November 2009 Vol. 29, No. 11 ‘ISSN:1541-9576 Periodicals 6200 Aurora Avenue ¢ Suite 200W Des Moines, lowa 50322-2864, USA KOUm ce Ceeimicaii
Science and N@WS from the international Association for Food Protection
www.foodprotection.org INTRODUCING... a. et. (eee ee ... THE ULTIMATE IN HIGH VOLUME IMS
The PATHATRIX system is widely used and approved by multi-national companies, contract laboratories, regulators, and researchers. one ully Automated PATHATRIX - AUTO has been developed in —at the press of a button response to our customers increasing demand for High Sample Throughput — 150 samples per hour automation. High Volume — 10 to 60 ml sample size
Enhances Detection — PCR, ELISA, Selective Agar Plate
Save up to 60% of your PCR costs using our AOAC-RI approved PATHATRIX® Pooling methods
We have customers using a wide variety of PCR systems from all of the major manufacturers and have successfully delivered the benefits of PATHATRIX Pooling to all of them.
If you want to know more... Contact us at: & @ «¢ [email protected] MATRI xX US Tel: 303 277 9613 Cc a www.matrixmsci.com Maximized bieliv *
A Legacy of Food Safety Innovation Beginning with the introduction of 3M” Petrifilm” Plates
to the recent honor of the prestigious Black Pearl Award, 3M Microbiology has built a legacy of food safety innovation. As the leading manufacturer of proven and reliable testing IAFP BLACK PEARL AWARD solutions that include quality, pathogen and toxin testing and monitoring, 3M Microbiology remains committed
to delivering innovative solutions to protect the worldwide food supply.
Go to www.3M.com/microbiology or call 1-800-328-6553 ext. 998.
NOVEMBER 2009 | FOOD PROTECTION TRENDS 765 International Association for Food Protection,
VOLUME 29, NO. 11
BM ARTICLES
780 Prevalence and Risk Factor Investigation of Campylobacter Species in Retail Ground Beef from Alberta, Canada Sherry J. Hannon, G. Douglas Inglis, Brenda Allan, Cheryl Waldner, Margaret L. Russell, Andrew Potter, Lorne A. Babiuk and Hugh G.G. Townsend
Consumer Storage Period and Temperature for Peanut Butter and Their Effects on Survival of Salmonella and Escherichia coli O157:H7 A. Kilonzo-Nthenge, E. Rotich, $. Godwin and T. Huang
General Interest Paper — History of Consumer Food Safety Education Focus on Beef: Impact on Risk of Foodborne Illness Christine M. Bruhn
M@ ASSOCIATION NEWS
773 Sustaining Members 776 Vickie’s View from Your President 778 Commentary from the Executive Director 808 New Members
@ DEPARTMENTS
810 What's Happening in Food Safety 813 Industry Products 816 Coming Events 817 Advertising Index @ EXTRAS The publishers do not warrant, either 800 Award Nominations expressly or by implication, the factual 821 Journal of Food Protection Table of Contents accuracy of the articles or descriptions 822 Audiovisual Library Order Form herein, nor do they so warrant any 823 Booklet Order Form mews offered by the authors of said 824 Membership Application articles and descriptions.
766 FOOD PROTECTION TRENDS | NOVEMBER 2009 ’ PERFORMANCE TESTED
RESEARCH INSTITUTE
w BD
Microbiology Media Solutions tor Food Safety
BBL’* CHROMagar " Salmonella prepared e Reduces plated media costs by 50% plated medium for the isolation, detection compared to official methods and presumptive identification of Salmonella e Provides a faster time to result species from a variety of foods, including peanut butter. Microbiology - it’s what we do. Ca Dla Ce cee) oe-b @eO Ome) /0010) 41-818 Find out what we can do for you. 25 grams of peanut butter Visit us on the web at www.bd.com/ds e Correlates 100% to official reference methods
BD Diagnostics International Association for Food Protection. PROTECTIQN SCIENCE AND NEWS 6200 Aurora Avenue, Suite 200VW FROM THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR FOOD PROTECTION Des Moines, [A 50322-2864, USA Phone: +1 800.369.6337 * +1 515.276.3344 Food ProtectionTrends (ISSN- 1541-9576) is published monthly beginning Fax: +1 515.276.8655 with the January number by the International Association for Food Pro- E-mail: [email protected] tection, 6200 Aurora Avenue, Suite 200W, Des Moines, lowa 50322-2864, Web site: www.foodprotection.org USA. Each volume comprises |2 numbers. Printed by Heuss Printing, Inc., 911 N. Second Street,Ames, lowa 50010, USA. Periodical Postage paid mele ar at Des Moines, lowa 50318 and additional entry offices. Manuscripts: Correspondence regarding manuscripts should be David W. Tharp, CAE: Executive Director addressed to Donna A. Bahun, Production Editor, International Associa- E-mail: [email protected] tion for Food Protection. Lisa K. Hovey, CAE: Managing Editor Copyright® 2009 by the International Association for Food Protection. No E-mail: [email protected] part of the publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form, or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, record- Donna A. Bahun: Production Editor ing, or any information storage and retrieval system, except in limited E-mail: [email protected] quantitites for the non-commercial purposes of scientific or educational advancement, without permission from the International Association for Pam J. Wanninger: Proofreader Food Protection Editorial office. News Releases, Updates, Coming Events and Cover Photos: INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR Correspondence for these materials should be sent to Donna A. Bahun, FOOD PROTECTION STAFF Production Editor, International Association for Food Protection. “Instructions for Authors” may be obtained from our Web site David W. Tharp, CAE: Executive Director at www.foodprotection.org or from Donna A. Bahun, Production Editor, E-mail: [email protected] International Association for Food Protection. Lisa K. Hovey, CAE: Assistant Director Orders for Reprints: All orders should be sent to Food Protection Trends, E-mail: [email protected] Attention: Donna Bahun, International Association for Food Protection. Note: Single copies of reprints are not available from this address;address Donna A. Bahun: Design and Layout single copy reprint requests to principal author. E-mail: [email protected] Reprint Permission: Questions regarding permission to reprint any por- Farrah L. Benge: Accounting Assistant tion of Food Protection Trends should be addressed to: DonnaA. Bahun, E-mail: [email protected] Production Editor, International Association for Food Protection. Business Matters: Correspondence regarding business matters should Julie A. Cattanach: Membership Services be addressed to Lisa K. Hovey, Managing Editor, International Association E-mail: [email protected] for Food Protection. Tamara P. Ford: Communications Coordinator Membership Dues: Membership in the Association is available E-mail: [email protected] to individuals. Dues are based ona |2 month period. Food Protection Trends, Donna Gronstal: Senior Accountant Journal of Food Protection and JFP Online are optional Member benefits. See the Membership form at the back of this issue for pricing information. E-mail: [email protected] Correspondence regarding changes of address and dues must be sent Karla K. Jordan: Order Processing to Julie A. Cattanach, Membership Services, International Association for E-mail: [email protected] Food Protection Didi Loynachan: JFP Editorial Assistant Sustaining Membership: Three levels of sustaining membership are available to organizations. For more information, contact Julie A. E-mail: [email protected] Cattanach, Membership Services, International Association for Food Leilani K. McDonald: Association and Affiliate Services Protection. E-mail: [email protected] Subscription Rates: Food Protection Trends is available by subscrip- tion for $263.00 US, $278.00 Canada/Mexico, and $293.00 International. Pam J. Wanninger: Proofreader Single issues are available for $3 |.00 US and $40.00 all other countries. All Trinette R. Worthington: Executive Assistant rates include shipping and handling. No cancellations accepted. For more E-mail: [email protected] information contact JulieA.Cattanach,Membership Services, International Association for Food Protection. Pe AS ae le Claims: Notice of failure to receive copies must be reported within 30 days domestic, 90 days outside US. David Larson Postmaster: Send address changes to Food Protection Trends, 6200 Phone: +1 515.440.2810 Aurora Avenue, Suite 200W, Des Moines, lowa 50322-2864, USA. Fax: +1 515.440.2809 Food Protection Trends is printed on paper that meets the requirements E-mail: [email protected] of ANSI/NISO 239.48-1992.
768 FOOD PROTECTION TRENDS | NOVEMBER 2009 pathogen detection without compromise
Assurance GDS” combines the latest innovations in microbiology and molecular science to bring you the most advanced DNA-based pathogen detection system. It offers unprecedented speed without sacrificing accuracy or convenience. In fact, multiple levels of specificity, including highly specific primers, probes and a patent pending sample concentration step, ensure unparalleled accuracy with fewer indeterminates or the need to interpret melt curves. Learn how Assurance GDS can turn your testing challenges into solutions. Visit www.biocontrolsys.com or contact us at 1.800.245.0113 for more information.
Now available for Listeria spp., Listeria monocytogenes, Salmonella, E. coli O0157:H7, and Shiga Toxin genes.
BIOCONTROL Results. Right now. International Association for Food Protection, i’ eee. RE * ANNUAL yr
‘EXECUTIVE BOARD
PRESIDENT, Vickie Lewandowski, M.S., Kraft Foods, | Kraft Court, Glenview, IL 60025-5066, USA; Phone: 847.646.6798; E-mail: viewandowski@ kraft.com
| A iF ie 2O | é PRESIDENT-ELECT, Lee-Ann Jaykus, Ph.D., North Carolina State Univ- ersity, Dept. of Food Science, Schaub Hall, Room 339A, 400 Dan Allen Drive, Raleigh, NC 27695-7624, USA; Phone: 919.513.2074; E-mail: AUGUST |-4 [email protected] Anaheim Convention Center | vice PRESIDENT, Isabel Walls, Ph.D, USDA-The National Inst- Anaheim, California itute of Food and Agriculture, 800 — 9th St. SW, Room 3423, Washington, D.C. 20024-2475, USA; Phone: 202.401.6357; E-mail: iwalls@ nifa.usda.gov
SECRETARY, Katherine M. J. Swanson, Ph.D., Ecolab, 655 Lone Oak Aa we) Dr., Eagan, MN 55121-1649, USA; Phone: 651.795.5943; E-mail: katie. [email protected]
JULY 3I|-AUGUST 3 PAST PRESIDENT, J. Stan Bailey, Ph.D., bioMérieux, Inc., 1290 Creekshore Midwest Airlines Center Dr., Athens, GA 30606-6229, USA; Phone: 706.201.7564; E-mail: stan. iiaedns Wisconsin [email protected]
AFFILIATE COUNCIL CHAIRPERSON, Dan Erickson, Harold Wainess & Associates, 2460 Ist Ave. E., North St. Paul, MN 55109-3243; Phone: 651.779.3700; E-mail: [email protected]
[AFP 0) EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, David W. Tharp, CAE, 6200 Aurora Ave., Suite 200W, Des Moines, IA 50322-2864, USA; Phone: 515.276.3344; JULY 22-25 E-mail: [email protected]
Rhode Island Convention Center SCIENTIFIC EDITOR Providence, Rhode Island David A. Golden, Ph.D., University of Tennessee, Dept. of Food Science and Technology, 2605 River Dr., Knoxville, TN 37996-459 | , USA; Phone: 865. 974.7247; 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.” | | Associations Make A Better World
770 FOOD PROTECTION TRENDS | NOVEMBER 2009 FPT EDITORIAL BOARD
JULIE A.ALBRECHT (09) Lincoln, NE ELIZABETH ANDRESS (11) Athens, GA KRISTINA BARLOW (09) Washington, D.C. MARK BERRANG (11) Athens, GA RENEE R. BOYER (10) Blacksburg, VA TOM G. BOUFFORD (10) Eagan, MN CHRISTINE BRUHN (09) Davis, CA SCOTT BURNETT (11) St. Paul, MN MARK W. CARTER (11) South Holland, IL WARREN S. CLARK, JR. (10) Bloomingdale, IL ROCHELLE CLAVERO (11) Downers Grove, IL JULIAN M. COX (09) Sydney, NSW, Australia FAITH CRITZER (10) Knoxville, TN CARL S. CUSTER (09) Bethesda, MD CATHERINE N. CUTTER (10) University Park, PA MICHELLE DANYLUK(1I 1) Lake Alfred, FL JAMES S. DICKSON (10) Ames, IA FRANCISCO DIEZ-GONZALEZ (11) St. Paul, MN JOSEPH D. EIFERT (11) Blacksburg, VA PHYLLIS ENTIS (11) Stowe, VT DAVID GOMBAS (09) Washington, D.C. ROBERT B. GRAVANI (10) Ithaca, NY JUDY D. GREIG (11) Guelph, Ontario, Canada DALE GRINSTEAD (11) Sturtevant, WI JUDY HARRISON (11) Athens, GA JOHN HOLAH (09) Gloucestershire, United Kingdom SCOTT HOOD (10) Minneapolis, MN IAN JENSEN (10) North Sydney, NSW, Australia SOPHIA KATHARIOU (11) Raleigh, NC PATRICIA KENDALL (11) Fort Collins, CO KALMIA E. KNIEL (11) Newark, DE DENISE LINDSAY (11) Wits, South Africa SUSAN K. MCKNIGHT (11) Northbrook, IL CHARLES S. OTTO, Ill (09) Atlanta, GA RUTH L. PETRAN (10) Eagan, MN KATHLEEN T. RAJKOWSKI (11) Wyndmoor, PA GLENNER M. RICHARDS (11) Springfield, MO JENNIFER K. RICHARDS (10) Knoxville, TN SARAH J. RISCH (11) East Lansing, Ml ROBERT L. SANDERS (10) Pensacola, FL KYLE SASAHARA (10) Hilo, HI JOE SEBRANEK (09) AMARAT H. SIMONNE (11) O. PETER SNYDER (10) JOHN N. SOFOS (11) KELLY A. STEVENS (11) T. MATTHEW TAYLOR (10) LEO TIMMS (09)
NOVEMBER 2009 | FOOD PROTECTION TRENDS 771 There are MORE THAN 3,400 reasons for your organization to join IAFP as a OSM Tem lel od ans
International Association for ~— Visit foodprotection. vod to learn m about the various Sustaining aut Protection Membership programs available to organizations like yours. MEMBERS
3M Microbiology Products ECQOLAB Ecolab Inc. St. Paul, MN St. Paul, MN www.3m.com www.ecolab.com
Applied Applied Biosystems Telloggis Kellogg Company Bibsystems Foster City, CA Battle Creek, MI www.appliedbiosystems.com www.kellogg.com
BD Diagnostics Kraft Foods w BD Sparks, MD Glenview, IL www.bd.com www.kraftfoods.com
® bioMérieux, Inc. Maple Leaf Foods BIOMERIEUX Hazelwood, MO Toronto, Ontario, Canada N Ou Ss TRY www.biomerieux.com www.mapleleaf.com
BIO-RAD Bio-Rad Laboratories PEPSICO PepsiCo Hercules, CA Chicago, IL www.biorad.com www.pepsico.com
Cargill (a, Cargill SGS North America Minneapolis, MN SGS Fairfield, NJ www.cargill.com WWW.US.SZS.cOmMm
Uke Ctbela Company The Coca-Cola Company Silliker Inc. Atlanta, GA Homewood, IL www.thecoca-colacompany.com www-.silliker.com
C ConAgra Foods, Inc. VLM Food Trading "Fooas Omaha, NE International Inc. www.conagrafoods.com Kirkland, Quebec, Canada www.vimtrading.com DuPont Qualicon Wilmington, DE www.dupont.com
(Continued on next page)
NOVEMBER 2009 | FOOD PROTECTION TRENDS 773 MEMBERS
SILVER (coninues
AEGIS Food Testing Laboratories FSNS Food Safety Net Services, Ltd. ASIS North Sioux City, SD fog Saat Nek Socss San Antonio, TX Food Safety Ket Services Food Testing Laboratories www.aegisfoodlabs.com www.food-safetynet.com
AIV Microbiology & Food Safety JohnsonDiversey 2% JohnsonDiversey AY Consultants, LLC Sharonville, OH Microbiology & Food Safety CONSULTANTS, LLC Hawthorn Woods, IL www.johnsondiversey.com www.aivfoodsafety.com MATRIX MicroScience, Inc. Chemstar Corporation MATRIX Golden, CO Lithia Springs, GA www.matrixmsci.com www.chemstarcorp.com Orkin Commercial Services e Dubai Municipality Atlanta, GA Dubai, United Arab Emirates COMMERCIAL SERVICES www.OrkinCommercial.com ae - www.dm.gov.ae DUBAI MUNICIPALITY Quality Flow Inc. F & H Food Equipment Co. Northbrook, IL Springfield, MO www.qualityflow.com www.fhfoodequipment.com Weber Scientific Hamilton, NJ www.weberscientific.com SUSTAINING
3-A Sanitary Standards, Inc., Biolog, Inc., Hayward, CA; DeLaval Cleaning Solutions, McLean, VA; www.3-a.org www.biolog.com Kansas City, MO; www.delaval.com
Abbott Nutrition, Columbus, OH; Burger King Corp., Miami, FL; Delhaize Group, Brussels, Belgium; www.abbottnutrition.com www.burgerking.com www.delhaizegroup.com
ABC Research Corporation, Charm Sciences, Inc., Lawrence, Diversified Laboratory Testing, Gainesville, FL; www.abcr.com MA; www.charm.com LLC, Mounds View, MN; www.dqci.com Advanced Instruments, Inc., Chemir Analytical Services, Maryland DNY, Orland Park, IL; www.dnvcert.com Norwood, MA; www.aicompanies.com Heights, MO; www.chemir.com DonLevy Laboratories, Crown Point, AEMTEK, Inc., Fremont, CA; Chestnut Labs, Springfield, MO; IN; www.donlevylab.com www.aemtek.com www.chestnutlabs.com Electrol Specialties Co., South Beloit, ASI Food Safety Consultants, Inc., DARDEN Restaurants, Inc., Orlando, St. Louis, MO; www.asifood.com FL; www.darden.com IL; www.esc4cip.com
Bentley Instruments, Inc., Chaska, Decagon Devices, Inc., Pullman, Elena’s, Auburn, Hills, MI; MN; www.bentleyinstruments.com WA; www.decagon.com www.elenas.com
BioControl Systems, Inc., Bellevue, Deibel Laboratories, Inc., Fisher Scientific, Pittsburgh, PA; WA; www.biocontrolsys.com Lincolnwood, IL; www.deibellabs.com www.fishersci.com
774 FOOD PROTECTION TRENDS | NOVEMBER 2009 MEMBERS
SUSTAINING
Food Directorate, Health Canada, Michigan State University-ProMS Randolph Associates, Birmingham, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; in Food Safety, East Lansing, MI; AL; www.raiconsult.com www.hc-sc.gc.ca www.msu.edu REMEL, Inc., Lenexa, KS; Food Lion, LLC, Salisbury, NC; Microbial-Vac Systems, Inc., Bluffdale, www.remel.com www.foodlion.com UT; www.m-vac.com Rochester Midland Corporation, MicroBioLogics, Inc., St. Cloud, MN; Food Research Institute, University Rochester, NY; www.rochestermidland. www.microbiologics.com of Wisconsin—Madison Madison, WI; com www.wisc.edu/fri/ Microbiology International, Frederick, MD; www.800ezmicro.com rtech”™ laboratories, St. Paul, MN; Grocery Manufacturers Association, www.rtechlabs.com Washington, D.C.; www.gmaonline.org Micro-Smedt, Herentals, Belgium; www.micro-smedt.be Seiberling Associates, Inc., Dublin, HiMedia Laboratories Pvt. OH; www.seiberling.com Limited, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India; Nasco International, Inc., www.himedialabs.com Fort Atkinson, WI; www.nasco.com Siemens Building Technologies, IBA Inc., Millbury, MA; 508.865.69 | | The National Food Laboratory, Inc., Buffalo Grove, IL; www.building- Inc., Dublin, CA; www.thenfl.com technologies.usa.siemens.com Idaho Technology, Inc., Salt Lake City, UT; www.idahotech.com Nelson-Jameson, Inc., Marshfield, Sodexo, Downers Grove, IL; www. WI; www.nelsonjameson.com sodexousa.com Institute for Environmental Health, Lake Forest Park, WA; www.iehinc.com Neogen Corporation, Lansing, MI; The Steritech Group, Inc., www.neogen.com San Diego, CA; www.steritech.com International Dairy Foods Nestlé USA, Inc., Dublin, OH; Association, Washington, D.C.; Strategic Diagnostics Inc., Newark, www.nestle.com www.idfa.org DE; www.sdix.com NSF International, Ann Arbor, Ml; lowa State University Food www.nsf.com Texas A&M University—Center Microbiology Group, Ames, |A; for Food Safety, College Station, TX; www.iastate.edu OpGen, Gaithersburg, MD; www.opgen. www.tamu.edu com Jimmy Buffett’s Margaritaville, ThermoDrive LLC, Grand Rapids, MI; Orlando, FL; www.margaritaville.com Oxoid Canada, Nepean, Ontario, Canada; www.oxoid.com www.thermodrivellc.com Kim Laboratories, Inc., Champaign, Penn State University, University United Fresh Produce Association, IL; www.kimlaboratories.com Park, PA; www.psu.edu Washington, D.C.; www.unitedfresh.org The Kroger Co., Cincinnati, OH; Process Tek, Des Plaines, IL; Walmart, Bentonville, AR; www. www.kroger.com www.processtek.net walmart.com Lester Schwab Katz & Dwyer, LLP; Publix Super Markets, Inc., Walt Disney World Company, Short Hills, NJ; www.lskdnylaw.com Lakeland, FL; www.publix.com Lake Buena Vista, FL; www.disney.com Malt-O-Meal Company, Northfield, Q Laboratories, Inc., Cincinnati, MN; www.malt-o-meal.com OH; www.glaboratories.com Wegmans Food Markets, Inc., Rochester, NY; www.wegmans.com Michelson Laboratories, Inc., R&F Laboratories, Downers Grove, Commerce, CA; www.michelsonlab.com IL; www.rf-labs.com WTI, Inc., jefferson, GA; www.wtiinc.com
NOVEMBER 2009 | FOOD PROTECTION TRENDS 775 as QIAN
FROM YOUR PRESIDENT
all season is in full swing as | out. There is no tie in baseball; Max write this column. The leaves was Called out fairly. are turning,apples have ripened By now you’re probably and pumpkins are starting to show wondering what this has to do up everywhere! The football season with food safety; after all, that’s the has begun while the baseball season focus of this column. Perhaps an is winding down. My six-year-old analogy can be made between this son, Jack, is participating in flag foot- baseball situation and food safety. ball this year. His team is the In this scenario, the consumer is “Skeletons.” He is just beginning to the batter-runner (offense) and learn about the intricacies of the the manufacturer/processor is the game of football, without some of the fielder (defense). The regulatory roughness we observe each Sunday body is the umpire and the fans; on national television! Each player studiers of the game—the ones wears a belt with two flags attached who keep and analyze the stats—are by Velcro strips on either side. The By VICKIE LEWANDOWSKI academics (I didn’t want to leave goal is to pull one of the flags from PRESIDENT anybody out of the game!). Or, is it the belt of the player running with the other way around? Is the the ball, rather than tackle him to consumer on the defense (the end the play. At the end of the play, “In the past six fielder) and the manufacturer/ the flag is either off and no points processor the offense (batter- are scored, or it’s still on and it’s a months there has runner)? touchdown. It’s very black and white, been tremendous In any case, historically, in a with little to no room for dispute. foodborne illness outbreak, the Max, my eight-year-old son, is focus on food burden of proof has been on the playing baseball. He was “called up” regulators, epidemiologists, and to play on the 9- to 10-year-old safety” even consumers. For legal consider- team, the “Angels.” Unlike Jack’s ation, all the data had to line up flag football, there is plenty of to prove that product X from opportunity for disputes in base- manufacturer/processor X was ball—or so many fans, parents, the reasonably likely source of players and coaches would like to food contamination. Without solid, believe. At a recent game, Max was conclusive evidence,a manufacturer/ up to bat; he had a fairly decent hit processor could not be held liable. but was called out at first base ona While this is probably still true, | touches it before being put out.” very close call. The players, parents believe there has been a shift in and fans immediately called out the Rule 7.08 (e) states: “ Any runner the last 10 years or more with familiar protest, “The tie goes to is out when. ..the runner fails to manufacturers/processors stepping the runner!” The umpire stood his reach the next base before a fielder up and taking a role, not only in ground in solitude. Was Max the tags said runner on the base.” And accepting the burden of proof, victim of another bad call, or did in Section 6.00—The Batter, Rule but also in preventing occurrence the umpire know something nobody 6.05 (j)(1) says: “A batter is out of the burden in the first place. else did? As it turns out, if you when. ..after hitting a fair ball, the In the past six months there consult the Official Rules and batter-runner or first base is tagged has been tremendous focus on food Regulations of Baseball, you will not before said batter-runner touches safety by virtually everyone along find the rule “the tie goes to the first base.” The key word in each of the food supply chain, from farmer runner.” What Section 7.00—The these rules is before. The burden to consumer. Intense focus by US Runner does say is: Rule 7.01, “A of proof is on the runner that he is lawmakers recently has resulted runner acquires the right to an safe and failure to meet this burden in a significant legislation. On unoccupied base when that runner results in the runner being called September 8, 2009, legislation came
776 FOOD PROTECTION TRENDS | NOVEMBER 2009 into force that will do even more probability that an article of food will of play. The new requirement will to guarantee the elimination or cause severe health problems or death work to eliminate the burden of prevention of foodborne illness by to a person or an animal. This proof. Since there will not be a play removing contaminated products requirement applies to all foods at the base, so to speak, there is from commerce, preventing such and animal feed regulated by the nothing for the batter-runner to products from ever reaching FDA, except dietary supplements prove. The consumer is no longer the consumer. The title of a and infant formula. Examples of a the defense or the offense, but September 2009 US Food and reportable incident include bacterial should now have peace of mind Drug Administration (FDA) news contamination, allergen mislabeling, when serving and consuming food. release stated it succinctly: “FDA or elevated levels of certain chemicals. The manufacturer/processor is Opens the Reportable Food Once a report on a product is now both the offense and the Registry Electronic Portal for submitted through the RFR portal, the defense, identifying and eliminating Industry: Food facilities now responsible party must: (1) investigate hazards before they can reach the required to report potentially the cause of the adulteration if the consumer. As baseball great Leo dangerous products.” The new adulteration may have originated with Durocher once said,“ You don’t save system replaces a voluntary the responsible party;(2) submit initial a pitcher for tomorrow. Tomorrow approach to reporting with a legally information, followed by supplemental it may rain.” That’s very relevant binding requirement to notify reports; and (3) cooperate with the to those of us dedicated to food the FDA about potential adulter- FDA to help determine the cause. protection, because there are no ation of food products. The Companies must also notify relevant rainouts in food safety. This new Reportable Food Registry (RFR) suppliers and distributors of the legislation should inspire everyone helps to make the system less potential food safety issue. This involved with the manufacture and reactive and more preventive. requirement applies only to product distribution of foods to aim out of Facilities that manufacture, process that has already been shipped. the ballpark in providing the highest or hold food for consumption in the Getting back to the baseball level of food safety possible in every United States (responsible party) analogy, this new legislation is product, everyday. As always, feel must now tell the FDA within 24 equivalent to a well-fielded pop-fly; free to contact me at anytime at hours if they find a reasonable it takes the ball and the runner out [email protected].
Request for Prepoposals for Research Support
The Technical Committee on Food Microbiology of the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI) North America is accepting preproposals for financial support of research in the area of “Technology and Process to Control Salmonella in Low-Moisture Foods.” The committee is prepared to fund research in the following research areas: Intemational (1) Persistence of Sa/monelila in low-moisture foods and the processing ences environment; INSTITUTE Salmonella mitigation processes for use in the production of low-moisture foods; and Non-aqueous sanitation processes that eliminate Sa/monella from dry manufacturing equipment and processes, and strategies to validate the new processes.
The deadline for submission of preproposals is December 15, 2009.
Preproposals can be obtained from the ILSI North America office or electronically from http://www.ilsina.org.
For more information contact, Darinka Djordjevic, ILS! North America, 1156 15th Street, NW, Suite 200, Washington, D.C. 20005, USA.
Phone: 202-659-0074, Ext. #155 * E mail: [email protected].
NOVEMBER 2009 | FOOD PROTECTION TRENDS 777 ~\-mail and today’s world — they who travels a lot and cannot always |. naturally go together. The reply quickly. I’m sure many of our _,world today moves at a faster IAFP Members travel in their jobs pace than ever before; communi- and sometimes when this happens, cation is the driving force behind E-mail does not come to the top of this fast movement. How did we the priority list. Also, some people ever get along without E-mail just are well disciplined and only look at 10 to 15 years ago? their E-mail periodically during the When | started with the day (two, three or four times during Association in 1993, we had a fax the day). machine and telephones (of course). Meetings, inspections, presen- At that time, we seldom, if ever, tations, conferences all take people made an intercontinental telephone away from E-mail. So, someone in- call. We did receive a number of vented the BlackBerry and iPhones faxes from outside of North America, to take care of this problem. Now, but the image quality was many By DAVID W. THARP, CAE it is easy to at least see E-mail as it times difficult to read. A funny EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR is coming in from around the world. story about our fax machine comes | don’t know about you, but one of to mind. There was a promotional the main functions of my BlackBerry is to let me know how much “im- brochure with the fax machine that “Now with portant” work | have to do once | stated, ‘Imagine, being able to receive even more finally make it to my laptop to make documents from around the globe replies. Or, | can monitor communi- in just a matter of minutes.” Now communication cation over the weekend again, to in Our present time, can you imag- tools like Facebook, know what might need my atten- ine waiting minutes to receive an tion on Monday morning. This just E-mail from around the world with an Twitter, text adds to the stress knowing all those attached document? messaging, and E-mail messages are waiting (pat- There are a number of times | iently, | might add) for a reply. have been on the phone with some- others, our Oh sure, for those messages one from outside of North America needing only a quick word or two and they will say they have just sent communication of an answer, | might go ahead an E-mail with a document attached. plans get more and and reply through the BlackBerry. We both wait for what seems to be But if it requires a more lengthy an eternity (maybe I5 to 30 sec- more complicated” reply, I’m waiting to do it on my onds) for the E-mail to make its way iaptop or I'll pick up the phone anywhere from 4,000 to 7,000 miles to make a reply! With E-mail, the (6.400 to 11,000 kilometers)! We telephone is another form of com- become very impatient waiting for munication that seems to be dwin- just those few seconds — how ironic dling away. Phone calls seem to be is that? few and far between now and that is The same thing happens when whom we might even have eye con- really too bad. When you talk with a person sends E-mail today. Most tact or are located as neighbors in someone, you can understand their people expect a very fast answer to cubes or offices. Sometimes it is just intent much clearer than when com- questions posed in E-mail commu- not possible to receive a fast reply municating with E-mail. Also, there nication. | know many times when for a number of reasons. First, if are times we rely on E-mail for our | send E-mail with questions posed, dealing with someone internation- communication only to find that | believe a rapid reply is forth- ally, you must consider their work there was a technical problem and coming. Many times we even send hours compared to your own. You the message was not delivered (or it E-mails to our coworkers with might also be sending to someone was overlooked by the receiver).
778 FOOD PROTECTION TRENDS | NOVEMBER 2009 Phone calls can help to move more complicated. You may know What am | trying to say by all a project forward. When you talk that IAFP has a presence on Face- of this? I’m not really sure. | think together, an understanding of time book. We are beginning to place it is just interesting to see the mas- commitments comes to the surface. additional information here and sive changes in the way that people You know more easily that an im- hope to open new lines of comm- communicate. In just 100 years or portant report is due on Thursday unication for our Members. If you so, we have gone from the telegraph at 9 a.m. and there is not a question have not already done so, look us to telegrams to telephones and fax remaining about a time or place for up under the full Association name machines and now electronic com- the completed report to be turned in. (International Association for Food munication. For better or worse, Now with even more commu- Protection) and become a fan of this is where we are. Now, we just nication tools like Facebook, Twit- IAFP. Then when we send messages need to learn to manage the volumes ter, text messaging, and others, our through Facebook, you will be sure of information and communications communication plans get more and to receive the communication. that come to us each day!
ISOPOL XVII International Symposium on Problems of Listeriosis
’ wi Po - a ~—<—
#@ CATOLIG A
. i frreirwenntsr wep - i
NOVEMBER 2009 | FOOD PROTECTION TRENDS 779 > Food Protection Trends, Vol. 29, No. I 1, Pages 780-786 Copyright® 2009, International Association for Food Protection Food Protection 6200 Aurora Ave., Suite 200W, Des Moines, 1A 50322-2864 ;
Prevalence and Risk Factor Investigation of Campylobacter Species in Retail Ground Beef from Alberta, Canada
SHERRY J. HANNON," G. DOUGLAS INGLIS,? BRENDA ALLAN,? CHERYL WALDNER,' MARGARET L. RUSSELL,* ANDREW POTTER,? LORNE A. BABIUK? and HUGH G.G.TOWNSEND'? 'Dept. of Large Animal Clinical Sciences, Western College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Saskatchewan, 52 Campus Drive, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, S7N 5B4, Canada; Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (Lethbridge Research Centre), 5403—Ist Ave. S, Lethbridge, Alberta, T 1} 4B1, Canada; *Vaccine and Infectious Disease Organization, |20 Veterinary Road, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, S7N 5E3, Canada; *Dept. of Community Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Calgary, 3330 Hospital Drive NW, Calgary, Alberta, T2N 4N1, Canada
ABSTRACT Campylobacteriosis is the most commonly reported (notifiable) bacterial enteric disease in Alberta, Canada. The purpose of this study was to assess the prevalence of Campylobacter species in retail ground beef based on a survey of 60 stores (four supermarket chains, three cities) in southern Alberta. None of the 1,200 retail lean and regular ground beef packages were culture positive. Direct PCR results from a subset of samples (n = 142) indicated that 46% of packages tested were positive for Campylobacter DNA. By species, 14.8% (21/142), 26.8% (38/142) and 1.4% (2/142) of packages were PCR positive for C. jejuni, C. coli and C. hyointestinalis DNA, respectively. The presence of campylobacters varied depending on the dates of collection. However, type of package (regular or lean), whether the store cut/packaged poultry in the meat department, type of meat used as the beef source (market trim, coarse grind tubes or a combination of these), whether meat portions were previously frozen, and package weight were not associated with the odds of finding Campylobacter spp. DNA by use of PCR. The high levels of Campylobacter DNA in the beef suggest that breaks in food safety protocols within slaughter plants, processors or grocery stores could have potentially important public health repercussions.
A peer-reviewed article
‘Author for correspondence: Phone: 403.938.5151; Fax: 403.938.5175 Email: [email protected]
780 FOOD PROTECTION TRENDS | NOVEMBER 2009 INTRODUCTION MATERIALS AND METHODS each package of ground beef was placed into a pre-labeled Ziploc bag (SC In Alberta, Canada, campylobac- Sample size calculation Johnson, Racine, WI, USA) and then teriosis is the most common bacte- packed into a cooler (The Coleman rial enteric illness, with 36.1 cases per For a survey using simple random sampling, 179 packages of ground beef Company Inc., 5286B, Wichita, KS, 100,000 people reported in 2005 (25, would have been necessary to measure a USA) with six ice packs (Ice-Pak/Hot- Zp. Campylobacter jejuni (C. jejunt), Pak, Montreal, QC, Canada). A Hobo the most frequently isolated species in 3% expected prevalence of C. jejuni (29 H08 Pro temperature monitor (Onset human disease, is responsible for ap- with 2.5% precision and 95% confi- Computer Corporation, Pocasset, MA, proximately 85% of all human Campy- dence (Epi-Info, version 3.01, CDC, USA, 2003). After application of an USA) was included in one cooler from lobacter infections (21). While consump- each of the 12 meat shipments. Each tion of contaminated poultry meat is inflation factor formula (9) to account cooler was sealed and shipped to the generally considered the primary source for clustering of the expected frequency Vaccine and Infectious Disease Organi- of infection for people (/4), other routes of ¢ ampylobacter within retail stores, the zation (VIDO, Saskatoon, SK, Canada) of transmission may exist. Similarity survey required 1,200 packages from 60 by bus (Greyhound Transport Canada between human and domestic livestock stores (assuming an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0.3, an unadjusted Corporation) overnight. Ground beef Campylobacter isolates has been reported sample size of 179, and collection of 20 packages were processed within approxi- based on molecular typing studies. (6, packages per store). An ICC describing mately 24 hours of collection. Transport EZ, LE 22). temperature ranges were evaluated from In studies in Alberta feedlot cattle clustering of C. jejuni within source was two hours after closure to two hours near the end of the feeding period, fecal not available from previous publications; before the cooler was opened. prevalences for Campylobacter spp. and the choice of 0.3 was slightly more Employees knowledgeable about for C. jejuni have been estimated to be conservative than previously published ICCs for non-enteric cattle conditions in-store meat practices were identified up to 87% and 61%, respectively (2 (19). by phone inquiry or observed directly 11, 16). Other species of ¢ ampylobac ter working with meat, and were asked of potential public health importance, questions regarding their meat depart- including C. coli, C. fetus, C. hyointest- Sampling protocol ment practices. Information on the inalis, and C. lanianae, have also been he goal of sampling was to iden- cutting and packaging of raw poultry, isolated from cattle feces in Alberta tify grocery chains likely to supply the the type of meat used to produce the (16, 17). However, research into the largest sales volume of ground beef to ground beef coarse tubes, market trim prevalence of Campylobacter spp. in consumers. Four chains with the highest or both) and whether the ground beef retail ground beef in Alberta has been numbers of retail stores from three cities contained meat that had previously been limited. In Edmonton, Alberta, a city in in southern Alberta were identified, and frozen were collected. northern Alberta which was not part of a sampling frame of individual stores the sampling area for our study, a recent was compiled from telephone book Experimental inoculation of retail ground beef survey reported no white and yellow pages (chain name retail ground beef as sensitivity positive samples from the 100 packages and pharmacy headings) and inter- analysis tested (4). The prevalence of ¢ ampy- net searches (chain name). Stratified lobacter spp. in retail ground beef has random sampling (by city and by chain \ pure culture of C. jejuni (NCTC ranged from 0—20% worldwide on the within city) ensured that meat samples 11168) that had been previously sus- basis of culture and biochemical or were taken from all chains in all cities. pended in 25% glycerol/50% Brain molecular identification of species; how- Heart Infusion broth and frozen to Fifteen stores were sampled from chain ever, commonly less than 5% of samples 70°C was used as the source strain for 1, 22 from chain 2, 16 from chain 3 and tested have identified campylobacters this experiment. The culture was thawed seven from chain 4. Forty-six stores were (4, 7, 28, 30). on ice and plated on a Mueller-Hinton sampled in city 1, six stores in city 2 The goals of this project were to as- agar plate. The plate was then incubated and eight stores in city 3. Five packages sess the prevalence of Campylobacter spp. microaerobically (85% N,, 10% CO, per store per collection were randomly (in particular C. jejuni) and to investi- 5% O.) at 42°C for 48 hours and checked sampled from the 60 stores, using a gate risk factors potentially associated to ensure the culture was pure by use of hand-held randomization program with the presence of Campylobacter spp. the Gram stain. The culture was then (Handy Randy, Stevens Creek Software, in retail ground beef. This paper reports suspended in 0.85% NaCl (normal Cupertino, CA, USA), for a total of saline) to an absorbance of 0.5 at 600 the results of a culture survey of retail 1,200 retail packages of regular or lean (Ultrospec” 3000, Pharmacia Biotech) to eround beef (n ,200) and PCR of a ground beef. Three hundred packages forma 10’ colony formingunits (CFU)/ml subset of these (n 142) from 60 retail were purchased during each of four solution. To create the final 1 x 10', srocers of four major chains in three collection periods: two winter (Nov. Lx 10, 1 x 10, or J x 10" CFUls cities in southern Alberta. 21-23, 2004, and Jan. 9-11, 2005) and dilutions, C. jejuni stock solution was two summer (May 30-31, June 1, 2005 further diluted with normal saline to a
and July 18-20, 2005). After purchase, total volume of ] ml, which was added
NOVEMBER 2009 | FOOD PROTECTION TRENDS 781 tion and application of taxon-specific TABLE |. Campylobacter spp. in retail ground beef (n = 142) PCR for campylobacters. Each subsam- based on PCR ple (1 g) was thawed and placed in a BagPage 100 filtered blending bag (EW- Identification Positive (%) 36840-58; Canadawide Scientific Ltd., Ottawa, ON, Canada) containing 9 ml of Columbia broth (Becton, Dickinson Genus: and Company, Sparks, NV, USA), and Campylobacter spp. 65 (45.8) the sample was homogenized for 120 s at high setting in a Stomacher 80 blender Species °° (Seward Ltd., West Sussex, UK). The ho- C. jejuni only 20 (14.1) mogenate was then removed from the bag and centrifuged at 1,750 x g for 10 min- C. coli only 35 (24.6) utes, the supernatant containing Campy- lobacter cells was collected. To concen- C. jejuni and C. coli | (0.7) trate Campylobacter cells, the supernatant C. coli and C. hyointestinalis 2 (1.4) was centrifuged at 24,050 x g for 10 minutes, and the supernatant removed “seven isolates could not be identified to the species level. and discarded. The pellet was re-susp- ’zero samples tested positive for DNA of C. fetus, C. lanienae, ended in 1 ml of Columbia broth, C. concisus or C. upsaliensis. 200 pl aliquots were placed in 2 ml tubes, an internal amplification control with each meat sample to the enrichment experiments were conducted to docu- (IAC; 10 pl containing 700 copies/ul) broth. ment our ability to consistently recover was added to each tube (15), and DNA For each package of fresh retail C. jejuni from ground beef by use of our was extracted using the DNAeasy Tis- ground beef, the plastic wrap over the culture protocol. sue Kit (Qiagen, Missassauga, Canada) middle was sliced with a sterile scalpel according to the manufacturer's proto- blade. A deep core sample of 25 g (24-26 Study protocol for detection col. Direct PCR was applied for Campy- lobacter genus, IAC, C. jejuni, C. coli, g) of raw ground beef was removed with of campylobacters by use of C. fetus, C. hyointestinalis, and C. lan- a sterile spoon. Each ground beef sample enrichment culture was placed into a 55-ounce Whirl Pak ienae (15). In addition, nested PCR to bag (82007-726, VWR International, The enrichment culture protocol detect C. concisus and C. upsaliensis was Mississauga, ON, Canada) with 1 ml of for the study retail ground beef was the applied (Inglis et al., unpublished). In C. jejuni solution and 100 mi of enrich- same as that already described for the all instances, negative and positive PCR ment broth (Bolton broth (# CM0983 experimental inoculation, except without controls were included, and arbitrarily- Oxoid Ltd., Basingstoke, UK) and 5% the addition of the 1 ml of fresh C. je- selected amplicons (including weak horse blood mixture) and mixed thor- juni solution. Briefly, 25 g of raw ground amplicons) were sequenced to ensure oughly for 30 seconds (Stomacher Lab beef was added to 100 ml of a Bolton specificity. Samples were deemed to be Blender 400). The homogenate was then broth and 5% horse blood mixture in negative for Campylobacter DNA only if incubated (85% N., 10% CO., 5% O,) a 55-ounce Whirl Pak bag and mixed amplification of the IAC occurred (i.e., for 44 hours at 42°C and then streaked thoroughly for 30 s. The homogenate in the absence of a Campylobacter genus onto Karmali selective agar (Oxoid, was then microaerobically incubated for amplicon). CM935 with supplement SRO167E, 44 hours at 42°C and then streaked onto Nepean, ON, Canada) and microaero- Karmali selective agar and re-incubated Data analysis bically incubated for 48-72 hours. Each microaerobically at 42°C for 48-72 Descriptive analyses were conducted culture plate was then examined visu- hours. Each culture plate was then exam- using SPSS (version 15.0; SPSS, Chica- ally for colonies characteristic of Campy- ined visually for colonies characteristic of go, US). A second commercial software lobacter spp. (based on growth, color and Campylobacter spp. Each incubation in- package (MLwiN version 2.02; Centre morphology of the colony, and color of cluded a laboratory strain C. jejuni plate for Multilevel Modeling, Institute of the cell mass). as positive control. Education, London, UK) was utilized for Ground beef packages were not the hierarchical model analysis. The hier- tested for campylobacters prior to in- Detection of campylobacters archical models (9) were specified with a oculation. Five packages of retail ground by polymerase chain reaction logit link, binomial distribution, restrict- beef were tested at each concentration (PCR) ed iterative generalized least square and (1690) 11) Poe or i 10 second order penalized quasi-likelihood CFU/g), and the experiment was repeat- At the same time as samples were nonlinear estimation. The outcome was ed on two separate days. Each incuba- taken for culture, ground beef from ap- whether or not a ground beef sample tion of test plates included both a nega- proximately 10% of the 1,200 packages was positive for Campylobacter spp. tive control plate and a laboratory strain collected (52 of 60 stores represented) DNA. Variables included “poultry cut- C. jejuni plate as positive control. These were frozen for subsequent DNA extrac- ting” (whether or not poultry was cut or
782 FOOD PROTECTION TRENDS | NOVEMBER 2009 TABLE 2. Unconditional analyses of risk factors for whether a sample was positive for Campylobacter spp. by direct PCR (n = 140)
Variable # of packages % packages C. spp. P-value positive at each level
28 42.9 45 46.7 47 51.1 20 35.0 City 45.0 9 55.6 22 45.5 Collection period 30 30.0 30 66.7 31 80.7 49 20.4 Frozen portions No?’ 47.6 Yes 16 31.3 Package type Lean® 86 40.7 Regular 54 53.7 Poultry cutting” No* 94 48.9 Yes 40 45.0 Trim type Coarse grind tube’ 56 41.1 Market trim 50 50.0 Both 34 47.| Weight_c < 0.499 kg? 17 35.3 0.500-0.999 kg 113 48.7 > 1.000 kg 10 30.0
°Reference category; "Data unavailable for one store (six packages) C. spp.: Campylobacter species packaged in the meat department), “trim RESULTS Twenty-seven stores used coarse ground type” (what source of ground beef was tubes, 17 stores used market trim, and used in the grinding; coarse grind tubes, Experimental inoculation 16 stores used a combination of both for market trim or a combination), “city” (1, Of the 40 ground beef samples their second in-store grind. Forty stores 2 or 3), “collection” (collection period 1, inoculated, only one sample (1 x 10 did not package or cut raw poultry in 2, 3, 4), “package type” (lean or regular CFU/g) did not yield C. jejuni. Posi- the department, 19 stores reported cut- ground beef), and “weight” (kg, the only ting or packaging some poultry prod- tive control plates and all other samples, continuous variable). The scale of the ucts (e.g. wings), and for one store data including 100% of samples inoculated “weight” variable was explored and cat- were unavailable. Fifty-six stores used with 1 x 10 CFU/g, were positive for egorized into “weight_c” (package less fresh meat only, while in four stores the than 0.5 kg, package 0.5 to 0.999 kg, C. jejuni using the study protocol. None retail ground beef may have included or package 1.0 kg or greater) to evaluate of the negative control plates grew previously frozen portions. Of the 1,200 model linearity assumptions. Random ef- Campylobacter spp. packages of retail ground beef, 726 were fects (e.g. chain or store levels) were kept lean and 474 were regular ground beef. in the model if more than one variable Prevalence survey using culture Twenty-eight packages were labeled as at that level was entered as a fixed effect, a “discount”. By weight, 121 packages if the amount of variability explained at All 60 stores reported that they did were less than 0.500 kg, 1,030 pack- a final grind of beef in-store, and that the that level was greater than 10%, or if the ages were 0.500 kg to 0.999 kg, and 49 level was believed to be important to the source beef for grinding came from local packages were greater than or equal to data structure a priori. (Alberta) slaughter plants or processors. 1.000 kg. Transport temperatures ranged
NOVEMBER 2009 | FOOD PROTECTION TRENDS 783 from 3.31°C to 9.03°C in the six sum- Campylobacter spp. by PCR. The odds able, and because viable but non cultur- mer shipments and -2.44°C to 9.42°C in of a retail ground beef package testing able Campylobacter strains may exist (8, the six winter shipments. Campylobacter positive for Campylobacter spp. DNA 23). Using the culture technique de- species were not isolated from any of the was 5.6 times greater if the package was scribed, we were able to isolate C. jejuni 1,200 packages of retail ground beef. from collection period 2 than if it was at 1X10' CFU/g in experimentally in- from collection period 1 (OR 5.6, 95% oculated ground beef samples; this level PCR detection of CI 1.8-17.5). Further, a package had 12 is below the estimated dose required for campylobacters times greater odds of testing positive for human infection (3, 14). However, none Campylobacter spp. DNA if it was from of the 1,200 packages of retail ground Of the 142 samples tested using collection period 3 than if it was from beef collected as part of this study were PCR, 65 (46%) were positive for DNA collection period 1 (OR 12.0, 95% CI culture positive for viable Campylobacter of Campylobacter spp. origin while 77 3.5—42.0). Ground beef from collection spp., an encouraging finding for public were negative (Table 1). Two of the 142 period 4 was not statistically different health in Alberta. samples tested with use of PCR could from beef from collection period 1 (OR The very low prevalence of cultur- not be linked to store or chain and were 0.6, 95% CI 0.2-2.0). able Campylobacter levels in retail ground omitted from all subsequent analyses. beef observed in this study is similar The remaining 140 ground beef samples DISCUSSION to those seen in other North American represented 52 different stores. Twelve ground beef surveys (4, 28) and lower stores had more than one meat sample The samples from this large retail than the 60-90% prevalences reported in tested from the same collection period. ground beef survey represented four dif- raw retail chicken (4, 30, 31). Ina survey Of these 12 stores, only four stores had ferent supermarket chains and three cities in the United States from 2002-2005, more than one meat sample positive for in southern Alberta. Random selection campylobacters were identified in only | DNA of Campylobacter spp. origin. Ten of packages in stores, multiple collec- of 2,073 packages of ground beef using of these 12 stores had either four or five tion periods, and limiting the number of culture (28), and a smaller Alberta survey samples from the same collection period packages purchased per store were used tested with PCR, and the most any store found zero of 100 packages positive (4). to avoid oversampling the same meat had positive for DNA of Campylobacter However, it is possible that the laborato- batches. In 2005, source beef for ground ry sensitivity of the culture method used spp. origin was two samples. beef likely came from the six federally here may not have been high enough to inspected slaughter plants in Alberta (7), pick up very low numbers of organisms. Factors associated with PCR or from provincially inspected facilities. Further, if campylobacters were suffi- detection of Campylobacter spp. Because retail chains likely purchased ciently stressed, it is possible the method meat from the same plants or processors, For one sample, data were missing was not able to resuscitate these patho- for whether or not the source store cut it was expected that variation within each gens sufficiently for growth with culture. poultry. This sample was included in risk chain would be small. As a result, only Three of the meat shipments dipped be- factor analysis, and designated ‘missing’ five packages of ground beef were pur- low the 0°C mark during shipping; how- in the “poultry” analysis. Supermarket chased from each store at each collection ever, campylobacters have been isolated chain did not explain an important part time. from ground beef frozen at -18°C for 90 of the variance in the null model (chain Hazard analysis critical control days (10), and culture recovery in our level variance 0.000, standard error points (HACCP) have been identified study did not vary between summer and 0.000) and was not included as a random and programs implemented in all fed- winter samplings. effect in the final analysis. After account- erally registered beef slaughter plants in Traditionally, PCR has been used ing for clustering within the store of ori- Canada (5). In previous surveys in cattle, to confirm isolates as campylobacters gin, only the package type and the col- poultry and swine, significant reductions rather than as a survey tool in retail
lection period variables were selected for in Campylobacter isolation rates from meat studies (13, 30, 31). This is be- consideration in the development of a fi- slaughter to post-chill have been reported cause from a food safety point of view, nal model (? < 0.25) (Table 2). None of (20, 24, 26). Protocols in cattle slaughter viable campylobacters are usually the tar- the other risk factors considered (chain, plants, including hide-on-carcass, lactic gets of interest and the identification of city, inclusion of frozen portions, on-site acid, hot water, and carcass washes, chill- Campylobacter DNA by use of PCR does poultry cutting practices, kinds of trim ing, and the ability to remove potentially not ensure viability. However, from our in the ground beef or package weight) contaminating components (e.g., hides direct PCR results, C. jejuni, C. coli, and
were associated with the odds of detect- and intestinal tracts) quickly and intact C. hyointestinalis were identified in the ing campylobacters by PCR (Table 2). may have all contributed to bacterial retail ground beef. None of the samples When package type (regular or numbers below detectable levels in the were positive for C. fetus or C. lanienae, lean) and collection period (1: Nov retail ground beef surveyed here. species which may be carried by cattle, 21-23, 2004, 2: Jan 9-11, 2005, 3: May It can be difficult to compare labo- or for C. concisus or C. upsaliensis, which 30-31, June 1, 2005, and 4: July 18-20, ratory protocols with other published are pathogens responsible for infections 2005) were examined together, only the research because many incubation and in people but are putatively not car- collection period was significantly as- temperature protocols, culture media, ried by livestock (/4, 21). Finding 27% sociated (P < 0.05) with detection of and antimicrobial supplements are avail- (38/142) of samples PCR positive for
784 FOOD PROTECTION TRENDS | NOVEMBER 2009 C. coli and only 15% (21/142) of samples cross-contamination) may have contrib- 1988. Experimental Campylobacter PCR positive for C. jejuni was interest- uted to variability between collections. jejuni infection in humans. J. Infect ing. C. jejuni is the most frequently iso- Dis. 157:472-479. lated species from cattle (11, 17), while CONCLUSIONS Bohaychuk,V. M., G.E. Gensler, R. K. C. coli is the most common Campy- King, K. |. Manninen, O. Sorensen, lobacter species found in swine (21, 24). None of the 1,200 packages were J. T. Wu, M. E. Stiles, and L. M. Stores were asked about the cutting and culture positive for campylobacters in McMullen. 2006. Occurrence of this retail ground beef survey, supporting packaging of raw poultry, but not raw pathogens in raw and ready-to-eat the adequacy of food safety practices in pork, and this may be a consideration for meat and poultry products col- the province. The prevalence of Campy- future research. lected from the retail marketplace lobacter DNA with PCR detection, in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. We initially considered that cross- however, was moderate to high (46%); J. Food Prot. 69:2 176-2182. contamination of surfaces and equip- thus continued research into potential Canadian Food Inspection Agency. ment from raw poultry cutting and interventions in the slaughter-to-retail 2007. Hazard analysis critical con- packaging in grocery stores might lead continuum could be of use. The high trol point. Food safety enhance- to ground beef contamination. However, levels of Campylobacter DNA in the beef ment program. Available at http:// 2/3 of stores did not cut poultry onsite suggest that breaks in food safety proto- www.inspection.gc.ca/english/ and brought in pre-packaged poultry cols within slaughter plants, processors fssa/polstrat/haccp/haccpe.shtml. cuts for consumers. No association was or grocery stores could have potentially Accessed |4 March 2007. found between poultry cutting and the important public health repercussions. Clark, C. G., L. Price, R. Ahmed, presence of Campylobacter DNA in retail D. L. Woodward, P. L. Melito, F. G. ground beef in the risk factor evalua- ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Rodgers, F. Jamieson, B. Ciebin, A. Li, tion. and A. Ellis. 2003. Characterization Approximately 10% of retai! ground Financial support for this study has of waterborne outbreak-associated
beef packages were tested by use of PC ak: been provided by the Agriculture Council Campylobacter jejuni, Walkerton, Initially, every 10th ground beef sample of Saskatchewan through the Advancing Ontario. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 9:1232- 1241. was selected and frozen for later testing, Canadian Agriculture and Agri-Food Sas- Cloak, O. M., G. Duffy, J. J. Sheridan, but this systematic approach did not katchewan (ACAAFS) program. Funding for the ACAAFS program is provided by I. S. Blair, and D.A. McDowell. 2001. continue for the entire study. However, A survey on the incidence of Campy- Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. We 52 of the 60 stores were represented, 60 lobacter spp. and the development also gratefully acknowledge funding and samples from winter and 82 from sum- of a surface adhesion polymerase support from the Natural Sciences and mer were selected, and samples were chain reaction (SA-PCR) assay for Engineering Research Council (NSERC; tested from all chains and most stores in the detection of Campylobacter A. Potter holds an NSERC Senior In- all three cities. Hierarchical models were jejuni in retail meat products. Food dustrial Research Chair in food and likely hampered by the small sample size Microbiol. |8:287—298. water safety vaccines), Agriculture and tested with PCR (n = 142). However, Corry, J. E. L., D. E. Post, P. Colin, Agri-Food Canada (Lethbridge Research individual collection periods were associ- and M. J. Laisney. 1995. Culture Centre, AAFC-LRC), BC Cattlemen's media for the isolation of campy- ated with the presence of Campylobacter Association, Vétoquinol and the Western lobacters. Int. J. Food Microbiol. spp. The results did not indicate a season- College of Veterinary Medicine Interpro- 26:43-76. al difference, as one winter and one sum- vincial Graduate Student Fellowship. Dohoo, |, W. Martin, and H. Stryhn. mer collection period were significantly Special thanks to C. Reiman, G. Crock- 2003. Veterinary epidemiologic different from the others. However, these ford, N. Rawlyk (VIDO) and K. House research. AVC Inc., Charlottetown, findings do indicate that differing levels (AAFC-LRC) for technical assistance. Prince Edward Island, 459-543. of Campylobacter spp. contamination Grigoriadis, S. G., PA. Koidis, K. P. may occur between slaughter and retail REFERENCES Vareltzis, and C. A. Batzios. 1997. sale. Descriptive analyses found that Survival of Campylobacter jejuni |. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. from the five packages collected at the inoculated in fresh and frozen beef 2006. Livestock market review, same store on the same day, one pack- hamburgers stored under various Table 23 (2005 data). Animal In- age might be positive for Campylobacter temperatures and atmospheres. dustry Division, Red Meat Section, DNA and the others negative. This may J. Food Prot. 60:903—907. Ottawa, ON. Hannon, S. J., B. Allan, C. Waldner, reflect differing package contamination Besser,T. E., J. T. LeJeune, D. H. Rice, M.L. Russell, A. Potter, L.A. Babiuk, levels, within package Campylobacter dis- J. Berg, R. P. Stilborn, K. Kaya,W. Bae, and H.G.G. Townsend. 2009. Preva- tribution (as only | g of ground beef was and D.D. Hancock. 2005. Increasing lence and risk factor investigation of collected from the centre of each pack- prevalence of Campylobacter jejuni Campylobacter species in beef cattle age), or possible dilution effects from the in feedlot cattle through the feed- feces from seven large commercial PCR process. Further, variables within ing period. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. feedlots in Alberta, Canada. Can. the control of slaughter plants, proces- 71:5752-5758. J.Vet. Res. (in press). sors or grocery meat departments (e.g., Black, R. E.,M.M. Levine, M. L. Cle- Hannon, S. J., E. N. Taboada, M. L. carcass cleanliness, hygiene practices, ments, T. P. Hughes, and M. J. Blaser. Russell, B. Allan, C. Waldner, H. L.
NOVEMBER 2009 | FOOD PROTECTION TRENDS 785 Wilson, A. Potter, L.A. Babiuk, and . McDermott, J. J., and Y. H. Schuk- . Son, |. M. D. Englen, M. E. Berrang, H. G. G. Townsend. 2009. Genom- ken. 1994. A review of methods P. J. Fedorka-Cray, and M. A. ics-based molecular epidemiology used to adjust for cluster effects in Harrison. 2007. Prevalence of Arco- of Campylobacter jejuni isolates from explanatory epidemiological studies bacter and Campylobacter on broiler feedlot cattle and from people in of animal populations. Prev. Vet. Med. carcasses during processing. Int. Alberta, Canada. J. Clin. Microbiol. 18:155-173. J. Food Microbiol. | 13:16—22. 47:410-20. . Minihan, D., P Whyte, M. O’Mahony, . Statistics Canada. 2007. Summary . Hong, J., J. M. Kim, W. K. Jung, S. Fanning, K. McGill, and J. D. Col- Table: Population by year, by pro- S. H. Kim, W. Bae, H. C. Koo, J. Gil, lins. 2004. Campylobacter spp. in Irish vince and territory [as of July | M. Kim, J. Ser, and Y. H. Park. 2007. feedlot cattle: A longitudinal study (2005 data)]. Available at http:// Prevalence and antibiotic resistance involving pre-harvest and harvest www.statcan.gc.ca. Accessed 14 of Campylobacter spp. isolated from phases of the food chain. J. Vet. Med. March 2009. chicken meat, pork, and beef in 51:28-33. . U.S. Food and Drug Administra- Korea, from 2001 to 2006. J. Food . Moore,].E.,D.Corcoran,].S. Dooley, tion. 2006. National antimicro- Prot. 70:860-866. S. Fanning, B. Lucey, M. Matsuda, bial resistance monitoring system . Humphrey, T. J., S. O’Brien, and D. A. McDowell, F. Megraud, B. C. for enteric bacteria (NARMS) M. Madsen. 2007. Campylobacters Millar, R. O’Mahony, L. O’Riordan, 2005 Retail meat annual report. as zoonotic pathogens: A food M. O'Rourke, J. R. Rao, P. J. Rooney, Available at http://www.fda.gov/ production perspective. Int. J. Food A. Sails, and P-Whyte. 2005. Campy- cvm/2005NARMSAnnualRpt.htm. Microbiol. | 17:237—257. lobacter Vet. Res. 36:35 |—382. Accessed 14 March 2009. . Inglis, G. D., and L. D. Kalischuk. . Nielsen, E. M.,V. Fussing, J. Engberg, . Whyte, P., K. McGill, D. Cowley, 2003. Use of PCR for direct detec- N.L. Nielsen, and J. Neimann. 2005. R. H. Madden, L. Moran, P. Scates, tion of Campylobacter species in Most Campylobacter subtypes from C. Carroll, A. O'Leary, S. Fanning, bovine feces. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. sporadic infections can be found in and J. D. Collins. 2004. Occurrence 69:3435-3447. retail poultry products and food of Campylobacter in retail foods . Inglis, G. D., L. D. Kalischuk, and animals. Epidemiol. Infect. 134:758- in Ireland. Int. J. Food Microbiol. H.W. Busz. 2004. Chronic shedding 767. 95:1 11-118. of Campylobacter species in beef cat- . Oliver, J. D. 2005. The viable but . Wong, T., L. Hollis, A. Cornelius, tle. J. Appl. Microbiol. 97:4 10-420. nonculturable state in bacteria. C. Nicol, R. Cook, and J. Hudson. . Inglis, G. D., D. W. Morck, T. A. J. Microbiol. 43:93—100. 2007. Prevalence, numbers, and McAllister, T. Entz, M. E. Olson, L. J. . Pearce, R.A., F M. Wallace, J. E. subtypes of Campylobacter jejuni Yanke, and R. R. Read. 2006. Temp- Call, R. L. Dudley, A. Oser, L Yoder, and Campylobacter coli in uncooked oral prevalence of antimicrobial re- J. J. Sheridan, and J. B. Luchan- retail meat samples. J. Food Prot. sistance in Campylobacter spp. from sky. 2003. Prevalence of Campy- 70:566-573. beef cattle in Alberta feedlots. Appl. lobacter within a swine slaughter . Zhao, C., B. Ge, J. De Villena, Environ. Microbiol. 72:4088—4095. and processing facility. |. Food Prot. R. Sudler, E.Yeh, S. Zhao, D. G.White, . Manning, G., C. G. Dowson, M. C. 66:1550-1556. D. Wagner, and J. Meng. 2001. Pre- Bagnall, |. H. Ahmed, M. West, and . Public Health Agency of Canada. valence of Campylobacter spp., D. G. Newell. 2003. Multilocus 2007. Notifiable diseases summary Escherichia coli, and Salmonella sequence typing for comparison of (Preliminary) (Concluded): New serovars in retail chicken, turkey, veterinary and human isolates of cases report from | October to pork and beef from the Greater Campylobacter jejuni. Appl. Environ. 31 December 2006. Can. Commun. Washington, D.C.,area. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 69:6370-6379. Dis. Rep. 33:33. Microbiol. 67:543 |-5436.
786 FOOD PROTECTION TRENDS | NOVEMBER 2009 Food Protection Trends, Vol. 29, No. 11, Pages 787-792 International Association tor 2009, International Association for Food Protection Food Protection 6200 Aurora Ave., Suite 200W, Des Moines, 1A 50322-2864
Consumer Storage Period and Temperature for Peanut Butter and Their Effects on Survival of Salmonella and Escherichia coli O157:H7
A. KILONZO-NTHENGE," E. ROTICH,' S$. GODWIN! and T. HUANG? ‘School of Agriculture and Consumer Science, Tennessee State University, 3500 John A. Merritt Blvd., Nashville, TN 37209 USA; 7Auburn University, Auburn, AL 36849, USA
INTRODUCTION ABSTRACT Foodborne pathogens have a sig- Recent recurrence of Salmonella contamination of peanut nificant impact on the food processing butter has become a serious food safety concern for consumers. industry, consumers, and _ regulatory A study was conducted to identify storage periods and agencies. In the past, most outbreaks of temperature conditions of peanut butter in domestic kitchens Salmonella and Escherichia coli O157:H7 and to determine the effects of those storage periods and have been linked to consumption of conditions on survival of Salmonella and Escherichia coli O.157:H7. animal products such as meat, poultry, and eggs (17). However, the presence Surveys assessed consumer storage periods of peanut butter in of Salmonella and E. coli 0157:H7 in 150 households in Middle Tennessee. To simulate consumers’ non-animal products has emerged as a peanut butter storage conditions, Salmonella and E. coliO157:H7 serious food safety concern. Foods low were inoculated in peanut butter and held at 4 and 25°C for in water activity, such as chocolate and up to I5 weeks. Initial populations of Salmonella and E. coli cheese, have been implicated in Salmo- O157:H7 in peanut butter were 4.78 CFU/g and 5.56 CFU/g, nella outbreaks (5). Several reports have respectively. After 15 weeks of storage at 4°C, Salmonella and suggested that Salmonella in foods with E. coli O157:H7 populations had decreased to 3.72 and 2.73 log low water activity and high lipid content tend to have increased resistance to heat CFU/g, respectively.A significantly higher reduction (P < 0.05) of (8, 9, TI). Salmonella and E. coli O157:H7 was observed in peanut butter In 1996, an outbreak of Salmonella stored at 25°C than in that stored at 4°C for the same duration. Mbandaka infection in Australia was as- Our results indicate that post-process contamination of peanut sociated with peanut butter, a food of butter with Salmonella and E. coliO157:H7 may result in survival low water activity (16). Salmonella Ago- of these pathogens during their shelf life, posing health risks to na infection has also been linked to con- consumers. sumption of peanut butter-coated savory in England and Israel (10, 18). In 2007, a multistate outbreak of Sa/monella Ten- A peer-reviewed article nessee associated with peanut butter con- sumption was reported in 47 states (3). * Author for correspondence: Phone: 615.963.5437; Fax: 615.963.1557 This was the first reported outbreak of E-mail: [email protected]
NOVEMBER 2009 | FOOD PROTECTION TRENDS 787 TABLE I. mers with different education levels who store pe butter < 2 to > 24 weeks
Percentage of consumers who store peanut butter for:
Education level < 2 weeks 24 weeks 5-12 weeks 13-24 weeks > 24 weeks
< High school 1.7 3.4 5.0 1.7 0.8 High school a 92 5.0 a5 3.4 Some college 5.0 te 13.4 0.8 3.4 Bachelors or higher he 10.1 11.8 5.0 4.2 foodborne illness caused by peanut but- churches, and community organiza- Science, Auburn, Alabama, USA) and ter consumption in the United States, tions. Researchers contacted the subjects have been linked to foodborne illnesses in with at least 625 cases. Another major and used a script/screener to determine the past. Information on the survival of Salmonella Typhimurium outbreak as- eligibility. In each household, the person these organisms in peanut butter is lack- sociated with peanut butter occurred in mainly responsible for food purchase, ing. To test for ability to maintain genes 2008-2009, with at least 486 people storage, and preparation, and at least 18 associated with antibiotic resistance, involved in 44 states (4, 15). Therefore, years old, was interviewed. To mirror antibiotic-resistant Sa/monella and E. coli Salmonella contamination of peanut but- the general population, the participants O157:H7 strains were grown in a series ter continues to be a challenge in the were in the following categories: less of broth-to-agar media inoculated with United States, as suggested by these re- than high school, (13.3%), high school the respective antibiotics (Salmonella, cent outbreaks. diploma (26%), bachelor’s degree or 100 ppm nalidixic acid; FE. coliO157:H7, Peanuts are the main ingredient higher (32%), and some college (28.7). 200 ppm nalidixic acid and 0.025 ppm in peanut butter, and contamination of Most respondents had incomes between novobiocin; Sigma, St. Louis, MO). peanuts with Salmonella or other food- $15,000 and $75,000 a year. The survey Bacterial cell cultures were main- borne pathogens is possible during questionnaire inquired about consumers’ tained on Tryptic Soy Agar (TSA, Difco, growth, harvest, transportation, and even peanut butter purchasing, storage con- Lawrence, Kansas) plates and subjected storage (/ 1). Thermal processing of peanut ditions, and storage period. Consumers to two successive transfers into 10 ml butter might not always eliminate Sa/mon- were also questioned whether they ever ‘Tryptic Soy Broth (TSB) and incubation ella (17), and post-process contamination threw away peanut butter after a certain at 37°C for 20 h. Cells were harvested during repackaging may lead to its pres- period of storage and if so, why. by centrifugation (3,500 x g, 15 min) ence at the point of consumption (2). at 4°C and washed three times in But- Because of the frequency of outbreaks of Laboratory simulation of terfield’s phosphate buffer (BPB). Bac- Salmonella associated with peanut butter consumer peanut butter terial cell pellets were resuspended in and the associated substantial economic 5 ml of sterile BPB and combined to storage conditions burden on society, additional studies on form a three serotype cocktail for each consumers’ peanut butter storage condi- Storage periods and temperatures of bacterium. Concentration levels of each tions are needed. In addition, the surviv- peanut butter in domestic kitchens and cocktail were quantified by spread plating al of E. coli 0157: H7 in peanut butter their effects on the survival of Salmonella 100 pl onto TSA plates inoculated with has not been evaluated. F. coli O157:H7 the appropriate antibiotics for Salmonella and E. coli O157:H7 were eV aluated in has a low infective dose (/9) and is one a laboratory setting. Peanut butter was and E. coli selection. To facilitate recov- of the most serious foodborne known ery and eliminate background flora, anti- contaminated with Sa/monella and E. pathogens (/, 12). Therefore, this study biotic-resistant strains of Sa/monella (100 coliO157:H7 and thereafter stored either recruited participants from the general ppm nalidixic acid) and F. coli O157:H7 at room or refrigeration temperature to public to gain a better understanding of (200 ppm nalidixic acid; 0.025 ppm no- simulate consumers’ storage conditions. preferred duration and storage tempera- vobiocin) were used. tures of peanut butter in consumers’ do- Preparation of bacterial cell mestic kitchens, and of how these condi- Inoculation of peanut butter suspension tions affect the survival of Sa/monella and with Salmonella and E. coli E. coliO157:H7. S. Mission (isolated from rectal O157:H7 swabs), S. Typhimurium (associated with MATERIAL AND METHODS peanut butter), S. Enteritidis (isolated Commercially processed jars of peanut butter were purchased at a lo- Survey of consumer storage from human feces), E. coli O157:H7 cal grocery store. Creamy peanut but- of peanut butter 204P (pork isolate), F. coli O157:H7 301C (chicken isolate), and FE. coli ter (Kroger Co., Cincinnati, OH) listed A total of 150 households in Middle O157:H7 505B (beef isolate) were used ingredients were: roasted peanuts, sugar, Tennessee participated in this study. Par- in this study. These bacterial strains 2% molasses, fully hydrogenated veg- ticipants were recruited through posted were obtained from Auburn University etable oils (rapeseed, cottonseed, and flyers at senior housing communities, (Department of Nutrition and Food soybean) and salt. Peanut butter sam-
788 FOOD PROTECTION TRENDS | NOVEMBER 2009 FIGURE |. Percentage by income of participants who purchased peanut butter. sponsible for food purchase, storage, and A, less than $15,000; B, 15,000 — 34,000; C, 35,000 — 49,000; D, 50,000 — 79,000; preparation in each household, and for E, $75,000 and above the most part, this person tended to be female. Most respondents had incomes between $15,000 and $75,000 a year (Fig. 1). Findings from this study indi- cate that a Salmonella or E. coliO157:H7 outbreak associated with peanut butter consumption could affect consumers re
gardless of income levels.
NO WO W = ao oOwm oa In this study, 1.3% of the partici- pants had children under 2 years of age, o and 20% were adults over 60 years of (%) income Percentage age. Persons affected by the recent Sal- monella Ty phimurium outbreak associat- ed with peanut butter ranged in age from < 1 to 98 years (4). Participants in this income range study were within this age range; it must be borne in mind that immunocompro- mised individuals, as well as the old and ples (100 g) were placed in sterile 500- added. To achieve homogeneous suspen- young, are at increased risk for foodborne ‘ ; 5 )2 ml glass beakers and kept in a heated SIONS, samples were pummeled at 250 illness. Previous reports have shown that water bath at 44°C. Warm water resulted rpm for 2 ) minutes. Aliquots (1 ml) of Salmonella infections can lead to severe in less viscous peanut butter and there- the homogeneous samples were plated and potentially fatal conditions such as fore minimized large pockets of inocu- (pour plate) onto TSA plates that con bacteremia, septic arthritis, meningitis, lum in the peanut butter. Each bacterial tained the appropriate antibiotic. The and pneumonia, especially in infants and cocktail (1 ml) was added separately to plates were incubated at 37°C for 20 immunocompromised hosts (6). different batches of peanut butter and h. Salmonella was confirmed by plating Our results suggest that 87% and mixed with sterile spatula. Four 100-g typical colonies on xylose-lysine-tergitol of the householders stored pea- ¢ agar plates and by using the Reveal for portions of contaminated peanut but- nut butter at room temperature and Salmonella complete System- SC (Neo- ter were pooled into sterile blenders to at refrigeration temperatures, respectively. gen, Lansing, MI). The MacConkey agar form six 400-g peanut butter samples, Consumers’ commonly used areas fot plates and Reveal for F. coli O.157:H7 20 each contaminated with Sa/monella and storage of peanut butter included: cabi- h complete systems were used to confirm 20 E. coliO157:H7. To ensure uniform dis- nets (80%), inside refrigerators (13%), E. coli O1\57:117. tribution of the inoculums, the pooled top of refrigerators (4%), counter tops peanut butter samples were stirred for (1%), ledge of a window (1%) and on Statistical analysis t minutes. The achieved concentrations dinner or breakfast table (1%). The du ration of consumers’ peanut butter stor- of Salmonella and E. coli O157:H7 in All experiments were performed in age ranged from less than weeks to the peanut butter samples were 4.78 triplicate. Means were analyzed by one about 6 months. The storage period of and 5.56 log CFU/g, respectively. An way ANOVA, followed by the Tukey peanut butter was independent of edu- other set of 400-g peanut butter samples test. Significance implies P < 0.05 unless cation level and age group; there was no were contaminated with antibiotic-sen- stated otherwise. association betw een education level and sitive Salmonella (4.74 log CFU/g) and E. coli Q\57:H7 (5.05 log CFU/g) to storage period or between age and stor- RESULTS AND DISCUSSION age period (Tables 1, 2). During those compare their survival capacity with storage times, some consumers ate all that of antibiotic-resistant mutants. All Consumer survey of peanut the peanut butter purchased while others samples were aseptically transferred to butter storage threw away part of it for specific reasons. sterile jars and stored at either 25 (room Peanut butter, which is found in Some prominent reasons why consum- temperature) or 4°C (refrigeration tem- about 75% of American homes, is con- ers discarded peanut butter were: (1) the perature) for up to 15 weeks. sidered by many to be a staple like bread peanut butter “smelled funny” (5%); (2) and milk. Peanut butter is spread on a there was a peanut butter recall (7.5%) Microbial analysis slice of bread, is melted into a soup, and especially due to a Sa/monella Typhimu- Jars of contaminated peanut butter finds its way into everything from break- rium outbreak, and (3) the peanut butter were opened every week and analyzed fast to dessert. In our study, 80% of the was too old to eat (16%). Commercial for detectable Salmonella and E. coli participants consumed peanut butter in peanut butter requires no refrigeration O157:H7. Approximately 25-g samples their households; most surveyed were fe- and can be kept up to SIX months after of peanut butter were placed in sterile male (76%) rather than male (24%). The opening. Unopened jars can be stored stomacher bags and 225 ml of BPB was survey targeted the person mainly re- up to one year in a cool, dark location.
NOVEMBER 2009 | FOOD PROTECTION TRENDS 789 TABLE 2. Percentage of consumers at different age groups who store peanut butter for < 2 to > 24 weeks
Percentage of consumers who store peanut butter for:
< 2 weeks 2-4 weeks 5—12 weeks 13-24 weeks > 24 weeks
hd a 10.1 0.8 25 5.9 8.4 5.9 5.0 3.4 6.7 10.1 11.8 4.2 4.2 0.0 1.7 3.4 0.0 0.8 0.0 2.5 4.2 0.0 0.8
TABLE 3. Populations of Salmonella and E. coli O157:H7 in peanut butter stored at 4 and 25°C for up to 15 weeks
Population (log CFU/g)? over storage time (weeks) of:
Storage Temperature £ 3 6 9 12
Salmonella 4°C 4.72” 4.61” 4.53” 4.17% 3.90™
aX 3.83” 355" 3.23" 2.67" 1.81” E. coli O157:H7
4°C 3.47% a IA" az" ae 2.837 L137
= C 2.82” 2.61" ye 1.30% 1.10% ND ND
‘Initial population of Salmonella was 4.78 log CFU/g; initial population of E. coli O157:H7 was 5.56 log CFU/g. *bMean values (log CFU/g) in the same column within pathogen that are not followed by the same letter(s) are significantly different (P < 0.05). *YMean values in the same row within pathogen that are not followed by the same letter are significantly different ( P < 0.05).
The results of this study raise concerns were detected in uncontaminated pea- and 15 weeks of peanut butter storage at in that peanut butter recalled because of nut butter (control). Populations of 4°C, Salmonella populations were signifi- a Salmonella Typhimurium outbreak was Salmonella and E. coli O157:H7 in in- cantly (P< 0.05) lower than populations mentioned by about 7.5% of consumers oculated peanut butter stored at either noted during the first 6 weeks of storage surveyed in our study. Our results obvi- 4 or 25°C is shown in Tables 3. The of the peanut butter. When the Reveal ously indicate that extended periods of initial populations of Salmonella and for Salmonella complete System kit was storage time of contaminated peanut E. coli O0157:H7 in peanut butter were used, the presence of Salmonella was con- butter pose risks of foodborne disease to 4.78 CFU/g and 5.56 CFU/g, respec- firmed in peanut butter at weeks 12 and 15 (Table 3). Storage of peanut butter consumers. tively. All reductions were tabulated in reference to the initial concentrations of at 4°C resulted in the least reduction tested pathogens. of Salmonella, which ranged from 0.06 Viability of Salmonella and There was no significant (P < 0.05) to 1.06 log CFU/g, compared with the E. coli O157:H7 under simulated difference in Salmonella reduction within peanut butter stored at 25°C. Generally, reductions of Salmonella were signifi- domestic kitchen conditions weeks 1, 2 and 3 of peanut butter stor- age at 4°C (Table 3). However, Sa/mo- cantly (P < 0.05) higher at 25°C than at Viable Salmonella and E. coli O157: nella reductions of approximately 0.95 to 4°C for up to 15 weeks (Table 3). These H7 cells recovered were entirely attrib- 4.00 log CFU/g of tested peanut butter results are in agreement with the report uted to the inoculated peanut bait no samples were observed during storage of Burnett et al. (2) that Salmonella traces of Salmonella or E. coli O157:H7 at room temperature (25°C). At 9, 12, deaths were more prevalent in butters
790 FOOD PROTECTION TRENDS | NOVEMBER 2009 and spreads stored at 21°C than in those stored at 21°C, compared to 4°C (7). It ilities must have in place Food Safety stored at 5°C. is most probable that at 25°C, the con- Programs to eliminate and control food- The pattern of EF. coli O157:H7 ditions are highly conducive to bacterial borne pathogens in the product. reduction was generally similar to that growth in the peanut butter, resulting in of Salmonella (Table 3). The EF. coli accelerated growth and hence attainment ACKNOWLEDGMENTS O157:H7 reductions in samples stored of a stationary phase sooner than when for 1, 2, 3, weeks at 25°C were 2.74, storage is at 4°C. This study was supported by US 2.95, and 3.33 log CFU/g, respectively It is well documented that storage Department of Agriculture (USDA). (Table 3). When stored much longer, to temperature of colloidal food products The authors thank Cindy Thomp- 9 weeks at 25°C, E. coli O157:H7 re- influence the availability of Sa/monella son and Lou Pearson for their help in the ductions in the peanut butter were sig- (13). In our study, Salmonella and E. coli field portions of this work. nificantly higher (P < 0.05) than those of O157:H7 were detected in the peanut peanut butter stored at 25°C for 1, 2 and butter throughout the storage period. REFERENCES 3 weeks (4.46 log CFU/g vs 2.74, 2.95 These findings give cause for concern, and 3.33 log CFU/g, respectively). because previous reports have shown 1. Blanco, M., J. E. Blanco, A. Mora, Overall, E. coli O157:H7 cell count that consumption of even very low num- J. Rey, J. M. Alonso, M. Hermoso, reductions of peanut butter stored at 4°C bers of Salmonella or E. coli O157:H7 J. Hermoso, M. P. Alonso, G. Dahbi, ranged from 2.73 to 3.53 log CFU/g can cause disease (/6). It has also been E.A.Gonzalez, M. |. Bernardez, and (Table 3). The E. coliO157:H7 was con- pointed out that during thermal process- J. Blanco. 2003. Serotypes, viru- firmed by the Reveal for EF. coliO157:H7 ing of products such as peanut butter, lence genes, and intimin types of 20 h complete system method at 12 and foodborne pathogens are expected to be Shigatoxin (verotoxin)-producing 15 weeks of peanut butter storage. F. coli eliminated, but post-process contamina- Escherichia coli isolates from healthy sheep in Spain. J. Clin Microbiol. O157:H7 reductions were significantly tion may take place during repackaging 41:1351-1356. (P < 0.05) higher with storage at 25°C or with use of ingredients in other food Burnett, S. L., E. R. Gehm, W. R. than at 4°C for up to 15 weeks of pea- products not subjected to conditions suf- Weissinger, and L.R. Beuchat. 2000. nut butter storage. These observations ficient to kill the pathogens (2). Personal Survival of Salmonella in peanut but- are in agreement with previous reports hygiene as well as cross-contamination ter and peanut butter spread. Appl. (20) that E. coli O157:H7 reductions of finished products with raw materials Microbiol. 89:472-477. in mayonnaise were higher when stor- and unsanitary equipment are significant Centers for Disease Control age was at room temperature (25°C) fundamentals in controlling the contam- and Prevention. 2007. Multistate than when storage was at refrigeration ination of food products with pathogens outbreak of Salmonella serotype temperature (4°C). Antibiotic-sensitive Sal- and spoilage microorganisms (14). Tennessee infections associated monella cell counts in samples stored for with peanut butter—United States, 6 and 15 weeks at 25°C were 3.37 and CONCLUSIONS 2006-2007. Morb. Mortal. Weekly 1.72 log CFU/g, respectively. After 6 and Rep. 21:56(21):521-524. 15 weeks at 25°C, antibiotic-sensitive Salmonella grows over a wide range Centers for Disease Control and E. coli O157:H7 showed cell counts of of temperatures and will survive long pe- Prevention. 2009. Investigation 2.73 and 1.01 log CFU/g, respectively. riods of dehydration. As demonstrated Update: Outbreak of Salmonella Survival capacity of antibiotic-resistant in our results, Salmonella and E. coli Typhimurium Infections, 2008-2009. mutant strains exhibited slower growth O157:H7 can survive in contaminated Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/sal- rates, compared with antibiotic-sensitive peanut butter stored at room and refrig- monella/typhimurium/update.html. strains. These results suggest that the use erated temperatures for long periods of Accessed 22 February, 2009. of antibiotic resistance as a selective mark- time and therefore, can pose a health risk D’Aoust, J.Y., D. W. Warburton, and A. M. Sewell. 1985. Salmonella er could present different growth rates to consumers. To minimize or eliminate Typhimurium phage-type 10 from in laboratory media and show different such risks in peanut butter, Food Safety cheddar cheese implicated in a ma- resistance to stresses. This possibly will Programs (FSP) should be imposed in jor Canadian foodborne outbreak. peanut butter processing facilities. Such result in overestimates of any treatment, J. Food Prot. 48:1062—1066. Salmonella, such as heat, against antibiotic-sensitive actions would eliminate 6. Hohmann, E. L. Nontyphoidal sal- Salmonella and E. coli O157:H7. E. coli O157:H7 or other foodborne monellosis. 2001. Clin. Infect. Dis. Findings in this report indicate pathogens. In addition, plant sanitation 32:263-269. that post-process contamination of and verification of any heat processes are Holliday, S. L., and L. R. Beuchat. peanut butter with Sa/monella and E. coli crucial and must be key components of 2003. Viability of Salmonella, O157:H7 may result in survival of these an inclusive FSP to ensure food safety Escherichia coli O157:H7,and Listeria pathogens during their shelf life. This to the public. More research on the sur- monocytogenes in yellow fat spreads premise is in agreement with previous vival of foodborne pathogens in peanut as affected by storage temperature. studies showing that Sa/monella popula- butter will be of great importance to J. Food Prot. 66:549-58. tions decreased more rapidly in peanut the food industry and will translate 8. Juneja, V. K., and B. S. Eblen. 2000. butter at 22°C than at 4°C storage (13). to fewer recalls of products, recaptur- Heat inactivation of Salmonella Similar results were observed when Sal- ing of lost prestige and improvement Typhimurium DT104 in beef as monella populations decreased more of the income potential of the food affected by fat content. Lett. Appl. rapidly in a butter and margarine blend industry. Peanut butter processing fac- Microbiol. 30:46 |—467.
NOVEMBER 2009 | FOOD PROTECTION TRENDS 791 . Juneja, V. K., B. S. Eblen, and H. M. . Park, E.J.,S.W. Oh, and D. H. Kang. . Shachar, D., and S. Yaron. 2006. Marks. 2001. Modeling nonlinear 2008. Fate of Salmonella Tennessee Heat tolerance of Salmonella survival curves to calculate thermal in peanut butter at 4 and 22°C. enterica, serovars agona, Enteritidis, inactivation of Salmonella in poultry J. Food Sci. 73:M82—M86. and Typhimurium in peanut butter. of different fat levels. Int. J. Food Mi- . Raghubeer, E.V., J. S. Ke, M. L. J. Food Prot. 69:2687—269 |. crobiol. 70:37—5 |. Campbell, and R. S. Meyer. 1995. 18. Shohat, M.,S. Green,and D.Marom. . Killalea, D., L. R. Ward, and Fate of Escherichia coli O157:H7 1996. International epidemiological D. Roberts. 1996. International and other coliforms in commercial and microbiological study of out- epidemiological and microbiologi- mayonnaise and refrigerated salad break of Salmonella agona infection cal study of outbreak of Salmonella dressing. J. Food Prot. 58:|3-18. from a ready-to-eat savory snack. agona infection from a ready-to-eat Il: Israel. Br. Med. J. 313:1 107-1109. savory snack. |: England and Wales . Ricardo, A. Z., and G. Bluestein. . Strachan, N. J. C., M. P. Doyle, and the United States. Br. Med J. 2009. Salmonella outbreak in F. Kasuga, O. Rotariu,and D. Ogden. 313:1 105-1107. peanut butter leads to one of . Mattick, K.L.,F Jorgensen,}.D.Legan, nation’s largest ever recalls. Avail- 2005. Dose response modeling of H. M. Lappin-Scott, and T. J. Hum- able at (http://www.huffington- Escherichia coli 0157 incorporating phrey. 2000. Habituation of Salmo- post.com/2009/01/28/salmonella- data from foodborne and envi- nella spp. at reduced water activity outbreak-in-pe_n_162057.html). ronmental outbreaks. Int. J. Food and its effect on heat tolerance. Appl. Accessed 24 February, 2009. Microbiol. 103:35—47. Environ. Microbiol. 66:492 |—4925. . Scheil W., S. Cameron, C. Dalton, . Weagant, S., J. Bryant, and D. Bark. . Meng J., M. P. Doyle, T. Zhao, and C. Murray, and D. Wilson. 1998. 1994. Survival of Escherichia coli S. Zhao. 2001. Enterohemorrhag- A South Australian Salmonella mban- O157:H7 in mayonnaise and may- ic Escherichia coli, p. 193-213. In daka outbreak investigation using onnaise-based sauces at room and M. P. Doyle, L. R. Beuchat, and T. J. a database to select controls. Aust. refrigerated temperatures. J. Food Montville (Eds.), Food microbiology: N.Z. J. Public Health 22:536-539. Prot. 57:629-631. fundamentals and frontiers, second ed.ASM Press, Washington, D.C.
Pathogens and Toxins in Foods
CHALLENGES AND INTERVENTIONS
Editors: Vijay K. Juneja, John N. Sofos
+ po ogens and Ic n _ Foods: Ard Chalienges {har _ + ar sri i nterver + + tions offers a fa rm-to-table approach to food safety that enables readers to control microbial pathogens and toxic n + ts at all stages of the food supply chain. The book vith chapters that help re understand the char- acteristics of specific pathogens and toxins, t illnesses they cause, and the factors suc h as food processing operations We extend our deepest sympathy that affect their survival and growth in food products. to the family of Carol Adair who Further, the chapters in > the most recent aavances In biological, chemical, and physical interventions to recently passed away. IAFP will control food-borne hazards during preharvest, harvest, food processing, and in retail ready-to-eat foods, and food service always have sincere gratitude for her operations. Also included are chapters that discuss the latest contribution to the Association and methods to rapidly detect food-borne pathogens as well as the implementation of comprehensive food safety manage- the profession. Ms. Adair has been ment systems. a member of IAFP since 2008. October 2009. Hardcover. ISBN: 978-1-55581-459-5, 527 pages est., illustrations, index. List price: $189.95; ASM member price: $169.95
WEB: http:// * CALL: 800-546-2416 or 703-661-1593 ¢ WRITE TO: ASM Press, P. 0. Box 605, Herndon, VA 20172, USA * FAX: 703-661-1501
792 FOOD PROTECTION TRENDS | NOVEMBER 2009 GENERAL INTEREST PAPER
History of Consumer Food Safety Education Focus on Beef: Impact on Risk of Foodborne Iliness
CHRISTINE M. BRUHN Center for Consumer Research, Dept. of Food Science and Technology, University of California—Davis, Davis, CA 95616, USA
EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS pathogens such as Clostridium SUMMARY botulinum and Salmonella are Food safety education is In the past, food safety mentioned, but pathogenic E. coli is delivered by the federal government not identified. The authors state that topics of public concern through the US Food and Drug the most important factors to prevent appeared to be limited to Administration (FDA) and the US foodborne illness are the application chemical contamination, Department of Agriculture (USDA). of heat, adequate refrigeration, safe pesticide residues, and the States are involved in development thawing, length of storage, storage occasional case of stomach and delivery of educational programs conditions, and proper sanitation. flu that made the victim through Cooperative Extension at Details are provided on appropriate miserable for a few hours. land grant institutions. Food industry refrigerator temperature and In recent years, the public organizations engage in general storage time; however, end cooking has come to recognize that or product-specific information temperatures are indicated only for microbiological safety can on safe handling, often combined stuffed turkey. have serious, long-term with guidelines on selection and Information from the FDA consequences. This paper preparation for flavorful dishes. food safety material in the early Since the late 1990s, a partnership traces the history of consumer 1980s is more extensive than that of educators and government, food safety educational in college-level textbooks, but food industry, and non-government programs over the past three food safety guidelines lack specific organizations has played a major details that would result in safe decades by examining food role in defining and delivering food safety references and the handling. For example, “Who, Why, safety information. When and Where of Food Poisons content of educational (And What to Do about Them)” material published in the FDA Consumer Over this period, advice FOOD SAFETY OVER THE DECADES reports that Sa/monella could be to the consumer has evolved found in raw meat (10). To prevent from general guidelines to Awareness of pathogens and foodborne illness, readers are specific targeted messages. food safety messages has evolved advised to handle food in a sanitary Changes in consumer know- over the past three decades. manner, cook foods thoroughly, and ledge and behavior, as Textbooks used in college and promptly and properly refrigerate indicated by surveys and university food science classes foods. Similarly, the discussion actual observation, indicate designed for home economists and of staphylococcal food poisoning that programs have had a dietitians provide only a cursorily indicates that a toxin is formed when positive but limited effect. overview of food safety. Classic food, including meat, is held at room These findings suggest textbooks published in the 1950s and temperature for too long. Advice for that additional measures 1960s address the chemical, physical preventing this condition, the same are required by the food and nutritional changes that take general precautions associated with production/processing and place in food during food preparation Salmonella control, is repeated here. retail/food service industries but do not address food safety(13, People are advised to handle food to reduce the incidence of 20, 25). Botulism, staphylococcal in a sanitary manner with prompt food poisoning, salmonellosis and and proper refrigeration. Because life-threatening foodborne Clostridium perfringens are briefly details of handling are not specified, illness. While this article mentioned by Bennion in 1980 (72). consumer adoption of effective food focuses on ground beef, the Amore extensive discussion of food handling practices is unlikely. findings apply to many food safety is included in Foundations Food safety material developed categories, including fresh of Food Preparation, which was by USDA ten years later is more produce. published in 1987 (79). Major specific. The publication, /s entices lll
NOVEMBER 2009 | FOOD PROTECTION TRENDS 793 Someone You Know at Risk for In 1991, the FDA also provided lists the recommended end point Foodborne Iliness? identifies people more comprehensive and specific temperature of 160°F for meat loaf at increased risk as seniors, pregnant consumer food safety guidelines. (page 722) but incorrectly advises women, children, and people with Preventing Foodborne Iliness consumers to cook ground beef a weakened immune system (43). provides foodborne illness prevention to 155°F (page 646) (38). Further, Written in a proactive way, readers tips, including sections on cleaning readers are advised that risk is are encouraged to “take control” and cooking, safe storage with lessened by buying top-grade to reduce the risk for foodborne recommended storage times, beef and grinding it themselves. disease. The reasons why people symptoms and sources of bacteria and This is a potentially risky practice, with specific health conditions sources for additional information (3). since the opportunity for cross are more vulnerable to foodborne The minimum recommended cooking contamination in the kitchen is illness is explained in a clear and temperatures for beef is 140°F. A high. Some cookbooks provide understandable manner. Specific higher temperature for ground beef is current, accurate information. handling guidelines are provided not advised. Although this document The Complete Meat Cookbook, for shopping, cold storage, safe was reprinted and revised in 1997, for example, recommends 160°F thawing, proper food preparation, a recommended end point cooking or 155°F for 15 seconds as the serving, and handling leftovers. The temperature for ground beef was not end point cooking temperature for recommended temperature for the added. ground beef (7). home refrigerator is specified at 40°F College textbooks published in the or colder, and readers are advised to 1990s reflect a more comprehensive LANDMARK FOOD SAFETY cook ground meat to 160°F. coverage of foodborne illness. Food EVENT Other publications by USDA Safety, by Julie Jones, includes A landmark event in provide specific recommendations a discussion of significantly more food safety occurred in 1993. consistent with current knowledge microbial pathogens than books Consumption of undercooked of foodborne illness. Food News from the previous decade, including hamburger contaminated with for Consumers, for example, Salmonella, Campylobacter jejuni, E. coli 0157:H7 resulted in 501 recommends that foods should Toxoplasma gondii, Staphylococcus illnesses, 151 hospitalizations, be marinated in the refrigerator, aureus, C. perfringens, Shigella, and 3 deaths (17). This outbreak foods should be cooked completely Escherichia coli, Trichinella received extensive publicity rather than partially cooked, held spiralis, Bacillus cereus, Vibrio, because the source of illness and reheated, and meat should be Listeria monocytogenes, Yersinia was a popular food and many cooked to 160°F (31). Similarly, enterocolitica, and others. Raw meat victims were children. In 1994, A Quick Consumer Guide to Safe and meat products are identified as a USDA declared E. coli 0157:H7 Food Handling includes specific source of Salmonella, C. perfringens, an adulterant in raw beef, and information as to temperature control and L. monocytogenes. Jones notes a program began to test for the and safe storage time (45). that E. coli is a common resident pathogen in raw ground beef from USDA's Meat and Poultry of the intestinal tract of warm- federally inspected establishments Hotline, established in 1985, blooded animals. She notes that for and retail stores (75). In 1994, the provides answers to consumer many years it had been considered public was advised to cook ground questions through a toll free harmless; however, particular strains telephone call, fact sheets, articles of E. coli were the cause of enteric beef until it is brown and juices in educational publications such disease in the 1980s, with soft run clear; however, in 1997, FSIS as Food News, and fact sheets cheeses and ground beef identified as revised this recommendation. available through the internet the food sources. Sanitary handling to Cooked ground beef color was (47). Hotline representatives also avoid cross-contamination, thorough demonstrated to be an inaccurate respond to media calls, reaching cooking, and keeping foods out of the predictor of end point temperature. an even larger audience. Reports danger zone are specified as ways to Consumers were advised to use of the hotline activities are posted reduce the probability of illness. a meat thermometer and cook to periodically (46). Consumers indicate that they 160°F rather than rely on color. Another USDA consumer obtain safe handling information from Since 1994, USDA has publication, Preventing Foodborne cookbooks and magazines (35). A required safe food-handling labels lliness, provides detailed food review of classic cookbooks, such as on retail packages or raw and handling information (44). Sections Better Homes and Gardens or Joy partially cooked meat and poultry are devoted to safe shopping, of Cooking, indicates that virtually products. The label advises storage, preparation, serving, and all limit food handling information consumers to refrigerate the handling of leftovers. Escherichia to culinary issues such as the product, avoid cross contamination, coli 0157:H7 is mentioned, and temperature for roasts cooked to cook thoroughly, keep hot food consumers are advised to cook rare, medium, or well done. Even hot, and handle leftovers properly. ground beef to 160°F. Listeria is books published in the1990s and Interview and survey data indicate discussed and pregnant women are later, specializing in ground beef or that 51% or more of consumers identified as being at increased risk grilling, address preference for degree contacted recalled seeing the label. for this pathogen. Those at high risk of doneness rather than food safety Of these, 79% or more remember are advised to reheat processed considerations. There are exceptions. reading the label, and 37% of meats. The 1997 edition of Joy of Cooking these said they changed the way
794 FOOD PROTECTION TRENDS | NOVEMBER 2009 they handle raw meat as a result of than 25% of their time on food use a thermometer to determine end reading the label (34, 39, 48). These safety education, with the rest of the point temperature in burgers, and studies found that people were more time devoted to various other food, describes with text and illustrations likely to remember the message to nutrition, and health topics. Only 15% how to most effectively cook a burger avoid cross contamination than any of educators spend 50 to 75% of to the recommended end point other. their time on food safety education. temperature. In 1997, President Clinton Restricted funding is also a limitation. USDA, in partnership with announced the National Food Safety Twenty percent of educators have others, developed educational Initiative (15, 33). This measure annual budgets for food safety material targeted to specific aud- established the Partnership for education of less than $5,000. The iences. Listeriosis and Pregnancy Food Safety Education, a not-for- availability of additional resources in — What is Your Risk? produced by profit organization of government terms of both finances and staff could the Association of Women’s Health, agencies, food industry, nutrition/food result in more extensive delivery of Obstetric and Neonatal Nurses, safety professional societies, and the FightBAC message. the International Food Information consumer groups. The Partnership’s Use of a thermometer to verify Council Foundation, USDA, and mission is to educate consumers adequate cooking is a key component US Department of Health and to protect themselves from bacteria of the Partnership message to cook Human Services in 2001 utilizes (FightBAC®) and reduce risk of to proper temperature. The Research the four FightBAC messages in foodborne illness by following 4 Triangle Institute evaluated the conjunction with text and photos to simple practices: effectiveness of the Thermy™ edu- explain Listeria risk and protection CLEAN: Wash hands and cational material used nationally to practices. Protecting Your Baby and Yourself from Listeriosis, surfaces often promote use of a food thermometer (37). McCurdy and colleagues written by USDA in 2004, includes SEPARATE: Don't cross- also explored consumer attitudes additional pictures and repeats the contaminate! toward food thermometers (26). same basic messages. Jo Your COOK: Cook to proper Both groups found that participants Health! Food Safety for Seniors, temperature already believed they prepared meat published in 2000, targets older safely. People relied on color and Americans with larger print, simple CHILL: Refrigerate promptly were not aware of the importance pictures, and updated end-point cook The partnership provides a of using a food thermometer. temperatures. coordinated and consistent set of Some were not familiar with food A team of food safety educators food safety messages based upon thermometers and did not know from Washington State University, consumer-tested information and how to read or interpret the results. Ohio State University, and Colorado graphics. Messages are developed Consumers suggested developing State University developed food through public opinion research messages that emphasized that safety materials for highest risk and expert scientific and technical using a thermometer is the only way consumers. Available for free review. Information is distributed to be sure the food has reached download are materials for persons through mass media, public service a sufficiently high temperature to living with HIV/AIDS, cancer, bone announcements, the Internet, destroy foodborne bacteria, using marrow transplants, and others point-of-purchase, and school and a thermometer will help protect (21, 28-30). These materials, community initiatives. Material is children or elderly persons, and developed in consultation with the available to use nationwide by using a thermometer improves target audience, included specific public health, nutrition, food science, food quality because the food will information on shopping, storing, education, and special constituency not be over-cooked. Consumers cooking, and handling leftovers. groups. report that they are reluctant to use Tips for using a thermometer USDA, FDA, and others in the thermometers to cook small or thin are included, as well as updated Partnership sponsor a “Partner's meat items because they lack the information on safe end point Toolkit” that contains flyers, posters, time, forget, are too lazy, or lack temperatures of various foods. and a CD with additional educational confidence in accurately positioning material. “Consumer Education the thermometer in thin cuts of meat EFFECT OF EDUCATIONAL Planning Guides” mailed to food (26). PROGRAMS ON BEHAVIOR safety educators include media As a result of these findings, material such as a press release comprehensive guide to using a While food safety messages are and public service announcements thermometer when cooking thin tested with the consumers, changing as well as fact sheets, FightBAC portions of meat was developed consumer practices is challenging. brochures, and food-safety related by Washington State University Survey results on consumer attitudes games and activities. Extension and the University of and practices indicate increased Although these tools are Idaho (41). Now You're Cooking ... awareness in several areas: available, they are not used as Using a Food Thermometer! uses widely as they could be. Food safety color illustrations to demonstrate Hand washing educators indicate that their available that brown meat may not have time is a limitation (16). Over 30% reached 160°F. Further, the bro- People appear to be more of educators responding to a USDA chure describes different types of aware that hand washing is an survey report that they spend less thermometers, demonstrates how to important component of food safety.
NOVEMBER 2009 | FOOD PROTECTION TRENDS 795 In an annual survey repeated over plate between using it to hold raw Popular sources of recipes do several years, consumers were and cooked meat (74). not encourage use of a thermometer asked to volunteer practices they People may overstate what but rather rely on time of cooking follow to keep food safe. In 1990, they perceive as the recommended and color. Celebrity chef Bobby no consumers volunteered that they behavior. Actual observation Flay describes several tasty ways wash their hands (32). In 2005— again reveals that consumers do to cook burgers in the Sunday 2007, between 74 and 76% identified not always follow recommended newspaper insert, Parade magazine washing hands as something they do practices. When consumers were (17). Readers are told to “Grill for “every time” (18). Further, a review observed during meal preparation, 3-4 minutes on each side, until of select safe-handling practices over 477 cross-contamination events golden brown and cooked medium inside.” The September 2009 issue indicates that more consumers report occurred. Most of these, 84%, washing their hands with soap after of Saveur magazine featuring The involved contamination of ready to handling raw meat or poultry, with Burger Bible focuses on flavorful eat foods with raw meat or poultry 66% reporting washing in 1993, (2). ingredients. Readers are advised 76% in 1998 and 82% in 2001 (4). to “cook burgers, flipping once, until In 2009, 87% reported washing their cooked to desired doneness, about hands with soap and water, but this Thorough cooking of ground 12 minutes total for medium rare”(6). percentage had decreased from 92% beef In the article “Ultimate Burgers,” in 2008 (23). A national telephone survey Sunset Magazine advises readers to Do consumers really wash every conducted between December 1992 grill burgers 4 to 6 minutes, turning time? The American Society for and February 1993 found that 23% once for rare, and ten minutes Microbiology has repeatedly shown of consumers served home prepared for medium to well-done burgers that actual behavior is frequently hamburgers rare or medium (24). In (42). Cooks are advised to “check different from reported behavior. For 1996 and 1997, 10% of consumers doneness,” but use of a thermometer example, 92% of Americans say interviewed said they had eaten is not mentioned. Perhaps the most they wash their hands after using a undercooked hamburger in the five shocking advice comes from the restroom, but when observed, only New York Times (40). The writer days prior to the interview, while 30% 88% of women and 66% of men interviewed several chefs from said they preferred undercooked actually wash their hands (5). Video around the country, gleaning tips hamburger (39). In 1998 and 2001, taping consumers in their homes from each to share with the reader. those who said they had eaten rare while preparing a meal revealed that None mention use of a thermometer. or medium burgers decreased to 17 45% of subjects attempted to wash The paper reports that Seamus and 18%, respectively (4). their hands before starting meal Mullen, the chef and an owner of the preparation, of which 38% used soap Boqueria restaurants in the Flatiron Use of meat thermometer (2). This indicates that consumers district and SoHo, uses a wire cake know that hand washing is important, to determine doneness tester to determine doneness. “We but people may not always wash as More consumers reported stick it in the middle through the frequently as food safety authorities owning a meat thermometer in 2001, side,” he said. “If it’s barely warm to recommend. at 60%, compared to only 46 in 1998 the lips, it’s rare. If it’s like bath water, (4). In 1998, 22% of consumers it's medium rare. The temperature Cross-contamination reported using a meat thermometer will never lie. It takes the guesswork out of everything.” Consumer response to a to determine when roasts or large question on cleaning cutting boards pieces of meat are done. This indicates an increasing percentage percentage increased to 32% in Knowledge and behavior respond with recommended 2001. Use of a thermometer is not Surveys indicate that consumer behavior. In 1996 and 1997, 7% of an ingrained behavior. In 2009, 71% knowledge of several key messages consumers acknowledged that they responded that they cook food to the on safe handling has increased, but do not always wash their hands required temperature. However, only knowledge gaps still exist (4, 36). In after handling raw meat or poultry, 25% said they used a thermometer some cases, people are not familiar and 7% also admitted that they do to check doneness of meat and with details of the recommendation. not always wash the cutting board poultry items (23). The percentage They do not know the appropriate after cutting these raw foods (39). using a meat thermometer when end-point temperature for cooked Proper cleaning of cutting boards or cooking hamburgers is much hamburger or the appropriate other surfaces after cutting raw meat lower. Only 3% indicated that they temperature for the refrigerator. or poultry was reported by 68% of used a thermometer in 1998, and People do not realize the importance consumers in 1993, 79% in 1998, 6% in 2001 (4). Consumers can of hand washing, and they think that and 85% in 2001 (4). In contrast, accidentally undercook ground rinsing hands or a cutting board with in 2009, only 50% of consumers beef that is used as part of a large water constitutes adequate cleaning. reported using different or freshly meal item. Even though consumers Even if they know the recomm- cleaned cutting boards between raw believed their meatloaf was fully endations, people do not always meat and poultry and produce (23). cooked, 46% of the meatloaves follow them. People say that the Others found that in 1999 and 2002, had not reached the recommended recommendations do not apply 18% of consumers did not wash the temperature of 160°F (2). to them, or that they are too busy
796 FOOD PROTECTION TRENDS | NOVEMBER 2009 and the recommended practices the recommendations to avoid This author believes that to are inconvenient (9, 36). Taste unheated lunchmeats and to use reduce the likelihood of a foodborne preference also plays an important a thermometer to determine safe illness outbreak, the meat industry role in food choice. Some prefer cooking temperature. should expand use of advanced their burgers cooked to rare (35). food safety technology such as McIntosh and coworkers found SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS high pressure processing and that awareness of the danger of irradiation. These treatments greatly Food safety education is improperly cooked hamburger, reduce levels of pathogens that available in more venues today than knowledge of foodborne pathogens, cause illness from accidental cross- in previous decades. Messages are and knowledge of food safety contamination or undercooking. directed to the general audience Use of these technologies will practices had no effect on willingness as well as populations at increased benefit the meat industry through to change burger cooking practices risk, such as children, pregnant reduction of meat-related foodborne (27). women, older people, and those illnesses and fewer ground beef whose immunity is compromised. recalls. Additionally, the public will be Guidelines are specific, with details Knowledge and behavior protected from pathogens that cause on how to wash hands and cooking of those at highest risk devastating foodborne illness. The surfaces, how cool to keep the food service industry must join the Athearn et al. (8) found that refrigerator, and the appropriate end efforts to enhance safety by using pregnant women interviewed through temperature for cooked ground beef. products processed for added safety. focus groups expressed moderate Messages are presented nationwide, Similarly, consumers can make safer but consumers do not remember the concern about food safety and had choices only if supermarkets offer details of how cold or how hot food made some changes since becoming foods processed for added safety. should be held. Many do not follow pregnant; however, many were not Health educators should continue to all the recommendations. People following seven of 12 recommended advocate safe food handling, coupled think they already handle food safely practices. Women believed their with promoting the advantages of and are reluctant to change habitual food was safe and resisted change safety-enhanced food. behavior. Many will not sacrifice because of convenience or taste flavor preference for safe handling. preference. Pregnant women and In summary, a substantial number of ACKNOWLEDGMENTS those at increased risk for Listeria consumers continue to follow unsafe infection said that they did not want This literature review funded food handling practices. Education to reheat luncheon meat. in part by the Cattlemen's Beef alone is not sufficient to protect Focus group discussions Promotion and Research Board, against foodborne disease. Beef Checkoff Program. revealed that persons with HIV/ According to the International AIDS had “weakly positive” attitudes Food Information Council Found- toward food safety and that many ation’s fourth annual Food & Health REFERENCES consumed foods that would be Survey, more than half of Americans 1. Aidells, B., and D. Kelly. 1998. considered risky (22). Initially, people think foodborne illness from bacteria, The complete meat cookbook. were resistant to and confused about such as E. coli and Salmonella, is Houghton Mifflin Company, NY. many safety recommendations. the most important food safety issue . Anderson, J. B., T. A. Shuster, Initially, project participants did not today (23). Failure to offer food that K. E. Hansen, A. S. Levy, and want to use a food thermometer is free of pathogens has a profound A. Vok. 2004. A camera's view and did not want to avoid favorite impact on consumer confidence of consumer food-handling be- foods, such as unheated deli meats. in the food supply and likelihood haviors. J. Am. Diet. Assoc. Barriers to accepting the food safety to select specific food items in 104(2):186-191. recommendations include lack of the future. A 2009 nationwide . Anonymous. 1991. The unwel- understanding why the practices survey found that less than 20% of come dinner guest, preventing are necessary, willingness to take consumers trust food companies to foodborne illness. FDA Consumer. risks, resistance to change, feeling develop and sell food products that FDA Pub 98-2244: 8. Available that someone else, such as food are safe and healthy (7). Consumers at http://agricola.nal.usda.gov/ processors, should control food- indicated that when they heard of cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?DB=local &CNT=20&CMD=%22The+unwe related risks, and belief that risks recalls, they changed their buying Icome+dinner+guest%22&STAR could be controlled by their own practices, with 63% saying they will TDB=AGRIDB. Accessed 29 July, food preparation actions. Even not buy the food in question again 2009. after hearing why extra food safety until the source of contamination has . Anonymous. 2002. PR/HACCP precautions are appropriate for been found and eliminated. Although rule evaluation report changes in their health conditions, participants most consumers in this survey consumer knowledge, behavior were not willing to adopt all recalled contamination incidents with and confidence since the 1996 recommendations. The most peanut butter, spinach, tomatoes, PR/HACCP final rule. Available widely accepted recommendation and ground beef, recalls and at http://pfsehost.p2technology. was that regarding hand washing. foodborne illnesses traced to these com/content/view/118/. Accessed Resistance was strongest for products continues to be in the news. 23 July, 2009.
NOVEMBER 2009 | FOOD PROTECTION TRENDS 797 5. Anonymous. 2007. America’s dirty . Crutchfield, S. R., and T. Roberts. . Mcintosh, W. A., L. B. Chris- little secret: Are we getting worse? 2000. Food safety efforts accel- tensen, and G.R. Acuff. 1994. Available at http://www.asm.org/ erated in the 1990s. Food Rev. Perceptions of risks of eating Media/index.asp?bid=53022. 23(3):44—-49. undercooked meat and willing- Accessed 23 July, 2009. . Durant, D. 2004. Tools for multi- ness to change cooking practices. . Anonymous. 2009. Burgers, taskers. Food Safety Educator. Appetite 22:83-96. Saveur: New York. p. 80. 9(1):1. . Medeiros, L. 2004. Foodborne . Flay, B. 2009. Great outdoor . Anonymous. 2009. US: Less disease and organ transplant eating. Grill a better burger. Avail- than 20% of consumers trust patients. Available at http://hec. able at http://www.parade.com/ food they buy is safe and healthy, osu.edu/highriskfoodsafety/files/ IBM survey reveals. Available export/sites/default/food/2009/05/ bobby-flay-grill-better-burger.html. organ-final.pdf (accessed 30 at http://news.prnewswire. Accessed 23 July, 2009. October, 2008). com/DisplayReleaseContent. . Food Marketing Institute. US . Medeiros, L. 2004. Foodborne aspx?ACCT=104&STORY=/ grocery shopper trends 2008. p. disease and bone marrow trans- www/story/06-24- 142. Food Marketing Institute, plants. Available at http://hec. 2009/0005049269&EDATE=. Arlington, VA. osu.edu/highriskfoodsafety/files/ Accessed 6 July, 2009. . Freeland-Graves, J. H., and G. bone-final.pdf. Accessed 30 . Athearn, P. N., P. A. Kend- C. Peckham. 1987. Foundations October, 2008. all, V. Hillers, M. Schroeder, of food preparation. 5th ed. Mac- . Medeiros, L. 2004. Foodborne V. Bergmann, G. Chen, and millan, NY. disease and cancer patients. L. Medeiros. 2004. Awareness . Griswold, R. M. 1962. The experi- Available at http://hec.osu.edu/ and acceptance of current food mental study of foods. Houghton highriskfoodsafety/files/cp-final. safety recommendations during Mifflin Co., Boston, MA. pdf. Accessed 30 October, 2008. pregnancy. Matern. Child Health . Hoffman, E. W. Take control, a . Moriarty, P. 1991. What con- J. 8(3):149-162. hands-on approach to: choos- sumers want to know about red . Audits, |. 2000 Home Food Safety ing safe foods, shopping, han- meat. Food News for Consumers Study. 2001. Available by request dling, preparing & storing food 8(2):7. at: http://www.foodonline.com/ for persons living with HIV/AIDS. . Opinion Research. 1990. Trends storefronts/audits.html. Accessed 2003. Available at http://cru84. 29 July, 2009. cahe.wsu.edu/cgi-bin/pubs/index. 1990, consumer attitudes and . Ballentine, C. L., and M. L. Hern- html?id=Z9xg8nGW. Accessed 30 the supermarket, in trends. Food don. 1982. Who, why, when and October, 2008. Marketing Institute, Washington, where of food poisons (and what . Hoffman, E. W., V. Bergmann, D.C. to do about them). FDA Con- J. Armstrong Shultz, P. A. Kendall, . Partnership for Food Safety. Fight sumer. (July/August). Available L. Medeiros, and V. N. Hillers. BAC. 2008. Available at http:// at http://agricola.nal.usda.gov/ 2005. Application of a five-step fightbac.org. Accessed 29 Octo- cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?DB=local message development model for ber, 2008. &CNT=20&CMD=%22Who%2C+ food safety educational materials . Raab, C.A., and M. J. Woodburn. targeting people with HIV/AIDS. why%2C+whentand+wheretoftf 2001. Oregon food preparers' J. Am. Diet. Assoc. 105:1597- ood+poisons%22&S TART DB=AG awareness and use of the USDA 1604. RIDB. Accessed 29 July, 2009. safe handling instructions label . International Food Information . Bell, B., M. Goldoft, P. Griffin, on meats and poultry. Dairy Food Council. US: New research shows M. Davis, D. Gordon, P. Tarr, Environ. Sanit. 21:810-817. Americans falling behind on prop- J. Bartleson, T. Lewis, J. Barrett, . Ralston, K., Y. Starke, P. Brent, er food safety practices. 2009. and G. Wells. 1994. A multi- and T. Riggins. 2000. Awareness Available at http://www.prweb. state outbreak of Escherichia of risks changing how hamburgers com/releases/IFIC/Food_Safety/ coli 0157:H7-associated bloody are cooked. Food Rev. 23(2):44— prweb2445394.htm. Accessed 6 diarrhea and hemolytic uremic 49. July, 2009. syndrome from hamburgers: the . Redmond, E.C., and C. Griffith, . Klontz, K.C.,B. Timbo, S. B. Fein, Washington experience. J. Am. 2003. Consumer food handling andA. S. Levy. 1995. Prevalence Med. Assoc. 272:1349-53. in the home: A review of food of selected food consumption . Bennion, M. 1980. Science of safety studies. J. Food Prot. and prevalence behaviors as- food. Macmillan, NY. 66:130-161. sociated with increased risks of . Charley, H. 1970. Food science. foodborne disease. J. Food Prot. . Research Triangle Institute. 2002. Wiley and Sons, NY. 58:927-930. Thermometer usage messages . Cody, M. M., and M. A. Hogue. . Lowe, B. 1955. Experimental and delivery mechanism for par- 2003. Results of the home food cookery. Wiley and Sons, NY. ents of young children. Available safety — It's in your hands 2002 . McCurdy, S. M., V. N. Hillers,and at http://pfsehost.p2technol- survey: Comparisons to the 1999 S. E. Cann. 2005. Consumer re- ogy.com/content/view/145/5/. benchmark survey and health action and interest in using food Accessed 29 July, 2009. people 2010 food safety behav- thermometers when cooking small . Rombauer, |. S., M. R. Becker, ior objective. Am. Diet. Assoc. or thin meat items. Food Prot. and E. Becker. 1997. Joy of cook- 103(9):1115—1125. Trends. 25:826-831. ing. Scribner, NY.
FOOD PROTECTION TRENDS | NOVEMBER 2009 39. Shiferaw, B., S. Yand, P. Cieslak, . True, M. 2009. From grilling dis- USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline for D. Vugia, R. Marcus, J. Koehler, aster to grilling master. Sunset 2000. Available at http://www. fsis. V. Deneen, and F.J. Angulo. 2000. Living in the West. July:60. usda.gov/Frame/FrameRedirect. Prevalence of high-risk food con- . United States Department of asp?main=http://www.fsis.usda. sumption and food-handling prac- Agriculture. 1990. Is someone gov/OA/pubs/hot2000/index.htm. tices among adults: A multistate you know at risk for foodborne Accessed 29 July, 2009. illness? 1990. Out-of-print USDA survey, 1996-1997. J. Food Prot. . United States Department of publication. 63:1538-1543. Agriculture. 2009. Food safety . United States Department of education USDA Meat & Poultry . Sigal, J. 2009. The perfect Agriculture. 1990. Preventing Hotline. Available at http://www. burger and all its parts. Avail- foodborne illness. Home and fsis.usda.gov/Food_Safety_Edu- able at http://www.nytimes. Garden Bulletin No. 247. Available cation/USDA_Meat_& Poultry_ com/2009/07/01/dining/01burg. at http://agnic.msu.edu/hgpubs/ Hotline/index.asp. Accessed 29 html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss. modus/morefile/hg247_90.pdf. July 2009. Accessed 29 July, 2009. Accessed 6 July, 2009. . Yang, S., F. J. Angulo, and . Takeuchi, M., V. Hillers, and . United States Department of Ag- riculture. 1990. A quick consumer S. F. Altekruse. 2000. Evaluation S. McCurdy. Now you're cook- guide to safe food handling. Home of safe food-handling instruct- ing ... Using a food thermom- and Garden Bulletin No 248. Avail- ions on raw meat and poultry eter! Washington State University able at http://agnic.msu.edu/hg- products. J. Food Prot. 63:1321- Extension and University of pubs/modus/morefile/hg248 90. 1325. Idaho. Available at http:// pdf. Accessed 29 July, 2009. cru84.cahe.wsu.edu/cgi- . United States Department of Author information: Phone: bin/pubs/MISC0513.html. Agriculture. 2002. Making the 530.752.2774; Fax: 530.752.4759; Accessed 30 July, 2009. connection: Activity report of the Email: [email protected].
In Memory
Helene Uhlman Hobart, Indiana
We extend our deepest sympathy to the family of Helene Uhlman who recently passed away. IAFP will always have sincere gratitude for her contribution to the Association and the profession. An IAFP Member since 1969, it was during that decade that Ms. UhIman became the first female certified milk inspector in the US Grade “A” Milk Program. She later became the first female Grade “A” Milk Plant Inspector. Ms. Uhiman’s 40-year career in the industry encompassed appointments as Project Director for the tri-city Northwest Indiana Grade “A” Milk Cooperation, which evolved into a seven-county Indiana State Department of Health (ISDH) contractual agreement; Director of Sanitation and first female Administrator for the City of Gary Health Department; Project Director for a stop-smoking program initiated by ISDH with the American Cancer Society; and as Administrator for the City of Hammond Health Department. Ms. Uhiman served the IAFP Affiliate Council as Delegate of the Indiana Environmental Health Association since 1969, chairing the council for three different terms. She was active on the Dairy Quality and Safety PDG since 1997, chairing its predecessor groups; served as Food Protection Committee Chairperson; and was active in the former Bridge Committee between IAFP and the National Environmental Health Association, of which she was also a longtime active member. A devoted advocate and mentor for female industry professionals, Ms. Uhlman was instrumental in encouraging women to become more active in IAFP. By reviewing the Association’s Membership rosters, Annual Meeting attendance and presenter lists, and various leadership roles over the years, the success of her efforts is apparent. In 1998, she received the IAFP Honorary Life Membership Award.
NOVEMBER 2009 | FOOD PROTECTION TRENDS 799 AWARD NOMINATIONS
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 IAFP Member to nominate a deserving professional. Nomination criteria is available at:
You may make multiple nominations. All nominations must be received at the IAFP office by February 16, 2010.
¢ Persons nominated for individual awards must be current [AFP Members. Black Pearl Award nominees must be companies employing current IAFP Members. GMA Food Safety Award and Frozen Food Foundation Research nominees do not have to be IAFP Members. Previous award winners are not eligible for the same award.
Executive Board Members and Awards Selection Committee Members are not eligible for nomination. Presentation of awards will be during the Awards Banquet on August 4, at IAFP 2010 in Anaheim, California.
Contact IAFP for questions regarding nominations.
International Association for Food Protection. 6200 Aurora Ave., Suite 20O0W Des Moines, IA 50322-2864, USA Phone: +1 800.369.6337; +1 515.276.3344 E-mail: [email protected]
800 FOOD PROTECTION TRENDS | NOVEMBER 2009 Nominations will be accepted for the following Awards:
Black Pearl Award GMA Food Safety Award Award Showcasing the Black Pearl Plaque and $3,000 Honorarium Sponsored by Wilbur Feagan Sponsored by Grocery Manufacturers Association and F&H Food Equipment Company This Award alternates between individuals and groups Presented in recognition of a company’s outstanding or organizations. In 2010, the award will be presented commitment to, and achievement in, corporate to a group or organization in recognition of a long history excellence in food safety and quality. of outstanding contributions to food safety research and education. Fellow Award Frozen Food Foundation Distinguished Plaque Freezing Research Award Presented to Member(s) who have contributed to Plaque and $2,000 Honorarium IAFP and its Affiliates with distinction over an extended Sponsored by the Frozen Food Foundation period of time. Presented to an individual, group or organization for Honorary Life Membership Award preeminence and outstanding contributions in research that impacts food-safety attributes of freezing. Plaque and Lifetime Membership in |AFP Maurice Weber Laboratorian Award Presented to Member(s) for their dedication to the high ideals and objectives of IAFP and for their service Plaque and $1,500 Honorarium to the Association. Sponsored by Weber Scientific Presented to an individual for outstanding contribu- Harry Haverland Citation Award tions in the laboratory, recognizing a commitment to the development of innovative and practical analytical Plaque and $1,500 Honorarium approaches in support of food safety. Sponsored by ConAgra Foods, Inc. Presented to an individual for many years of dedication Larry Beuchat Young Researcher Award and devotion to the Association ideals and its objectives. Plaque and $2,000 Honorarium Sp red by bioMeérieux, Inc. Food Safety Innovation Award Presented to a young researcher who has shown Plaque and $2,500 Honorarium outstanding ability and professional promise in the Sponsored by Walmart early years of their career. Presented to a Member or organization for creating Sanitarian Award a new idea, practice or product that has had a positive impact on food safety, thus, improving public health and Plaque and $1,500 Honorarium the quality of life. Sponsored by Ecolab Inc. Presented to an individual for dedicated and International Leadership Award exceptional service to the profession of Sanitarian, Plaque, $1,500 Honorarium serving the public and the food industry. and Reimbursement to attend IAFP 2009 Sponsored by Cargill, Inc. Elmer Marth Educator Award Plaque and $1,500 Honorarium Presented to an individual for dedication to the high Sponsored by Nelson-Jameson, Inc. ideals and objectives of IAFP and for promotion of the mission of the Association in countries outside of the Presented to an individual for dedicated and United States and Canada. exceptional contributions to the profession of the Educator.
Harold Barnum Industry Award Plaque and $1,500 Honorarium Sponsored by Nasco International, Inc.
Presented to an individual for dedication and exceptional service to IAFP, the public, and the food industry.
NOVEMBER 2009 | FOOD PROTECTION TRENDS 801 CALL FOR ABSTRACTS IAFP 2010
Anaheim Convention Center AUGUST 1-4, 20 ANNUAL MEETING Anaheim, California
General Information results should not have been presented/ published previously by any one of the % Complete the Abstract Submission Form authors. Online. Title — The title should be short but Z. All presenters must register for the Annual descriptive. The title should be in title Meeting and assume responsibility for their case. own transportation, lodging, and registra- Authors — List all authors using the follow- tion fees. ing style: first name or initials followed There is no limit on the number of abstracts by the surname. individuals may submit. However, one of Presenter Name and Title — List the full the authors must deliver the presentation. name and title of the person who will Accepted abstracts will be published in present the paper. the Program and Abstract Book. Editorial changes may be made to accepted Presenter Address — List the name of the abstracts at the discretion of the Program department, institution and full postal address (including zip/postal code and Committee. country). Membership in the Association is not required Phone Number — List the phone number, for presenting a paper at IAFP 2010. including area, country, and city codes of the presenter. Presentation Format Fax Number — List the fax number, includ- 2 Technical — Oral presentations will be ing area, country, and city codes of the scheduled with a maximum of 15 minutes, presenter. including a two to four-minute discussion. E-mail — List the E-mail address for the LCD projectors will be available and com- presenter. puters will be supplied by the convenors. Format preferred — Check the box to indi- Poster — Freestanding boards will be cate oral or poster format. The Program provided for presenting posters. Poster Committee reserves the right to make the presentation surface area is 48" high by final determination of presentation format. 96" wide (121.9 cm x 243.8 cm). Handouts Category — The categories are used by the may be used, but audiovisual equipment Program Committee to organize the posters will not be available. The presenter is and technical sessions. Please check 2—3 responsible for bringing pins and velcro. boxes which best describe the categories All posters should include the title and for which the abstract is suitable. author information. Categories used for this years Annual Meeting Note: The Program Committee reserves are: the right to make the final determination on which format will be used for each Pathogens presentation. Microbial Food Spoilage General Microbiology Instructions for Preparing Abstracts Sanitation Produce - All abstracts must be written in clear and Meat and Poultry correct English. Seafood Z. All abstracts must be approved and signed Dairy and Other Food Commodities off by all authors before submission. The Beverages and Water
802 FOOD PROTECTION TRENDS | NOVEMBER 2009 Antimicrobials a proven method in order to educate others about Risk Assessment a food protection related topic. There should be Epidemiology a way to measure the outcomes and substantiate Non-Microbial Food Safety the improvements and/or outcomes. If measured, Food Toxicology the sample size should be sufficiently large to Applied Laboratory Methods represent the intended population. Novel Laboratory Methods Visit the [AFP Web site at htpp:www.foodpro- Education/Other tection.org for a sample abstract.
12. Developing Scientist Awards Competition — Abstract Submission Check the box to indicate if the presenter is a student wishing to be considered in Abstracts submitted for IAFP 2010 will be this competition. The student will make evaluated for acceptance by the Program Commit- the initial submission, and IAFP will E-mail tee. Please be sure to follow the instructions above the abstract to the major professor, who carefully; failure to do so may result in rejection. will complete the submission process. Information in the abstract data must not have For more information, see “Call for been previously published in a copyrighted journal. Entrants in the Developing Scientist Abstracts must be received no later than Awards Competitions.” January 20, 2010. Completed abstract and infor- mation must be submitted online. Use the online Abstract — Key the abstract into the web- submission form at www.foodprotection.org. In based system. In addition, a double-spaced addition, a double-spaced copy of the abstract, copy of the abstract, typed in 12-point typed in 12-point font in MS Word, should be font in MS Word, should be E-mailed to E-mailed to [email protected] at [email protected] at the time the time of submission. You will receive an of submission. Limit the Abstract length E-mail confirming receipt of your submission. to approximately 300 words.
In addition to following these instructions, Selection Criteria authors should carefully review the sections on 1. Abstracts should be structured as described selection criteria and rejection reasons as well above. as the sample abstract before submitting the 2. Abstracts must report the results of origi- abstract. Original research abstracts MUST be nal research pertinent to the subject mat- in the following format: ter. Work should report the results of new, Introduction: Provide background, statement applied studies dealing with: (i) causes of problem, or basis of the study. (2—3 sentences) (e.g., microorganisms, chemicals, natu- Purpose: State the purpose or objectives of ral toxicants) and control of all forms of the study (1—2 sentences) foodborne illness; (ii) causes (e.g., micro- Methods: State the methodology used in the organisms, chemicals, insects, rodents) and study (2-3 sentences). The methods should be control of food contamination and/or spoil- specific enough that researchers in the same or age; (iii) food protection from farm-to-fork similar field would understand the basic experi- (including all sectors of the chain includ- mental design or approach. ing production, processing, distribution, Results: Describe the results obtained in the retail, and consumer phases); (iv) novel study (2—3 sentences). NOTE: Specific results, approaches for the tracking of foodborne with statistical analysis (if appropriate), MUST be pathogens or the study of pathogenesis provided. A statement of “results pending” or and/or microbial ecology; (v) public health “to be discussed” is not acceptable and will be significance of foodborne disease, including grounds for abstract rejection. Results should outbreak investigation; (vi) non-microbiol- be summarized; do NOT use tables or figures. ogy food protection issues (food toxicology, Significance: State the significance of the allergens, chemical contaminants); (vii) findings to food protection and/or public health advances in sanitation, quality control/ (1—2 sentences) NOTE: Do not include reference assurance, and food protection systems; citations in the Abstract. Please see sample (viii) advances in laboratory methods; abstracts for further guidance on abstract structure. and (ix) food protection risk assessment. Failure to follow the above formatting inst- Work may also report subject matter ructions is reason for rejection. of an educational nature. Abstracts submitted in the Education category Research must be based on accepted MUST present an improvement or innovation on scientific practices.
NOVEMBER 2009 | FOOD PROTECTION TRENDS 803 Research should not have been previously . Abstract was received after the deadline presented nor intended for presentation for submission. at another scientific meeting. Work should . Abstract contains information that is in not appear in print prior to the Annual violation of the International Association Meeting. for Food Protection Policy on Commercial- ism. Rejection Reasons Abstract subject is similar to other(s) sub- 1. Abstract was not prepared according to mitted by same author. (The committee the “Instructions for Preparing Abstracts.” reserves the right to combine such abstracts. ) This includes abstracts that are too . Abstracts that report research that is con- lengthy. firmatory of previous studies and/or lacks Abstract reports inappropriate or unaccept- originality will be given low priority for able subject matter about advancing food acceptance. safety worldwide. Abstract is not based on accepted scientific Projected Deadlines/Notification or educational practices and/or the quality — ee Of the wena 66 eee edna Abstract Submission Deadline: January 20, 2010. approach is inadequate. Acceptance/Rejection Notification: March 9, 2010. Potential for the approach to be practically : used to enhance food safety is not appar- Contact Information ent. Questions regarding abstract submission can Work reported appears to be incomplete be directed to Tamara P. Ford, 515.276.3344 or and/or data and statistical validity are 800.369.6337; E-mail: [email protected] not presented. Percentages alone are not acceptable unless sample sizes (both Program Chairperson numbers of samples and sample weight or Faye J. Feldstein volume) are reported. Detection limits Deputy Director should be specified when stating that pop- Office of Food Defense, Communication ulations are below these limits. Indicating and Emergency Response that data will only appear in the presenta- Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition . tion without including them in the abstract Food and Drug Administration is NOT acceptable. 5100 Paint Branch Parkway Abstract was poorly written or prepared. College Park, MD 20740, USA This includes spelling and grammatical Phone: 301.436.1564 errors or improper English language usage. Cell: 240.375.3418 Results have been presented/published previously by one of the authors. Fax: 301.436.2605 E-mail: [email protected]
804 FOOD PROTECTION TRENDS | NOVEMBER 2009 Call for Entrants in the Developing Scientist Awards Competitions
Supported by the International Association for Food Protection Foundation
he International Association for Food Protection Entrants who are full-time students, with accepted is pleased to announce the continuation of its abstracts will receive a complimentary, one-year program to encourage and recognize the work of Student Membership with JFP Online. students and recent graduates in the field of food safety In addition to adhering to the instruction in the research. Qualified individuals may enter either the oral “Call for Abstracts,” competition entrants must or poster competition. check the box to indicate if the paper is to be presented by a student in this competition. A Purpose copy of the abstract will be E-mailed to the major 1. To encourage students and recent graduates to professor for final approval. present their original research at the Annual You must also specify full-time student or part-time Meeting. student. To foster professionalism in students and recent graduates through contact with peers and Judging Criteria professional Members of the Association. A panel of judges will evaluate abstracts and pre- To encourage participation by students and recent sentations. Selection of up to ten finalists for each graduates in the Association and the Annual Meeting. competition will be based on evaluations of the abstracts and the scientific quality of the work. All entrants will be Presentation Format advised of the results by May 3, 2010. Only competition Oral Competition — The Developing Scientist Oral finalists will be judged at the Annual Meeting and will be Awards Competition is open to graduate students eligible for the awards. (enrolled or recent graduates) from M.S. or Ph.D. programs or undergraduate students at accredited Judging criteria will be based on the following: universities or colleges. Presentations are limited 1. Abstract — Clarity, comprehensiveness and concise- to 15 minutes, which includes two to four minutes ness. for discussion. Poster Competition — The Developing Scientist Scientific Quality — Adequacy of experimental Poster Awards Competition is open to students (enrolled design (methodology, replication, controls), extent or recent graduates) from undergraduate or graduate to which objectives were met, difficulty and programs at accredited universities or colleges. The thoroughness of research, validity of conclusions presenter must be present to answer questions for a based upon data, technical merit and contribution specified time (approximately two hours) during the to science. assigned session. Specific requirements for presentations will be provided at a later date. Presentation — Organization (clarity of introduction, objectives, methods, results and conclusions), General Information quality of visuals, quality and poise of presentation, answering questions, and knowledge of subject. 1. Competition entrants cannot have graduated more than a year prior to the deadline for submitting Finalists abstracts. Awards will be presented at the International Accredited universities or colleges must deal with Association for Food Protection Annual Meeting Awards environmental, food or dairy sanitation, protection Banquet to the top three presenters (first, second and or safety research. third places) in both the oral and poster competitions. The work must represent original research completed All finalists are expected to be present at the banquet and presented by the entrant. where the award winners will be announced and Entrants may enter only one paper in either the oral recognized. or poster competition. All entrants must register for the Annual Awards Meeting and assume responsibility for their own First Place — $600 and an engraved plaque transportation, lodging, and registration fees. Second Place — $400 and a framed certificate Acceptance of your abstract for presentation is Third Place — $200 and a framed certificate independent of acceptance as a competition finalist. Award winners will receive a complimentary, Competition entrants who are chosen as finalists will one-year Membership including Food Protection Trends, be notified of their status by the chairperson Journal of Food Protection, and JFP Online. by May 3, 2010.
NOVEMBER 2009 | FOOD PROTECTION TRENDS 805 Policy on Commercialism for Annual Meeting Presentations
INTRODUCTION consideration should be given to withholding submis- No printed media, technical sessions, symposia, sions and presentations until the data are available, as posters, seminars, short courses, and/or other related only those conclusions that might be reasonably drawn types of forums and discussions offered under the aus- from the data may be presented. Claims of benefit and/ pices of the International Association for Food Protection or technical conclusions not supported by the presented (hereafter referred to as to Association forums) are to data are prohibited. be used as platforms for commercial sales or presenta- tions by authors and/or presenters (hereafter referred to 2.3 Trade Names as authors) without the express permission of the staff Excessive use of brand names, product names, or Executive Board. The Association enforces this policy in order to restrict commercialism in technical manu- trade names, and/or trademarks is forbidden. A general scripts, graphics, oral presentations, poster presenta- guideline is to use proprietary names once and thereaf- tions, panel discussions, symposia papers, and all other ter to use generic descriptors or neutral designations. type submissions and presentations (hereafter referred Where this would make the submission or presentation to as submissions and presentations), so that scientific significantly more difficult to understand, the Program merit is not diluted by proprietary secrecy. Committee chairperson, technical reviewers selected by Excessive use of brand names, product names or the Program Committee chairperson, session Convenor, logos, failure to substantiate performance claims, and and/or staff, will judge whether the use of trade names, failure to objectively discuss alternative methods, pro- etc., is necessary and acceptable. cesses, and equipment are indicators of sales pitches. Restricting commercialism benefits both the authors 2.4 “Industry Practice” Statements and recipients of submissions and presentations. It may be useful to report the extent of application This policy has been written to serve as the basis of technologies, products, or services; however, such for identifying commercialism in submissions and pre- statements should review the extent of application of sentations prepared for the Association forums. all generically similar technologies, products, or services in the field. Specific commercial installations may be 2. TECHNICAL CONTENT OF SUBMISSIONS cited to the extent that their data are discussed in the AND PRESENTATIONS submission or presentation. 2.1 Original Work 2.5 Ranking The presentation of new technical information is to be encouraged. In addition to the commercialism evalu- Although general comparisons of products and ation, all submissions and presentations will be individu- services are prohibited, specific generic comparisons ally evaluated by the Program Committee chairperson, that are substantiated by the reported data are allowed. technical reviewers selected by the Program Committee chairperson, session convenor, and/or staff on the basis 2.6 Proprietary Information (See also 2.2.) of originality before inclusion in the program. Some information about products or services may not be publishable because it is proprietary to the 2.2 Substantiating Data author’s agency or company or to the user. However, Submissions and presentations should present the scientific principles and validation of performance technical conclusions derived from technical data. If parameters must be described for such products or products or services are described, all reported capabili- services. Conclusions and/or comparisons may be made ties, features or benefits, and performance parameters only on the basis of reported data. must be substantiated by data or by an acceptable explanation as to why the data are unavailable (e.¢., 2.7 Capabilities incomplete, not collected, etc.) and, if it will become available, when. The explanation for unavailable data Discussion of corporate capabilities or experiences will be considered by the Program Committee chair- are prohibited unless they pertain to the specific pre- person and/or technical reviewers selected by the sented data. Program Committee chairperson to ascertain if the presentation is acceptable without the data. Serious
806 FOOD PROTECTION TRENDS | NOVEMBER 2009 3. GRAPHICS commercialism concurrently by both staff and technical reviewers selected by the Program Committee chair- 3.1 Purpose person. All reviewer comments shall be sent to and Slides, photographs, videos, illustrations, art work, coordinated by either the Program Committee chair- and any other type visual aids appearing with the printed person or the designated staff. If any submissions are text in submissions or used in presentations (hereafter found to violate this policy, authors will be informed referred to as graphics) should be included only to clari- and invited to resubmit their materials in revised form fy technical points. Graphics which primarily promote before the designated deadline. a product or service will not be allowed. (See also 4.6.) 4.3 Author Awareness 3.2 Source In addition to receiving a printed copy of this policy, Graphics should relate specifically to the technical all authors presenting in a forum will be reminded of this presentation. General graphics regularly shown in, or policy by the Program Committee chairperson, their ses- intended for, sales presentations cannot be used. sion convenor, or the staff, whichever is appropriate.
3.3 Company Identification 4.4 Monitoring Names or logos of agencies or companies supplying Session convenors are responsible for ensuring that goods or services must not be the focal point of the presentations comply with this policy. If it is determined slide. Names or logos may be shown on each slide so long by the session convenor that a violation or violations as they are not distracting from the overall presentation. have occurred or are occurring, he or she will publicly request that the author immediately discontinue any 3.4 Copies and all presentations (oral, visual, audio, etc.) and will Graphics that are not included in the preprint may notify the Program Committee chairperson and staff of be shown during the presentation only if they have been the action taken. reviewed in advance by the Program Committee chair- person, session convenor, and/or staff, and have been 4.5 Enforcement determined to comply with this policy. Copies of these additional graphics must be available from the author While technical reviewers, session convenors, and/ on request by individual attendees. It is the responsibil- or staff may all check submissions and presentations for ity of the session convenor to verify that all graphics commercialism, ultimately it is the responsibility of the to be shown have been cleared by Program Committee Program Committee chairperson to enforce this policy chairperson, session convenor, staff, or other reviewers through the session convenors and staff. designated by the Program Committee chairperson. 4.6 Penalties 4. INTERPRETATION AND ENFORCEMENT If the author of a submission or presentation violates this policy, the Program Committee chairperson will 4.1 Distribution notify the author and the author’s agency or company This policy will be sent to all authors of submissions of the violation in writing. If an additional violation or and presentations in the Association forums. violations occur after a written warning has been issued to an author and his agency or company, the Association 4.2 Assessment Process reserves the right to ban the author and the author’s Reviewers of submissions and presentations will agency or company from making presentations in the accept only those that comply with this policy. Drafts Association forums for a period of up to two (2) years of submissions and presentations will be reviewed for following the violation or violations.
NOVEMBER 2009 | FOOD PROTECTION TRENDS 807 NEW MEMBERS
BELGIUM Geraldine Ramage Sladjana Randjelovic Chemin De LOrme City Center for Public Health Liesbeth Jacxsens Marcy LEtoile Belgrade Ghent University Ghent GERMANY SOUTH KOREA BRUNEI DARUSSALAM Ulrich Busch Hye-Kyung Moon Bavarian Health and Food Safety Changwon National University Tuti Safwati Omar Authority Changwon, Kyungnam National Standard Centre, Ministry Oberschleissheim of Industry & Primary Resources Tutong SPAIN Jochen Weiss M. Carmen Vidal-carou University of Hohenheim University of Barcelona CANADA Garbenstrasse, Stuttgart Barcelona Nicolas Bachand University of Montreal INDIA UNITED ARAB Sherbrooke, Quebec S. Hemawati EMIRATES Timothy C. Ells New Delhi Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Muhammad Khalid Saeed Dubai Municipality Kentville, Nova Scotia Sudarsan Muralidharan Dubai Alltech Biotechnology Pvt. Ltd. Marlee Loiseue Kodihalli Manju Stephen V.I.H.A. National Corporation for Tourism Victoria, British Columbia IRAN & Hotels Grant L. Penn Abu Dhabi Glanbia Nutritionals (Canada) Inc. Ramin Khaksar Angusville, Manitoba Shaheed Beheshti University UNITED KINGDOM Tehran John Pickles Jonathan Cloke Vancouver Coastal Health Oxoid — Thermo Fisher Scientific North Vancouver, British Columbia ISRAEL Basingstoke, Hampshire
Ting Zhou Gideon Zipori Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Institut of Foodsafety & Quality UNITED STATES Guelph, Ontario Rosh-HaAyin ARIZONA CHILE THE NETHERLANDS Anna Pfender Sebastian Gutierrez Eelco Heintz Arizona Dept. of Agriculture QTech Ltda. Purac Biochem Phoenix Santiago Gorinchem CALIFORNIA Rolf G. Kimmerlin Peter D.Tips, Sr. Kummerlin S.A. Mead Johnson Nutrition Bethina Hernandez Concepcion Berlicum Heinz San Diego San Diego
FRANCE SERBIA GEORGIA Nelly Dumont Draga Crnobrnja Walid Alali bioMérieux City Center for Public Health University of Georgia Marcy LEtoile Belgrade Griffin
808 FOOD PROTECTION TRENDS | NOVEMBER 2009 NEW M EMBERS
ILLINOIS Mark Wagenius TENNESSEE ConAgra Foods Dorothy C.S. David Minneapolis Steve Calhoun Peoria City County Health Dept. American Peanut Council Peoria MISSOURI Cleveland INDIANA Linda J. Steffens Fur-Chi Chen St.Anthony’s Medical Center Tennessee State University Richa Vaid St. Louis Nashville Purdue University West Lafayette NEW JERSEY TEXAS MARYLAND John J. Reynolds, Il Davonna Koebrick Food Sciences Corp. Texas DSHS Chery! Burgess Mount Laurel Victoria Food & Drug Administration College Park NORTH CAROLINA Adam W. Tittor Tittor Consulting MaryAnn Principato Margaret A. Duckson Stephenville Food & Drug Administration Virginia Tech Laurel Staley Chitra N.Wendakoon New Mexico State University Linda Verrill Jackie R. Glover Austin US Food and Drug Administration US Dept. of Agriculture College Park Gastonia UTAH
MICHIGAN Paul L. Knechtges Michelle Cooke East Carolina University Weber — Morgan Health Dept. Joan Bowman Harrellsville Ogden International Food Protection Training Institute NORTH DAKOTA WASHINGTON Battle Creek Michael W. Mahero Raghupathy Ramaswamy Alissa M.Wesche North Dakota State University Avure Technologies Inc. Old Orchard Brands Fargo Kent Rockford OHIO James M. Wilson MINNESOTA Veratect Corporation Keith Eames Kirkland Lance Heaton New Philadelphia City Health Dept. Provesta New Philadelphia Hutchinson
NOVEMBER 2009 | FOOD PROTECTION TRENDS 809 WHAT'S HAPPENING IN FOOD SAPEIY
FMI Statement on FDA the assembly of metal tubing into pathogens that cause millions of Launch of Reportable Food further fabricated forms or systems. illnesses.” Portal and Registry This standard includes the require- Mr. Krall continued, “The EPA’s ments for the materials of construc- registration of Axen50 as a food he Food Marketing Institute tion and fabrication techniques, contact sanitizer cleared a big hurdle (FMI) issued the following including surface finish. The polish- for PURE. Now that we've estab- statement from Leslie Sarasin, ing requirement, which appeared in lished a food contact tolerance of president and chief executive officer, previous versions of the standard, 50 parts per million of silver, this regarding this week’s launch by was removed due to improvements registration provides two roads to the Food and Drug Administration in stainless steel manufacturing market for SDC-based food contact (FDA) of a Reportable Food techniques. surface sanitizers via the EPA.We Electronic Portal and Registry. Copies of the new standard plan to add the extensive broad- “We commend FDA for are now available for purchase in spectrum antimicrobial claims from launching version 1.0 of the electronic format or printed version our existing disinfectant registration Reportable Food Electronic through the 3-A SSI Web site at to the registration of the new food Portal and Registry to fulfill the www.3-a.org, see ‘Purchase Stan- contact sanitizer, and, also through congressional directive to track dards and Practices’. the EPA, we expect to amend our patterns of adulteration in food. We disinfectant product registration look forward to working with FDA US EPA Registers PURE Bio- claims to add the new food contact through the implementation process science’s SDC-based Food sanitization claims. The EPA regula- and on additional food safety Contact Surface Sanitizer tory work will include state registra- measures.” tions by distributors and is expected “The agency's electronic URE Bioscience, creator of the to take at least six months.” database should work well — silver dihydrogen cit- “In addition, this registration with the industry's Rapid Recall rate (SDC) antimicrobial, has accelerates our ongoing pursuit, Exchange. This online initiative, set announced that it has obtained US through USDA, of additional direct to be launched later this month, Environmental Protection Agency food contact applications of SDC- is designed to expedite supplier (EPA) registration for its SDC-based based formulations as antimicrobial notification of food recalls to food sanitizer for food contact surfaces. processing aids.” retailers and wholesalers with more The new sanitizer was registered The CDC estimates that complete and accurate information.” by PURE’s wholly owned subsidiary, ETI-H20, under the trade name foodborne pathogens cause 76 million illnesses per year in the US 3-A SSI Issues Revamped Axen®50 for sanitization of food resulting in 325,000 hospitalizations Standard for Metal Tubing contact surfaces and equipment in dozens of environments includ- and 5,200 deaths.And although -A Sanitary Standards, Inc. ing farms, food processing plants, Americans have come to expect announces the release of a schools, hospitals and other institu- such risks associated with meat comprehensive revision of tions, restaurants and homes. products like raw hamburger, the 3-A® Sanitary Standard #33-02, Michael L. Krall, President and proportion of outbreaks caused Metal Tubing. This newly published CEO of PURE Bioscience comment- by seemingly innocuous fruits and revision is the major (5-year) update ed, “This long-awaited registration vegetables is increasing. E. coli alone of this Standard. opens new, major markets for PURE causes approximately 70,000 infec- The Metal Tubing standard Bioscience. Foodborne illnesses cre- tions each year, and 5—10% of those is widely referenced in the dairy ate significant health and economic infected develop a potentially fatal processing industry and covers the problems in the US and internation- kidney complication called hemolytic sanitary aspects of metal tubing used ally, and PURE welcomes the oppor- uremic syndrome. to conduct milk and milk products. tunity to offer a technology to help Foodborne illness creates not This standard does not apply to stem the spread of these dangerous only health but also confidence
810 FOOD PROTECTION TRENDS | NOVEMBER 2009 WHAT'S HAPPENING IN FOOD SAFETY
issues for consumers. Food recalls Staphylococcus aureus), CA-MRSA, to ensure quality practices. Labora- can cause a significantly negative PVL-MRSA and VRE (Vancomycin- tory customers, regulatory authori- economic impact on businesses. For resistant Enterococcus faecium). ties, and accreditation bodies use example, salmonellosis is estimated Moreover, SDC-based disinfectants ISO 17025 to confirm laboratory by the CDC to cost more than $| are odorless, colorless, non-corro- competence. billion in medical costs and lost sive, non-flammable and are com- ISO 17025 accreditation follows wages annually. patible with other disinfecting and a variety of other awards recogniz- Mr. Krall concluded, “This sum- cleaning chemicals. ing the accuracy and proficiency of mer’s recall of more than 5 million Covance’s Nutritional Chemistry pounds of beef because of suspected Covance Receives ISO and Food Safety laboratory, including E. coli contamination is just one Accreditation for North example of a string of recalls in the two 2008 American Association of US this year including the well- America Nutritional Cereal Chemists (AACC) Accuracy publicized cookie dough recall and Chemistry and Food Safety Awards and several proficiency the wide-reaching recalls of peanut Laboratory certificates from both the AACC and the US Department of Agricul- and dried milk products. SDC-based ovance Inc. has announced food contact surface sanitizers will ture (USDA). Covance’s Singapore that it has received Inter- offer the same benefits of efficacy laboratory received ISO 17025 acc- national Organization for as our disinfectants along with the reditation in 2008. Standardization (ISO) 17025 acc- same remarkable Category IV toxic- With more than 70 years of reditation for its Nutritional Chem- ity for which no warning statements istry and Food Safety laboratory in experience in nutritional testing, are required. In addition, SDC-based Madison, Wisconsin. Granted by the Covance plays a leading role in the food contact sanitizers are odor- American Association for Labora- design of testing programs required less, colorless, non-corrosive, do not tory Accreditation (A2LA), ISO to meet regulatory nutrition facts require hazardous materials pro- accreditation confirms compliance labeling requirements, regulatory cedures or gear and do not require with the AOAC Guidelines for Lab- mandates and scientific standards. rinsing after use.We believe that oratories Performing Microbiological Covance offers expertise in the this combination of unique benefits and Chemical Analyses of Food and complete spectrum of recognized creates a competitive edge for SDC- Pharmaceuticals. nutrients and an unparalleled range based food contact sanitizers.” “ISO accreditation confirms of sample matrices. Food contact surface antimicro- Covance’s commitment to provid- bials are processed as “sanitizers” by ing our global clients and the food Dr. Jimmy Keeton Named the EPA and, if registered, can only industry with the highest level of Head of the Nutrition and carry a 60-second sanitization claim, quality data,” said Marlo Vasquez, Food Sciences Department even if laboratory testing demon- vice president and general manager, at Texas A&M University strates faster kill times. SDC is an electrolytically gener- Nutritional Chemistry and Food r. Jimmy Keeton has been ated source of stabilized ionic silver. Safety, Covance. named head of the nutrition As a platform technology, SDC is ISO standards provide practi- and food sciences dept. at distinguished from competitors in cal tools for generating confidence, Texas A&M University College of the marketplace because of its su- reducing uncertainty, and managing Agriculture and Life Sciences, perior efficacy, low toxicity and the risk. ISO 17025 specifies the general according to Dr. Mark Hussey, vice inability of bacteria to form a resis- competence requirements for test- chancellor and dean of agriculture. tance to it. The first new disinfectant ing laboratories to carry out tests Dr. Keeton came to Texas A&M active to be registered by the EPA and sampling. Competence require- in 1984 as an associate professor in in more than 30 years, SDC-based ments include testing performed the department of animal science. disinfectants are antiviral, antifun- using standard and/or non-standard Since then, he has been promoted to full professor and was interim head gal and antibacterial, including a methods and laboratory-developed of the nutrition and food science 30-second kill and 24-hour residual methods. department since 2007. protection against standard indica- Food manufacturers around the He has studied the safety, tor bacteria and a two-minute kill world request ISO 17025 accredita- nutritional value and quality attri- claim on MRSA (Methicillin-resistant tion of laboratory service providers butes of meat products. He has also
NOVEMBER 2009 | FOOD PROTECTION TRENDS 81i WHAT'S HAPPENING IN FOOD SAFETY
authored or co-authored more the public sector. He replaces “Mark’s experience on both the than 70 refereed journal articles Arnie Schwartz, who was recently client and supplier sides and deep and 10 textbook chapters, secured appointed president of NPD’s US understanding of the consumer six patents and received more than foodservice unit. goods arena will serve his food and $4 million in grant/contract funding Mr. East was formerly vice beverage clients well,’ says Randall as principle investigator. president of client development Smith, group president, US Food Dr. Keeton earned a bachelor’s for the North America food and and Automotive, Canada and Latin degree in animal husbandry and beverage unit. In this role, he and his America at NPD.“NPD is the only agricultural education, and a master’s client development team worked marketing information company and a doctoral degree in food closely with a portfolio of clients that measures everything that science, all from the University of in the United States and Canada to consumers actually eat and drink, Tennessee-Knoxville. provide insights on a wide range and armed with this information of critical trends in consumer and insight, Mark and his team are eating behavior, attitudes, and usage The NPD Group Names uniquely positioned to help clients motivators — from diet and nutrition Mark East to Head North understand the entire food and to food safety and brand awareness. America Food and Beverage beverage market.” Prior to joining NPD, Mr. East Unit “The food and beverage spent four years as US marketing he NPD Group, Inc.,a director for Storck, one of the industry in the US and Canada is market research company, world’s premier confectionery a dynamic, ever-changing market announces the appointment companies. Previous to that, he and | look forward to continuing to of Mark East as president of its worked for more than |5 years help NPD clients stay in touch and North America food and beverage with Information Resources, Inc., understand consumers’ behaviors business unit, which provides market a market research firm, where he and attitudes,” says Mr. East.““Our information and insights used by started his career in data processing job, as | see it, is to help them food, beverage, pharmaceutical, operations before moving into a make informed decisions to drive ingredient manufacturers, and succession of client service, product greater long-term and short-term retailers, as well as agencies in management, and marketing roles. marketplace success.”
812 FOOD PROTECTION TRENDS | NOVEMBER 2009 assess if the correct Nisaplin® levels BAX® System MP Enrich- are present in each food batch. ment Media Approved Malene Svejstrup, application by AOAC for Both E. coli scientist at Danisco explained: “It O157:H7 and Salmonella is important to have the correct Testing dosage of Nisaplin® in the foods we he AOAC Research Institute test. If it is too low, it could result has approved the use of BAX in a reduced shelf life of the food. System E. coli O157:H7 MP enrich- We have been manually measuring ment media for Salmonella testing. inhibition zones with callipers to Validated on ground beef, beef trim, test Nisaplin® levels for 25 years at spinach and lettuce, the BAX® Sys- Synbiosis Danisco. This method can introduce tem performed as well as or better many variations and results can dif- than traditional culture methods Danisco Uses AutoZone Auto- fer from person to person, which is for detecting Salmonella, but with mated Zone Sizing System to why we are validating an automated quicker time to result. Ensure Foods are Consistently The MP enrichment media was zone sizer to determine if it is a Protected against Pathogenic originally designed for use with the good alternative.” Bacteria BAX® System assay for detecting Mrs. Svejstrup continued,“To E. coli 0157:H7 in ground beef and ynbiosis, a manufacturer of auto- date, the system has generated beef trim. Recently, AOAC RI ex- mated microbiological systems, promising results and we can mea- tended certification of that assay to has announced that international sure the zones in half the time it also include lettuce and spinach. This food ingredients company, Danisco is used to take when we were per- means that the identical MP enrich- using an AutoZone, automated zone forming manual measurements.” ment protocol has been approved measurement system to reproduc- Martin Smith of Synbiosis stated, by AOAC RI for both Salmonella and E. coli O157:H7 testing of those ibly predict the efficacy of Nisaplin®, “Ensuring the quality of food is very foods. a natural bacteriocide which inhibits important and we are excited that “Customers can now use the growth of pathogenic and food one of the food ingredients compa- same 8-hour enrichment to test spoilage Gram-positive bacteria in nies has chosen to use an AutoZone certain types of meat and fresh pro- food. to standardize a critical food test. duce for two different pathogens,” Microbiologists at Danisco’s Danisco’s validation studies with the said Linda Peng, research microbi- Food Protection Division in Den- AutoZone show that microbiolo- ologist — DuPont Qualicon. “This mark liquidize different food samples gists can save time, while achieving will not only save hands-on time, but containing Nisaplin®. They plate accurate and reproducible results, the single medium will also reduce inventory and storage costs for food them out on 35 cm glass plates making the AutoZone an essential companies.” of Iso-Sensitest Agar seeded with tool for testing the activity of bacte- Food processing companies Micrococcus luteus. The Nisaplin® in riocides in any food manufacturing around the world rely on the BAX“ the food produces 64 zones of inhi- facility.” system to detect pathogens or bition on each plate, which scientists Synbiosis other organisms in raw ingredients, at Danisco can rapidly measure and 301.662.2863 finished products and environmen- analyze using the AutoZone system. Frederick, MD tal samples. The automated sys- From the zone size data, they can www.synbiosis.com tem uses leading-edge technology,
The publishers do not warrant, either expressly or by 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.
NOVEMBER 2009 | FOOD PROTECTION TRENDS 813 including polymerase chain reaction The new Advanced patent- Strategic Diagnostics (PCR) assays, tableted reagents and pending flow control mechanics and Awarded Patent for Use optimized media to detect Salmo- electronics provide the smoothest, of Bacteriophages in nella, Listeria species, Listeria monocy- most accurate, and precise flow Mircrobiological Assays and togenes, E. coli O157:H7, Enterobacter across the largest flow range. Processes sakazakii, Campylobacter, Staphylococ- The new EZ Pro™ Software cus aureus, Vibrio, and yeast and mold. functions like a PC and contains oe Diagnostics Inc., (SDI), a provider of biotechnology-based With certifications and regulatory an advanced methods architecture approvals in the Americas, Asia and products and services for a broad for preprogrammed quick-start or range of food safety, life science Europe, the BAX® system is recog- advanced methods templates. nized globally as one of the most and industrial applications, has A new easy-to-use GUI on an advanced pathogen testing systems announced it has been awarded US advanced color display allows alpha/ Patent No. 7,521,201 B2 for using available to food companies. numeric reporting capability and bacteriophages in microbiological DuPont Qualicon assay tests and processes. The inven- 800.863.6842 advanced connectivity at the touch tion is a rapid bacterial detection Wilmington, DE of the screen. method that reduces or eliminates www 2.dupont.com This unit also provides maxi- mum versatility of configuration and the growth of undesirable bacteria, application. It can handle flow rates resulting in improved test perfor- mance. from picoliter to 220 ml/min with The invention addresses the the highest accuracy, precision and problem of how to detect a harmful smoothness of flow. pathogen among billions of other The PHD ULTRA™ can control bacteria present in a test sample. remote units 30 ft away, accomodates Reducing the growth of competing 2 to 10 syringes for multi-channel bacteria in the sample reduces false or larger reservoir capacities, and negative results, while preventing the contains advanced, preprogrammed growth of cross-reactive bacteria in operational modes. With the push the sample reduces false positive re- of a button, alternate between auto- sults. Together, these benefits reduce Harvard Apparatus fill continuous-flow, pulsatile, bolus, the time required to obtain test concentration mode, daisy chain, results while improving the accuracy New Smooth, Accurate and gradients and flow programming of test methods. In one application, SDI uses Precise Syringe Pump from modes. this technology in the enrichment Harvard Apparatus The functional balance of these media of its RapidChek® SELECT™ arvard Apparatus has intro- features makes the PHD ULTRA™ Salmonella and E. coli food pathogen duced the new PHD ULTRA™ the ultimate problem solver for your assay test kit to inhibit the growth Syringe Pump. The PHD ULTRA lab or work place in MS, drug infu- of cross-reactive and competitive sets a new performance standard in sion, nanofluidics, electro-spinning, bacteria, providing an optimal syringe pumps for smooth, accurate aerosol generation, reaction cham- environment for Salmonella and and precise flow. ber dosing and more. E. coli to grow and, therefore, be Harvard Apparatus introduced Solve your most demanding flu- more easily detected. Enrichment the first commercial syringe pump in idics applications with PHD ULTRA™ media is a significant component of the $1B global food pathogen testing 1956 and is the global leader in high- fluidics from Harvard Apparatus. market. Depending on the detection performance syringe pumps. The Harvard Apparatus method used, media can represent PHD ULTRA” is designed to meet 800.272.2775 more than fifty percent of the cost today’s most demanding standards Holliston, MA per test. There are more than 138 in fluidics applications. www.harvardapparatus.com million tests conducted globally each
814 FOOD PROTECTION TRENDS | NOVEMBER 2009 year to test for the presence of is designed to keep spills out of the continuous operation of |5 syringes pathogens like Salmonella or E. coli interior of the unit. (50 ml) set at 12 minutes. in food products. Improving pro- All controls are mounted well KD Scientific designs, manu- ductivity and accuracy of tests is in front of the heater surface to factures and sells a range of quality a major goal of the food testing protect against accidental burns. fluidics equipment used by research industry. The HS15 is available in 1|OOVAC/ laboratory markets worldwide. “The award of this patent and 50Hz, | |SVAC/60Hz, 220VAC/60Hz KD Scientific syringe pumps are the current application of the tech- and 230VAC/50Hz. It is fused for an economical solution to deliver- nology in our products and services safety and is supplied with user’s ing precise and smooth flow in reinforce and confirm the value of manual and detachable line cord for research, pilot plants and production the R&D investments we are mak- the country of use. It is UL,CSA applications. They are recognized ing,’ said Fran DiNuzzo, president and CE or equivalent rated. worldwide for quality, accuracy and and CEO of SDI.“Our customers Torrey Pines Scientific, Inc. reliability. A broad line of syringe are already seeing this technology 866.573.9104 pumps are offered: from a simple reduce the time required to obtain San Marcos, CA one-syringe infuse only, to a pro- test results while improving accu- www.torreypinesscientific.com grammable multi-syringe infuse/with- racy.” drawal pump. Strategic Diagnostics Inc. KD Scientific New Syringe KD Scientific 800.544.888 | Pumps Ideal for Lab or IV 508.429.6809 Newark, DE Applications Holliston, MA www.sdix.com www.kdscientific.com D’S EZFlow 2020 is a durable syringe pump useful in high-rate infusions. It is designed to enhance Warner Electric Corrosion- quick efficient operation while main- Resistant Stainless Steel taining simplicity. Permanent Magnet Clutches The EZFlow 2020 system has and Brakes Provide Smooth an automated calculation of delivery based on 4,8, 12, 16 and 20 minutes, Torque with an infusion accuracy of + 20 deal for harsh, washdown envir- seconds. onments, these Warner Electric A wide range of plastic syringes permanent magnet clutches and Torrey Pines Scientific, Inc. can be used with the unit including brakes feature all stainless-steel Torrey Pines New 5 Position 20/30 ml, 50/60 ml and 100 ml. The construction and require no elect- ergonomic, easy-to-use, horizontal Stirring Hot Plate ricity to operate. design protects the syringe barrel Since torque is independent ee Pines Scientific, Inc. and allows single-handed loading. of slip speed, smooth torque is announces its new 5-position Durable ergonomic waterproof achieved as low as | RPM up to Model HS15 stirring hot plate with touch control panel provides for 1800 RPM. Perfectly smooth slip efficient and reliable operations. individual stirring control for each torque provides constant torque Flow rates range from 60 ml/h vessel. for tension or torque-limiting ap- to 1,500 ml/h depending on the plications. Units provide depend- The large 12" (30.48 cm) square syringe size and pump settings. able performance, with no friction ceramic heater top has a tempera- There are 4 visual and audible surfaces to break down or wear ture range to 450°C. The unit can alarms, occlusion detection, low heat and stir 5-800 ml beakers. Stir- battery, near end of dispense and out. They also feature 400 Series ring range is from 100 to 1500 rpm. complete. stainless steel bearings designed for The unit measures 19" (43.2 There are two models available extremely long life. cm) deep by 12.5" (31.75 cm) wide for different power requirements, Warner Electric by 5.25" (13.4 cm) tall. It can sup- 115 VAC (EZFlow 2020) or 220 VAC 800.825.9050 port more than 50 pounds (22.6 kg) (EZFlow 2021). Both units have a South Beloit, IL on the plate surface, and the chassis rechargeable battery, which provides www.warnerelectric.com
NOVEMBER 2009 | FOOD PROTECTION TRENDS 815 COMING EVENTS
DECEMBER ¢ 27-—March 3, AFFI Frozen Food information, contact Zeb Blanton Convention, Manchester Grand at 407.618.4893 or go to www fafp. 4, Turkish Food Safety Assoc- Hyatt, San Diego, CA. For more net. iation, First Food Safety Con- information, go to www.affi.com. 5-8, ISOPOL XVII International gress, Harbiye Military Museum Symposium on Problems of and Cultural Center, Istanbul, Turkey. MARCH Listeriosis, Alfandega Congress For more information, go to www. Centre, Porto, Portugal. For more gidaguvenligikongresi.org. ¢ 4-5, Implementing SQF 2000 information, go to www.esb.ucp.pt/ 7-10, Pasteurization Workshop, Systems, Eagan, MN. For more isopol2010. Murfreesboro, TN. For more infor- information, E-mail: foodsafety@ 6-7, Associated Illinois Milk, mation, call 205.595.6455; E-mail: ecolab.com. Food and Environmental Sani- [email protected]. 8-9, ASQ Lean Six Sigma Con- tarians Spring Conference, 8-9, BRC Global Food Safety ference, Phoenix, AZ. For more Eastland Suites, Bloomington, IL. For Standard Training Course, San information, go to www.asq.org. more information, contact Steve Antonio, TX. For more _ informat- 14-17, FMI Asset Protection DiVincenzo at Steve.DiVincenzo@ ion, contact Wendy Harmon at Conference, Ritz-Carlton Hotel, 888.525.9788 ext. 262 or go to illinois.gov. Dallas, TX. For more information, 6-7, Metropolitan Association www.food-safetynet.com. call Aileen Dullaghan Munster at 10-11, Food Service Managers for Food Protection Spring 202.220.0704 or go to www.fmi. Seminar, Rutgers University, Cook HACCP Training Course, Rutgers org. College Campus Center, New Bruns- University, Rutgers, NJ. For more 23-26, 2010 Food Safety Edu- wick, NJ. For more information, con- information, go to www.cpe.rutgers. cation Conference, Advance- tact Carol Schwar at 908.475.7960; edu. ments in Food Safety Edu- E-mail: [email protected]. 14-15, Advanced HACCP Train- cation:Trends, Tools and Technolo- 7-8, High-Throughput Methods ing Course, Ecolab Inc., Eagan, gies, Hyatt Regency Atlanta, Atlanta, for Detecting Foodborne Patho- MN. For more information, contact GA. For more information, go to gens Workshop, York College, Tatiana Lorca at tatiana.lorca@ www-fsis.usda.gov/Atlanta2010. ecolab.com. Jamaica, NY. For more information, go to http://york.cuny.edu/conted/ 16-17, Implementing SQF 2000 APRIL Systems Training Course, Eagan, fdaworkshops/2008-fda-workshop/ MN. For more information, contact ¢ 9-14, Conference for Food Pro- preliminary-program. Tatiana Lorca at tatiana.lorca@ tection 2010 Biennial Meeting, 17-21, 3-A SSI 2010 Education ecolab.com. Providence, RI. For more information, Program and Annual Meeting, call 916.645.2439 or go to www. Wyndham Milwaukee Airport Hotel JANUARY 2010 foodprotect.org. & Convention Center, Milwaukee, 18-21, TAPP! 2010 PLACE WI. For more information, contact 27-29, International Poultry Conference, Albuquerque, New Tim Rugh at [email protected] or go to Expo, Atlanta, GA. For more infor- Mexico. For more information, call Www.3-a.org. mation, call 770.493.9401 or go to 800.332.8686 or go to www.tappi. www.ipe!0.org. org. 31-Feb. 3, NMC 49th Annual 25-27, ADPI/ABI Annual Con- Meeting, Albuquerque, NM. For ference, Hyatt Regency, Chicago, IL. more information, go to www. For more information, go to www. [AFP UPCOMING nmconline.org. adpi.org. MEETINGS FEBRUARY MAY
3-5, CIES International Food ¢ 5, Carolinas Association for Safety Conference, Hotel JW Mar- Food Protection Annual Meet- AUGUST 1-4. 2010 riott, Washington, D.C. For more in- ing, North Carolina Research Cam- Anaheim, California formation, go to www.ciesfoodsafety. pus, Kannapolis, NC. For more com. information, contact Steve Tracet at JULY 31-AUGUST I, 2011 22-24, Dubai International Food [email protected]. Milwaukee, Wisconsin Safety Conference, Dubai Con- 5, Florida Association for Food vention and Exhibition Centre, Protection Annual Educational JULY 22-25, 2012 | Dubai. For more information, go to Conference, International Plaza Re- Providence, Rhode Island | www.foodsafetydubai.com. sort and Spa, Orlando, FL. For more
816 FOOD PROTECTION TRENDS | NOVEMBER 2009 Abstract Supplement International Association for Food Protection. to the Journal of Food Protection IAFP 2009 Abstracts
Name
Job Title Company Nome
Address
(iy State or Province
Country Postal/Zip Code
Telephone # E-mail
Quanti @ $30.00 each (includes shipping and handling) Total Payment US FUNDS on US BANK METHOD OF PAYMENT
Send to: CJ CHECK OR MONEY ORDER ENCLOSED —) DISCOVER IAFP CD MASTERCARD =) VISA -) AMERICAN EXPRESS 6200 Aurora Ave., Suite 200W Des Moines, IA 50322-2864 | l | | Phone: +] 800.369.6337 * Fox: +1 515.276.8655 | | Ck od E-mail: [email protected] Web site: www.foodprotection.org CREDIT CARD # CARD ID # EXP. DATE SIGNATURE _
Visa, Ma stercard and Discover: See 3-digit Card ID number on the back of the card after account number. American Express: See 4-digit, non-embossed number printed above your account number on the face of your card "Search, Order, ADVERTISING INDEX| Download
3-A Sanitary Standards | 3M Microbiology
Get the latest 3-A Sanitary Standards and 3-A Accepted Practices and see how ASM Press | the 3-A Symbol program benefits equipment | manufacturers, food and dairy processors | BD Diagnostics and product sanitarians.
| BioControl Systems, Inc
Order online DuPont Qualicon at WWW.3-a.0rg
NOVEMBER 2009 | FOOD PROTECTION TRENDS 817 UNITED STATES Statement of Ownership, Management, and Circulation 13 Publication Title
Bua POSTAL SERVICE » (All Periodicals Publications Except Requester Publications) Food Protections Trends cation Title Filing Date 5 Extent and Nature of Circulation irculat No. Copies of Single s Issue Food Protection Trends 5 9/30/09 Average No. Copies Each Issue | During Preceding 12 Months Published Nearest to 6. Annual Subs Filing Date $263-Sub., A : Sr eee a am ier 5st ude: a Total Number of Copies (Net press run) 1,59€ 1,500 Contact Person _ _ | : Mailed Outside-County Paid S ptions Stated or : - . a 4 - | Te Telephone (Include area o cod PS Form 3541(Include ps paid distribution above nomi Ste. 200W, Des Moines, Polk, IA 50322-2864 | 515.276.3344 nal rate, advertiser's proof copies, and exchange 7 = copies: 8 Complete Mailing Address of Headquarters or General Business Office of Publisher (/ International . Association a for Food Protection Oe ie b Pak Mailed In-County Paid Subscriptions Stated on PS 6200 Aurora Ave., Ste. 200W, Des Moines, IA 5 2 c Form 3541 (include paid distribution above nominal rate, advertiser's proof copies, and exchange copies 9 Full Names and Complete Mailing Addresses of Publisher, Editor, and Manag or (Do not leave blank Publisher (Neme and complete mailing address) Paid Distribution Outside the Mails Including Sales ‘ Throu ler Carers, \ International i Association aa for Food Protection a : Sales, eae and cies Other oa Paid Distribution aneaner Ouest Outside USPS 6200 Aurora Ave., Ste. 200W, Des Moines, IA 50322-2864 Soi plans eo comynele nating CoB Eey Paid Distribution by Other Classes of Mail Through Dr. David A. Golden, University of Tennessee, Department of Food Science = & Technology, eee ISPS (e.g. First-C 18) 2605 River’Dr., Knoxville, TN 37996-4591 Total Paid Distribution (Sum of 156 (1), (2), (3), and (4)) Managing Editor (Name and complete mailing adaress) Ms. Lisa K. Hovey, International Association for Food Protection, eee hesat 6200 Aurora Ave., Ste. 200W, Des Moines, IA 50322-2864 fs nnn ei ™ Free or 10 Owner (Do not leave blank if the publication 1s owned by @ corporation, give the name and address of the corporation immediately followed by the Nominal Free or Nominal Rate in-County Copies included names and addresses of all stockholders owning or holding 1 percent or more of the total amount of stock. If not owned by a corporation, give the on PS Form 3541 names and addresses of the individual owners. if owned by @ partnership or other unincorporated firm, give its name and address as well as those of each individual owner. If the publication is published by @ nonprofit organization, give its name and address ) Full Name [ Complete Mailing Address Free or Nominal Rate Copies Mailed at Other Classes Through the USPS (e.g. First-Class Mail) International Association for 6200 Aurora Ave., 200W the Mail) Free or Nominal Rate Distribution Outside the Mail Food Protection es Moines, IA 50322-2864 (Carers or other means)
| e Total Free or Nominal Rate Distribution (Sum of 15d (1), (2), (3) and (4
Total Distribution (Sum of 15c and 15e) 1,447
Copies not Distributed (See instructions to Publishers #4 (page #3)) 149 1. Known Bondholders, Morigagees, and Other Secuntty Holders Owning or + Holding 1 Percent or More of Total Amount of Bonds, Mortgages, or “ Total (Sum of 15f and g) 1,596 Other Securities. none, check box § ————____» % none 1596
Full Name | Complete Mailing Address Percent Paid “ “ 15c divided by 15f times 100) 84.58 16. Publication of Statement of Ownership [Ifthe publication is a general publication, publication of this statement is required Will be printed Publicaton not required nthe November *0O9 _ issue of this publication 7. Signature and Title of Editor, Publisher, Business Manager, or Owner
12. ——s Tax Status (For completion by nonprofit organizations authonzed to mail at nonprofit rates) (Check one) Executive Peecutive Director ° 9/30/09 9/30/09 The purpose. function, and nonprofit status of this organization and the exempt status for federal income tax i sity that all information furnished on this forff 's true and complete | understand that anyone who fumishes false or misieading 1 ( Has Not Changed During Preceding 12 Months form of who omits material or information requested on the form may be subject to criminal sanctions (including fines and imprsonmen O Has Changed Dunng Preceding 12 Months (Publisher must st f change with this statem sanctions (including civil penalties: PRIVACY NOTICE 2 o us PS Form 3526, September 2007 (Page 2 of 3)
Q:What’s the safe minimum cooking temperature for a turkey?
Q:What’s the safe way to defrost a turkey?
Q: How long should you keep leftovers?
‘ * .. . p K important tips on how to have a safe and tasty Holiday feast, 3 sho tteteayeoocbicrios ot5 ©2009 Partnership for Food Safety Education. All Rights Reserved. 818 FOOD PROTECTION TRENDS | NOVEMBER 2009 International Food Safety Icons International Association for Available from Food Protection. Handwashing Potentially Hazardous Food Do Not Handle if Ill Cross Contamination Wash, Rinse, and Sanitize No Bare Hand Contact Refrigeration/Cold Holding Copyright © International Association for Food Protection Copyright © International Association for Food Protection Copynght © International Association for Food Protection Copyright © international Association for Food Protection For additional information, go to our Web site: www.foodprotection.org or contact the IAFP office at +1 800.369.6337; +1 515.276.3344; E-mail: [email protected] NOVEMBER 2009 | FOOD PROTECTION TRENDS 819 TAFP OFFERS All Guidelines now available on “Guidelines for the Dairy Industry” cD from the Dairy Practices Council’ IAFP has agreed with the Dairy Practices Guidelines are available on CD and in printed form. Council® to distribute their guidelines. DPC is a non-profit organization of education, Please check which guidelines you are ordering. industry, and regulatory personnel Complete set (over 80 guidelines): CD ($270) __—=~Printed ($330) 0 concerned with milk quality and sanitation. Its membership roster lists individuals and Farm Set (58 guidelines): CD ($180) 0 _s~Printed ($250) O organizations throughout the world. Plant Set (44 guidelines): CD ($135) 0 _s~Printed ($160) O Professionals working through six permanent DPC task forces write DPC Small Ruminants (19 guidelines): CD ($61.20) 0) ‘Printed ($68) O guidelines. Prior to distribution, every guideline is peer reviewed and submitted Please add $20.00 for each printed set and $4.00 for each CD for for approval to state regulatory agencies, shipping and handling. Outside US shipping depends on existing rates. where exceptions to each state’s Make checks payable in US dollars on a US bank or pay by credit card. regulations are noted in the final document. These guidelines represent the Name Phone No. state of the knowledge at the time they are written. Company The guidelines are renowned for their common sense and useful approach to Street Address proper and improved sanitation practices. City, State We think they will be a valuable addition to Province, Code your professional reference library. VISA/MC/AMEX No. Exp. Date Signature 820 FOOD PROTECTION TRENDS | NOVEMBER 2009 The Table of Contents from the Journal of Food Protection 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. International Association for Food Protection, Reg. U.S. Pat. Off Vol. 72 October 2009 Lack of Internalization of Escherichia coli 0157:H7 in Lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.) after Leaf Surface and Soil Inoculation Guodong Zhang, Li Ma, Larry R. Beuchat, Marilyn C. Erickson, Vanessa H. Phelan, and Michael P. Doyle* Fate of Escherichia coli 0157:H7 in the Presence of Indigenous Microorganisms on Commercially Packaged Baby Spinach, as Impacted by Storage Temperature and Time Yaguang Luo,” Qiang He, James L. McEvoy, and William S. Conway Inactivation of Escherichia coli 0157:H7 on the Intact and Damaged Portions of Lettuce and Spinach Leaves by Using Allyl Isothiocyanate, Carvacrol, and Cinnamaldehyde in Vapor Phase Mohammad M. Obaidat and Joseph F. Frank* Lethality of Home-Style Dehydrator Processes against Escherichia coli 0157:H7 and Salmonella Serovars in the Manufacture of Ground-and-Formed Beef Jerky and the Potential for Using a Pathogen Surrogate in Process Validation A. G. Borowski, S. C. Ingham, and B. H. Ingham* Simultaneous Enrichment of Shiga Toxin—-Producing Escherichia coli 0157 and 026 and Salmonella in Food Samples Using Universal Preenrichment Broth Masashi Kanki,” Kazuko Seto, Junko Sakata, Tetsuya Harada and Yuko Kumeda \solation of Salmonelia enterica in Laying-Hen Flocks and Assessment of Eggshell Contamination in France Marianne Chemaly,* Adeline Huneau-Salaiin, Annie Labbe, Catherine Houdayer, Isabelle Petetin, and Philippe Fravalo General Regression Neural Network and Monte Carlo Simulation Model for Survival and Growth of Salmonella on Raw Chicken Skin as a Function of Serotype, Temperature, and Time for Use in Risk Assessment Thomas P. Oscar* Survival of Salmonelia in Processed Chicken Products during Frozen Storage Silvia A. Dominguez and Donald W. Schaffner* Comparing the Effect of Various Contamination Levels for Salmonella in Chicken Meat Preparations on the Probability of Illness in Belgium Mieke Uyttendaele,” Katleen Baert, Koen Grijspeerdt, Lieven De Zutter Benoit Horion, Frank Devlieghere, Marc Heyndrickx, and Johan Debevere Evaluation of DNA Colony Hybridization and Real-Time PCR for Detection of Vibrio parahaemolyticus and Vibrio vulnificus in Postharvest-Processed Oysters Jessica L. Jones,” Kathy E. Noe, Robin Byars, and Angelo DePaola Survey of Postharvest-Processed Oysters in the United States for Levels of Vibrio vulnificus and Vibrio parahaemolyticus Angelo DePaola,” Jessica L. Jones, Kathy E. Noe, Robin H. Byars, and John C. Bowers Predicting Behavior of Staphylococcus aureus, Salmonella Serovars, and Escherichia coli 0157:H7 in Pork Products during Single and Repeated Temperature Abuse Periods Steven C. Ingham, Song Vang, Ben Levey Lisa Fahey, John P. Norback, Melody A. Fanslau, Andre G. Senecal, Greg M. Burnham, and Barbara H. Ingham’ Adherence Characteristics of Listeria Strains Isolated from Three Ready-to-Eat Meat Processing Plants Kalpana Kushwaha and Peter M. Muriana* Development and Validation of an Extensive Growth and Growth Boundary Model for Listeria monocytogenes in Lightly Preserved and Ready-to-Eat Shrimp Ole Mejlhoim* and Paw Dalgaard Dose of UV Light Required To Inactivate Listeria monocytogenes in Distilled Water, Fresh Brine, and Spent Brine Julie McKinney,” Robert C. Williams, Gregory D. Boardman, Joseph D. Eifert, and Susan S. Sumner Application of Quantitative Microbial Risk Assessments for Estimation of Risk Management Metrics: Clostridium perfringens in Ready-to-Eat and Partially Cooked Meat and Pouitry Products as an Example Edmund A. Crouch," David LaBarre, Neal J. Golden, Janeil R. Kause, and Kerry L. Dearfield Antibiotic Resistance of Lactobacilli Isolated from Two Italian Hard Cheeses Nicoletta Belletti, Monica Gatti Benedetta Bottari, Erasmo Neviani, Giulia Tabanelli, and Fausto Gardini* Prediction of Deoxynivalenol Content in Dutch Winter Wheat Eelco Franz," Kees Booij, and Ine van der Fels-Klerx Anion-Exchange Filtration and Real-Time PCR for the Detection of a Norovirus Surrogate in Food Rocio Morales-Rayas, Petra F. G. Wolffs, and Mansel W. Griffiths* Risk Assessment of Cryptosporidium and Giardia in Water Irrigating Fresh Produce in Mexico Alain Mota Kristina D. Mena,” Marcela Soto-Beltran, Patrick M. Tarwater, and Cristobal Chaidez Residue Depletion of Doramectin in Rabbit Tissues after Subcutaneous Administration Jianzhong Shen Na Li, Haiyang Jiang, Jiancheng Li, Qinxiong Rao, Liming Guo, Weimin Shi, and Shuangyang Ding” Research Notes Performance Comparison of a fliC,7 Real-Time PCR Assay with an H7 Latex Agglutination Test for Confirmation of the H Type of Escherichia coli 0157:H7 Neelam Narang,” Pina M. Fratamico, Glenn Tillman Kitty Pupedis, and William C. Cray, Jr A Rapid Screen of Broth Enrichments for Sa/moneila enterica Serovars Enteritidis, Hadar, Heidelberg, and Typhimurium by Using an Allelotyping Multiplex PCR That Targets O- and H-Antigen Alleles Yang Hong Tongrui Liu, Margie D. Lee, Charles L. Hofacre, Marie Maier, David G. White, Sherry Ayers, Lihua Wang Roy Berghaus, and John Maurer* Evaluation of Associations between Feed Withdrawal and Other Management Factors with Sa/monelia Contamination of Broiler Chickens at Slaughter in Alberta C. Mainali,“ G. Gensler, M. McFall, R. King, R. Irwin and A. Senthilselvan Validation of a Lactic Acid— and Citric Acid—Based Antimicrobial Product for the Reduction of Escherichia coli 0157:H7 and Salmonella on Beef Tips and Whole Chicken Carcasses A. M. Laury, M. V. Alvarado, G. Nace C. Z. Alvarado, J. C. Brooks, A. Echeverry, and M. M. Brashears* Effect of Thermal Processing during Yogurt Production upen the Detection of Staphylococcal Enterotoxin B MaryAnn Principato,” Thomas Boyle, Joyce Njoroge, Robert L. Jones, Jr., and Michael O'Donnell Microbiological Quality of Saffron from the Main Producer Countries Inmaculada Cosano, Concepcion Pintado Olga Acevedo, José Luis Novella, Gonzalo Luis Alonso, Manuel Carmona, Carmen de la Rosa, and Rafael Rotger* Application of Food Safety Management Systems (ISO 22000/HACCP) in the Turkish Poultry Industry: A Comparison Based on Enterprise Size M. Sami! KOk* NOVEMBER 2009 | FOOD PROTECTION TRENDS 821 0 Clo AUDIOVISUAL LIBRARY ORDER FORM Member # First Name Last Name Company Job Title Mailing Address _ Please specify: THome [7 Work City State or Province Postal Code/Zip + 4 Country Telephone # Fax # E-Mail Date Needed PLEASE CHECK BOX NEXT TO YOUR VIDEO CHOICE OR PLACE TAPE # HERE (Allow 4 weeks minimum from date of request.) Food Safety First Food Safety: Fish and Shellfish Safety ee ON be GLP Basics: Safety in the Food Micro Lab D1010 — The Bulk Milk Hauler: Protocol & Procedures ww GMP Basics: Avoiding Microbial Cross-Contamination D1031 Dairy Plant GMP Basics: Employee Hygiene Practices D1050 Food Safety: Dairy Details GMP Basics: Guidelines for Maintenance Personnel D1060 Frozen Dairy Products tw GMP Basics: Process Control Practices D1080 —_- High-Temperature, Short-Time Pasteurizer GMP - GSP Employee D1100 — Mastitis Prevention and Control NNNNN Nn Th sdsdioeBeU9 S 5% GMP: Personal Hygiene and Practices in Food Manufacturing D1105 Milk Hauling Training GMP Food Safety Video Series D1120 — Milk Processing Plant Inspection Procedures Tape | - Definitions D1130 Pasteurizer: Design and Regulation Tape 2 - Personnel and Personnel Facilities D1140 — Pasteurizer: Operation QOOOQOOQOUUY D1180 10 Points to Dairy Quality Tape 3 - Building and Facilities DNDN Tape 4 - Equipment and Utensils ENVIRONMENTAL A) Den Tape 5 - Production and Process Controls NNNNNN GMP: Sources and Control of Contamination during Processing a Allergy Beware GMPs for Food Plant Employees 4 oO Tape 1 - Definitions = Asbestos Awareness Effective Handwashing - Preventing Cross Contamination fape 2 - Personnel and Personnel Practices in the Food Service Industry Tape 3 - Building and Facilities 4 Tape 4 - Equipment and Utensils 4 ow Good Pest Exclusion Practices 4 Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Tape 5 - Production/Process Controls 4 Key Pests of the Food Industry HACCP Advantage - Good Manufacturing Practices 4 Physical Pest Management Practices HACCP: Training for Employees - USDA Awareness 4 Regulatory and Good Manufacturing Practices The Heart of HACCP 4 DN Ss De De Rodent Control Strategies HACCP: Training for Managers 4 SANK DI Sink a Germ Inside HACCP: Principles, Practices and Results 4 Wash Your Hands HACCP: Safe Food Handling Techniques et Si beOs i Would Your Restaurant Kitchen Pass Inspection? 5 = Microbial Food Safety: Awareness to Action eK WNKRNNNRe Ss Swabbing Techniques for Sampling the Environment and Equipment Se a NNNNNNKNNKNNNNN Proper Handling of Peracidic Acid Purely Coincidental On the Line F2005 A Lot on the Line 100 Degrees of Doom...The Time and Temperature Caper F2007 The Amazing World of Microorganisms A Day in the Deli: Service, Selection, and Good Safety F2008 A Recipe for Food Safety Success HACCP: A Basic Understanding F2009 Basic Personnel Practices Preventing Foodborne Illness F2011 Available Post Harvest Processing Technologies for Oysters x Principles of Warehouse Sanitation F2012 Control of Listeria monocytogenes in Retail Establishments 2 Product Safety and Shelf Life F2013 Control of Listeria monocytogenes in Small Meat and Poultry Establishments NNNNWNNNN! XNWN! Safe Handwashing F2014 Controlling Food Allergens in the Plant ~ All Hands on Deck F2015 Controlling Listeria:A Team Approach The Why, The When, and The How Video F2016 Bloodborne Pathogens: What Employees Must Safe Practices for Sausage Production F2017 Building a Better Burger - Improving Food Safety in the Food Supply Chain Sanitizing for Safety F2021 Egg Production Seafood HACCP Alliance Internet Training Course F2025 The Special of the Day: The Eggceptional Egg ServSafe Steps to Food Safety F2030 Egg Games” Foodservice Egg Handling & Safety Step One: Starting Out with Food Safety F2036 Emerging Pathogens and Grinding and Cooking Comminuted Beef Step Two: Ensuring Proper Personal Hygiene F2037 Cooking and Cooling of Meat and Poultry Products Step Three: Purchasing, Receiving and Storage F2039 Food for Thought - The GMP Quiz Show Step Four: Preparing, Cooking and Serving F2040 Food Irradiation F2045 Food Microbiological Control Step Five: Cleaning and Sanitizing F2050 Food Safe-Food Smart - HACCP and Its Application to the Food Industry IN NNNNNNNNNNN Step Six: Take the Food Safety Challenge: Good Practices, Bad Practices - (Part 1 & 2) You Make the Call Understanding Foodborne Pathogens F2060 Food Safe Series 1 (4 videos) ~ Smart Sanitation: Principles and Practices for Effectively Cleaning Your Food F2070 Food Safe Series I (4 videos) win ee Plant F2080 Food Safe Series Il (4 videos) Cleaning and Sanitizing in Vegetable Processing Plants: Do It Well, Do It Safely! F2081 Food Safety Begins on the Farm A Guide to Making Safe Smoked Fish F2090 Food Safety: An Educational Video for Institutional Food Service Workers ASS A HACCP-based Plan Ensuring Food Safety in Retail Establishments Food Safety for Food Service Series I NNNN 60 Safer Processing of Sprouts F2095 Now You're Cooking Fast Track Restaurant Video Kit F2101 Tape 1 - Food Safety for Food Service: HACCP F2500 Tape 1 - Food Safety Essentials F2103 Tape 2 - Food Safety for Food Service:Time and Temperature Controls Food F2501 Tape 2 - Receiving and Storage Safety for Food Service Series II F2502 Tape 3 - Service Tape I - Basic Microbiology and Foodborne Illness F2503 Tape 4 - Food Production Tape 2 - Handling Knives, Cuts, and Burns F2504 Tape 5 - Warewashing Tape 3 - Working Safely to Prevent Injury Worker Health and Hygiene Program for the Produce Industry Tape 4 - Sanitation F2505 Manager Guide to Worker Health and Hygiene Your Company's Food Safety is No Mystery Success May Depend on It! Controlling Salmonella: Strategies That Work F2506 Worker Health and Hygiene: Your Job Depends on It! Food Safety the HACCP Way Food Safety Zone Video Series OB OOOOSOOO BOO BOON B BBBDOB O000 JuQOOQ000 990 QO F2600 Food Industry Security Awareness: The First Line of Defense Tape 1 - Food Safety Zone: Basic Microbiology Tape 2 - Food Safety Zone: Cross Contamination OTHER Tape 3 - Food Safety Zone: Personal Hygiene Tape 4 - Food Safety Zone: Sanitation M4030 _ Ice: The Forgotten Food con Food Technology: Irradiation M4050 Personal Hygiene and Sanitation for Food Processing Employees Food Safety: You Make the Difference M4060 Psychiatric Aspects of Product Tampering JOOOODOOOOOOOOOOOOOUUU BU 800 QOB000000000000 NNNNNKKNNKKNNN yee Nh wSwN Fruits, Vegetables, and Food Safety: Health and Hygiene on the Farm BOO M4070 Tampering: The Issue Examined Visit our Web site at www.foodprotection.org for detailed tape descriptions 822 FOOD PROTECTION TRENDS | NOVEMBER 2009 li BOOKLET ORDER FORM SFP FC): Member # First Name JA. Last Name Company _ Job Title Mailing Address Please specify: Home City State or Province Postal Code/Zip + 4 Country Telephone # Fax # E-Mail BOOKLETS: QUANTITY : MEMBEROR NON-MEMBER en Ma ius | Procedures to Investigate Waterborne Illness—2nd Edition | _ $12.00 | $24.00 | Procedures to Investigate Foodborne IIlness—5th Edition | 12.00 24.00 | SHIPPING AND HANDLING -— $3.00 (US) $5.00 (Outside US) Each additional Shipping/Handling Multiple copies available at reduced prices. booklet $1.50 Booklets Total Phone our office for pricing information on quantities of 25 or more. OTHER PUBLICATIONS: MEMBEROR NON-MEMBER GOV'T PRICE PRICE - | *JFP Memory Stick — September 1952 through December 2000 | $295.00 | $325.00 _*International Food Safety Icons and International Food Allergen Icons CD | _ 25.00 | 25.00 | Pocket Guide to Dairy Sanitation (minimum order of 10) | 75 | 1.50 | Before Disaster Strikes... A Guide to Food Safety in the Home (minimum order of 10) | 75 | 1.50 |__ Before Disaster Strikes... Spanish language version — (minimum order of 10) | AD | 1.50 | Food Safety at Temporary Events (minimum order of 10) | 15 1.50 ___ Food Safety at Temporary Events — Spanish language version — (minimum order of 10) | 15 | 1.50 | *Annual Meeting Abstract Book Supplement (year requested ) | _ 25.00 | 25.00 | *IAFP History 1911-2000 25.00 25.00 SHIPPING AND HANDLING - per 10— $2.50 (US) $3.50 (Outside US) Shipping/Handling *Includes shipping and handling Other Publications Total . ] TOTAL ORDER AMOUNT PAY M EN T: Prices effective through August 31, 2010 Payment must be enclosed for order to be processed * US FUNDS on US BANK (Lu Check Enclosed ‘J Visa ‘J Mastercard “J American Express od Discover CREDIT CARD # CARD ID # EXP. DATE International Association for SIGNATURE | Food Protection. "Visa, Mastercard and Discover: See 3-digit Card ID number on the back of the card after account number. American Express: See 4-digit, non-embossed number printed above your account number on the face of your card. 4 EASY WAYS TO ORDER PHONE 4 re 43-2 800.369.6337; 515.276.8655 6200 Aurora Ave., Suite 200W www.foodprotection.org 515.276.3344 Des Moines, IA 50322-2864, USA NOVEMBER 2009 | FOOD PROTECTION TRENDS 823 cl MEMBERSHIP APPLICATION Prefix (J Prof. Dr. Mr. —! Ms.) First Name _ Last Name Company Job Title Mailing Address Please specify: J Home City State or Province Postal Code/Zip + 4 _ _ Country Telephone # _ Fax# ml |AFP occasionally provides Members’ addresses (excluding phone and E-Mail E-mail) to vendors supplying products and services for the food safety industry. If you prefer NOT to be included in these lists, please check the box. lds) oh Canada/Mexico International 1 IAFP Membership $ 50.00 $ 50.00 $ 50.00 (Member dues are based on a |2-month period and includes the IAFP Report) Optional Benefits: _! Food Protection Trends $ 60.00 $ 75.00 $ 90.00 _ Journal of Food Protection $150.00 $170.00 $200.00 _ Journal of Food Protection Online $ 36.00 $ 36.00 $ 36.00 _ All Optional Benefits — BEST VALUE! $200.00 $235.00 $280.00 Student Membership $ 25.00 $ 25.00 $ 25.00 (Full-time student verification required) Optional Benefits: -! Student Membership with FPT $ 30.00 $ 45.00 $ 60.00 -! Student Membership with |FP $ 75.00 $ 95.00 $125.00 1 Student Membership with JFP Online $ 18.00 $ 18.00 $ 18.00 _! All Optional Benefits — BEST VALUE! $100.00 $135.00 $180.00 SUSTAINING MEMBERSHIPS Recognition for your organization and many other benefits. Contact the IAFP office GOLD $5,000.00 for more information on the Wl SILVER $2,500.00 Sustaining Membership Program. J SUSTAINING $ 750.00 Payment must be enclosed for order to be processed * US FUNDS on US BANK (LJ Check Enclosed (J visa LJ Mastercard “J American Express ‘J Discover TOTAL MEMBERSHIP PAYMENT $ CREDIT CARD # All prices include shipping and handling Prices effective through August 31,2010 CARD ID # EXP. DATE SIGNATURE International Association for Visa, Mastercard and Discover: See 3-digit Card ID number on the back of the card after account number. American Express: See 4-digit, non-embossed number printed above your account number on the face of your card. Food Protection, 4 EASY WAYS TO JOIN PHONE U4 MAIL da EE aa ORCL) BR i +1 515.276.8655 6200 Aurora Ave., Suite 200W www.foodprotection.org ae aA Des Moines, IA 50322-2864, USA * 824 FOOD PROTECTION TRENDS | NOVEMBER 2009 One destination. Global connections. Advance your professional potential by energizing > days of presentations, discussions, anc leading minds in food safety research and Explore, Learn, Participate! Program information is available at: www.foodprotection.org International Association for www. foodprotection. aut MUCHO 6200 Aurora Avenue, Suite 200W Des Moines, IA 50322-2864 +1 800.369.6337 | +1 515.276.3344 FAX +1 515.276.8655 She doesn’t know how technology can make her food safer. But you do. At DuPont Qualicon, we believe that science— particularly biotechnology—offers the potential to help ensure the safety and quality of our global food supply. Our innovative science can help you perform fast, accurate food quality testing to address a broad range of challenges—so you can get products to market faster and help ensure the safety of the foods people enjoy every day. 1-800-863-6842 Qualicon.com Technology rules. Results matter. “ONT QUAz>. cc 208 Q Aly ee >> Campylobacter “OQU*. , = E. coli 0157:H7 ° E. sakazakii . + Listeria x L. monocytogenes . Salmonella ae © Staphylococcus aureus & - . % Vibrio oe . Yeast andMold <> * leg. Qualicon WIND The miracles of science~ Copyright © 2009 DuPont. The DuPont Oval Logo and The miracles of science™ are trademarks or fegistered trademarks of E.1. du Pont de Nemours and Company or its affiliates. All rights reserved