In one of the more unusual stories concerning food-borne illness, the New York Times this week highlighted a new recall of frozen mice—that’s right, mice—that have sickened approximately four hundred people.  The company, Mice Direct, sells frozen mice to owners of pets that eat small rodents (snakes, for instance.)

According to the article, the contaminated mice can carry salmonella, which can then be passed on to reptilian pets.  The snakes, lizards and turtles can then pass the bacteria on to their owners.

Alternatively, the article suggests that handling the frozen reptile feed can also give pet owners salmonella poisoning.  One scenario that the article highlights is contamination of home microwaves used to thaw the mice.  Salmonella then spreads to other microwaved foods.

While this story is unusual to say the least, it highlights the importance of proper sanitary procedures when handling raw meat (even rodent meat!)  The CDC recommends keeping raw meats separate from other foods, along with thorough cleaning of hands, utensils, counter tops, and cutting boards to ensure that any salmonella bacteria is killed before it has a chance to infect humans.

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.

Diners in the Nebraska area should be cautious of ordering meals that contain ground beef. The USDA’s Food Safety & Inspection Service (FSIS) recalled 90 pounds of fresh ground beef on November 17^th, 2009 due to a test sampling that tested positive for the food-borne pathogen E. coli. The ground beef originated from Fairbury Steaks, Inc., a meat company located in Fairbury, Nebraska. The products that subject to the recall are 10 lb. packages of “Bulk Fresh Ground Beef” distributed to a Ruskin, Nebraska restaurant. The packages were produced on November 16^th, 2009 and contained in boxes marked with the establishment number “EST. 5726,” which can be found stamped instead the USDA mark of inspection. The contamination of E. coli O157:H7 was discovered after a routine microbiological test done on a sample from the product.  So far no illness have been reported. E. coli O157:H7 is a powerful and dangerous bacteria that can cause abdominal pain, bloody diarrhea, dehydration, kidney failure, and, in worst cases, death. Children, seniors, and those with immunocompromised conditions are most at risk. Since the bacteria cannot survive temperatures in excess of 160°F, it is always important to confirm that ground beef has fully reached this temperature by using a thermometer, and to always request that ground beef is cooked well-done when ordering out.  If you feel you have contracted E. coli poisoning, always remember to keep a diary of what you ate in the past several days and save any unused portions of suspect foods for microbiological testing.

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.

Costco has reached an agreement with Tyson that allows Costco to test trimmings supplied to Costco before they are mixed with trimmings from other suppliers to produce hamburgers. This has occurred after most slaughterhouses such as Tyson have resisted efforts by companies such as Costco to test trimmings for E. coli. The FDA has banned E. coli from ground beef since 1994. There have been numerous instances of E. coli from hamburger meat causing devastating injuries to people who eat the meat.

In Response to NY Times “Companies Strike Deal on Testing for E. Coli,” 10/08/2009

In recent years, a number of food contamination events have underscored the need for greater scrutiny of the safety of the American food supply.  Incidents such as the 2006 E. coli outbreak transmitted via tainted Californian spinach, or the 2008 salmonella outbreak related to contaminated produce imported from Mexico.  These outbreaks are responsible, in part, for a renewed Congressional interest in regulating both American agriculture, and the importation of food from other countries.

On July 30^th, 2009, the House of Representatives passed H. R. 2749, the Food Safety Enhancement Act of 2009.  The bill—which next must be passed by the Senate—would give the federal government new regulatory powers over the production and importation of food.  The bill has been described as the most substantial reform of agricultural regulations since 1938, when the Food and Drug Administration was first granted the authority to regulate the nation’s food supply.

If passed, the bill would greatly increase the federal government’s ability to respond to an outbreak of food-borne illness.  For instance, the bill would require all food production and processing facilities to register with the Food and Drug Administration on an annual basis.  If an outbreak were to occur, the federal government would have the authority to revoke the registration of any facility associated with the outbreak, in effect, forcing the facility to temporarily shut down.  Regulation of this sort would make it much easier to contain an emerging outbreak before it has the opportunity to spread farther.

Over the past few decades, as agricultural enterprises have grown and become more consolidated, the movement of food—both domestically and internationally—has become a vital food safety issue.  H.R. 2749 would give the government the power to restrict the movement of food as a protection against harmful effects towards humans—a key tool in responding to an outbreak of food-borne illness.  It would also enable the government to force manufacturers to recall food products that pose a danger to the public.  The bill calls for steep fines and even criminal charges should producers disregard its regulations.

Similarly, the federal government would also have the power to regulate food imports into the United States.  According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, roughly 15% of Americans’ food is imported from other countries, a figure that has been rising steadily since the early 1990s.  H.R. 2749 introduces two major federal regulatory powers regarding imported food.  Firstly, it enhances the government’s ability to deny the importation of potentially dangerous foods from abroad, another measure aimed at speeding the government’s response to outbreaks.  Additionally, the bill would require that any food imported to the United States be documented and labeled as to their country of origin.

The Food Safety Enhancement Act’s effects are not, however, limited to agricultural production.  The bill directs the government to establish a dialogue with the public about food safety.  Section 122 of the bill charges the Department of Health and Human Services with the creation of a public education program that would inform the public and medical providers about the dangers of food-borne illness.  Moreover, this section of the bill would create a system of national and regional health advisories, which would help citizens stay informed about the safety of their food.

In total, H.R. 2749 boosts the federal government’s ability to respond quickly and effectively to an outbreak of food-borne illness.  And through the bill’s public information component, it also emphasizes the prevention of outbreaks.  H.R. 2749 has now been sent to the Senate for debate and then a vote.  President Obama has indicated that he will sign the bill should it pass in the Senate.