Science

  • Posted: March 31st, 2011 - 8:02am by Doug Powell

    Is cooking food until it’s ‘piping hot’ a science-based recommendation?

    The Food Standards Agency has published its updated Strategy to 2015, Safer food for the nation with five core principles:

    • putting the consumer first;
    • openness and transparency;
    • science and evidence-based;
    • acting independently; and,
    • enforcing food law fairly.

    And six core outcomes:

    • foods produced or sold in the UK are safe to eat;
    • imported food is safe to eat;
    • food producers and caterers give priority to consumer interests in relation to food;
    • consumers have the information and understanding they need to make informed choices about where and what they eat;
    • regulation is effective, risk-based and proportionate, is clear about the responsibilities of food business operators, and protects consumers and their interests from fraud and other risks; and,
    • enforcement is effective, consistent, risk-based and proportionate and is focused on improving public health.

    Sounds great. But what are the details?

    Of the estimated £135m annual budget, £20m is allocated to ensuring consumers have information necessary to make informed food choices, with priorities for improving public awareness about good food hygiene at home; increasing visible information on hygiene standards when consumers eat out or shop; and improving public awareness of healthy eating.

    For that amount of money, the science-based FSA could do much better than telling citizens their meat is safe when it’s “piping hot” and “the juices run clear.”

    Piping hot is not science or evidence-based; color is a lousy indicator of safety; using a tip-sensitive digital thermometer is the only safe way to determine if food has reached a safe temperature.

    FSA also states “The strategy is written in a way that consumers can understand and explains the range of work we do across the UK.“

    It’s not clear whether anyone asked consumers if they could understand, but FSA did state one of its main priorities was to “improve public awareness and use of messages about good food hygiene practice at home.”

    Use of messages improves nothing; using practices recommended in messages may translate into fewer sick people, but those messages need to be evidence-based.
     

    Your rating: None (1 vote)
    Bookmark and Share
  • Posted: March 24th, 2011 - 11:52am by Doug Powell

    Modernist Cuisine is a six-volume, 2,438-page set that is destined to reinvent cooking. And it may. The reviews have been glowing.

    Sam Sifton of the New York Times writes today that Modernist Cuisine “is the first modern cookbook to range into the territory of the Larousse Gastronomique, a heretofore unparalleled culinary reference book first published in 1938, and of Escoffier’s expansive Guide Culinaire, from 1903. It is larger and more far lavishly illustrated than either, with photographs that make both deep-frying and the extrusion of gel noodles appear to be miracles on the order of Caravaggio.”

    One of the authors got the Colbert bump last night (see video below).

    I’m all for science and cooking, although I wonder what the authors would have to say about science used to bolster the quality and supply of ingredients – genetically engineered foods, growth promotants, pesticides and others.

    I don’t know because I haven’t read the book, but I have read a piece the three authors -- Nathan Myhrvold, a former chief technology officer at Microsoft and CEO of Intellectual Ventures, Chris Young, who opened the experimental kitchen at The Fat Duck, and Maxime Bilet, who was head chef at Jack's Luxury Oyster Bar and then on the development team with Heston Blumenthal at The Fat Duck – penned for Scientific American chastising U.S. regulators for babying consumers and recommending cooking temperatures and times far beyond those supported by science.

    The Scientific American blog post is best characterized by selective referencing and incomplete claims – the playbook for rhetorical argumentation.

    The authors say that “during a recent outbreak of Escherichia coli linked to contaminated fresh spinach in the United States (is 2006 recent?), public health authorities initially told consumers, retailers, and restaurants to throw out all spinach, often directly stating in public announcements that it could not be made safe by cooking it.

    “This assertion is scientifically incorrect: E. coli is very easy to kill with heat.
    Evidently the officials decided that oversimplifying the public message was better than telling the truth. They may have feared that if people cooked contaminated spinach to make it safe to eat, but either didn’t cook it sufficiently or cross-contaminated other food or kitchen surfaces in the process, more fatalities would result. The authorities must have decided that the benefits of avoiding multiple accidental deaths far outweighed the costs of simply tossing out all spinach. In this case they probably were right to make that decision. The cost of some spinach is small compared to the misery and expense of hospitalization.”

    “Oversimplifying for the sake of public safety is a very reasonable thing to do in the midst of an outbreak or other health crisis. It may well have saved lives to lie to the public and announce things that, strictly speaking, are false (for example, that you can’t kill E. coli with heat).”

    This is nonsensical. Cross-contamination while preparing the spinach was the primary concern and is by far the biggest risk in home and food service kitchens. We and others have done the research.

    The authors ask, “Who pushes back against nonsensical rules? The reality is that the only groups that push back are those that have political clout.”

    Blame the man.

    Myself and others have been promoting an evidence-based approach to food safety guidelines for decades, and as food safety nerds, we got no political clout.

    The authors say that “millions of servings of rare beef steak or completely raw steak tartare or carpaccio are served every day, so if that meat were inherently dangerous, we’d certainly know by now. Scientific investigation has confirmed the practice is reasonably safe—almost invariably, muscle interiors are sterile and pathogen-free. That’s true for any meat, actually, but only beef is singled out by the FDA. The cultural significance of eating raw and rare beef, as much as the science, accounts for the FDA’s leniency in allowing beef steak to be served at any internal temperature.”

    There is a huge microbiological difference between a muscle cut that can be seared on the outside, and hamburger or any beef cut that is ground up so external pathogens are internalized. It’s not culture – it’s microbiology.

    “Cultural and political factors also explain why cheese made from raw milk is considered safe in France yet viewed with great skepticism in the United States. Traditional cheese-making techniques, used correctly and with proper quality controls, eliminate pathogens without the need for milk pasteurization. Millions of people safely consume raw milk cheese in France, and any call to ban such a fundamental part of French culture would meet with enormous resistance there.”

    That’s the stereotype, but when Amy and I were in France in 2007, two of France’s (and thus the world’s) top lait cru Camembert producers, Lactalis and Isigny-Sainte-Mère, announced they were forgoing the status of “Appellation d’Origine Contrôlée” and switching to cheese made exclusively with heat-treated micro-filtered milk (not quite pasteurized but still an affront to purists).

    Lactilis’ spokesperson, Luc Morelon said that although they recognize the importance of Camembert traditions, they’re making the change “[b]ecause consumer safety is paramount, and we cannot guarantee it 100 per cent. We cannot accept the risk of seeing our historic brands disappearing because of an accident in production." In response to his critics Morelon added, “I don't want to risk sending any more children to hospital. It's as simple as that." Others believe that Lactilis simply cannot produce the quantities they want and keep using raw milk. According to the Telegraph, Lactilis’ and Isigny’s decision to opt out has now put pressure on the AOC to accept pasteurized milk. It all boils down to business.

    Sure, blame the man.

    “The United States, however, lacks a broadly recognized culture of making or eating raw milk cheeses. Not coincidentally, health officials have imposed inconsistent regulations on such cheeses. Raw milk cheese aged less than 60 days cannot be imported into the United States and cannot legally cross U.S. state lines. Yet in 24 of the 50 states, it is perfectly legal to make, sell, and consume raw milk cheeses within the state. In most of Canada raw milk cheese is banned, but in the province of Quebec it is legal.”

    Do you know how many people got sick and how many miscarriaged due to listeria in raw milk cheese in Quebec in 2008? The 60-day rule is scientifically dumb; that’s why it’s being reviewed.

    “Technically, destruction of Salmonella can take place at temperatures as low as 48 degrees C / 120 degrees F given enough time. There is no scientific reason to prefer any one point on the reduction curve, but the experts who formulated the FSIS ready-to-eat standards arbitrarily decided to go no lower than 58 degrees C / 136 degrees F .”

    Yes, you've got the time-temperature thing down -- food safety 101. But us mere mortals don’t necessarily have endless hours to cook chicken. Or pastrami (see below).

    As a sidenote, two of the authors worked at The Fat Duck, which sickened 529 diners with norovirus, not just via the raw oysters they served, but by failing to report cases of sick people to public health types, poor record keeping, and allowing sick employees to continue working.

    Modernist Cuisine may be an awesome science-based cookbook, and I agree that rules need to be continually challenged; it’s also important to get it microbiologically correct. 

    The Colbert Report Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
    Nathan Myhrvold
    www.colbertnation.com
    Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog Video Archive
    Your rating: None (4 votes)
    Bookmark and Share
  • Posted: July 19th, 2010 - 8:26pm by Doug Powell

    The world's food system provides food for nearly seven billion people each day. But according to a new report from the Institute of Food Technologists (IFT), more advances are critical for an adequate food supply, which must nearly double during the next several decades, for the future world population.

    The first-of-its-kind scientific review, to be published in the September 2010 issue of the peer-reviewed journal Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety, takes a historical look at the food system, the many challenges ahead, and the crucial role of food science and technology in meeting the needs of the growing population.

    The report summarizes the historical developments of agriculture and food technology, details various food manufacturing methods, and explains why food is processed. The report also describes and stresses why further advancements in food science and technology are needed -- to more equitably meet growing world population food needs with enhanced food security in developing countries and solutions to complex diet-and-health challenges in industrialized countries.
    Impact of Modern Food Manufacturing Methods

    John Floros, PhD, of the Pennsylvania State University Department of Food Science said,

    "Thanks to food science and technology and modern food manufacturing methods, nutritional deficiencies and inconsistent food availability can be addressed, harvests can be protected, and various commodities can be transformed into new products having specific nutrients for better health and wellness. However, this success has distanced consumers from the agricultural origins of today's food products and understanding of why processing is important. As a result, there are concerns and misconceptions regarding food safety, and the food system's effect on health and the environment.”

    Uh-oh. That sounds condescending.
     

    Your rating: None (3 votes)
    Bookmark and Share
  • Posted: June 14th, 2010 - 6:56am by Doug Powell

    A report in the U.K. Times says that celebrity chef Heston Blumenthal was just 19 years old when the way he thought about food was changed for ever. Food writer Harold McGee had just published a book at a time when people thought that science had very little to do with cooking, setting Blumenthal on what was to become his mission in life - using science to create his now famous culinary masterpieces.

    A little more science may have informed chef that poop happens to oyster beds, it’s a good thing to check out suppliers, and people who are sick shouldn’t be serving food – that’s how to make over 500 people sick, like your restaurant did in 2009.
     

    Your rating: None (3 votes)
    Bookmark and Share
  • Posted: October 20th, 2008 - 11:38pm by Doug Powell

    I cringe every time I’m called an expert.

    I know a little bit about how to coach girl’s hockey, I know how to make graduate students cry, I know a few other things involving chocolate. I’m amazed at what I don’t know about food and food safety.

    But we’re all experts cause we all eat.

    The Boston Globe asked some alleged experts about their food concerns.

    Dr. Anita Barry of Hingham, director of the infectious disease bureau for the Boston Public Health Commission, says she focuses on washing all produce and she only uses plastic-made cutting boards because wooden ones can have germ-trapped cracks.

    Washing produce removes little in the way of pathogens – has to be minimized on the farm – and wooden cutting boards are fine.

    Zach Conrad of Brighton, a former co-odinator at the nonprofit Center for Food Safety in Washington, D.C., believes that today's organic farmers take greater care around sanitation and safety issues.

    Sorry Zach, absolutely no evidence for that.

    Lilian Schaer has a unique theory on why there is an E. coli O157:H7 outbreak associated with a Harvey’s restaurant in North Bay, Ontario.

    “At Harvey’s, frozen beef patties are grilled once you place your order - and there is plenty of room for error in that process, especially if the restaurant is busy, there isn’t enough staff, or staff aren’t trained or supervised properly.”

    So why aren’t there other outbreaks at Harvey’s across Canada? Lilian also says farmers are great and bad handling is where things go wrong. Today she called E. coli O157:H7 a virus. Lilian is a communications specialist, apparently trained at Guelph.

    Gina Mallet reacted to the Michael Schmidt raw milk conviction today by saying

    “Michael Schmidt's raw milk has never been found to have listeria or e coli, none of his customers have turned up in intensive care.  People who buy raw milk know there's an outside risk of a pathogen in unpasteurized milk.

    "But no one who ate the listeria laced deli meat and now, the  e-coli burgers from a North Bay Wendy's knew they were dicing with death when they ate processed and fast food. … Fact is, and the government knows it, that the dirty human hand is a greater danger to our food than not pasteurizing milk.”


    It’s a Harvey’s in North Bay. And Gina, you don’t know if Schmidt’s milk has made someone sick or not. It’s OK to say, I don’t know. The dirty hand? Sure, but I follow the poop, some of which is on the hand, some elsewhere.
     

    Your rating: None
    Bookmark and Share
  • Posted: October 30th, 2007 - 6:29pm by Doug Powell

    We had our first, monthly, Food Science Café, last night, and while numbers were small, I still believe that, if you build it, they will come.

    As long as it's useful.

    Adrianna Deweese of the Kansas State Collegian wrote that Douglas Powell, scientific director of the International Food Safety Network at K-State, said the purpose of the monthly discussions is to talk about food safety and science in a different setting than a classroom.

    Powell showed his meat thermometer to those in attendance, and said it is important to get a digital, instant-read, tip-sensitive meat thermometer, which costs about $12.

    "Lots of people use it for whole birds or roasts, but I think it's more important actually for the burgers and the ground beef," Powell said. "Ten years ago I would have never used one, but now I feel naked when I don't - I feel vulnerable."

    When he is asked at a restaurant how he would like his hamburger cooked, Powell said he responds he would like it "160," meaning he would like it cooked to 160 degrees Fahrenheit.

    Food color often is a poor indicator of when it is properly cooked, Powell said. K-State food-safety research has found about 25 percent of tested hamburgers turned brown before they reached a safe temperature of 160 degrees Fahrenheit, he said.

    "We're always just trying to find one way to put information out and take information in," he said. "We're just always trying to find new ways to get it out there so we have fewer sick people."

    The network also has several blogs at www.donteatpoop.k-state.edu and
    barfblog.foodsafety.ksu.edu. Powell also wore a T-shirt Monday night that said "ne mangez pas de caca," which is French for "Don't eat poop."

    "It's had more effect than anything else," Powell said of the message.


    Angela Dodd, senior in food science, was quoted as saying Food Science Café discussions are

    "a great way for students to become aware of what's going on in the media about food safety. Food pertains to everybody, and it's a part of everybody's life."

    I didn't really like the long table set-up. Next month, we're probably going to do it in the on-campus bowling alley. Only place to get a beer at K-State.
    Your rating: None
    Bookmark and Share
  • Posted: October 14th, 2007 - 8:36pm by Ben Chapman

    Two stories in Animalnet today struck me as kind of fun.

    The first one, about using turkey manure appeared on Minnesota's TV KARE 11 website.  Minnesota Governer Tim Pawletny was quoted as saying "There is gold in that there manure."  The story suggests that 100 semi-truck loads of turkey manure provides the fuel to power 40,000 homes.
    The $200 million 54 megawatt plant is owned by Fibrominn, a subsidiary of a British company that operates three similar plants in Great Britain.

    The story says that for Minnesota turkey farmers it's a dream come true; free trucking and a small payment for manure.  What interests me is how this power-from-poop impacts biosecurity practices and controlling animal diseases.  I wonder if and how the trucks are cleaned between loads, and what would happen if avian influenza (high or low pathogenic) appeared in Minnesota. 

    The second story that I loved today appeared in Saturday's New York Times and was about state and federal biologists in Colorado recently learning that they may have been protecting the wrong species of fish for the past 20 years.

    It seems that the biologists have been trying to restore the rare greenback cutthroat trout to Colorado waters, but were actually saving the similar but more common Colorado River cutthroat trout.
    A three-year study led by University of Colorado researchers and published in August found that out of nine fish populations believed to be descendants of original greenbacks, five were actually Colorado River cutthroat trout.

    Tom Nesler, state biologist was quoted as saying (maybe the best quote I've seen in the past month or so) “Hey, science happens.”   New developments in DNA testing have illuminated the problem,  Nesler was quoted as saying that  "Up until a year ago, no one could tell us the difference between the two."
    Your rating: None
    Bookmark and Share
    Wacky and Weird  |  0 Comments
    Manure, Science