Risky Meat, Missed Opportunity

Dr. Christine Bruhn — Tue, 30 Apr 2013 05:02:21 +0000

Will knowing which foods are most likely to cause severe foodborne illness increase consumer and industry vigilance? “Risky Meat,” Center for Science and the Public Interest’s (CSPI) April 23 report stated this as their goal, but they miss an opportunity to offer guidance that could really make a difference. “Risky Meat,” written by Sarah Klein and Caroline Smith DeWaal, ranked meat and poultry products from highest to lowest risk based upon 12 years of CDC outbreak data and over 1,700 outbreaks. Rather than merely counting illnesses, the severity of the illness was calculated using the hospitalization rate. For example, Listeria monocytogenes, with a hospitalization rate of 94 percent, was given a severity score of 0.94, while Clostridium perfringens, with a hospitalization rate of 0.6 percent, was counted at 0.006. Chicken and ground beef were most likely to cause severe illness and were classified as most risky. Guidance on how to reduce risk is available by clicking on A CSPI Field Guide to Meat & Poultry Safety. The Consumer Fact Sheets include tips on food preparation, cooking and storage. They recommend washing hands and utensils, indicate appropriate refrigerator temperature, advise using a thermometer to tell when a safe temperature has been reached, and specify the safe time interval between cooking and serving. The Fact Sheets also correctly addresses popular myths related to the safety of locally produced food or eating at an upscale restaurant. I especially like this one: “Bacteria don’t know whether they are at a 5-star restaurant, expensive grocery store, or on a local farm-so practice ‘defensive eating’ every time.” But there is no mention that little used technologies can significantly reduce the risk of foodborne illness. More than 10 years ago the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) identified ground beef, poultry, and processed meat as linked to severe foodborne illness and documented that irradiating these foods would significantly reduce illness, hospitalization and death (Tauxe 2001). While advising people to wash their hands and use a thermometer when cooking is appropriate, it is unlikely to produce a big change in behavior. When we videotaped 200 households preparing burgers in their homes, we found less than half washed their hands before beginning to cook, only 40 percent of hand washing events involved soap, 32 percent did not wash their hands between touching raw meat and preparing a salad, and only 4 percent used a thermometer to tell when their meat was done (Phang and Bruhn 2011). Amazingly, there was no difference in behavior between those who reported having had food safety training and those without training. Irradiation is not magical. It doesn’t protect us from prions which lead to Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (Mad Cow Disease) and it doesn’t knock out norovirus. People must use proper sanitation, but irradiation can destroy 99.999 percent of E coli O157:H7 in burgers and 99.9 percent of Salmonella in chicken, and it inactivates other pathogens as well (Sommers and Fan 2011). Because the pathogens are destroyed before they enter the home or commercial kitchen, illness due to cross-contamination is reduced. High pressure processing (HHP) can protect packaged deli meats from Listeria and raw oysters from Vibrio (Black, Stewart et al. 2011). Doesn’t it make sense for industry to use the best methods that effectively destroy pathogens and for health educators to advise consumers to select these products? If we really want to reduce foodborne illness, relying on the consumer to do everything right is unlikely to be effective. While people must take personal responsibility, the food industry needs to provide a product that has the highest level of safety possible. Technologies currently available, like irradiation and high pressure processing, can provide a level of safety unavailable elsewhere. Food Safety News’ review of irradiation affirmed that irradiation offers significant food safety advantages (Prakash 2010). The meat and poultry industry should offer safety-enhanced irradiated and HHP processed meats, the food service industry should select them, and supermarkets should offer these products to the consumer. A serious commitment to reduce foodborne illness should include a recommendation to select irradiated meat and poultry and HHP products. Works Cited Black, E. P., C. M. Stewart and D. G. Hoover (2011). Microbiological Aspects of High-Pressure Food Processing. Nonthermal Processing Technologis for Food. G. V. B.-C. Howard Q. Zhang, V.M. Balasubramaniam, C. P. Dunne, Daniel F. Farkas, and James T.C. Yuan, Wiley-blackwell: 51-71. Phang, H. S. and C. M. Bruhn (2011). “Burger preparation: What consumers say and do in their home.” J. Food Protection 74(10): 1708-1716. Prakash, A. (2010) “Is Food Irradiation the Future? Part II.” Food Safety News, July 12. Sommers, C. and X. Fan (2011). Irradiation of Ground Beef and Fresh Produce. Nonthermal Processing Technologies for Food. G. V. B.-C. Howard Q. Zhang, V.M. Balasubramaniam, C. P. Dunne, Daniel F. Farkas, and James T.C. Yuan: 236-248. Tauxe, R. (2001). “Food Safety and Irradiation: Protecting the Public from Foodborne Infection.” Emerging Infectious Disease 7(3 Supplement): 516-521.

For Fruits and Veggies, the Choice Should Be Easy

Dr. Christine Bruhn — Tue, 09 Oct 2012 08:03:45 +0000

Choosing healthy food is complicated for consumers when they are faced with conflicting recommendations. In the case of the healthiest foods – fruits and vegetables – the choice should be very easy. Consumers simply should be eating more. Whether organically or conventionally grown, consumers can choose either with confidence. Unfortunately, this very simple “eat more” message universally carried by health experts, consumer advocates and environmental groups is being undermined by misleading information questioning the safety of these healthful foods due to pesticide residues. This information is often presented without scientific validity or credibility. The most recent example comes from the Dr. Oz Show – an entertainment daytime talk show. The Dr. Oz Show focused on pesticide residues and the alleged effects on children. Like many before it, this talk show ignored decades of scientific studies in the area of nutrition, toxicology and risk analysis that verifies the safety of fruits and vegetables and the importance of eating more. Since the show did not present science-based information and lacked balance, parents may well be confused about the safety of conventionally grown, more affordable fruits and vegetables. I have spent my entire career studying consumer behavior and attitudes toward food. I can tell you that the repetition of this negative safety messaging about fruits and vegetables is having an impact on consumers. And I’m especially concerned about low income consumers and their consumption patterns. For Dr. Oz and the show’s producers, there are many barriers to consumption of fruits and vegetables, but misguided safety fears should not become one of them. Further, when the overwhelming scientific evidence about the safety and healthfulness of produce is not presented to viewers, it borders on irresponsibility, especially when this show is supposed to be about improving health. While more research is needed on the impact of negative messages on consumers, a recent survey conducted by the Alliance for Food and Farming tested actual statements found in the media about the safety of fruits and vegetables and their impact on consumers. The survey showed that almost 10% of low income consumers said they would eat less fruits and veggies after reading those negative safety statements. Another 10% of low income consumers said they were confused over what to buy. Larger, more in depth studies are needed in this area, but these initial findings suggest that the information presented by Dr. Oz is driving people away from health-enhancing foods. Trying to create a difference between conventional and organic produce complicates the simple “eat more” message and is unnecessary. For consumers, there is only one right choice and only one wrong choice when it comes to eating organic and/or conventional fruits and vegetables. The wrong choice is eating less. The right choice is eating more. It really is that simple.

Dr. Christine Bruhn | Food Safety News

Risky Meat, Missed Opportunity

For Fruits and Veggies, the Choice Should Be Easy