Education

  • Posted: March 29th, 2012 - 5:03pm by Doug Powell

    Political fodder is comedic gold.

    Satirists, like others, also eat.

    Jon Stewart loves cheeseburgers.

    The ingredients of public outrage over pink slime melded like a savory stew last night on the Daily Show to produce a potpourri of insights on how not to chat with people who eat.

    And it was so easy because the politicians and industry seem so hapless.

    U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack and Iowa Governor Terry Branstad held a press conference in Des Moines Wednesday afternoon to address concerns and educate the public about the processing of lean, finely textured beef, or LFTB.

    "That's why we're going to have people from Iowa State University and Texas A&M and knowledgeable people from USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture) counter the smear and counter the misinformation with the facts," said Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad.

    Facts are never enough. Otherwise rBST would be routinely used in dairy production, genetically-engineered foods would be flaunted not shunned, and irradiation would make pink slime redundant.

    Science is never enough in the public arena.

    Vilsack, a former Iowa governor, said education is especially important when a growing number of people are increasingly farther removed from agriculture.

    "The reality is a very small percentage of America's population produces 85% to 90% of what we consume.”

    I’m not sure what being a beef farmer has to do with meat processing that involves centrifuges.

    Stewart reasoned, "any food can be disgusting if you take its ingredients out of context." Perhaps the same thing was true of pink slime burgers?

    Stewart cut to an animated news report that explained the process for making pink slime: Waste trimmings are gathered, simmered at low heat to make it easier to separate fat from muscle, then put into a centrifuge, sprayed with ammonia gas to kill bacteria, compressed into bricks, flash-frozen and finally shipped to grocery stores nationwide, where it's added to ground beef. Yummy!

    He also expressed his admiration for the beef industry's preferred nomenclature, "lean, finely textured beef." "It makes it sound like something rich beef-eaters can buy from Hammacher Schlemmer," Stewart said. "It’s the cashmere of beef."

    Stewart also marveled at the irony of pink slime: "McDonald's doesn't think it's an appropriate thing to eat? These are the people who molded a pork disc into a rib-shaped sandwich ... that contains no ribs. Nobody knows how they did it! But this stuff, pink slime? That's too fake for McDonald's?"

    I can provide references for everything I say – that educating people is about the worst communications strategy because it invalidates and trivializes people’s thoughts. But that stuff is boring.

    Stewart says the same thing but in a way that is much more entertaining.

    Whenever a group says the public needs to be educated about food safety, biotechnology, trans fats, organics or anything else, that group has utterly failed to present a compelling case for their cause. Individuals can choose to educate themselves about all sorts of interesting things, but the idea of educating someone is doomed to failure. And it’s sorta arrogant to state that others need to be educated; to imply that if only you understood the world as I understand the world, we would agree and dissent would be minimized.

    Or as Stewart said, “You got rid of it because we found out it was pink slime.”

    Proponents of pink slime or any other technology shouldn’t expect consumers to roll over and accept it. They need to promote, brag and saturate microbial food safety claims in the marketplace. Otherwise, any farmer, processor or restaurant can be held hostage by a mere accusation – regardless of the science.

    Shoppers will support honest information, instead of being told they have to become better educated about someone else’s limited perspective.

    The Daily Show segment is available for U.S. viewers at http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-march-28-2012/march-28--2012---pt--2.

    Your rating: None (1 vote)
    Bookmark and Share
  • Posted: March 22nd, 2012 - 4:43pm by Doug Powell

    I worry about this every time my daughter’s school brings in chicks and other animals. And I always make sure to ask if they are testing for salmonella and what kind of controls are in place. And I complain about parents parking in the handicapped spots. They think I’m crazy, but I’ll show them. Except no one wins with salmonella either.

    The U.S. Centers for Disease Control is reporting that salmonella infections from contact with live poultry (chickens, ducks, turkeys, and geese) continue to be a public health problem.

    In summer 2011, two clusters of human Salmonella infections were identified through PulseNet, a molecular subtyping network for foodborne disease surveillance. Standard outbreak and traceback investigations were conducted. From February 25 to October 10, 2011, a cluster of 68 cases caused by Salmonella serotype Altona and a cluster of 28 cases caused by Salmonella Johannesburg were identified in 24 states. Among persons infected, 32% of those with Salmonella Altona and 75% of those with Salmonella Johannesburg were aged ≤5 years. Forty-two of 57 (74%) Salmonella Altona patients and 17 of 24 (71%) of Salmonella Johannesburg patients had contact with live poultry in the week preceding illness. Most patients or their parents reported purchasing chicks or ducklings from multiple locations of an agricultural feed store chain that was supplied by a single mail-order hatchery. Live poultry were purchased for either backyard flocks or as pets.

    Live poultry are commonly purchased from agricultural feed stores or directly from mail-order hatcheries; approximately 50 million chicks are sold annually in the United States. Since 1990, approximately 35 outbreaks of human Salmonella infections linked to contact with live poultry from mail-order hatcheries have been reported. These outbreaks highlight the ongoing risk for human Salmonella infections associated with live poultry contact, especially for young children.

    In response to this ongoing public health problem, officials with local, state, and federal public and animal health agencies, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's National Poultry Improvement Plan (USDA-NPIP), the mail-order hatchery industry, and other partners have collaborated to develop and implement a comprehensive Salmonella control strategy. Mail-order hatcheries should comply with management and sanitation practices outlined in the USDA-NPIP Salmonellaguidelines and should avoid the shipment of hatched chicks between multiple hatcheries before shipping to customers. Educational materials warning customers of the risk for Salmonella infection from live poultry contact are available and should be distributed with all live poultry purchases.
     

    Your rating: None (2 votes)
    Bookmark and Share
  • Posted: February 24th, 2012 - 4:35am by Doug Powell

    cantaloupe.salmonella.jpg

    Larry “Larry” Goodridge (right, exactly as shown) got it right when he said farmers bear primary responsibility for food safety and they shouldn’t rely on third-party audits, but should retroactively fail my risk analysis course for saying Colorado’s response to the listeria-in-cantaloupe outbreak that killed 36 people "was as close to perfect as we are going to see" and that "Our food supply is one of the safest in the world, if not the safest."

    Goodridge, an associate professor of food microbiology at Colorado State University, did follow up by telling the Governor's Forum on Colorado Agriculture yesterday, “But if you were to ask that question of family members who had someone die, they would tell you our food supply is not safe." Lots of people would say the food supply is not safe. Maybe about 48 million of them. Best to keep meaningless rankings out of the equation.

    He also said the state could improve by creating a team that activated within hours of an outbreak, and that the government should target spending on high-risk produce — in particular, by educating farmers who grow high-risk produce. More focus on food inspectors isn't likely to significantly improve the system. Larry urged farmers to focus on sanitary practices such as keeping equipment and storage areas clean. He also urged them to educate the public on ways to safely handle produce in the same manner as consumers are advised how to safely handle meat.

    As usual, no details were provided on how best to do this so-called education, for farmers or consumers.

    Farm Fresh Direct chief executive Jim Knutzon, said he expects the federal government will write more specific regulations for growing cantaloupe and other produce. Then third-party auditors — hired by farms to inspect their operations — will have to check for specific standards called for by the Food and Drug Administration.

    Your rating: None (1 vote)
    Bookmark and Share
  • Posted: January 4th, 2012 - 6:04am by Doug Powell

    People from well-educated families are almost twice as likely to suffer from some dangerous food allergies as others — possibly because their bodies’ natural defences have been lowered by rigorous hygiene and infection control, suggests a new Canadian study.

    The research from McGill University also found that immigrants were about half as likely to be afflicted by the allergies, perhaps reflecting differences in diet and environment between their countries of origin and Canada.

    The study, just published in the Journal of Allergy, was meant to address an enduring medical mystery: Why have so many people in certain industrialized countries developed violent reactions to peanuts, shellfish and other foods in recent decades?

    The link to higher education may be explained by what is called the hygiene hypothesis, the unproven idea that smaller families, cleaner homes, more use of antibiotics to treat infections and vaccines to prevent them have curbed development of the immune system, said Dr. Moshe Ben-Shoshan, who led the research. That in turn could make some people more susceptible to allergy.

    If the hypothesis does actually explain some food reactions, though, parents may not be able to do much about it, admitted the allergist at Montreal Children’s Hospital. The benefits of such health products as antibiotics and vaccines easily outweigh the risk of children developing serious allergies, said Dr. Ben-Shoshan.
    “We can’t suggest we become dirtier and expose our children to more bacteria,” he said. “If the price of having fewer allergies is more infection, I don’t know any parent who would expose their child to more infection.”

    The study’s findings are far from conclusive but they, and the hygiene hypothesis as an explanation, seem plausible, said Dr. Stuart Carr, president of the Canadian Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology. He also cautioned, however, that translating the knowledge into preventive action would be complicated.

    Your rating: None (2 votes)
    Bookmark and Share
  • Posted: October 10th, 2011 - 4:10am by Doug Powell

    I cringe when someone says, ‘food safety is simple.’

    A review of existing studies by the U.K. Food Standards Agency found that, although people “are often aware of good food hygiene practices, many people are failing to chill foods properly, aren’t following advice on food labels and aren’t sticking to simple hygiene practices that would help them avoid spreading harmful bacteria around their kitchens.”

    Yes, individuals are impervious to risk; been known for decades.

    And there’s that word, ‘simple’ again.

    I especially cringe when someone says, ‘cooking a hamburger is easy with these simple food safety steps.’

    Ho Phang and Christine Bruhn report in the current Journal of Food Protection that in video observation of 199 California consumers making hamburgers and salad in their own kitchens, handwashing was poor, only 4% used a thermometer to check if the burger was safely cooked, and there were an average of 43 cross-contamination events per household.

    There’s some good data in the paper about what consumers do in their own kitchens, and the results are an additional nail in the self-reported-food-safety-survey coffin: people know what they are supposed to do but don’t do it.

    But what the paper doesn’t address is how to influence food safety behaviors. Instead, the University of California at Davis authors fall back on the people-need-to-be-educated model, without out providing data on how that education – I prefer compelling information – should be provided.

    The authors state:

    • educational materials need to emphasize the important role of the consumer in
    preventing foodborne illness and that foodborne illnesses can result from foods prepared in the home.;

    • the gap between the awareness of the importance of hand washing and the actual practice of adequate hand washing should be addressed by food safety educators.

    • food safety educators should address the lack of reliability of visual cues during cooking (stick it in -- dp);

    • food safety educators should emphasize faucet cleaning with soap and water as a way of preventing cross-contamination; and,

    • ignorance about food irradiation point to a further need for education.

    The authors do correctly note that program to promote the use of thermometers when cooking burgers, initiated by the introduction of Thermy in 2000, has not been successful. So why do more education?

    And the E. coli O157:H7 outbreak in Jack-in-the-Box hamburgers happened in Jan. 1993, not 1994 as stated in the paper; someone should have caught that.

    Burger preparation: what consumers say and do in the home
    01.oct.11
    Journal of Food Protection®, Volume 74, Number 10, October 2011 , pp. 1708-1716(9)
    Phang, Ho S.; Bruhn, Christine M.
    http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/iafp/jfp/2011/00000074/00000010/art00017
    Abstract:
    Ground beef has been linked to outbreaks of pathogenic bacteria like Escherichia coli O157:H7 and Salmonella. Consumers may be exposed to foodborne illness through unsafe preparation of ground beef. Video footage of 199 volunteers in Northern California preparing hamburgers and salad was analyzed for compliance with U.S. Department of Agriculture recommendations and for violations of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's Food Code 2009. A questionnaire about consumer attitudes and knowledge about food safety was administered after each filming session. The majority of volunteers, 78%, cooked their ground beef patties to the Food Code 2009 recommended internal temperature of 155°F (ca. 68°C) or above, and 70% cooked to the U.S. Department of Agriculture consumer end-point guideline of 160°F (ca. 71°C), with 22% declaring the burger done when the temperature was below 155°F. Volunteers checked burger doneness with a meat thermometer in 4% of households. Only 13% knew the recommended internal temperature for ground beef. The average hand washing time observed was 8 s; only 7% of the hand washing events met the recommended guideline of 20 s. Potential cross-contamination was common, with an average of 43 events noted per household. Hands were the most commonly observed vehicle of potential cross-contamination. Analysis of food handling behaviors indicates that consumers with and without food safety training exposed themselves to potential foodborne illness even while under video observation. Behaviors that should be targeted by food safety educators are identified.
     

    Your rating: None (1 vote)
    Bookmark and Share
  • Posted: August 31st, 2011 - 11:00pm by Doug Powell

    It’s the first day of spring in Australia, which means daughter Courtlynn is heading back to the Northern Hemisphere to start school, the temperature is soaring, and an entire month awaits of unverified, repetitious and banal food safety messages aimed at consumers.

    The Brits got an early start about a week ago.

    The Food Standards Agency published a review of existing studies that explore how people manage food safety in their homes.

    The report found that, although they are often aware of good food hygiene practices, many people are failing to chill foods properly, aren’t following advice on food labels and aren’t sticking to simple hygiene practices that would help them avoid spreading harmful bacteria around their kitchens. People often know what they should be doing, but they don’t put this knowledge into practice, believing they are not vulnerable to food poisoning.

    Yes, individuals are impervious to risk; been known for decades.

    There’s oodles of material to pick through in the full report, but my favorite is this: people have a low level of awareness of recommended good practice with respect to cooking (correct final cooked temperature).

    Maybe FSA should stop telling people to cook things until they are ‘piping hot.’

    Food safety isn’t just a consumer thing – it’s an everybody thing. Forget the farm groups and industries that fund the blame-consumers approach. What did consumers have to do with outbreaks involving peanut butter, pizza, pot pies, pet food, pepper and produce (washing don’t do much). That’s just the Ps.

    Reciting prescriptive instructions – cook, clean, chill, separate – like some fascist country line dancing instructor benefits no one. Food safety is complex, and it takes effort.
     

    Your rating: None (2 votes)
    Bookmark and Share
  • Posted: June 17th, 2011 - 12:42pm by Doug Powell

    Maybe I’m losing something in translation, but Xinhua reports that experts in China have called for strengthening moral education to ensure food safety following a string of scandals in recent months.

    Zhao Chenggen, an expert at the School of Government at Peking University, said on Wednesday that to promote moral education is conducive to urging food producers to place a higher value on public health.

    Under the influence of moral cultivation, food producers could enhance their subjective consciousness to resist ill-gotten gains through adding toxic materials into food, he said.

    "Moral decline in the food industry is more terrible than that in social communications," said another expert, Xu Yaotong, a professor of political science at the National School of Administration.

    Premier Wen Jiabao said, "A country without the improved quality of its people and the power of morality will never grow into a mighty and respected power.”

    Wen said that advancing the moral and cultural construction would help safeguard normal production, life and social order, as well as to eradicate the stain of swindling, corruption and other illegal conduct.

    Your rating: None (3 votes)
    Bookmark and Share
  • Posted: August 5th, 2010 - 8:33am by Doug Powell

    There are some recurring myths in the public discussion of foodborne illness and the reasons 76 million Americans barf every year from the food and water they consume, and the New York Times is recycling them all.

    Author Eric Schlosser (“Unsafe at Any Meal,” New York Times, Op-Ed, July 25) overstates the protective role of government while casting aspersions against what he calls industrial agricultural and unchecked corporate power. His rant on the Colbert Report last year was legendary.

    Henry Miller who used to do biotechnology work at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration writes in the Times this morning, “The vast majority of food poisoning is caused by individuals’ mishandling of food; common lapses include the mishandling or undercooking of poultry and the inadequate refrigeration of food. More expansive, expensive, onerous regulation is not the answer; better education of consumers is.”

    Our review of the data found a complete mish-mash about where “the vast majority of food poisoning illness is caused” and that no conclusions could be drawn. Produce, pot pies, pet food and pizzas don’t have much to do with consumers. And how would this better education be conducted?

    If someone wrote in and said Americans have the safest food supply in the world, all the big three mythologies would be represented.

    Food safety is not simple and the public discussion – which affects individual behaviors from farm-to-fork – is a mess.
     

    Your rating: None (5 votes)
    Bookmark and Share
  • Posted: June 8th, 2010 - 3:40pm by Doug Powell

    Toronto-based Blue Rodeo’s Five Days in July was my favorite album of 1993 (at least the first 6 tunes). The song, Hasn’t Hit Me Yet, remains evocative. I got to meet-and-greet the band at one of those corporate concert thingies when they performed for the Canadian Council of Grocery Distributers in 2003.

    Chapman got to see them last night somewhere in North Carolina (right, exactly as shown). About 100 people showed up.

    I talk about good music because it makes me smile. When I hear about how people want to educate consumers, it makes me frown.

    Some people write in peer-reviewed journals, some people pontificate. Me and Chapman and some Blue Rodeo groupies have written several papers about how to get the attention of food handlers, at home, in food service or on the farm, in the same way a catchy tune gets peoples’ attention.

    Others say, educate consumers.

    Kansas State University meat scientist James Marsden says he hears it over and over again – that there’s a need to better educate consumers about proper food handling and cooking. Such an effort could go a long way in minimizing the risk of foodborne illness.

    Maybe Marsden should listen to other folks. Marsden did acknowledge, that food safety is everyone’s responsibility – from the producer to the processor to the consumer.

    I’m all for providing food safety information in a compelling, creative and critically-sound manner. However education is something people do themselves.

    Lewis Lapham wrote in Harper’s magazine in the mid-1980s about how individuals can choose to educate themselves about all sorts of interesting things, but the idea of educating someone is doomed to failure. Oh, and it’s sorta arrogant to state that others need to be educated; to imply that if only you understood the world as I understand the world, we would agree and dissent would be minimized.

    These may be subtle semantics – to communicate with rather than to; to inform rather than educate – but they set an important tone.

    I know this is repetitive. Guess it hasn’t hit me yet.

    Your rating: None (1 vote)
    Bookmark and Share
  • Posted: March 22nd, 2010 - 3:36pm by Doug Powell

    I started picking people up about 7 p.m. Amanda, Sarah, Janis, Lynn and Marty.

    Marty was last and not ready, as usual.

    Marty had no reason going to the first food safety educators conference in Washington, D.C. in 1997. He was working as a student life advisor or something but, I had gotten in the habit of taking Marty along on the 12-hour D.C. road trip from Guelph –got lost once in some New York mountains in the middle of the night and thought we were going to die – for fun and driving chores.

    The 1996 Nissan Quest minivan still had the new car smell, and as a new prof with a carload of students, I decided driving all night was better than dishing out non-existent cash for an extra night of hotel rooms.

    We arrived in Georgetown about 7:30 a.m., ate at a dive, and found the on-campus conference room. People looked at us like we had just rolled out of a vehicle and been driving all night.

    We had.

    Most of us went and changed into fresh clothes, while Marty crashed somewhere until the room was available.

    The conference started and we were pumped.

    I may have fallen asleep.

    I remember that Peter Sandman gave a keynote and was treated like a rock star – I thought he was ineffectual, especially when it came to the hazard and outrage around foodborne illness.

    There were descriptions of many food safety education programs but the evaluation components were either non-existent or sucked.

    There was a big deal about social marketing, presented to the attendees like we had all arrived on the short bus.

    I remember going out to a Georgetown bar later that night, watching The Truth About Cats and Dogs in the hotel room while Marty farted, and commenting that Janis looked like Janeane Garofalo. I remember the drive home.

    I don’t remember much about the conference.

    Which is why I haven’t gone back.

    Tomorrow, the International 2010 Food Safety Education Conference kicks off in Atlanta and its focus is to identify “communication and education strategies to increase the public’s knowledge of the causes of foodborne illnesses and improve food safety practices.”

    Admirable goals. But what has happened since 1997?

    I’m all for providing food safety information in a compelling, creative and critically-sound manner. However education is something people do themselves. Lewis Lapham wrote in Harper’s magazine in the mid-1980s about how individuals can choose to educate themselves about all sorts of interesting things, but the idea of educating someone is doomed to failure. Oh, and it’s sorta arrogant to state that others need to be educated; to imply that if only you understood the world as I understand the world, we would agree and dissent would be minimized.

    These may be subtle semantics – to communicate with rather than to; to inform rather than educate – but they set an important tone.

    At least it’s not a consumer food safety education conference. With outbreaks in pizza, pot pies, pet food, peanut butter, bagged spinach, carrot juice, lettuce, tomatoes, canned chili sauce, hot peppers, cookie dough, and white pepper, I’m not sure what consumers have to do with it.

    Chapman is going, apparently as part of a southeast IKEA tour for his wife, and also to present a paper we wrote entitled, I updated my Facebook status to ‘I just got food poisoning:’ using social networking services (SNS) to communicate food safety risks. The abstract is below.

    Bill Marler says he’s gong to educate consumers by handing out refrigerator magnets at the conference.

    Me, I’ll be hanging out somewhat east of the 100th meridian, wondering why Americans don’t understand The Tragically Hip (especially the early stuff). 

    Chapman, B. and Powell, D. 2010. I updated my Facebook status to “I just got food poisoning”: using social networking services (SNS) to communicate food safety risks. FSIS/NSF Food Safety Education Conference. March 24, 2010. Atlanta Georgia.

    Up to 30 per cent of individuals in developed countries become ill from the food and water they consume each year. Recent outbreaks of foodborne illness involving produce, peanut butter and potpies have further elevated the public discussion of microbial food safety risks. With the expansion and ease-of-use of non-traditional, Internet-based communication tools such as Facebook, Twitter, Wikipedia, YouTube and blogs, individuals are discussing high-profile food crises online. As an estimated 60 per cent of online American adults use SNS, an opportunity exists to utilize these communities to engage individuals around foodborne risks by providing information and establishing relationships, to prepare for or mitigate potential catastrophic incidents. The rapid dialogue between individuals with common food safety interests can impact belief formation and affect food decisions. Using case study methodology and media analysis of the coverage of recent outbreaks of E. coli O157 linked to spinach and Salmonella linked to fresh tomatoes and peppers, a catalogue of mediums and will be presented. Through examples gleaned from barfblog.com and bites.ksu.edu an online food safety communication template and strategies for food safety communicators will also be presented. Understanding target audiences, using communication technology while providing rapid messages can enhance both risk management awareness and trust with stakeholders.  Communicators developing food risk behavior change programs can be more effective by monitoring and utilizing diverse media to adjust strategies and maintain message relevance.

    Your rating: None (2 votes)
    Bookmark and Share