Lynne Terry | Food Safety News

USDA Says It’s Difficult to Replicate Denmark and Eliminate Salmonella in Poultry

Lynne Terry — Thu, 27 Mar 2014 05:02:35 +0000

(Editor’s note: This is Part Four of a recent four-part series by Lynne Terry on how Salmonella in poultry is handled in Denmark and the U.S. Part One is here, Part Two is here, and Part Three is here. The series is being republished by permission from The Oregonian.) Denmark’s journey from a surge of Salmonella infections to the near eradication of the bacteria in chicken is a success story that could not easily be replicated in the United States, American poultry experts say. The U.S. chicken industry is too big, they claim, and the reforms would be too costly, causing sticker shock in grocery stores. There also is no will among industry, regulators or retailers in the U.S. to follow Denmark and other European countries that have declared a zero tolerance for Salmonella in chicken. “It is very impressive, but it’s not feasible in the United States,” said Scott Russell, professor of poultry processing at the University of Georgia. U.S. regulators recognize that Salmonella poses a big problem, causing an estimated 1 million cases of food poisoning each year, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Tainted poultry accounts for about 17 percent of that and causes more deaths than any other commodity. The economic toll, including medical expenses and lost workdays, runs as high as $1.8 billion per year for Salmonella-tainted poultry, according to USDA and other economists. Last year, amid the Foster Farms outbreak, the agency announced a plan to stem Salmonella. Its goal is to reduce illnesses by 25 percent by 2020. The plan, which is still being rolled out, includes a controversial overhaul of inspections, enhanced testing and a first-ever limit on allowed Salmonella in cut-up chicken. Denmark opted for a more comprehensive approach, attacking Salmonella in flocks, poultry barns, animal feed and slaughterhouses. That tactic would be practically impossible under the fractured U.S. food safety system, officials and poultry experts say. No single federal agency in the U.S. has the authority to dictate the sweeping reforms that would be required. USDA regulates meat, poultry and processed eggs. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration oversees animal feed and raw eggs, along with the bulk of the food supply. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has authority over pesticide use and animal waste on the farm. “We have very limited authority of what we can do,” said Dan Engeljohn, inspection chief at USDA. Most strains of Salmonella do not harm chickens. The bacteria live in their guts, and the birds are healthy. But two strains that sicken birds – Salmonella pullorum and Salmonella gallinarum – can devastate flocks. The bacteria threatened to wipe out the U.S. poultry industry in the early part of the past century, prompting creation in 1930 of the National Poultry Improvement Plan, a joint venture involving the poultry industry, federal government and state authorities. The program, which still exists and is voluntary, involves testing birds for the bacteria, separating and butchering positive flocks, tight sanitation measures in hatcheries and a Salmonella-free label, allowing for export and interstate commerce. As in Denmark, the plan relies on a top-down approach aimed at eliminating the bacteria in breeder stock to ensure infection-free birds in the next generation. The U.S. program has been a huge success. “They went after the (Salmonella strains) that make the animals sick and controlled them,” Dr. Robert Tauxe, deputy chief of foodborne diseases at CDC. “We all have to ask whether a similar approach expanded to other types of Salmonella might help (stem human illnesses).” USDA food safety officials say their authority starts at the slaughterhouse. USDA’s animal health service only regulates diseases in animals. No single agency appears to have a legal mandate to fight bacteria that can kill people but do not harm animals on the farm. “That is an issue that Congress would have to deal with,” said Engeljohn of the USDA. But USDA does have the authority to ban contaminants in the food it regulates. The agency did just that in 1994 for E. coli O157:H7 in ground beef. In 2012, it adopted a zero-tolerance policy for six other potentially deadly strains of E. coli. Agency officials insist they lack a legal framework to ban Salmonella, based on judicial precedent and the intricacies of the law. There’s also a cost factor. The Danish government spent $30 million to compensate farmer losses, but Denmark only slaughters about 100 million chickens per year, while U.S. processors butcher 8.5 billion. “In order to do what they did in Denmark, we’d have to retrofit all of the (chicken) houses and that would be cost-prohibitive,” said Russell of the University of Georgia. The retail price of chicken would soar, with the industry pricing itself out of the business, Russell said. Danish chicken meat costs about double the average price here. “That’s the thing about the U.S.,” Russell added. “They simply will stop buying chicken if it becomes more expensive than beef.” For now, the onus on avoiding chicken-related Salmonella illnesses rests with consumers, although industry is stepping up to curb contamination, according to Charles Hofacre, a leading poultry veterinarian and professor at the University of Georgia. Companies are using new products on farms and experimenting with antimicrobial washes and other techniques in slaughterhouses. But getting results will take time, he said. “It’s a monumental task to eliminate normal bacteria from the intestine of a chicken,” Hofacre said. “If it was easy, I promise you the poultry industry would take care of it in a heartbeat. The last thing they want is someone to get sick from eating their products.”

Denmark Sees Costs, Benefits of Trying to Eradicate Salmonella

Lynne Terry — Wed, 26 Mar 2014 05:02:19 +0000

(Editor’s note: This is Part Three of a recent four-part series by Lynne Terry on how Salmonella in poultry is handled in Denmark and the U.S. The series is being republished by permission from The Oregonian. Part One is here, Part Two is here, and Part Four will run tomorrow.) When Denmark adopted its National Salmonella Control Program in 1996, the government largely funded reimbursements to farmers who had to destroy flocks. In 2002, government funding stopped and industry took over. Though farmers received payment for condemned birds, they had to pay for sanitation measures and testing. Positive tests crimped earnings. If Salmonella turned up, processors paid them less. “We started to pay according to quality,” said Jacob Roland Pedersen, lead veterinarian and senior manager of Danpo, Denmark’s largest poultry processor. “Money talks.” Hatcheries, which had to produce Salmonella-free birds, were squeezed. In the mid-1990s, Denmark had four or five hatcheries, Roland Pedersen said. Today, there is only one: DanHatch. The crackdown on Salmonella came with higher prices in the stores. “In the 1980s, it was very cheap to eat chicken,” said Karin Froidt, food safety manager of Co-op Denmark, the country’s largest grocer. Today, Danish consumers pay about $6 per pound for chicken meat, about double the average price in the United States. But with the costs came benefits. Officials in the National Food Institute estimate that the crackdown prevented 150,000 illnesses between 1997 and 2004 alone, saving about $63 million in medical care and workdays. Other European countries Denmark is not the only country in Europe that has tried to eradicate Salmonella in poultry. Sweden was the first to adopt controls in the 1960s. Finland and Britain have enacted their own programs, and the European Union set deadlines for all member states. They had to cut rates for Salmonella Typhimurium and Salmonella Enteritidis, two strains common in poultry, to 2 percent for hens by Dec. 31, 2010, and 1 percent for broilers by Dec. 31, 2011. The EU has not completely eliminated Salmonella in poultry, nor has Denmark. But the country has reduced contamination to almost nothing. Now Denmark is focusing on another bacteria, Campylobacter, also associated with poultry. U.S. health officials say processors in this country could learn a lot from the Danes and other Europeans. “What we learn from the Danes and others who’ve had some success in controlling Salmonella is that important reductions are possible,” said Dr. Robert Tauxe, a foodborne illness expert at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “Good public health surveillance and working with industry to find control measures that could be implemented – that is a model.” The key, according to the Danes, is cooperation. Everyone – industry, government, researchers, retailers and consumers – has to be on board. “You cannot do it by yourself,” said Roland Pedersen.

How Denmark Solved Its Salmonella Problem

Lynne Terry — Tue, 25 Mar 2014 05:02:33 +0000

(Editor’s note: This is Part Two of a recent four-part series by Lynne Terry on how Salmonella in poultry is handled in Denmark and the U.S. The series is being republished by permission from The Oregonian. Part One is here, and Parts Three and Four will be posted over the next two days.) A sharp spike in chicken-related Salmonella illnesses in Denmark about 25 years ago spurred a food safety revolution that produced what American experts say would not be feasible in the United States: Chicken meat essentially free of Salmonella. The Danish program required the cooperation of industry, government and researchers, with the country’s top retailer stepping in with an ultimatum, refusing to buy raw chicken meat tainted with Salmonella, which sickens about 200,000 people a year in the U.S. Processors resisted that ultimatum, saying it would be impossible to meet. But in the end they relented – and succeeded. *** Denmark’s road toward Salmonella-free chicken was a long one that had its twists, U-turns and bumps. After illnesses spiked, industry stepped up testing. Flocks were destroyed. But the results were uneven. In 1996, Denmark adopted a National Salmonella Control Program that established goals, requirements and resources. Until then, industry had foot the bill. Now a national fund was set up to compensate farmers for slaughtered flocks and losses. The government contributed nearly $30 million and the industry chipped in with about $5 million. The program was based on a zero-tolerance strategy, requiring that contaminated flocks be destroyed and that tainted eggs and chicken meat be heated to destroy pathogens before entering the food supply. But that requirement proved to be too stringent. Flocks were so heavily infected that killing them would have led to a shortage of eggs. In 1997, the regulations were relaxed with the focus turned toward eliminating Salmonella from breeder flocks in a top-down approach.

The poultry industry operates like a pyramid, with less than a handful of corporations at the top. They supply the breeding stock to producers worldwide. Their birds produce another generation, which produces broilers. Egg layers are at the bottom of the pyramid.

The Danes figured they had to eliminate Salmonella in the first generations of breeders to eliminate Salmonella in meat and eggs consumed by the public. “If the mother and father are free of Salmonella, the egg is also free of Salmonella,” said Jacob Roland Pedersen, lead veterinarian for Danpo, Denmark’s largest processor. On the other hand, if the mother is contaminated, she will pass the bacteria on, and, pretty soon, every flock is infected. “It just spreads like a waterfall,” said Henrik Wegener, provost of Denmark’s Technical University. To dry up that waterfall, Danish companies told suppliers of breeding stock they would only buy Salmonella-free birds. If birds were positive, the flock was rejected. At the same time, scientists switched to more sensitive testing. Instead of looking for the bacterium, which is harder to find, they tested for antibodies, which are easier to detect. “The great thing is that you can actually test the egg yolk for antibodies,” Wegener said. The new testing was less time-consuming, less expensive and more effective. When Salmonella was present, labs were more likely to find it. Sanitation measures The top-down approach was accompanied by a bottom-up crackdown, too, with the adoption of biosecurity or sanitation measures.

View full size Dan Aguayo/The Oregonian

Over time, chicken houses were redesigned to keep Salmonella-carrying pests and rodents at bay. Vegetation was cleared away from buildings and wide gravel paths were installed, encircling structures like a moat. Houses were designed with three-stage entry halls to prevent farmers from tracking in bacteria. Floors were made from concrete – not clay, which is typical in the U.S. – for easy sanitizing. When flocks were sent to slaughter, after about 36 days, farmers destroyed bedding and washed and disinfected equipment, dedicated clothes and the inside of the chicken house. Feed was also heated to kill bacteria, and farmers were required to lock up a dedicated feed hose in a sanitary space. They hooked up the hose to the feed truck and attached the other end to the silo to prevent cross-contamination of the feed during delivery. “This is not rocket science,” said Roland Pedersen. “It’s very, very simple stuff, but it works.” No vaccines or antibiotics The Danes decided after talks among industry, government and researchers to ban the use of vaccines, commonly used in hens in the U.S. The reason, according to Pedersen, is that vaccines reduce bacteria but do not destroy them altogether. “If you vaccinate, you might not be able to detect if the birds are positive,” he said. “This is not something we can live with.” Denmark opted to ban antibiotics, which can lead to antibiotic-resistant strains when they are overused, and they prohibited chlorine or other chemical washes during processing, a common practice here. The Danes refuse to eat chicken treated with chemicals, said Birgitte Helwigh, senior scientist at the National Food Institute. “I would never buy that,” Helwigh said. “Why should I? It’s not necessary.”

After Illnesses Soar, Denmark Attacks Salmonella at Its Source

Lynne Terry — Mon, 24 Mar 2014 05:02:08 +0000

(Editor’s note: This is Part One of a recent four-part series by Lynne Terry on how Salmonella in poultry is handled in Denmark and the U.S. The series is being republished by permission from The Oregonian. Parts Two, Three and Four will be posted over the next three days.) The gauntlet begins with a walk into the entry area, where visitors strip off their clothes and shoes. Wearing little more than underwear and socks, they step over a 15-inch-high barrier to a second section with a sink, where they wash their hands and up to their elbows in hot, soapy water, drying them with disposable towels. Then they step over another 15-inch-high barrier into the third and final area of the hallway, where they don sanitized clothes and boots. Only then can they greet the chickens. This is Denmark, where chicken farmers disrobe, wash and dress before going to work. The country adopted stringent measures about two decades ago in a national effort to eradicate Salmonella from poultry following an alarming spike in human illnesses. The U.S. Department of Agriculture is also concerned about Salmonella, which causes an estimated 1 million food-related illnesses a year in the United States, about one-fifth from poultry. But while USDA announced a Salmonella plan last year that intends to curb contamination during processing, Denmark aimed for eradication. American poultry experts say eliminating Salmonella in raw chicken meat in the U.S., though not impossible, is not feasible, in part because of the size of the industry. U.S. processors butcher 8.5 billion chickens a year, compared with about 100 million in Denmark. At one time, Danish processors said it could not be done there either. In the end, the Danes succeeded through cooperation among leaders from industry, the government and scientific institutions. The effort was not cheap, quick or easy, but officials say there is no going back. “In Denmark, we have zero tolerance for Salmonella in chicken meat,” said Birgitte Helwigh, senior scientist at the National Food Institute of the Technical University of Denmark. That policy has reaped enormous benefits for consumers, Helwigh said, and saved millions of dollars in medical expenses. Health authorities have not identified any human cases of Salmonella poisoning due to Danish chicken meat since 2011, and they estimate there has only been about a dozen illnesses from Danish eggs. Surge of cases Denmark was jolted into battle by a surge of sickness. From the mid-1950s to the mid-1970s, the country averaged about 450 confirmed Salmonella cases a year in a population of 5 million. But in 1977, the number of illnesses started to climb, spiking at nearly 3,500 in 1988.

Scientists pinpointed broiler meat as the culprit. Reporters latched onto the story, consumers became alarmed and the industry grew worried.

“They realized they had a Salmonella problem,” said Henrik Wegener, former director of the National Food Institute and now provost of the Technical University. “They also assumed they could do something to solve it.” No one knows exactly what caused the uptick. Bacteria can mutate and become more virulent. The Danish poultry industry had also changed. Once a scattering of small farms, companies merged and the industry became more centralized, with owners obtaining flocks from the same source. If those flocks were contaminated, so were the chicks. Bigger chicken houses also increased the chance for contamination. The bacteria, which can live in the intestines of healthy chickens, are spread among birds through feces. If the intestines are nicked during slaughter, the meat becomes contaminated. Industry turns to testing In 1989, the Danish poultry industry adopted the first voluntary control measures that were tweaked and tightened over time, eventually becoming mandatory. The first voluntary step involved testing broiler flocks for Salmonella three weeks before slaughter. Testing each bird would have been far too expensive, so the Danes collected fecal samples and tested them for bacteria. If the test was positive, the whole flock was butchered late in the day in an area reserved in the slaughterhouse for contaminated birds. The testing reduced human illnesses but not enough to satisfy health officials, scientists or industry. Farmers, especially, were disappointed by the results, Wegener said. “They spent quite a lot of money on testing and controls, but we really didn’t get to the bottom of the problem,” Wegener said. Retailer reacts With processors and farms struggling amid uneven results, in 1993 the largest Danish grocery retail chain stepped in with an ultimatum: Co-op Denmark told suppliers that it would not buy their chicken meat if they did not enact measures to curb Salmonella. The retailer, with nearly 40 percent of the market, told suppliers they had to destroy flocks that had a positive test prior to slaughter. Co-op Denmark also required companies to test a sampling of butchered meat. If any positives popped up, meat from that flock was rejected. The industry was dismayed by the requirement, said Karin Froidt, Co-op Denmark’s food safety manager. “They thought it would pass,” Froidt said. “But then we introduced Swedish broiler meat, which at the time had a lower incidence of Salmonella. They found out we were serious.” The retailer dangled an incentive, introducing a “Salmonella-free” label on raw chicken from companies that complied. That label carried cachet with consumers and fetched a higher price. Danpo, the country’s largest poultry processor, decided to follow the requirements, hoping to scoop up a bigger share of Co-op Denmark sales. But some smaller processors were reluctant to follow suit, said Jacob Roland Pedersen, lead veterinarian and senior manager of Danpo. “They thought it was impossible,” Roland Pedersen said.

After Battling Salmonella, Oregon Tot Turns 1

Lynne Terry — Tue, 09 Aug 2011 01:59:03 +0000

Melissa Lee was raised by a vegetarian mother on a germ alert. She disinfected surfaces, washed hands frequently and scrubbed food before cooking or eating.

Lee kept those habits after marrying and having a baby, but learned to love meat.

Health-conscious, Lee bought lean cuts, choosing ground turkey instead of beef. She stored it in plastic in the refrigerator and ensured it was cooked thoroughly when Ruby started eating meat in late May.

Two weeks later, the 10-month-old had to be rushed to the emergency room.

The brown-haired, blue-eyed beauty was suddenly a statistic: one of nearly 80 confirmed cases of Salmonella poisoning linked to ground turkey.

The outbreak, which killed an elderly woman in California and has likely sickened thousands, prompted the third largest meat recall in U.S. history and the biggest overall in terms of a health threat.

Cargill, the manufacturer, closed the Arkansas plant where the turkey was produced, mounted an investigation and apologized to consumers.

Ruby, who lives with her parents in Troutdale outside Portland, is the only known patient in Oregon. The baby recovered, but Lee remains angry her only child was poisoned by a food she considered safe.

Since birth, Ruby’s been a happy baby. Slow to cry and quick to smile, she giggles at strangers and bounces to pop tunes on the radio. She has plenty of toys but prefers Tupperware and the TV remote.

She’s always moving, grabbing, exploring. But in early June, she suddenly lost her jest. She clung in her parents arms, wailed when they put her down.

But the diarrhea was the worst, requiring up to 20 diaper changes a day. When Ruby’s temperature spiked at 102.5 degrees on June 10, Lee rushed her to a Kaiser urgent care facility in Clackamas south of Portland.

Probably a virus, doctors said, not to worry. They prescribed Tylenol every four hours.

That seemed to help at first. But on June 13, the baby who gobbled her food had no appetite for dinner. Lee took her to their pediatrician the next day. Blood was drawn. Mother and baby went home. Lee, who is 24, returned to her job the next day at Home Depot, where she works the cash register.

During her shift, the pediatrician’s office called: Get Ruby to the emergency room. She’s got a bacterial infection.

It was terrifying not knowing what was wrong, Lee said.

For the next seven days, Lee never left her daughter’s room at Doernbecher Children’s Hospital in Portland. Her husband, Brandon Mullen-Bagby, 25, carted in supplies, then worked his night shift at Home Depot. After a few days in the hospital, tests confirmed the bug: Salmonella Heidelberg.

The strain is resistant to a number of widely prescribed antibiotics. Fortunately, doctors at Doernbecher gave her an effective antibiotic from the start.

On June 21, they discharged Ruby from the hospital and the diarrhea disappeared at the end of June. The baby was back to normal, giggling and bouncing to pop tunes.

But Lee still had no clue what poisoned her only child. Oregon Public Health officials quizzed her twice. The national Centers for Disease and Prevention called. Where had they been before she got sick? What had she eaten? What did they do at the Oregon Zoo?

Two weeks ago, the answer came in a phone call. William Keene, senior epidemiologist at Oregon Public Health, said Ruby was infected by ground turkey.

Lee was stunned. Then angry. She felt guilty, too. She’s haunted by the possibility of a repeat. She disinfected her kitchen, sterilized the baby’s room, stocked a cupboard with sanitary wipes. She and her husband also stopped buying meat, all meat, though they still have a package of frozen chicken wings in the freezer.

Someday the couple might cook that up for themselves. But they’re not going to feed it to the baby. After one terrifying bout with food poisoning, they are taking no chances.

Ruby turned 1 last week. Her family and friends celebrated at her parents’ home with a cheese quesadillas and veggie bar. For dessert: iced vanilla cake.

The one thing they didn’t eat was meat.

————————–

Lynne Terry is a reporter for The Oregonian in Portland, Oregon, covering food safety issues along with breaking news and other stories. She’s also worked at Oregon Public Broadcasting, producing a daily news magazine, and before that lived in Paris, where she was a correspondent for NPR. Follow her on Twitter @LynnePDX.