March 2005Food Irradiation Update is published by the Minnesota Beef Council
March 2005
Food Irradiation Update is published by the Minnesota Beef Council
Food Irradiation Processing Alliance elects new chairperson
Are E. coli O157:H7 illnesses going down?
Consumers Say Safe Meat worth the Higher Cost
Risky Business; Before a Defective Product Becomes Your Downfall, Learn How to Protect Yourself
E. coli O157:H7 incidence drops 43 percent in 2004; downward decline on track to meet 2010 government goals, says AMI
Effectiveness of irradiation treatments in inactivating Listeria monocytogenes on fresh vegetables at refrigeration temperature
Nalidixic acid resistance increases sensitivity of Escherichia coli O157:H7 to ionizing radiation in solution and on green leaf lettuce
Food Irradiation Processing Alliance elects new chairperson
(March 16, 2005) via FSNET:
MULBERRY, Fla. -- The Food Irradiation Processing Alliance (FIPA)
announced today that Dr. Richard Hunter has been elected as the
new Chairperson of the Alliance. FIPA was established in 2000
in response to growing interest in irradiation as a means to address
food safety and quarantine security issues and to promote consumer
and industry understanding of this technology. FIPA serves as
the official voice of the industry in matters affecting its members.
"Dr. Hunter brings the commitment, expertise and experience to successfully continue to build FIPA's role and profile and to support and educate the food industry on the benefits of irradiation technology," said outgoing Chairperson, John Masefield.
Throughout his career, Dr. Hunter has spearheaded the development and implementation of numerous public health and disease prevention initiatives. For over 10 years he served as Florida's Deputy State Health Officer and oversaw the direction of some 11,000 headquarters and county health department employees.
Since 2001 Dr. Hunter has served as President and CEO of Food Technology Service, Inc., a NASDAQ-listed company that helped to pioneer commercial food irradiation. Dr. Hunter has received many professional awards for his work in protection of public health and has served on a number of local, state and federal government advisory boards related to public health issues.
Food irradiation is gaining acceptance amongst processors and consumers as a safe and effective means to eliminate pathogens that cause food borne illness. Each year, it is estimated that over 76 million people in the United States alone become ill from contaminated food. In addition, irradiation is viewed as a technology solution to meet quarantine security requirements for disinfestations of fruits and vegetables destined for export, replacing fumigation using methyl bromide, an ozone depleting substance.
About FIPA
FIPA works to promote understanding of food irradiation as a safe
and effective technology and to facilitate its adoption to reduce
the risk of food borne illness and to meet quarantine security
needs. Its members include irradiation technology companies that
represent or supply over 95 percent of the microbial control irradiation
services in North America. FIPA is a chapter of the International
Irradiation Association (iiA), a global organization of irradiation
industry companies, that provides information and advice to promote
ionizing radiation for a variety of uses including microbial control
in medical supplies and consumer goods, modification of plastics
and other materials and reducing pollutants. To learn more about
these associations and their members please visit http://www.FIPA.us
or http://www.doubleia.org <http://www.doubleia.org/> .
Are E. coli O157:H7 illnesses going down? (March 15,
2005) http://www.SafeTables.org/ via FSNET:
The United States Department of Agriculture's newly released data
shows a precipitous drop, not in illnesses, but in ground beef
samples that tested positive for E. coli O157:H7 in 2004 - the
second such drop the USDA has announced in two years. S.T.O.P.
members are simultaneously hopeful and troubled because the data
collection system that backs these claims is fundamentally flawed.
"It's hard to say whether this is real or not," says
Barbara Kowalcyk, a professional biostatistician and S.T.O.P.
Board member who lost her son to the disease. "The testing
is still flawed. The samples are not randomly selected; it's not
appropriately designed..." The end result, Kowalcyk says,
is that the tests have no bearing on the actual prevalence of
E. coli O157:H7 in the ground beef consumers buy in the stores.
In fact, Kowalcyk was so appalled by the study design last February
that she volunteered to prepare an hour-long presentation for
USDA economists. A year later, only a few of the needed corrective
actions have been taken. FSIS' release backs its claims by noting
that E. coli O157:H7 recalls and illness reports have gone down.
However because both of those numbers are directly impacted by
the testing program results, neither cannot be counted as reliable
indicators. S.T.O.P. continues to answer heartbreaking calls from
victims and families of E. coli O157:H7 in 2005, there is reason
for hope but equal reason for increased USDA vigilance against
the deadly bug. In the words of Barbara Kowalcyk, "If you
don't look for something, you're not likely to find it."
Consumers Say Safe Meat Worth the Higher Cost: (March 15, 2005) University of Arkansas Food Safety Consortium: From a Press Release: A majority of consumers would be willing to pay a higher price for meat that has been treated either by irradiation or steam pasteurization against pathogenic bacteria, according to a Food Safety Consortium survey at Kansas State University: Newswise: A majority of consumers would be willing to pay a higher price for meat that has been treated either by irradiation or steam pasteurization against pathogenic bacteria. These results of a mail survey by Food Safety Consortium researchers at Kansas State University might surprise anyone who thought the public was leery of irradiation.
"A point I want to emphasize is the fact that in this survey, we did not provide any information about irradiation," said Sean Fox, the KSU agricultural economics associate professor who conducted the survey. "We've shown in other surveys that providing information about the technology is absolutely critical to acceptance. In this survey there was no information other than a statement that irradiation is used to kill bacteria."
Fox's survey was mailed to households in Colorado, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Iowa, Missouri, Arkansas and Wyoming. It asked consumers which they would choose if they could buy a standard meat product at $1.69 per pound or a "treated" product at the same price or at prices from 10 to 40 cents per pound higher.
Fox received 715 usable surveys with 79 percent of respondents indicating that at equal prices, they would choose the treated product. Fifty-five percent would choose treated product if it cost more. The survey also found that:
* Some consumers were still more concerned about irradiation than steam pasteurization. The probability of choosing to buy an untreated product was higher if irradiation, rather than steam pasteurization, was the treatment.
* Although steam pasteurization had a lower rejection rate,
respondents who
chose to buy a treated product tended to place a higher value
on irradiation
than on steam pasteurization. They displayed a higher willingness
to pay for it, Fox said.
* Households with children were more likely to choose the safer products. But the presence of children did not influence the family's willingness to pay a higher price.
* Those who were willing to pay more were on average willing to pay a premium of 22 to 26 cents per pound.
* People who consume more ground beef away from home were more likely to choose to buy the treated product.
* Women had "marginally" higher willingness-to-pay values than men.
Consumers who were aware of the possibility of reducing risk through careful cooking and handling were willing to pay for treated products at a lower rate than those who weren't aware. Does that suggest that people who consider themselves to be careful cooks don't place as much importance on a product's treatment before they buy it?
"That's one way of putting it," Fox said. "They are aware that there is a substitute there, which instead of having to pay for this treatment that somebody else does, they can do the treatment at home
Risky Business; Before a Defective Product Becomes Your Downfall, Learn How to Protect Yourself; Entrepreneur (March 2005): By Mark Henticks:
THE SEEDS of your destruction may sit on your store shelves or be used in your warehouse. Defective products that injure customers, employees, vendors or others who visit your company or buy its goods present a serious risk no entrepreneur can afford to ignore.
Such products are widespread. A November 2004 report by Consumer Reports found, for instance, 48 toys-or roughly 1 in 3 toys-its testers bought violated voluntary or mandatory safety standards.
And the financial liability for selling, using, lending or simply having unsafe products on your premises rests with you. "If they sell it, they're liable, period," says Frances Zollers, a professor in the law and public policy department of the Whitman School of Management at Syracuse University in New York. One exception concerns products you are not in the business of selling. For example, you sell your old delivery van to another company and it causes an accident, you probably wont be liable, Zollers says.
Start managing potential liability by paying close attention to product labels, urges Jeff Blyskal, co-author of the Consumer Reports study. Underwriters Laboratory has seized more than 30 million counterfeit electrical products bearing counterfeit UL labels, Blyskal warns, so if a UL label looks odd, compare it to others. Also monitor government recalls at www.recalls.gov. Even perform your own tests for small parts, which present choking hazards for children, breakability and other risks.
Insurance products, such as product liability policies, can mitigate some risks. Workers' compensation is particularly effective because employees relinquish the right to sue when they accept workers' comp benefits. "It's much less complicated than not having it and then opening the door for legal action", says Mike Heembrock of the Chubb Group of Insurance Companies in Warren, New Jersey.
Small companies at the ends of long distribution channels can reasonably expect that upstream firms have already checked out products. But that's true only if you deal with reputable companies. Says Zollers, "Know who you're dealing with."
E. coli O157:H7 incidence drops 43 percent in 2004; downward decline on track to meet 2010 government goals, says AMI: (February 28, 2005): From a press release via FSNET:
Washington, D.C.: Continuing its downward trend, E. coli O157:H7 prevalence in ground beef showed a 43.0 percent decline in 2004 compared to 2003, according to data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service. With more than 8,000 samples taken in 2004, only 0.17 percent tested positive for E. coli O157:H7 compared to a 0.30 percent incidence rate in 2003. The percentage of E. coli O157:H7 positive ground beef samples has shown a steady downward trend from 0.86 percent in 2000.
"The steady decline in E. coli O157:H7 is a success story and testament to the industry's commitment to continually improve its food safety programs," said James Hodges, president of the American Meat Institute (AMI) Foundation.
Hodges noted that the lower prevalence of E. coli O157:H7 in ground beef has also helped reduce foodborne illness in the United States. Last year, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention showed a 36 percent reduction in illnesses from E. coli O157:H7 in 2003 compared to 2002. "The continuing drop of both occurrences of illness from E. coli, and the prevalence of E. coli, are part of the pay-off for an all-out effort by the meat industry to make food safety our number one priority over the last several years," added Hodges.
In 2001, the AMI Foundation declared that its two priorities would be to reduce and ultimately eliminate E. coli O157:H7 on fresh beef products and Listeria monocytogenes on ready-to-eat products. "It's rewarding to see that the pro-active measures we're taking in the meat industry are having direct pay-off for the American public and consumers of American meat across the globe," said Hodges.
In 2001, AMI member companies declared food safety a non-competitive issue and began sharing data, technologies and ideas with one another in an effort to reduce bacteria and enhance safety. The industry has invested several million dollars in research aimed at finding new and better ways to eliminate bacteria.
Effectiveness of irradiation treatments in inactivating Listeria monocytogenes on fresh vegetables at refrigeration temperature; (February 2005) Journal of Food Protection Volume 68, Number 2, p. 318-323: M. L. Bari ; M. Nakauma ; S. Todoriki ; Vijay K. Juneja ; K. Isshiki ; S. Kawamoto http://www.foodprotection.org/QuickLinks.htm
Abstract
Ionizing radiation can be effective in controlling the growth of food spoilage and foodborne pathogenic bacteria. This study reports on an investigation of the effectiveness of irradiation treatment to eliminate Listeria monocytogenes on laboratory inoculated broccoli, cabbage, tomatoes, and mung bean sprouts. Irradiation of broccoli and mung bean sprouts at 1.0 kGy resulted in reductions of approximately 4.88 and 4.57 log CFU/g, respectively, of a five-strain cocktail of L. monocytogenes. Reductions of approximately 5.25 and 4.14 log CFU/g were found with cabbage and tomato, respectively, at a similar dose. The appearance, color, texture, taste, and overall acceptability did not undergo significant changes after 7 days of postirradiation storage at 4°C, in comparison with control samples. Therefore, low-dose ionizing radiation treatment could be an effective method for eliminating L. monocytogenes on fresh and fresh-cut produce.
Nalidixic acid resistance increases sensitivity of Escherichia coli O157:H7 to ionizing radiation in solution and on green leaf lettuce (March 2005) J Food Sci 79(2):M121-4.
Niemira BA.
Abstract
Nalidixic acid resistance has been used as a selective marker for studies of pathogen-inoculated fruits and vegetables. Three nalidixic acidsensitive outbreak strains of Escherichia coli O157:H7 were used to generate mutants resistant to nalidixic acid (NalR, 50 µg/mL) by successive culturing and selection in nalidixic acidamended broth. The resistance to ionizing radiation of the parent and NalR strains was determined (a) in a phosphate buffer solution and (b) on green leaf lettuce. The NalR strains of each of the 3 isolates were significantly (P < 0.05) more sensitive to ionizing radiation than the nalidixic acidsensitive (NalS) parent strains in both systems. D10 values (the amount of ionizing radiation required to achieve 1 log10 reduction) determined in buffer for the parent strains ranged from 0.18 to 0.33 kGy, whereas for the NalR strains, D10 were approximately 0.10 kGy, a reduction of up to 69%. When evaluated on green leaf lettuce, the D10 for the NalS strains was approximately 0.18 kGy as opposed to 0.10 to 0.12 kGy for the NalR strains, a reduction of up to 45%. The D10 values obtained on lettuce were significantly different than those obtained in buffer for 4 of the 6 isolates examined. The magnitude of the increase in radiation sensitivity resulting from resistance to nalidixic acid varied among the strains tested and also varied depending on the suspending medium. These results suggest that the use of nalidixic acid resistance as a selective marker may result in significant overestimates of the antimicrobial efficacy of ionizing radiation against E. coli O157:H7.
Irradiated Foods Booklet Provides Science-based Information on Food Irradiation: The American Council on Science & Health booklet on irradiated foods can be downloaded from: www.acsh.org/publications/booklets/irradiated2003.html <http://www.acsh.org/publications/booklets/irradiated2003.html> .
For more information on food irradiation go to http://www.mnbeef.org/
Food Irradiation Update is being sent as an update on food irradiation by the Minnesota Beef Council. If for any reason you do not want to receive these updates please hit Reply and ask us to delete you from the list of recipients.
Ronald F. Eustice
Executive Director
Minnesota Beef Council
2950 Metro Drive # 102
Bloomington, MN 55425
USA
Phone: 952/854-6980
Fax: 952/854-6906
E-mail: ron@mnbeef.org
Website: www.mnbeef.org