[Repost] Small Changes in Agricultural Practices Could Reduce Produce-Borne Illness

English: Stages in the intracellular life-cycle of Listeria monocytogenes. (Center) Cartoon depicting entry, escape from a vacuole, actin nucleation, actin-based motility, and cell-to-cell spread. (Outside) Representative electron micrographs from which the cartoon was derived. LLO, PLCs, and ActA are all described in the text. The cartoon and micrographs were adapted from Tilney and Portnoy (1989). (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

From the 21 October 2013 ScienceDaily report

 

Researchers from Cornell University have identified some agricultural management practices in the field that can either boost or reduce the risk of contamination in produce from two major foodborne pathogens: salmonella, the biggest single killer among the foodborne microbes, and Listeria monocytogenes. Their findings are published ahead of print in the journal Applied and Environmental Microbiology.

“This is going to help make produce safer,” says Laura Strawn, a researcher on the study. “We could significantly reduce risk of contamination through changes that occur a few days before the harvest.”

Many of the risk factors were influenced by when they were applied to fields which suggests that adjustments to current practices may reduce the potential for contamination with minimal cost to growers, says Strawn.

Foodborne illness sickens an estimated 9.4 million, and kills around 1,300 annually in the US, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Produce accounts for nearly half the illnesses, and 23 percent of the deaths.

“The research is the first to use field collected data to show the association between certain management practices and an increased or decreased likelihood of salmonella and L. monocytogenes,” says Strawn.

For salmonella, manure application within the year prior to the researchers’ sampling boosted the odds of a contaminated field, while the presence of a buffer zone between the fields and potential pathogen reservoirs such as livestock operations or waterways was protective.

Irrigation within three days before sample collection raised the risk of listeria contamination six-fold. Soil cultivation within the week before sampling also increased the chances of contamination.

“These findings will assist growers in evaluating their current on-farm food safety plans (e.g. “Good Agricultural Practices”), implementing preventive controls that reduce the risk of pre-harvest contamination, and making more informed decisions related to field practices prior to harvest,” says Strawn. “Small changes in how produce is grown and managed could result in a large reduction of food safety risks.”

 

 

 

 

 

Related articles

 

• Small changes in agricultural practices could reduce produce-borne illness (phys.org)
• Small changes in ag practices could reduce produce-borne illness (esciencenews.com)
• Small changes in ag practices could reduce produce-borne illness (eurekalert.org)
• Major Foodborne Illness Outbreak Occurs During Government Shutdown (disinfo.com)
• Costco expands recall of Salmonella-tainted Foster Farms chicken (oregonlive.com)
• Device speeds concentration step in food-pathogen detection (sciencedaily.com)
• Device speeds concentration step in food-pathogen detection (esciencenews.com)

 

Beneficial Bacteria May Help Ward Off Infection

 

English: Template for Template:Food safety (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

From the 19 July 2012 article at Science News Daily

 

While many bacteria exist as aggressive pathogens, causing diseases ranging from tuberculosis and cholera, to plague, diphtheria and toxic shock syndrome, others play a less malevolent role and some are critical for human health.

In a new study, Cheryl Nickerson and her group at ASU’s Biodesign Institute, in collaboration with an international team including Tom Van de Wiele and lead author Rosemarie De Weirdt at Ghent University, Belgium, explore the role of Lactobaccilus reuteri — a natural resident of the human gut — to protect against foodborne infection.

Their results demonstrate that this beneficial or probiotic organism, which produces an antimicrobial substance known as reuterin, may protect intestinal epithelial cells from infection by the foodborne bacterial pathogen Salmonella….

…

Bacterial Blizzard

A swarm of some hundred trillion bacteria occupies the human body, outnumbering human cells by about 10 to 1. Among these are members of the genus Lactobacilli, some of which have been associated with therapeutic, probiotic properties, including anti-inflammatory and anti-cancer activity.

The current study zeros in on Lactobacillus reuteri — one of the more than 180 species of Lactobacilli. The group investigated the potential of this bacterium to inhibit the early stages ofSalmonella infection, seeking to identify plausible mechanisms for such inhibitory effects.

Intestinal infections by non-typhoidal Salmonella strains induce diarrhea and gastroenteritis, and remain a leading source of foodborne illness worldwide. Such infections are acutely unpleasant but self-limiting in healthy individuals. For those with compromised immunity however, they can be deadly and the alarming incidence of multi-drug resistant Salmonellastrains has underlined the necessity of more effective therapeutics.

The use of benign microorganisms offers a promising new approach to treating infection from pathogens like Salmonellaand indeed, L. reuteri has been shown to help protect against gastrointestinal infection and reduce diarrhea in children.

Safeguarding cells

The origin of L. reuteri’s protective role still remains unclear, and the present study investigated whether reuterin, a metabolite produced by L. reuteri during the process of reducing glycerol in the gut, could be one of the keys to protection. While it has been speculated that reuterin acts by regulating immune responses or competing with Salmonella for key binding sites, the current study represents the first in vitro examination of host-pathogen interactions using human intestinal epithelium in the presence of reuterin-producing L. reuteri.

 

Related articles

• Probiotics (slideshare.net)
• Genome Project for Food Pathogens Launched by FDA (bespacific.com)
• Tummy Troubles, Colic, and Mama’s Diet (scienceofmom.com)
• FDA plans database for identifying foodborne germs (sfgate.com)
• Genome Project for Food Pathogens Launched (fda.gov)
• Toward an alternative for antibiotics to fight bacterial infections? (eurekalert.org)
• Seeking An Alternative For Antibiotics To Fight Bacterial Infections (medicalnewstoday.com)
• The Surprising Viruses in Our Gut [The Weizmann Wave] (scienceblogs.com)

 

Food Poisoning: Understanding How Bacteria Come Back from the ‘Dead’

 

Image via Wikipedia

From the 3 February 2012 Science Daily article

almonella remains a serious cause of food poisoning in the UK and throughout the EU, in part due to its ability to thrive and quickly adapt to the different environments in which it can grow. New research involving a team of IFR scientists, funded by BBSRC, has taken the first detailed look at what Salmonella does when it enters a new environment, which could provide clues to finding new ways of reducing transmission through the food chain and preventing human illness.

Bacteria can multiply rapidly, potentially doubling every 20 minutes in ideal conditions. However, this exponential growth phase is preceded by a period known as lag phase, where no increase in cell number is seen. Lag phase was first described in the 19th Century, and was assumed to be needed by bacteria to prepare to exploit new environmental conditions. Beyond this, surprisingly little was known about lag phase, other than bacteria are metabolically active in this period. But exactly what are bacteria doing physiologically during this period?

To fill in this knowledge gap researchers at IFR, along with colleagues at Campden BRI, a membership-based organisation carrying out research and development for the food and drinks industry, have developed a simple and robust system for studying the biology ofSalmonella during lag phase. In this system, lag phase lasts about two hours, but the cells sense their new environment remarkably quickly, and within four minutes switch on a specific set of genes, including some that control the uptake of specific nutrients….

Related articles

• How Bacteria Come Back From The Dead (medicalnewstoday.com)
• Understanding how bacteria come back from the dead (eurekalert.org)
• Understanding how bacteria come back from the dead (physorg.com)
• The Most Common Causes of Food Poisoning (everydayhealth.com)
• Legal warning over food-poison claims (telegraph.co.uk)

Unwashable Places In Produce May Harbor E. coli, Salmonella

Image via Wikipedia

From the 17 August 2011 Health News Today article

Sanitizing the outside of produce may not be enough to remove harmful food pathogens, according to a Purdue University study that demonstrated that Salmonella and E. coli can live inside plant tissues.

E. coli 0157:H7 was present in tissues of mung bean sprouts and Salmonella in peanut seedlings after the plants’ seeds were contaminated with the pathogens prior to planting. Amanda Deering, a postdoctoral researcher in food science, said seeds could be contaminated in such a manner before or after planting through tainted soil or water.

“The pathogens were in every major tissue, including the tissue that transports nutrients in plants,” said Deering, whose results were published in separate papers in the Journal of Food Protection and Food Research International….

…
Proper sanitization would eliminate Salmonella and E. coli from the surface of foods, but not inner tissues, Deering and Pruitt said. Cooking those foods to temperatures known to kill the pathogens would eliminate them from inner tissues. …

Read the article 

Related articles

• Resistant Salmonella: Deadly Yet Somehow Not Illegal (wired.com)

The 10 Pathogen-Food Combinations With the Greatest Burden on Public Health

From Ranking the Risks : The 10 Pathogen-Food Combinations With the Greatest Burden on Public Health

Thursday, April 28, 2011 

GAINESVILLE, Fla. – Researchers at the University of FloridaEmerging Pathogens Institute have identified the Top 10 riskiest combinations of foods and disease-causing microorganisms, providing an important tool for food safety officials charged with protecting consumers from these costly and potentially life-threatening bugs.

The report, “Ranking the Risks: The 10 Pathogen-Food Combinations with the Greatest Burden on Public Health,” lists the number of illnesses, costs, and overall public health burden of specific microbes in particular types of food –such as Salmonella in poultry and Listeria in deli meat. This is the first comprehensive ranking of pathogen-food combinations that has been computed for the United States.

Millions of Americans get food poisoning each year and thousands die. Federal agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and more than 3,000 state and local governments are charged with protecting consumers from these risks, but their efforts often are fragmented and uncoordinated.

[Click here for more of the press release, the report, a video, and an accompanying interview]

These Top-10 pathogen-food combinations cause the greatest burden to the public health 

• Campylobacter in Poultry costs $1.3 billion and causes a loss of 9500 QALYs (Quality Adjusted Life Years)
• ToxoplaSma in Pork costs $1.2 billion and causes a loss of 4500 QALYs
• LiSteria in Deli Meats costs $1.1 billion and causes a loss of 4000 QALYs
• Salmonella in Poultry costs $700 million and causes a loss of 3600 QALYs
• LiSteria in Dairy Products costs $700 million and causes a loss of 2600 QALYs
• Salmonella in Complex Foods costs $600 million and causes a loss of 3200 QALYs
• NoroviruS in Complex Foods costs $900 million and causes a loss of 2300 QALYs
• Salmonella in Produce costs $500 million and causes a loss of 2800 QALYs
• ToxoplaSma in Beef costs $700 million and causes a loss of 2500 QALYs
• Salmonella in Eggs costs $400 million and causes a loss of 1900 QALYs

Related Articles

• 80% of chickens in local grocery stores test positive for pathogens (thenewstribune.com)
• Cross-contamination versus undercooking of poultry meat or eggs – which risks need to be managed first? (foodhygiene2010.wordpress.com)
• Food-borne diseases – the challenges of 20 years ago still persist while new ones continue to emerge (foodhygiene2010.wordpress.com)
• More Dollars Per Quality Adjusted Life Year (QALY) Versus Savings From Care Management: How Can The Studies Be Reconciled? (diseasemanagementcareblog.blogspot.com)
• A global view on effectiveness research (kevinmd.com)

Five food safety myths — debunked!

Five food safety myths — debunked!

From the Daily Need

By Anastacia Marx de Salcedo February 8, 2011

 

 

 

1. Food safety is worse than it used to be.

Food safety has actually improved since the mid-1990s when the Centers for Disease Control first began its national monitoring program, with net incidence of the major illnesses falling by 20 percent. On a disease-by-disease basis, that means 30 percent less campylobacter, 41 percent less toxin-producing E. coli and 10 percent less salmonella. In fact, the only increase — by 85 percent — has been in vibrio, contracted by eating raw shellfish. (You heard it, people, shuck and slurp and you’re on your own.) And even though the CDC recently tripled the number of major foodborne pathogens it monitors from 9 to 31, it reduced its estimate of annual illnesses from 76 to 48 million.

2. The biggest danger to your health comes from livestock feeding practices, food industry negligence and the terrorist threat to our food supply.

More than 90 percent* of foodborne illnesses occur within a vast, loosely organized network of rogue microbe breeders: restaurants! (about half of all outbreaks) and a motley assortment of workplaces, banquet facilities, caterers, churches, nursing homes, schools and others. Almost 60 percent of these — 5.5 million illnesses — are caused by norovirus, about which the CDC observes, “In many of these cases, sick food handlers were involved in the spread of the virus.” A 2004 study by the FDA found that 56 percent of fast food and 72 percent of full-service restaurant personnel did not wash their hands often or well enough. Ten viral particles with your soup, sir? (Or fork or menu or credit card?)

3. OMG! I’ve got salmonella! I’m going to DIE!

Just calm down, get plenty of rest and keep hydrated. Your risk of death isextremely small — half of one percent for salmonella, one tenth of one percent for campylobacter and half of one percent for even the most virulent variety of E. coli. In fact, the total annual number of deaths from foodborne illnesses is about 3,000, or the number killed by the flu in a very, very good year. (In a bad year, flu can kill up to 50,000 people.) As with influenza, most food-pathogen-related deaths are among the very old, the very young and the immunologically compromised. That guy whotestified before Congress that his mother died from eating contaminated peanut butter? Shirley Almer may have had a lot of sisu, Finnish for spunk, but she also had lung cancer and a brain tumor and was far more susceptible to infections, including the UTI she was hospitalized for when she contracted salmonella.

4. From now on, I’m scouring every tomato! Pressure-washing every pepper!

Go right ahead if it makes you feel in control — and to remove some pesticides and grit. But unless you’re plunging your produce in boiling water or immersing it in a 10 percent bleach solution, those little salmonella, campylobacter and E. coli bacteria are going to go right on doing the things organisms like to do — ingesting, reproducing, excreting. Speaking of which, most major foodborne illnesses are transmitted through feces — campylobacter: chickens; E. coli: cows; salmonella: the whole barnyard; norovirus: us — and some are perfectly normal residents of animal guts. They only cause mayhem when we insert them — via dirty food or hands — in places they shouldn’t be, e.g. our mouths.

5. Anyway, now that the Food Safety Modernization Act’s been signed into law, I don’t have to worry about this stuff, right?

Of course not! Faster recalls, more frequent inspection of food processing facilities, greater importer accountability and high-tech food-chain tracking are going to eradicate all foodborne illnesses…. Except for those 58% that come from norovirus and the other unknown percent — probably substantial — that are caused or exacerbated by risky food service practices such as cross-contamination through utensils, work surfaces and equipment; storage at improper temperatures; commingling of foodstuffs; and, of course, poor hygiene. What with 42% of our food budget spent on meals outside the home, you know what would have really made sense? A national safety-training program for food service workers.

The Costs of Food Born Illness and Related Information

From the Web page of the Partnership for Food Safety Education (PFSE)

Foodborne illness is much more than the “stomach flu”, and it is a serious health issue and economic burden for consumers. According to the Economic Research Service (ERS) of the USDA, each year $6.9 billion in costs are associated with five bacterial pathogens, Campylobacter, Salmonella, Listeria monocytogenes, E. coli O157:H7, and E. coli non-O157:H7 STEC (2000). These costs are associated with medical expenses, lost productivity, and even death.The ERS estimates that the annual economic cost of salmonellosis—the illness caused by the Salmonella bacterium—is $2.65 billion (2009). This estimate is for all cases of salmonellosis, not just foodborne cases. The estimate includes medical costs due to illness, the cost (value) of time lost from work due to nonfatal illness, and the cost (value) of premature death.

The ERS estimates that the annual economic cost of illness caused by shiga toxin-producing E. coli (STEC O157) is $478 million (2009). This estimate is for all cases of STEC O157 disease, not just foodborne cases. The estimate includes medical costs due to illness, kidney dialysis and transplant costs, and the cost (value) of time lost from work due to nonfatal illness, and the cost (value) of premature death.

The ERS estimates that the annual economic cost of illness caused by Campylobacter, the most frequently isolated cause of foodborne diarrhea, is $1.2 billion. The estimate includes medical costs, lost productivity, and death due tocampylobacteriosis from food sources and costs associated Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS), a form of paralysis.

Estimates for the cost of foodborne illness do not include other significant costs to both industry and government.

The Partnership for Food Safety Education is a collaboration of the US Depts of Health and Human Services, Education as well as leaders of food trade associations, consumer and public health organizations and the Association of Food and Drug Officials.

The PFSE  Web page includes links to

• Safe Food Handling Tips outlined by Clean, Separate, Cook, Chill
• Foodborn Illness information (link to the CDC Web page topic page)
• Education and Outreach page with links to curriculum (3 separate entries for K-12) and pages for kids (including multimedia sites, quizzes, activities, and more). Be sure to check out Big E’s grossest hits (a matching/learning game) hosted by an Elvis impersonator. Big E is at the Scrub Club.
• Downloads include brochures, fliers, kids activities, PowerPoint presentations, and more

 

 

Your Pet’s Food Dish Could Serve Up Salmonella

Study tracks the gut bugs’ progress from tainted dry food to children’s tummies

Excerpt:

This new study, “re-emphasizes the importance of washing your hands whenever you deal with anything from a pet, including petting him, touching his mouth or cleaning up after him, especially for children whose immune systems are very weak in comparison to adults,” said Dr. Philip Tierno, clinical professor of microbiology and pathology at New York University Langone Medical Center in New York City and author of The Secret Life of Germs.

“Hand washing is the single most important thing anyone can do to protect their health, and that’s within everyone’s purview if you teach them,” Tierno said. “You can do that and not be afraid.”

Another precaution is to have well-packaged, well-stored pet food, keeping it out of the reach of infants and toddlers, said Richel.