.
Reporting of methodological features in observational studies of pre-harvest food safety
20.nov.10
Preventive Veterinary Medicine
Jan M. Sargeant, Annette M. O'Connor, David G. Renter, David F. Kelton, Kate Snedeker, Lee V. Wisener, Erin K. Leonarda, Alessia D. Guthrie and Meredith Faires
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TBK-51HJBD5-1&_user=10&_coverDate=11%2F20%2F2010&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=913087384d76eace03c135a3021734c3&searchtype=a
Abstract
Observational studies in pre-harvest food safety may be useful for identifying risk factors and for evaluating potential mitigation strategies to reduce foodborne pathogens. However, there are no structured reporting guidelines for these types of study designs in livestock species. Our objective was to evaluate the reporting of observational studies in the pre-harvest food safety literature using guidelines modified from the human healthcare literature. We identified 100 pre-harvest food safety studies published between 1999 and 2009. Each study was evaluated independently by two reviewers using a structured checklist. Of the 38 studies that explicitly stated the observational study design, 27 were described as cross-sectional studies, eight as case–control studies, and three as cohort studies. Study features reported in over 75% of the selected studies included: description of the geographic location of the studies, definitions and sources of data for outcomes, organizational level and source of data for independent variables, description of statistical methods and results, number of herds enrolled in the study and included in the analysis, and sources of study funding. However, other features were not consistently reported, including details related to eligibility criteria for groups (such as barn, room, or pen) and individuals, numbers of groups and individuals included in various stages of the study, identification of primary outcomes, the distinction between putative risk factors and confounding variables, the identification of a primary exposure variable, the referent level for evaluation of categorical variable associations, methods of controlling confounding variables and missing variables, model fit, details of subset analysis, demographic information at the sampling unit level, and generalizability of the study results. Improvement in reporting of observational studies of pre-harvest food safety will aid research readers and reviewers in interpreting and evaluating the results of such studies.
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 @ 2:18 PM
0 Comments
