Food Safety Counsel : Food Safety Defense Lawyer & Attorney : National Food Industry Counsel : National Food Regulatory Lawyer and Attorney, FDA Lawyer and Attorney. USDA Lawyer and Attorney : Gass Weber Mullins Law Firm

Can anyone really guarantee that their products will never be implicated in a recall?

For most raw beef processors, the response has consistently been that, in the absence of a validated intervention like high pressure processing or irradiation, such a statement was impossible.

Interestingly, however, processors may have more control than they think. Increasingly, the existence of positive regulatory findings on the one hand and outbreaks on the other are being linked objectively to identifiable events occurring in slaughter plants themselves.

Indeed, FSIS believes there is a direct correlation between hot days or high event periods (HEPs) in harvest facilities and E. coli O157:H7 findings. A high event period is a period during which the number of beef combos in a slaughter facility that test positive for E. coli O157:H7 is higher than expected, and thus may be a signal of a food safety failure and product cross-contamination.

As a result, FSIS has in recent guidance documents urged slaughter facilities to develop, implement and then closely follow a HEP program. In essence, these programs require slaughter facilities to take certain actions when their E. coli O157:H7 (or, non-O157:H7 STEC) findings exceed a certain threshold. Such actions can include retesting all negative product, or diverting all potentially affected trim to a renderer or validated cook facility.

Rather than just relying on FSIS to urge slaughter facilities to develop and follow HEP programs, processors should actually mandate that their suppliers adopt them. This way, if your supplier has an issue, you can ensure that his or her issue does not become your own. In turn, such requirements can and should be built wherever possible into your supplier specifications. Given what science has demonstrated, requiring your suppliers to respond appropriately to a HEP pursuant to established procedures will likely decrease your risk of being drawn into a recall substantially.

Finally, the analysis does not necessarily end there. Whenever a slaughter facility has an O157:H7 positive (whether operating under a HEP program or not), that facility should be urged to identify and divert any associated product. Put another way, if contamination exists in one lot, the flanking lots which test negative might be diverted as well. This is because, if E. coli exists in one lot, it may also be present at undetectable levels in adjoining lots as well.

So, what’s hot – and what’s not? Well, by casting a much wider net and diverting all potentially affected product in the event of a positive finding, the risk of any contamination leaving the facility undetected (and the chance of a future recall) can be reduced substantially as well.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Not a single day goes by when we don’t hear about the critical importance of food safety.  We need to develop, embrace and encourage a robust food safety culture, we’re told.  We have to tirelessly reassess and verify the effectiveness of our food safety programs, we’re led to believe.  We have to invest in, and then build into our facilities, the best leading-edge interventions.  And, we have to implement and invest in an increasing level of environmental and food product sampling and testing, its suggested. 

That all sounds really great, but the reality is that we face substantial underlying fundamental problems when it comes to improving food safety.  Each of the items I describe above cost money.  Some of them, like new infrastructure to support new interventions, cost a lot of money.  And, what happens when our competitors are not investing in these initiatives.  Well, our competitors can sell a lot more product for a lot less money, and they will have a substantial economic advantage.  And, a disincentive for food safety.

Set economics aside.  What happens if companies who are aggressively testing finished products for pathogens actually find them (and, trust me, they will).  Well, in most instances, a positive finding in a finished product will trigger a protracted and uncomfortable governmental response requiring proof of containment (when, in some instances, it’s nearly impossible to convince the government of anything). These companies will also in many instances be subjected to undeserved, drawn-out scrutiny of their operating programs. 

The end result is that, while company A (which tests for pathogens) struggles for days or weeks to survive USDA’s criticism and scrutiny after finding them, Company B (which does not test for pathogens) will keep shipping contaminated product under the watchful eye of USDA.  Why test, these companies might ask, when testing only creates more regulatory problems? So, we see yet another significant disincentive.

So, where is the incentive for competitors to invest more deeply in food safety?  Well, we should all be doing what we reasonably can because it’s the right thing to do.  But, we also need some help from an economic and regulatory standpoint.  USDA needs to encourage the development and use of new technologies and testing programs, and then aggressively reward those companies that use them. 

In next month’s column, I will detail some ideas that can help reverse this paradigm.  And, while you may have to wait until then to hear what it is I have to say, I hope I’ve created at least some incentive for you to return – for the sake of food safety.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In our last column, we introduced some of the fundamental challenges facing the food industry as it works to improve food safety. 

Some of the greatest challenges, when it comes to food safety, are driven by basic economics.  This is because improving food safety, in most cases, costs money. 

Unless everyone in the industry is investing in the same food safety systems, those companies that spend more money will (at least in the short term) face a substantial competitive disadvantage when compared to those companies that do not.  Moreover, companies that aggressively search for and then find pathogens will, in most cases, face more governmental scrutiny than those that do not. 

So, what can we do about it?  As I mentioned last month, industry really needs additional help from an economic and regulatory standpoint. 

FSIS can start by reconsidering its new, soon to-be-announced rules that, reportedly, will require ALL processing companies, without exception, to place validated cooking instructions (designed to address harmful pathogens) on mechanically tenderized steaks.  Unfortunately, if enacted as proposed, the new rules would actually create a disincentive for food safety.

Indeed, not all processors are created equal.  Requiring ALL processors to carry the same validated cooking instructions (thus passing their own exposure to end-users downstream) could create significant disincentives for more companies to invest in new interventions designed to actually eliminate pathogens.  In my view, the solution lies in crafting the new rules so that processors will be EXEMPTED from the labeling requirements if they employ a validated intervention designed to address the risk.  If this could be accomplished, the large restaurant chains (the real drivers in the market) would invariably move toward and embrace products that: (1) are subjected to those interventions; and (2) as a result, exempted from the new cooking labels and requirements.

Government should also consider tax incentives for testing and finding pathogens in food.  Indeed, testing for (and then finding) pathogens can be very expensive.  This is because establishments that test raw products are required to divert positive product to cooking or rendering. Common sense tells us that the harder companies test, the more pathogens they will find, the more product they will divert and the more revenue they will lose.  Thus, of course, creates a significant disincentive to test and find.

So, is there a better way?  I think so.  For starters, I would counsel FSIS to reward (not punish) companies that aggressively test to find pathogens in their products.  Next, I would urge legislators to expand existing tax incentives (there are already some) for testing, research and quality control.

Finally, I would lobby for the creation of meaningful tax credits which would extend to any products affected by contamination and then diverted from their original intended use.

These, of course, represent just a few ideas to chew on.  In the end, we all know what we need to do – the problem is that we just need a few, extra incentives to get there. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A recent study released by the University of Arizona found that utilizing copper cooking devices may significantly reduce the risk of foodborne pathogens.

The study compared how various Salmonella strains survived on copper surfaces versus stainless steel surfaces. The idea stemmed from the study’s co-author, Christopher Rensing, who had done previous research on antimicrobial properties of copper.

Copper has unique anti-microbial properties. Over time copper oxidizes and produces a residue that is toxic to some bacteria, including certain Salmonella and E. coli strains. Stainless steel, on the other hand, has no antimicrobial properties.

Professor of Microbiology at the University of Arizona, Sadhara Ravishankar, explained the group wanted “to see if copper could be used as an alternative to stainless steel in food preparation.” He also mentioned the study did not alter any cooking temperatures during the study to make sure they were testing only the influence of the metal.

Researchers tested multiple Salmonella strains on various concentrated-copper alloy samples. They found, in every situation, that the Salmonella strains died off in drastic numbers on copper, but were not as affected by stainless steel. They also conducted the same tests in various conditions including wet, dry, with and without nutrients conditions.

So what does all this mean? In short, if copper is used for cooking, it may potentially reduce the risks associated with harmful pathogens that cause foodborne illnesses.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Effective earlier this week, the government has started enforcing the Egg Safety Rule for mid-size hatcheries.

The new rule is designed to prevent Salmonella contamination at hen laying facilities. In July 2010, the USDA enforced the same regulation on large facilities housing over 50,000 laying hens. Monday’s enforcement will affect mid-size companies that house between 3,000-50,000 hens. The regulation will not apply to small companies (under 3,000 hens) or facilities that sell directly to the consumer.

The regulation requires producers who do not pasteurize in-shell egg products to test for the Salmonella bacteria. Eggs also must be refrigerated at or below 45 degrees during storage (within 36 hours of laying). Chicks and young hens can only be sourced from facilities that test for bacteria. The facilities must also have biosecurity, rodent and pest control programs, according to the new regulation.

If Salmonella is found, affected eggs must be pasteurized or moved to a non-food use. In addition, the facility must be cleaned completely.

The FDA believes these “preventative measures would reduce the number of Salmonella infections from eggs by 60%.” According the CDC, approximately 2.2 million of the 65 billion eggs produced in the US each year are contaminated with Salmonella.

The FDA has done follow-up inspections with the larger facilities and found that most of them were in compliance with the rule. By the end of the year, the FDA hopes to perform the same inspections on mid-size facilities.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In many jurisdictions, food preparation workers are required to wear gloves to better protect against contamination and keep food safety quality in-check.

However, there has been recent buzz on how safe those gloves really are. Many argue the gloves are only effective when worn by clean hands. They further argue that gloves give employees a false sense of security and become automatic and ubiquitous. The purpose of the gloves is to protect against disease transfer to consumer like Hepatitis A, norovirus, E. coli, and other foodborne illnesses.

In studies conducted by the Journal of Food Protection in both 2007 and 2010, results concluded that gloves may not be as effective as once thought. The 2007 study found that “hand washing and glove use were related to each other…hand washing was less likely to occur with activities in which gloves were worn.” The 2010 study produced similar findings, noting that “glove use can create a false sense of security, resulting in more high-risk behavior.” The study also found the occlusion of the skin can create the prefect breeding ground for “microbial proliferation” and can “increase pathogen transfer onto foods.” Interestingly, they also found twice as much coliform bacterium on tortilla samples handled by gloves versus bare hands.

Another issue that has risen is the cost of using disposable gloves. Some argue that those resources could be spent alternatively to invest in kitchen improvements like automatic or food-pedal operated sinks to give works adequate time to wash hands properly.

However, the problem isn’t the gloves, but what workers do while wearing the gloves. Some of those actions can contaminate gloves, which in turn can contaminate food. In 2006 and 2007, studies conducted by the Center for Disease Control found hand-washing requirements by employees wearing gloves were not being adequately met. Those workers in the study only washed their hands in 27% of the activities that recommended hand-washing.

Denise Korniewicz, Dean of Nursing at the University of South Dakota explains, “the best way to prevent transmission of bacteria, virus, or other bugs is to wash hands thoroughly.” In correlation, the CDC recommends decreasing the amount of times a worker is put into a scenario where he or she has to wash his or her hands. This means revising food preparation methods and decreasing handling of raw material like meat and fish. The food service industry still relies on the glove-method. It is necessary in sectors like in raw meat and fish preparation. The gloves do help avoid cross-contamination, if used properly.

No one product will keep food safe. However, regular and thorough handwashing, along with a conscious use of gloves will keep food safety risks down.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The demand for new and improved food safety products in the US market has bolstered in the recent years. Industry experts feel this substantial growth will continue through 2016. Factors such as consumer interest, awareness, new government regulations, and industry initiatives all contribute to the increased demand. Various parts the food industry including the processors, servicers, and farmers markets are all taking note.

Among one of the fastest growing products in food safety are smart labels. A smart label is a flat responsive electronic device that can perform and track various functions. These labels help with the traceability of food supply. They can also play a crucial role in a outbreak by linking the contaminated food back to its origin. Along with smart labels, diagnostic products are also expanding. However, these products are more expensive. Diagnostic products test food for a multitude of food safety related factors.

Representing the largest market for food safety products is in the processing plants. In this market, there are many fast growing areas such as seafood, prepared food, and beverage segments that receive significant regulation. In turn, companies in these segments are looking for new ways to reduce both their regulatory burden and food safety risks.

Food service also accounts for a significant part of the food industry. Growth in the service area has been accelerated over the recent years due to increased profits. Here too, larger profits have allowed the food service industry to develop and purchase a greater range of food safety-oriented products and services. Additionally, product demand in this industry has also risen due to efforts in improving sanitation and avoiding cross-contamination.

Looking forward, it is anticipated that, at least through 2016, farmer’s markets will be one of the fastest growing sectors for food safety products. Industry experts feel this is because, “crop and product uses will outpace those of livestock due to increased pathogen testing of produce at the farm level and continued presence of GMOs at the grain levels.” In other words, the production of produce will likely outrun meat production due the vast regulation of pathogens. With the popular trend of growing and buying local, more regulations are being adopted and enforced at these levels as well.

This projected expansion of food safety products in the United States is forecast to continue through 2016. Based on increased efforts to decrease the possibility of foodborne illnesses and increased consumer awareness, new products will continue to be marketed. Hopefully these efforts will help ensure that the US food supply remains one of the most affordable and safest in the world.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Grow Green Industries Inc. and P.L. Thomas & Co. Inc. just announced they will be launching two new all-natural food safety and shelf-life enhancer products at the Food Technologists Annual Meeting and Food Expo in Las Vegas in June. The products are eatSafe™ Natural Food Wash and eatFresh™ Natural Antimicrobial. According to the company,they will be a two-part alternative to longer-lasting, better tasting, and safer food.

The products use synergistic complexes of FDA-approved GRAS (Generally Recognized as Safe) and organic components used in food processing to make sure products do not carry foodborne bacteria. Both will come in a liquid or powder form. They will protect against pathogens, extend the shelf-life, and make the food product overall safer to eat. eatSafe™ also removes other contaminants like oils, dust, and pesticides. In addition, unlike its competitors, eatFresh™ is a near taste-less replacements for preservatives: allowing no impact to the overall flavor of the food.
Reportedly, both products control pathogens by a cell electro-potential disruption mechanism. As a result, they have a large range of ability to handle various levels of pathogens. This avoids having to combine certain preservatives that could be expensive and alter the taste of the products.

The patent-pending products have been put through a series of lab tests both by the manufacturers and third-party lab testers. Results from the studies showed that eatSafe™ Natural Food Wash “removed 99.999% of bacteria, including Salmonella, E. coli, Listeria and coliform bacteria from the surface of produce.” Other studies have found eatFresh™ Natural Antimicrobial has extended the shelf-life of food by 200% compared to other test controls.

Both companies are very excited and proud of the new product line. Founder and CEO of Grow Green, Mareya Ibrahim says, “[food safety] is a problem that is worth our attention. And we felt an all-natural solution that avoided potentially harmful chemicals was a natural extension of that drive.” President of P.L Thomas, Paul M. Flowerman, explains, “these new all-natural products open up new opportunities for consumer product development and can significantly reduce overall costs for all-natural foods and beverages.” Both admit that all-natural and clean labels are the new trend in the industry. However, they are hoping these products will, “offer an end-to-end solution for improving taste, quality and shelf life.”
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Global Green, Inc. recently announced they received their final report on their study involving the “Salmogenics Vaccine” aka the Salmonella vaccine.

The original idea was developed by the National Health Institute Laboratories, LLC. Global Green, Inc. plans to manufacture, market, and sell the patented and licensed vaccine. The company has received approval from Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) to trade publically on the Over-the-Counter (OTC) market and have applied for direct-to-consumer advertising (DTC) approval. The vaccine is currently in the final stages of the USDA approval process.

The study tested over 3,000 broiler chickens eggs that were injected with the vaccine. The study showed a remarkable reduction in salmonella bacteria and appeared to provide considerable protection against all salmonella strains. The study concludes reducing salmonella in chickens before they are processed and sold to the public will decrease the overall salmonella level.

Salmogenics uses a unique application process, in which the egg is directly injected with the vaccine. It is the only salmonella-fighting vaccine that uses this method. The vaccine also benefits the chicken’s immune system, health, and overall welfare. Using this technique will also result in reduced levels of salmonella in flocks and contamination risk in the processing stage. When salmonella is found in a flock during the processing stage, often times the contaminated meat has been distributed publicly.

While the final costs of the vaccine are unknown, the vaccine could be a cost-benefit alternative. Since the vaccine can be administered either alone or with other vaccines it can decrease the potential costs to the farmer. Because the vaccine is injected during the egg stage, the cost of human-handling is diminished and stress to the bird to is eliminated. The preventative measure of the vaccine could also cut back on contamination expenses. When meat is contaminated, the cost to correct the issue can be exorbitant. Since the vaccine would reduce the risk of contamination these potential costs would be avoided.

The Salmogenics vaccine has gained much industry support. Industry experts feel that this new approach is vital considering traditional approaches have ignored this method. James McNaughton, PhD explains, “A salmonella vaccine addressing vigorous strains that are hard to destroy is important.” AHPharma conducted the final report that point to positive signs that this will ultimately be passed by the USDA. This would be another preventive measure in foodborne illness.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Two years ago, we lauded High Pressure Processing (“HPP”) as “one of the most promising food safety technologies.” As it turns out, we were right.

In 2005, the American Pasteurization Company (“APC”) became the first company in the country to offer HPP on a commercial tolling basis. Just five years after the company opened its doors, we are excited to report that APC has been embraced by industry and the company is expanding.

As we wrote previously, HPP is a post-packaging pasteurization technique. The technology can be applied to food products with high water content, such as ready-to-eat meat and poultry products, seafood, fruits, vegetables and soft cheeses. HPP works by uniformly applying up to 87,000 psi of hydrostatic pressure to foods, often in their final packaging, for up to three minutes. The hydrostatic pressure does not compress the food product, but it does destroy food-borne pathogens and spoilage microorganisms.

APC’s first processing facility in Milwaukee started with just two employees processing about 5,000 pounds of food each week. Today, the company’s staff numbers over 50 and is processing more than 700,000 pounds per week. In order to meet the growing demand, APC just opened a second processing facility in Evansville, Indiana. The company hopes to open even more locations across the United States in the future.

The benefits of HPP are especially significant given its proven ability to eliminate food-borne pathogens in certain products. The emotional and financial toll of a food-borne illness outbreak and product recall can devastate a manufacturer. The average cost of a recall to companies is $10 million, in addition to brand damage and lost sales. Thus, by removing pathogens from treated products, and by extension all associated risk, the long term benefits can be substantial.

HPP can also double a product’s shelf life while simultaneously removing the manufacturer’s need to add chemical preservatives. Longer shelf life means longer production runs and fewer markdowns. The business of one APC customer went from static to growing when, with an extended shelf life, it was able to switch its product from frozen to fresh.

These feats are accomplished without the use of chemicals or irradiation, and amazingly, without affecting product quality, thus satisfying some the most significant consumer issues right now: (1) safe; and (2) natural. While irradiation has remained controversial for many years, HPP is quickly gaining a much wider acceptance.

With regard to regulatory compliance, HPP is USDA and FDA approved and helps processors comply with current Listeria regulations. APC “works with food processors in many ways to make the utilization of HPP as seamless and cost effective as possible.”

So is there any downside to HPP? Well, yes. While HPP makes our ready-to-eat meats, raw shellfish, and salsa safer, the process cannot yet be applied to all foods. The good news is that APC is diligently working to expand HPP’s portfolio of products, which will hopefully someday include ground beef.

We are grateful and happy for our friends at APC who now anticipate processing more than 50 million pounds of safe food each year!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Many of the new technologies developed by meat and poultry processors must first be reviewed by the Food Safety and Inspection Service (“FSIS”) prior to implementation.

Processors are required to submit a written description to the FSIS of any new technology that could affect: (1) product safety; (2) inspection procedures; (3) inspection program personnel safety: or (4) would require changing existing regulations. FSIS, following its review of the processors’ submission, either notifies the processor that it has “no objection” to application of the new technology, or that it has concerns and will require additional information prior to any use of the new science. (See Guidance Procedures for Notification and Protocol Submission of New Technology).

FSIS has acknowledged that many “new technologies have resulted in significant improvements in the safety of meat and poultry in recent years.” The Agency also believes there will be even greater use and benefit from such technologies if they can also be shared with the public and industry. Therefore, FSIS makes available to the public a list of new technologies to which the Agency had no objections.

The FSIS New Technology Information Table contains a brief description of the technologies and names the companies which pioneered them. The list was just updated and contains all new technologies approved within the last 12 months.

If you have not yet added the New Technology Information Table to your “Favorites”, please do so. Meat and poultry processors are investing millions of dollars each year on the issue of food safety alone.

We, of course, can all gain by sharing and remaining abreast of food safety innovation.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Food manufacturers may soon have additional incentive to add yet another weapon – ultraviolet light – to their arsenal in the continuing battle against food-borne pathogens.

Meat processors already go to incredible lengths to clean and sanitize their facilities, but are consistently searching for newer and better technology to sterilize the plant environment. Unfortunately, bacteria such as L. monocytogenes (“Listeria”) can sometimes survive in trace amounts for extended periods in food processing facilities, even though processors dedicate a full shift each day to cleaning disassembled equipment, conveyor belts, walls, ceilings and floors with high-pressure steaming water and powerful sanitizers.

Cleaning aside, a new study published in the journal Foodborne Pathogens and Disease confirmed that Listeria contamination could be significantly reduced on a broad range of conveyor belt surfaces by exposure to UV light. In a controlled environment, researchers introduced the pathogen to conveyor belts made from four different materials and then studied the effects of UV light application at two different intensities and two different time intervals (one and three seconds). After application of UV light for three seconds, the bacterial counts were reduced to below detection levels on three of the belts, and the survival populations on the fourth were considerably diminished. Click on the following link to view an abstract of the Listeria UV Study.

Notably, Listeria has always created unique challenges for industry because of its ability to grow and survive over a broad temperature range. In addition to its natural ability to propagate in cold temperatures, it can also sometimes persist, and be difficult to remove entirely from, food product contact surfaces.

This inherent resilience, of course, can also have a significant economic impact for processors. In 2009, for instance, seven voluntary and precautionary recalls (involving over 45,000 pounds of meat) were announced as a result of possible Listeria contamination. And as we recently reported, the average cost to food companies for a single recall can range as high as approximately $10 million, in addition to potential brand damage and lost sales.

In any event, while researchers and industry continue to assess this promising new data regarding the potential efficacy of UV light on different product contact surfaces, the American Meat Institute Foundation (AMIF) is also inviting pre-proposals on research for controlling Listeria on ready-to-eat meat and poultry products.

Hopefully, such collective efforts will illuminate a clearer path to new and effective interventions designed to eradicate, to the best extent possible, these and other persistent food-borne pathogens.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In the continuing battle to prevent naturally occurring microorganisms like E. coli O157:H7 from growing in cattle, researchers have discovered some promising new tools.

Although E. coli O157:H7 can cause illness in humans, the bacteria often exists as part of the gastrointestinal flora in healthy cattle. In turn, microbiologists at the University of Texas (“UT”), Southwestern Medical Center, working with the USDA, uncovered a mechanism which actually prevents E. coli O157:H7 from surviving in grain-fed cattle.

E. coli O157:H7 harbors a gene called sdiA, which makes the SdiA protein. When traveling within a cattle’s body, the SdiA protein senses a chemical made by microbes in the animal's rumen, the first of a cow's four stomachs, which serves as a large fermentation chamber.

Only after detecting this signal will the bacteria pass through the rumen and colonize in the recto-anal junction. By interfering with the SdiA protein (or, the genetic sensor), however, researchers were able to stop the bacteria from ever reaching the required colonization site. Notably, rather than colonizing, the bacteria simply died off, preventing any potential for future shedding or contamination.

"We're diminishing colonization by not letting pathogen go where it needs to go," said Dr. Vanessa Sperandio, associate professor of microbiology and biochemistry at UT Southwestern and senior author of the study. "If we can find a way to prevent these bacteria from ever colonizing in cattle, it's possible that we can have a real impact on human disease.” Notably, “[t]his could be something as simple as including some sort of antagonist in cattle feed, which would result in less shedding of the bacteria and less contamination down the road."

The findings, of course, are important because an estimated 70 percent to 80 percent of cattle herds can carry these pathogens. According to Dr. Sperandio, the finding “serves as a proof-of-principle that we might be able to target this system and help prevent food contamination."

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Research conducted by Dr. Barakat Mahmoud at Mississippi State University lends further credence to irradiation as another line of defense against foodborne illness.

Specifically, Dr. Mahmoud’s research found that x-ray irradiation killed harmful bacteria in certain foods without affecting the quality or freshness of the food, and the elimination of the bacteria even extended the food’s shelf life.

Through x-ray irradiation, Dr. Mahmoud eliminated the Vibrio bacteria from oysters without altering the quality of the food in any other way. In addition to seafood, Dr. Mahmoud’s research also focused on produce. Here too, x-rays destroyed the harmful bacteria in leafy greens but left the greens fresh and nutritious. Notably, leafy greens were deemed the riskiest food regulated by the FDA in 2009.

The notion of food irradiation has been around for quite some time, but it is not without limitations. X-ray irradiation, however, in comparison to gamma ray and electron beam radiation, may offer more promise. First, consumers are wary of irradiated foods even though irradiation has proven extremely safe. Dr. Mahmoud hopes consumers will feel more secure with x-ray technology since it is more familiar to them.

Second, the introduction of most types of irradiation into the food manufacturing process is not easily accomplished. Dr. Mahmoud does believe that x-ray irradiation “can be effectively used in large-scale commercial operations,” however, and is presenting his research across the country. Indeed, one advantage of x-ray irradiation is that it can be accomplished at the manufacturing facility, whereas some other technologies require trucking products to another location.

In any event, we send our thanks to the scientists, educators, government agencies and food manufacturers who continue their efforts to research new technologies -- like x-ray irradiation -- to help make the food we eat as safe as it can be.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Although most people believe that the decision to develop and utilize ground-breaking food safety technology rests exclusively in the hands of industry, this view is often mistaken.

Rather, the use of most new interventions that could immediately increase the safety of our food depends, not upon industry, but upon the approval of the federal government. And, when federal officials refuse or fail to act, both industry and consumers can suffer.

In 2004, the American Meat Institute (AMI) submitted a petition to FSIS to approve the use of carcass e-beam irradiation technology in meat plants. AMI requested that the petition be granted so that low levels of irradiation could be applied to the surface of chilled beef carcasses as a food safety processing aid. The use of such technology has proven to be an effective measure in reducing the presence of pathogens in raw meat products.

And yet, despite the obvious food safety advantages, the agency has for five years refused to approve use of the technology. To the surprise of many, agency officials announced in a recent meeting with the North American Meat Processors Association (NAMP) that no decision would be forthcoming soon.

Presumably, the reason carcass irradiation is an issue with FSIS is because AMI requested that it be approved as a “processing aid.” If the request was granted, processors would be allowed to use the technology without having to place special labels on meat processed with the intervention. Without specifying what, exactly, it was referring to, however, the FSIS stated simply that, “because of other recent events, processing aids in general are under greater scrutiny right now."

Although all of this may be true, with an increasing ability to detect food-borne illnesses and outbreaks nationally, the overall safety of food is under greater scrutiny as well.

In any event, carcass irradiation has often been cited by the meat industry as viable way forward in the fight against E. coli O157:H7 in ground beef. Keeping the word "irradiation" off labels, or even changing its description to something like "pasteurization," have been suggested as ways to increase public acceptance. This is because, previously, the use of low levels of irradiation to treat finished ground beef products fell flat, in large part, because the USDA required the use of a radura symbol on ground beef labels which simply scared the public away.

Frustrated by the lack of progress on its long-standing request, the AMI recently sent a letter to FSIS officials urging them to take action on the outstanding petition. FSIS then responded by saying the issue was being held up because it was waiting for the AMI to answer some of its queries on the petition. AMI, however, reported that it had never received any questions or concerns from the agency.

The controversy intensified last week when, as noted, FSIS informed NAMP of its intent not to grant the petition. When FSIS was asked to provide additional details regarding the continuing delay, it again stated that “AMI [still] needs to provide answers to [FSIS’] questions in order for FSIS to be able to act further on the petition.” Once again, however, the meat association denied being contacted by the FSIS, stating it had “received no formal response to [the] petition, including any questions or concerns that FSIS may have”.

AMI executive vice president James Hodges stated further that there was no reason to continue delaying evaluation of the matter. “AMI has submitted all information needed for FSIS to . . . publish a proposed rule regarding treating carcass surface irradiation as a processing aid”, he said. “Questions or issues about the technology [can be] best addressed through the rulemaking process that will be required to establish the parameters regarding applying this proven food safety technology. We look forward to a favourable response from FSIS.”

Having defended well-intentioned food companies for nearly ten years, and having witnessed the onslaught industry has received recently from media and congress for “failing to do more,” I am perplexed at the lack of urgency displayed by the agency. Perhaps this is yet another example of how government, rather than solving our problems, can often make them worse.

Thus, we too urge FSIS to take action on AMI’s proposal. If we truly want to advance food safety, we should start by convincing our government to advance those technologies that make it possible.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The USDA's Agricultural Research Service (“ARS”) has announced that its scientists have developed two vaccines that might reduce the spread of E. coli O157:H7 in cattle.

"Preventing E. coli O157:H7 from proliferating inside cattle helps limit contamination of meat at the packinghouse, and reduces shedding of the microbe," ARS said in a statement. "Manure-borne E. coli can sometimes be moved by rainfall into drinking water. What's more, in some instances, it can end up in irrigation water, and can potentially contaminate fruits, vegetables and other crops, increasing risk of an outbreak of food-borne illness."

The first form of the vaccine is comprised of cells of a strain of E. coli O157:H7 that lacks a gene called hha. A second form of the vaccine contains an E. coli strain that lacks both hha and a second gene, sepB. In each of the vaccines the E. coli strain produces immunogenic proteins, which trigger an immune system response that prevents E. coli O157:H7 from successfully colonizing in cattle intestines.

In preliminary tests, 3-month-old Holstein calves were immunized with a placebo or either form of the vaccine. Six weeks later, the animals received a dose of E. coli O157:H7 and for the next 18 days, their manure was tested for evidence of the microbe. Calves that received either vaccine had reduced or non-detectable levels of E. coli within only a few days after being inoculated with the bacteria.

Research microbiologists Vijay K. Sharma and Thomas A. Casey developed the vaccines in their laboratories at the agency's National Animal Disease Center in Ames, Iowa.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The burger of the future may soon be here.

And, what's the burger of the future? Well, it’s a beef patty, actually. It will look, smell and taste the same as a burger does today. The only difference is that there may no longer be a need for the cow.

Technological advancements across the food industry, along with those in the bio-sector, have resulted in recent breakthroughs which could make artificial (or, in-vitro) meats available in grocery stores as early as 2012. Using embryonic cells to grow muscle tissue in a steel tank (imagine growing meat in a test tube), the process will likely be similar in many ways to yogurt production.

While the idea of eating artificially grown meat might seem somewhat "distasteful," the breadth of new incentives may eventually outweigh any potential consumer hesitance.

For starters, the meat of the future will be made to taste as good or, perhaps, even better than its naturally grown counterparts.

In addition to tasting great, it will also likely be healthier because scientists will be able to manipulate the nutritional content to optimal levels. Imagine a burger, for instance, that helps to prevent, rather than promote, heart attacks.

And, while promoting long term health benefits, lab grown meat, whether chicken, beef, pork or lamb, will be inherently safe. According to Jason Matheny of the research group New Harvest, the possibility of pathogenic contamination should become almost nonexistent. If we could produce meat in sterile conditions that are impossible in conventional animal farms and slaughterhouses, added Matheny, we could substantially reduce the number of food-borne illnesses and ancillary costs associated with outbreaks.

In a recent interview with CNN, Matheny also stated that Bio-meat could substantially reduce other human illnesses as well. These would include ailments "like swine flu, avian flu, and mad cow disease." Click on the following link to read the full CNN Report.

Beyond food safety, the financial benefits for companies producing meat without the expense of raising it are tremendous. It takes 700 calories of feed to produce a 100 calorie piece of beef. And, this does not take into account the other logistical problems of using meat off the hoof. “When we grow only the meat we can eat, it's more efficient,” said Matheny. “There's no need to grow the whole animal and lose 75 to 95 percent of what we feed it."

Ultimately, with lab engineered meat, food companies would no longer have to pay for raising, feeding, housing and providing veterinary treatment to live animals.

So, what’s a burger without the cow?

Perhaps a very "good" idea.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Scientists from the University of Missouri have developed a new method to detect live E. coli O157:H7 cells in ground beef.

Notably, the two-step method can distinguish between dead and living E. coli cells. The research uses a technique called a real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR), a quick, reliable method for detecting and identifying pathogens in food. However, PCR can't differentiate living from dead microbial cells. Dead cells will not make people ill, and the presence of dead cells often results in false-positive findings, which can result in unnecessary product recalls.

To prevent this, researchers developed a method to stain samples with a dye called ethidium bromide monoazide (EMA). EMA cannot penetrate live cells, but it can enter dead cells. In the dead cells, EMA binds to DNA molecules, making them insoluble and therefore invisible to PCR tests.

The researchers have had success using the new technique on ground beef, chicken and eggs. Testing takes about 12 hours, compared with older methods, which require up to two days to generate results.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Food safety, of course, is a top priority for our nation’s food processors.

In addition to numerous other interventions, poultry processors also train employees to visually inspect carcasses for potential defects prior to final USDA approval.

This system of visual screening, however, is only as good as the human eye. Thus, in a continuing effort to push the food safety envelop even further, researchers have now proven that computer imaging can lend a helping hand.

The US Agricultural Research Service (“ARS”) has announced the development of an automated hyperspectral imaging system that can accurately detect food safety and quality defects (including small amounts of fecal contamination) on poultry carcasses. Hyperspectral imaging is a technique that combines digital imaging with spectroscopy, creating individual wavelengths of light that pinpoint contaminants.

The new system was developed, in conjunction with Stork Food Systems, by ARS scientists at the Quality and Safety Assessment Research Unit in Athens, Georgia. Notably, a prototype was recently tested in a poultry plant to evaluate its performance under commercial conditions. In the trial, carcasses were imaged after evisceration (but prior to washing) at a rate of 150 birds per minute. According to reports, the system ran successfully for several days. Nevertheless, while the initial trials showed great promise, researchers are still working to refine the system to better avoid false-positives.

The ARS researchers are also collaborating with the Environmental Microbial and Food Safety Laboratory in Maryland, which has developed a similar on-line system designed to differentiate diseased poultry carcasses from those that are wholesome. The system relies upon the same imaging technology, but uses different wavelengths.

In any event, the two groups are now attempting to merge the systems into a single unit, which will include an imaging camera and detection software. According to reports, the team plans to have a prototype of the joint system ready for further trials later this year.

Congrats to all.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The battle for food safety continues to be waged on multiple fronts.

In addition to testing and developing new technologies (beyond cooking) to reduce naturally occurring pathogens in food, researchers are now looking for ways to defeat pathogens in our bodies.

As we reported previously, continuing NASA research might soon lead to a Salmonella vaccine. And now, we have learned, the United States military has joined the fight. According to the Washington Post, a new scientific breakthrough recently announced by the Naval Medical Research Center suggests that a Campylobacter vaccine may be on the way as well.

Campylobacter is well known as a leading cause of food-borne illness. According to some studies, the pathogen may be responsible for as many as two million cases in the United States each year, and cause several hundred million more worldwide. The infection can also (in some instances) be difficult to treat because of widespread antibiotic resistance.

Nevertheless, after a quarter century of research, Navy scientist Patricia Guerry may have discovered the path to a vaccine which will inhibit the bacteria’s ability to attach to our intestinal lining and cause illness. Indeed, as explained by the Washington Post:

Guerry, a molecular microbiologist, began her work in the 1980s and over time created new research tools that allowed her to identify the pathogen's unique genetic, biochemical and structural features. This led to the development of a vaccine that neutralizes the bacteria's ability to attach to the intestinal lining.

The vaccine candidate against the pathogen Campylobacter jejuni, developed by Guerry, her colleagues at the U.S. Naval Medical Research Center in Silver Spring and Canadian scientist Mario Monteiro, successfully protected against infection in monkeys during testing last year and is slated for human clinical trials.

If true, this may be the first known (and, promising) food-borne illness vaccine actively tested on humans. And, although Guerry has been conducting her research as part of an ongoing effort to better protect U.S. soldiers oversees, her research, of course, may very well have a profound impact on the rest of the nation – and world. Click on the following link to read the Full Story.

In any event, this is great news for industry and consumers alike. We proudly salute Guerry and, of course, the rest of her team.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Salmonella has dominated the news as of late. Once an illness thought to come only from runny eggs and raw chicken, it has now been found in a wide variety of foods including peanuts, dried gelatin, and, bizarrely, frog legs. The recent PCA Salmonella outbreak was perhaps the largest in history.

Salmonella has been around for a long time, causing illness in humans for at least one hundred years. Now, science may be on the verge of finding a vaccine. The fight for a vaccine is taking place in labs across our world – as well as in others beyond it.

Astronauts have been conducting Salmonella experiments aboard the International Space Station with results that have been both surprising and promising. Previous studies have shown that weightlessness can have a dangerous affect on bacteria and pathogens. Early data indicated that Salmonella became much more virulent in a zero gravity environment. The studies were conducted as a corollary to the well documented loss of immunity in micro-gravitational environments and the fear that astronauts might be more susceptible to food-borne illness.

Further research, however, has led to the discovery that Salmonella’s virulence can not only be controlled, it can actually be turned off. The discovery sent shockwaves through the scientific community and carries with it incredible ramifications.

If the infectious part of Salmonella can be negated, then it is possible for the pathogen to be introduced to our bodies without causing illness. This, potentially, would allow our immune system to develop immunity without ever having to experience the symptoms.

Here on Earth, at the Institute of Food Research in Norwich, UK, researchers are also close to finding a vaccine. They have shown, after a number of breakthroughs that Salmonella relies on glucose for its own survival during the infection stage. While seemingly trivial, the discovery allows for the possibility of a vaccine not just against Salmonella and other food-borne pathogens, but also a range of other superbugs.

“This is the first time that anyone has identified the nutrients that sustain Salmonella while it is infecting a host’s body,” said Dr. Arthur Thompson, IFR group leader. “Our experiments showed that glucose is the major sugar used by Salmonella during infection,” said Dr Thompson.

Scientists believe they can turn off the cells ability to absorb glucose which would render them incapable of replicating. The salmonella would, however, continue to stimulate an immune response which would eventually lead to immunity.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Researchers at the University of Arkansas have discovered some new ways to greatly inhibit the presence of pathogens in food.

According to a recent study, infusing chicken meat with a combination of organic acids (acetic, citric, lactic, malic and tartaric) and select plant extracts (from grape seeds and green tea) can drastically reduce the amounts of E. coli O157:H7, Listeria monocytogenes and Salmonella Typhimurium that may be present.

Not suprisingly, even better results were obtained when the expirimental technique was coupled with small amounts of irradiation.  In this regard, the researchers believe that a combination of organic acids and plant extracts, coupled with very small amounts of irradiation, could ultimately provide the optimal amount of protection against a wide range of food-borne illnesses.

According to Navam Hettiarachchy, a UA food science professor who supervised the project, "we want to determine the least amount of plant extracts that we can use, and the least amount of irradiation dosage, to get the best inhibitory effect."

Although research is continuing, Hettiarachchy has confirmed that at least one poultry company has expressed interest in the project. In turn, to achieve the maximum food safety benefit, Hettiarachchy also remains "hopeful that, with time, the public will become aware of irradiation processing so that they accept [the technology]." 

Although we'll leave it to others to interpret those tea leaves, we will, at the very least, continue to report on new developments. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Anyone associated with the food industry appreciates the critical importance of sanitation, the most basic and important aspect of which is proper hand washing.

Notably, eighty percent of all illnesses and infections are transported by touch. In turn, according to the World Health Organization, an individual who washes their hands often is 24 percent less likely to acquire a respiratory illness, and 45 percent to 50 percent less likely to get a stomach bug.

Fortunately, with each passing moment, science and technology lead to new innovations which enhance our knowledge of food-borne illness, as well as our ability to combat it. One of these innovations, while currently being used only in hospitals, may potentially have wide-ranging applications in the food industry as well.

The system, known as Hygreen, enables companies to monitor and keep track of hand washing. It is currently being tested in the Neuro-Intensive Care Unit of Shands, at the University of Florida Medical Center. The units require an employee to simply run their hands beneath a wall mounted sensor which can detect the presence and level of soap on the individual’s hands. If the employee’s hands are clean, a green light turns on.

Conversely, if the sensor detects low levels of cleanliness, or that too much time had elapsed between hand washings, a badge worn by the employee will vibrate softly. The badges and sensors communicate wirelessly with a computer which logs the collected information and can monitor compliance.

"I do wash my hands more often," said nurse Carrie McGirr, R.N., who volunteered to help test the HyGreen system. "It's a fairly simple process to learn."

While seemingly basic, proper hand washing requires one to follow certain basic guidelines which should be both trained and enforced.

Put simply, one should scrub vigorously with water and soap until lather appears, making sure to get between fingers and fingernails. This should be done for at least 20 seconds. Briskly dry with a towel.

While better than nothing, the popular sanitizing hand gels have been shown to be far less effective than hand washing. The reason for this is simple. When you use a hand sanitizer, the bacteria and viruses have no where to go so they remain on your hands. Conversely, when you use soap and water the germs are washed down the drain. A vigorous drying with a towel will ideally get rid anything that washing left behind.

Air dryers, once popular, are seen less and less frequently. They are generally thought to take too long to finish the job of drying, and studies have shown that paper towels are actually more effective at removing dirt and bacteria.

It is possible, however, that they will make a resurgence. At least that’s what the people at Dyson hope. The Dyson AirBlade is similar to other air dryers but it uses room temperature air which is blown out at over 400mph. It is a futuristic looking machine that is supposed to dry hands completely in less than ten seconds.

We are only left pondering, however, whether the AirBlade is strong enough to help open the bathroom door . . .

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Food-borne pathogens, like Salmonella, are pretty smart. According to researchers, the bugs “employ a startling array of techniques to skillfully outwit the body’s defense mechanisms and produce illness. Through their expression of genes—the fundamental building blocks of cellular physiology—the microbes ingeniously adapt to varied environments, continuously modifying their disease-causing potential or virulence.” Thus, if food-borne pathogens are outwitting us, how can we outwit them?

Research into the disease-causing potential of Salmonella from two recent NASA space missions may hold promise for improving ways to fight food-borne infections here at home. The studies were conducted because of NASA’s concern that astronauts might be more susceptible to food poisoning in space due to weakened immune systems – an unfortunate, but well-documented effect of microgravity. According to Julie Robinson, program scientist for the International Space Station at NASA's Johnson Space Center in Houston, "the research opens up new areas for investigations that may improve food treatment, develop new therapies and vaccines to combat food poisoning in humans, and protect astronauts in orbit from infectious disease."

Here at home, the studies are good news. Salmonella is a leading cause of food poisoning and related illnesses. According to the CDC, approximately 40,000 cases of Salmonella infections are reported in the United States each year.

The recent Salmonella experiments were flown on shuttle missions to the International Space Station. The experiments allowed researchers to identify a molecular "switch" that controlled Salmonella's response to spaceflight in ways not observed on Earth. The results showed that the space environment causes a short-term alteration in Salmonella virulence – the bacteria in space actually became more virulent than those on Earth.

Interestingly, researchers also discovered that a mechanical force known as "fluid shear," the motion that cells sense as fluid passes over their surface, has a dramatic effect on Salmonella's disease-causing potential. Lower fluid shear conditions, as it turns out, are found both in microgravity and in our intestines. In other words, space travel appears to have "tricked" the bacteria into behaving as though they were in the low fluid shear environment of the intestine, essentially turning on a switch inside the microbe that increases virulence.

The experiments have also helped researchers identify ways to “counter” the virulence effect. A research team led by Cheryl Nickerson, of the Biodesign Institute at Arizona State University in Tempe, found that by adjusting the ion content of the bacteria's environment, you can turn off the increased virulence caused by spaceflight. According to Nickerson, “no one had previously looked at a mechanical force like fluid shear on the disease-causing properties of a microorganism during the infection process." Armed with this discovery, researchers hope that additional research may lead to new interventions, therapies and vaccines for Salmonella and other pathogens.

Nickerson also hopes the benefits of space research will extend beyond infectious pathogens like Salmonella, eventually inspiring new clinical approaches to cancer, aging, bone and muscle wasting diseases, among other earthly afflictions.

Congrats to NASA -- and Nickerson -- for a job well done.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

When we think about food safety, we tend to think about hand washing, wearing gloves, refrigeration and thorough cooking. Although these are important, safety goggles are rarely mentioned – until now.

When using fresh prosciutto or produce to slice through a frozen roast or tough steak, eye protection is a must.

Most of us, of course, like to eat food. In a recent article, published in Popular Science, Theodor Gray talks at length about other essential uses. I found his article, Bacon: The Other White Heat, a bit too interesting not to share:

I recently committed myself to the goal (Gray explains), before the weekend was out, of creating a device entirely from bacon and using it to cut a steel pan in half. My initial attempts were failures, but I knew success was within reach when I was able to ignite and melt the pan using seven beef sticks and a cucumber.

No, seriously. The device I built was a form of thermal lance. A thermal lance, typically made of iron instead of bacon, is used to cut up scrap metal and rescue people from collapsed buildings. It works by blowing pure oxygen gas through a pipe packed with iron and magnesium rods. These metals are surprisingly flammable in pure oxygen, releasing a huge amount of heat as they are consumed. The result is a jet of superheated iron plasma coming out of the end of the pipe. For sheer destructive force, few tools match a thermal lance. But iron isn’t the only thing that’s flammable in a stream of pure oxygen.

Bacon is fattening because it contains a lot of chemical energy tied up in its proteins, and especially in its fat. You can release that energy either by digesting it or by burning it with a healthy supply of oxygen. The challenge isn’t creating the heat; it’s engineering a bacon structure strong enough to withstand the stress of a 5,000°F bacon plasma flame.

I used prosciutto (Italian for “expensive bacon”) because it is a superior engineering grade of meat. I wrapped slices of it into thin tubes and baked them overnight in a warm oven to drive off all the water. Then I bundled seven of those together, wrapped them in additional slices, and baked the bundle again until it was hard and dry.

From Table To Torch

To make an airtight, less-flammable outer casing, I wrapped this fuel core with uncooked prosciutto before attaching one end of it to an oxygen hose. You can’t imagine the feeling of triumph when I first saw the telltale signs of burning iron: sparks bursting from the metal, and then a rush of flame out of the other side as I witnessed perhaps the first-ever example of bacon-cut steel. And the lance kept on burning for about a minute.

It turns out there are much easier ways to do this. For example, while researching how to build a vegetarian lance, I hit on the perfect pipe material – hollowed-out cucumbers. The pressure-containment capacity of a standard cucumber is remarkable, and the smooth skin makes it easy to create an airtight seal with the pipe delivering oxygen to the device. A cucumber packed with beef sticks will burn for almost two minutes, and a completely vegetarian version stuffed with breadsticks, though not quite as long-lasting, still produces a very impressive flame.

The lesson here is that food is a source of serious amounts of energy. Pure oxygen helps release it in a much shorter time than usual, but it’s really the chemical energy in the bacon that makes the steel pan burn. Whether it’s worth building a bacon lance to demonstrate this – well, only you can be the judge of that. –THEODORE GRAY

Oh, and one final thought. Because the author is trained in lab safety, please do not try this at home. If you insist, we beg you, at the very least, to use safety goggles...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Researchers at Purdue University have designed a device which uses electricity to kill harmful pathogens in prepackaged foods. Dr. Kevin Keener, an associate professor in the Department of Food Science, developed the technology.  According to Keener, the device uses high-voltage coils to ionize oxygen (which creates a plasma field) inside a sealed package of food. The plasma field, which increases temperature by only a few degrees, does not alter the product, but will kill any harmful bacteria such as E. coli O157:H7 and Salmonella that may be present.

The technology works by placing two high-voltage, low-watt coils on the outside of a sealed package of food. The oxygen in the package is charged, becomes ionized and then turns into ozone. In turn, the ozone kills bacteria such as E. coli and Salmonella. The process uses only 30-40 watts of electricity (less than most incandescent light bulbs), and treatment times range from 30 seconds to about five minutes. Eventually, once the charge is removed, the ionized gas will revert back to its original composition. "It's kind of like charging a battery,” said Keener. “We're [simply] charging a sample without electrode intrusion."

According to Keener, the testing has worked with glass containers, flexible plastic-like food-storage bags and rigid plastics, such as strawberry cartons and pill bottles. "Conceptually, we can put any kind of packaged food we want in there," said Keener. "So far, it has worked on spinach and tomatoes, but it could work on any type of produce or other food." He also said the technology could work to ensure pharmaceuticals are free from bacteria.

The next step, reported Keener, is to develop a commercial prototype of the device that could work on large quantities of food.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In recent years, we have witnessed a large increase in the number of reported food-borne illnesses and outbreaks. As a result of improved governmental surveillance, aided by PulseNet and OutbreakNet, more food-borne illnesses and outbreaks are being identified. In turn, as food companies attempt to overcome these trends, new antimicrobial interventions are receiving even greater attention.

One of the most promising food safety technologies is a post-packaging pasteurization technique known as High Pressure Processing (“HPP”). HPP can be used for a wide variety of perishable foods, and works by uniformly applying up to 87,000 psi of hydrostatic pressure to prepackaged foods for up to three minutes. The application of high pressure to the product inactivates both spoilage microorganisms and harmful pathogens by causing the microbial cell membrane to become more porous, and by inactivating enzymes vital for microbial survival. This process, which the American Pasteurization Company (“APC”) has been performing on behalf of customers for years, reduces microorganisms and increases shelf-life significantly.

Notably, the USDA-FSIS currently regards high pressure processing as a valid intervention method for Listeria monocytogenes in prepackaged, ready-to-eat meat products. Because the pressure is hydrostatic (think of a grape in a bottle), there is no impact on the texture or flavor of products that are treated. Other applications include ready-to-eat meat and poultry products, guacamole, fresh salsa, humis, raw and marinated meats, seafood, oysters, dips, wet salads, and various cheese products. The list of appropriate uses and products, of course, continues to expand daily.

Additional benefits of HPP include:

• Dramatically increasing the safety of food products;

• Affording greatly enhanced brand equity protection;

• Extending the optimal freshness of food products using a non-thermal technology;

• Dramatic extension of shelf life;

• Allows reformulation to reduce or eliminate dependency on added microbial inhibitors;

• Facilitates the migration of many products from frozen to fresh; and

• For USDA plants, HPP is considered an effective intervention and helps processors comply with current Listeria regulations.

APC is the first company in the United States to offer HPP on a commercial tolling basis. This arrangement is extremely beneficial to customers because, once pre-packaged foods are received from customers and treated, the products can be custom labeled, packed and shipped directly from APC’s USDA-inspected facility to end-users. Moreover, recent advances in pressure equipment have significantly lowered the cost of use.

To date, APC has successfully processed more that 50 million pounds of food products for more than 30 separate food processors. APC is located in Milwaukee, and because it does not manufacture food (it only makes food safer), the company does not compete with its customers.

Thus, for food companies looking to utilize this new technology on a commercial tolling basis, without incurring the necessary infrastructure costs, don’t hesitate to contact Greg Zaja (of APC’s Research and Development Group) for more information.

Special thanks to APC (www.pressurefresh.com) for helping make our food safer.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Technological advancements have exploded in recent history.  From the internet to non-invasive surgical techniques to credit card size cell phones, we have progressed further in the last fifty years than the rest of history combined.  With the exception of purchasing state of the art electronics that are often obsolete by the time they are opened, such advancements have been exciting and made our lives much easier.

Despite great leaps, however, the threat of contracting a food-borne illness does, and may always, exist.  Because harmful bacteria can be introduced at any point from farm to fork (or, as I say, from "crop to court"), the fight against existing and emerging organisms remains extraordinarily complex.  In turn, the best scientific minds in the world are working feverishly (pun intended), even as you read this, to develop new methods aimed at protecting our food supply from these resilient food-borne pathogens.

Although it seems today that the prevalent and favored practice is indiscriminately to attack and criticize the food industry, it must be recognized that food safety professionals and the companies they work for have in recent years made substantial strides.  From irradiation (still waiting for consumer acceptance) to high-pressure pasteurization to the creative use of nanotechnology, new interventions are continually being developed to improve the safety of our food.

These and other developments merely highlight the technological advances in food safety within the last few years and months.  The food safety technology business is rapidly growing and, to the extent we can figure out this internet thing, we will continue to keep you abreast of the latest innovations.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link