ISSN: 1043-3548 PERIODICALS 6200 Aurora Awenue*Suite 200W Des Moines, iowa*USA*50322
IRONME
l^r^FTM^TIONAL nON FOR FOOD PRO’ New Rapid-Check™ pathogen screening for E. coli 0157 Results you can depend on...time after time.
Your pathogen testing program has to meet tough, real world criteria. Strategic Diagnostics Inc. develops food safety products that provide real world value. Our knowledge, products and people can help raise confidence in the safety of your food products.
SDI’s new Rapid-Check™ for E. coli 0157 is quick, economical, and easy-to-use. Our proprietary one-step media means you can perform enrichment in as little as * 8 hours. You don’t need to boil your sample or refrigerate our cassette, so there’s no waiting for materials to come to room temperature. You’ll get results in half the time of other tests. And you don’t have to make judgement calls on difficult to 4 read cassettes. Rapid-Check™ produces crystal clear results every time. ^
Let SDI and Rapid-Check™ bring simplicity, accuracy and economy to your testing programs. For a free sample, just call 1-800-544-8881 or email your request to [email protected] While you’re here, make sure to visit us at booths 408 & 409.
Part of SDI’s family of food safety products Strategic Diagnostics Inc
Reader Service No. 166 DQCI Services, Inc. Bacfetiological & Chemical Testing
Standards and Calibration Sets Chemical and Bacteriological Testing Raw Milk Component Standards Milk and Milk Products Raw Lowfat Component Standards Producer Quality Testing Pasteurized/Homogenized Lowfat Standards Producer Component Testing High Fat Cream Standards Mastitis Culture-Cow or Light Cream Standards Bulk Tank Testing Electronic Somatic Cell Standards Third Party Verification/ Skim Condensed Standards Validation Urea Standards Goat Standards A A B Control Samples Standards Made to Customer's Specs
High Performance Liquid Chromatography Carbohydrates and/or Antibiotics in Milk
DQCI Services, Inc, Mounds View Business Park, S20S Quincy St, Mounds View, MN 55112 (763) 785-0484 phone, (763) 785-0584 fai
Reader Service No. 129
Let Us Come to Youi FPI, the Food Processors Institute, is uniquely qualified to conduct company-specific workshops in: • Better Process Control Calendar of training opportumtie • HACCP - Basic HACCP - Verification and Validation • Online registrationl -Juice HACCP • Thermal Processing • Self-study coursei • Sanitation and GMPs • Juice Pasteurization These workshops are custom tailored to a company's needs and can be held on-site. To find out more about providing training for your entire HACCP team, supervisors, QA/QC. and line workers, contact Online purchasing FPI at 1-800/355-0983, Processors 202/393-0890 or e-mail us Institute at [email protected]
The education prot iderfor National Food Processors Asswiation
Reader Service No. 131
SEPTEMBER 2002 - Dairy, food and Environmental Sanitation 645 1
DAIRY. FOOD AND ENVIRONMENTAL ABOUT THE COVER...
PFioto courtesy oF PFioto Disc, Food Essentials, Volume 20.
Use of this photo does not imply endorsement of any product or procedure by the International Association for Food Protection. O International Association tor Food Protection. Articles_
The Sink Environment as a Souree of Mierobial Contamination in the Domestic Kitchen .... 658 J. Tienwy, M. Moriarty. tiiul I.. Kearney
Internalization of Escherichia coii in Apples under Natural Conditions.667
/). K. Seenian. S. S. Sniniier. R. Marini, and K. Kniei
C-omniercial Application of Lactic Acid to Reduce Bacterial Populations on Chilled Beef Carcasses, Subprimal Cuts and Table Surfaces during Fabrication.67-* R. T. Bacon. J. \. .Sofo.s. K. Be/R. and (i. C. Smith
Thought’s on Today’s Food Safety... Food Security t- Food Safety.720 Jenny Scott. Rhona . X/ddehanni. cant Atice Johnson
Associgtion News_
Sustaining Members.652 Thoughts From The President, “TIMING IS EVERYTHING... ” .654 (x)mmentary from the Executive Director.656 Affiliate Officers.693 New Members.698
Departments
Reader Comments.700 News.701 Industry Products.705 Coming Events.711 Advertising Index.714 C^areer Services Section.715 \i Extras_
C^all for Nominations — 2003 Secretary.683 2003 Award Nominations.684 Call for Abstracts — I AFP 2003.686 Highlights of the Executive Board Meeting - June 28 - July 4, 2002.692 Joiirnat of Food Protection Table of Contents.713 Audiovisual Library Order Form.717 Booklet Order Form.718 Membership Application.719
The publishers do not warrant, either expressly or by implication, the factual accuracy of the articles or descriptions herein, nor do they so warrant any views or opinions offered by the authors of said articles and descriptions.
646 Dairy, Food and Environmental Sonitotion - SEPTEMBER 2002 Which PATH will you take to assure product safety?
PATH/Gf/V Tests deliver rapid results. The sensitivity of IGEN's PATH/GfW Tests reduce labor. Walkaway automation means less OR/GfW Technology means short enrichment times. You get hands-on time. And PATH/Gf/V Tests are provided in an easy-to-use your results fast. format with positive and negative controls. Because the format of all PATH/GEW Tests is the same, several tests can be performed at the PATH/Gf/V Tests provide accurate results. False positives and the same time for the same sample set. need for confirmatory tests are reduced. PATH/GEN Tests are highly specific even in difficult matrices. PATH/Gf/V Tests are available for the presumptive identification of E. coli 0157, Salmonella, Listeria, and Campylobacter.
Start down the right PATH to protect your products. For more information or to schedule a demonstration, contact IGEN International, Inc. at (301) 869-9800 or e-mail us at [email protected]
IGEN International, Inc. IGEN Europe, Inc. 16020 Industrial Drive, Gaithersburg, MD 20877 Unit 12, Thorney Leys Park, Witney, Oxfordshire, OX284GE, UK 800-336-4436 Fax: 240-632-2206 +44(0)1993-892240 Fax:+44(0)1993-892241 IGEN International, Inc. e mail: pathigent^igen.com e-mail: [email protected]
Not for human diagnostic use. IGEN, OR/Gf/V, and PATH/Gf/V are trademarks of IGEN International, Inc. www.igen.com
[Reader Service No. 168 DAIRY. FOOD AND ENVIRONMENTAL nternational Association for Food Protection. 6200 Aurora Avenue, Suite 200W SanitationA PUBLICATION OF THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR FOOD PROTECTION Des Moines, lA 50322-2864, USA Dairy, Food and Environmental Sanitation (ISSN-1043-3546) is pub¬ Phone: 800.369.6337 • 515.276.3344 lished monthly beginning with the January number by the International Fax: 515.276.8655 Association for Food Protection, 6200 Aurora Avenue, Suite 200W, Des E-mail; [email protected] Moines, Iowa 50322-2864, USA. Each volume comprises 12 numbers. Web site: www.foodprotection.org Printed by Heuss Printing, Inc., 911 N. Second Street, Ames, Iowa 50010, USA. Periodical Postage paid at Des Moines, Iowa 50318 and additional DFES JOURNAL STAFF entry offices. David W. Tharp, CAE: Executive Director Manuscripts; Correspondence regarding manuscripts should be ad¬ E-ma i I: dtha rp@food protection.org dressed to Donna A. Bahun, Production Editor, International Association for Food Protection. Lisa K. Hovey, CAE: Managing Editor News Releases, Updates, Coming Events and Cover Photos: Corre¬ E-mail: I ho vey@food p rotecti on. o rg spondence for these materials should be sent to Donna A. Bahun, Donna A. Bahun: Production Editor Production Editor, International Association for Food Protection. E-mail: [email protected] "Instructions for Authors" may be obtained from our Web site at Pam J. Wanninger: Proofreader www.foodprotection.org or from Donna A. Bahun, Production Editor, International Association for Food Protection. E-mail: [email protected] Orders for Reprints: All orders should be sent to Dairy, Food and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR Environmental Sanitation, International Association for Food Protection. FOOD PROTECTION STAFF Note: Single copies of reprints are not available from this address; address single copy reprint requests to principal author. David W. Tharp, CAE: Executive Director Reprint Permission: Questions regarding permission to reprint E-mail: [email protected] any portion of Dairy, Food and Environmental Sanitation should Lisa K. Hovey, CAE: Assistant Director be addressed to: Donna A. Bahun, Production Editor, International E-mail: [email protected] Association for Food Protection. Donna A. Bahun: Design and Layout Business Matters: Correspondence regarding business matters should be addressed to Lisa K. Hovey, Managing Editor, International Assoc¬ E-mail: [email protected] iation for Food Protection. Julie A. Cattanach: Membership Services Membership Dues: Membership in the Association is available to E-mail: [email protected] individuals. Dues include a 12-month subscription to Dairy, Food and Environmental Sanitation at a rate of $95.00 US, $105.00 Canada/ Bev Corron: Public Relations Mexico, and $120.00 International. Dues including Dairy, Food and E-mail: [email protected] Environmental Sanitation and the lournal of Food Protection are Shannon I. Green: Audiovisual Library Coordinator $165.00 US, $190.00 Canada/Mexico, and $235.00 International. E-mail: [email protected] Student memberships are available with verification of student status. Student rates are $47.50 US, $57.50 Canada/Mexico, and $72.50 Inter¬ Donna Cronstal: Senior Accountant national for Dairy, Food and Environmental Sanitation; $47.50 US, E-mail: [email protected] $62.50 Canada/Mexico, and $92.50 International for Journal of Food Protection; and $82.50 US, $107.50 Canada/Mexico, and $152.50 Karla K. Jordan: Order Processing International for Dairy, Food and Environmental Sanitation and Jour¬ E-mail: [email protected] nal of Food Protection. All membership dues include shipping and Didi Sterling Loynachan: Administrative Assistant handling. No cancellations accepted. Correspondence regarding changes of address and dues must be sent to Julie A. Cattanach, Membership E-mail: [email protected] Services, International Association for Food Protection. Lucia Collison McPhedran: Association Services Sustaining Membership: Three levels of sustaining membership E-mail: [email protected] are available to organizations. For more information, contact Beth Miller: Accounting Assistant Julie A. Cattanach, Membership Services, International Association for Food Protection. E-mail: [email protected] Subscription Rates: Dairy, Food and Environmental Sanitation is available Pam J. Wanninger: Proofreader by subscription for $210.00 US, $220.00 Canada/Mexico, and $235.00 E-mail: [email protected] International. Single issues are available for $26.00 US and $35.00 all other countries. All rates include shipping and handling. No can¬ cellations accepted. For more information contact Julie A. Cattanach, ADVERTISING Membership Services, International Association for Food Protection. David Larson Claims: Notice of failure to receive copies must be reported within 909 50th Street 30 days domestic, 90 days outside US. West Des Moines, lA 50265 Postmaster: Send address changes to Dairy, Food and Environmental Phone: 515.440.2810 Sanitation, 6200 Aurora Avenue, Suite 200W, Des Moines, Iowa 50322- Fax: 515.440.2809 2864, USA. E-mail: [email protected] Dairy, Food and Environmental Sanitation is printed on paper that meets the requirements of ANSI/NISO 239.48-1992.
648 Ooity, Food and Environmental Sonitolion - SEPTEMBER 2002 Sustaining Membership provides organizations and corporations the opportunity to ally themselves with the International Association for Food Protection in pursuit of Advancing Food Safety Worldwide. This paitnership entitles companies to become Members of the leading food safety organization in the world while supporting various educational programs that might not otherwise be possible.
Organizations who lead the way in new technology and development join lAFP as Sustaining Members. Sustaining Members receive all the benefits of lAFP Membership, plus: • Monthly listing of your organization in Dairy, Food and Environmental Sanitation and Journal of Food Protection • Discount on advertising • Exhibit space discount at the Annual Meeting • Organization name listed on the Association’s Web site • Link to your organization’s Web site from the Association’s Web site • Alliance with the International Association for Food Protection
Designation of three individuals from within the organization to receive Memberships with full benefits $750 exhibit booth discount at the lAFP Annual Meeting $2,000 dedicated to speaker support for educational sessions at the Annual Meeting Company profile printed annually in Dairy, Food and Environmental Sanitation
Designation of two individuals from within the organization to receive Memberships with full benefits $500 exhibit booth discount at the lAFP Annual Meeting $1,000 dedicated to speaker support for educational sessions at the Annual Meeting
• Designation of an individual from within the organization to receive a Membership with full benefits • $300 exhibit booth discount at the lAFP Annual Meeting
niernat onal Association tor Food Protection,
SEPTEMBER 2002 - Dairy, Food ond Environmenlal Sonitalion 649 DAIRY. FOOD AND ENVIRONMENTAL Future Annual Sanitation Meetings International Association tor Food Protection.
EXECUTIVE BOARD
President, Anna M. Lammerding, Health Canada, Population and Public Health Branch, 110 Stone Road W., Guelph, Ontario, NIC 3W4 Canada; Phone: 519.822.3300 Ext. 247; E-mail: anna_lammerding@hc- sc.gc.ca President-Elect, Paul A. Hall, Kraft Foods, Inc., 801 Waukegan Road, lAFP 2003 Glenview, IL 60025-4312; Phone: 847.646.3678; E-mail: phall@kraft. com Vice President, Kathleen A. Glass, University of Wisconsin, Food August 10-13 Research Institute, 1925 Willow Drive, Madison, Wl 53706-1 187; Phone: 608.263.6935; E-mail: [email protected] Hilton New Orleans Riverside Secretary, jeffrey M. Farber, Health Canada, Tunney's Pasture, Banting New Orleans, Louisiana Research Center, Postal Locator 2203G3, Ottawa, Ontario K1AOL2 Canada Phone: 613.957.0880; E-mail: [email protected] Past President, )ames S. Dickson, Iowa State University, Department of Microbiology, 207 Science I, Ames, IA 50011-0001; Phone: 515.294.4733; E-mail: [email protected] Affiliate Council Chairperson, Eugene R. Frey, Land O'Lakes, Inc., 307 Pin Oak Place, Lancaster, PA 17602-3469, USA; Phone: 717.397.0719; E-mail: [email protected]
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
David W. Tharp, CAE, 6200 Aurora Ave., Suite 200W, Des Moines, lA 50322-2864; Phone: 515.276.3344; E-mail: dtharp@foodprotection. lAFP 2004 org August 8-11 SCIENTIFIC EDITOR
JW Marriott Desert William LaGrange, Ph.D., Iowa State University, Department of Food Science and Human Nutrition, Food Sciences Building, Ames, Ridge Resort lA 50011-0001; Phone: 515.294.3156; Fax: 515.294.8181; E-mail: Phoenix, Arizona [email protected]
SCIENCE NEWS EDITOR
Doug Powell, Ph.D., University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario NIG 2W1 Canada; Phone: 519.821.1799; Fax: 519.824.6631; E-mail: [email protected]
"The mission of the Association is to provide food safety professionals worldwide with a forum to exchange information on protecting the food supply."
650 Dairy, Fooii and Environmental Sanitation - SEPTEMBER 2002 4
GARY ACUFF (02).College Station, TX JULIE A. ALBRECHT (03) .Lincoln, NE JEAN ALLEN (04).Toronto, Ontario, CAN KEVIN ANDERSON (02).Ames, lA HAROLD BENGSCH (03) .Springfield, MO PHILIP BLACOYEVICH(03).San Ramon, CA THOMAS C. BOUFFORD (04).St. Paul, MN BOB BRADLEY (02).Madison, Wl CHRISTINE BRUHN (03).Davis, CA LLOYD B. BULLERMAN (02) .Lincoln, NE DONNA CHRISTENSEN (03).Calgary, Alberta, CAN VYARREN S. CLARK (04).Chicago, IL VYILLIAM W. COLEMAN (02) .Fargo, ND PETE COOK (04) .Mt. Airy, MD NELSON COX (02).Athens, CA CARL CUSTER (03).Washington, D.C. JIM DICKSON (04).Ames, lA RUTH FUQUA (02).Mt. Juliet, TN JILLCEBLER (03).Yarram, Victoria, AU THOMAS M. GILMORE (04).McLean, VA B. A. GD\TZ (02).Ames, lA DAVID COMBAS (03).Washington, D.C. DAVID HENNING (04).Brookings, SD CHARLOTTE HINZ (02).Leroy, NY JOHN HOLAH (03) .Gloucestershire, U.K. CHARLES HURBURGH (04).Ames, lA JIM HUSS (02).Ames, lA ELIZABETH JOHNSON (03).Columbia, SC PETER KEELING (02) .Ames, lA SUSAN KLEIN (04).Des Moines, lA SHERRI L. KOCHEVAR (02).Greeley, CO DOUG LORTON (03).Fulton, KY LYNN MCMULLEN (02).Edmonton, Alberta, CAN JOHN MIDDLETON (03).Manukau City, Auckland, N.Z. CATHERINE NETTLES-CUTTER (04).University Park, PA CHRIS NEWCOMER (02).Cincinnati, OH DEBBY NEWSLOW (03).Orlando, FL FRED PARRISH (04).Ames, lA DARYL PAULSON (02) .Bozeman, MT DAVID PEPER (03) .Sioux City, lA MICHAEL PULLEN (04).White Bear Lake, MN K. T. RAJKOWSKI (02).Wyndmoor, PA LAWRENCE A. ROTH (03).Edmonton, Alberta, CAN ROBERT SANDERS (04).Pensacola, FL CAROL SAWYER (04).East Lansing, Ml RONALD H. SCHMIDT (02).Gainesville, FL JOESEBRANK(03).Ames, lA PETE SNYDER (04).St. Paul, MN JOHN N. SOFOS (02).Ft. Collins, CO LEO TIMMS (03).Ames, lA P. C. VASAVADA (04).River Falls, Wl
SEPTEMBER 2002 - Dairy, Food and Environmental Sanitation 651 Sustaining Membership provides organizations and corporations the opportunity to ally them selves with the International Association for Food Protection in pursuit of Advancing Food Safety Worldwide. This partnership entitles companies to become Members of the leading food safety organization in the world while supporting various educational programs that might not otherwise be possible. Organizations who lead the way in new technology and development join lAFP as Sustaining Members.
DuPont Qualicon, Wilmington, DE; 302.693.5300
KRAFTy Kraft Foods, Inc., Glenview, IL; 847.646.3678
' bioMerieux, Inc., Hazelwood, MO; 800.638.4835
F & H Food Equipment Co., Springfield, MO; 417.881.6114
MATRIX MATRIX MicroScience Ltd., (lambridgeshire, United Kingdom; 44.1638.723110
im Quality Flow Inc., Northbrook, IL; 847.291.7674
Silliker Inc., Homewood, IL; 708.957.7878
ys Weber Scientific, Hamilton, NJ; 609.584.7677
Siisliiiniii!!
3-A Symbt>l Council, (ecLir Rtipids, AgriLink Foods, Inc., Clreen Bay, BD Diagnostic Systems, Sparks, lA; 319.286.9221 Wl; 920.435.5301 .Ml); 410.316.4467
3M Microbiology Products, St. Anderson Instrument Co., Fiilton- Bentley Instruments, Inc., (;haska, Paul, MN; 612.733 9558 ville, NY; 518.922.5315 MN; 952.448.7600
ABC Research Corporation, ASI Food Safety Consultants, BioContrt>I Systems, Inc., lk*lle- (iainesville, FL; 352.372.0436 Inc., St. Louis, MO; 800.477.0778 viie, WA; 425.603.1123
652 Doiry, Food ond Environmentol Sonilotion - SEPTEMBER 2002
■piju.1. -..I Sustaining Members
Biolog, Inc., Hay^ward, CA; 510. Food Safety Net Services, Ltd., Neogen Corporation, Lansing. Ml; ■’85.2564 San Antonio, TX; 210.384.3424 517.372.92(X)
Capitol Vial, Inc., Tucson, AZ; Foss North America, Inc., Eden Nestle USA, Inc., Glendale, CA; 800.688.9515 Prairie, MN; 952.974.9892 818.549.5799
Capitol Wholesale Meats, Chi¬ Georgia-Pacific Technology NSF International, Ann Arbtir, MI; cago, IL; 773.890.0600 Center, Palatka, FL; 386.312.1184 734.769.8010
Cogent Technologies, Ltd., Cin¬ IBA, Inc., Millbury’, xMA; 508.865. Oxoid, Inc., Nepean, Ontario, cinnati, OH; 513.469.6800 6911 c:anada; 800.267.6391 International BioProducts, Inc., DARDEN Restaurants, Inc., Orlan¬ Penn State University, University Bothell, WA; 425.398.7993 do, FL; 407.245.5330 Park, PA; 814.865.7535
I ntemational Dairy Foods Assoc¬ Dean Foods, Rockford, IL; 815. The Procter & Gamble Co., Cin¬ 962.0647 iation, Washington, D.(;.; 202.737. cinnati, OH; 513 983.8349 4332 Decagon Devices, Inc., Pullman, REMEL, Inc., Lenexa, KS; 800.255. WA; 509.332.2756 International Fresh-cut Produce 6^’30 Association, Alexandria, VA; Deibel Lahoratories, Inc., Lincoln- '03.299.6282 Rhodia Inc., Madison, Wl; 800. wood, IL; 847.329.9900 356.9393 Iowa State University Food DonLevy & Associates, Inc., Microbiology Group, Ames, lA; Ross Laboratories, (Columbus, Merrillville, IN; 219.736.0472 515.294.4733 OH; 614.624.3785
DSM Food Specialties, Meno¬ LABPLAS Inc., Ste-Julie, Quebec, rtech” laboratories, St. Paul, monee Falls, Wl; 262.255.7955 (Canada; 450.649.7343 MN; 800.328.9687
DQCI Services, Inc., Mounds Land O’Lakes, Inc., St. Paul, MN; Seiberling Associates, Inc., View, MN; 763 785.0484 651.481.2541 Dublin, OH; 6l4.764.28n
Dynal Biotech, Inc., hifayette Hill, Marine BioProducts International, Seward Limited, London, United PA; 866.DYNAi;rr Delta, British Columbia, Canada; Kingdom; 44.0.181.365.4104 604.523.2400 EM Science, (iibbstown, NJ; 856. Strategic Diagnostics Inc., New¬ Medallion Laboratories, .Minnea¬ 423.6300 ark, DE; 302.456.6789 polis, MN; 612.764.4453 Fcolab, Inc., St. Paul, MN; 612. Michelson Laboratories, Inc., United Fresh Fruit & Vegetable 293.2364 Association, Alexandria, VA; 703. (Commerce, C^A; 562.928.0553 836.3410 Electrol Specialties Co., South Nasco International, Inc., Fort Beloit, IL; 815.389.2291 Atkinson, Wl; 920.568.5536 Warren Analytical Laboratory, Greeley , CX); 8(M).945.6669 Evergreen Packaging, Division The National Food I.aboratory, of International Paper, C^edar Inc., Dublin, C^A; 925.551.4231 West Agro, Inc., Kansas (aty, MO; Rapids, lA; 319 399.3236 816.891.1558 National Food Processors Asso¬ EtHxlHandler, Inc., Westbury, NY; ciation, Washington, D.(^; 202. WestFarm Foods, Seattle, WA; 800.338.4433 639.5985 206.286.6772
Food Processors Institute, Wash¬ Nelson-Jameson, Inc., Marsh¬ Zep Manufacturing Company, ington, D.C.; 800.355.0983 field, Wl; ■’15.387.1151 Atlanta, GA; 404.352.1680
SEPTEMBER 2002 - Dairy, Food and Environmental Sanitation 653 THOUGHTS FROM THEPRESIDENT^^^^^^I “TIMING IS EVERnHING”
“A crisis is no time to be and the safety of the food supply exchanging business cards ...” again.st either deliberate or Dr. Mitchell Cohen, Director unintentional threats. of the Division of Bacterial and I AFP strives to provide Mycotic Diseases, US (Centers for opportunities to bring together Disea.se C^ontrol and Prevention, researchers, regulators, public addressed the Opening Session health personnel, and the food audience at I AFP 2002 in San indu.stry. Otir Annual Meeting and Diego, and talked about lessons our Journals provide the vehicles learned in the aftermath of events for exchanging information on in the United States one year ago food safety — from pre-harvest this month. T’he harsh reality of through to retail, food .service, terrorism starkly underlined the By ANNA M. LAMMERDING and consumer handling. Al¬ fact that we must be ever vigilant. President though our Association has grown Deliberate contamination of food significantly during the past and water supplies has become a decade, the size of our meeting is too-real possibility. Dr. C^ohen still small enough that this year’s emphasized that a crisis is no time “it’s all about 1,400+ attendees could easily to be exchanging business cards; work on increasing their own networking” we need to establish our connec¬ tions, before a crisis happens. personal networks. Students What does this mean to our attending our meeting for the first profession? An increased, urgent time often remark that the impetus to strengthen the link¬ oppt)rtunity to really get to know ages amongst all those involved in some of the scientists behind the ensuring the safety of food and publications is invaluable, and water supplies, and developing that the atmosphere of the new types of partnerships. At the meeting makes everyone feel 1st International C>onference on welcomed. This is the time to Microbiological Risk Assessment; exchange business cards — Foodborne Hazards, held July 24- between symposia, during the 26 at the University of Maryland, poster sessions, over lunch, a similar message was repeated by through social events. several speakers. In his opening F-mail is an amazing tool (perhaps remarks at that meeting. Dr. too much so!) that helps us Lester Crawford, US Food and connect with people... but the Drug Administration’s Deputy connections are always more Director, noted that our profes¬ meaningful when you can put sion is at a much higher profile now than just a few years ago, and a face to the ISP address! much broader in scope. Our goals As I AFP strengthens its should be to guarantee every membership outside of the US man, woman and child a safe, and (Canada, we can only benefit secure and sufficient food supply. as our own personal networks Increasingly, global communica¬ become globalized. At a local tions and interactions are neces¬ level, our Affiliate Associations sary to help protect public health serve us well also. Their goals are
654 Ooiry, Food ond Environmentol Sonilotion - SEPTEMBER 2002 not only to educate through venue and creativity in planning see what is happening in other meetings, workshops and tours, for meetings... the “snipe hunt” affiliates, and promotes exchange but also to provide opportunities in the middle of the night, in the of ideas for conference themes to forge new partnerships and middle of nowhere, is a legendary and other events. develop connections with col¬ annual event for the Florida In closing, I encourage you to join in your local affiliate if one is leagues around us. Many affiliates Association for Food Protection! in your region, and if not, con¬ work hard to organize 2 to 3 day The Affiliate News, prepared by sider starting one! Start planning meetings and provide lots of the Affiliate Council Chairperson for LAPP 2003, August 10 -13 in “down-time” to renew acquain¬ and Secretary, this year Gene Frey New Orleans. Let us provide you tances and meet new colleagues. and Steven Murphy together with a fun and educational time and The spirit of camaraderie is Lucia Collison McPhedran at the place to exchange business cards, certainly enhanced by a unique I AFP office, lets our Members before the crisis happens!
Join the World's Leading Food Safety Organization Today!
6200 Aurora Avenue, Suite 200W nternational Association for Food Protection. Web site: www.foodprotection.org
SEPTEMBER 2002 - Daity, Food and Environmentol Sonitotion 655 Commentary
From the Executive Director
Food Protection Trends, name. Also, we hope to incorpo¬ News and Science from the rate new information or columns International Association for Food such as Reader C^omments and Protection. What do you think? Point-Counterpoint columns. Do you like the new name for From our survey results one year Dairy, Food and Environmental ago, readers liked the content of Sanitation^ We hope so! At I AFP DEES but were interested in 2002, The DFES Management receiving more information Committee recommended the (articles) and more reader interac¬ name, Eood Protection Trends, tion (Reader Comments and Point- to the Executive Board and tlie (aninterpoint). Executive Board accepted the By DAVID W. THARP, CAE We encourage your participa¬ recommendation. Now we are tion in providing Reader (a)m- Executive Director moving quickly to implement ments for publication. We feel the new name. that this type of interaction can The new name will be put be stimulating and helps to into use with the January 2003 “This will be expose readers to a variety of issue, but a lot of details need to individual opinions. If you have be tended to between now and an exciting comments you want to share with then. With a new name will come readers, forward them to our a new look inside the Journal. office in care of Donna Bahun. If time for DFES We will keep the same features you have an idea for a Point- you have come to rely upon such ('-ounterpoint column, you may as we embark as News, Updates, Industry Pro¬ also contact Donna. We invite ducts, Coming Events and a thought-provoking conversation upon its name Career Services Section. In and interaction among lAFP addition, we will continue to run Members and readers. change to “Special Reports” and “Thoughts fhis will be an exciting time on Food Safety” when available. for DFES as we embark upon its Food Protection With the cooperation of our name change to Eood Protection authors and reviewers, we hope Trends. Watch the upcoming Trends^' to be able to continue placing issues of DEES for the transition three articles in each issue as we have done over the past few to its new name and be sure to months. The volume of submitted help inform your colleagues of articles has been strong over the this change to help us sail past year and we expect to see smoothly through the transfor¬ this trend continue. mation. So what will be different, Now, before closing for this you may ask? Mostly the name month, 1 would be remiss if 1 did and inside look. It was time for a not mention two things. First off, change and the Caimmittee felt it September is Food Safety Month was best to rename the Journal to and has been for a number of be in line with the Association’s years. This program is sponsored
656 Dairy, Food and Environmental Sanitation - SEPTEMBER 2002 by the National Restaurant The second item is to remem¬ differently than before the Association and many other fine ber September 11, 2001. The tragedies that occurred that day. associations and companies. The world is a different place than it Take a few minutes out of your intent is to educate the consumer was prior to September 11, 2001. life to pay your respects to the about safe handling of foods and The world of food safety has victims of those terrible attacks to keep the consuming public changed much over this last year. and let us gain strength from our healthy. Think of what you are doing unity to oppose these evil acts!
Oi CommtAiim
At I AFP 2002, we offered a drawing for a one-year membership with our Association and a registration for lAFP 2003 in New Orleans, LA. We are pleased to announce the following winners of the drawing:
I AFP Membership lAFP 2003 Registration Patricia Rule Samuel A. Palumbo BioMerieux National Center for Food Safety Hazelwood, MO and Technology Summit-Argo, IL
SEPTEMBER 2002 - Daity, Food and Environmental Sonitotion 657 Dairy, Food and Environmental Sanitation, Vol. 22, No. 9, Pages 658-666 Copyright© International Association tor Food Protection, 6200 Aurora Ave., Suite 200W, Des Moines, lA 50322
The Sink Environment as a Source of Microbial Contamination in the Domestic Kitchen
J. Tierney,* M. Moriarty, and L. Kearney Dublin Institute of Technology, Cothol Brugho Street, Dublin 1, Ireland
as preparing and eating food at home SUMMARY (51). A study in the Netherlands suggests that 80% of Salmonella Samples from the sink base, draining board, joint around infections arise in the home (27). the tap, and tap nozzle surfaces were taken in 35 randomly Hilton and Austin (24) estimated chosen domestic premises and analyzed for total viable that private homes account for more counts, total coliforms, and presence of Escherichia coli outbreaks of ft)odbome illness than and Salmonella. Practices related to frequency of use of the total of all other sources. A study cleaning and disinfecting agents were also assessed. The by Roberts (41),of\,()()() outbreaks results demonstrated that the kitchen sink environment is a of food poisoning, showed that the source of the highest percentage of reservoir for microorganisms. cases was the family home (19.7%), followed by restaurants (17.1%) and banquets (12.2%).
INTRODUCTION 76 million people experience METHODS foodborne illnesses (21). However, In a survey conducted by the the World Health Organization Four surfaces in the kitchen Food Safety Authority Ireland (WHO) estimates that only 10VY> of were selected for investigation: the (FSAI) (19, 20), of 1,000 Irish and incidents occurring in most Euro¬ sink base, draining board, the sealer British respondents, 5 and 6% re¬ pean countries are reported (2). around the tap, and the tap nozzle. spectively reported suffering from People tend to associate greater Stainless steel kitchen sinks, drain¬ food poisoning in the previous 12 risk with situations and circum¬ ing boards and tap surfaces were months. In 1998, over 93,900 cases stances that are controlled by oth¬ swabbed at 35 domestic premises. of foodborne illness were reported ers, such as eating in restaurants, Swabs of approximately (5x4 cm’) in England and Wales (3). Each year rather than with situations in which were sampled and aseptically in the United States, an estimated they have perceived control, such placed in a sterile universal bottle
A peer-reviewed article.
*Author for correspondence: Phone: 353.14024495; Fax: 353.14024505; E-mail: [email protected]
Iniemaiional Assoculion l» 658 Dairy, Food and Environmental Sonitotion - SEPTEMBER 2002 Food Protection. r
TABLE 1. Total microbial levels on the sink environment
TVC (%) Total Coliforms (%)
Sink Draining Tap Surface Sink Draining Tap Surface Count board around board araund /cm^ tap tap
<10^ 15 26 51 20 34 68 83 34
10^-10= 25 40 17 17 40 9 11 26
10^-10" 23 11 23 17 14 6 6 14
10^-10^ 14 1 6 17 3 11 0 17
10^-10* 9 6 3 12 9 3 0 9
10^-10" 14 6 0 17 0 3 0 0
containing 9 ml of 1% bacterio¬ inoculated from the enrichment me¬ alone or along with species of en¬ logical peptone (Oxoid'") as a dia and incubated at 37'’C for 24 teric origin or other potentially diluent and 1 ml inactivator consist¬ hours. Salmonella presence was pathogenic species (5), while in ing of 3 g lecithin, 30 ml tween- also tested for by enrichment in another study (13), > 3 9 x 10- CFIV 80, 5 g sodium thiosulphate, 1 g L- Rappaport-Vassiliadis Broth (RV) cm- TVe was considered high. histidine, and 10 ml phosphate (Oxoid ") and Selenite Cystine Broth Table 1 shows that 85% of the buffer per 1 distilled water at pH "'.2 (SC) (Oxoid™) and incubation at sink basins had a TVC (total viable (17). The samples w’ere then re¬ 42'’(; and 37'’(> respectively for 24 count) in excess of lO-CFlI/cm’, hours. Modified Brilliant (ireen Agar turned to the laboratory for bacte¬ with 14% exhibiting TVC in the riological analysis. (MB(l) (Oxoid ") and Xylose Lysine range of 10'’ to 10'CFH/cm-. The Each surface swab was ana¬ Desoxycholate Agar (XLD) (Oxoid'”) draining board was also highly con¬ lyzed by the standard pour plate were incubated at 37'’C for 24 hours. taminated, 73% of those sampled method for total viable counts Identification of E. coli and Salmo¬ had TVC > 10- CFH/cm-. The tap ( EVT) on T ryptone Soya Agar ( ESA) nella was confirmed using the nozzle surface had the lowest mi¬ (Oxoid ”) incubated at 30"C', for 48 Biolog" identification system. crobial load of the four sites hours. Total coliform analysis was At the time of sampling, sampled with 49*^) of the surfaces questionaires were issued to assess carried out with the standard pour having > 10-CFlVcm-and w ith no general awareness and practices plate method, using Violet Red Bile tap nozzle surface samples having with regard to hygiene. Agar (VRBA) and incubating at TVe^s in excess of 10'’CFH/cm-. The lising the SPSS™ computer pack¬ 37’’C' for 24 hours. Typical colonies joint arotind the tap had the great¬ were inoculated into Brilliant age, sample results were cn)ss-tab- est frequency of contamination, in (ireen Bile Broth (BCiBB) (Oxoid ") ulated with questionnaire responses the range 10'’ to lO'CFH/cm’ containing an inverted durham fer¬ to ascertain if there was any rela¬ (17‘A')). With regard to total coli- mentation tube, incubated at 37'’C> tionship between hygiene practices forms, almost tw'o-thirds of the sites for 24 hours, and examined for gas and surface contamination levels. production. sampled in the sink basin and around the tap joint had over 10- Ehe presence of E. coli was de¬ RESULTS tected by enrichment using Entero- coli forms/cm-, however, the major¬ bacteriaceae Enrichment Broth In analysis of surfaces, it has ity of the tap nozzle and draining (EEE) (Oxoid '") and incubation at been suggested that total counts in boards tested had < 10-conforms/ 37'’(', for 24 hours. Eosine Methyl¬ excess of 10- CFH/cm- represent cm-. Figure 1 shows that E. coli is ene Blue agar (EMB) (Oxoid ") was high contamination levels, either more frequently isolated than Sal-
SEPTEMBER 2002 - Dairy, food ond Etrvironmentol Sanitation 659 TABLE 2. The effects of frequency of cleaning agent usage on the prevalence of microbial contamination in the sink environment
TVC Total (%) Coliforms
(%)
Frequency of Sink Draining Tap Around Sink Draining Tap Around Count cleaning agent board tap board tap /cm^ usage
<10^ At least daily 57 38 77 33 69 87 86 29
>Weekly 5 29 50 28 21 76 100 59
Less frequently 0 0 0 0 0 40 29 0
At least daily 29 62 23 50 31 13 14 71
>Weekly 37 42 13 18 50 6 0 23
Less frequently 0 0 17 0 38 10 42 0
10^-10" At least daily 14 0 0 17 O' 0 0 0
>Weekly 32 21 25 12 8 6 0 6
Less frequently 11 13 66 25 49 10 29 36
10^-10^ At least daily 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
>Weekly 16 0 6 18 0 12 0 6
Less frequently 23 50 17 25 13 20 0 46
10^-10* At least daily 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
>Weekly 0 7 6 12 21 0 0 6
Less frequently 33 13 0 16 0 10 0 18
10‘-10' At least daily 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
>Weekly 10 0 0 12 0 0 0 0
Less frequently 33 24 0 32 0 10 0 0
660 Dairy, Food ond Environmental Sanitation - SEPTEMBER 2002 when cleaning agent was used in¬ frequently. When the participants in the survey were asked about frequency of disinfectant usage, 14% said they used it at least once a day, 69% said several times a week while 17% used it less frequently. Table 3 dem¬ onstrates the relationship between frequency of disinfectant use and microbial contamination levels of the sites in the sink environment. Where disinfectant was used at least daily, the TVC of the sites did not exceed 10' CFU/cm-. Where disinfectant was used weekly or less frequently, TVC levels of up to 10' CFU/cm-were detected. A simi¬ lar pattern could be seen in relation to total coliform levels. Where dis¬ infectant was used at least daily, the total coliform count of the sink, draining board, and tap nozzle never exceeded 10' CFU/cm- and 10' (>FU/cm- for the joint around the tap. Correspondingly, using a disinfectant less than weekly was associated with a higher level of contamination. The k)west levels of E. coll oc¬ curred when a disinfectant was used frequently, and presence was recorded only on the sink base and monella from the sites sampled and agent was used less frequently than the joint around the tap. The fre¬ there was a high occurrence of weekly, microbial levels of up to KV’ quency of E. coll presence was also both pathogens, particularly in the C]FU/cm- were detected for the tap generally higher when the fre¬ sink basin, draining board, and joint surface and up to 10' CTU/cm- for quency of disinfectant use was less around the tap. the sink base and the joint around than weekly, except on the drain¬ I’o ascertain if there was any the tap. founts were also >10- CFH/ ing board, where the numbers of correlation between microbial lev¬ cm- only when cleaning agent was incidences of E. call were the same els on the kitchen surfaces and used less frequently than weekly. as when disinfectant was used more cleaning agent usage, participants When cleaning agent was used in regularly (Fig. 3a). were questioned about the fre¬ the home at least daily, the total Salmonella were isolated less quency of use of chemicals. With coliform levels recorded were never frequently than E. coll except on respect to cleaning agent use, re¬ in excess of 10' CTlVcm- on the the draining board. When disinfec¬ sponses to the questionaire showed sites sampled. However, less fre¬ tant w'as used frequently. Salmo¬ that 2()'V> of respondents used a quent usage of cleaning agent gen¬ nella was not detected on any of cleaning agent at least daily, and erally reflected a higher coliform the sites sampled. The pattern of S4% used them more than once a count on the sample sites, with the increased usage of disinfectant re¬ week, while 26% used them less fre¬ exception of the tap nozzle, where flects lower levels of Salmonella quently. Table 2 shows the relation¬ counts of up to 10' (TH/cm- were except on the draining board (Fig. ship between micn)bial levels on recorded. In an examination of the 3b). the sink environment and fre¬ four sample sites, a higher E.coli quency of cleaning agent usage. percentage presence occurred DISCUSSION When a cleaning agent was used at when cleaning agent was used in¬ least daily, the TVC of the sites frequently (Fig. 2a). From Fig. 2b it Stainless steel is frequently sampled never exceeded 10' C^FU/ can be seen that Salmonella oc¬ used as a sink material because of cm-. In kitchens where cleaning curred to a higher extent in all sites its mechanical strength, corrosion
SEPTEMBER 2002 - Doiry, Food and Environmental Sonifolion 661 Figure 2a. The effects of frequency of cleaning agent use in the kitchen Results showed that from the on the prevalence of f. coli in the sink environment four sample sites analyzed, the sink basin, draining board, tap nozzle, and joint around the tap had very high eounts. Similarly in a report by the IFH (29). the sink environment was classified as a reservoir site for microbial contamination. Total coliform levels were also high, with counts up to 10*’ to l(rCFU/cm-. A bacteriological kitchen survey by Amsden (1) also showed that 75% t)f draining boards and 51% of hot water taps were contaminated with conforms, an estimated 82% of which were contaminated during food preparation. Dissemination from the sink to a food contact surface is implied in previous studies (8, /J, 18. 19). (Concern has been expressed re¬ garding cross-contamination from Figure 2b. The effects of frequency of cleaning agent use in the kitchen the sink onto dishware, which is on the prevalence of Salmonella in the sink environment another possible mode of cross-con¬ tamination directly to the individual (37). Pathogenic microorganisms such as Salni(»ieUa and /:. coli can readily multiply in a warm nutrient- rich environment (32, 44). Survival and proliferation of such microor¬ ganisms is increa.sed if the contami¬ nated surface is soiled and moist (15, 22, 38. 43). Fpidemiological investigations have also revealed that draining boards and the sink area are frequently contaminated with 1:. coli and other conforms and can pose a health hazard to consum¬ ers (9, 46). Similarly, a study by Jones (31) indicates that 6()"(> of 60 domestic sinks sampled had total coliform > 10-CTT!/cm-. In the analysis, it was discovered that H. coli frequently occurred in the sink basin (54%) and the joint around the tap (43%), while the tap resistance, longevity and ease of of time. On a microscopic scale, nozzle (14%) and the draining board fabrication. It is also stable, inert, .stainless steel can be seen to have (29%) had the lowest levels of and easily cleaned f/O, 11, 16.36). cracks and crevices, quite unlike its contamination. The presence of Holah and Thorpe (26), reported macroscopic appearance (12, 23, Sahnonellci was more prominent in that modern sink materials such as 24, 26, 28, 33, 34, 40, 46, 48). These surfaces are likely to retain the joint around the tap (29%), fol¬ polycarbonate, mineral resin and bacteria because of increased num¬ lowed by the sink basin and drain¬ some enamelled steels are as clean- bers of attachment sites, a larger ing board (14%), while the tap able as stainless steel when new, but bacterial/material surface contact nozzle (9%) recorded the lowest Sal¬ its resistant properties make stain¬ area, and topographical areas in monella occurrence. less steel more likely to retain its hy¬ which applied cleaning shear forces Few domestic kitchens have gienic status over a longer period are reduced (4, 16, 26, J 5, 42). separate washing facilities for hand
662 Dairy, Food and Environmental Sanitation - SEPTEMBER 2002 Figure 3a. The effects of frequency of disinfectant use in the kitchen contamination on stainless steel on the prevalence of f. coli in the sink environment surfaces. When participants in the kitchen survey used a disinfectant at least daily, the level of total conforms was reduced for all sites except the joint around the tap. Those kitchens where disinfectant was used less frequently had total coliform counts of up to lO'CFlV cm’. A 4 log|j, reduction in Staphy¬ lococcus aureus was recorded when stainless steel type .-S04 was exposed to a quaternary ammo¬ nium comptnmd (22). 'Fhe data pre¬ sented shows that the frequency of cleaning agent use in the kitchen can influence microbial levels. When a cleaning agent was u.sed at least daily, the contamination lev¬ els of all surfaces was no greater than 10* CTlVcm’. However, with less frequent use, levels of up to 1 O' Figure 3b. The effects of frequency of disinfectant use in the kitchen (TT'/cm- occurred. Use of a clean¬ on the prevalence of Salmonella in the sink environment ing agent alone reduced Pseuclomo- uas or .S', aureus levels on a stain- le.ss steel surface by 2 log,,, Holah and 'Hiorpe f J5>also showed that by using a microbial tracer, cleaning reduced contamination levels by 1 to 3 log,,, on a domestic sink surface. Adsorbed organic material can affect bacterial retention in three ways either by changing the surface charge (”, 4!, 45), by acting as a nutrient .stnirce (34), or even by in¬ activating or providing protection from disinfecting agents (45). Adsorbed organic material in the sink environment requires an effec¬ Area tive cleaning regime such as heat, mechanical action and/or chemical disinfection (II, 29). The hygiene le\ els of contact surfaces can dete¬ washing and cleaning food and task of cleaning and disinfection riorate with wear and can lead to equipment, the majority of house¬ more important (26. J7, 43. 49, surface damage and to surface holds rely t)n a single sink and 50). (lontamination of up to 10' defects that can act as sites for the draining board for all of these func¬ (!Fr cm-TV(; was recorded when retention of micnMtrganisms and or¬ tions, thereby increasing the risk of disinfectant was used less than ganic material f"’, II, 39, 45, 48). cross-contamination if the sink and weekly, a level of contamination A greater force is required to move draining board are not cleaned and that indicates the existence of a cells retained on a worn surface disinfected between each separate typical biofilm (25). However, than on an unused surface, but the activity The kitchen sink is a counts of no greater than 10' (IFf application of a cleaning agent has high risk surface that becomes rap¬ cm- were recorded when a disinfec¬ been reported to decrease the idly recontaminated after cleaning tant was used at least daih. Research amount of required force (.i/). As a rule, people work close b>' Frank and (diemielewski (22) Data also show' that all total to the sink environment when pre¬ has shown that disinfection is an ef¬ coliform levels were less than 10* paring meals, thereby making the fective means of reducing microbial (T'r cm- when a cleaning agent
SEPTEMBER 2002 - Doiry, Food ond Environmenlol Sonitolion 663 TABLE 3. The effects of frequency of disinfectant usage on the prevalence of microbial contamination in the sink environment
TVC Total (%) Coliforms (%)
Frequency of Sink Draining Tap Around Sink Draining Tap Around Count cleaning agent board tap board tap /cm^ usage
<10^ At least daily 30 38 71 40 62 86 100 29
>Weekly 10 31 65 28 37 90 96 50
Less frequently 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0
At least daily 60 62 29 60 38 14 0 42
>Weekly 16 45 20 16 53 5 4 30
Less frequently 0 0 0 0 13 13 50 0
At least daily 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 29
>Weekly 43 8 15 28 5 0 0 10
Less frequently 0 33 64 9 50 24 33 13
10^-10= At least daily 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
>Weekly 21 8 0 11 0 15 0 5
Less frequently 33 33 25 33 13 37 0 62
10^-10" At least daily 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
>Weekly 5 0 0 6 5 0 0 5
Less frequently 22 23 11 25 24 13 0 25
10‘-10" At least daily 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
>Weekly 5 8 0 11 0 0 0 0
Less frequently 45 11 0 33 0 13 0 0
664 Dairy, Food ond Environmental Sonitotion - SEPTEMBER 2002 was used at least daily but that CONCLUSION 10. Boulange-Petermann, L., J. Rault, counts were up to 10' CFlJ/cm- and M. N. Bellon-Fontaine. 199*’. with less frequent use. A question- The sink environment is a main Adhesion of .Streptococcus thernio- pliilus to stainless steel with differ¬ aire survey by Worsfold & Griffith reserv oir for microorganisms in the domestic kitchen environment. ent surface topography and rough¬ (49, 50) showed that taps receive ness. Biofouling 11:201-206. Cross-contamination should be less regular cleaning attention than 11. Boyd, R. D., D. Cole, D. Rowe, work surfaces because the taps are minimized by the appropriate use J. Verran, A. J. Paul, and R. H Vtest. considered difficult to clean effec¬ of disinfectant and cleaning agent 2(K)1. (deanability of soiled stain¬ less steel as .studied by atomic force tively. Similarly, in this study, 33% at least daily. The general public should also be made more aware of microscopy and time of flight sec¬ of tap surfaces were positive (or Sal¬ ondary ion mass spectrometry. the risk that exists, and of preven¬ monella and E. coll when cleaning J. Food Prot. 64:8*’-94. agent was used less than weekly. tive measures to control the risk. 12. <;havaller, .M. W., C. D. Cauthon, The area in and around the sink is and R. G. Lee. 1988. Factors pro¬ moting survival of bacteria in chlo¬ REFERENCES also easily contaminated during rinated w’ater supplies. Appl. food preparation and can often be 1. Amsden, 1). A., H. K. Butler, and Environ. Microbiol. 51:619-651. recontaminated by cleaning at¬ R. T. Amsden. 1991. SPU simplified 14. c;iiver, D. ()., N. O. Ak, and C. W. for services, practical tools for con¬ tempts (14). Results indicate that Kaspar. 1994. Cutting boards of tinuous quality improvement, the contamination levels recorded plastic and wood contaminated ex¬ p..^2-.^8. Chapman and Hall. Lon¬ perimentally with bacteria. J. Food in this area were particularly high don, UK. Prot. 5*': 16-22. e.g., the sink basin and area around 2. Anonymous. 1992. WHO surveil¬ 14. Doyle, P. D., K. L. Ruoff, M. Pierstm, the tap had TVC; in the range 10*’ to lance programme for control of and W. Weinberg, B. Soule and foodborne infections and intoxica¬ 10' c;Fll/cm- and up to 10'’ C'FII/ B. S. Micliaels. 2(K)0. Reducing trans¬ tions in Liirope. Fifth report 198S- cm- for total coliforms. mission of infectious agents in the 1989. Berlin, Robert von Ostertag home, part 2: cxmtn)! points. l>airy A high number of sample sites Institute, FAO "WHO Catllaborating FixxJ Faivinm. Sanit. 20:418-425. were positive for Salmonella and Centre. 15. Driessen, F. M., J. Devries, and F. /;. coli, e.g., 67% of the joint around )>. Anonymous. 1999. Communicable Kingma. 1984. Adhesion and Disease Report Supplemental. 8:1 - the tap samples were positive for growth of thermoresistant streptt)- 9. Salmonella and 78% of sink basins ctKci on stainless steel during heat 4. Baier, R. K. 1980. Substrata influ¬ treatment of milk. J. Food Prot. were positive for E. coli, when a ences on adhesion of microorgan¬ 4^:8-18-852. cleaning agent was used less fre¬ isms and their resultant new surface 16. Dunsmore, D. G., D. A. W. WtMHl, quently than weekly. When the par¬ pntperties, p.59-64. In C. Bitton D. B. Jay, and M. Embling. 1980. and K.C. .Marshall (ed.). Adsorption ticipants in the survey were ques¬ Simulator technique for as.sessing of microorganisms to surfaces. the bacteriological control of fiMKl tioned, > 80% claimed to use clean¬ J. Wiley. New York. equipment surfaces by cleaning ing agent and disinfectant less than 5. Bloomfield. S. F., and F. Chelsea. systems. J. FchhI Prot. 44:850-855. daily. Low level usage of these 199.4. An in-use study of the rela¬ I". EN 12*’6:199"’. Chemical di.sinfec- chemicals generally correlated with tionship between bacterial con¬ tants and antiseptics. Quantitative tamination of food preparation sur¬ suspension test for the evaluatitin higher microbial levels, as also faces and cleaning cloths. Letters in of bactericidal activity of chemical found by Jay et al. (30) who ob¬ Applied Microbiology 16:1"’.4-1"'“’. disinfectants and antiseptics used 6. Bloomfield. S. F., and E. Scott. 199^. served that the most common clean- in the food, indu.strial, dome.stic, ('.ro.ss-contamination and infection ing activity was wiping down and institutional areas. Test method in the domestic environment and and requirements (phase 2, step 1). kitchen surfaces without either a the role of chemical disinfectants. 18. Evans, 11. S., P. .Madden, (;. Douglas, cleaning agent or disinfectant. Up .|. App. .Microbiol. 8.4:1-9. (i. K. Adak, S. J. O'Brien, T. Djeuretic, to 83% of E. coli and up to 50'’<> Sal¬ -. Bollen, C;. .M., L. P. Lambrechts, and and P. (i. Wall. 1998. General (Hit- monella presence was recorded M. Qtiirynen. (A)mparison of surface roughness of oral hard ma¬ breaks of intestinal diseases in En¬ when disinfectant was used less terial to the threshold surface gland and Wales: 1995 and 1996. J. than daily. Josephson et al, (32) roughness for bacterial plaque re¬ C. ommun. Dis. Piibl. Health 1:169. also correlated infrequent use of tention, a review t)f the literature. 19. Food Safety Authority Ireland, L Dental .Materials 1.4:258-269. .March-April. 2(MM). Public knowl¬ these agents with the presence of 8. Borneff, .). R., and J. Hassinger. edge and attitudes to food safety in /:. coli and Salmonella on kitchen 1988. The distribution of microor¬ Ireland. Food Safety Promotion surfaces. ganisms in household kitchens 1: Board. Research and Evaluation Ser¬ The data recorded in this sur¬ Problems, experiments, results. vices. Zentrablatt fur Bakteriologie, 20. F SEPTEMBER 2002 - Dairy, Food and Environmental Sanitation 665 22. Frank.J. F., ;uid R. A. N. Cliemiclewski. ioration and Biodegradation. 4l: 42. Schneider, R. P. 1997. Bacterial ad¬ 1997. Effectiveness of sanitation 191-199. hesion to solid substrata coated with quaternary ammonium com¬ 32. Jo.sephson, K. L., J. R. Rubino, and with conditioning films derived pound or chlorine on stainless steel I. L. Pepper. 1997. (diaracterization from chemical fractions of natural and other domestic food prepara¬ and quantification of bacterial waters. J. Adhesion and Sci. Tech- nol. 11:979-994. tion surfaces. Food Prot. 6():4.'^- pathogens and indicator organisms 43. Scott, E., and S. F. Bloomfield. 1990. 47. in household kitchens with and The survival and transfer of micro¬ 23. Frank,J. F., and R. A. N. (lliemielewski. without the use of a disinfectant. bial contamination via cloths, hand 2(M)1. Influence of surface finish on J. Appl. Microbiol. 83:37-730. and utensils. J. Appl. Bacteriol. the cleanability of stainless steel. 33. Lewis, S. )., and A.Cilmour. 1987. 68:2"'1-278. J. Food Prot. 64:1178-1182. .Microflora associated with the in¬ 44. Scott, E., S. F. Bloomfield, and C. 24. Hilton, A. C., and H. Austin. 2()()(). ternal surfaces of a rubber and G. Barlow. 1982. An investigation The kitchen dishcloth as a source stainless steel milk transfer pipe¬ of microbial contamination in the of and vehicle for foodborne patho¬ line. J. Appl. Bact. 62:327-333. home. J. Hygiene. 89:279-293. gens in a domestic setting. J. 34. Lewis, S. J., A. (iilmour, T. W. Frazer, 43. Taylor, R., C. Maryan, and J. Verran. Environ. Health and Res. 10:23"’- and R. D. Mc(,alL 198"’. Scanning 1998. Retention of oral microorgan¬ 261. electon microscopy of stainless isms on cobalt-chromium alloy and 23. Holah,J. T., and L. R. Kearney. 1992. steel inoculated with single bacte¬ dental acrylic resin with different Introduction to biofilms in the food rial cells. Internat. J. Food Micro¬ surface finishes. J. Prosthetics and industry, p. 33-44. hi E. F. .Melo, T. biol. 4:279-284. Dentistry. 80:392-39"'. R. Bott, M. Fletcher and B. 33. Marshall, K. and (i. Bitton (ed.). 46. V'erran, J. and M.V. Jones. 2()()0. ('apdeville (eds.). Biofilms: Science (1980). Adsorption of microorgan¬ Problems of biofilms in the food and Technology'. Kluvver Academic isms to surfaces. J. Wiley. New and beverage industry, p. 14.3-1^.3. Publishers. Netherlands. York. hi y Walker, S. Surman and j. Jass 26. Holah.J. T., and R. H. Thorpe. 1990. 36. Matilla-Sandholm, T., and C. (ed.).. Biofilms and biofouling in in¬ Cdeanability in relation to bacterial Wirtanen. 1992. Biofilm formation dustry and process engineering. retention on unused and abraded in the industry: A review. Food Re\'. John Wiley and Sons. (4iic, DK. domestic sink materials, j. Appl. Internat. 8:393-603. 4"’. V’erran, J., 1). L. Rowe, and R. D. Bact. 69:399-608. 3"’. .Meredith, 1.., R. Lewis and .M. Boyd. 2(K)1. Ilie effect of nanometer 27. Hoogenboom-Verdegaal, A. M. .VI., Haslum. 2001. Contributory factors dimensu)n topographical features and C. A. Postema. 1990. Food in¬ to the spread of contamination in a on the hygiene status of stainless fections. The Practitioner. 3:349- model kitchen. British Food J. steel. J. Food Prot. 64:1 18,3-118'". 334. l03:23-.33. 48. Wimpenny, J., P. (iilbert, J. Walker, 28. International Dairy Federation 38. .Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries VI. Brading, and R, Bayston. 1999. and Food (MAFF). 1988, Food Hy¬ (IDF). 1983. Surface finishes of Biofilms: The good, the bad and the stainless steels: New stainless steels. giene: Report on a consumer sur¬ ugly. Contributions made at the Bulletin, 89. vey. fourth meeting of the biofilm club 29. International Scientific Forum on 39. Percival. S. 1.., J. S. Knapp, and held at (ireynog Hall, Powys 18-20 Home Hygiene (IFH). 2001. Recom¬ D. S. Wales. 1998. Physical factors September 1999. Bioline for the mendations for selection of suitable influencing bacterial fouling of Biofilm (;iub. hygiene procedures for use in the type 304 and 316 stainless steel. Brit- 49. Worsfold. D., and ('. J. (iriffith. domestic environment. Intramed i.sh (Corrosion Journal 33:121-129. 1996a. An as.sessment of cleanliness communications. .Milan, Italy. 40. Perlat, M. N. 1,., J. P. Tissier, and in the domestic kitchen. Hygiene and nutrition in foodservice and 30. Jay, L. S., D. Comar. and 1.. D. T. Benezech. 1994. (4eanability of catering 1:16.3-1 "’3. (iovenlock. 1999. A video study of stainless steel in relation to chemi¬ 30, Worsfold, D., and (7 J. (iriffith. Australian domestic food handling cal modifications due to industrial 1996b. Assessment of the standard practices. J. Food Prot. 62:1283- cleaning procedures used in the of food safetv behaviour. J. Food 1296. dairy industry. J. Food Engineering Prot. 60:.399-'406. 31. Jones, .M. V'. 1998. Application of 23:449-463. 31. Yeung, R., and J, .Vlorris. 2001. Con¬ H A(X;P to identify hygiene risks in 41. Roberts,!). 1990. Sources of Infec¬ sumer perception and purchase be¬ the home. International Biodeter¬ tion in Food. Lancet. 3.36:839-861. havior. Brit. Food.L 103:1~0-I8(>. Jn Jtoving tltemffrg Sephmbef 11, 2001 666 Dairy, Food and Environmental Sonilotion - SEPTEMBER 2002 Dairy, Food ami F.nvmmmetitai Sanitation. Vol. 22, So. 9, Pages 66~-6'^3 Copyright© International Association for Food Protection, 6200 Aurora Ave., Suite 200W, Des Moines, lA 50322 Internalization of Escherichia coii in Apples under Natural Conditions B. K. Seeman,' S. S. Sumner,'* R. Marini,^ and K. E. Kniel' 'Department of Food Science and Technology and ^Deportment of Horticulture, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA, USA 24061-0406 INTRODUCTION SUMMARY Over the past 10 years, the con¬ Foodborne illnesses caused by drinking unpasteurized sumption of unpasteurized apple apple cider have been attributed to the pathogenic bacterium juice has been linked to increasing Escherichia coli 0157:H7. Contamination is likely to occur numbers t)f outbreaks associated during the fruit growing and harvesting phases. In apple with Escherichia coli 015"’:H"’ fj, cider production in which the entire apple is pressed, 7 h, 18), Salmonella (9, 10) and pathogens found within the apple core and surrounding Crypiosporiclitim parr uni (8. 9, tissue are a potential problem. Internalization of E. coli in 14). These outbreaks have raised questions as to the safety of unpas¬ apples under natural environmental conditions was teurized juice and the use of surface addressed in this study by use of a controlled outdoor setting. treatments to decontaminate fruits. A surrogate E. coli species (ATCC 2S922) was used as an These issues are addressed in the alternative to the pathogenic species. The bacterial culture US Food and Drug Administration was applied to topsoil and spread evenly on a 6 x 6-foot final rule and Hazard Analysis and area. Red Delicious, Golden Delicious, and Rome Beauty (Titical Control Point (HAC;CP) apples were placed randomly on the soil, much like drop or guide for juice processing (12). llie windfall apples. The position of each apple was noted as to direct causes of these outbreaks are whether it had fallen calyx up, calyx down or on its side. difficult to determine; however, Apples were examined for the presence of E. coli and possible routes of transmission in¬ sampled on days 1,3, 8, and 10. Skin, flesh, inner core, and clude irrigation water, manure, sew¬ outer core samples were plated on MacConkey agar age, poor worker hygiene, harvest¬ ing equipment and containers, in¬ supplemented with cycloheximide and MUG for ease of sects, birds, and processing equip¬ identification. Escherichia coli was found in the inner core ment. Microbial contamination of and flesh samples of all apple varieties, indicating the apple cider can result from the use potential for infiltration by the organism outside of of damaged, scald, or windfall fruit laboratory conditions. that may harbor disease-causing mi¬ croorganisms (19, 20). (A)mmon practices of apple cider producers A pctT-rcvifvvfd article. could support bacterial infiltration; *Auth()r for correspondence: Phone: 540.231 6805; historically, apple cider has been Fax: 540.231.9293; E-mail: [email protected] Inieinattondl Asjociaiientor Food Protection SEPTEMBER 2002 - Ooiry, food and Environmental Sonitotion 667 can infect apple trees during bloom TABLE 1. Location of f. coli ATCC 25922 infiltration in the by entering through openings in inner and outer cores of different apple varieties the flower tissues, or it can infect trees later in the season if the suc¬ Mean ± standard deviation (sd) of E. coli In cores of two apples sampled culent tissues are wounded by hail during duplicate trials. Statistical analysis using ANOVA showed significant or strong winds. Therefore, to con¬ differences in the outer core data only by position and by day (P< 0.05). trol fire blight, commercial fruit E. coli not detected (nd) in apples sampled on day zero. producers spray trees with an anti¬ biotic at times when the trees are Apple Variety Day Outer Core Inner Core susceptible to infection. The abil¬ log CFU/ml ± sd log CFU/ml 1 sd ity of E. coli to infiltrate non-injured n = 4 n = 4 tissue suggests that there may be several opportunities for bacterial Rome Beauty 0 nd nd infiltration in the production/har¬ 1 2.45 ± 1.16 1.9810.37 vest/handling system. The route of entry for microor¬ 3 4.40 ± 1.52 2.7210.88 ganisms into the apple may occur in two ways: through the leaves of 8 2.8310.09 2.0610.37 the plant, or through the fruit itself 10 3.9210.84 2.3910.42 (5, 6, 12). Micoorganisms may en¬ ter the leaf through the stoma, tiny Red Delicious 0 nd nd pores in the epidermis of a leaf or 1 1.31 10.43 1.0010.10 stem that allow the passage of gases and water vapor. Similarly, micro¬ 3 4.8410.45 1.46 1 0.65 organisms may infiltrate the flesh 8 2.73 1 1.44 1.73 1 1.03 of the fruit directly through the ca¬ lyx, stem scar, or natural micro¬ 10 4.05 1 0.57 2.7910.60 pores in the lenticels of the skin. Golden Delicious 0 nd nd The infiltration of microorganisms may be enhanced by fruit surface 1 3.8210.53 2.151 1.17 damage, pre- or post-harvest, from 3 4.9210.75 1.4610.65 hail, dust, insects, birds, strong w inds, or wash water. 8 2.521 1.14 3.0210.38 Bartz and Showalter (2) first 10 4.41 10.32 2.221 1.71 demonstrated infiltration of fruit (tomato) tissues, based on the gen¬ eral gas law. riiis law states that any change in pressure in a closed con¬ tainer of constant volume is directly produced from “cider apples” or and 37% do not use a sanitizer after proportional to a change in the tem¬ windfalls, which may be at unusu¬ washing the apples (20). These perature of the gas. A fruit acts as a ally great risk of infiltration by bac¬ practices may still be fairly common “closed container” (2). The mor¬ teria on the ground. However, tree among apple cider producers across phological structures of the fruit apples are also at risk, from dust, the country, as similar practices contain pockets of gas at relatively insects, birds, and handling prac¬ were observed in Wisconsin (19). constant volume. A decrease in tem¬ tices. In general, cider producers According to recent surveys (19, perature within the fruit results in are knowledgeable about good ag¬ 20) the use of drop apples in cider a decrease in the internal gas pres¬ ricultural practices that should be is decreasing, which most likely in¬ used to prevent contamination. In dicates that juice producers and or¬ sure. 'I’he concern exists that as this one survey from 1993, 100% of pro¬ chard managers are aware of micro¬ pressure decrease occurs, uptake ducers in New England reported us¬ bial contamination on some level. of gas and liquid may allow the in¬ ing drop apples (3). In part because Even when drop apples are not flux of bacteria into the fruit. Re¬ of Ciood Agricultural Practices and used, the potential exists that apples searchers have demonstrated the increased awareness, the use of may contain microorganisms in formation of a vacuum capable of drop apples has generally de¬ bruised or wounded areas (5). Most pulling a bacterial or dye suspen¬ creased; however, about 5% of pro¬ bacterial diseases of fruit require an sion into the fruit core as a result of ducers in Virginia allow grazing ani¬ opening in the plant tissue to cause increased external pressure result¬ mals in their orchards, 8% fertilize infection. For example, fire blight ing from immersing fruit below the with manure, 32% use drop apples. (caused by lirivinia amylovora) water surface (2, 4, 13). This phe- 668 Dairy, Food ond Environmental Sanitation - SEPTEMBER 2002 used. ITiese apple varieties are used TABLE 2. Location of f. coli ATCC 25922 infiltration in the in the preparation of apple cider on skin and flesh of different apple varieties the east coast of the United States. Red Delicious and Golden Delicious Mean ± standard deviation (sd) of E. coli in cores of two apples sampled apples are used in the prtxluction during duplicate trials. Statistical analysis using ANOVA showed significant of apple cider in many parts of the differences in the skin and flesh data by apple variety (P< 0.05). E. coli country. not detected (nd) in apples sampled on day zero. Outdoor apple pen Apple Variety Day Skin Flesh log CFU/ml ± sd log CFU/ml 1 sd A six-foot by six-foot pen was n = 6 n = 6 constructed from wire mesh to en¬ case the apples. The entire floor of Rome Beauty 0 nd nd the pen was lined with a plastic tarp, which formed a barrier be- 1 2.70 ± 1.40 1.91 1 0.28 tw'een the ground and a 3-inch layer of topsoil applied at the start of the 3 3.17± 1.34 1.0010.10 experimental period (2(X) pounds, 8 1.97 ± 0.07 3.1010.71 spread evenly). A thin wire mesh, supported at the four corners and 10 2.84 ±0.67 1.68 10.96 by a center pole, was laid over the pen to prevent birds and other ani¬ Red Delicious 0 nd nd mals from interacting with the 1 2.9810.05 1.7910.11 apples. Apples were sterilized in a solution containing 200 ppm 3 2.1210.28 1.9310.38 sodium hypochlorite prior to being 8 1.61 1 0.86 1.3210.10 dropped on the soil. A total of sev¬ enty intact apples were dropped 10 1.4710.21 1.7010.98 gently at random around the floor of the pen in two duplicate trials. Golden Delicious 0 nd nd When sampled, apples were still 1 4.4210.20 2.7310.10 intact. 3 3.1410.20 1.31 ±0.43 Inoculum 8 3.0410.06 1.9210.29 Escherichia coli AT(X 25922 10 3.081 1.13 1.0010.1 (American Type Culture Collec¬ tion, Rockv ille, MD) was incubated for approximately 24 hours at 37°(' in Brain Heart Infusion Broth (Difco, Detroit, MI). Three hundred nomenon may be enhanced by a Apple varieties were compared as milliliters of inoculum containing difference in water temperature to ease of bacterial infiltration, and 1.0 X 10” CFlVml was then gently and fruit temperature (4). electron microscopy was used to spread over the soil in the apple A recent study identified the gain a better understanding of the pen. One apple of each type was potential for infiltration of bacteria role of cellular morphology. Esch¬ selected at random and tested as a under laboratory conditions into erichia coli AT(X^ 2S922 was used control. Soil samples were tested for specific stnict tires of apples, includ¬ as a surrogate organism, because bacterial contamination before and ing lenticels and the floral tube (5). this study was conducted in the after inoculation. The remaining Other studies have shown that bac¬ field. apples were placed on the soil teria can enter fmit tissues through within thirty minutes after soil was puncture wounds (15), while we MATERIALS AND METHODS innoculated. show here that bacteria can enter fully intact apples. This study de¬ Apples Apple sample preparation scribes the potential for bacterial Red Delicious, Ciolden Deli¬ infiltration outside a laboratory Six apples, two of each type, cious, and Rome apples were har¬ through lenticels, the stem scar, were randomly chosen and asepti- and the calyx/floral tube. The po¬ vested by hand from the Virginia cally removed from the pen each tential for bacterial infiltration un¬ Tech orchards (Montgomery day. The position of the apple on der natural conditions was analyzed (auinty, VA) and stored at 2°(; in an the soil was noted: calyx up, calyx using three apple types: Red Deli¬ apple cooler at the Department of down or on its side. F'ach apple was cious, (iolden Delicious, and Rome. Food Science and Technology until then cored and cut into sections: SEPTEMBER 2002 - Dairy, food ond Environmental Sanitation 669 Figure 1. Apple "Cage" outer core, inner core, flesh, skin The 6' X 6' apple analysis cage in the backyard of the Food Science and (4). Each section was placed into a Technology building on the Virginia Tech campus, Blacksburg, VA. Photo filtered stomacher bag and taken on day 3 of first trial. stomached at 230 rpm for 30 s (Seward Lab Blender Stomacher 80). Twenty milliliters of sterile peptone solution (Difco, Detroit, MI) was added to the core and skin sections (flesh samples stomached with natural juices). Petri plates contained MacConkey agar (Difco, Detroit, MI) supplemented with cy- cloheximide (Sigma, St. Louis, MO) to control mold contamination and MU(i (4-methylumbelliferyl-R-D- glucuronide. Sigma, St. Louis, MO) to facilitate identification of E. coli. Few to no bacterial colonies other than E. coli were observed from the plated apple samples. Dilutions were prepared individually, based on the weight of the apple skin, Figure 2. Lenticels inner core, outer core, and flesh Lenticels from Rome Beauty (RB), Red Delicious (RD), and Golden Delicious (GD), indicated by white arrows. samples. In each case a 10' dilution was prepared on a wt/wt basis and duplicate plates were prepared us¬ ing the Spiral Plating System (Spi¬ ral Biotech). All plates were incu¬ bated at 37°(> for 24 hours and then counted according to Spiral Plater System directions. Plate counts (CFU/ml) were compared as log CFU/ml counts using A NOVA analy¬ sis and Tukey’s test for least signifi¬ cant difference (f* value < 0.05, SAS Software, Ogdensburg, NY). The ef¬ fects of apple variety, apple position (calyx up, calyx down, or on its side), and day of trial were analyzed Figure 3. Cell wall structure and compared. Thickness of cell wall differs by apple variety — Rome Beauty (RB), Red Delicious (RD), and Golden Delicious (GD). Ceil wall structure may Two identical trials were con¬ affect microbial internalization. ducted, the first in the fall and the second in the early spring of the following year. I'emperatures ranged from 50 to 70° during the days of both trials, falling into the 30s at night; however, apples did not show signs of ice crystals at any time. During the second trial, pre¬ cipitation in the form of rain oc¬ curred (< 2 inches), but did not visibly disrupt the topsoil or apples within the pen. Electron microscopy Transmission electron micros¬ copy (TFM) was performed on a JFOL 100 CX-II Scanning Transmis¬ sion Electron Microscope (STEM) with a magnification range of 360 670 Dairy, Food and Environmental Sanitation - SEPTEMBER 2002 to 320,000 X in TEM mode. Apple may be attributed in part to the rain and the inner core under natural slices were taken from clean intact in trial two or slight variation in environmental conditions. Bacteria apples of all three types and fixed in temperatures during the two trials. may enter these areas of the apple 2.5% gluteraldehyde in 0.1 M so¬ through stem and calyx openings dium phosphate buffer, pH 7.4, and Electron microscopy or through openings in the skin. processed for TEM. Some bacteria may actually have the Transmission electron micros¬ ability to preferentially bind to the copy was used to analyze possible RESULTS fruit surface through the formation differences in apple skin and tissue of biofilms, especially near the stem Microbial analysis structure. The skin and cell wall and calyx areas (/, 16). This could structure of three apple varieties increase the ease of infiltration of Apples were obtained from an (Rome Beauty, Red Delicious, and these microorganisms to the apple outside area as described above (Fig. Golden Delicious) were observed. core. 1). There was no visible difference There are differences in lenticel size The entrance of bacteria was in the soil level at the start of each and number among apple varieties study (uniformly 3.0 inches deep) different among the three apple (Fig. 2). As lenticels are no longer compared to that at the end of each varieties studied, Rome Beauty, Red needed for gas exchange in mature study (2.8 to 3.0 inches deep). Delicious, and Golden Delicious. apples, such as those used in this Tables 1 and 2 show determined This may be due to innate differ¬ study, they are often filled with mean values in log CFU/ml ± stan¬ ences in the apple varieties, which waxy cells, as shown in the first dard deviation from two trials in may in turn influence how and if two panels, Rome Beauty (RB) and which two apples were taken each an apple becomes contaminated Red Delicious (RD). In Golden De¬ day. All three apple varieties were during development. Apples have licious (GD), lenticels may be filled sampled during each trial at 1,3,8, a myriad of potential entry routes with “cork” cells, as shown by the and 10 days. Data are separated for bacteria. Studies are currently upper arrow, or may be unfilled and according to values from inner and under way to evaluate routes of en¬ remain open, as shown by the lower outer core (Table 1) and from skin try during development. In brief, as arrow. In Golden Delicious apples, and flesh (Table 2). There was a an apple develops, lenticels (Fig. 2) the lenticels are a possible source significant difference in flesh and form as minute openings on the for internalization of bacteria. skin data between apple varieties apple surface. These may or may There are also differences in (f*< 0.05 by ANOVA). This indicates not be visible to the naked eye, de¬ cell wall stmcture (Fig. 3). The thick¬ that the skin or cuticle thickness pending on the apple variety. Len¬ ness of the cell wall is a characteris¬ and natural lenticel openings may ticels can range in number from 450 tic often used to identify' and differ¬ influence bacterial entry to skin or to 800 or from 1,500 to 2,5(M) per entiate apple varieties. The cellu¬ flesh between apple varieties (Fig. fruit (17). They form in the follow¬ lose and hemicellulose fibers within 2 and 3), whereas there was a sig¬ ing ways: Stomata may develop into the cell wall of a young fniit are nificant difference by both day and lenticels early in fruit development. often quite intact and dense. As the position for outer core values only Lenticels can also arise from breaks fruit ripens, vacuoles begin to grow iP< 0.05 by ANOVA). This indicates in the epidermis caused by a com¬ and changes within the cell wall that apples with calyx facing down plete removal of epidermal hairs in may occur. On average, the cells of toward the soil had a greater chance that area, or from breaks brought a Golden Delicious apple have thin¬ for internalization to occur, com¬ about by the inability of the epider¬ ner walls than the cells of Rome pared to those with calyx facing up mis to keep pace with the expand¬ Beauty and Red Delicious apples. or those on their sides. Position was ing inner tissues of hypodermis and The cells in Fig. 3 are believed to be a significant factor only in data ob¬ parenchyma during growth. During at similar stages of ripening. A thin¬ fruit development, lenticels usually tained from outer core samples; ner cell wall is more prone to inter¬ become closed through cutinizat- there was no significant difference nalization of bacteria. As an apple in values for inner cores. Impor¬ ripens, the parenchyma cells move ion or suberization processes, tantly, I:, co//was not obtained from about, cell walls change, and inter¬ which prevent the free passage of control apples sampled prior to the nalization may occur more readily gases from the inner tissues to the start of each study or from control in all apple varieties. outside air. apples placed on the ground prior Dingham (10) reported that susceptibility to bacterial contami¬ to inoculation. MlTl in the plates DISCUSSION ensured proper identification of nation or bacterial growth varies H. coli, and although K co/i was not Bacteria were found in all four with apple varieties. Differences in found in control apples, any H. coli parts (skin, flesh, inner core, outer apple varieties that may influence found in the apples after day zero core) of the intact “drop” apples infiltration may be a function of was attributed to that placed on the used in this study. It appears that ripening, perhaps by association soil. Differences in sample means bacteria can infiltrate apple tissue with pH, which was not studied SEPTEMBER 2002 - Daily, Food ond Environmentol Sonilalion 671 TABLE 3. The effects of frequency of cleaning agent usage on the prevalence of microbial contamination in the sink environment TVC Total (%) Coliforms (%) Frequency of Sink Draining Tap Around Sink Draining Tap Around Count cleaning agent board tap board tap /cm^ usage <10= At least daily 57 38 77 33 69 87 86 29 >Weekly 5 29 50 28 21 76 100 59 Less frequently 0 0 0 0 0 40 29 0 10=-10= At least daily 29 62 23 50 31 13 14 71 1 >Weekly 37 42 13 18 50 6 0 23 Less frequently 0 0 17 0 38 10 42 0 10=-10^ At least daily 14 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 >Weekly 32 21 25 12 8 6 0 6 Less frequently 11 13 66 25 49 10 29 36 10^-10^ At least daily 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 >Weekly 16 0 6 18 0 12 0 6 Less frequently 23 50 17 25 13 20 0 46 10^-10" At least daily 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 >Weekly 0 7 6 12 21 0 0 6 Less frequently 33 13 0 16 0 10 0 18 10^-10= At least daily 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 >Weekly 10 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 Less frequently 33 24 0 32 0 10 0 0 672 Dairy, Food and Environmental Sanitation - SEPTEMBER 2002 here, or along with natural ana¬ To our knowledge, the infiltration bruised apple (Mains domestica) tomical differences. Lenticels, cu¬ of bacteria in dropped apples has tissue as influenced by cultivar, date of harvest, and source. Appl. ticle structure, cuticle area, and the not been demonstrated before out¬ Environ. Microbiol. 66:1077-1083. width of stem and calyx areas are side a laboratory'. 11. Krskine, J. M. 1973. Characteristics all used in differentiating apple va¬ of Eru inia amylovora bacterioph rieties (17). In the Golden Deli¬ REFERENCES age and its possible role in the epidemology of fire blight. Can. J. cious apple variety, lenticels may 1. Annous, B. A., G. .M. Supers, A. M. not close or may only partially close Mattrazzo, and O. C. Riordan. 2001. Microbiol. 19:837-845. after the formation of ‘cork’ cells Kfficacy of washing with a commer¬ 1 l .Erskine, J. .M. 1973. Character- cial flatbed brush washer, using i.stics of Erivinia amylovora bac¬ (17). Additionally, cork cells may conventional and experimental teriophage and its possible role in form in response to tissue damage washing agents, in reducing popu¬ the epidemology of fire blight. Can. and therefore may be less efficient lations of Escherichia coli on arti¬ J. Microbiol. 19:8.37-845. than waxy cells at inhibiting infil¬ ficially inoculated apples. J. Food 12. Food and Drug Administration. tration of microorganisms through Prot. 64:1S9-I63. 2(K)I. Hazard Analysis and Critical lenticels. 2. Bartz, J. A., and R. K. Showalter. Control Point (HAC(CP); Proce¬ 1981. Infiltration of tomatoes by dures for the sate and sanitary prt)- Ciolden Delicious apples have aqueous bacterial suspensions. Phy¬ cessing and importing of juice. a cracked and discontinuous cu¬ topathology. ■’1:S1S-518. (>6:61.38-6202. ticle, unlike other varieties, which 3 Besser, R. H., S. M. Lett, J. T. Weber, 13. Merkcr R., S. Edelson-Mammel, have a fairly oily cuticle. Environ¬ M. P. Doyle, T. J. Barrett,). G. Wells, V. Davis, and R. L. Buchanan. 1999. and P. M. Griffin. 1993. An out¬ mental factors can also influence Preliminary experiments on the break of diarrhea and hemolytic effects of temperature difference cuticle formation. For example, uremic syndrrrme from Escherichia on dye uptake by oranges and parts of the fruit that develop in the coli 013"’:H"’ in fresh-pressed apple grapefruits. shade, such as the skin located di- cider.JA.MA. 269:2217-2220. -i. Buchanan, R. L., S. G. Kdelson, R. 14. Millard, P. S., K. F. Gen.sheimer, and recth’ around the stem, have a thin¬ I. . Miller, and (i. M. Supers. 1999. D. (i. Adiss. 1994. An outbreak of ner cuticle. While the fruit ripens, (a)ntamination of intact apples cryptosporidiosis from fresh- air spaces within fruit cells may after immersion in an aqueous pressed apple cider. JAMA 2"’2: grow or expand, allowing in¬ environment containing Escheri¬ 1592-1596. chia coli 01S"^:H"'. ). Food Prot. 15. Riordan, D. C., G. M. Sapers, and creased infiltration of microorgan¬ 62:444-450. B. A. Annous, B. A. 2000. 'llie sur¬ isms. The process of ripening may 5. Burnett, S. L., J. (dien, and L. R. vival of Escherichia coli ()t57:H'' lead to changes in apple tissue. The Beuchat. 20(M). Attachment of Es¬ in the presence of Penicillium cherichia coli 0157:H'' to the sur¬ further influence of environmen¬ expansum and Glomerella cing- faces and internal structures of tal factors and fruit growth are cur¬ ulata in wounds on apple surfaces. apples as detected by confocal scan- J. F\K)d Prot. 63:1637-1(>42. rently being evaluated in field stud¬ ning laser microscopy. Appl. ies for their potential role in micro¬ Knviron. .Microbiol. 66:4679-468"'. 16. Sapers, G. M., R. L. Miller, .M. Jantschke, and A. M. Mattrazzo. bial infiltration. 6. (;hatterjee, A. K., L. N. Gibbins, and J. A. (Carpenter. 1969. Sttme obser¬ 20(K). Factors limiting the efficacy This study indicates that bacte¬ vations on the physiology of of hydrogen peroxide washes for ria can infiltrate apple tissues out¬ Eru inia herhicola and its possible decontamination of apples exmtain- side laboratory' conditions. It ap¬ implication as a factor antagonistic ing Escherichia coli. J. F(kh1 Sci. pears that environmental condi¬ to Eru'inia amylovora in the “fire- 65:529-5.32. blight" syndrome. C:an. J. Micro¬ tions may be most influential on n. Smock, R. .M., and A. IVI. Nuebert. biol. 15:640-642. 1950. Apples and apple products. infiltration of bacteria into the core, 7. CTmters for Disease f;ontrol and Interscience Publishers, Inc., New where subsequent studies (data not Prevention. 1996. Foodborne out¬ York. shown) have yielded preliminary break of diarrheal illne.ss associated 18. Steele, B. T., N. Murphy, G. S. Arbus, data that suggest that bacteria can with Cryptosporidium parviim- and C. P. Ranee. 1982. An outbreak survive for fourteen days. Such find¬ Minnesota, 1995. M.MWR Morb. Mortal. Wkly. Rep. 45:~83-"'84. of hemolylic uremic syndrome as- ings indicate the possible need for 8. Clenters for Disease Catntrol and s»)ciated with ingestion of fresh the inclusion of a final processing Prevention. DW". Outbreaks of/;’s- apple juice.). Pediatr. 101:963-965. step such as ultra-violet light, high cherichia coli 0157:11"' infection 19. I'jas, H. E., and S. C. Ingham. 20 SEPTEMBER 2002 - Dairy, Food and Environmentol Sanitation 673 Dairy, Food and Em ironmental Sanitation, Vol. 22, No. 9, Pages 674-682 Copyright© International Association tor Food Protection, 6200 Aurora Ave., Suite 200W, Des Moines, lA 50322 Commercial Application of Lactic Acid to Reduce Bacterial Populations on Chilled Beef Carcasses^ Subprimal Cuts and Table Surfaces during Fabrication R. T. Bacon, J. N. Sofos, K. E. Belk,* and G. C. Smith Center for Red Meat Safety, Department of Animal Sciences, Colorado State University, Ft. Collins, Colorado, 80523-1 1 71 SUMMARY This study evaluated the efficacy of a lactic acid solution, applied at three in-plant locations, alone and in combination, in reducing or controlling bacterial populations on beef carcasses and subprimal cuts, and on table surfaces, during carcass fabrication. Total plate counts (TPC), total conform counts (TCC), and Escherichia coli counts (ECC) on carcass surfaces immediately before entering fabrication were low, as 9.0, 89.5, and 93.8% of samples had TPC, TCC, and ECC, respectively, below detection limits of 2.2, 0.9, and 0.9 log CFU/100 cm^. Lactic acid solution rinsing (1.5 to 2.5%; 29.5°C; 182 kPa; 3 s) of carcasses, immediately before entering the fabrication process, minimally reduced mean TPC from 3 3 log CPU/100 cm- to 3.0 log CFU/100 cm-, and increased the percentage of non-detectable TCC and ECC from 89.5 and 93.8%, to 92.4% and 94.3%, respectively. Lactic acid solution rinsing of fabrication table surfaces, alone or in combination with lactic acid solution rinsing of carcasses, reduced (P< 0.05) TPC, TCC and ECC of 5.5, 3.2 and 2.8 log CFLJ/100 cm^ on table surfaces, by an average of 1.2, 0.8 and 0.7 log CFU/100 cm-, respectively. Lactic acid solution rinsing of top sirloin butts, alone or in combination with lactic acid solution rinsing of carcasses and fabrication tables, reduced (P < 0.05) their TPC, TCC and ECC of 5.7 and 5.1, 3.8 and 3 5, and 3 3 and 3 2 log CFU/100 cm^, respectively, by less than 0.5 log CFU/100 cm^. Bacterial populations on the surface of carcasses entering the fabrication process remained constant over time (3-h period), while TPC, TCC and E(]C on surfaces of fabrication tables and top sirloin butts increased by an average of 1.4, 1.1 and 1.0 log CFU/100 cm-, respectively. In contrast to decontamination of hot carcasses with lactic acid rinses, application of lactic acid solutions had little effect in reducing contamination of beef carcass, subprimal cut, and table surfaces during beef carcass fabrication. A pccr-reviewed article. ’Author for correspondence: Phone: 970.491.5826; Fax: 970.491.0278; E-mail: [email protected] Iflieinaiional Association lor 674 Dairy, Food and Environmental Sanitation - SEPTEMBER 2002 Food Protection. INTRODUCTION cuts and trimmings, or indirectly, beef carcasses, fabrication tables from repeated contact with employ¬ and top sirloin butts before, during In response to food safety con¬ ees (e.g., hands, knifes and meat and immediately following the car¬ cerns associated with fresh meat hooks) or contact surfaces is prob¬ cass fabrication process in a com¬ contamination, the Food Safety and able (34). Gill et al. (19) sampled mercial fed-beef packing plant. De¬ Inspection Service of the United product immediately before it en¬ contamination treatments evalu¬ States Department of Agriculture tered and after it left the fabrication ated included; (a) post-chilling lac¬ (FSIS-USDA) mandated industry¬ process in four commercial beef tic acid solution (1.3 to 2.3%; wide implementation of HACCP packing facilities. Results indicated 29.3°C; 182 kPa; 3 sec) carcass rins¬ principles and associated microbio¬ increased ECC on final fabricated ing. applied as a mist using a com¬ logical performance criteria in an product surfaces, which, following mercial spray-wash cabinet located attempt to emphasize the impor¬ closer inspection of equipment, immediately before the chilled car¬ tance of controlling microbiologi¬ were attributed to obscurely lo¬ cass scale; (b) table rinsing, lactic cal populations on beef carcass sur¬ cated detritus associated with large acid solution (1.3 to 2.3%; 29.3°C) faces (/7). Subsequently, the beef populations of aerobic bacteria, in¬ continuously applied as a fine mist industr)' adopted technologies such cluding Escherichia coli. When by means of a spray bar mounted to bacteria-harboring equipment was as hot water/steam vacuuming, the proximal end of the loin fabri¬ running, even before product pas¬ steam pasteurization, and ambient cation table; and, (c) sub-primal sage, bacteria were transferred to temperature or hot water spray- rinsing with lactic acid solution (1.3 meat contact surfaces, ultimately washing with or without organic to 2.3%; 29.3°C) applied as a mist, resulting in product contamination acid solution rinsing, to reduce con¬ manually in two passes using a com¬ (19) . tamination and meet performance pressed air sprayer (81; Spray Doc In another study (20), surfaces criteria (12, / 5, 22, 26, J2, JJ). of beef carcasses, primal cuts and Model 2()()()P, Gilmour, Somerset, Fhese technologies have re¬ tables were swabbed immediately PA) to top sirloin butts removed sulted in decreased microbiological before, during and following car¬ from the distal end of the loin fabri¬ contamination on carcass surfaces. cass fabrication, respectively. T(X> cation table. Bacon et al. ( 5) sampled chilled (18 and EC(] recovered from carcass Sampling (Kxurred before, dur¬ to 24 h) beef carcasses in five fed surfaces were 4.0 and 3.3 log (^FIV ing and immediately following the cattle and three non-fed cattle pack¬ 300 sides, respectively, while cor¬ fabrication process at five different ing plants and reported that 19.4% responding populations on primal in-plant sampling sites: (1) carcass of total plate counts (TPU; 62 of 319 cuts were > 6.0 and 3.3 log CFU/ (site 1), immediately after entering samples), 86.2% of total coliform 300 cuts. Because T(X'- and EC(- on the fabrication area but before the counts (TCX,; 273 of 319 samples) primal cut surfaces were higher lactic acid solution carcass rinsing and 98.4% of Escherichia co/i than those recovered from car¬ cabinet; (2) carcass (site 2), imme¬ counts (FXX>; 313 of 320 samples) casses (i.e., by approximately 2.0 diately after the lactic acid solution were not detected at detection lim¬ logs), and were comparable to carcass rinsing cabinet but before its of 2.2, 0.9 and 0.9 log colony- those recovered from fabrication the chilled carcass scale; (3) fabri¬ forming-units ((;FU)/100 cm-, re¬ tables, contamination of primal cuts cation table (site 3), at the distal end spectively. from table surfaces was implicated of the loin line; (4) top sirloin butt Traditionally, the sustained re¬ (20) . (site 4), immediately after being frigeration temperatures following Bacterial populations on the removed from the distal end of the the exsanguination/dressing pro¬ surfaces of tables and primal cuts loin fabrication table but before lac¬ cess (i.e., carcass chilling through tic acid solution subprimal rinsing; fabricating, packaging, distributing may be controlled by employing and retailing) have been considered interventions immediately before, and, (3) top sirloin butt (site 3). fol¬ sufficient to control or reduce pro¬ during and/or immediately follow¬ lowing lactic acid solution liferation of, and/or toxin produc¬ ing (before vacuum packaging) subprimal rinsing but before tion by, foodborne pathogens (-25). beef carcass fabrication. The objec¬ vacuum packaging. However, psychrotrophic and sur¬ tive of this study was to determine During each week (A through viving mesophilic bacterial popula¬ the efficacy of lactic acid solution F) at each in-plant sampling site re¬ tions may proliferate readily in con¬ rinsing in reducing or controlling quired by the assigned treatment, ditions approximating mild to mod¬ bacterial populations on beef car¬ samples (n = 7) were collected each erate temperature abuse, and casses and subprimal cuts, and on day (Monday through Friday) every subprimal cuts and trimmings can table surfaces, during carcass fabri¬ half-hour, for three hours, begin¬ be further contaminated during fab¬ cation. ning at the start of the first shift. rication (25, 2fi). Employees and The sampling protocols for weeks improperly sanitized contact sur¬ MATERIALS AND METHODS A through F are detailed in Table 1. faces, such as belts, tables, saw Week A included the collection of Sample collection blades and cutting boards, serve as samples at three in-plant sampling potential sources of contamination. Samples (n = 803) were col¬ sites with no decontamination treat¬ Ooss-contamination occurring di¬ lected during a period of six weeks ments applied, to develop a com¬ rectly, between carcasses, primal (A through F) from the surfaces of plete baseline-data subset of SEPTEMBER 2002 - Doiry, Food and Environmentol Sonilotion 675 TABLE 1. Decontamination treatments applied and number of samples collected during each week, by in-plant sampling site° before, during and immediately following beef carcass fabri¬ cation In-Plant Sampling Sites° Ca rcass Fabrication Table Top Sirloin Butt Decontamination Week Treatments Applied'’ Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5 A None 35 - 35 35 - B Carcass Rinsing 35 35 35 35 - C Table Rinsing 35 - 35 35 - D Subprimal Rinsing 35 - 35 35 35 E Carcass Table Rinsing 35 35 35 35 - F Carcass + Table + Subprimal Rinsing 35 35 35 35 35 Total 210 105 210 210 70 Total number of samples collected; 805. ° Sampling occurred at five different in-plant sampling sites, including: (1) carcass (site 1), immediately after entering the fabrication area but before the lactic acid solution carcass rinsing cabinet; (2) carcass (site 2), immediately after the lactic acid solution carcass rinsing cabinet; (3) fabrication table (site 3), at the distal end of the loin line; (4) top sirloin butt (site 4), immediately after being removed from the distal end of the loin fabrication table; and, (5) top sirloin butt (site 5), following lactic acid solution subprimal rinsing but before vacuum packaging. Decontamination treatments included; (a) post-chilling lactic acid solution carcass rinsing, immediately before the chilled carcass scale; (b) lactic acid solution fabrication table rinsing, applied by means of a spray bar mounted to the proximal end of the loin fabrication table; and (c) lactic acid solution subprimal rinsing, applied to top sirloin butts removed from the distal end of the loin fabrication table. biological populations on carcass, efficacy of this decontamination scribed in the FSIS-USDA Meat and fabrication table and top sirloin butt treatment in reducing or control¬ Poultry Inspection regulations ( / 7). surfaces. Week B included the col¬ ling bacterial populations on top sir¬ Immediately before sampling, ster¬ lection of samples at four in-plant loin butt surfaces. Week E included ile sponges (BioPro Fnviro-Sponge sampling sites with the application the collection of samples at four in- Bags, International Bio-Products, of lactic acid solution carcass rins¬ plant sampling sites with lactic acid Redmond, WA) were hydrated with ing, to determine the efficacy of solution rinsing of carcasses and 10 ml of sterile 0.1% buffered pep¬ this decontamination treatment in tables, to determine the collective tone water (BioPro, International reducing or controlling bacterial contribution of the decontamina¬ BioProducts). Sampling of carcass populations on carcasses, and sub¬ tion treatments to the microbiologi¬ sides (sites 1 and 2) was performed sequently on fabrication table and cal quality of table surfaces and sub¬ top sirloin butt surfaces. Week using a 100 cm- disposable, sterile sequently removed top sirloin butts. included the collection of samples template (IISDA Template, Interna¬ at three in-plant sampling sites with Week F included collection of tional BioProducts) at each of three the application of lactic acid solu¬ samples at five in-plant sampling anatomical locations, which were: tion table rinsing, to determine the sites with lactic acid solution rins¬ (a) flank, where the cutaneous contribution of this decontamina¬ ing of carcasses, tables, and flank muscle comes to within 7.62 tion treatment to the microbiologi¬ subprimals, to determine the collec¬ cm of the midline; (b) brisket, at a cal quality of table surfaces and sub¬ tive efficacy of all decontamination point on the midline level with the sequently removed top sirloin butts. treatments in reducing or control¬ elbow; and, (c) rump, where a line Week I) included collection of ling bacterial populations on top from the posterior aspect of the samples at four in-plant sampling sirloin butts (Table 1). aitch bone to the achilles tendon in¬ sites with lactic acid solution Sponge sampling was per¬ tersects the cut surface of the round subprimal rinsing, to determine the formed following procedures de¬ (/T). Sampling of table surfaces 676 Dairy, Food and Environmental Sanitation - SEPTEMBER 2002 micro(site 3) and subprimal cuts (Model 500A, Spiral Systems Instru¬ analysis of variance (AOV) using the (sites 4 and 5) was performed us¬ ments, Inc.) and a computer as¬ model y = a X, + X, + x,x, and least- ing a 100 cm- disposable, sterile sisted spiral bio-assay (CASBA) data squares means were computed for template (USDA Template, Interna¬ processor with Bacterial Enumera¬ TPC, TCC and ECC by week (x,), tional BioProducts). Table surfaces tion Program E20 (Spiral Systems In¬ in-plant sampling site (x^, and were sampled (100 cmO at the dis¬ struments, Inc.). week X in-plant sampling site (x,x,) tal end of the loin fabrication line, To determine TCC and ECC, fixed effects using the General Lin¬ while subprimal cuts (top sirloin appropriate dilutions were trans¬ ear Models procedure of SAS* (JO). butts) were sampled (100 cmO im¬ ferred (I ml) to Petrifilm™ E. coli Because of the significant week mediately after being removed from (i)unt Plates (3M Health ("are, St. X in-plant sampling site interaction the loin fabrication line, on the sur¬ Paul, MN) and, following a 24 ±/ (P = 0.0001), only interaction sub¬ face associated with external adi¬ -2 h incubation period (/8) at 35 class least squares means are re¬ pose tissue. ±/-2°C, colonies were manually ported (Tables 2 - 5). When AOV Sponge swabbing at each car¬ counted by means of a Quebec detected effects (P < 0.05), mean cass, fabrication table, or subprimal Darkfield Counter (AO Scientific log values for bacterial populations cut sampling site, within the 100 Instruments). Colonies closely (x) on carcass and table surfaces cm- template area, consisted of 10 associated with entrapped gas (Tables 2 and 4) were separated passes vertically (up-and-down be¬ (approximately one colony diam¬ using the pairwise t-test of SAS® ing considered as 1 pass) and 10 eter) and possessing a bright red or (30). Lactic acid solution rinsing of passes horizontally (side-to-side be¬ blue color were counted as carcasses (weeks B, E and F) and ing considered as 1 pass) with a conforms (T(X>), while colonies subprimals (week D) were evalu¬ pressure equivalent to that which closely associated with trapped gas ated by determining mean log value would be used to remove dried and possessing a blue to red-blue differences (mean log value before blood (/7). Sampling was per¬ color were counted as E. coli bio¬ treatment application minus mean formed aseptically using sterile type I (ECX^). log value after treatment applica¬ latex gloves (International BioPro¬ tion) for each enumerated set. ducts), which, like the template, Treatment effects (lactic acid solu¬ were changed between samples. Data analysis tion rinsing of carcasses and Following sample collection, an ad¬ Micn)biological counts for each subprimals) based on bacterial ditional 15 ml of refrigerated (4 to enumerated set (TP(>, TC(] and population differences (D ^ ; Tables 5°(T sterile 0.1% buffered peptone ECC) were transformed to log,,, 3 and 5) were determined using a water (Difco Laboratories, Detroit, CFU/100 cm- for statistical analyses. two-tailed t-test (JO). Ml) was added, increasing the Minimum detection limits for TPC, total buffer volume to 25 ml. When TCC and ECC were 2.2, 0.9 and 0.9 daily sample collection was finished logCFlI/I00cm-(20, 1 and 1 CFU/ RESULTS AND DISCUSSION (3h after commencement of carcass ml of diluent), respectively, for car¬ fabrication), excess air was expel¬ Mean log TPC, TCC, and ECC cass samples (adjusted for 300 cm- led and sponge bags were folded on carcass surfaces immediately af¬ sample area), and 2.7, 1.4, and 1.4 down and packed into shipping ter entering the fabrication area (in- logCFlI/100cm-(20, 1 and 1 CFU/ coolers for same-day delivery to the plant sampling site 1) ranged from ml of diluent), respectively, for fab¬ analytical laboratory (Warren Ana- 2.9 to 4.0, < 0.9 to 1.0, and < 0.9 to rication table and subprimal <0.9 log CFU/1 (X) cm-, respectively, htical Laboratory, Greeley, CO). samples, based on maximum sensi¬ among the six sampling weeks. Of tivity of the tests with no further the total carcass samples collected Microbiological analyses dilution beyond the original buffer (n = 210) across all sampling weeks, volume (25 ml). Undetectable TPC, The sponges and associated 19 (9.0%), 188 (89.5%) and 197 TC'C and ECC^ were recorded as 2.2, (93.8%) yielded non-detectable buffer were pummeled in a 0.9, and 0.9 log CFU/100 cm^ re¬ TP(7 T(X> and EC(], respectively stomacher (Seward Model 400, spectively, for carcass samples, and (Table 2). lekmar (k)mpany, Cincinnati, OH) 2.7, 1.4, and 1.4 CTU/lOO cm’, re¬ Mean log TPC, TCC, and ECC for 1 min, and analyzed for total spectively, for fabrication table and on carcass surfaces immediately plate counts (TPC;), total coliform subprimal samples, so statistical counts ('I’CC) and Escherichia coli analysis could be performed with¬ before lactic acid solution carcass counts (E(>C). To determine TPCi out overestimating antimicrobial rinsing (weeks B, E and F) were 3 3, appropriate dilutions were plated efficacy. Values for the mean log 1.0 and 0.9 log CFU/100 cm^ re¬ on Plate (xnint Agar (P(>A; Difco count and standard deviation of spectively. Lactic acid solution car¬ Laboratories) using a spiral plating each enumerated set (log CFli/100 cass rinsing reduced (P < 0.05) TPC/ system (Spiral Systems Instruments, cm- for TPC;, TC(> and ECC) were increasing the number of samples Inc., Cincinnati, OH). Following calculated on the assumption of a below the detection limit from aerobic incubation at 35 ±/- 2°C> for log-normal distribution of microor¬ 12.4% (13 of 105) to 21.9% (23 of 48 h, colonies were counted by use ganisms (7, 23). Data for each enu¬ 105) (Table 3). TCC and ECX: on of a laser bacteria colony counter merated set were evaluated with carcass surfaces were reduced, but SEPTEMBER 2002 - Doiry, Food and Environmenfol Sanitation 677 TABLE 2. Least squares means (x) and standard deviations (s) for the log,^ values of total plate counts (TPC), total coliform counts (TCC), and Escherichia coli counts (ECC) (CFU/100 cm^), and the number of samples (n (%)) in which counts were not detected, on carcasses immediately prior to fabrication, by sampling week Microbiological Counts on Carcass Surfaces Total Plate Counts Total Coliform Counts Escherichia coli Counts Number of samples analyzed during each week: 35 for each enumerated set (TPC, TCC and ECC); total number of samples analyzed: 210 for each enumerated set. Detection limits for TPC, TCC, and ECC were 2.2, 0.9, and 0.9 log CFU/100 cm^, respectively. “‘’“'Means in the same column bearing a common superscript letter are not different {P> 0.05). the reduction was not statistically mean TP(/ T(X>, and ECC popula¬ subprimals, applied in combination significant {P > 0.05), following tions of 4.6, 2.7, and 2.1 log CPU/ (as multiple decontamination treat¬ treatment application, although the 100 cm-, respectively, which were ments) with lactic acid solution efficacy of the treatment in reduc¬ lower (P < 0.05) than all three of rinsing of carcasses and fabrication ing these microbiological popula¬ the populations during week D and tables (week F), reduced {P < 0.05) tions may have been masked by the lower (P < 0.05) than TPC and ECC ECC, but only by 0.3 logs, and had extremely high number of samples populations during week A. Com¬ no effect (f* > 0.05) on mean log failing to yield detectable bacterial bined lactic acid solution rinsing of TP(] and T(X> (Table 5). T he appli¬ counts. Nonetheless, the percent¬ carcasses and of fabrication table cation of multiple decontamination age of non-detectable samples in¬ surfaces resulted in mean TPC, treatments “upstream” in the fabri¬ creased from 87.6% (92 of 105) and TCC, and ECC of 4.1 and 4.2, 2.1 cation process (i.e., lactic acid so¬ 92.4% (97 of 105) to 92.4% (97 of and 2.5, and 1.8 and 2.3 log CPU/ lution rinsing of carcasses and fab¬ 105) and 94.3% (99 of 105) for TCC 100 cm^ during weeks E and F, re¬ rication tables) may have had an and ECC, respectively (Table 3). spectively (Table 4). TP(/ TCC, and Mean log TPC, TCC, and ECC ECC were lower during week E effect on the efficacy of “down¬ on fabrication table surfaces, with¬ than during weeks A and D (P < stream” treatments (i.e., lactic acid out any decontamination treatment, 0.05). Populations (TPC, TCC, and solution subprimal rinsing), due to were 5.5 and 5.5, 2.8 and 3-6, and ECC) during week F were lower (P previous reductions in microbio¬ 2.4 and 3.2 log CFU/100 cm- dur¬ < 0.05) than during week D, but logical populations. ing weeks A and 1), respectively only TPC were lower {P < 0.05) Microbiological populations on (Table 4). Microbiological popula¬ during week F than during week A carcass surfaces entering the fabri¬ tions (TPC, TCC, and ECC) on fab¬ (Table 4). cation process did not (P> 0.05) de¬ rication table surfaces, following The application of lactic acid pend on sampling time, as mean lactic acid solution rinsing of car¬ solution rinsing to subprimals TP(/ T(X;, and FXX; at the first sam¬ casses only (week B), were similar (week D) resulted in minimal re¬ pling time (0 min) were 3.4, 0.9, (mean log values of 5.2 for TPC, 3.7 ductions (P < 0.05; < 0.5 log (TU/ and 0.9 log (TU/lOO cm-^, respec¬ for TCC and 3.5 for ECC) to popu¬ 100 cmO in TPC, TCC and ECC on lations recovered without treatment top sirloin butts from initial mean tively, while corresponding counts application (weeks A and D). Lac¬ log values of 5.7, 3.8 and 3 3 log after three hours of sampling were tic acid solution rinsing of fabrica¬ CFU/100 cm-, respectively (Table 3.5, 1.0, and 0.9 log CFU/100 cm% tion tables (week C) resulted in 5). Lactic acid solution rinsing of respectively (Table 6). In contrast. 678 Dairy, food and Environmental Sanitation - SEPTEMBER 2002 % TABLE 3. Least squares means (r>x)° and standard deviations (s) for the difference in log,^ values of total plate counts (TPC), total coliform counts (TCC) and Escherichia coli counts (ECC) (CPU/100 cm^), number of samples in which counts were not detected before (n, (%)) and after (n, (%)) treatment application, and Dx test statistic (T), P- value, and 95% confidence interval (C.l.) associ¬ ated with lactic acid solution carcass rinsing Decontamination Effects of Lactic Acid Solution Carcass Rinsing'’ Microbiological counts on carcass surfaces Dx s n, (%) n, (%) T P-value C.l. TPC 0.22 0.98 13 (12.4) 23 (21.9) 2.26 0.03 0.03 - 0.40 TCC 0.06 0.35 92 (87.6) 97 (92.4) 1.77 0.08 -0.01 -0.10 ECC 0.03 0.21 97 (92.4) 99 (94.3) 1.25 0.22 -0.02 - 0.07 °D^ is the difference in least squares means for each enumerated set (TPC, TCC and ECC) between sampling sites 1 and 2 (site 1 minus site 2). '’Mean log values for TPC, TCC and ECC on carcass surfaces immediately before treatment application were 3.3, 1.0 and 0.9 log CPU/100 cm^, respectively. Number of samples analyzed at each of the two in-plant sampling sites was 105 for each enumerated set. Detection limits for TPC, TCC, and ECC were 2.2, 0.9, and 0.9 log CFU/100 cm^ respectively. TABLE 4. Least squares means (x) and standard deviations (s) for the log,^ values of total plate counts (TPC), total coliform counts (TCC), and Escherichia coli counts (ECC) (CFU/100 cm^) on table surfaces, by sampling week Microbiological Counts on Table Surfaces° Total Plate Counts Total Coliform Counts Escherichia coli Counts Week X s X s X s A 5.5“ 1.08 2.8'’ 0.81 2.4“ 0.77 B 5.2“ 1.12 3.7“ 0.91 3.5“ 0.92 C 4.6'’ 1.00 2.7'’ 0.66 2.1* 0.58 D 5.5“ 0.81 3.6“ 0.79 3.2'’ 0.78 E 4.1“ 1.13 2.1“ 0.99 1.8“ 0.83 F 4.2'’“ 1.16 2.5'’ 0.90 2.3“'' 0.89 “Lactic acid solution rinsing of tables alone (as a decontamination treatment) occurred during week C, and lactic acid solution rinsing of tables in combination (as multiple decontamination treatments) with lactic acid solution carcass rinsing occurred during weeks E and F. Number of samples analyzed during each week was 35 for each enumerated set (TPC, TCC and ECC). obc SEPTEMBER 2002 - Dairy, Food and Environmental Sanitation 679 TABLE 5. Least squares means (Dx)° and standard deviations (s) for the difference in log,^ values of total plate counts (TPC), total coliform counts (TCC) and Escherichia coli counts (ECC) (CFU/100 cm^), and the Dx test statistic (T), P-value, and 95% confidence interval (C.l.) associ¬ ated with lactic acid solution subprimal rinsing in each of two decontamination systems Decontamination Effects of Lactic Acid Solution Subprimal Rinsing in Two Systems*’ Applied as the Only Decontamination Treatment” Applied Following Carcass and Table Rinsing"* Microbiological Counts on P- P- Subprimal Dx s T value C.l. Dx s T value C.l. Surfaces TPC 0.34 0.74 2.76 0.01 0.09-0.60 -0.07 0.78 -0.54 0.59 -0.34-0.20 TCC 0.41 0.57 4.33 0.00 0.22-0.61 0.15 0.83 1.09 0.29 -0.14-0.44 ECC 0.32 0.73 2.62 0.02 0.07 - 0.58 0.32 0.86 2.17 0.04 0.02 - 0.62 °D is the difference in least squares means for each enumerated set (TPC, TCC and ECC) between sampling sites 4 and 5 (site 4 minus site 5). ‘’Lactic acid solution rinsing of top sirloin butts alone (as a decontamination treatment) occurred during week D; lactic acid solution rinsing of top sirloin butts in combination (as multiple decontamination treatments) with lactic acid solution carcass and table rinsing occurred during week F. ”Mean log values for TPC, TCC and ECC on subprimal surfaces immediately before treatment application were 5.7, 3.8 and 3.3 log CFU/100 cm^ respectively. ‘‘Mean log values for TPC, TCC and ECC on subprimal surfaces immediately before treatment application were 5.1,3.5 and 3.2 log CFU/100 cm^, respectively. Number of samples analyzed during each week, at each of the two in-plant sampling sites was 35 for each enumerated set. microbiological populations on (S, 12, 15, 21, 22, 27). In general, ,SV//wo«tV/c/Typhimuriiim DT’ 104 surfaces of fabrication tables and data support spray washing/rinsing and Listeria monocytogenes to sur¬ top sirloin butts changed over time, as effective means of eliminating, vive or grow in spray-washing flu¬ as initial (0 min) TPC/ TCX/ and reducing, or controlling the prolif¬ ids, including lactic acid (2%\ 55°C), ECC> on fabrication table surfaces eration of pathogenic and non- collected following application to fresh beef top rounds. T’he research¬ were 3-8, 1.9, and 1.8 log C'TU/lOO pathogenic bacterial populations ers concluded that pathogen sur¬ cm-, while corresponding counts on hot beef carcass surfaces. In con¬ vival in acidic spray-washings was trast, the efficacy of organic acids after three hours of sampling were better at 4°C than at lO'^C (29). in reducing bacterial populations is 5.2, 3.1, and 2.7 log CTU/lOO cm/ ('.astillo et al. (/9) evaluated the significantly less when they are ap¬ respectively. Initial (0 min) TPC/ decontamination efficacy of a lac¬ plied to chilled tissue surfaces (/, TCX/ and ECX', on top sirloin butt tic acid solution applied to chilled, 6, 11, 12, 13, 14). It has been sug¬ surfaces were 4.5, 2.6, and 2.2 log outside beef rounds inoculated with gested that this may be due, in part, CTU/lOO cm-, respectively, while E. coli 0157:117 and S. Typhimu- to the lower temperatures associ¬ corresponding counts after three rium (7.0 to 7.3 log CFU/cmO- ated with post-chilling carcass fab¬ Samples were chilled for 24 h at hours of sampling were 5.8, 3.6, rication, since organic acid applica¬ 4°C, at which time the post-chill¬ and 3.2 log CTTI/lOO cm-, respec¬ tion temperature influences the ing lactic acid solution treatment tively (Table 6). extent to which bacterial popula¬ (500 ml; 4% L-lactic acid; 30 s; 55°(:) The application of organic acid tions are reduced (2, 3, 4, 12), and was applied. The post-chilling lac¬ solutions to beef carcass surfaces application to chilled tissue may tic acid solution application re¬ during the slaughter/dressing pro¬ result in an instantaneous rinsing duced existing inoculated bacterial cess, as a means of improving mi¬ solution temperature reduction. populations by 1.6 to 2.4 log cycles, crobiological quality, has been ex¬ Samelis et al. (29) reported on the depending on the pre-chill treat¬ tensively examined and reviewed ability of Hscherkiiia coli () 157:117, ment group, and the researchers 680 Dairy, Food and Environmental Sanitation - SEPTEMBER 2002 TABLE 6. Least squares means (standard deviations) for the log,^ values of total plate counts (TPC), total coliform counts (TCC), and Escherichia coli counts (ECC) (CFU/100 cm^) for each sam¬ pling time” and by in-plant sampling site, averaged across all weeks In-plant Sampling Site Carcass (Site 1) Table (Site 3) Subprimal (Site 4) Sampling Time (min) TPC TCC ECC TPC TCC ECC TPC TCC ECC 1 (0) 3.4 (0.82) 0.9 (0.25) 0.9 (0.25) 3.8 (1.12) 1.9 (0.85) 1.8 (0.76) 4.5 (1.30) 2.6(1.27) 2.2 (1.02) 2 (30) 3.5 (1.16) 0.9 (0.13) 0.9 (0.06) 4.9 (0.98) 2.6 (0.91) 2.3 (0.87) 5.2 (1.23) 2.9 (1.14) 2.7(1.11) 3 (60) 3.3 (0.86) 0.9 (0.15) 0.9 (0.15) 4.9(1.06) 3.0 (0.95) 2.6 (0.95) 5.7(1.02) 3.2 (1.09) 2.8 (1.03) 4 (90) 3.5 (1.07) 0.9 (0.20) 0.9 (0.01) 4.9 (1.20) 3.1 (0.98) 2.8 (0.95) 5.6 (0.92) 3.1 (1.15) 2.8 (1.10) 5 (120) 3.5 (0.94) 0.9 (0.14) 0.9(0.01) 5.2 (1.17) 3.3 (0.93) 2.9(1.01) 5.7(1.08) 3.4(1.06) 3.1 (1.04) 6 (150) 3.7(1.21) 0.9 (0.15) 0.9 (0.14) 5.0 (1.31) 3.1 (1.10) 2.8 (1.08) 5.8 (1.02) 3.8 (0.97) 3.4 (1.02) 7(180) 3.5 (1.23) 1.0 (0.60) 0.9 (0.36) 5.2 (1.03) 3.1 (0.94) 2.7 (0.96) 5.8 (0.85) 3.6 (0.82) 3.2 (0.89) “Sampling time 1 occurred with the commencement of fabrication; subsequent samples were taken every half-hour over a three-hour period of time. Number of samples analyzed at each time was 30 for each enumerated set (TPC, TCC and ECC). Detection limits for TPC, TCC, and ECC were 2.2, 0.9, and 0.9 log CFU/100 cm^ respectively, for samples taken from carcass surfaces; corresponding detection limits for samples taken from table or subprimal surfaces were 2.7, 1.4, and 1.4 log CFU/100 cm/ respectively. concluded that significant reduc¬ tween fresh (hot) and chilled beef creases, the number of bacteria re¬ tions in bacterial populations could tissue surfaces. Typically, bacterial moved during subsequent spray be achieved by application of a 4% contamination on fresh or hot beef washing/rinsing treatments de¬ lactic acid solution (SOO ml; 55°C) carcass tissue has been recently creases. for 30 s to chilled beef carcass sides transferred, while that on chilled The lactic acid solution appli¬ (10). In a follow-up study (9), re¬ beef carcass tissue has had time (24 cations evaluated during this study searchers evaluated the antimicro¬ to 72 h) to attach, penetrate and/or resulted in only slight (< 1 log t:Fli/ bial efficacy of a lactic acid solution form biofilms. Bacterial attachment 100 cm-) reductions in microbio¬ rinse (4% L-lactic acid; 33 s) to surfaces (e.g., meat) occurs in logical populations on the surfaces applied to chilled beef carcasses (n two distinct stages, including an ini¬ of carcasses, subprimals and fabri¬ = 40) in a commercial packing fa¬ tial reversible interaction, followed cility. The researchers reported 3-0 cation tables. The reduced antimi¬ by a time-dependent phase involv¬ to 3 3 log (TTI/100 cm- reductions crobial efficacy of lactic acid w^hen ing irreversible attachment (*24). in aerobic plate counts (AP(T, and applied to cold as compared to hot increased numbers (/-’ < 0.05) of There is a linear relationship be¬ carcasses, as reported in the litera¬ undetectable T’(X; and E(X] (9). Fac¬ tween the concentration of bacte¬ ture, may be due to more extensive tors contributing to the reported ria attached to a surface and the bacterial attachment and lower car¬ increase of antibacterial efficacy time allowed for the attachment cass temperatures associated with process to occur (^. /6). It is this might have included higher appli¬ chilling. While none of the decon¬ cation concentrations, (4% as com¬ second phase, involving glycocalyx tamination strategies evaluated dur¬ pared to 1.5 to 2.5%), increased ex¬ development and subsequent ing this study completely prevented posure time (i.e., 35 s), and method biofilm formation of a microcolony, or significantly reduced (> 1 log of delivery (handheld compressed- that provides additional protection (;FII/1()() cm’) contamination on air sprayer as compared to commer¬ against environmental stresses and fabrication table and subprimal sur¬ cial carcass rinsing cabinet). thus promotes bacterial survival faces, there was evidence, albeit For a given organic acid solu¬ (J /). It has been reported (,8), that, slight, of additional reductions tion, the extent to which it reduces as the time of beef carcass tissue ex¬ through multiple applications of the bacterial populations may differ be¬ posure to fecal contamination in¬ decontaminant. Additional studies SEPTEMBER 2002 - Dairy, food ond Environmental Sanitation 681 should be designed to test decon¬ faces and in subsequently produced The relevance of the distribution of tamination intervention sequences ground beef. J. Food Prot. 64:58- microorganisms within batches of food to the control of microbiologi¬ that may improve the microbiologi¬ 62. 11. Conner, D. E., V. N. Scott, and D. T cal hazards from foods. J. Appl. cal quality of beef during fabrica¬ Bernard. 1990. Growth, inhibition, Bacteriol. 51:345-354. tion. and survival of Listeria inotio- 24. Marshall, K. G., R. Stout, and R. cytoftenes as affected by acidic coti- Mitchell. 1971. Mechanism of the REFERENCES ditions. J. Food Prot. 53:652-655. initial events in the sorption of 12. Dickson, J. S., and M. E. Anderson. marine bacteria to surfaces. J. Gen. 1. Acuff, (i. R., C. Vanderzant, J. W. 1992. Microbiological decontami¬ Saveli, D. K. Jones, D. B. Griffin, and Microbiol. 68:337-348. nation of food animal carcasses by J. G. Khlers. 1987. Hffect of acid de¬ 25. Palumbo, S. A. 1986. Is refrigeration washing and sanitizing systems. A contamination of beef siibprimal enough to restrain foodborne review. J. Food Prot. 55:133-140. cuts on the microbiological and pathogens? J. Food Prot. 49:1003- 13. Dixon, Z. R., G. R. Acuff, L. M. sensory characteristics of steaks. 1009. Lucia, c;. Vanderzant, J. B. Morgan, Meat Sci. 19:217-226. 26. Phebiis, R. K., A. L. Nutsch, D. FC. S. G. May, and J. W. Saveli. 1991. 2. Anderson, M. E., H. E. Huff, H, D. Schafer, R. G. Wilson, M. J. Ri- Effect of degree of sanitation from Naumann, and R. T. Marshall. 1988. emann, J. D. Leising, (C. L. Kastner, slaughter through fabrication on (a)unts of six types of bacteria on J. R. Wolf, and R. K. Prasai. 1997. the microbiological and sensory lamb carcasses dipped or sprayed (Comparison of steam pasteuriza¬ characteristics of beef. J. Food Prot. with acetic acid at 25° or 55°C and tion and other methods for reduc¬ 54:200-207. stored vacuum packaged at ()°(7 J. 14. Dixon, Z. R., C. Vanderzant, G. R. tion of pathogens on surfaces of FoodProt. 51:874-877. Acuff, J. W. Saveli, and D. K. Jones. freshly slaughtered beef. J. Food 3. Anderson, M. E., and R. T. Marshall. 1987. Effect of acid treatment of Prot. 60:476-484. 1989. Interaction of concentration beef strip loin steaks on mierobio- 27. Prasai, R. K., G. R. Acuff, L. M. and temperature of acetic acid so¬ logical and sen.sory characteristics. Lucia, D. S. Hale, J. W. Saveli, andJ. lution on reduction of various spe¬ Int. J. Food Microbiol. 5:181-186. B. Morgan. 1991. .Microbiological cies of microorganisms on beef sur¬ 15. Dorsa, W. J. 1997. New and e.stab- effects of acid decontamination of faces. J. Food Prot. 52:312-315. lished carcass decontamination pro¬ beef carcasses at various locations 4. Anderson, M. E., and R. T. Marshall. cedures commonly used in the in proce.ssing. J. Food Prot. 54;8f>8- 1990. Reducing microbial popula¬ beef-processing industry. J. Food tions on beef tissues: Caincentration H-’2. Prot. 60:1146-1151. and temperature of lactic acid. J. 28. Roberts, T. A., A. (C. Baird-Parker, 16. Firstenberg-Eden, R. 1981. Attach¬ Food Safety 10:181-190. and R. B. Fompkin (ed ). 1996. Mi¬ ment of bacteria to meat surfaces: 5. Bacon, R. T., K. E. Belk, J. N. Sofos, croorganisms in foods 5: (Character¬ A review. J. Food Prot. 44:602-607. R. P. (Mayton, J. O. Reagan, and G. istics of microbial pathogens. 17. FSIS-USDA. 1996. Pathogen Reduc¬ C. Smith. 2000. Microbial popula- Blackie Academic and Professional, tion: Hazard Analysis and fYitical tkins on animal hides and beef car¬ London. (;ontrol Point (HAtX^P) Systems; casses at different stages of slaugh¬ 29. Samelis,J., J. N. Sofos, P. A. Kendall, Final Rule. Federal Register 61 (No. ter in plants employing multiple-se¬ and (i. (C. Smith. 2001. Fate of Es¬ 144): 38806-38989. quential interventions for decon¬ cherichia coli ()15"’:H7, Sahtio- 18. (iangar, V., and M. S. Curiale. 1999. tamination. J. Food Prot. 63:1080- Dry rehydratable film method for iielia Typhimurium DTI04, and 1086. enumerating confirmed Escheri¬ Listeria monocytogenes in fresh 6. Brackett, R. E., Y. -Y. Hao, and M. chia coli in poultry, meats, and sea¬ meat decontamination fluids at 4 P. Doyle. 1994. Ineffectiveness of food: (xtllaborative study. J. AOAt; and 10°(C. J. Food Prot. 64:950-957. hot aeid sprays to decontaminate Int. 82:73-78. 30. SAS. 1995. SAS* System under Escherichia coli 0157:117 on beef. 19. ('.ill, G. O., M. Badoni, and J. G. Microsoft Windows, Release 6.12. J. Food Prot. 57:198-203. McCiinnis. 1999. Assessment of the •SAS Institute Inc., (Cary, N(C. 7. Brown, M. H., and A. C. Baird- adequacy of cleaning of equipment 31. Schwach, F. S., and FC. A. ZtHtola. Parker. 1982. The microbiological used for breaking beef carcasses. 1982. Use of scanning electrt)!! mi¬ examination of meat, p. 42.3-520. hi Int. J. Food Microbiol. 46:1-8. croscopy to demonstrate microbial M. H, Brown (ed.). Meat microbiol¬ 20. Giill, C. O., J. G. Mefiinnis, and J. attachment to beef and beef con¬ ogy. Applied .Science Publishers, Bryant. 2001. (Contamination of tact surfaces. J. Food ,Sci. 47:1401 - London. beef chucks with Escherichia coli 1405 8. (;abedo, L., J. N. Sofos, and (i. C. during carcass breaking. J. Food 32. Smulders, F. J. M., and (i. (i. Greer. Smith. 1996. Removal of bacteria Prot. 64:1824-1827. 1998. Integrating microbial decon¬ from beef tissue by spray washing 21. (iorman, B. M., J. N. Sofos, J. B. Mor¬ tamination with organic acids in after different times of exposure to gan, G. R. Schmidt, and G. C. Smith. 11 A(C(CP programs for muscle f(M)ds: fecal material. J. Food Prot. 1995. Evaluation of hand-trimming, Prt)spects and controversies. Int. J. 59:1284-128^. various sanitizing agents, and hot Food .Microbiol. 44:149-169. 9. c;a.stillo. A., L. M. Lucia, 1. Mercado, w'ater spray-washing as decontami¬ 3.3. Sofos, J. N., and (i. (C. Smith. 1998. and Ci. R. Acuff. 2001. In plant Nonacid meat decontamination evaluation of a lactic acid treatment nation interventions for beef bris¬ for reduction of bacteria on chilled ket adipose tissue. J. Food Prot. technologies: Model studies and beef carcasses. |. Food Prot. 58:899-907. commercial applications. Int. J. 64:738-740. 22. Hardin, M. 1)., G. R. Acuff, L. M. Food .Microbiol. 44:1'’I-188. 10. C;astillo, A., L. .M. Lucia, 1). B. Lucia, J. S. Oman, andj. W. Saveli. 34. Upmann, M., P. Jakob, and G. Roberson, f. 11. Stevenson, I. 1995. (Comparison of methods for Reuter. 2()()0. Microbial transfer Mercado, and fi. R. Acuff. 2001. decontamination from beef carcass during cutting and deboning of Lactic acid sprays reduce bacterial surfaces. J. Food Prot. 58:368-374. pork in a small-scale meat process¬ pathogens on cold beef carcass sur¬ 23. Kilsby, D. (C., and M. FC. Pugh. 1981. ing plant. Dairy Footl Environ. •Sanit. 2t): 14-2.3. 682 Dairy, Food and Environmental Sanitation - SEPTEMBER 2002 r International Association for Food Protection, Caul for Nominations 2003 Secretary A representative from industry will be elected in March of 2003 to serve as lAFP Secretary for the year 2003-2004. Send letters of nomination along with a biographical sketch to the Nomina¬ tions Chairperson: John Cerveny 17 Ridgeview Ct., No. 7 Madison, Wl 53704 Phone: 608.242.0760 Fax: 608.245.8895 E-mail: [email protected] The Secretary-Elect is determined by a majority of votes cast through a mail vote taken in March of 2003. Official Secretary duties begin at the conclusion of lAFP 2003. The elected Secretary serves as a Member of the Executive Board for a total of five years, succeeding to President, then serving as Past President. For information regarding requirements of the position, contact David Tharp, Executive Director, at 800.369.6337 or 515.276.3344; Fax: 515.276.8655; E-mail: [email protected]. SEPTEMBER 2002 - Dairy, Food and Environmental Sonilotion 683 International Association for Food Protection. The International Association for Food Protection welcomes your nominations for our Association Awards. Nominate your colleagues for one of the Awards listed below. You do not have to be an I AFP Member to nominate a deserving professional. To request nomination criteria, contact: International Association for Food Protection 6200 Aurora Ave., Suite 200W Des Moines, Iowa 50322-2864 Phone: 800.369.6337; 515.276.3344 Fax: 515.276.8655 Web site: www.foodprotection.org E-mail: [email protected] Nominations deadline is March 17, 2003. You may make multiple nominations. All nominations must be received at the lAFP office by March 17, 2003. ♦ Persons nominated for individual awards must be current lAFP Members. Black Pearl Award nominees must be companies employing current lAFP Members. NFPA Food Safety Award nominees do not have to be lAFP Members. ♦ Previous award winners are not eligible for the same award. ♦ Executive Board Members and Awards Committee Members are not eligible for nomination. ♦ Presentation of awards will be during the Awards Banquet at lAFP 2003 - the Association’s 90th Annual Meeting in New Orleans, Louisiana on August 13, 2003. 1 684 Dairy, Food and Environmentol Sonitotion - SEPTEMBER 2002 j "Namiliatiaim mill be accepted far tfie fallamiiig. cdmards: Black Pearl Award — Award Showcasing Sanitarian Award - Plaque and $1,000 the Black Pearl Honorarium Presented in recognition of a company’s Presented to an individual for outstanding outstanding achievement in corporate service to the public, lAFP and the profession excellence in food safety and quality. of the Sanitarian. Sponsored by Wilbur Feagan and F&H Food Sponsored by Ecolab, Inc., Food and Equipment Company. Beverage Division. Fellow Award — Distinguished Plaque Presented to Memher(s) who have con¬ Maurice Weber Laboratorian Award - tributed to lAFP and its Affiliates with quiet Plaque and $ 1,000 Honorarium distinction over an extended period of time. Presented to an individual for outstanding contributions in the laboratory, recognizing Honorary Life Membership Award — a commitment to the development of innovative Plaque and Lifetime Membership in lAFP and practical analytical approches in support Presented to Member(s) for their devotion of food safety. to the high ideals and objectives of lAFP Sponsored by Weber Scientific. and for their service to the Association. Harry Haverland Citation Award — International Leadership Award — Plaque and $ 1,000 Honorarium Plaque, $1,000 Honorarium and Reimbursement Presented to an individual for years of to attend lAFP 2003 devotion to the ideals and objectives of lAFP. Presented to an individual for dedication Sponsored by Silliker Inc. to the high ideals and objectives of lAFP and for promotion of the mission of the Association Harold Barnuni Industry Award — in countries outside of the United States and Plaque and $ 1,000 Honorarium Canada. Presented to an individual for outstanding Sponsored by Kraft Foods. service to the public, lAFP and the food industry. \FPA Food Safety Award - Plaque and $3,000 Sponsored by MASCO International, Inc. Honorarium Educator Award - Plaque and $ 1,000 Presented to an individual, group, or organ¬ Honorarium ization in recognition of a long history of Presented to an individual for outstanding outstanding contribution to food safety service to the public, lAFP and the arena of research and education. education in food safety and food protection. Sponsored by National Food Processors Sponsored by Nelson-fa meson, Inc. Association. SEPTEMBER 2002 - Dairy, Food and Enviranmenlal Sanitation 685 €allfar c4bMract^ lAFP 2003 The Association's 90th Annual Meeting August 10-13, 2003 New Orleans, Louisiana General Information Instructions for Preparing Abstracts 1. Membership in the Association is 1. Title — The title should be short but not required for presenting a paper descriptive. The first letter in each word at lAFP 2003. in the title and proper nouns should be capitalized. 2. All presenters must register for the Annual 2. Authors — List all authors using the Meeting and assume responsibility for their following style: first name followed by own transportation, lodging, and registration the surname. fees. 3. Presenter Name & Title — List the full name 3. There is no limit on the number of abstracts and title of the person who will present registrants may submit. However, presenters the paper. must present their presentations. 4. Presenter Address — List the name of the department, institution and full postal 4. Accepted abstracts will be published in the address (including zip/postal code and Program and Abstract Book. Editorial changes country). may be made to accepted abstracts at the 5. Phone Number — List the phone number, discretion of the Program Committee. including area, country, and city codes 5. Abstracts must be submitted Online or via of the presenter. E-mail. 6. Fax Number — List the fax number, including area, country, and city codes Presentation Format of the presenter. 7. E-mail — List the E-mail address for the 1. Technical — Oral presentations will be presenter. scheduled with a maximum of 15 minutes, 8. Format preferred — Check the box to indicate including a two to four minute discussion. oral or poster format. The Program Com¬ LCD projectors will be available. Other mittee makes the final decision on the equipment may be used at the presenter's format of the abstract. expense. Prior authorization from the office 9. Developing Scientist Awards Competitions — must be obtained. Overhead projectors will Check the box to indicate if the paper is not be allowed. to be presented by a student in this comp¬ etition. A signature and date is required from 2. Poster — Ereestanding boards will be pro¬ the major professor or department head. See vided for presenting posters. Poster pre¬ "Call for Entrants in the Developing Scientist sentation surface area is 4' high hy 8' wide. Awards Competitions." Handouts may be used, but audiovisual 10. Abstract — Type abstract, double-spaced, equipment will not be available. The presenter in the space provided or on a separate sheet will be responsible for bringing pins and of paper, using a 12-point font size. Use no velcro. more than 250 words. 686 Dairy, Food and Environmental Sonilotion - SEPTEMBER 2002 Abstract Submission Rejection Reasons Abstracts submitted for lAFP 2003 will be 1. Abstract was not prepared according to evaluated for acceptance by the Program the "Instructions for Preparing Abstracts." Committee. Be sure to include all ten (10) items requested in the "Instructions for Preparing 2. Abstract does not contain essential Abstracts" above; failure to do so may result in elements as described in "Selection rejection. Information in the abstract data must not Criteria." have been previously published in a copyrighted 3. Abstract reports inappropriate or journal. unacceptable subject matter or is not based Abstracts must be received no later than on accepted scientific practices, or the January 6, 2003. Submit abstracts through quality of the research or scientific one of the following methods: approach is inadequate. 1. Online: Use the online abstract submission 4. Work reported appears to be incomplete form located at www.foodprotection.org. and/or data are not presented. Indication You will receive an E-mail confirming that data will be presented is not receipt of your submission. acceptable. 2. E-mail: Submit via E-mail as an attached 5. Abstract was poorly written or prepared. text or MS Word document to abstracts® This includes spelling and grammatical foodprotection.org. errors. Selection Criteria 6. Results have been presented/published previously. 1. Abstracts must accurately and briefly describe: 7. Abstract was received after the deadline for submission. (a) the problem studied and/or objectives; (b) methodology; 8. Abstract contains information that is in (c) essential results; and violation of the International Association for Food Protection Policy on (d) conclusions and/or significant Commercialism for Annual Meeting implications. Presentations. 2. Abstracts must report the results of original research pertinent to the subject matter. Projected Deadlines/Notification Papers should report the results of applied research on: food, dairy and environmental Abstract Submission Deadline: January 6, 2003. sanitation; foodborne pathogens; food and Submission Confirmations: On or before January 7, dairy microbiology; food and dairy 2003. Acceptance/Rejection Notification: February engineering; food and dairy chemistry; 14, 2003. food additives and residues; food and dairy technology; food service and food adminis¬ Contact Information tration; quality assurance/control; mastitis; Questions regarding abstract submission environmental health; waste management may be directed to Bev Corron, 515.276.3344 and water quality. Papers may also report or 800.369.6337; E-mail: bcorron@foodprotection. subject matter of an educational and/or org. nontechnical nature. 3. Research must be based on accepted Program Chairperson scientific practices. Lynn McMullen 4. Research should not have been previously University of Alberta presented nor intended for presentation at Agricultural, Food and Nutritional Science another scientific meeting. Papers should 4-10 Agriculture/Forestry Center not appear in print prior to the Annual Edmonton, Alberta T6G 2P5 Canada Meeting. Phone: 780.492.6015 5. Results should be summarized. Do not use Fax: 780.492.8914 tables or graphs. E-mail: [email protected] SEPTEMBER 2002 - Dairy, Food and Environmental Sanitation 687 Abstract Form DEADLINE: Must be Received by January 6, 2003 (1) Title of Paper ___ (2) Authors_ (3) Full Name and Title of Presenter- (4) Institution and Address of Presenter_ (5) Phone Number_ (6) Fax Number- (7) E-mail - (8) Format preferred: □ Oral □ Poster □ No Preference The Program Committee will make the final decision on presentation format. (9) Developing Scientist Awards Competition [Z] Yes Graduation date - Major Professor/Department Head approval (signature and date)- (10) TYPE abstract, DOUBLE-SPACED, in the space provided or on a separate sheet of paper, using a 12-point font size. Use no more than 250 words. 688 Dair>, food and Environmental Sanitation - SEPTEMBER 2002 Call for Entrants in the Developing Scientist Awards Competitions Supported by the International Association for Food Protection Foundation he International Association for Food Protect¬ 7. All entrants with accepted abstracts will receive ion is pleased to announce the continuation complimentary, one-year Association Membership, which includes their choice of Dairy', Food and of its program to encourage and recognize the Environmental Sanitation or Journal of Food Protection. work of students and recent graduates in the field of 8. In addition to adhering to the instruction in the food safety research. Qualified individuals may enter "Call for Abstracts," competition entrants must either the oral or poster competition. check the box to indicate if the paper is to be presented by a student in this competition. A Purpose signature and date is required from the major professor or department head. 1. To encourage students and recent graduates to present their original research at the Annual Meeting. Judging Criteria 2. To foster professionalism in students and recent A panel of judges will evaluate abstracts and graduates through contact with peers and professional presentations. Selection of up to five finalists for each Members of the Association. competition wilt be based on evaluations of the abstracts 3. To encourage participation by students and recent and the scientific quality of the work. All entrants will be graduates in the Association and the Annual Meeting. advised of the results by May 30, 2003. Only competition finalists will be judged at the Annual Meeting and Presentation Format will be eligible for the awards. All other entrants with accepted abstracts will Oral Competition — The Developing Scientist Oral be expected to be present as part of the regular Awards Competition is open to graduate students Annual Meeting. Their presentations will not be (enrolled or recent graduates) from M.S. or Ph.D. judged and they will not be eligible for the awards. programs or undergraduate students at accredited univer¬ sities or colleges. Presentations are limited to 15 minutes, Judging criteria will be based on the which includes two to four minutes for discussion. following: Poster Competition — The Developing Scientist 1. Abstract - clarity, comprehensiveness and Poster Awards Competition is open to students (enrolled conciseness. or recent graduates) from undergraduate or graduate 2. Scientific Quality - Adequacy of experimental programs at accredited universities or colleges. The design (methodology, replication, controls), presenter must be present to answer questions for a extent to which objectives were met, difficulty specified time (approximately two hours) during the and thoroughness of research, validity of assigned session. Specific requirements for presentations conclusions based upon data, technical merit and will be provided at a later date. contribution to science. General Information 3. Presentation - Organization (clarity of introduction, objectives, methods, results and 1. Competition entrants cannot have graduated more conclusions), quality of visuals, quality and than a year prior to the deadline for submitting poise of presentation, answering questions, abstracts. and knowledge of subject. 2. Accredited universities or colleges must deal with environmental, food or dairy sanitation, protection Finalists or safety research. Awards will be presented at the International 3. The work must represent original research completed Association for Food ProtecTion Annual Meeting Awards and presented by the entrant. Banquet to the top three presenters (first, second and third places) in both the oral and poster competitions. 4. Entrants may enter only one paper in either the oral All finalists must be present at the banquet where the or poster competition. awards winners will he announced and recognized. 5. All entrants must register for the Annual Meeting and assume responsibility for their own transportation, Awards lodging, and registration fees. First Place - $500 and an engraved plaque 6. Acceptance of your abstract for presentation is Second Place - $300 and a framed certificate independent of acceptance as a competition finalist. Third Place - $1(K) and a framed certificate Competition entrants who are chosen as finalists Award winners will also receive a complimentary, will be notified of their status by the chairperson by one-year Membership including Dairy, Food and May 30, 2003. Environmental Sanitation and Journal of Food Protection. SEPTEMBER 2002 - Dairy, Food and Environmental Sanitation 689 1. INTRODUCTION and, if it will become available, when. The explana¬ tion for unavailable data will be considered by the No printed media, technical sessions, symposia, Program Committee chairperson and/or technical posters, seminars, short courses, and/or other reviewers selected by the Program Committee related types of forums and discussions offered chairperson to ascertain if the presentation is under the auspices of the International Association acceptable without the data. Serious consideration for Food Protection (hereafter referred to as to should be given to withholding submissions and Association forums) are to be used as platforms for presentations until the data are available, as only commercial sales or presentations by authors and/ those conclusions that might be reasonably drawn or presenters (hereafter referred to as authors) from the data may be presented. Claims of benefit without the express permission of the staff and/or technical conclusions not supported by the or Executive Board. The Association enforces this presented data are prohibited. policy in order to restrict commercialism in technical manuscripts, graphics, oral presentations, 2.3 Trade Name.s poster presentations, panel discussions, symposia Excessive use of brand names, product names, papers, and all other type submissions and presen¬ trade names, and/or trademarks is forbidden. A tations (hereafter referred to as submissions and general guideline is to use proprietary names once presentations), so that scientific merit is not diluted and thereafter to use generic descriptors or neutral by proprietary secrecy. designations. Where this would make the submis¬ Excessive use of brand names, product names sion or presentation significantly more difficult to or logos, failure to substantiate performance claims, understand, the Program Committee chairperson, and failure to objectively discuss alternative technical reviewers selected by the Program Com¬ methods, processes, and equipment are indicators mittee chairperson, session convenor, and/ of sales pitches. Restricting commercialism benefits or staff, will judge whether the use of trade both the authors and recipients of submissions and names, etc., is necessary and acceptable. presentations. 2.4 "Industry Practice" Statements This policy has been written to serve as the basis for identifying commercialism in submissions It may be useful to report the extent of applica¬ and presentations prepared for the Association tion of technologies, products, or services; however, forums. such statements should review the extent of appli¬ cation of all generically similar technologies, 2. TECHNICAL CONTENT OF SUB¬ products, or services in the field. Specific commer¬ MISSIONS AND PRESENTATIONS cial installations may be cited to the extent that their data are discussed in the submission or 2.1 Original Work presentation. The presentation of new technical information is to be encouraged. In addition to the commercial¬ 2.vS Ranking ism evaluation, all submissions and presentations will be individually evaluated by the Program Although general comparisons of products and Committee chairperson, technical reviewers services are prohibited, specific generic comparisons selected by the Program Committee chairperson, that are substantiated by the reported data are session convenor, and/or staff on the basis of allowed. originality before inclusion in the program. 2.6 Proprietary Information (See afso 2.2.) 2.2 Substantiating Data Some information about products or services Submissions and presentations should present may not be publishable because it is proprietary technical conclusions derived from technical data. to the author's agency or company or to the user. If products or services are described, all reported However, the scientific principles and validation capabilities, features or benefits, and performance of performance parameters must be described for parameters must be substantiated by data or by an such products or services. Conclusions and/or acceptable explanation as to why the data are comparisons may be made only on the basis of unavailable (e.g., incomplete, not collected, etc.) reported data. 690 Dairy, Food and Environmental Sanitation - SEPTEMBER 2002 2.7 Capabilities 4.2 Assessment Process Discussion of corporate capabilities or experi¬ Reviewers of submissions and presentations ences are prohibited unless they pertain to the will accept only those that comply with this specific presented data. policy. Drafts of submissions and presentations will be reviewed for commercialism concurrently by both staff and technical reviewers selected by 3. GRAPHICS the Program Committee chairperson. Ail reviewer comments shall be sent to and coordinated by 3.1 Purpose either the Program Committee chairperson Slides, photographs, videos, illustrations, art or the designated staff. If any submissions are work, and any other type visual aids appearing with found to violate this policy, authors will be the printed text in submissions or used in presenta¬ informed and invited to resubmit their materials tions (hereafter referred to as graphics) should be in revised form before the designated deadline. included only to clarify technical points. Graphics which primarily promote a product or service will 4.3 Author Awareness not be allowed. (See also 4.6.) In addition to receiving a printed copy of this policy, all authors presenting in a forum will be 3.2 Source reminded of this policy by the Program Commit¬ tee chairperson, their session convenor, or the staff, Graphics should relate specifically to the whichever is appropriate. technical presentation. General graphics regularly shown in, or intended for, sales presentations 4.4 Monitoring cannot be used. Session convenors are responsible for ensuring that presentations comply with this policy. If it is 3.3 Company Identification determined by the session convenor that a viola¬ Names or logos of agencies or companies tion or violations have occurred or are occurring, supplying goods or services must not be the focal he or she will publicly request that the author point of the slide. Names or logos may be shown immediately discontinue any and all presentations on each slide so long as they are not distracting (oral, visual, audio, etc.) and will notify the Program Committee chairperson and staff of the from the overall presentation. action taken. 3.4 Copies 4.5 Enforcement Graphics that are not included in the preprint While technical reviewers, session convenors, may be shown during the presentation only if they and/or staff may all check submissions and have been reviewed in advance by the Program presentations for commercialism, ultimately it Committee chairperson, session convenor, and/or is the responsibility of the Program Committee staff, and have been determined to comply with this chairperson to enforce this policy through the policy. Copies of these additional graphics must be session convenors and staff. available from the author on request by individual 4.6 Penalties attendees. It is the responsibility of the session convenor to verify that all graphics to be shown If the author of a submission or presentation have been cleared by Program Committee chair¬ violates this policy, the Program Committee person, session convenor, staff, or other reviewers chairperson will notify the author and the author's agency or company of the violation in writing. If designated by the Program Committee chairperson. an additional violation or violations occur after a written warning has been issued to an author 4. IMTERPRETATION AND ENFORCE¬ and his agency or company, the Association MENT reserves the right to ban the author and the author's agency or company from making pre¬ 4.1 Distribution sentations in the Association forums for a period This policy will be sent to all authors of submis¬ of up to two (2) years following the violation or sions and presentations in the Association forums. violations. SEPTEMBER 2002 - Dairy, food ond Environmentol Sonitotion 691 Highlights of the Executive Board Meeting June 28 - July 4, 2002 Following is an unofficial summary of actions from the Executive Board Meeting held June 28 - July 4, 2002 in San Diego, CA: Approved the following: • Progress on the International Food Safety leons being developed by the Retail Food • Minutes of May 5-6, 2002 Executive Board Safety and Quality PDG Meeting • New Committee Member and Chairpersons • Change DFES name to Food Protection appointments Trends • Foundation Fund considerations • Ron Schmidt and David Tharp to represent • Publishing of extended abstracts from lAFP on 3-A Sanitary Standards, Inc. symposium Board of Directors • Board schedule and responsibilities for lAFP 2002 Discussed the following: • Fall planning trip for lAFP 2003 • Name change for DFES • Future Annual Meeting site selection • JFP — possible supplement for risk • Co-sponsorships — Michigan State assessment conference papers Conference • Membership remains steady • lAFP on the Road — USDA / FSIS — • Advertising sales in line with budget Thinking Globally-Working Locally, projections Conference on Food Safety Education, September 18-20, 2002 and Food Safety • May financial statements reviewed and Summit, March 18-20, 2003 eompared to budget • Organizing session(s) for Food Safety • Summer Affiliate Newsletter distributed via Summit E-mail. Positive response reeeived • Corporate Challenge update • lAFP Officers made presentations at one • International Food Information Council Affiliate meeting this summer. Eight are overview scheduled for fall meetings • World Health Organization Non- • Plan to address non-compliant Affiliates Governmental Organization • Affiliate Membership Achievement Award • European Association Services offered restructuring Next Exeeutive Board meeting: Teleconference, • Potential new Affiliate organizations September 23, 2002 692 Dairy, Food and Environmental Sanitation - SEPTEMBER 2002 ■Mail all correspondence to: ALABAMA ASSOCIATION FOR FOOD PROTECTION C.live Kingsbury Pres., Jon Scarles.Sylacauga J. .M. Schneider Pres. Elect, Brian Bower.Headland 5523 noth St. Vice Pres., Janies Patrick Nelson. Birmingham ■ Past Pres., Tollie Haley Meggs.Tuscaloosa Surrey, BC, V3S 4C2 Canada Sec’y. Treas., Karen Oawford.Tuscaknisa 604.576.1191 ext. 3740 Delegate, l orn McCaskey.Auburn E-mail: [email protected] Mail all correspondence to: ti. M. (iallaspy CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF DAIRY F t). Box 30.^017, Suite 1250 AND MILK SANITARIANS Montgomery', AL 36130-3017 Pres., Daw n Stead. Woodland Hills 334.206.5375 1st Vice Pres., Frances Valles.Ontario E-mail: [email protected] 2nd Vice Pres., Michelle Clark.Hayward Past Pres., Giselle Puckett.Fairfield ALBERTA ASSOCIATION FOR FOOD PROTECTION Exec. Sec’y. Treas., John Bnihn.Davis Pres., (iary (lensler. Edmonton Recording Sec’y., Ross Henderson-McBean.Paso Robles Pres. Elect, Michelle Sigvaldson. Edmonton Delegate, John Bruhn. Davis Past Pres., Elaine Dribnenky.Red Deer Mail all correspondence to: Sec’y., Kelly Sawka. Edmonton John C. Bruhn Treas., Bonnie Jensen . Edmonton lOlBCruess Hall Delegate, Lynn M. McMullen. Edmonton Dairy Research and Information Onter University of f^alifomia-Davis Mail ail correspondence to: F SEPTEMBER 2002 - Dairy, food and Environmental Sonitotion 693 CONNECTICUT ASSOCIATION OF DAIRY ASSOCIATED ILLINOIS MILK, FOOD AND FOOD SANITARIANS AND ENVIRONMENTAL SANITARIANS Pres., Colleen Mears.Windsor Locks Pres., Steve DiVincenzo.Springfield Pres. Elect, Mark Kloster.North Aurora Vice Pres., David Herrington.Middlefield 1st Vice Pres., Don Wilding.Springfield Sec’y-> Donald Shields. Hartford 2nd Vice Pres., Pat Callahan .f arlinville Treas., Kevin Gallagher. Hartford Past Pres., Tom Gruetzmacher.Rockford Delegate, Satyakam Sen.Bristol Sec’y-, Larr\’ Terando.(;hampaign Mail all correspondence to: Treas., Nicolette Oates.C^hicago Frank Greene Delegate, Steve DiVincenzo .Springfield 167 Cherr\’ St., #439 Mail all correspondence to: Milford, CT 06460 Larry Terando 860.713.6168 Illinois Dept, of Public Health F.-inail: [email protected] 2125 S. First St. Cdiampaign, 11. 61820-7499 217.333.6914 FLORIDA ASSOCIATION FOR FOOD PROTECTION E-mail: 1 terando@idph. state. il. us Pres., Zeb E. Blanton.Altamonte Springs Pres. Elect, Marjorie Jones.Port St. Lucie INDIANA ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ASSOCIATION, INC. Vice Pres., Rusty Reece.Tampa Pres., Robert Lewis.Shelbjwille Past Pres., Frank Yiannas .Lake Buena Vista Pres. Elect, Jason LeMaster.Noblesville Sec’y-» Sharon Grossman.Orange City Vice Pres., Scott Gilliam.Indianapolis Treas., Bill Thornhill..Winter Haven Past. Pres., Rhonda Madden.Indianapolis Delegate, Peter Hibbard . Oviedo Treas., Cieorge Laraway .Indianapolis Mail all correspondence to: Sec’y., Margaret Voyles.Indianapolis Zeb E. Blanton Delegate, Helene lihlman.Hammond EL Dept, of Agri. & Catnsumer Service Mail all correspondence to: 312S Conner Blvd., Room 288 Helene I'hlman Tallahassee, EL 32399-1650 Hammond Health Dept. 850.488.3951 649 C^onkey St., East Hammond, IN 46324-1101 E-mail: [email protected]. 11.us 219.853.6358 GEORGIA ASSOCIATION FOR FOOD PROTECTION IOWA ASSOCIATION FOR FOOD PROTECTION Pres., Traci Sayer.Stone Mountain Pres., Jimmy (4ark.Seymore Vice Pres., Robert Brooks.Gainesville Vice Pres. Pro Tem, Randy Stephenson.Stacv'ville Past Pres., Pamela Metheny.Atlanta 1st Vice Pres., Dennis Murphy.Waiikon Sec’y., Frederica (xtpeland.Lithonia 2nd Vice Pres., Bill Nietert.Arlington Treas., James C. Camp.Newman Past Pres., Mike Klein.Waterloo Delegate, David Fry .Lilburn Sec’y., Phyllis Borer.Sibley Mail all correspondence to: Treas., Jim Mills.Sibley Robert W. Brottks Delegate, Jimmy f4ark.Seymour Woodson-Tenent l.aboratories Mail all correspondence to: 2035 Atlas Circle Phyllis Borer Gainesville, GA .30501 AMPI 1020 - 4th Ave., P.O. Box 36 770.5.36.5909 Sibley, lA 51249 E-mail: [email protected] 712.754.2511 E-mail: [email protected] IDAHO ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ASSOCIATION Pres., Paul Guenther. Lewiston KANSAS ASSOCIATION OF SANITARIANS Past Pres., Edgar Hale.Coeur d Alene Pres., Steve Johnson.McPherson Sec’y. Treas., Jim lame.Twin Falls 1st Vice Pres., Angela Kohls.Topeka Delegate, Frank Isenberg.Boise 2nd Vice Pres., Monica Mc(4ure.Wichita Mail all correspondence to: Past Pres., Dennis Foster.Troy Frank Isenberg Sec’y., Tim Wagner.Wichita Bureau of Env. Health and Safety Delegate, Angela Kohls.Topeka 450 W. State St., P.O. Box 8.3720 Mail all correspondence to: Boise, ID 83720-0036 Tim Wagner 208.334.5947 C;ity of Wichita E-mail: [email protected] 1144 S. Seneca Wichita, KS 6^213 800.527.2633 E-mail: [email protected] 694 Dairy, food and Environmental Sanitation - SEPTEMBER 2002 KENTUCKY ASSOCIATION OF DAIRY, MEXICO ASSOCIATION FOR FOOD PROTECTION FOOD AND ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALISTS Pres., Alejandro Castillo.Guadalajara Pres., Sam Burnette.Frankfort Vice Pres., Lydia Mota De La Garza..Mexico City Pres. Elect, Sue Jewell.Florence Sec’y., Fausto Tejeda-Trujillo.Puebla Past Pres., David Burton.Bttwling Green Treas., Nanci E. .Martinez-Gonzalez. Guadalajara Sec’y-, Brenda Haydon .Frankfort Delegate, M. Rufugio Torres-Vitela.Guadalajara Treas., Kim True.Frankfort Mail all correspondence to: Delegate, Sue Jewell.Florence Lydia .Mota De La Garza Mail all correspondence to: Avenida 479 No. 35, Seccion "’ Sam Burnett llnidad Aragon Del Gustavo A. .Madero CP 07920 Mexico 27S F:. Main St. 01.5794.0526 Frankfort, KY 40621 E-mail: lgarza88@hotmaiLcom S()2.564.3689 ext. 3684 E-mail: Sam. [email protected]. ky.us. MICHIGAN ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ASSOCIATION KOREA ASSOCIATION OF MILK, Pres., Lori Simon.Lansing FOOD AND ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALISTS Pres. Elect., Bruce DuHamel.Hemkx:k Past Pres., .Mike Juha.sz.Saginaw Pres., Duck-hwa Chung.Kyungnam Vice Pres., Dong-Suck f^hang.Pusan Treas., Becky Ouellet.Jackson Past Pres., Kook-Hee Kang.Kyunggido Sec’y., Alan Hauck.Ann Arbor Sec’y., Deog-Hwan Oh. Kangwondo Delegate, Bnice DuHamel.Hemlock Delegate, Dong-Kwan Jeong.Pusan .Mail all correspondence to: Mail all correspondence to: Bruce DuHamel Deog-Hwan Oh .Mid-Michigan District Health Dept. Division of Food and Biotechnology 615 N. State St., Suite 2 Kangwon National University Stanton, Ml 48888 192-1, Hyoja 2 Dong 989.831.5237 ext. 304 (diunchon, Kangwondo 200-701, South Korea E-mail: [email protected] 82.361.250.6457 E-mail: [email protected] MISSISSIPPI ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ASSOCIATION MASSACHUSETTS MILK, FOOD Pres., Willie Brown.Jackson AND ENVIRONMENTAL INSPECTORS ASSOCIATION 1st Vice Pres., Je.s.se Shields.Tupelo Pres., Barbara Kulig.West Springfield 2nd Vice Pres., Anne Hogue. Canton Vice Pres., Barn' Searle.Westfield Past Pres., Romana Reed.Oxford Past Pres., Gail Stathis.Springfield Sec’y./Treas., Rick Hill.Ripley Sec’y- Treas., Lisa Hebert .Greenfield Delegate, Regina Holland.New Augirsta Delegate, Barbara Kulig.West Springfield .Mail all correspondence to: Mail all correspondence to: Rttmana Reed Barbara A. Kulig P.O. Box 1395 l ow n of West Springfield Oxford, .MS 38655 Municipal Office Bldg. E-mail: romanareed@coc(xlist02@msdh. 26 (Central St. West Springfield, MA 01089 MISSOURI MILK. FOOD 413.263.3204 AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ASSOCIATION METROPOLITAN ASSOCIATION FOR FOOD PROTECTION Pres., Linda S. Haywood.Springfield Pres. Elect, Deborah Seeck.St. Louis Pres., Patrick Boyle.Whitehouse, NJ Vice Pres., Marsha Perkins.Columbia 1st Vice Pres., Gary Moore.Pittstown, NJ Past Pres., Joel VanH SEPTEMBER 2002 - Dairy, Food and Environmental Sanitation 695 NEBRASKA ASSOCIATION OF MILK AND FOOD SANITARIANS ONTARIO FOOD PROTECTION ASSOCIATION Pres., Gary Hosek.Lincoln Pres., Robert Serapiglia.Weston Vice Pres., Tom Tieso.Lincoln Vice Pres., Gail Evans Seed. Bright Past Pres., Roger Biltoft.Oak Past Pres., D. Wayne Sprung.Mississauga Treas., Jill Schallehn.Omaha Sec’y. Treas., Melodic Wynne.Guelph Delegate, Tom Tieso.Lincoln Delegate, Robert Serapiglia.Weston Mail all correspondence to: Mail all correspondence to: Tom Tieso Glenna Haller Nebraska Dept, of Agriculture Ontario Food Protection Association 3703 S. 14tlt 28-380 Eramosa Road, Suite 279 Lincoln, NE 68502 Guelph, Ontarit) NIE 7E1 Canada 402.471.2176 519.823.8015 E-mail; [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] NEW YORK STATE ASSOCIATION FOR FOOD PROTECTION PENNSYLVANIA ASSOCIATION OF MILK, FOOD AND ENVIRONMENTAL SANITARIANS Pres., John P. Schrade.Jamaica Pres., Brett Brumbaugh.Brockway Pres. Elect, Bill Young.LeRoy Pres. Elect, Douglas Kennedy.Harrisburg Past Pres., Connie Kuhlman. Rome, PA Vice Pres., Samuel A. Maclay.Mechanicsburg Council Chairman, John Grom.Vernon Past Pres., Troye Cooper. Lebanon Exec. Sec’y., Janene Lucia . Ithaca Delegate, Steven Murphy .Ithaca Sec’y., Eugene R. Frey.Lancaster Treas., Robert K. Mock. Boyertown Mail all correspondence to: Delegate, Eugene R. Frey.laincaster Janene Lucia c/o Cornell University Mail all correspondence to: 172 Stocking Hall Eugene R. Frey bind O'Lakes, Inc. Ithaca, NY 14853 307 Pin Oak Place 607.255.2892 I.ancaster, PA 17602-3469 E-mail: [email protected] 717.397.0719 E-mail: [email protected] NORTH DAKOTA ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ASSOCIATION Pres., Dick Bechtel. Mandan QUEBEC FOOD PROTECTION ASSOCIATION 1st Vice Pres., Terry Ludlum.Fargo Pres., Marie-Claude Lamontagne. St. Anselme 2nd Vice Pres., Grant Larson .Fargo Pres. Elect, Gisele LaPointe.Quebec Past Pres., James Schothorst .Grand Forks Vice Pres., Andre Giguere.St. Romuald Sec’y., Debra Larson. Bismarck Sec’y., Noel Brousseau.(^andiac Treas., Lisa Well. Bismarck Treas., Carl Pietrazsko.St. Anselme Delegate, John E. Ringsrud.Lakota Delegate, Marie-t'.laude Lamontagne. St. Anselme Mail all correspondence to: Mail all correspondence to: John E. Ringsrud Marie-Claude Lamontagne ND Dept, of Ag/Milk Certification Program J. M. Schneider Inc. 600 E. Boulevard Ave. 254 Rue Principale Bismarck, ND 58505 St. Anselme, Quebec GOR 2N0 (Canada 701.247.2730 418.855.4474 ext. 3409 E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] OHIO ASSOCIATION OF MILK, FOOD SOUTH DAKOTA ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ASSOCIATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL SANITARIANS Pres., Clark Hepper.Pierre Pres., Dixie l.auer.Powell Pres. Elect, Mark Shuttleffel.Sioux Falls 1st Vice Pres., Merle Vitug.Cincinnati Past Pres., Rod f ;oker.Pierre 2nd Vice Pres., Virginia Meacham.Cincinnati Sec’y. Treas., Candy Koopman-Viergets. Spearfisb Past Pres., Roger Tedrick.Reynoldsburg Delegate, Darwin Kurtenbach.Pierre Sec’y. Treas., Donald Barrett.c;anal Winchester jMail all correspondence to: Delegate, Gloria Swick-Brown.New Lexington (;iark Hepper Mail all correspondence U): SD Dept, of Health Dt)nald Barrett Office of Health Protection Ohio Health Dept. C>00 E. (Capitol 6855 Diley Road NW Pierre, SD 57501 Canal Winchester, OH 43110 605.773.3364 614.645.6195 E-mail: [email protected] 696 Dairy, Food ond Environmentol Sanitation - SEPTEMBER 2002 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION VIRGINIA ASSOCIATION OF SANITARIANS FOR FOOD PROTECTION AND DAIRY FIELDMEN Pres., Margaret Burton.San Diego Pres., Jim Byington. Blountville Pres Elect., Jennylynd James.Westlake Village Past Pres., Doug Greenw ay .Roanoke Vice Pres., Howard Malberg.Anaheim Sec’y. Treas., Mar\'Jane Wolfinger.Orange- Delegate, .Maty Jane Wolfinger.Orange Sec’y., Robert Delmore.Los Angeles Delegate, Jennylynd James.Westlake Village Mail all correspondence to: Maty Jane Wolfinger Mail all correspondence to: 17066 Tyson's Center Road Margaret Burton Orange, VA 22960 Jack in the Box 340.834.6208 9330 Balboa Ave. San Diego, CA92123 WASHINGTON ASSOCIATION FOR FOOD PROTECTION 8S8.S71.2441 Pres., Michael Nygaard.Seattle K-mail; [email protected] Pres. Elect, Robert Br(X)ke.Seattle Past Pres., Paul Nelson.Seattle TENNESSEE ASSOCIATION OF MILK, Sec’y. Treas., William Brewer.Seattle Delegate, Stephanie Olmsted. Kent WATER AND FOOD PROTECTION Mail all correspondence to: Pres., Jim Howie .Huntersville William Brewer Pres. Elect, Robert Owen. Murfreesboro 12309 10th Ave., NW Past Pres., Ronnie Wade.Martin Seattle, WA 98177-4309 Sec’y. Treas., F. Ann Draughon.Knoxville 206.363.3411 Archivist/Delegate, Ruth Fuqua. Mt. Juliet E-mail: [email protected] Mail all correspondence to: WISCONSIN ASSOCIATION OF MILK F. Ann Draughon AND FOOD SANITARIANS, INC. University of Tennessee Pres., Kathy Glass.Madison Food Safety & Processing Cxnter Pres. Elect, Goeff .Marcks.Brownsville 2603 River Road 1st Vice Pres., Virginia Deibel..Madison Knoxville, TN 37996 2nd Vice Pres., Howard W. Mack.Deerfield 863.974.8400 Past Pres., Dean Sommer.Waupun E-mail: [email protected] Sec’y., Randall Daggs.Sun Prairie Treas., Neil Vassau.Verona TEXAS ASSOCIATION FOR FOOD PROTECTION Delegate, Randall Daggs.Sun Prairie Mail all correspondence to: Pres., firegory G. Crishi.Dallas Randall Daggs Past Pres., Mike Giles.Tyler State t)f Wisconsin Sec’y. Treas., Ron Richter.College Station 6699 Prairie View Drive Delegate, Gene Wright.Austin Sun Prairie, WI 33390-9430 Mail all correspondence to: 608.837.208^ Ron Richter E-mail: [email protected] Texas A & M University Dept, of Animal Science WYOMING ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ASSOCIATION 2471 TAMU Pres., Shirley Tschannon.Casper College Station, FX 77843-2471 Pres. Elect, Roy Kroeger.Cheyenne 979.843.4409 Past Pres., Laurie Leis.Cheyenne E-mail: [email protected] Sec’y., Sherry Maston.Wheatland Treas., George larsen.Thermopolis Delegate, Sheny Maston.Wheatland UPPER MIDWEST DAIRY INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION Mail all correspondence to: Pres., Dale Heinz.Eyota Sherry Ma.ston Vice Pres., Dan Erickson.North St. Paul 208 Washington Road Past Pres., Jack Ulrich.Litchfield Wheatland, W3' 82201 Gen. Mgr., Ciene Watna.ss.Vining 307.322.96-’l Sec’y. Treas., Paul Nierman.Mounds View E-mail: sma,[email protected] Delegate, Dan Erickson .North St. Paul Mail all correspondence to: Paul Nierman Dairy Quality (Control Institute 3203 Quincy St. Mounds View, MN 331 12-14(M) 763.783.048-t E-mail: [email protected] SEPTEMBER 2002 - Doiry, Food and Environmenlol Sonitolion 697 AUSTRALIA MEXICO Bernardo Herzer Fridgrite Inc. Terry E. Oughtred Victor J. Robles Olvera Los Angeles Dept, of Human Sen ices Instituto I'ecnologico De Melbourne, \ ieloria N eracru/ - HNIDA. N eraeru/. Michael Horwath \ eracru/ Paewell BRAZIL (aeston Dora A. Valdez Elaine CP de Martinis (iame.sa - Quaker (iroup Susan M. Leslie I'niversity of Sao Paulo Monterrey, Nuevo Leon C;P Kelco Kibeirao Preto. Sao Paulo .San Diego PHILIPPINES CANADA Jim Luis Gay D. Castillano Shepard Bros. Sandra M. Maher (ioldilocks Bakesbop Inc. La Habra 1 h giene T'eehnik Ine. Mandaluyong C]ity, Metro Manila Peani.sville. Ontario Wendy Maduff PORTUGAL University of (;alifornia-Da\ is Franco J. Fagotto Davis Health (Canada Madalena Camara Ottawa. Ontario Cooperativa Lnsino Lgas Moni/ ■Monte De (laparica, (^aparica Henry Nguyen Pure T'ek (lorp. Tony Kortleve-Snider North Hollywood 11\ giene-Teehnik Ine. SOUTH KOREA Ikamsville, Ontario Joon-seok Chae Dawn C. Stead (dionbuk National rniversity ('-harm Sciences, Inc. ISRAEL jeonju, Jeonbuk Wttodland Hills Irit Weiser Institute for Food Microbiology UNITED KINGDOM Vidao T. Ta Certified Laboratories, Inc. l irat (Carmel Nigel P. Clarke Anaheim Public Health Laboratory ITALY Ldinburgh, Midlothian Lien Truong Luciano Croci Ventura Foods Istituto Superiore l)i .Sanita UNITED STATES (aty of Industry Koine Alabama Aaron R. Uesugi i Dario De Medici Elizabeth O. Gary University of Ualifornia Da\ is Istituto Superiore l)i Sanita Peco Foods, (iordo Davis Rome Arizona District of Columbia Laura Toti Christopher Y. Choi Istituto Superiore l)i .Sanita Dawanna James I 'niversity of Arizona Rome University of the District I ueson of (ailumbia. \\ ashington MALTA California Lillie Monroe-Lord Gauci Charmaine Eric D. Engbeck Uniy ersity of the District Public Health Dept. Seientifie (Unification Systems of (a)lumbia .Msida Oakland W ashington 698 Dairy, Food and Environmenlol Sanitation SEPTEMBER 2002 Joan R. Rothenberg James W. Wiff Pennsylvania Intcrnalional I'oocI Inlormation Ingersoll Rand - Retail Solutions Lisa DeFilippo (Council. \\ ashington Minneapolis Pateo Food Safety (Consultants I’nion (City Florida Nebraska Ric Mathis Dennis G. Olson Tennessee Florida Dept, of llealtli SureHeam (Corporation Alan G. Mathew Fallaliassee Omaha 1 niversity of I'ennessee Knoxville Illinois New Jersey Steve Correlt David J. Charest Harry A. Richards Rli.MFF. Inc. Rhodia, Ine. ICniversity of I'ennessee Aurora (Cranburv Knox\ille Kevin E. Nanke Brian Metzger Andres Rodriguez Sure Ikani (Corporation Rhodia. Ine. I niversity of I’ennessee (ilendale lleiglits (Cranbur\ Knoxville Hayley Walls Robin Peterson Texas PliRA(C Anieriea Rhodia, Ine. Kyle C. Dahl I.ineolti.sliire (Cranburx Texas Teeh I niversity Lubbock Indiana Hoan-Jen E. Pang Rtitgers I’niversity Mohammad B. Al Zghoul Spring M. Younts Dahl New Brunswick l*urdiie University Texas Fech I niversity W est l.afayette Lubbock New York Maryland Laxman Kanduri Kerri B. Harris Kingsborough of (Cl'NY International HA(C(CP Alliance Virginia Pantella Brookbn (College Station .\()A(; Research Institute (iaithersburg Ohio Maria Belem Magana-Yepez Fexas A & M I'niversit) Melvina Keith Massachusetts (College Station Nestle Erik Dykema Reynoldsburg I’eaboch Paphapit Ungkuraphinunt Fexas A M Dniversit\ Oklahoma Stephanie Scogland (College Station l.exington llealtli Dept. Michael Bailey Oklahoma (City (Ct). Health Dept. Lexington Utah Oklahoma (City , Timothy E. Lane j Allison M. Williamson 1 tab Dept, of Health John Pratt (iorton s. (iloueester Salt Lake (Cit\ Oklahoma (City (Co. Health Dept. Oklahoma (City Minnesota Wisconsin Nus Azam Robert G. Reinhard Scott A. Rankin Roseinount Ine. Bar-S Foods (Co. 1 ni\ ersit\ of W isconsin .Madison (Chanhassan l aw ton Madison SEPTEMBER 2002 Dairy, food ond Environmenlol Sonilotion 699 New Members AUSTRALIA MEXICO Bernardo Herzer Fridgrite Inc. Terry E. Oughtred Victor J. Robles Olvera Los Angeles Dept, of Human Services Instituto Tecnologico De Melbourne, Victoria Veracruz - UNIDA, Veracruz, Michael Horwath Veracruz Pacwell BRAZIL Oeston Dora A. Valdez Elaine CP de Martinis Gamesa - Quaker Group Susan M. Leslie University of Sao Paulo Monterrey, Nuevo Leon CP Kelco Ribeirao Preto, Sao Paulo San Diego PHILIPPINES CANADA Jim Luis Gay D. Castillono Shepard Bros. Sandra M. Maher Goldilocks Bakeshop Inc. La Habra Hygiene-Technik Inc. Mandaluyong City, Metro Manila Beamsville, Ontario Wendy Maduff PORTUGAL University of C^alifomia-Davis Franco J. Pagotto Health (Canada Madalena Camara Davis Ottawa, Ontario Cooperativa Ensino Egas Moniz Monte De Caparica, Caparica Henry Nguyen Pure Tek Corp. Tony Kortleve-Snider Hygiene-Technik Inc. SOUTH KOREA North Hollywood Beamsville, Ontario Joon-seok Chae Dawn C. Stead Chonbuk National University Charm Sciences, Inc. ISRAEL Jeonju, Jeonbuk Woodland Hills Irit Weiser institute for Food Microbiology UNITED KINGDOM Vidao T. Ta Certified Laboratories, Inc. Tirat (Carmel Nigel P. Clarke Anaheim Public Health Laboratory ITALY Edinburgh, Midlothian Lien Truong Luciano Croci Ventura Foods Istituto Superiore Di Sanita UNITED STATES City of Industry Rome Alabama Aaron R. Uesugi Dario De Medici Elizabeth O. Gary University of C,alifornia-Davis Istituto Superiore Di Sanita Peco Foods, Gordo Davis Rome Arizona District of Columbia Laura Toti Christopher Y. Choi l.stituto Superiore Di Sanita Dawanna James University of Arizona Rome University of the District Tucson of Cx)lumbia, Washington MALTA California Lillie Monroe-Lord Gauci Charmaine Eric D. Engbeck University of the District Public Health Dept. Scientific Cx'rtilication Systems of (Columbia Msida Oakland Washington 698 Dairy, Food and Environmental Sanitation - SEPTEMBER 2002 Joan R. Rothenberg James W. Wiff Pennsylvania International Food Information Ingersoll Rand - Retail Solutions Lisa DeFilippo C'-ouncil, Washington Minneapolis Patco Food Safety Consultants Union City Florida Nebraska Ric Mathis Dennis G. Olson Tennessee Florida Dept, of Health SureBeam Corporation Alan G. Mathew Tallahassee Omaha University of Tennessee Knoxville Illinois New Jersey Steve Correll David J. Charest Harry A. Richards RHMEL, Inc. Rhodia, Inc. Univ^ity of Tennessee Aurora Cranbury Knoxville Kevin E. Nanke Brian Metzger Andres Rodriguez Sure Beam Corporation Rhodia, Inc. University' of Tennessee C'llendale Heights Cranbury' Knoxville Hayley Walls Robin Peterson Texas PI I RAC America Rliodia, Inc. Kyle C. Dahl Lincolnshire ('ranbury' Texas Tech University Lubbock Indiana Hoan-Jen E. Pang Rutgers University Mohammad B. Al Zghoul Spring M. Younts Dahl New Brunswick Purdue University Texas Tech University West Liifayette Lubbock New York Maryland Laxman Kanduri Kerri B. Harris Kingsborough of CUNY International HACCP Alliance Virginia Pantella Brooklyn College Station AOAC] Research Institute Caithersburg Ohio Maria Belem Magana-Yepez Texas A & M University Melvina Keith Massachusetts College Station Nestle Erik Dykema Reymoldsburg Peabody Paphapit Ungkuraphinunt Texas A & M l^niversity Oklahoma Stephanie Scogland College Station Lexington Health Dept. Michael Bailey Oklahoma City Co. Health Dept. Lexington Utah Oklahoma City Timothy E. Lane Allison M. Williamson Utah Dept, of Health John Pratt Ciorton’s, Gloucester Salt Lake City Oklahoma City’ Co. Health Dept. Oklahoma Caty Minnesota Wisconsin Nus Azam Robert G. Reinhard Scott A. Rankin Rosemount Inc. Bar-S Foods Cat. University of Wisconsin-Madison (lhanhas.san Lawton Madison SEPTEMBER 2002 - Dairy, food and Environmental Sonitotion 699 Header Comments At the risk of bringing additional the photo is courtesy of Weber Scientific and attention to a minor issue, I still included the verbatim description as supplied feel compelled to respond to the letter by us to Bahun, “Q.C. Manager, Patrick Boyle, from Les Lipschutz, Director of Product Safety demonstrates how to obtain a truly represen¬ for Del Monte Fresh Produce Company, as tative sample from a stratified tanker using published in the July issue of this journal. the Weber-Boyle Milk Tank Sampler. ” If I Lipschutz critiques the cover photograph personally had been asked to review the from the May issue, which depicts sampling submitted product description I would have from a dairy tanker. omitted the words “truly representative,” out I was involved in making this particular of concern that this two-word phrase miglit be photograph available. Last January Donna construed as opinion and not documented fact. Bahun, Production Editor of this journal, However, I felt that to be a relatively minor wrote to me, “I am looking for colored slides point and was pleased that we were able to or photos of products to place on the cover of respond to Bahtin’s request and could help the Dairy, Food and Environmental Sanitation. Association. We thought of you and wondered if Weber During the lAFP Annual Meeting in San Scientific has anything they would like to Diego, 1 was approached by Lipschutz. He submit.” I forwarded Bahtin’s request to said that he had written (or was to going to Weber’s marketing department, asking that write) DFES about some sanitation concerns they send a suitable photograph for her that he observed in this photograph. I recall consideration. Several days later we selected my basic response to be that he was entitled and E-mailed Bahun an action photograph, she to voice his opinion and I would read his wrote back thanking us, saying that she will letter. When I received the July issue of DFES try to use the photo in an upcoming issue, and read his letter it was immediately clear and requesting a 10 to 15 word description that Lipschutz does not understand the dairy of the product. Marketing responded with industry and I consider his concerns to be a brief caption describing the device and its irrelevant and without merit. It would be use and identifying the individual pictured. enlightening for a knowledgeable lAFP mem¬ When I received my May issue of DFESI ber to rebut his criticisms in more detail. became aware that the photograph we made However, of greater concern is how the available was on the cover. The content page editors of DFES handled this matter. First, contained a box describing the cover. It said DFES is recognized as an authority on practi- Continued on page 710 Editor’s Note: Mr. Weber requested that his letter not receive the same prominence given to the Reader Comments printed in the July 2002 issue of DFES. In future issues. Reader Comments (if any) will appear immediately following the New Member listing. Letters to the Editor (if any) relating to the scientific articles will be placed in the Journal preceding the scientific articles. We invite our readers’ input. Please forward your comments to dbahun@food protection.org. via E-mail or mail to Donna Bahun, Dairy, Food and Environmental Sanitation, 6200 Aurora Ave., Suite 200W, Des Moines, IA 50322-2864. 700 Dairy, Food and Environmental Sonilotion - SEPTEMBER 2002 Food: Commission U Of G Researchers Proposes EU-Wide Safety Testing £. colidW Assessment and Auth¬ Vaccine for Cattie orization of Smoke The risk of E. colt (0157;H7 Fiavorings infections may soon be he European Commission dramatically reduced, T thanks to University of Guelph has aeted to safeguard public health by proposing researchers who are assessing the new procedures for the safety benefits of a cattle vaccine for this assessment and authorization bacterium. There is consensus of ‘smoke’ flavorings. A smoky among researchers that reduction flavor is attributed to a lot of of E. colt 0157:H7 in cattle is the products, from smoked ham to key to minimizing the risk of smoked salmon. Smoke flavorings infection in humans. (Cattle are are often used instead of fresh thought to be the primary source will need to provide detailed smoke to impart a smoky flavor of the bacteria, w'hich are found information on the production to foods such as meat, fish or in the animals’ intestines. It’s method as well as on the further snacks. The chemical comp¬ estimated that 40 percent of the steps in the production of derived osition of smoke is complex and 14 million cattle in (Canada may smoke flavorings, the intended smoked foods in general give be carriers of the bacterium. “It uses in or on specific food or rise to health concerns. Smoke doesn’t cause disease — the cattle food categories, chemical specifi¬ flavorings are produced by con¬ are quite healthy — so we suspect cations, toxicological studies and densing fresh smoke in water. that most cattle carry this organ¬ validated methods for sampling The condensed smoke is then ism at some stage,” said patho- and detection. The evaluation will fractionated and purified during biology professor (Carlton (iyles. be carried out by the European the production of smoke flavor¬ (Cattle shed the bacteria in Food Safety Authority according their feces, which then contami¬ ings. Because of this purification to a transparent procedure within nate meat, produce and water process, the use of smoke flavor¬ a specific timeframe. The Com¬ sources. Some 1,S00 human cases ings is generally considered to mission will make a decision on of E. colt 0157:H"' illnesses are be of less health concern than each application based on the reported in (Canada each year. the traditional smoking process. Gyles and Roger Johnson, head outcome of the evaluation. A wide range of different of the research section at Health rhe (Commission proposes smoke flavorings is produced (Canada’s laboratory in (iuelph, to restrict the authorizations to from smoke condensates. The are part of a (Canadian Research a period of ten years after which Scientific (T)mmittee on Food, Institute for Food Safety research the authorizations will need to an independent committee that team at the l^niversity of (iuelph be renewed. This provision would advises the (Commission on headed by population medicine ensure that products were professor Scott McEwen. They questions concerning consumer regularh’ re-evaluated according will be testing how well a vaccine health and food safety, has to the latest scientific and tech¬ developed by Bioniche Life concluded that the existing nical knowledge. The Comm¬ Sciences Inc. eliminates the multitude of smoke flavorings is ission’s proposal for a regulation bacteria from cattle. based on only a limited number on smoke flavorings used or The food safety division of of commercially available smoke intended for use in or on foods Bioniche Life Sciences, a (Cana¬ condensates and that, therefore, will be submitted to the European dian biopharmaceutical company, the toxicological evaluation develops veterinary products to Parliament and the Council for should focus on these conden¬ improve the safety of food and adoption under the so-called sates rather than on the multitude water supplies worldwide. Two of derived smoke flavorings. co-decision procedure. preliminary studies comparing Based on this advice, the Further information is vaccinated and non-vaccinated (Commission has proposed to available on the flavorings web cattle conducted by Bioniche establish a procedure for the site of the (Commission’s Health showed a 90 percent reduction safety assessment and authoriza¬ and (Consumer Protection Direc¬ of E. coll 0157;H7 bacteria in tion of smoke condensates. For an torate General; http://europa.eu. the feces of the vaccinated cattle. application for authorization of a int/comm/food/fs/sfp/addit_ The vaccine stimulates pro¬ smoke condensate, the producer flavor/flavorings/index_en.html. duction of antibodies to prevent SEPTEMBER 2002 - Dairy, food and Enyironmenlol Sanitation 701 H. coli 0157:H7 from attaching collect the samples five times over food — has announced that to the intestinal wall of cattle. the course of a year, giving them American Dairy Queen Corpora¬ Because the antibodies limit evidence from some 65,000 tests. tion (ADQ) is expanding the use colonization by the bacteria, “If this vaccine is found to be of SureBeam* irradiated ground replication and multiplication effective against E. coli C)157:H7, beef to 30 Twin (Cities metro-area of the bacteria are impeded and it could have profound benefits Dairy Queen* locations. With a the number of bacteria carried for people worldwide because it total of 43 restaurants in Minne¬ by the animal or shed into the would significantly reduce the sota offering customers irradiated environment is reduced. bacteria at the source, eliminating hamburgers by July 17, Dairy- the chance of contaminating food “Developing an effective Queen is the first national quick- vaccine is complex because cattle or water. It would have an impact service restaurant chain to naturally carry E. coli 0157:H7. It on the direct transmission, when, publicly serve SureBeam irradi¬ is much more challenging to try say, meat is contaminated or to reduce or remove normal when unpasteurized milk is ated beef. bacterial flora, compared with contaminated or when children “Food safety and food quality di.sease organisms. And I say that go to a petting zoo and pick up have always been top priorities in because normal flora represent the organisms,” said (iyles. “It the Dairy Queen system. In bacteria that have developed would also have an impact on addition to providing consumers mechanisms to live in peaceful indirect transmission when peace of mind about the safety coexistence with the host and so bacteria in cattle manure contami¬ of their hamburgers, electronic it’s very hard to dislodge them,” nate water that is used for irriga¬ irradiation does not compromise said Ciyles. tion or for washing fruits and the taste and eating quality of our Preliminary tests are still vegetables which go to consiuners.” products,” says Glenn Lindsey, being done to ensure the vaccine riie results of the University ADQ vice president of research is safe and has potency. The of Guelph researchers’ study will and development. vaccine is administered subcuta¬ complement other clinical trials Jan Malcolm, Minnesota neously into the cow’s shoulder being conducted by Bioniche in health commissioner, applauded and does not appear to cause any Western Canada for regulatory- Dairy Queen for being the first side effects. I'he researchers are approval of the vaccine in C^anada national quick-service restaurant in the process of gathering infor¬ and the United States. Martin chain to offer SureBeam pro¬ mation on shedding of E. coli Warmelink, president of Bioniche cessed beef. “We’re very pleased ()157:H7 by cattle in cow/calf food safety, is optimistic about to see that the food industry is operations in Ontario. “This will the results of the study. “We have allow us to better estimate how a very high level of confidence taking another .step forward in many animals need to be vacci¬ that this will be developed into introducing irradiated products nated and tested in order to deter¬ a product that will reduce the risk to the public,” said Malcolm. mine the effectiveness of the of contamination of hamburger “By intrt)ducing irradiated vaccine. Once that’s through and meat — or meat in general — and products - and taking steps to everything is in place, we expect of water sources,” he said. The actively promote it — Dairy Queen to be able to test the vaccine,” E. coli vaccine is an all (-anadian is setting an example that we said (iyles. development project of the hope the rest of the industry will McEwen’s team will test more University of British C^olumbia, quickly emulate. We’re especially- than 100 herds in Ontario to the Alberta Research Canmcil, pleased that Dairy- Queen has compare the shedding of E. coli the Veterinary Infectious Disease embraced the SureBeam® tech¬ 0157:H7 by vaccinated and non- Organization and Bioniche. nology- and has taken a leadership v'accinated animals. “An impor¬ position in the Quick Service tant aspect of the study is that we Restaurant business,” said Larry won’t know which animals have Dairy Queen Expands the Oberkfell, SureBeam’s president been vaccinated,” said Ciyles. Availability of Surebeam and CEO. “Local farmers are eager to “Dairy Queen’s commitment participate in the study because Processed Burgers to its customers is demon.strated they are committed to safe and to More IWin Cities wholesome food,” said McEwen. by- this leadership position. This Beginning this fall, they will Locations growth in consumer acceptance perform over 130 tests from each SureBeam (Corporation — and understanding mirrors the farm, sampling manure, surround¬ innovator of the electron success we are also experiencing ing soil and surface water for beam technology that safely in other food venues across the traces of the bacteria. They will removes dangerous bacteria from nation,” Oberkfell continued. 702 Dairy, Food and Environmental Sanitation - SEPTEMBER 2002 Similar to a microwave oven, service industry nationwide. The Colorado residents. This report Sure Beam* technology uses study was sponsored by Cornell’s summarizes the results of an ordinary electricity as its energy C^enter for Hospitality Research ongoing epidemiologic and source to irradiate and help (C^HR) and Richmond Events, an laboratory investigation that has eliminate with ionizing energy- organizer of strategic business linked 28 illne.sses in Colorado harmful bacteria — such as E. co/i. forums on cruise ships based in and six other states to eating Listeria, and Salmonella — London and New York. The four- contaminated ground beef enhancing a food’s quality part survey included open-ended products recalled by Ca)nAgra without compromising its taste, questions regarding which Beef Company on June 30, 2002. texture, or nutritional value. supplier behaviors and character¬ To date, seven patients have been ht)spitalized; five developed Friendly to the environment, the istics were mo.st important to hemobtic-uremic syndrome technology also provides a post¬ purchasing agents in developing (HUS).' harvest treatment that effectively strong partnerships. The findings For this investigation, a case rids fresh fruit and vegetables of are published in a 30-page C'.HR was defined as culture-confirmed harmful environmental pests, report, "Strengthening the E. coii 015"’ infection in a eliminating the need for toxic Purchaser-Supplier Partnership: C'olorado resident with symptom Factors That Make a Difference,” chemical fumigants. onset on or after June 1, and an which is available online at no isolate matching the outbreak cost from Catrnell at http:// Trust Beats Service, Price puLsed-field gel electrophoresis w w w. hotelschool. cornel 1. edu / (PFGE) pattern by two-enzyme or Brand in Food-Service chr/. analysis. To date, 18 cases have Buying "Trust may be the single most been identified. The median age important ingredient in making of patients was 15 years (range: ru.st and effective commu¬ T the purchaser-supplier partner¬ 1 to 72 years). Dates of symptom nication are more impor¬ ship work. Trusted suppliers are onset ranged from June 13 to July tant to food-service described as communicating 7. Tw'o cases of HUS have been purchasing agents than good effectively, li.stening well and diagnosed among (a)lorado resi¬ service, price or brand, according demonstrating a willingness to dents who have epidemiologic- to a new .study from the C'.enter work collaboratively to anticipate links to the outbreak but do not for Hospitality Research at the and solve problems,” says have laboratory-confirmed E. coii School of Hotel Administration Reynolds. They also were per¬ 0157 infection. at Catrnell University. ceived as being straightforward Interviews with 16 of 18 “Strong partnerships between and enjoyable to interact with. patients with confirmed infection purchasers and suppliers have The researchers found that more revealed that all ate ground beef come to be viewed as a comp¬ than 55 percent of the purcha.sers during the days before illness. etitive ad\ antage for food and surveyed communicated in All 16 patients ate ground beef be\ erage purchasers who are person with their suppliers at that was purchased at grocery looking for long-term economic chain A during June 10-24. least once a month and nearly success,” saysjudi Brownell, E. coii OH"” was cultured from an half also communicated by E-mail professor of organizational opened package of ground beef at least once a week. communication at Uornell. "This collected from a patient’s home. partnership is cemented by trust, A traceback by (]DPHE of ground communication and personal Multistate Outbreak of beef collected from a patient’s connections, rurnover in supplier home indicated that it was representatives, therefore, is Escherichia coii 0157:H7 reground by grocery chain A with emerging as one of the most Infections Associated meat produced on May 31 by trouble.some challenges facing with Eating Ground Beef (ConAgra Beef (a)mpany. On June purchasers today.” 30, independent of the outbreak With Dennis Reynolds, During July 2002, the investigation, (a)nAgra Beef (x)rnell assistant professor of (a)lorado Department Company issued a nationwide- food and beverage management, of Public Health and recall of 354,2(H) lbs of ground Brownell surveyed ”’3 food- Environment ((^DPHE) identified beef products produced on May service purchasing agents from an outbreak of Escherichia coii 31. This recall was based on the several segments of the food- 0157:H7 infections among detection of E. coii OH" during SEPTEMBER 2002 - Doiry, Food and Environmenlol Sonitotion 703 routine microbiologic testing expanded to a nationwide recall Sixteen patients are from conducted by the US Department of 18.6 million lbs. of fresh and other regions of Spain, and 47 of Agriculture (IJSDA). frozen ground beef and beef patients are foreign tourists (14 PFGE analysis conducted by trimmings. The expanded recall from the United Kingdom, nine included fresh and frozen ground Cd)PHE and CDC using two from France, seven from Italy, beef products produced during restriction enzymes indicated that five from Germany, five from the April 12-June 29, and beef trim¬ Netherlands, three from Ireland, the 18 outbreak-related human mings produced during April isolates of E. coli 0157 from two from Belgium, one from 12-July 11. Denmark, and one from Switz¬ C>olorado were indistinguishable erland). from isolates of E. coli 0157 One-hundred nine patients recovered from the opened Salmonella required hospital admission. All ground beef package from a in Girona, Spain of them are recovering well and patient’s home and from the n June 24, 2002 the only two patients remain in C'.onAgra Beef Company recalled O Departament de Sanitat hospital. Clinical features of the ground beef product. To identify i Seguretat St)cial de cases have been diarrhea (97%), potential cases outside (;olorado, Generalitat de Catalunya (depart¬ fever (78%), abdominal pain the outbreak-related PFCiE pat¬ ment of health and social security (73%), nausea (42%), and vomit¬ terns were posted on PuIseNet, of the regional gtwernment of ing (42%). the National Molecular Subtyping (Catalonia) was notified of several The onset of symptoms was Network for Foodborne Disease cases of gastroenteritis with fever analyzed for 162 cases. The mean Surveillance. On the basis of in people who had all eaten incubation period was 16 hours, epidemiologic data and molecular pastries known as ‘cocas.’ These with a range of 3 to 59 hours. subtyping, eight additional E. coli pastries, which are made with Altogether 6.2% of the patients 0157 cases related to the Colo¬ eggs and have a custard filling, are experienced symptoms within six produced for the festival of San rado cluster have been identified hours of having been exposed, Juan, which takes place annually in six states (California, Iowa, 49.2% between six and 12 hours in Catalonia on the evening of Michigan, South Dakota, Washing¬ after exposure, and 44.5% after 12 ton, and Wyoming). The dates of June 23. The ‘cocas’ were all hours. The sex distribution of all made and purchased at the same onset ranged from June 17 to 27. cases was 49.2% males and 50.8% bakery in a tourist town in the Of the eight patients outside females. Microbiological testing province of Girona. The eggs used Colorado, six had PFGE patterns of feces has produced 47 isolates to make the custard in this bakery that were indistinguishable from oi Salmonella enterica. Fwo of the outbreak pattern by two- were pasteurized and cooked. The these patients also have positive bakery is now under investigation. enzyme analysis, and two were blood culture for isolates of Three other bakeries also made siblings of a PFGE-matched Salmonella enterica. Salmonella and sold ‘cocas’ on June 23, but patient. State and local health enterica has also been isolated none of the cases have been departments are investigating in custard samples from the sus¬ linked to these establishments. additional cases to establish pected pastry. Phagetyping and There have been 1,243 cases, epidemiologic and molecular links molecular epidemiology results according to attending hospitals of these isolates are pending. to the outbreak. and outpatient emergency wards Subsequent to the detection of the area. Four-hundred nine Reported by Neus (lamps Maria Com¬ pany, Rosa Sala and Angela Dominguez of this multistate outbreak and the cases were in patients who live ([email protected]), Departament de initiation of an in-plant inspection in the town in which the bakery Sanitat i Seguretat Social, Generalitat de of the ConAgra Beef Company by is located. Most of the other Catalunya; and Teresa l.lovet, microbiol¬ USDA, the nationwide recall of patients are from other towns ogy department. Hospital de Sant Pau, 354,200 lbs. of ground beef was in Catalonia. Barcelona, Spain. Visit our Web site www.loodprofectien.org 704 Dairy, Food ond Environmental Sanitation - SEPTEMBER 2002 Industry Products performance-validated after BD Sterile Pack Bottles. The exposure to the vaporized bottles are terminally sterilized hydrogen peroxide atmosphere inside autoclavable double-bags. used during isolator facility This unique manufacturing decontamination cycles. Whereas process eliminates the need for media in other packaging configu¬ exterior disinfection, but the rations may show diminished color, consistency and growth growth promotion capabilities promotion properties of the under these conditions, BBL™ sterility media are preserved. In Isolator Pack Prepared Plated addition, BD Fluid Thioglycollate Media maintain excellent growth Medium (FTM), which remains promotion characteristics, with clear, makes results easier to read packaging that prevents exposure BD Diagnostic Systems and enables easier detection of of the media to vaporized hydro¬ growth. In addition, BD Sterile gen pen)xide. Pack Bottles are validated sterile Quality Media and the Largest A recent addition to the at a Sterility Assurance Level (SAL) Breadth of Line from the BD Sterile Pack Media family are BD of 10^’ and comply with require¬ Sterile Pack Media Family BBL™ Sterile Pack Swabs — the ments for ready-to-use media as of Products first ready-to-use sterile swabs for described in fiSP 25-NF 20 <71> surface sampling, combined with Sterility Tests. D Diagnostic Systems has B a rinse solution-filled tube. Sterile BD Diagnostic Systems, announced the immediate Pack Swabs are the first prefilled Sparks, MD availability of the BD Sterile Pack swab/rinse solution set with a Media family of products, offering Sterility Assurance Level (SAL) of Reader Service No. 267 the largest breadth of line for 10*’, setting an industry standard. clean sterile Pack Prepared Plated The high level of sterility is Media, ED Sterile Pack Swabs achieved because Sterile Pack Eriez Magnetic Grate's and BD Sterile Pack Bottles — all Swabs are gamma-irradiated and Design Improves Separation featuring the quality and depend¬ performance-validated after and Cleaning ability of BEL™ and Difco™ media, exposure to the vaporized riez has redesigned its most i'he Sterile Pack line also incorpo¬ hydrogen peroxide in an isolator. E popular Easy to Cdean Mag¬ rates unique double and triple Sterile Pack Swabs are ideal for netic Grate in Housing for im¬ wrap packaging that minimizes the stringent sterility require¬ proved product purity and more the risk of false contamination ments of surface sampling in efficient cleaning. The improved both going into and coming out cleanrooms and isolators at design features an enlarged of the critical environment. pharmaceutical and medical BD BBL™ Sterile Pack Pre¬ device manufacturing facilities. magnetic discharge area, longer pared Plated Media are now In addition. Sterile Pack Swabs magnetic tubes, stronger damps, available as BBL™ Isolator Pack are designed to fit easily into hard- improved stripping assembly and Plated Media, specially packaged to-reach places: equipment redesigned center divider. Easy for isolators and developed with recesses, nooks and crevices. to (dean grates ensure long term the same quality standards as the Another addition to the purity in free flowing, gravity fed original. The media have been Sterile Pack family of products are materials by making regular The publishers do not warrant, either e.xpressly or hv implication, the factual accuracy of the products or descriptions herein, nor do they so warrant any views or opinions offered by the manufacturer of said articles and products. SEPTEMBER 2002 - Ooiry, Food and tnvironmentol Sanitation 705 contaminant removal a simple hermetically sealed housing for process. superior strength and protection. The unit’s design changes The Instrumentation (Iroup, improve tramp iron separation Asheville, NC and discharge while eliminating Reader Service No. 269 product accumulation within the assembly. The enlarged separation area ensures positive tramp metal Systemate Numafa's Auto- separation and eliminates product Feed Improves Convenience buildup within the discharge of CWM Vat Washer, Offers chute. Better Ergonomics and The new stripping assembly eliminates material accumulation Reduced Cross Contamination behind the housing’s wipers by Anew automatic in-feed and ending the tubes flush at the discharge system from housing. It also provides for easy Systemate Numafa improves access and viewing of the metallic the operational efficiency of the stripping process. Larger door company’s CW.M series washers, The Instrumentation Group clamps produce more force on w hich are suitable for cleaning large stainless steel vats and the stripper assembly, improving compact and employ a one-way pla.stic combo-bins, which are the .seal against the grate housing. only, screw on, watertight typically 48" tall by 50" wide. t)nce the tramp metal is stripped, connection that tightens b)’ hand. The conveyor system provides the widened ferrous discharge This eliminates time consuming a near-continuous feed of bins and chute reduces plugging and the problems associated with termina¬ vats to the washer. T his allows chance that contaminants will tion heads. No more wiring for increased throughput while back up into the flow. mistakes and cumbersome tools maintaining consistent wash Kriez’ grates, easy-to-clean and to worry about, no more wiring quality. self-cleaning grate in housing and unwiring every time there is An electric gear motor, rather than hydraulic or pneumatic models, featuring Erium® power¬ a probe change. In addition, the cylinders, lifts the vat into the ful ceramic and rare earth magnet 4-20 mA output is factory pro¬ washer, which reduces operating circuits, are available for next day grammed to customer specifica¬ and maintenance problems and shipment through ERIHZ Xpress tions. Stock only one transmitter costs. Vats are tilted 180 degrees, in a range of sizes. and program and reprogram it which permits the stainless steel Eriez Magnetics, Erie, PA yourself with a PC',. EVO Series nozzles to have closer contact Transmitters connect easily to the with the sidewalls and bottom Reader Service No. 268 to improve cleaning and promote wide variety of Italcoppie Fl’lOO faster drainage. The vats are then sensors. unloaded in the original position. Evolutionary Itolcoppie EVO The EVO Series Switches are Vats soiled with heavy Series Temperature Trans¬ also compact and use the one-way emulsions can be cleaned at a rate mitters and Switches from only, screw' on connection that of 20 per hour. A capacity of 30 the Instrumentation Group hand tightens. This provides for vats per hour can be achieved fast, easy, and simple installation with light to moderate soil loads. The Instrumentation Clroup and maintenance. Switches are The washer’s adjustable timer can has introduced a new series factory programmed to customer meet the individual need for of evolutionary, high perfor¬ specifications, and operating shortened or prolonged wash mance brand temperature parameters may be reset at any¬ applications. transmitters and switches from time by PC;. EVO Series Switches T he (IWM washers are ergonomically engineered to Italcoppie. connect easily to the wide variety reduce handling, lifting and the EVO Series T ransmitters are of Italcoppie PflOO and thermo¬ risk of injury to personnel. the latest for versatility and ease couple sensors. .Systemate Numafa, (Canton, (lA of use in temperature transmit¬ Both the transmitter and ters. Italcoppie transmitters are switch have stainless steel. Reader Service No. 270 706 Dairy, Food and Environmental Sanitation - SEPTEMBER 2002 Labconco Corp. Protector^ The ACi Series features an maintenance and excess unit Stainless Steel Perchloric Acid easy-to-read 6-digit vacuum weight along with an accurate, Hood Uses Wash Down System fluorescent display, 50,000 counts reliable incubator for cell culture of resolution, and field selectable to Self-clean needs. units of measure. The Model The CO, level is monitored by Labconco Corporation offers ACi400 is available in gage and a microprocessor through Infra¬ the Protector" Stainless Steel absolute ranges from 0-15 through red (IR) or Thermal Conductivity Perchloric Acid Laboratory Hood 0-10,000 psi. Standard output is 0- (TIC^) sensors inside the chamber. for working safely with perchloric 5 volts and the operating tempera¬ All models control the pre¬ acid. A biiilt-in washdown st stem ture is 60°F to 130°F. Standard programmed levels of carbon facilitates the removal of hazard¬ pressure ports are 114-18 NFF dioxide to better than ± 0.1%. The ous perchlorates from the hood Male for ranges up to and includ¬ Model 5062 and 5052 IR sensor interior. ing 1000 psi, and 114-18 NPl' units feature automatic electronic Features include an ergo¬ Female for higher ranges. nomic air foil with aerodynamic calibration for accuracy and The AG Series is NIST trace¬ (dean-Sweep™ airflow openings precision. Models 5060 and 5050 able and offers convenient and a by-pass airflow design. The utilize TIC. sensor technology. features such as auto-zero, tare, seamless Type 316 stainless steel The TIC] (thermal conductiv¬ liner with integral work surface peak/hold, RS232 interfate, and ity) sensor is recommended for and drainage trough is welded and quad limits. use when the chamber tempera¬ polished to provide a smooth, Sensotec, Inc., Cxilumbus, OH ture and humidity are relatively seamless and safe work area. Pre¬ Reader Service No. 272 constant, and the IR (infrared) wired T8 fluorescent lighting sensor is recommended for use provides a bright work area. whenever the temperature and A tempered safety glass Thermo Orion Introduces humidity levels change frequently. vertical-rising sash provides clear a New Family of Incubators All units are packed with features visibility. Removable exterior such as continuous status of hermo Flectron has an¬ front and side panels and front T temperature and CX)„ space¬ access panels provide access to nounced its new product saving stackable units, remote plumbing and electrical wiring. line of water jacketed incubators. alarm contacts for documenta¬ The glacier white, dry powder The Water Jacketed Incubators tion, programmable alarms, and epoxy-coated steel exterior is Models 5060 and 5062 offer smooth and durable. excellence in cell culture environ¬ an independent over-temperature 'File Protector Perchloric Acid ment control. The water sur¬ alarm. Hood is available in 4-, 5-, 6-, and rounding the incubator moderates The design of the incubators S-foot widths. ambient temperature changes, optimizes in-service time and Labconco Cxtrporation, allowing for a rapid return to reduces downtime due to decon¬ Kansas Caty, MO settings after door openings or tamination and cleaning proce¬ jtower failures. The water jack¬ dures by minimizing the sources Reader Service No. 271 eted models also feature the HFPA of contamination with removable (High Ffficiency Particulate Air) parts and easily cleaned surfaces, Filter Airflow System kicated inner and outer doors with New High Accuracy Pressure inside the incubator, which external latches and tight gasket Gage from Sensotec provides gentle, directed airflow seals, and microbiological filters with a minimum of 99.97/0 ensotec presents the new S efficiency at 0.3 microns to on all gas inlets and sample ports. Model A(i4()(), a combination provide a continuous aseptic The heated outer door and non- pressure transducer and digital culturing atmosphere. Within five (]FC insulation reduces condensa¬ readout, calibrated as a unit and minutes of the door's closing, tion, maximizes operational housed together in a rugged 31H (dass 100 air quality is achieved, efficiency, eliminates potential DIN package. I'hese units require to provide optimum environmen¬ contamination and allows a rapid no wiring or set up, deliver tal conditions. return to set temperature after exceptional temperature specs, and are accurate up to 0.05%, The Air Jacketed Incubators opening. making them suitable for the most Models 5050 and 5052 are Product features include the demanding laboratory or indus¬ designed for those users prefer¬ following: Models 5060 and 5062 trial applications. ring the freedom from water Water Jacketed Incubators feature SEPTEMBER 2002 - Doiry, Food and Environmentol Sanitation 707 better resistance to ambient chamber, quickly verify indi¬ a proprietary formulation of temperature fluctuations and vidual patient plans and correlate sodium chlorate and hydrogen HEPA air filtration to Class 100 air (]TU to electron density. peroxide, to generate chlorine quality in under five minutes; Nuclear Associates, Cleveland, dioxide at rates of one to 100 Models 5050 and 5052 Air OH pounds per hour. Purate^-gen- Jacketed Incubators feature less Reader Service No. 274 erated chlorine dioxide is used weight and no water maintenance as a biocide for water treatment issues. and as a specialty oxidant in Thermo Orion, Beverly, MA EKA Chemicals Inc. Acquires applications such as odor control. Reader Service No. 273 Patent for Process Using “More than 90 percent of Proprietary Purate® the chlorine dioxide produced globally is generated from .sodium Formulation chlorate and is used for pulp Eka (Chemicals, Inc., Akzo bleaching. The introduction of Nobel’s North American Purate* continues to stimulate Pulp & Paper Business Unit, has growth of chlorine dioxide use acquired the patent to a process outside of pulp bleaching,” said using a hydrogen peroxide/alkali Dr. Bryant. metal chlorate blend as a feed “Purate* technology offers chemical for the production of a low-cost and efficient path for chlorine dioxide. the generation of chlorine dioxide Nuclear Associates This patented process (US that has resulted in many custom¬ Patent No. 6,387,344; issued May ers taking a serious look at New IMRT QA Solutions 14, 2002) is particularly advanta¬ chlorine dioxide use for the first geous when using Eka’s propri¬ uclear Associates has an¬ time,” added Dr. Bryant. N etary Purate® chemical formula¬ nounced a new product EKA Chemicals, Inc., tion in the company’s small-scale offering for performing IMRT QA Marietta, (iA SVP-Pure® chlorine dioxide in radiation oncology. Three new generators. Purate* generated Reader Service No. 275 simplified products include an chlorine dioxide is used in Advanced Pelvic 3-0 Phantom, applications that include drinking a 'fhorax Phantom and an all¬ water treatment, wastewater seepex New BCS CIPable Pump purpose Homogenous Phantom. treatment, cooling tower treat¬ is Less Expensive, is Easier to Nuclear Associates’ IMRT ment, industrial process water Repair and Has Few Parts phantoms are crucial to this treatment, odor control, water ^ eepex now has a new model, important technology. They are chemical destruction and spe¬ ^the BC,S. This model features designed to address the complex cialty bleaching. molded-to-size stators, so neither i.ssues surrounding commission¬ “This new patent strengthens gaskets nor “O” rings are needed ing and comparison of treatment our small-scale chlorine dioxide planning systems while providing technology intellectual property and the mechanical seal is .still a simple yet reliable method for portfolio. We continue to lead the directly in the suction line fluid flow to ensure full clean-in-place, verification of individual patient industry with innovative chlorine seepex has a new universal joint plans and delivery. dioxide technology and have that allows complete drive train The IMRT Phantoms accu¬ several new developments in the di.sassembly without compromis¬ rately check 2D dose distributions pipeline,” said Dr. Patrick Bryant, ing component life or cleanability. (3D distributions optional), point director of Purate. seepex, Inc., Enon, OH do.se measurements in multiple The SVP-Pure* chlorine planes, calibrate film with iron dioxide generators utilize Purate®, Reader Service No. 276 708 DaitY, Food ond Environmental Sanitation - SEPTEMBER 2002 Michelson National Laboratories, Inc. CHECK IT OUT before yoi* check it 'n Food Safety 6280 Chalet Drive, Commerce, CA 90040 tflllMtoNPfMT (562) 928-0553 • (888) 941-5050 ^ It RIM miMiMqpvatow? No* •» R Uflil. FmL SMtR? Education FAX (562) 927-6625 HhiHFraiRT Month'^ COMPLETE LABORATORY TESTING SPECIALIZING IN September 2002 ' ISO 25 Accredited Through A2LA ' Nutritional Labeling Programs September marks the eighth annual ' Recognized Lab For FDA Blocklisted Items National Food Safety Education Month , ' Extraneous Material Identification (NFSEM) created by the National Restaurant ' Decomposition ivi e m b e r Association Educational Foundation’s ’ Chemical Analysis .^:iT (NRAEF) International Food Safety Council, ' Microbiological Analyses ' Water/Wastewater Analyses an awareness initiative that promotes food ' Quality Assurance Programs safety education to the restaurant and food- ' Consulting service industry. This year’s theme is ’ FDA Recognized “Check It Out Before You Check It In.” ’ USDA Certified For additional information, contact NRAEF ’ Approved By The Japanese Ministry Web site at www.nraef.org/ifsc. Our Experience Is Your Protection Reader Service No. 148 FIGHT BAG!® Why Participate? The FIGHT BAG!® campaign is one of the most far-reaching and ambitious public education efforts ever to focus on safe food handling. It was created by the Partnership for Food Safety Education, a unique coalition of industry, government and consumer groups. FIGHT BAG!® will help consumers who have poor knowledge of basic sanitation and food preparation take steps to greatly reduce their risks of foodborne illness. Join this effort and you can help close the gap! For information on joining the FIGHT BAG!® campaign, contact: The Partnership for Food Safety Education, Phone: 202.544.5927; E-mail: [email protected]; Web site: www.fightbac.org. SEPTEMBER 2002 - Doiry, Food ond Environmental Sonifotion 709 Reader Comments Contittued from page "'OO cal food sanitation and protection. By publish¬ subcommittee responsible for the creation of ing this photograph on their cover they sent a a strategic plan. The goal of the plan is to distinct message to their readers that they improve this publication and make it more evaluated its worthiness and that it warranted valuable to our members by defining its cover placement. A disclaimer appropriately mission and objectives, including a detailed states that lAFP does not imply endorsement implementation strategy to accomplish these of any product, but there is no mention goals. Part of this plan focused on ways to whether the editors considered the correct¬ “increase active participation by members”. ness of any of the procedures or techniques as One objective states, “create and promote a shown. Upon receipt of the Lipschutz letter, featured letters to the editor section.” Indeed, I believe they should have contacted Boyle the strategic plan contains a number of other and offered him an opportunity to submit his recommendations to invite member involve¬ point-of-view. He is an experienced quality ment, such as point/counterpoint on a topic, control manager at a large fluid dairy and and opinion articles. juice processing plant, an active board mem¬ While this strategic plan was being ber with the Dairy Practices Council, and formulated, the lAFP Board also commis¬ the current president of the Metropolitan sioned a comprehensive publication survey, Association for Food Protection. which was conducted by Research USA. The Secondly, the prominence given to the results of this survey were published in last Lipschutz letter was surprising. It filled October’s issue of DEES. These survey results an entire page, was located in the front clearly confirm the views of the strategic plan of the journal across from the masthead, and that point/counterpoint columns and reader featured a bold “reader comments” color comments/letters are of strong interest to headline. DFES rarely publishes letters to the readers. editor and in my recollection has never pub¬ I am currently the Vice Chairperson of the lished a reader comment with this much DEES Management Committee and continue emphasis. Without a simultaneous editor to support the objectives of the strategic plan response it almost had the look and feel of a that this publication needs to enhance and published correction. Any rebuttal published increase active member participation. How¬ one to two months later inevitably has dimin¬ ever, I also think the Committee has some ished impact. new business to address. Guidelines should be Frankly, when I received my July issue of determined about the use of cover photo¬ DFES and saw how the Lipschutz letter had graphs, the consistent placement and empha¬ been presented I was annoyed, thinking, “no sis of reader comments, and a clear policy good deed shall go unpunished.” Maybe the needs to be stated regarding rebuttals to next picture I submit to DFES will be of reader comments. myself wearing my “Stop Me Before I Volun¬ teer Again” T-shirt. Fred Weber From a personal perspective this issue President gets even more complicated. In 2001 Weber Scientific I was Chairperson of a DFES Management Hamilton, New Jersey 710 Dairy, Food and Environmental Sonitotion - SEPTEMBER 2002 Coming Events OCTOBER • 23-24, Associated Illinois NOVEMBER Milk, Food, and Environmental • 1-4, Florida Association for Sanitarians Annual Meeting, •4-5, GMP Workshop for Food Protection Annual Educa¬ Stony Creek Inn & Conference Cen¬ Packaging Supplier, Manhattan, tional Conference, Melbourne ter, East Peoria, IL. For more infor¬ KS. For additional information, call Beach Holiday Inn, Indiatlantic, FL. mation, contact Larry Terando at AIB at 785.537.4750. For more information, contact Zeb 217.278.5900. • 4-6, Basic H ACCP, University Blanton at 850.488.3951. • 24-25, Thermal Processing of California-Davis, Davis, CA. For Deviations Workshop, Monarch •8-10, Kansas Association additional information, contact Hotel, Dublin, CA. For additional in¬ of Sanitarians Annual Fall Meet¬ Jennifer Epstein at 202.637.4818; formation, contact The Food Pro¬ ing, Holidome, Manhattan, KS. For E-mail: [email protected]. more information, contact Tim cessors Institute at 202.393.0890; E-mail: www.fpi-food.org. • 7-8, Advanced H ACCP, Uni¬ Wagner at 800.527.2633. • 29, Statistical Process Con¬ versity of California-Davis, Davis, • 13-16, UW-River Falls Food trol in the Food Industry, Part 1 CA. For additional information, con¬ Microbiology Symposium, Univ¬ of 2, Guelph Food Technology tact Jennifer Epstein at 202.637. ersity of Wisconsin-River Falls, River Centre, Guelph, Ontario, Canada. 4818; E-mail: jepstein@nfpa-food. Falls, WI. For additional information, For more information, call Marlene org. contact Doreen (>egielski at 715.425. Inglis at 519.821.1246; E-mail: • 8-9, Mexico Association for 3704; E-mail: foodmicro® uwrf.edu. [email protected]. Food Protection Annual Fall • 16, Good Manufacturing • 30-31, Iowa Association for Meeting, Mission Carlton Hotel, Practices and Food Safety, Cook Food Protection Annual Meet¬ Guadalajara, Mexico. For more in¬ C]ollege, Rutgers, New Brunswick, ing, Starlite Village Motel, Ames, formation, contact Lydia Mota De NJ. For additional information, con¬ I A. For more information, contact La Garza at 01.5794.0526. Phyllis Borer at 712.754.251 1; tact Keith Wilson at 732.932.9271; E-mail: [email protected]. • 18-19, HACCP I: Docum- E-mai 1: [email protected]. •30-31, Statistical Process entating your HACCP Prerequi¬ • 18, FoodSteps™: Processing Control in the Food Industry, site Program, (iuelph, Ontario, Foods Safely, Ciuelph Ftxxl Technol¬ Part 2 of 2, Guelph, Ontario, C^anada. For more information, con¬ ogy Centre, Guelph, Ontario, Canada. For more information, con¬ tact Marlene Inglis at 519.821.1246; f Canada. For additional information, tact Marlene Inglis at 519.821.1246; E-mail: [email protected]. contact Marlene Inglis at 519.821. E-mail: [email protected]. •20-21, Alabama Associat¬ 1246 Ext. 5028; E-mail: [email protected]. •31, Brazil Association for ion for Food Protection Annual •21-22, Thermal Process Food Protection Annual Meet¬ Meeting, Holiday Inn-Homewo(xl, Development Workshop, Mon¬ ing, University of Sao Paulo, Sao Birmingham, AL. For more informa¬ arch Hotel, Dublin, CA. For addi¬ Paulo, Brazil. For more information, tion, contact G. M. Gallaspy at 334. tional information, contact The contact Maria Teresa Destro at 206.5375. Food Processors Institute at 202. 55.113.818.2399. 393.0890; E-mail: www.fpi-ftxxJ.org. • 31, North Dakota Environ¬ • 20-22, HACCP II: Develop¬ • 22-24, A Food Industry Ap¬ mental Health Association An¬ ment of Your HACCP Plan, proach to Quality System Evalu¬ nual Meeting, Holiday Inn River¬ Guelph Food Technology Centre, ation, Atlanta, GA. For additional side, Minot, ND. For more informa¬ Guelph, Ontario, Canada. For more information, call AIB at 785.537. tion, contact Debra Larson at 701. information, call Marlene Inglis at 4750. 328.6150. 519.821.1246; E-mail: [email protected]. SEPTEMBER 2002 - Dairy, Food and Environmental Sanitation 711 Abstract Supplement nternat onal Association for Food Protection. to the Journal of Food Protection lAFP 2002 Abstracts Name_ Job Title_ Company Name Address_ City_ State or Province Country_ Postal/Zip Code Telephone #_ E-mail #_ Quantity-@ $25.00 each US FUNDS on US BANK Total Payment- METHOD OF PAYMENT (includes shipping ond hondling) □ CHECK OR MONEY ORDER ENCLOSED □ MASTERCARD □ VISA □ AMERICAN EXPRESS Exp. Date _ SIGNATURE 6200 Aurora Avenue, Suite 200W Des Moines. lA 50322-2864, USA International Association for Phone: 800.369.6337 • 515.276.3344 Fax: 515.276.8655 Food Protection. E-mail: [email protected] \Web site: www.foodprotection.org Reader Service Card DFES September ‘02 Expires: December 31, 2(X)2 (Internationul expiration: March 31, 2(K)3) .2 '.c Name_ Title Company_ Address_ -C 1) City_State/Prov. Country_Zip/Postal Code Ptione Number_ UK) 115 1.10 145 161 175 190 205 220 215 250 265 280 295 110 125 140 1.55 Mil 116 111 146 162 176 191 206 221 216 251 266 281 2% 111 126 .141 156 E -a 102 117 1,12 147 161 177 192 207 222 217 252 267 282 297 112 127 .142 .557 c S 10,1 118 1.11 148 164 178 191 208 221 2.18 251 268 281 298 111 128 .141 158 o £ IW 119 1.14 149 165 179 194 209 224 2.19 254 269 284 299 114 129 144 1.59 105 120 1,15 150 166 180 195 210 225 240 255 270 285 ,1(K) 115 110 145 160 106 121 1.16 151 167 181 196 211 226 241 256 271 286 101 116 .111 146 .161 E .2 107 122 117 152 168 182 197 212 227 242 257 272 287 102 117 112 147 162 108 121 1.18 151 169 181 198 211 228 241 258 271 288 ,101 118 111 .148 .161 109 124 1.19 1.54 170 184 199 214 229 244 259 274 289 .104 119 1.14 ,149 164 no 125 140 155 171 185 2(X) 215 2.10 245 260 275 290 .105 120 1.55 150 165 u- < III 126 141 1.56 172 186 201 216 211 246 261 276 291 .106 .121 1.16 .151 .166 112 127 142 157 172 187 202 217 212 247 262 277 292 ,107 .122 1.17 152 .567 111 128 141 1,58 171 188 201 218 211 248 261 278 291 .108 121 1.18 151 .568 114 129 144 160 174 189 2IM 219 214 249 264 279 294 ,109 124 1,19 154 712 Dairy, food and Environmenlol Sonilotion - SEPTEMBER 2002 The Table of Contents from the Journal of Food Pmteclion is being provided as a Member benefit. If you do not receive JFP, but would like to add it to your Membership contact the Association office. Journal of Food Protection^ ISSN: 032-028X Official Publication International Association for Food Protection. Reg. U.S. Pat. Off. Vol. 65 September 2002 No. 9 Incidence of Escherichia coii 0157;H7 in Frozen Beef Patties Produced over an 8-Hour Shift W. Payton Pruett, Jr.,* Timothy Biela, Charles P. Lattuada, Peter M. Mrozinski, W. Mark Barbour, Russell S. Flowers, William Osborne, James O. Reagan, David Theno, Victor Cook, Ann Marie McNamara, and Bonnie Rose. 1363 Detection and Quantitation of Enterohemorrhagic Escherichia coii 0157, 0111, and 026 in Beef and Bovine Feces by Real- Time Polymerase Chain Reaction Vijay K. Sharma*. 1371 Selection of Recently Isolated Colicinogenic Escherichia coii Strains Inhibitory to Escherichia coii 0157:H7 Gerry P. Schamberger and Francisco Diez-Gonzalez*. 1381 Suspending Lettuce Type Influences Recoverability and Radiation Sensitivity of Escherichia coii 0157:H7 Brendan A. Niemira,* Christopher H. Sommers, and Xuetong Fan. 1388 Inactivation of Acid-Adapted and Nonadapted Escherichia coii 0157:H7 during Drying and Storage of Beef Jerky Treated with Different Marinades Mehmet Calicioglu, John N. Sofos,” John Samelis, Patricia A. Kendall, and Gary C. Smith. 1394 Irradiation Temperature Influences Product Quality Factors of Frozen Vegetables and Radiation Sensitivity of Inoculated Listeria monocytogenes Brendan A. Niemira,* Xuetong Fan, and Christopher H. Sommers. 1406 Control of Listeria monocytogenes on Turkey Frankfurters by Generally-Recognized-as-Safe Preservatives Mahbub Islam,* Jinru Chen, Michael P. Doyle, and Manjeet Chinnan. 1411 Effect of Organic Acids and Temperature on Survival of Shigeiia fiexneri in Broth at pH 4 Laura L. Zaika*. 1417 Rapid Determination of Sanitizer Concentration Using Impedance-Based Methods Gianna M. Duran and Douglas L. Marshall*. Effect of the Licensing Process on Hygiene in Retail Butchers’ Premises in the West Midlands, United Kingdom Madeleine Smith,* Shakir Hussain, and Jenny Millward. 1428 Detection of Aiternaria Fungal Contamination in Cereal Grains by a Polymerase Chain Reaction-Based Assay Gideon Zur, Eyal Shimoni, Eric Hallerman, and Yechezkel Kashi*. 1433 Susceptibility of Human Rotavirus to Ozone, High Pressure, and Pulsed Electric Field M. A. Khadre and A. E. Yousef. 1441 Rapid and Simple Estimation of Microbiological Quality of Raw Milk Using Chromogenic Limuius Amoebocyte Lysate Endpoint Assay Min-Suk Rhee and Dong-Hyun Kang*. 1447 Evaluation of the 3M Petrifilm Enterobacteriaceae Count Plate Method for the Enumeration of Enterobacteriaceae in Foods Karen M. Silbernagei* and Kathryn G. Lindberg. 1452 Optimizing Sporulation of Ciostridium perfringens A. E. I. de Jong, R. R. Beumer,* and F. M. Rombouts. 1457 Evaluation of Antioxidative and Mutagenic Properties of 50% Ethanolic Extract from Red Beans Fermented by Aspergiiius oryzae Su-Tze Chou, Cheng-Tien Chang, Wen-Wan Chao, and Yun-Chin Chung*. 1463 Research Notes Detection of Listeria monocytogenes in Pigs and Pork Sreenivas R. Kanuganti, Irene V. Wesley.* P. Gopal Reddy, James McKean, and H. Scott Hurd. 1470 Salmoneiia spp. on Chicken Carcasses in Processing Plants in Poland Anita Mikotajczyk and Mieczystaw RadkowskI*. 1475 Use of Pulsed Ultraviolet Laser Light for the Cold Pasteurization of Bovine Milk Wayne L. Smith,* Manuel C. Lagunas-Solar, and James S. Cullor. 1480 Glufosinate-Ammonium Reduces Growth and Aflatoxin B, Production by Aspergiiius flavus K. M. Tubajika and K. E. Damann, Jr.*. 1483 Comparison of Recovery of Airborne Microorganisms in a Dairy Cattle Facility Using Selective Agar and Thin Agar Layer Resuscitation Media Beth Ann Crozier-Dodson* and Daniel Y. C. Fung. 1488 Monitoring of Nitrite and N-Nitrosamine Levels in Irradiated Pork Sausage Hyun-Joo Ahn. Cheorun Jo, Jae-Hyun Kim, Young-Jin Chung, Cherl-Ho Lee, and Myung-Woo Byun*. 1493 Formation of Biogenic Amines in a Typical Semihard Italian Cheese N. Innocente* and P. D’Agostin. 1498 Review Analytical Methods for Pesticide Residue Determination in Bee Products M. Fernandez,* Y. Pico, and J. Maries. 1502 • Asterisk indicates author for correspondence. The publishers do not warrant, either expressly or by implication, the factual accuracy of the articles or descriptions herein, nor do they so warrant any views or opinions offered by the authors of said articles and descriptions. SEPTEMBER 2002 - Dairy, Food and Environmental Sanitation 713 Continued from page 720 A Food ISAC (Information Sharing and Analysis agencies into the Department, although this appears Center), hosted by the Food Marketing Institute, has unlikely to happen. been established to provide a national focus for gather¬ So we see that any discussion of food security ing information on threats to the food supply and pro¬ brings up the issue of food safety. However, although we are concerned about the intentional contamination vide timely, accurate and actionable warnings of threats of our food supply, we are also concerned about and attacks. Other, more comprehensive Food ISACs destruction of manufacturing, storage and retail food are being considered. A Food Security Research facilities; we are concerned about protecting the per¬ Roadmap, a database for cataloging contacts, resources sonnel who work in the food industry; and we are con¬ and research on bioterrorism, is under development cerned about agroterrorism (e.g., the introduction of through the Joint Institute for Food Safety and Applied animal or plant disea.ses that could significantly impact Nutrition at the University of Maryland. food production). A new law on bioterrorism has a number of provi¬ So, although we should not equate food security and food safety, we must keep in mind that terrorism is sions related to the food industry, including the regis¬ a real issue for the food industry. Timely information is tration of all facilities processing, packing or holding key to preparedness and to prevention. We must all foods; FDA detention authority; and prior notification continue to work together (industry, government, for imported foods. Discussions on a proposed Depart¬ academia, the public health community, media, con¬ ment of Homeland Security have noted that the US food sumers and others) to ensure that our food supply supply would be an attractive terrorist target and have remains secure and that terrorist threats do not result raised the issue of possible consolidation of food safety in a food safety problem. ADVERTISING INDEX Search, Order, Download DQCI Services, Inc.645 3-A Sanitary Standards Food Processors Institute.645 To order by phone in the United States and Canada call 800.699. IGEN International, Inc. 647 * 9277; outside US and Canada call 734.930.9277; or Fax: 734.930. Michelson Laboratories, Inc.709 9088 Strategic Diagnostics.Inside Front Cover I Order online at Mavco Industries, Inc.Back Cover I www.3-A.org 714 Dairy, Food and Environmental Sonitotion - SEPTEMBER 2002 Career Services Section FACULTY POSITION ADVERTISEMENT The Poultry Science Department at Auburn University, Supervisory Research is seeking candidates for two 9 month tenure-track positions; Microbiologist Assistant or Associate Professor in the poultry products microbiology area and an Assistant, Associate or Full Professor The USDA/ARS Poultry Microbiological in the poultry products area. Both positions have an emphasis in Safety Research Unit in Athens, GA is seeking food microbiology and food safety and are located in the AU a Research Microbiologist GS 14-15 ($76,271- Poultry Products Safety and Quality Program. The expected start date of both positions is January I, 2003. Women and Ethnic $89,715) salary commensurate with exper¬ Minorities are encouraged to apply. ience. Incumbent conijucts personal research The appointment for the Assistant or Associate Professor and provides leadership to basic and applied is a 20% instruction and 80% research in the area of fundamental research to develop knowledge and tech¬ food microbiology and/or safety. Responsibilities include; develop nologies that will support action agencies and an instructional and fundamental research program in further the poultry industry by preventing or controlling processing, value-added poultry products and/or product microbiology; instruction of Principles of Food Safety and the presence of human bacterial pathogens in Advanced Principles of Food Safety core Poultry Science courses; fertile broiler/breeder eggs, on-farm chickens, advise ~I0 undergraduate student/semester; develop distance and spent litter for distribution onto agricultural education courses; and advise graduate students. lands. The three program areas for this unit The appointment for the Assistant, Associate or Full Professor is 20% instruction, 55% research and 25% outreach are (1) controlling colonization of poultry by in the area of food microbiology and/or safety. Responsibilities Campylobacter, (2) controlling colonization include; develop an instructional, research and outreach program by Salmonella ax\6 Clostridium perfringens, in further processing, value-added poultry products and/or product and (3) assessing and controlling pathogens microbiology; develop undergraduate and graduate courses in Poultry Project Safety and/or Quality. in poultry manures. As Research Leader Minimum qualifications for both positions include a Ph.D. incumbent is responsible for managing the in Poultry Science, Food Science, Food Microbiology or a closely Unit’s physical, personnel, and financial related area with documented experience in poultry products resources in application to project objectives. research and outreach. Documented evidence of individual and collaborative research resulting in peer reviewed publications in Incumbent also serves as Coordinator of internationally recognized journals and a successful personal Poultry Food Safety Research at the Athens, record as the principal investigator on peer reviewed, externally GA location. United States citizenship is funded grants and contracts. Excellent organizations skills and the required. Comprehensive benefits package ability to work with others to develop collaborative research and included. For information on the research outreach programs. Ability to communicate effectively, both program/position, contact Jane Robens, Acting orally and in writing. The candidate selected for this position must be able to meet eligibility requirements for work in the United Research Leader at 706-546-3549 or jane. States. [email protected]. For the full text of the Rank and salary commensurate with qualifications. vacancy announcement, which includes Applicants should submit a letter of application, current resume, application materials and forms, contact Genell transcripts and names, phone number, addresses and e-mail addresses of three references to; G. Powers at 706-546-3029 or powersg® Dr. Patricia Curtis, Chair, Search Committee saa.ars.usda.gov or visit the ARS vacancy Department of Poultry Science website at www.afm.ars.usda.gov/divisions/ 236 Upchurch Hall hrd/index.html. Announcement number ARS- Auburn University, AL 36849 X2S-2295. Applications must be postmarked Phone; (334) 844-2679 Fax; (334) 844-2641 by September 30, 2002. E-Mail; curtipafa acesag.aubum.edu USDA-ARS is an Equal Opportunity Provider Review will begin September 1,2(X)2 and continue until a suit¬ and Employer able candidate is selected. The position start date is January I, 2003. Information on the AU Poultry Product Safety and Quality Program can be found at; www.ag.auburn.edu/dept/ph/peak.html. Auburn University is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer. SEPTEMBER 2002 - Dairy, Food and Environmental Sanitation 715 lAFP Offers "Guidelines for the Dairy Industry" from The Dairy Practices Council® This newly expanded Four-volume set consists of 66 guidelines. Planning Dairy Freestall Bams Dairy Farm Inspection Effective Installation. Cleaning, and Sanitizing of Milking Systems Planning Dairy Stall Bams Selected Personnel in Milk Sanitation Preventing Off-Flavors in Milk Installation. Cleaning, & Sanitizing of Large Parlor Milking Systems Grade A Fluid Milk Plant Inspection Directory of Dairy Farm Building & Milking System Resource People Controlling Fluid Milk Volume and Fat Losses Natural Ventilation for Dairy Tie Stall Barns Milkrooms and Bulk Tank Installations Sampling Fluid Milk Stray Voltage on Dairy Farms Good Manufacturing Practices for Dairy Processing Plants Farm Tank Calibrating and Checking Fundamentals of Cleaning & Sanitizing Farm Milk Handling Equipment Gravity Flow Gutters for Manure Removal in Milking Barns Maintaining & Testing Fluid Milk Shelf-Life Dairy Odor Management Sediment Testing & Producing Clean Milk Cooling Milk on the Farm Tunnel Ventilation for Dairy Tie Stall Bams Pre- & Postmilking Teat Disinfectants Environmental Air Control and Quality for Dairy Food Plants Farm Bulk Milk Collection Procedures Clean Room Technology Controlling the Accuracy of Electronic Testing Instruments for Milk Milking Center Wastewater Components I Handling Dairy Products from Processing to Consumption Vitamin Fortification of Fluid Milk Products Prevention of & Testing for Added Water in Milk .Selection of Elevated Milking Parlors Fieldperson's Guide to High Somatic Cell Counts Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point System - HACCP For The Dairy Industry Raw Milk Quality Tests 1 Dairy Product Safety (Pathogenic Bacteria) for Fluid Milk and Frozen Dessert Plants : Control of Antibacterial Drugs & Growth Inhibitors in Milk and Milk Dairy Plant Sanitation Products Sizing Dairy Farm Water Heater Systems Preventing Rancid Flavors in Milk Production and Regulation of Quality Dairy Goat Milk Troubleshtwting High Bacteria Counts of Raw Milk I Trouble Shooting Microbial Defects: Product Line Sampling & Hygiene Monitoring Cleaning & Sanitation Responsibilities for Bulk Pickup & Transport Frozen Dessert Processing Tankers Resources For Dairy Equipment Construction Evaluation Dairy Manure Management From Barn to Storage Controlling The Quality And Use Of Dairy Product Rework 1 Troubleshooting Residual Films on Dairy Farm Milk Handling Control Points for Good Management Practices on Dairy Farms Equipment Installing & Operating Milk Precoolers Properly on Dairy Farms I Cleaning & Sanitizing in Fluid Milk Processing Plants Planning A Dairy Complex - ‘‘l(K)-r Questions To Ask" I Potable Water on Dairy Farms I Abnormal Milk - Risk Reduction and HACCP Composition & Nutritive Value of Dairy Products Farmers Guide To Somatic Cell Counts In Sheep Fat Test Variations in Raw Milk ; Farmers Guide To Somatic Cell Counts In Goats I Brucellosis & Some Other Milkbome Diseases 1 Layout of Dairy Milk Houses for Small Ruminant Operations I Butterfat Determinations of Various Dairy Products I Food Allergen Awareness In Dairy Plant Operations I Dairy Plant Waste Management i Bottlins Water in Fluid Milk Plants lAFP has agreed with The Dairy Practices Council to If purchased individually, the entire set would cost $306. We are offering the set, distribute their guidelines. DPC is a non-profit organization packaged in four looseleaf binders for $23().(X). of education, industry and regulatory personnel concerned Information on how to receive new and updated guidelines will be included with your with milk quality and sanitation throughout the United States. order. In addition, its membership roster lists individuals and To purchase this important source of information, complete the order form below and organizations throughout the world. mail or fax (5l5-276-86.‘)3) to lAFP. For the past 32 years, DPC’s primary mission has been the development and distribution of educational guidelines Please enclose $2.30 plus $12 shipping and handling for each set of guidelines within directed to proper and improved sanitation practices in the the U.S. Outside U.S., shipping will depend on existing rates. Payment in U.S. $ drawn production, processing, and distribution of high quality milk on a U.S. bank or by credit card. and milk products. The DPC Guidelines are written by professionals who comprise six permanent task forces. Prior to distribution, every guideline is submitted for approval to the state regulatory agencies in each member state. Should any official have an exception to a section of a proposed Street Address guideline, that exception is noted in the final document. The guidelines are renown for their common sense and City, State/Province, Code useful approach to proper and improved sanitation practices. We think they will be a valuable addition to your VISA/MC/AE No. Exp. Date professional reference library. 716 Dairy, Food and Environmental Sanitation - SEPTEMBER 2002 m 6200 Aurora Avenue, Suite 200W Des Moines, lA 50322-2864, USA nternational Association for Phone; 800.369.6337 • 515.276.3344 Fax: 515.276.8655 Food Protection. E-mail: [email protected] Web site: www.foodprotection.org The use of the Audiovisual Library is a benefit for Association Members. Limit your requests to five videos. Material from the Audiovisual Library can be checked out for 2 weeks only so that all Members can benefit from its use. Member # First Name M.l. Last Name Company Job Title Mailing Address (Please specify: ~l Home Work) City State or Province Postal Code/Zip + 4 Country Telephone # Fax# E-mail Date Needed (Allow 4 weeks minimum from time of request) For Association PLEASE CHECK THE APPROPRIATE BOX Members Only AUDIOVISUAL LIBRARY DAIRY T F:.3220 The New Superfund: What It is n F2136 (fPP Basics; Safety in the FihhI Micro Lab 1)1 IHO 10 Points to Quality & How It Works - (S) I’nderground T F2I.3' (iMP Basics: Avoiding Microbial Cn>ss- 1)1010 Thf Bulk Milk llaukr Protmol Storage Tank Trust Fund & Response (Contamination Pr<»ccdurcs Program ~\ F2I40 (»MP Basics: Empliiyee Hygiene Practices DUHO Cold Hard Pacts 1 F;.32.30 The New Superfund. W hat It is n F2I43 (>MP Basics: (iuidelines DIO-tO lithcr Extraction Method for & How It W orks - (6) Research for Maintenance Personnel Determination of Raw Milk & Development Closing Remarks T F2I48 (i.MP - (»SP Employee DIOSO The harm Hulk Milk Hauler (slides) T E32^0 Sink a (ierm n F2IS() (iMP Personal Hygiene and Practices I)i0(>0 Frozen I)air\ Products n E324S W ash Yt>ur Hands in FihhI Manufacturing [)10“’0 The (ierber Hutterfat Test n f:.32so Waste Not; Reducing Hazardous W aste T F2I4" (i.MP Basics; Priness Control Practices 1)1080 High-Temperature. Short-Time Pasteurizer “I F2I6() (iMP: Sources & (Control of (Contamination FOOD DIO^X) Managing Milking Quality during Prinessing 1)1 UM) Mastitis Prevention and Control n F22(>() 100 Degrees of D Visit our Web site at www.foodprotection.org for detailed tape descriptions SEPTEMBER 2002 - Dairy, food and Environmentol Sanitation 717 6200 Aurora Avenue, Suite 200W Des Moines, lA 50322-2864, USA nternational Association lor Phone; 800.369.6337 • 515.276.3344 Fax: 515.276.8655 Food Protection. E-mail; [email protected] Web site: www.foodprotection.org SHIP TO: (Please print or type. Ail areas must be completed in order to process.) Member# First Name M.l. Last Name Company Job Title Mailing Address (Please specify: H Home D Work) City State or Province Postal Code/Zip + 4 Country Telephone # Fax # E-mail BOOKLETS Member or Non-Member Quantity Description Gov't. Price Price Procedures to Investigate Waterborne Illness—2nd Edition $10.00 $20.00 Procedures to Investigate Foodbome Illness—5th Edition 10.00 20.00 SHIPPING AND HANDLING-$3.00 (US) $5.00 (Outside US) Multipte copies available Shipping/Handling Each additional booklet $1.50 at reduced prices. Booklets Total Phone our office for pricing information on quantities of 25 or more. OTHER PUBLICATIONS Member or Non-Member Quantity Description Gov't. Price Price Pocket Guide to Dairy Sanitation (minimum order of 10) $ .60 $ 1.20 Before Disaster Strikes...A Guide to Food Safety in the Home (minimum order of 10) .60 1.20 ‘Developing HACCP Plans - A Five-Part Series (as published in DFES) 15.00 , 15.00 'Surveillance of Foodbome Disease - A Four-Part Series (as published in JFF) j 18.75 1 18.75 i 'Annual Meeting Abstract Book Supplement (year requested ) 25.00 , 25.00 'lAFP History 1911-2000 25.00 : 25.00 SHIPPING AND HANDLING - Guide Booklets - per 10 $2.50 (US) $3.50 (Outside US) Shipping/Handling 'Includes shipping and handling Other Publications Total Payment Must be Enclosed for Order to be Processed TOTAL ORDER AMOUNT . * US Funds on US Bank * □ CHECK OR MONEY ORDER ENCLOSED □ □ □rn! 4 EASY WAYS TO ORDER: Phone: 515.276.3344; 800.369.6337 Fax: 515.276.8655 Mail: to the Association address listed above. Web site: wwvi/.foodprotection.org Prices effective through August 31, 2003 718 Dairy, Food and Environmental Sanitation - SEPTEMBER 2002 MEMBERSHIP APPLICATION 6200 Aurora Avenue, Suite 200W Des Moines, lA 50322-2864, USA International Association for Phone: 800.369.6337 • 515.276.3344 Fax: 515.276.8655 Food Protection. E-mail: [email protected] Web site: www.foodprotection.org MEMBERSHIP DATA: Prefix (□ Prof. □ Dr. □ Mr. □ Ms.) First Name-M.l_Last Name Company-Job Title Mailing Address_ (Please specify: □ Home n Work) City State or Province Postal Code/Zip -i- 4 Country Telephone #-Fax #_ ^ lAFP occasionally provides Members' addresses (excluding phone and E-mail _ e-mail) to vendors supplying products and sen/ices tor the food safety industry. If you prefer NOT to be included in these lists, please check the box. Canada/ MEMBERSHIP CATEGORIES: US Mexico International □ Membership with JFP& DFES ^ BEST $165.00 $190.00 $235.00 12 issues of the Journal of Food Protection VALU E and Dairy, Food and Environmental Sanitation CJ JFP Online $36.00 $36.00 $36.00 □ Membership with DFES $95.00 $105.00 $120.00 12 issues of Dairy, Food and Environmental Sanitation G JFP Online $36.00 $36.00 $36.00 Student Membership* □ JFP and DFES $82.50 $107.50 $152.50 □ Journal of Food Protection $47.50 $62.50 $92.50 □ Dairy, Food and Environmental Sanitation $47.50 $57.50 $72.50 □ JFP Online $36.00 $36.00 $36.00 'Student verification must accompany this form All Prices Include Shipping & Handling □ Sustaining Membership Gold Silver Sustaining JFP Online included $5,000.00 $2,500.00 $750.00 Recognition for your organization and many other benefits. Contact lAFP for details. $ TOTAL MEMBERSHIP PAYMENT: (Prices effective through August 31,2003) US FUNDS on US BANK Payment Options: □ Check Enclosed □ mSt ^ ^ !~¥~1 Card Exp. Date Signature DO NOT USE THIS FORM FOR RENEWALS SEPTEMBER 2002 - Dairy, food ond Environmental Sonitofion 719 THOUGHTS on Today’s Food Safety... Food Security ^ Food Safety entists) to address food safety; we need law enforce¬ ment personnel to help set up food security programs. Food security encompasses three “P’s” — Protecting Jenny Scott, Rhona Applebaum, Personnel, Protecting Products, and Protecting Prop¬ and Alice Johnson erty. Since “Protecting Product” encompasses the food National Food Processors Association safety aspects of food security, we can see food secu¬ rity as an umbrella under which food safety operates. 1350 I Street, N.W. So, what has the food industry done since Septem¬ Washington, D.C. 20005 ber 11 to ensure food security? We immediately took Phone: 202.639.5985 steps to evaluate current practices, identify weaknesses E-mail: jscott@nfpa-food-org in the current systems, and implement appropriate, effective controls. Within two weeks, the National Food Processors Association had organized the Alliance for As September rolls around and we mark the one- Food Security, which consists of more than 130 orga¬ year anniversary of the horrible terrorist events nizations representing all segments of the food indus¬ of 9/11, it is appropriate to look back on how try, as well as experts from government agencies and those events have impacted the food industry and what other groups. This Alliance proactively seeks and has we are doing to enhance the security of the food sup¬ shared information on food security issues in order to ply. Make no mistake about it; the potential for the food prevent threats (to the extent we can) to the safety of supply to be a target or tool of terrorism can no longer the nation’s food supply. The focus of the Alliance is be viewed in hypothetical terms. Although there is no communication, consultation, coordination, collabora¬ evidence to suggest that food will be a target, the food tion, and cooperation, because better information re¬ industry cannot be complacent and continue to do sults in better decisions. NFPA has developed two docu¬ business as it did pre-9/11. ments, a I’hreat Exposure Assessment and Management The food industry has a long history of dealing with (TEAM) Process, based on operational risk manage¬ threats to foods — we constantly have to address inad¬ ment, and a Security Checklist of questions. The TEAM vertent contamination, we have periodically had to deal document provides a structured approach to identify with foodborne illness outbreaks, and we have occa¬ threats to the food supply, assess the severity and prob¬ sionally had to address intentional food tampering. But ability of these threats, and analyze controls for them. we now have to contend with what was once unthink¬ Where could a contaminant be introduced? How likely able — the intentional, widespread contamination of is it to happen? What would be the result? The docu¬ the food supply. This is what we mean when we talk ment can help set priorities as to where controls should about food security — countering intentional attacks be put. The checklist helps identify factors to consider on the food supply that are designed to cause illness in assessing food security measures. A Food Security and injury, to disrupt domestic food production and Manual is under development. Other associations have delivery systems, and/or to disrupt international food also developed food security information specific to trade. Food security is NOT synonymous with food their sectors. safety. Their disciplines and their underpinnings are FDA and FSIS have provided guidelines for food different, and the expertise and experience needed to security, with additional guidance planned. The amount address each of these are different. Food safety deals of food security-related information available from a with hazards that are reasonably likely to occur, and variety of sources, in particular the Internet, has grown that occur naturally or by accident (cross-contamina¬ almost exponentially. FDA and FSIS both have an ex¬ tion, process failures). Food security deals with inten¬ tensive amount of food security information on their tional acts that are only remotely likely (we hope). The Web sites (see the link to Food Safety and Ferrorism at distinction between the intentional versus the acciden¬ www.cfsan.fda.gov and Bio.security/Homeland Security tal is immensely important to industry, particularly as at www.fsis.u.sda.gov). In addition, there is food secu¬ it relates to our management and prevention practices. rity information at www.foodsafety.gov (Countering We need microbiologists and food safety experts (sci¬ Bioterrorism and Other Threats to the Food Supply). Continued on page 714 720 Dairy, Food and Environmental Sanitation - SEPTEMBER 2002 National Food Safety Education Month" 2002 CHECK IT OUT before you check it in ISf Who is it From? ISf is it the Right Temperature? ISf How Does it Look, Feei, Smeii? IB^ is it in Good Condition? B Is it Fresh? National Restaurant Association EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION x I' Innovator of Sample nMPLiRS Preparation Equipment Model 300 Cyclonic Oscillator (with Drum D24A) The Cyclonic Oscillator provides continuous gravitational change to a con¬ tained sample making it ideal for keeping material in suspension, evaluating solubility or non-solubility and facilitating digestion or extraction of samples. • Simultaneous rotation and oscillation • Very gentle, thorough mixing of sample ideal for many applications • Containment sockets handle a variety of containers holding from 30-50 ml • Adjustability of speed up to 42 cycles per minute and highly versatile time settings • Size: 12" H X 12"WX 10y4"D Price: $1,495.00* Model 200 Vial Rotator The Vial Rotator is designed to provide a safe, effective means of pulverizing dry materials into a fine talc-like powder in preparation for analyses, such as total carbon, nitrogen and sulfur. Changing roller spacing by removing rollers allows for the use of various sizes of sample containers. • Reduces dry samples to less than 100-mesh overnight • Features an adjustable speed control • Holds up to 95 standard scintillation vials at one time • Handles larger containers such as French square bottles • Size: 6" H x 16" W x 36" L ^_ Price: $2,985.00* ^ Model 24VE Programmable Vacuum Extractor This Extractor is an improved, micro-processor controlled mechanical device that can be used for a wide range of extractions with a variety of extractants for many different analyses and instrumentation techniques. Plastic syringes, sample and extractant tubes are widely used and 9 cm paste extraction cups are also available. • 24 extraction stations (12 for paste extractions) • Electronic controller with accurate timing functions • Cycle time adjustable from 5 minutes to 25 hours • Extractant volume from 10 to 60 milliliters • Designed for unattended operation • Size: 23’A" H x MWWxWD Price: $4,680.00* ‘Prices subject to change without notice. F.O.B. Lincoln. Nebraska MAVCO INDUSTRIES, INC. 5701 North 57th Street • Lincoln, Nebraska 68507 • Telephone: (402) 466-2899 sampletek.com Fax: (402) 464-9602 Reader Service No. 169