Blade

  • Box cutter blade in can of beef bourguignon

    Posted: January 3rd, 2012 - 11:28pm by Doug Powell

     

    Christian Vest and his wife Éliane, of Ponts-de-Cé, France, sat down for a New Year’s Eve lunch of canned William-Saurin brand beef bourguignon.

    “After a few minutes, I felt like I had a bone in my mouth,” the 70-year-old Christian recounted. “And then, a drop of blood like I had cut myself. I spit it out: it was a box cutter blade that was 6 by 1.5 centimeters.”

    With his upper lip cut, Christian called the emergency line who advised him to go to the nearest clinic. “The doctor thought it best to get me immediately vaccinated in case the blade was infected. It was a real mess: in Angers there was only one pharmacy that had the vaccination I needed.”

    Next the couple notified Consumer Services for William-Saurin. “They wanted us to return the blade, but that was out of the question. The evidence could disappear…”

    The couple’s lawyer, Emmanuel Ludot, a specialist in food cases, said, “In legal matters for consumer rights, the burden of proof is opposite. It is up to the company to prove that the blade could not have been in the canned food.”

    In April 2011, Mr. Ludot won a case against the manufacturer Jean-Caby for 24,000 euros for a stone found in a sausage. “In this type of case, testimony from witnesses is of capital importance. In this case, his wife saw everything. It is up to the company to decide if they want to go to trial…”

    The cans from the affected batch have been taken off the shelves in the Intermarché store in Ponts-de-Cé where the product was purchased.

    Gilles Montrichard, director of communications for William-Saurin, said the production process in the Lagny-sur-Marne plant has no flaws. “The products go through a scanner at different steps in the chain. This is the first time in hundreds of millions of cans produced that someone has found a box cutter blade.”

     

    Your rating: None (2 votes)
    Bookmark and Share
    Wacky and Weird  |  1 Comment
    beef bourguignon, Blade, box cutter, food safety, France
  • Is that E. coli really gone? What happens to O157 when slow-cooking roast beef or grilling blade tenderized steaks

    Posted: January 1st, 2012 - 5:03am by Doug Powell

    Many will be bringing out the beef for a celebratory New Year’s feast (I’ve taken to steaming or grilling oysters on the BBQ).

    Steaks and roasts are generally regarded as lower-risk products than hamburger because the meat is intact and E. coli, salmonella and friends can be killed by searing the outside, while the inside can be rare and microbiologically safe.

    But what if needles pushed the E. coli on the outside of the steak to the inside? That’s what happens during blade or needle tenderization and the practice appears to be common although no one is saying how common.

    It was Christmas 2009, when an outbreak of E. coli O157:H7 that sickened at least 21 people was linked to blade tenderized or non-intact beef served at Appleby’s. There have been other outbreaks.

    So what are consumers to do? Don’t expect labeling at retail any time soon. But two new research papers offer some insights.

    Luchansky et al. build on previous work and conclude that E. coli O157:H7 and non-O157 STEC were spread throughout the interior of blade-tenderized steaks, and that when cooked on a gas grill, significant numbers of both pathogens were eliminated, but some survivors were recovered due, presumably, to uneven heating of the blade-tenderized steaks.

    So what’s the policy and consumer recommendation for cooking steaks?

    Wiegand et al. report that calculations based on D- and z-values obtained from isothermal ground beef studies increasingly overestimated destruction of E. coli O157:H7 in commercially cooked whole-muscle beef as process severity increased.

    So what’s the policy and consumer recommendation for cooking roasts?

    The abstracts are below.

    Fate of Shiga toxin-producing O157:H7 and non-O157:H7 Escherichia coli cells within blade-tenderized beef steaks after cooking on a commercial open-flame gas grill
    01.jan.12
    Journal of Food Protection®, Volume 75, Number 1, January 2012 , pp. 62-70(9)
    Luchansky, John B.; Porto-Fett, Anna C.S.; Shoyer, Bradley A.; Call, Jeffrey E.; Schlosser, Wayne; Shaw, William; Bauer, Nathan; Latimer, Andheejeong

    Abstract:
    We compared the fate of cells of both Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli O157:H7 (ECOH) and Shiga toxin-producing non-O157:H7 E. coli (STEC) in blade-tenderized steaks after tenderization and cooking on a gas grill. In phase I, beef subprimal cuts were inoculated on the lean side with about 5.5 log CFU/g of a five-strain mixture of ECOH or STEC and then passed once through a mechanical blade tenderizer with the lean side facing up. In each of two trials, 10 core samples were removed from each of two tenderized subprimals and cut into six consecutive segments starting from the inoculated side. Ten total cores also were obtained from two nontenderized (control) subprimals, but only segment 1 (the topmost segment) was sampled. The levels of ECOH and STEC recovered from segment 1 were about 6.0 and 5.3 log CFU/g, respectively, for the control subprimals and about 5.7 and 5.0 log CFU/g, respectively, for the tenderized subprimals. However, both ECOH and STEC behaved similarly in terms of translocation, and cells of both pathogen cocktails were recovered from all six segments of the cores obtained from tenderized subprimals, albeit at lower levels in segments 2 to 6 than those found in segment 1. In phase II, steaks (2.54 and 3.81 cm thick) cut from tenderized subprimals were subsequently cooked (three steaks per treatment) on a commercial open-flame gas grill to internal temperatures of 48.9, 54.4, 60.0, 65.6, and 71.1°C. Regardless of temperature or thickness, we observed 2.0- to 4.1-log and 1.5- to 4.5-log reductions in ECOH and STEC levels, respectively. Both ECOH and STEC behaved similarly in response to heat, in that cooking eliminated significant numbers of both pathogen types; however, some survivors were recovered due, presumably, to uneven heating of the blade-tenderized steaks.

     

    Evaluating lethality of beef roast cooking treatments against Escherichia coli O157:H7
    01.jan.12
    Journal of Food Protection®, Volume 75, Number 1, January 2012 , pp. 48-61(14)
    Wiegand, Kimberly M.; Ingham, Steven C.; Ingham, Barbara H.
    http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/iafp/jfp/2012/00000075/00000001/art00009
    Abstract:
    Added salt, seasonings, and phosphates, along with slow- and/or low-temperature cooking impart desirable characteristics to whole-muscle beef, but might enhance Escherichia coli O157:H7 survival. We investigated the effects of added salt, seasoning, and phosphates on E. coli O157:H7 thermotolerance in ground beef, compared E. coli O157:H7 thermotolerance in seasoned roasts and ground beef, and evaluated ground beef-derived D- and z-values for predicting destruction of E. coli O157:H7 in whole-muscle beef cooking. Inoculated seasoned and unseasoned ground beef was heated at constant temperatures of 54.4, 60.0, and 65.5°C to determine D- and z-values, and E. coli O157:H7 survival was monitored in seasoned ground beef during simulated slow cooking. Inoculated, seasoned whole-muscle beef roasts were slow cooked in a commercial smokehouse, and experimentally determined lethality was compared with predicted process lethality. Adding 5% seasoning significantly decreased E. coli O157:H7 thermotolerance in ground beef at 54.4°C, but not at 60 or 65.5°C. Under nonisothermal conditions, E. coliO157:H7 thermotolerance was greater in seasoned whole-muscle beef than in seasoned ground beef. Meeting U.S. Government (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection Service, 1999, Appendix A) whole-muscle beef cooking guidance, which targets Salmonella destruction, would not ensure ≥6.5-log CFU/g reduction of E. coli O157:H7 in ground beef systems, but generally ensured $ 6.5-log CFU/g reduction of this pathogen in seasoned whole-muscle beef. Calculations based on D- and z-values obtained from isothermal ground beef studies increasingly overestimated destruction of E. coli O157:H7 in commercially cooked whole-muscle beef as process severity increased, with a regression line equation of observed reduction = 0.299 (predicted reduction) + 1.4373.

    Your rating: None (1 vote)
    Bookmark and Share
    Food Safety Policy  |  0 Comments
    Blade, e. coli O157:H7, food safety, Needle, Roast, steak, Tenderize
  • Has that Christmas steak been needle tenderized? Does that mean a higher internal temperature is required to kill E. coli O157:H7? People sick in 6 states

    Posted: December 25th, 2009 - 9:25am by Doug Powell

    There’s nothing like three inches of freshly fallen Christmas morning snow to make me think … barbeque.

    Before firing up the grill in a couple of hours, I now have to consider whether the T-bones I bought at Dillons were needle or blade tenderized, or not. The idea is that small needles are inserted into steak to inject tenderizers. All hamburger should be cooked to a thermometer-verified 160F because it’s all ground up – the outside, which can be laden with poop, is on the inside. With steaks, the thought has been that searing on the outside will take care of any poop bugs like E. coli and the inside is clean. But what if needles pushed the E. coli on the outside of the steak to the inside?

    There have been 6-7 such outbreaks in the past, but only a couple appear to be linked to the consumer issue of – how do I cook this Christmas steak?

    The U.S. Department of Agriculture issued a press release last night warning that people in Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, South Dakota and Washington were sick with E. coli O157:H7 and the common vehicle appeared to be “non-intact steaks (blade tenderized prior to further processing).” Why the U.S. Centers for Disease Control has not commented on the outbreak remains a mystery.

    Minnesota lawyer Fred Pritzker was the first to publicly identify the potential outbreak linked to blade-tenderized steaks a week ago, on Dec. 18/09.

    He also explained that in November of 1997, the Meat and Poultry Subcommittee of the National Advisory Committee on Microbiological Criteria for Foods concluded that standard beef steaks have a low probability of  E. coli O157:H7 migrating from the surface to the interior of the beef muscle.

    Because of this, the cooking advice was to cook the steak at least enough to effect a cooked color change on all surfaces. Hence, it was officially safe to eat a steak rare.

    Except color is a lousy indicator. How about some temperature recommendation, oh holy micro committee?

    But the committee limited this advice to “intact beef steak” and then defined the term as follows: “A cut of whole muscle that has not been injected, mechanically tenderized or reconstructed.” Under the Food and Drug Administration’s 1977 food code, “injected” meant “manipulating a meat so that infectious or toxigenic microorganisms may be introduced from its surface to its interior through tenderizing with deep penetration or injecting the meat such as with juices.”

    Based on these definitions, USDA’s Food Safety and Information Service FSIS proclaimed in early 1999 that the agency believes there should be a distinction between intact cuts of muscle and non-intact products, including those that have been tenderized and injected.

    That was 1999. I don’t see any such intact or non-intact label when I go to the grocery store. Restaurants remain a faith-based food safety institution. And the issue has rarely risen to the level of public discussion.

    The issue is not new, but may be new in terms of public discussion. Echeverry et al. wrote in the Aug. 2009 issue of the Journal of Food Protection that,

    After three different outbreaks were linked to the consumption of nonintact meat products contaminated with Escherichia coli O157:H7, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection Service published notice requiring establishments producing mechanically tenderized and moisture-enhanced beef products to reassess their respective hazard analysis and critical control point system, due to potential risk to the consumers.

    The researchers found that application of antimicrobials to the steaks prior to packaging and shipment on day 0 was effective in reducing internalization of both pathogens in nonintact beef products stored for both 14 and 21 days.

    Luchansky et al. wrote in the July 2009 JFP     that based on inoculation studies, cooking on a commercial gas grill is effective at eliminating relatively low levels of the pathogen that may be distributed throughout a blade-tenderized steak.

    I hope they’re right. But there’s obviously something going on in the current outbreak.

    Oh, and I know it was Christmas Eve and everything, but the USDA press release contained the tired and sometimes true advice for handling ground beef – hamburger – which has nothing to do with intact or non-intact steaks. I won’t be asking Karen anything (ask Karen is the supposed on-line help thingy that USDA keeps flogging).

    There are many more details that will emerge as the story evolves, and people more knowledgeable than I -- and others -- pop up to speak. I’m sorry if you’re spending Christmas barfing because the food safety community did a lousy job providing information about risks that are out there. I’m still enjoying Christmas morning with the family. That’s Sorenne looking out our living room window this morning.

    Your rating: None
    Bookmark and Share
    E. coli  |  0 Comments
    Beefsteak, Blade, Consumers, Needle, O157:h7, Outbreak, Tenderized, Warning