Quotable Quotes:
It would not be a complete surprise to me if the UK authorities decided to conduct a survey to ensure compliance with its labeling regulations only on irradiated food products that are known to be safe, but chose to ignore the need for a similar survey of other food products that do contain agents that are known to cause health risks.  In such a case, the time has come for the UK authorities to review their rules and put modern food labeling regulations in perspective. Paisan Loaharanu, MS; Executive Director, International Council on Food Irradiation; and Adjunct Professor of Food Safety, Michigan State University, E. Lansing, MI.

"Last year, more than 5,000 people in America died because the food they ate was contaminated. And more than 75 million Americans will miss at least one day of school or work this year because of contaminated food. These statistics concern Ron Eustice, executive director of the Minnesota Beef Council, and researchers at Kansas State University, Iowa State University and Arkansas State University, who make up the national Food Safety Consortium. That's because they know the technology to virtually wipe out bacterial contamination -- irradiation -- has been around since the 1960s.The Wichita Eagle (January 8, 2005)

"Our retailers told us there was a very loyal customer base for the product," Klein said. "If it becomes economically feasible, we will likely resume our pilot project and offer it again."  Mark Klein, spokesperson for Cargill Meat Solutions

The (irradiation) concept is rapidly capturing ground. He told Feedstuffs that the fruit and vegetable industry is moving to irradiation to disinfect for insects as an alternative to methyl bromide -- which is being discontinued industry-wide due to its environmental hazard and toxicity to workers -- as well as its ability to extend shelf life. Consequently, consumers will become far more aware of the benefits of irradiation than when it was limited to beef patties and ground beef. Ron Eustice, executive director, Minnesota Beef Council, Feedstuffs Magazine, January 30, 2006

In This Update:

Enforcing UK Food Labeling Law c in Perspective

Food irradiation may start to take off

Irradiation Resumes as SureBeam Plant Reopens

Recalls of Spices Due to Bacterial Contamination Monitored By U. S. Food & Drug Administration: Predominance of Salmonellae
Crop Protection, Food Irradiation, Fruits & Vegetables & International Trade; USDA Rule Notice

Students Sick after Lunch

Efecto del Tratamiento de FrÌo Sobre la Mortalidad de Dysaphis cynarae y de Copitarsia decolora en Alcachofas Frescas

Enforcing UK Food Labeling Law c in Perspective

The United Kingdom (UK) Food Standard Agency (FSA) published a report on 1 Feb. 06 of a survey conducted in 2003 to enforce the food labeling law by collecting and analyzing 48 samples of food supplements marketed in the UK.  The results showed that 11 samples were found to be wholly irradiated and a further 13 samples contained an irradiated ingredient.  The report did not provide details with regard to the specific name and concentrations of "an irradiated ingredient” in any food supplement, however.  This was the second consecutive year that such a survey was carried out in the UK to determine whether irradiated food products have been properly labeled as required by the food law or not.  FSA was adamant to state that the finding was NOT a food safety issue;  that irradiation is a safe process, and that it was merely an enforcement exercise in compliance with the labeling regulations of the UK food law.

I could not help but admire the effort and determination of the FSA together with UK local authorities to enforce the food labeling law concerning irradiated products, knowing full well that such products do not cause health risk to the consumer in any way. It however prompted me to raise the following questions whether the FSA had conducted similar surveys on other types of food/food ingredients to ensure either compliance with the food labeling law or to ensure the safety of food/food ingredients being marketed in the UK:

1.   Were the food/food ingredients/food supplements fumigated by ethylene oxide which was banned by the UK authorities on health and safety ground in 1991.  Ethylene oxide is still widely used in many countries (including the USA) to fumigate food/food ingredients/food supplements to ensure microbiological safety.  These countries trade their food products widely within the UK.

2.   Was a survey conducted on food products that may contain toxic materials such as dioxin and acrylamide, both of which are known to be strong carcinogens?  If it was conducted, what were the results and how were the consumers informed through proper labeling?

3.      How are the consumers advised about the health risk through labeling of food that are contaminated by pathogenic microorganisms such as Salmonella, Campylobacter jejuni, Listeria monocytogenes, E. coli 0157:H7?

It would not be a complete surprise to me if the UK authorities decided to conduct a survey to ensure compliance with its labeling regulations only on irradiated food products that are known to be safe, but chose to ignore the need for a similar survey of other food products that do contain agents that are known to cause health risks.  In such a case, the time has come for the UK authorities to review their rules and put modern food labeling regulations in perspective.

Paisan Loaharanu; is a thirty-year veteran of the international food safety arena, including more than 20 years of food irradiation leadership for the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), based in Vienna, Austria. Loaharanu currently serves as Executive Director, International Council on Food Irradiation; and Adjunct Professor of Food Safety, Michigan State University, E. Lansing, MI. He writes the above perspective on the United Kingdom Food Labeling Law at the invitation of the editor of Food Irradiation Update.

Last year, more than 5,000 people in America died because the food they ate was contaminated. And more than 75 million Americans will miss at least one day of school or work this year because of contaminated food.

These statistics concern Ron Eustice, executive director of the Minnesota Beef Council, and researchers at Kansas State University, Iowa State University and Arkansas State University, who make up the national Food Safety Consortium. That's because they know the technology to virtually wipe out bacterial contamination -- irradiation -- has been around since the 1960s.

It has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration, the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. But it is rarely used to treat the nation's mainstream food supply. That includes ground beef, the primary culprit in E. coli O157:H7 infections, and poultry, the primary source of salmonella.

"It's an absolute shame it's not used," Eustice said. "It would save human suffering, protect human lives and significantly reduce the risk of liability."

Not widespread for food

Irradiation is widely used to treat medical instruments and devices and to prolong the shelf life of some fruits and vegetables. It was poised to become a major player in the sterilization of ground beef and other meats until the primary provider of food irradiation services, Surebeam, went bankrupt in 2004.

The major suppliers of ground beef -- Cargill, Tyson and ConAgra -- all had pilot programs with Surebeam. Smaller companies, including Omaha Steaks and Schwan's Fine Foods, also used SureBeam. Omaha Steaks and Schwan's continue to irradiate all of their ground beef at other facilities. But they are the exception. More than three years after the USDA approved the use of irradiated food in the school lunch program, a survey conducted by the Food Safety Consortium found 95 percent of school food service directors weren't serving it because their distributors don't offer it.

The Wichita school district does not use irradiated ground beef. Vicki Hoffman, food services director for USD 259, said the district receives most of its food already cooked, including many poultry products and ground beef. "We don't handle raw ground beef at all," she said.

The Food Safety Consortium was also disturbed by a response from food service directors who said they thought parents would be concerned if irradiated food was on the menu. That concern is a reflection of a lack of public knowledge about the process, researchers say. Irradiation uses energy waves -- not radiation -- to kill bacteria.

Sean Fox, a researcher at K-State, conducted a survey two years ago that showed consumer acceptance of irradiation was tied to how much they knew about the process. Those who were given little information tended to be fearful, while those given a brochure with answers to common questions supported it.

Gaining traction

Researchers who support irradiation say use of the process may increase because of some recent developments. Sadex, a Texas-based investment firm, purchased the assets of the defunct SureBeam Corp. in June 2005 and began updates on its Iowa irradiation plant. In late December, the plant began processing about 40,000 pounds per day of animal feed for mills in the Midwest.

David A. Corbin, a former SureBeam investor, is manager of the plant. SureBeam technology exposes food to an electron beam for a few seconds. Other irradiation technologies expose food to energy waves from Cobalt-60 or X-rays.

Corbin hopes Sadex will resume processing ground beef and other food products for many of the same companies that once used Surebeam, including Wichita-based Cargill Meat Solutions. Cargill spokesman Mark Klein said the company is still interested in irradiation technology. "Our retailers told us there was a very loyal customer base for the product," Klein said. "If it becomes economically feasible, we will likely resume our pilot project and offer it again." The demise of SureBeam left only one other primarily food irradiation plant: Food Technologies in Mulberry, Fla., which mostly treats strawberries.

Detractors remain

Some consumer groups, including Public Citizen, insist that irradiation reduces the nutritional quality of the food treated. They also contend that the process provides the food industry an incentive to sidestep cleanliness procedures and sell contaminated food.

Studies by government agencies, however, maintain nutrition is not affected. While the food industry has made major gains in reducing bacteria through packing and processing efforts, some still remain. The goal of irradiation is to eliminate the remaining bacteria, researchers say. "It's impossible for packing operations to be clean enough to kill every bacterium," Eustice said.

Corbin, the plant manager, expects the future of irradiation to include many food products in addition to ground beef and poultry.

In particular, he sees it as a substitute for the chemical fumigant methyl bromide, which is being phased out by the Environmental Protection Agency because of the health and environmental dangers it poses. "As we see more and more phasing out of chemical fumigants, we think the demand" for irradiation will grow, he said.

Top of Update

Irradiation is back. David Corbin, chair of Corbin & Co., an equity-investment and fund-management firm, acquired the license for the SureBeam electronic irradiation technology and the SureBeam plant in Sioux City, Iowa, and reopened the plant late last month as Sadex Corp.

Sadex is currently irradiating feed and feed ingredients but plans to expand into food products -- principally beef, pork and turkey ground meat products -- in the near future, Corbin said in an interview with Feedstuffs. The opportunities "are very, very exciting for both animal consumables (feed) and human consumables (food)," as feed and food processors respond to safety and wholesomeness issues, he said.

Feed likely will be Sadexs biggest line, Corbin said, pointing to university work showing that irradiation kills bacteria in feed, creating safer feed and prompting faster-growing, healthier animals. He said the plant is irradiating feed for a number of commercial feed manufacturers in the Midwest and can do so efficiently and quickly. He noted that the plant can handle different feed products -- from blood plasma to complete feeds -- and is running 40,000 lb. per day, with expectations to ramp up soon to 160,000 lb. per day.

At the same time, the company is negotiating contracts with meat processors, he said.  Corbin & Co., headquartered in Ft. Worth, Texas, was an investor in The Titan Corp., which launched SureBeam.

Expanding use

Irradiation was heralded as a critical food processing technology to kill Escherichia coli 0157:H7, listeria, salmonella and other pathogens when SureBeam introduced the technology in the late 1990s.

Huisken Meats became the first processor to put irradiated beef patties in supermarkets (Feedstuffs, May 23, 2000), and American Dairy Queen became the first restaurant to serve irradiated beef burgers (Feedstuffs, July 22, 2002). By 2004, fresh and frozen beef patties, ground beef and hamburgers were available in thousands of restaurants and supermarkets across the U.S.

However, SureBeam, which Titan took public in 2001, didn't entertain feed irradiation, overbuilt for its market in food irradiation and spent too much money and time promoting irradiation to consumers. It was closed in bankruptcy proceedings in 2004 (Feedstuffs, Jan. 19, 2004).

Ron Eustice, chief executive officer of the Minnesota Beef Council and a leading advocate for irradiation, said the concept is rapidly capturing ground. He told Feedstuffs that the fruit and vegetable industry is moving to irradiation to disinfect for insects as an alternative to methyl bromide -- which is being discontinued industry-wide due to its environmental hazard and toxicity to workers -- as well as its ability to extend shelf life. Consequently, consumers will become far more aware of the benefits of irradiation than when it was limited to beef patties and ground beef, he said.

At the same time, the basic infrastructure for marketing irradiated beef and other meat and poultry has remained in place, he said, noting that Omaha Steaks and Schwan Food Co. have continued to use irradiation at other facilities. Eustice also said irradiation is catching on rapidly worldwide, reporting that 21 plants are being opened across Asia to kill fruit flies on fruits and vegetables.

The Food & Drug Administration and U.S. Department of Agriculture approved irradiation for fresh and frozen meat and poultry (Feedstuffs, Dec. 8, 1997, and March 8, 1999) and is on track to be approved for ready-to-eat products such as luncheon meats. Irradiated food products must be identified, and Corbin said food products that go through the Sioux City plant can affix the former SureBeam seal or the new Sadex seal.

Top of Update

Abstract:
From 1980 to 2000, the annual per capita consumption of spices in the United States increased by 60% (from 1.0 to 1.6 kg per person per year). Although spices are known to harbor various molds, fungi, and bacteria, relatively few reports have documented this group of foods as the cause of human illness. In recent years, however, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has noted an increased number of recalls of dried spices due to bacterial contamination. Accordingly, we reviewed spice recalls that took place in the United States from fiscal years 1970 to 2003. During the study period, the FDA monitored 21 recalls involving 12 spice types contaminated with bacterial pathogens; in all but one instance, the recalled spices contained Salmonella. Paprika was the spice most often involved in the recalls. A wide variety of countries were the source of the recalled spices. Using data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention National Salmonella Surveillance System, we were unable to discern any increases in the reported incidence of laboratory-confirmed salmonellosis in states that received spices contaminated with selected rare Salmonella serotypes. A variety of effective methods exist to disinfect spices, procedures that have attained increased importance given the frequent use of spices in ready-to-eat foods and the potential for contaminated spices to cause widespread outbreaks.
Top of Update

Top of Update

Students Sick after Lunch (January 19, 2006) Peoria Journal Star (Illinois)/Associated Press via FSNET:

Students at five District 150 middle schools went home sick Wednesday after eating lunch, the second time in a little more than a month children fell ill at district schools after lunch.

District spokeswoman Stephanie Tate was cited as saying 35 students became sick after eating their choice of chicken fajitas or turkey and noodles served with golden corn, assorted fruit, milk and juice.

Lincoln Middle School was hit the hardest; 15 students complained of stomach cramps, vomiting, diarrhea and/or a fever. Ten students at Blaine-Sumner, five at Roosevelt Magnet, three at Mark Bills and two at Washington Gifted suffered from the same symptoms. None of the students required hospital care and were sent home with their parents, Tate said.

Similar circumstances occurred during the first week of December. School officials reported 82 students from five elementary schools complained of illness. The students all ate chicken tacos paired with green beans and fruit.

Abstract:

Effects of cold treatment on mortality of Dysaphis cynarae (Hemiptera: Aphididae) and Copitarsia decolora (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) on fresh artichokes. Dysaphis cynarae and Copitarsia decolora are key pests of artichokes with quarantine status. Their mortality when stored near 0 C, for different lengths of time, was evaluated here. Experiments for D. cynarae were carried out in Pomaire and for C. decolora in Santiago (RegiÛn Metropolitana). Naturally aphid-infested artichokes were kept at 0.2 C. Live and dead aphids were periodically counted up to 28 days. For C. decolora, artichokes were artificially infested with one larva per unit and kept at 0.1 C. Dead larvae were periodically counted up to 21 days. The same procedure was used in a separate experiment at 18.0 C. There were no significant differences in aphid mortality between control and cold storage up to 14 days. After 21 and 28 days, mortality reached 53,0% and 64,3%, respectively, being significantly higher than that found on cold-free artichokes, but not enough for total aphid control. All C. decolora were alive after 3 days in cold storage. Mortality of fourth-instar larvae was significant after 14 days in cold storage. For second-instar larvae, mortality was significantly higher from 7 days on. Mortality was over 80% after 21 days in cold storage, which may be useful for local market. At 18 C, mortality was very low and not significant, corroborating that cold storage may reduce infestations. The mortality that cold storage inflicted in both species is not enough for fresh export produce going to countries where these insects have quarantine status.