I’ve already posted on some of the dubious marketing and safety claims that accompanied the original Fit produce wash before it was abandoned by Procter & Gamble in 2001.

On Monday, the Los Angeles Times takes a look at produce washes out there – such as Veggie Wash, Fit Fruit and Vegetable Wash, Bi-O-Kleen Produce Wash, Earth Friendly Products Fruit & Vegetable Wash and Eat Cleaner All Natural Food Wash and Wipes -- and concludes water is just fine.

Sandra McCurdy, extension food safety specialist in the School of Family and Consumer Sciences at the University of Idaho in Moscow, Idaho, says that most produce is pathogen-free because it's been washed during processing and because handlers take steps to avoid contaminating the fruits and vegetables they stock in the produce aisle. But if it is not, a thorough rinse under water is usually all that's needed to remove most pathogens.

Michael Doyle (left), professor and director of the Center for Food Safety at the University of Georgia in Griffin, Ga. (Doyle developed an antimicrobial technology that was licensed earlier this year by the makers of Fit produce wash.) said,

"If the bacteria get into the tissue during processing, it's too late, it's trapped in the tissue.”

As for pesticides, there's little scientific evidence to support claims that washes do a better job than water when it comes to removing them, says Anne Riederer, a professor of environmental and occupational health at Emory University in Atlanta, Ga.
 

I’ve spent the summer on the east coast alongside my classmate Stephan, while we do internships for school. Though we have similar interests in veterinary medicine, we have very different philosophies about food safety. I am a bit like Monk, at times going overboard on cleanliness and my tendency to be a “germaphobe” with excessive handwashing.

Stephan represents the other side of the spectrum, more of a “the more bugs I’m exposed to, the more my immunity builds.” This is definitely a valid viewpoint. Hand sanitizer opponents say that antibacterial soaps and gels may cause more harm than good. They remove bad bacteria, but can also remove the good bacteria, the bacteria that protect skin surfaces from the bad bacteria. Antibacterials may also help breed drug-resistant bacteria.

It’s a tricky tightrope to walk. Washing your hands before eating is a good way to reduce your risk of foodborne illness, but removing too much beneficial bacteria from skin surfaces or gut can leave the body more susceptible to harmful bacteria and may cause allergic or autoimmune reactions.

The bottom line is that regular soap works great in moderation, and it should always be used before consuming food or sticking your fingers in your mouth. What kind of soap is best? I tend to lean towards the foaming liquid soap, mostly because it comes in great scents, but basically soap is better than no soap. Follow Doug’s mantra to wash your hands and don’t eat poop.

Not just a problem for Toronto or Tori Spelling, Belgium also apparently has some issues with soft-serve and regular ice cream.

Albert sent along a link to a recent report by Test-Achats, a Belgian-based consumer group that anonymously sent researchers to 69 points of sale for ice cream and soft-serve in Belgium during the summer of 2008. Amy translated, and highlights of the report are below.

“Attention was essentially directed towards touristic sites like the Côte, the Ardennes, and various country towns. They bought ice cream cones and soft-serve. While making the purchases, they took the opportunity to evaluate the hygiene at the point of sale as well as of the personnel, the place where the counter or the soft-serve dispenser was located, the conditions for rinsing the ice cream scoop, etc. Immediately after the purchase, and in appropriate sterile and temperature conditions, the ice cream was taken to the laboratory to undergo detailed bacteriological testing. …

Apparent cleanliness was rarely noted during our visits: only 18 points of sale received a good or very good score for this category. In 8 cases, general hygiene at the point of sale was simply unacceptable… and added to that was a serious lack in the staff’s personal hygiene. A serious problem that was already underscored by Test Achats: the ice cream scoop. It was only rinsed under running water in 6 of the points of sale. This is however fundamental for serving ice cream in good hygienic conditions. Too often, the scoop was left resting in obviously unclean water or it wasn’t, in any case, cleaned before service. Finally, it is unacceptable that the ice cream counter or the soft-serve machine be located in full sunlight, exposed to outside air or that the ice cream be accessible to or touched by clients. However, this was the case in 11 locations.

The testing of 5 specific bacteriological parameters as well as the number of total germs gives a realistic image of the hygienic quality of the 70 samples analyzed. Fortunately the presence of Salmonella and Listeria was never detected, on the other hand, Escherichia coli (which can provoke enteritis or diarrhea) was detected in three cases. In two cases, staphylococcus was present, proof of a lack of the personnel’s hygiene.  …

Throughout the years and through successive studies, the results are obvious: the hygienic quality of ice cream is getting worse: 35% of ice cream cones and 61% of soft-serve are bad to mediocre. This is a completely unacceptable situation."

My friend Dave got into the bottled water biz in the 1980s in Hamilton, Ontario, providing those 5-gallon jugs for water dispensers at home and offices. I never was into that stuff, but the 5-gallon plastic carboys that people haul to the grocery store for a refill are excellent secondary fermentation vessels for home beer production.

But, for those who work in an office, the water cooler is, I’m told, the place for gossip, flirting and bacteria.

The Sunday Herald reports that tests for watchdog organization, Consumer Focus Scotland, found potentially dangerous bacteria in drinking water dispensers in workplaces, schools and care homes. The group says the dispensers need to be better cleaned and maintained, and that the Scottish government, along with the Food Standards Agency, should review existing legislation because it is difficult to enforce.

Environmental health officers found bacterial contamination in 23 out of 87 water dispensers sampled in Edinburgh, Lothian and Borders. They tested for five types of bacteria known to cause illness, particularly in people who are vulnerable due to frailty or ill-health.

Water from bottle-supplied coolers was the most contaminated, with 14 out of 35 samples containing bacteria. Eight samples showed the presence of coliform bacteria, usually associated with faeces, and three contained staphylococcus aureus, which can cause serious illnesses.

Nine of the 52 samples from plumbed-in coolers taking water from the mains were also found to be contaminated, sometimes by more than one type of bacteria.

The contamination is thought to be due to the poor hygiene habits of some drinkers. Unwashed hands, putting mouths to taps and refilling dirty bottles could all be to blame.