Outbreaks

  • Posted: March 9th, 2010 - 4:03am by Doug Powell

    Are small farms incompatible with food safety rules?

    Deborah Stockton, executive director of the National Independent Consumers and Farmers Association (NICFA), said today,

    "Small farms produce the safest food available, without regulation. … Just like family farms brought us out of the Great Depression, they can bring us out of the food safety problem and this recession, if they are allowed to thrive.”

    Sounds like someone is compensating for inadequacy issues and responding with exaggeration, like a 50-year-old in a Miata rag-top.

    The idea that food grown and consumed locally is somehow safer than other food, either because it contacts fewer hands or any outbreaks would be contained, is the product of wishful thinking.


    Maybe the majority of foodborne outbreaks come from large farms because the vast majority of food and meals is consumed from food produced on large farms. To accurately compare local and other food, a database would have to somehow be constructed so that a comparison of illnesses on a per capita meal or even ingredient basis could be made.

    NICFA is gonna lobby Washington, D.C. types and then hold a local foods feast for Congress tomorrow night. I hope no one gets sick – faith-based food safety is a lousy approach.

    Your rating: None (2 votes)
    Bookmark and Share
  • Posted: March 3rd, 2010 - 2:17pm by Ben Chapman

    Author: 
    Ben Chapman

    At the start of pretty much every talk I’ve given in the past 3 years I have a slide about the societal cost and estimated burden of foodborne illness. I somewhat robotically spout out these two statistics:

    - About 1-in 3 to 1-in-4 individuals will acquire illnesses from food each year
    - The societal burden of these illnesses is estimated to be $1.4 trillion

    The statistics I use come from a variety of sources including USDA Economic Research Service, WHO, CDC, Canadian health officials and Australian public health.

    Today I woke up to a press release from the Produce Safety Coalition, the Make our Food Safe Coalition and the Pew Charitable Trust that cited a “landmark  study” estimating the cost of foodborne illness to be $152 billion annually.


    From the report:
    There are a number of ways to estimate the economic impact of foodborne illness. This report uses an FDA cost-estimate approach: health-related costs are the sum of medical costs (physician services, pharmaceuticals, and hospital costs) and losses to quality of life (lost life expectancy, pain and suffering, and functional disability).

    Hardly landmark, unless you mean this estimate represents  a reduction of almost a factor of 10 in estimated costs since 2007 (I don’t think that was what was intended). Tanya Roberts published a paper in 2007 estimating the cost of foodborne illness from a willingness-to-pay (WTP) standpoint at $1.4 trillion. According to Roberts, WTP is endorsed in the literature as the valuation method most consistent with economic theory and her calculation included all seventy-six million cases of acute food-borne illness. Previous estimates examined only a few specific pathogens.

    Sure, the numbers matter when it comes to prioritizing the need to address or fund food safety work. Whether it’s $6 billion, $152 billion, $1.4 trillion or $2,500-$8,000 per case (pathogen dependant) it’s a huge number. But it’s also very abstract.

    The statistics are nice, but they really don’t grab foodhandlers’ attention. More compelling is where the real cost of foodborne illness is born: with the individuals and in the families of those who have been affected by it. Billions and trillions are fodder for discussions with politicians and boards of directors. Where the real food safety work occurs, both positive and negative, is on the farm, in the restaurant kitchen, supermarket deli and homes. And the numbers don’t really matter there, what resonates is that foodborne illness sucks.

    What matters so much more to individual food handlers who protect public health in the US are the stories of real people being affected by food they trusted would not make them ill.

    The disconnect between statistics and stories is why I follow up the burden slide with more impactful tales of outbreaks that happen weekly.  Like those who have affected real people including Mason Jones and Stephanie Smith both of whom were severely affected by E. coli O157. Tragically, Mason died at only 5 years of age and Stephanie, who is now 23, will probably never walk again.  The numbers, while nice, don’t really do these stories justice.

     

    Your rating: None (5 votes)
    Bookmark and Share
  • Posted: January 5th, 2010 - 12:00am by Doug Powell

    Author: 
    Doug Powell

    USA Today today says the U.S. Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta recorded just 13 outbreaks of gastrointestinal illness on cruise ships in 2009, down from 15 in 2008, 21 in 2007 and 34 in 2006.

    The decline, moreover, came even as the number of people cruising continued to rise. The Cruise Lines International Association says the industry carried 13.2 million passengers in 2008, the last year for which data is available, up from 12.6 million in 2007 and 12.0 million in 2006.

    Cruise ships arriving in U.S. ports must report all cases of gastrointestinal illness treated by on-board medical staff to the CDC's Vessel Sanitation Program division, and a separate notification is required when the number of cases exceeds 2% of passengers and crew. When the number of cases exceeds 3% of passengers and crew the CDC issues a public report.

    Your rating: None
    Bookmark and Share
    Norovirus  |  0 Comments
    Barf, Cdc, Cruise, Outbreaks, Ship, Vomit
  • Posted: September 14th, 2009 - 8:52pm by Ben Chapman

    Because of a historical risk, leafy greens have been identified by the US FDA as a priority with in fresh produce safety (along with tomatoes, melons, sprouts and fresh herbs).

    Here's why: over 1300 illnesses in at least 34 outbreaks since 1993. See the below table for more details (or download it here).

     

    Your rating: None
    Bookmark and Share
  • Posted: January 20th, 2009 - 4:22pm by Ben Chapman

    KETV in Omaha is reporting that Girl Scout cookies are safe to eat -- the peanut butter products that are used to make them are not produced by Peanut Corp of America:

    The peanut butter supplier associated with the recent salmonella outbreak does not supply peanut butter to Girl Scout Cookies, according to the Girl Scouts organization.

    The Girl Scout organization's supplier is Hampton Farms in North Carolina.

    In the somewhat-related-to-food-safety category, a man who helped create the science behind the microwave oven has died. Robert Decareau of Amherst, NH passed away on Sunday at 82.

    According to his family, Decareau was a Massachusetts native who went to work for Raytheon after earning his doctorate in chemistry. It was there that he started working on microwave energy food applications, and he was one of the first to call himself a food scientist.

    Decareau's daughter, Karen Ross of Auburn, Maine, says she remembers her father experimenting with a refrigerator-sized prototype microwave oven in the family's basement in the 1960s.

    Frozen, raw or partially cooked foods have been problematic for consumers -- especially when they contain pathogens.  There have been at least eight outbreaks linked to, as Doug likes to call them, chicken thingies since 1998.  Using a microwave has been reported as a factor in these outbreaks. Pot pies have also been linked to microwave problems. Uneven heat distribution makes microwaving a not-so-good method to cook raw foods especially if digital tip-sensitive thermometers aren't used.  Sarah DeDonder presented some of our research at IAFP last year on microwave cooking practices in a model kitchen. A paper on the research will be published later this year.

    Dedonder, S., Powell, D.A., Jacob, C., Surgeoner, B., Chapman, B., and Phebus, R. 2008. Beyond Intent -- Direct Observation Of Meal Preparation Procedures In A Home Kitchen Setting.

    Abstract

    Purpose – This study used a novel video capture system to observe the food preparation practices of 41 consumers – 21 primary meal preparers and 20 adolescents – in a mock domestic kitchen using uncooked, frozen, breaded chicken products, and to determine if differences exist between consumers’ reported safe food handling practices and actual food handling behavior as prescribed on current product labels.

    Design/methodology/approach – A convenience sample was utilized and all participants were video-recorded preparing food in one-of-two model kitchens at Kansas State University. Participants were asked to complete a survey reporting food handling behaviors that would be typical of their own home kitchen.

    Findings – Differences between self-reported and observed food safety behaviors were seen across both groups of consumers. Many participants reported owning a food thermometer (73 per cent) and indicated using one when cooking raw, breaded chicken entrées (19.5 per cent); however, only five participants were observed measuring the final internal temperature with a food thermometer despite instructions on the product packaging to do so; only three used the thermometer correctly.

    Significance – Data collected through direct observation more accurately reflects consumer food handling behaviors than data collected through self-reported surveys, and label instructions are rarely followed.

    Originality/value – This study contributes to the overall understanding of consumer behaviors associated with consumers’ intentions and actual behaviors while preparing meat and poultry products, such as frozen, uncooked, breaded chicken products.

    Your rating: None
    Bookmark and Share
  • Posted: December 16th, 2008 - 10:52pm by Doug Powell

    With disease outbreaks linked to unpasteurized milk rising in the United States, a review published in the January 1, 2009 issue of Clinical Infectious Diseases examines the dangers of drinking raw milk.

    Milk and dairy products are cornerstones of a healthy diet. However, if those products are consumed unpasteurized, they can present a serious health hazard because of possible contamination with pathogenic bacteria. An average of 5.2 outbreaks per year linked to raw milk have occurred in the United States between 1993 and 2006—more than double the rate in the previous 19 years, according to co-authors Jeffrey T. LeJeune and Päivi J. Rajala-Schultz of the College of Veterinary Medicine in Columbus, Ohio. …

    Raw milk advocates claim that unpasteurized milk cures or prevents disease, but no scientific evidence supports this notion. Testing raw milk, which has been suggested as an alternative to pasteurization, cannot ensure a product that is 100 percent safe and free of pathogens. Pasteurization remains the best way to reduce the unavoidable risk of contamination, according to the authors.

    Your rating: None
    Bookmark and Share