Public health officials in Cook County, Illinois have closed kitchen facilities at a country club after dozens were sickened by salmonella bacteria.  According to media reports, the Cook County Department of Public Health is investigating at least 79 confirmed and potential cases related to the outbreak at the Skokie Country Club in Glencoe, Illinois.

The outbreak is believed to have started on June 12^th, and at least eight individuals have since been hospitalized.  The Department of Public Health began its investigation on June 24^th, at which point the country club shut down its kitchen.  While health officials have said that the hospitalizations have all been linked to the Skokie Country Club, the contaminated food source is still unknown.

Salmonella poisoning is caused by salmonella bacteria, and, according to the CDC, most infected individuals develop diarrhea, fever, and abdominal cramps within 12 to 72 hours of infection.  The illness often lasts for 4 to 7 days, and in severe cases the infection can spread to other parts of the body, causing death in some cases.  Patients hospitalized with severe salmonella poisoning are often treated only with an increase in fluid intake, but in cases where the disease has spread past the intestines, antibiotics are generally required.

If you visited the Skokie Country Club between June 12^th and June 24^th, and have experienced any of the above symptoms, you can call the Cook County Department of Public Health disease reporting hotline at (708) 492-2150.

There is no vaccination against salmonella poisoning, and the best method of preventing the illness is sanitary food preparation.  The CDC recommends avoiding raw eggs and unpasteurized dairy products, regularly washing hands, and ensuring that meats are fully cooked.  The agency also advises individuals and restaurants to keep raw meat separate from other foods to avoid cross-contamination of foods.

Many Americans have always preferred their hamburgers rare and their eggs runny. Yet foodborne illness rates appear to be on the rise compared to earlier decades. Laura Landro for the Wall Street Journal examines this phenomenon and explains the marked increase in food contamination and resulting illnesses.

One reason for the observed increase in foodborne illnesses is that many illnesses had previously gone unreported.  According to the CDC, just 20 years ago pathogens such as E. Coli O157:H7, Campylobacter jejuni, Listeria monocytogens, and Cyclospora cayetanesis were not recognized as causes of foodborne illness.  Gastrointestinal problems that might easily be flagged as symptoms of foodborne illness today would have been designated as having an unknown cause two decades ago. While previous underreporting of these pathogens may attribute to a partial increase in foodborne illnesses, some changes in where we get our food and how we eat it can attribute for the rest.

Due to globalization of agriculture, Americans have come to expect seasonal produce year round. To meet this demand items, such as tomatoes, fruit, and spinach, are being grown abroad in countries with less stringent food safety protocols. Countries like China and Mexico increasingly have been found to be the source of food contamination. New proposed FDA legislation may help combat this problem by allowing the government body more control over inspections and power to halt production and distribution of contaminated foods. Through better inspection and monitoring of agricultural imports, many foodborne illness risks can be addressed.

Finally, the third reason for the increase in foodborne illnesses is one that cannot necessarily be prevented through inspections and new legislation. According to Ms. Landro, American diets have developed a taste for less processed foods such as raw milk and cheeses and unpasteurized juices. Since these foods have not been processed and treated with heat to kill bacteria, they potentially hold many dangerous bacteria than pasteurized foods. For this reason it’s important to check a food’s label for pasteurization, and that it has been made by a licensed dairy farmer or cheese producer.

New legislation granting more significant powers to the FDA is currently awaiting Senate approval. If it were to pass and become law, the FDA would be able to better monitor imported foods, set better safety standards for fresh produce, compel companies to recall contaminated products, and obligate companies to maintain better production records. In the meantime, consumers should remember to thoroughly wash all fresh produce, eat only pasteurized dairy and juices, clean hands and surfaces after touching raw meat, and cook all egg and meat products according to temperature rather than appearance (160°F for ground beef). If these practices are maintained, many risks for foodborne illness can be reduced.

President Obama this week nominated physician Elisabeth Hagen to fill the top food safety position at the Department of Agriculture, a move that has surprised food safety advocates.  The nomination comes almost a year into an administration in which food safety was to be a top priority.

Dr. Hagen is a relative unknown in the food safety field, and her nomination comes as a surprise in large part because she has only four years of direct experience with food safety.  According to the Washington Post, most of Hagen’s career has been spent as an infectious disease specialist.  In 2006, she signed on with the USDA‘s Food Safety and Inspection Service, where she eventually served as chief medical officer.

Food safety advocacy groups are hesitant about the nomination because of the limited information available on Hagen, the Consumer Federation of America has said it is looking forward to working with Dr. Hagen.  Meat industry groups have also praised Hagen’s nomination.  The American Meat Institute’s Patrick J. Boyle was quoted in the Washington Post praising Hagen’s “background, skills and vision.”

Hagen’s nomination is not expected to encounter strong political opposition.

The USDA announced yesterday that 864,000 pounds of beef products are being recalled by a Montibello, California manufacturer after the discovery of potential e. Coli contamination.  Media reports indicate that the company, Huntington Meat Packing, discovered the problem during a routine safety check.  The products are reported to have been shipped between January 5th and 15th of this year, and February 19 and May 15th of 2008.  So far there have been no reports of illnesses, but officials have directed consumers to check for establishment code EST. 17967 on the products’ USDA label.

According to a media report, two samples of Toll House cookie dough had tested positive for e.coli bacteria at a Virginia factory last Wednesday. None of the tainted dough had left the fatory according to the company. The company also said it will shut down its plant and when it reopens it will use flour that has been heated to kill the bacteria. The FDA said it is investigating the incident.This follows on a June 2009 outbreak in which 72 people in 30 sates became ill after being linked to the same cookie dough.

Food safety experts and consumers may soon be able to breathe easier next summer when E. coli bacterial infections typically surge. Large-scale testing for a new vaccine designed to make cattle immune to the E. coli bacteria has recently begun. While researchers believe the vaccine may not fully eliminate the presence of the E. coli bacteria in beef, they say it may reduce the number of bacteria-carrying animals by 65 to 75 percent.  This estimated reduction would prevent the surge in E. coli that occurs during the warmer months of the year, a time when grilling beef becomes ubiquitous.  It would also reduce the risk of contamination of the raw meat and make the bacteria far more manageable using the current safeguards in place. E. Coli is estimated to cause 73,000 illnesses and dozens of deaths each year.

At this time, two different E. coli vaccines are in commercial development. The first, made by Minnesota company Epitopix, is scheduled to be tested on 300,000 cattle in the coming months. The second vaccine, called Econiche and developed by Canadian company Bioniche Life Sciences, has already received approval for use in Canada. It’s United States approval is still pending. For the past several years both vaccines awaited approval as neither the FDA nor the Department of Agriculture could determine which agency possessed the authority to approve an animal vaccine that affected human health. In 2005 the Department of Agriculture concluded that it would handle applications for E. coli vaccines, however standards for approval were set uncharacteristically high. Officials necessitated a 90 percent reduction in cattle carrying E. coli bacteria, and of those cattle which shed the bacteria, a 99.9 percent bacterial count reduction was mandated.  After an unprecedented surge in E. coli cases in 2007, the USDA lowered its vaccine efficacy requirements and, in March of 2008, approved the Epitopix vaccine for sale. Cargill, one of the nation’s largest meat packers, is now financing large scale testing of the Epitopix vaccine. The study will include nearly 100,000 cattle and conclude next summer when the meat is tested for E. coli bacteria after being sent to slaughter.

A recently released report by the Produce Safety Project has found wide variation in state health departments’ ability to monitor and respond to food borne illnesses.  The report, based on survey data collected from 39 of the 51 state and District of Columbia health departments, also found that contaminated fruits and vegetables are likely to play a secondary role in state health department investigations.

The report notes that state health departments often lack the financial support and resources to adequately address food borne illness outbreaks, describing them as “chronically underfunded and understaffed.”  The lack of resources available to state health departments has contributed to a serious disparity in food safety standards.  The report from the Produce Safety Project blames this variation for “delays in public-health response, …additional illnesses, and unnecessary financial burdens.”

The solution, the report contends, is proactive and strong federal regulation of food illnesses.  The variable information management of state health agencies stands in contrast to the Food and Drug Administration and Centers for Disease Control’s more comprehensive food borne illness data supervision.  The report concludes that, “while more funding would likely help state and federal agencies prevent and detect outbreaks of foodborne illness, broader organizational efforts are also needed to create a truly integrated food-safety network…  These changes could be accomplished… through strengthening of applicable legal authorities and strong federal leadership.”

The article comes in advance of Senate debate on the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (S. 510), which supporters claim will greatly improve the federal government’s ability to prevent and respond to food borne illnesses.

The report was produced by the Produce Safety Project, a program at Georgetown University that advocates stronger federal regulation of food safety.  Also contributing to the report was S.T.O.P., or Safe Tables Our Priority, a prominent nonprofit group dedicated to improving food safety in the United States.  A PDF version of the full report can be found on the Produce Safety Project’s website.

A new bill to be introduced in the Senate aims to impose federally mandated E. coli testing for all ground beef produced in the United States.  The bill, announced yesterday by its sponsor Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), addresses a long ignored aspect of ground beef-related illness, namely the use of so-called “trimmings” in beef production.

The proposed measure, the E. Coli Eradication Act of 2009, would require testing for E. coli at both slaughterhouses and grinding facilities.  This is an especially important development, as it closes a key gap in testing of beef.

The USDA has outlawed E. coli contamination in beef since 1994.  However, there is currently no law in place mandating testing of beef for the disease.  The agency has instead relied on producers to do voluntary testing, resulting in widely inconsistent standards.  The new measure would mandate that E. coli testing begin in the earliest stages of the beef production process.

Slaughterhouses have for years resisted testing on their products, and the trade group  the American Meat Institute was yesterday quoted in the New York Times in opposition to the E. Coli Eradication Act.  Many, however, recognize the importance of testing at slaughterhouses.

The key aspect of the legislation is the attention paid to trimmings, miscellaneous bits of meat sliced from various parts of the cow.  Sen. Gillibrand noted in her press release that the trimmings are, “especially vulnerable to E. coli because its source material is not from a single cut of meat, rather, it is a compilation of… many parts, including fat that lies near the surface of possibly contaminated hide.”  A cow’s hide can become contaminated during the slaughtering process from feces and other waste.

The legislation complements the recently introduced FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (S. 510), giving food safety advocates hope that the current Congress shares their interest in protecting consumers from tainted products.

The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee has approved a bill similar to a measure passed in the House this summer that gives the Food and Drug Administration sweeping new powers to protect consumers from tainted foods.  The measure was unanimously approved by the 23-member committee, indicating strong bipartisan support.

Like the House bill, the Senate version of the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act would give the FDA the power to issue a mandatory recall if there is evidence of food borne illness.  Currently, the FDA only has the authority to suggest voluntary recalls to food producers if it suspects a food product may be contaminated.

While the measure passed out of committee unanimously, there was some degree of controversy over its details.  Some Democrats expressed concerns that the bill could do more to protect consumers.  Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI) criticized the bill for its failure to address the use of antibiotics in livestock, which he fears has the potential to produce antibiotic-resistant illnesses.

Perhaps the biggest point of contention was over how to pay for the new regulations.  The House bill called for a $500 fee levied on food producers to help fund the FDA’s new powers.  But both Committee Chairman Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IL) and ranking Republican Mike Enzi (R-WY) have stated that they are uncomfortable with forcing an industry to pay for its own regulation.  Harkin was quoted in the Los Angeles Times, saying, “If this is something for public protection, it’s something we all should pay for.”  Members of both parties anticipate revisions after the Congressional Budget Office estimates the cost of the bill.

Advocates for the supermarket industry praised the bill.  Grocery Manufacturers Association President Pam Bailey praised the measure, calling it, “sensible legislation that will strengthen the foundation of America’s food safety systems.”  Organic Farming groups, on the other hand, qualified their support for the bill with the caveat that it must do more to protect organic farmers in a way that reflects their differing methods of processing.

The bill, S. 510, will now face a vote in the full Senate, though Sen. Harkin cautions that it is unlikely to come up for a vote until early next year because of the Senate’s ongoing consideration of health care reform.

You may want to think twice before your next trip to the raw bar. The Food and Drug Administration announced last month that it plans to require producers of certain raw oysters to begin post-harvest processing of their catch to kill the deadly bacterium vibrio vulnificus. Infection by vibrio vulnificus can result in serious illness and even death in immunocompromised individuals. The government’s plan has pitted public health advocates against oyster producers and their allies in Washington.

The future regulations apply only to oysters harvested in the Gulf Coast region of the United States during the summer months, when warm waters create an ideal environment for vibrio vulnificus growth. According to the CDC, the bacterium can cause a wide range of symptoms. In healthy patients, symptoms may include vomiting, diarrhea, and abdominal pain. In patients with weakened immune systems, symptoms can be much more serious, and can include fever, skin lesions and septic shock. In cases where vibrio vulnificus infects the blood, the mortality rate is a staggering 50 percent.

The regulations will require oyster producers to process their catch to kill vibrio vulnificus in a process that has been compared to pasteurization. The FDA says that post-harvest processing can be achieved in one of four ways: quick freezing, mild heating, high hydrostatic pressurization, or low-dose gamma irradiation. The process is said to slightly alter the taste and texture of the oysters, but is extremely effective in killing vibrio vulnificus.

Food and Drug Administration officials see a clear solution to a critical public health issue. Michael Taylor, a top official at the FDA, pointed out concrete results after California instituted a similar ban in 2003. “Between 1991 and 2001,” he said “40 deaths had occurred in the state due to vibrio vulnificus. Once post-harvest processing was required, the number of deaths dropped to zero.”

But the Gulf Coast oyster industry, along with legislators from Gulf Coast states, are raising opposition to the plan. They claim the new regulations will triple their costs while ruining the taste of a local delicacy, and prompt job losses. Senator Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) and Representative Charlie Melancon (D-La.) have both introduced legislation in an attempt to block the new regulations. In a letter to the FDA, Rep. Melancon wrote, “fresh, live oysters are not only a Louisiana delicacy, they are part of our heritage and our way of life.”

But food safety advocates are undeterred in their support for the FDA regulations. David Plunkett, of the consumer advocacy group the Center for Science in the Public Interest says “Over 250 people have become ill and half of those have died since 2001, and if this industry-supported legislation passes, the toll of preventable death and disease caused by contaminated oysters will continue to rise.” The regulations are scheduled to take effect in 2011.