Tagged: food safety Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • catherine wong 1:27 pm on October 27, 2015 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , food safety, Fried Rice, , , ,   

    Listeria Monocytogenes Recall in Australian Fried Rice: No Ending 

    In Australia, there was a recall on September 3, 2015 due to pre-packaged fried rice from the company JL King & Co due to Listeria monocytogenes. Both packagings of 1kg and 450g were on the recall. As of now, there is still no information about the source of contamination, how many or if there were any consumers who got sick. The best before date for this product was September 15, 2015, which was only 12 days from the date the recall was announced. (Australian Competition Consumer Commission, 2015)

    Similar to most other ready to eat foods that Listeria monocytogenes like to grow in, the shelf life is quite short and some consumers consume the ready to eat products right after purchasing. Other products such as canned foods that Clostridium botulinum can grow in, the shelf life can be up to 2 years which gives plenty of time for recalls as those consumers may not consume them immediately after purchase. The recalls for ready to eat foods such as the pre-packaged fried rice can serve the purpose of taking the food off store shelves to prevent future consumers from getting sick. However for the consumers who have consumed contaminated products before any recall notification, some of them may not even get sick due to the natural microflora present on their intestinal surfaces.

    The ones who are most susceptible to falling ill from Listeria monocytogenes are pregnant women and their unborn or newborn children, seniors and the immunocompromised. For pregnant women in the first three months of pregnancy, being sick with Listeria monocytogenes can cause a miscarriage. If the bacteria is contracted later on in the pregnancy, premature birth, stillbirth or the birth of a severely ill child may happen. The immunocompromised are much more likely to get sick but according to the Public Health Agency of Canada, people suffering from AIDS are 300 times more susceptible to being infected by Listeria monocytogenes compared to healthy individuals. (Public Health Agency of Canada, 2012)

    Listeria Monocytogenes luckily cannot grow in all ready to eat food products as long as the food product falls under one of the following three criteria according to Australia’s Food Standards (Food Standards, 2014):
    1. pH less than 4.4, no matter the water activity value
    2. Water activity less than 0.92, no matter the pH value
    3. pH less than 5.0 and water activity less than 0.94

    However, if Listeria monocytogenes is present it can survive in acid conditions and in products with low water activity for a long period of time, especially for refrigerated products. Even if the product has gone through a drying process, Listeria monocytogenes may survive. (Lawley, 2013)

    If the ready to eat food product is frozen and is consumed frozen, thawed but still eaten cold or heated before consumption then it is most likely safe from Listeria Monocytogenes. (Food Standards, 2014) If the ready to eat food product does not fit with the above criteria, then heating to an internal temperature of 74°C before eating can help in minimizing the chance of Listeria monocytogenes surviving in the food. (Public Health Agency of Canada, 2012)

    With all the conditions Listeria monocytogenes can grow or survive in ready to eat products, I feel that one of the better ways to minimize the risks of getting ill from Listeria monocytogenes is to heat ready to eat products except for frozen products before consuming. Although this might be difficult for ready to eat foods that are generally eaten at room temperature such as sandwiches.

    Are there any other methods that you think are sufficient in eliminating Listeria monocytogenes?

    References:

    Andersen, L. (2015) Listeria and Bacteriocin-Producing Starter Culture. Retrieved from http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2015/08/listeria-and-bacteriocin-producing-starter-cultures/#.Vi3XUmSrToB

    Australian Competition Consumer Commission. (2015). Product Safety Recalls Australia. Retrieved from http://www.recalls.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/1076441

    Food Standards. (2014). Supporting document 1 – Guidance On the Application of Microbiological Criteria for Listeria Monocytogenes. Retrieved from
    http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/code/proposals/Documents/P1017-MicroAppR-SD1.pdf

    Lawley, R. (2013). Food Safety Watch. Retrieved from http://www.foodsafetywatch.org/factsheets/listeria/

    Public Health Agency of Canada. (2012). Listeria. Retrieved from
    http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/fs-sa/fs-fi/listerios-eng.php

     

    • ColleenChong 5:16 pm on October 27, 2015 Permalink | Reply

      I am glad you brought up that listeria monocytogenes can survive acid and low water activity environments, just as Trish has mentioned in her presentation. Although L. Monocytogenes is a heat sensitive microorganism once it contaminates processing equipment it will be a major issue because it can form biofilms, which protects the pathogen. Contamination usually occurs after post-processing as you mentioned ready to eat products. I think the general public does not need to be too concern when consuming these products. However, young children, pregnant women and immunocompromised individuals should be careful. If possible the susceptible population to try to avoid these foods in general because the serious consequences can result in listeriosis or even death.

    • Jasmine Lee 2:56 pm on October 31, 2015 Permalink | Reply

      I agree with Colleen that Listeria monocytogenes may have been introduced to this product through post-processing contamination. Potential sources may be due to unsanitary premises, unclean air ventilation, contaminated packaging and/or temperature abuse. Even though this product may pose a serious health risk for immunocompromised individuals, I find it rather surprising that there are no further details available since the date of the recall. Since Listeria monocytogenes is ubiquitous in the environment, I strongly believe multiple methods are necessary to control the presence of this pathogen. These measures may include reassessing the company’s HACCP program to reinforce proper sanitation practices, frequent microbiological monitoring and appropriate storage temperatures. A combination of rapid pathogen detection methods should be utilized because some techniques, such as PCR, may detect false positives. Alternatively, the company could look into reformulating the product to include more hurdles, such as adding antimicrobial agents and increasing lethality of the heat treatment. Applying different treatments and storing susceptible food components in separate packages (combined by the end user during consumption) may lower favorable conditions for bacterial growth. These methods may also extend the product’s shelf life.

    • RainShen 1:01 pm on November 4, 2015 Permalink | Reply

      Comparing to other pathogenic microorganisms, Listeria monocytogenes can be resistant to many stresses during the processing and before consumption which causes it becomes one of the biggest concern for consuming the ready to eat food. I agree that the best way to eliminate L. monocytogenes in the high risk ready to eat food is heating the product to at least 74C. However, the manufacturer of the ready to ear food should improve their food safety system as well which may include sanitation procedure, regular equipment checking, personnel hygiene etc, especially that L. monocytogenes can form biofilm on the surface of the equipment, so regular microbiological testing will be necessary in the ready to eat manufacturing company. Complete final products checking and testing will be needed to ensure the absence of L. monocytogenes in the ready to eat foods.

    • MarinaMoon 2:50 am on November 13, 2015 Permalink | Reply

      As Listeria monocytogenes is one of the pathogens that can withstand many hurdles during food production and storage, it should be especially cautious and have very strict regulation system regarding production that is easily susceptible to Listeria Monocytogenes contamination. However, in this article in particular, I believe that these pre-packaged fried rice would be mostly consumed by healthy individuals probably those who do not have the time to make one themselves such as college students and workers. Thus, although we should be concerned and pay close attention to be able to prevent further contamination, I don’t think it would result in severe outbreaks like some other pathogens. As elderly, pregnant women and infants are most vulnerable to contamination, I do not think this particular product would create such a disaster. Nonetheless, I think better sanitation in the production environment and more strict regulations could possibly lead to prevention of this pathogen.

    • cvalencia 5:07 pm on December 4, 2015 Permalink | Reply

      Great article on Listeria! I think that it is surprising to find this pathogen in pre-packaged, since most of the time they are found on high-risk foods such as soft cheeses and deli meats. This just goes to show that we must take extra precaution to ensure food safety, even in unexpected food items such as the case for this food item. Also, it shows that we have a long way to go in food safety to ensure that cases like these don’t happen in the future

    • Ya Gao 9:24 pm on December 15, 2015 Permalink | Reply

      It is interesting to learn the specific details about how Listeria affect vulnerable people like pregnant women and their unborn or newborn children, seniors and the immunocompromised. And it is shocking to see how AIDS change life by looking at the number “people suffering from AIDS are 300 times more susceptible to being infected by Listeria monocytogenes compared to healthy individuals”. Ready to eat food can be a great threat since people tend not to process them at home after purchasing and consume them directly. A better controlling on production, distribution and retailing of ready to eat food products is important to protect these vulnerable people from getting harm.

    • MichelleLui 10:59 pm on December 18, 2015 Permalink | Reply

      Good information on Listeria Monocytogenes. Contaminated ingredient is mostly likely the starting agent to the contamination as there has to be an introduction of Listeria Monocytogenes into the processing facility or food. There could be other contaminants such as rodents due to poor pest control program at the processing facility. Just browsing through their website, it looks like they process many items, including dairy and produce. Good sanitation standard procedures should be in place to prevent cross contamination. The firm should monitor their suppliers by testing their ingredients and packagings for pathogens or indicator organisms.

  • Silvia Low 4:34 pm on October 23, 2015 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , food safety, , ,   

    Europe: Salmonella Stanley Strikes Again! Find out why S. Stanley keeps refusing to back down. 

    SalmonellaTurkeys Stanley, as friendly as this particular strain of salmonella may sound, is no friend to the European member states at all. S.Stanley may as well be a multi-national celebrity as it has been making headlines across Europe for various food-borne outbreaks since 2011.

    After a string of salmonella outbreaks that affected 7 European states and more than 400 patients, the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) and other authorities finally initiated investigations on the source of the culprit strain in 2012. Evidence from the investigations led to a suggested source of turkey meat and without slowing down, the notorious S.Stanley continued to make various headlines up until 2014. Now, S.Stanley has re-emerged in clusters throughout 2015 and is taking over a new wave of Austrian turkey supply.

    Between 1 January and 8 October 2015, 141 cases of non-travel related infection with S. Stanley were identified in eight of the nine Austrian provinces. At least 36 of these cases have been traced back to turkey kebabs made with turkey meat supplied by a single retailer located in Slovakia. More trace back by National authorities indicate that the Slovakian retailer sources its turkey meat from a facility in Hungary. This same facility was linked to a S.Stanley cluster back in 2014. Furthermore, recent investigations using pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE) molecular typing indicate that the 2015 salmonella isolates have the same unique pattern as S.Stanley from the 2011 to 2014 outbreaks.

    So what is the secret to S.Stanley’s everlasting presence?

    Antimicrobial Resistance.

    Since the early 1990s, antimicrobial resistant salmonella strains have emerged and become serious public health concerns. Antimicrobial resistance occurs when pathogenic cases are routinely treated with antimicrobial therapy but result in not eliminating the more resistant bacteria strains. The subsequent result is resistant bacteria strains reproducing, and the antimicrobial treatment becoming ineffective.

    The same strain of Salmonella Stanley has consistently been recognized from 2011-2014 due to its pattern of resistance to nalidixic acid antibiotics. That was up until now, where the 2015 strain of S.Stanley has been identified as having low-level resistance to ciprofloxacin in addition to nalidixic acid antibiotics.

    To prevent further cases of antimicrobial resistance cases, the single most important action is to change the way antibiotics are used. Mostly, the use of antibiotics in people and animals are unnecessary especially in mild cases of infection. Treatment guidelines should be reviewed regularly while considering bacterial resistance patterns.

    Here are some simple tips to prevent Salmonella from spreading in your home:

    • Clean surfaces regularly and wash your hands often especially after coming into contact with animals and animal products.
    • Separate raw and cooked, ready-to-eat foods to prevent cross contamination.
    • Cook food to the right temperature. Checking the colour and texture of meat is not enough to ensure it is safe. Instead, use a food thermometer to check internal food temperatures.
    • Refrigerate foods below 4°C. Germs can grow in many foods within 2 hours and even quicker during the summer.

     

    Works Cited

    CDC. (2014). Antibiotic Resistance and Food Safety. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/foodsafety/antibiotic-resistance.html

    CDC. (2015). About Antimicrobial Resistance. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/drugresistance/about.html

    ECDC. (2015). CDTR Week 41, 4-10 October 2015. . COMMUNICABLE DISEASE THREATS REPORT. Available at: http://ecdc.europa.eu/en/publications/Publications/communicable-disease-threats-report-10-oct-2015.pdf

    Whitworth, J. (13 October 2015). New Cases reported in multi-year, multi-country Salmonella outbreak. Food Quality News. Available at: http://www.foodqualitynews.com/Food-Outbreaks/Turkey-production-chain-at-centre-of-Salmonella-concerns

    WHO. (2013). Salmonella (non-typhoidal). Available at: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs139/en/

    WHO. (2015). Antimicrobial resistance. Available at: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs194/en/

     

    • ayra casuga 9:57 am on October 24, 2015 Permalink | Reply

      Very interesting and intriguing blog! I found it very interesting to see recent real-world cases of antimicrobial resistance playing a large role in the prevalence of food-borne illnesses. I was surprised that the same strain managed to make its way to Australia considering that the outbreaks mostly occurred in Europe. Especially since these Australian outbreaks were non-travel related. Perhaps it was though some sort of international trade or shipment of these products. After reading this blog, I was wondering if the EU are going to add an extra antimicrobial (ciprofloxacin) into their food supply since S. Stanley is resistant to nalidixic acid? If so, wouldn’t that cause an emergence of another, possibly more infective, strain of Salmonella that would be resistant to the new antimicrobial?

    • EmilyChow 7:06 pm on October 24, 2015 Permalink | Reply

      Nice post! It’s interesting to see that just one strain of salmonella could have such a lasting impact in one particular part of Europe. Since it’s emergence in 2011, it’s amazing how S. stanley had continuously been responsible for so many outbreaks. Because the last outbreak was specific to one place, Austria, and also to one source, turkey, it makes me wonder how the food safety regulations are implemented in Europe. Over 9 months in 2015 is quite a period of long time. Are the warnings and regulations the same in Europe as they are here? Perhaps this continuous emergence of salmonella is not only attributed to antimicrobial resistance but also due to how the meat is handled?

    • Michelle Ebtia 11:59 pm on November 28, 2015 Permalink | Reply

      Very well written, nicely organized blog!
      As mentioned in the report, the single most important factor that needs to be taken into account while discussing antibiotic (AB) resistance is its use in animals and people. However, as more than 80% of all AB used in the US are fed to farm animals (Levy et al. 1976), the most effective way of controlling the emergence of AB resistant strains of pathogens can be limiting their use in animal farming.
      A very promising corrective measure that has taken place recently, is FDA’s initiative in banning/limiting the use of such drugs as growth promoters in farming practices. According to Kuehn (2014), AB’s that are currently prescribed for treating bacterial infections in humans, can no longer be administered to animals, without the supervision of veterinarians, and the manufacturers of the drug are also required to mention in their labeling that the use of their product as growth enhancer is illegal. I really hope this initiative would help resolve the issue of AB resistance!

      Works Cited:

      Kuehn, B. M. (2014). FDA moves to curb antibiotic use in livestock. JAMA, 311(4), 347-348.

      Levy, S. B., FitzGerald, G. B., & Macone, A. B. (1976). Changes in intestinal flora of farm personnel after introduction of a tetracycline-supplemented feed on a farm. New England Journal of Medicine, 295(11), 583-588.

  • EmilyLi 1:50 am on October 23, 2015 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , bread, food safety, , ,   

    “Banh mi” in Vietnam 

     

    web

    Recently, on Oct. 20th 2015, there was a Salmonella outbreak in the Quang Binh province, which located in the north- central coast of Vietnam. The outbreak affected 224 local people, who showed symptoms such as stomach ache, vomiting, fever and diarrhea. The Salmonella bacteria were found in “Banh mi” supplied by the “Vuong Tien Thanh Bakery”. “Banh mi” is a Vietnamese snack introduce by the French during the Colonial Period. It consisted of a baguette, usually filled with variety of meats, pickled vegetables and chili peppers.

     

    According to the Quang Binh province Hygiene and Food Safety department, samples taken from the bakery and the contents of the victims’ stomach both tested positive for the bacteria Salmonella. Most of the consumer infected with Salmonella developed symptoms within 72 hours and rushed to the local hospital. This was the biggest case of food poisoning seen in the province.

     

    About a week prior to the detection of Salmonella bacteria in “Banh mi”, the bakery had supplied bread to “Tan Phat Sport Company”. 20 of the worker. who consumed the bread suffered from vomiting and diarrhea.  “Vuong Tien Thanh Bakery” had five branches, which 3 were suspended after the incident.

     

    A little background in Vietnamese food culture and the snack food item “Banh mi”. “Banh mi” from the journal article “An Outbreak of Foodborne Salmonellosis Linked to Bread Takeaway Shop in Ben Tre City, Vietnam” was referred as stuff bread. In the article it was mention that in 2013 media reported multiple incidents where people had been hospitalized with acute gastroenteritis due to consumption of stuffed bread. They found that “Banh mi” usually included the ingredients pork bologna, pork pate, salted and dried pork and raw egg mayonnaise. Many of these items were found to have Salmonella species as well as E. coli growing.  Most of the stuff breads were brought from street food stalls and vendors. At these vendors poor hygiene was found: some had cooked food and raw food place very close together, some had cooked food kept at room temperature for long period of time.

     

    Vietnam is a lower middle income country, where development and industrialization are still taken place. The food culture there is still very traditional, which comprised of traditional foods with traditional methods of making the food. Traditional practices of preparing the food are not necessary food safe or hygienic. Vietnam is also one of the Asian countries known for its delicious and inexpensive street food. To regulate and improve food safety laws for street food vendors in Vietnam, in 2011 laws were passed providing guidelines on operating street food stalls.

     

    The guidelines are:street-food-vendor

    1. Stall must be away from polluted place.
    2. Clean water must be used to cook and clean kitchen utensils
    3. Origin of the produce used to make food must be clear
    4. Vendors must have a waste collection system in place
    5. Vendors can only make use of a specific list of additives

     

    Many other Asian countries are also known for the inexpensive and impressive variety street foods. What would be your opinion on regulation on street food? How can we blend traditional practices with modern implications?

     

    Thank you so much for your time.

    Emily L. 

     

    Reference links:

    http://www.vietnambreakingnews.com/2015/10/224-banh-my-eaters-stricken-with-salmonella-poisoning/

    http://www.who.int/features/2015/food-safety-interview/en/

    http://www.vietnambreakingnews.com/2015/10/suspected-food-poisoning-affects-48-workers/

    http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/science/article/pii/S1201971214015513

     

     

    • cvalencia 10:25 am on October 24, 2015 Permalink | Reply

      This is interesting since I’ve always wondered how safe the street food are in countries such as China, Vietnam, and in the Philippines. Having grown up in the Philippines, my parents didn’t allow me to buy food from street vendors as the safety of the food they sell is questionable. In my knowledge, there hasn’t been a report of an outbreak associated with street foods there, probably only because of poor reporting and monitoring strategies in place. My parents once contracted Hepatitis A from eating street food, so they are extra careful in letting us, their children, consume any of these foods. Great current events article!

    • csontani 3:55 pm on October 24, 2015 Permalink | Reply

      This is very interesting to read since I’ve never actually read a news regarding outbreaks in many Asian countries. I grew up in Indonesia where the street foods are famous for being really good but dirty, and I think that food safety is not a big deal in those kind of countries. I wonder if street food vendors can really follow the guidelines, especially for number 1 since it is quite hard to have a food stall on the side of the road and trying to avoid the pollution, unless they have more budget to invest more for their business. I really think that the government should manage their food safety regulation better to prevent more outbreaks especially in countries where they have inexpensive and “dirty” foods.

    • meggyli 9:39 pm on October 25, 2015 Permalink | Reply

      I agree with the charms of street food. Even though we all know that it’s relatively unhygienic, there is just something about street food, such as in night markets, that attracts us. Theoretically speaking street vendors should be making the food in a completely enclosed area with the exception of a pass-through window to hand out the food to prevent contamination of food. However in all my summer evenings at night markets here and in China alike I find that very few street vendors are actually following these regulations, and I have also seen some unsafe food practices and/or food handling as well. Personally I think street food is a cultural trademark and should be maintained as such. As for the safety and quality regulations for street food I think it is challenging to control the premises while keeping the costs down. Instead, it should be based on a mutual trust and understanding between customer and vendor: the vendor should not sell contaminated, spoiled, or adulterated foods to customers; and the customers should trust that the food vendors are selling are safe to eat. Environmental Health Officers may want to inspect these places more frequently and be given the authority to shut down a street vendor that practices unsafe food handling.

    • dgozali 10:30 pm on October 25, 2015 Permalink | Reply

      Very interesting read! Growing up in south east asia, street food was part of my daily life and I’ve definitely witnessed some unhygienic practices in some stalls. Nevertheless, people would still consume street food as it is usually seen as the authentic cuisine of that country. Especially for tourists, in order to have a complete experience, they would often give the local street food a try. Because of this i think that it is becoming increasingly important to maintain a standard of food safety in street food stalls. Although it may be difficult to implement in the beginning, it is a step that must be done.

    • TamaraRitchie 8:38 am on October 28, 2015 Permalink | Reply

      I think food is an important part of many cultures. If too harsh regulations, guidelines and fees were put in places for street vendors it may cause some people to decide not to cook their foods. Although it is important to have some food safety precautions in order. When consuming street food there is automatically more chance for cross contamination due to the area in which the food is being cooked. I think the main issues is when travelers go to these regions and eat the street food and become sick. For locals who eat the food semi-regularly would be less likely to become sick from the food because their bodies are use to consuming it. When travelers consume the same foods their stomachs are not accustomed to it and could become sick. I believe it should be a personal choice as to weather you eat at food carts/street vendors.

    • mustafa akhtar 10:23 am on October 29, 2015 Permalink | Reply

      I agree with Tamara – Street food seems to be an important part of Vietnamese culture. Too many regulations would only deter such vendors. I think change needs to come from the supply side and not from the vendors. Regulations such as use of sanitary practices at the farm would benefit more in the sense that it would target the root of the problem.

    • carissarli 12:41 am on November 4, 2015 Permalink | Reply

      I experienced food poisoning when I was a child. I remember eating street food in my home town and the hygiene there wasn’t good at all since I recall insects flying around the food but I didn’t really care about that because the food just attracted me! I had a severe stomachache and diarrhea afterwards and it was a nightmare. My parents did not bring me to the hospital so I am not sure what bacteria was acting on me. I also think getting the regulations straight cannot really help on improving the hygiene because they don’t have an indoor area that protect their food from getting infected. I will suggest the Food Safety Department from Vietnam to increase the inspection and supervision on street food vendors in order to remind them to improve their food hygiene.

    • KristinaRichmond 4:46 pm on November 6, 2015 Permalink | Reply

      I agree that street food is culturally important, but maybe some simple practices could be implemented to help minimize the risk to consumers. I read another article about a similar problem with street food in India, and by educating vendors about their water source and cross contamination they were able to stop an outbreak. So maybe a few simple changes in their preparations could help.
      I thought it was interesting as well that one of the contaminated food sources was bread, as we usually hear about Salmonella more commonly in poultry or vegetables.

    • Stephanie Chen 6:18 pm on November 19, 2015 Permalink | Reply

      Street food indeed plays a significant role in many cultures and was also a part of my daily life growing up. It is not surprising to see that people may be infected from foods consumed from these stalls as hygiene can often be neglected and safe food practices poorly carried out. It may also be difficult to enforce regulations on these food stalls. I agree with Tamara that it is especially unfortunate when tourists get sick after consuming must-eat foods that are authentic to specific regions. While guidelines may improve food safety in street food, people must eat them at their own risk!

    • CindyDai 2:51 pm on December 1, 2015 Permalink | Reply

      In most Asian countries, street food is cheap and tasty, which becomes popular among people easily. However, street food is usually a blind spot of food safety surveillance. Many food vendors dispose garbage in open lid bins or throw it on the road. They rarely use hand gloves and usually forget to wash hands before and after handling raw or cooked food. Better hygiene status and food practices should be achieved by asian street food vendors. There is a need of generating food safety awareness amongst street food vendors.

    • AngeliMalimban 6:48 pm on December 12, 2015 Permalink | Reply

      Banh mi is definitely up there for one of my top favourite foods (next to sushi of course). A lot of the street food vendors in Asia, from my experience in the Philippines, are not even aware of food safety. In fact, a lot of people live in such conditions that food safety is not really a top priority when it comes to making food. The culture surrounded in the Philippines is more surrounded by “whether or not food will make the table” as opposed to if food is actually okay for people to consume. I think that if there was education at the home level for the importance of food safety, and the serious consequences of foodborne disease, people will start to finally understand. It can then build up with the street vendors (who often don’t have permits/just sell outside of their own house) so that they can have safe practices.

    • DeniseZhang 7:55 pm on December 15, 2015 Permalink | Reply

      I actually loved eating street foods when I was studying in middle school. I believe young kids loves eating everything that is not regularly cooked at home. Street foods are cheap and delicious, young kids therefore can afford and enjoy such foods. However, as I have grown up, I now understand why our parents did not allow us to eat street foods. The safety of street foods are not guaranteed and no one actually know how did they prepare the ingredients. Used oil and harmful food additives might be used to enhance the flavour. I love how these foods taste but I do not really appreciate how did they become that tasty. I guess sometimes delicacy comes with risks just like eating raw seafoods 😀

  • RainShen 8:44 pm on October 19, 2015 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , Cucumber, food safety, , ,   

    An Outbreak of Salmonella Poona Infections: Think Twice Before Eating That Cucumber 

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are investigating a very serious strain of salmonella called Salmonella Poona, which has affected 767 people as reported until October 14, 2015 by consuming contaminated cucumbers. Among 36 states, 205 cases reported from California, which has the highest number of infected people in this salmonella outbreak. Four deaths have been reported from California, Arizona, Texas, and Oklahoma. More than gettyimages-175696368half of the infected people are children younger than 18 years old. FDA investigations have identified that the contaminated cucumbers were imported from state of Baja California in Mexico and distributed by Andrew & Williamson Fresh Produce. The company has issued a recall of all cucumbers sold under its Limited Edition label, which are those Slicer cucumbers imported from Mexico, during the period from August 1, 2015 to September 3, 2015. However, the shelf life of this type of cucumber is 14 days and some customers may store the cucumbers and do not notice the recall of these contaminated cucumbers. Moreover, it usually takes 2 to 4 weeks for the case actually reported as part of the outbreak since the person is exposed to salmonella, which means there will be more illnesses reported later on. CRbPX0_VAAA47iN

    Children, elderlies, and people with suppressed immune systems are more likely to get salmonella
    infections and the infection can be fatal. Salmonellosis causes abdominal cramping, vomiting, nausea, and diarrhea. According to CDC, 8% of reported infections had long-term impact, such as chronic gastroenteritis, osteomyelitis, and septic arthritis.

    People mostly hear about salmonella when it comes to poultry, egg and beef, not vegetables, but any type of food might be contaminated by salmonella bacteria. Research shows that 13% of the source attribution of salmonellosis is vine vegetables, fruits, and nuts. Cucumber, as a delicious and refreshing vegetable, is usually eaten raw, which increases the risk of getting infected by salmonella. Salmonella grows optimally at 37 °C and pH of 6.5 to 7.5. However, most salmonella serotypes can grow in the range of 7 to 48 °C and are able to survive under freezing for a relatively long period of time. They can also survive under very acidic and dry condition. An efficient way to eliminate salmonella in the food is heating to an internal temperature of 72 °C for at least ten minutes.

    Nevertheless, going back to the salmonella outbreak linked to cucumbers in US since September 2015, fresh cucumbers are usually not cooked before consumption, which means it would not go through the heating process, so it is very difficult to eliminate the pathogens during the preparation. The question is: how to safely prepare your produce? According to FDA, there are some precautions to take each time before eating the produce:

    1. Clean your hands by washing them for at least 20 seconds with soap and warm water before and after preparation.

    2. Wash your produce thoroughly under running water before eating, cutting or cooking — home-grown veggies included.

    3. Scrub firm produce like cucumbers with a clean produce brush.

    4. Dry produce with a clean towel to further reduce bacteria from spreading.

    Furthermore, avoiding cross-contamination is also very critical. Raw meat, poultry, and produce need to be separated in the grocery shopping cart and the refrigerator. For the preparation, different cutting boards can be used for different types of food, especially for separating cooked and raw food.

    Eating raw food always links to high risk of getting infected by the foodborne pathogens. Personally, I always eat cucumbers raw, since produce is not a very big concern for salmonella infection. As I heard this outbreak, I started to re-consider if I should cook them before eating. I feel like cooking is the safest way to prevent from getting infected.

    Suggestions by FDA – “how to safely handle raw produce and fresh-squeezed fruit and vegetable juices”

     

    What do you think? How would you prevent yourself from being harmed by eating raw produce?

     

    • shinnie 2:11 am on October 20, 2015 Permalink | Reply

      Wow, similar to Karen’s research, it’s amazing to see how Salmonella can still survive on the surface of cucumbers which, I’m pretty sure has low water activity (on its surface) and acts as a barrier against pathogens. This blog post definitely highlights how important it is for consumers to adopt safe and proper cleaning procedures when working with raw fruits and vegetables. There are a few things to consider. If the cucumbers are not properly washed and finished all at once (i.e. leftovers and stored in the fridge), the few Salmonella bacteria on the surface will have access to the nutrients inside the cucumber and start growing, reaching the infectious dose. This is similar for bulk-making of squeezed vegetable juices, if not finished all at once. The FDA’s video provides some good advice, but cooking in my opinion (and yours too!) is by far the safest route in pathogen elimination; however, it is impossible to thermally process all foods we eat. I am not sure if this procedure is valid but I like to soak raw fruits and vegetables in soapy water before I eat or use them to make juices. I would always wash them very very thoroughly, every single crevice, no matter how lazy I am. I am honestly developing a fear of eating raw foods now.

    • ColleenChong 8:10 pm on October 21, 2015 Permalink | Reply

      Very interesting article Rain! I agree with Shinnie, this article is highlights Karen’s research on Salmonella’s ability being able to survive under low water activities conditions. As we have learned in Karen’s presentation that Salmonella is able to adapt in stress conditions; which results in cross-protection. This makes salmonella a major concern in the food industry, especially animal products and raw foods. The video that you have provides value information to public on cleaning their produce properly to reduce the risk of consuming salmonella contaminated foods. However, in my option young children, elderly and immuno-compromised individuals should avoid consuming raw foods; unless washed thoroughly with soap because they are susceptible to serious long term illness. As for myself I am accustomed in consuming raw foods and I have been exposed to them for a long period of time. Also my immune system is quite strong, so I am no too worried. But I am guilty of no washing my produce properly, I usually just give them a quick rinse. From this video I l learned to wash my produce properly and I will try to do so from now on.

    • catherine wong 10:07 pm on October 21, 2015 Permalink | Reply

      It is certainly unsettling to hear about these cases of Salmonella in produce that can be eaten uncooked. I also am in the same boat as everyone else so far that maybe eating products fully cooked is the way to go from now on. The 4 precaution steps before eating produce by the FDA is new to me, I never knew that using a clean produce brush to scrub firm produce is one of the ways to make sure the product is clean. Although with that then one has to always make sure that the brush is clean as well and that introduces another way for contamination if the brush is not clean enough. When consuming raw foods, it is hard to completely make sure that it would be safe for consumption as there is no kill step and that would always be one of the risks associated with eating raw foods. There are some foods that I love eating raw and I do not think that I could give it up even with knowing all the risks. It might decrease the amount of times I will be eating it but I would not be able to avoid it completely.

    • Jasmine Lee 11:46 pm on October 22, 2015 Permalink | Reply

      I love snacking on raw cucumbers and not having them in my sandwiches is unthinkable! Despite the Salmonella outbreak, I may consider reducing rather than avoiding the consumption of raw cucumbers. Like Rain mentioned, most of the patients were young children and immunocompromised individuals. As long as we maintain good health and microflora, the immune system should be able to remove the pathogen from the body. For precautionary purposes, I always wash my vegetables well under warm running water. I do not believe that soap will be more effective than water in terms of eliminating bacteria. Applying dish soap may in fact introduce more food hazards. The soap may be absorbed into the food and the residues will be consumed. I also avoid preparing salads in advance and leaving washed produce in the fridge overnight. The nutrients and enzymes from the diced vegetables may provide suitable conditions for growth of spoilage and pathogenic organisms, especially if the produce was not washed thoroughly.

    • elaine chan 12:12 am on October 26, 2015 Permalink | Reply

      It’s unfortunate to see how many individuals have fallen ill, and even 4 deaths, due to this Salmonella outbreak. I agree with Colleen’s point on how young children, elderly and immunocompromised individuals should refrain from consuming raw produce, for the safety of their health. With a product like cucumbers, that’s commonly consumed in its raw form, it’s difficult to manage and prevent the spread of the bacteria on the consumer level. Especially when the consumers rely and trust on the safety in consumption of the product from its distributors. I definitely think that precautions should be considered when handling raw produce at home, but I also feel that precautions should also be considered during the transportation and distribution process. This will help limit the chances of an outbreak like this from occurring, and ensure the safety of produce being sold at markets. Going through FDA’s recommended precautionary procedures, I wondered how practical it can be…Could the simple process of running cucumbers under water, or scrubbing with a brush, be sufficient to remove the Salmonella bacteria from the produce? And subsequently be safe to consume in its raw form? Even if these precautionary procedures are practiced at home, how do we ensure that these practices are also implemented in food preparation facilities for raw produce like cucumbers?

    • JorgeMadrigalPons 9:15 am on October 26, 2015 Permalink | Reply

      It catches my attention to know the recalled cucumbers were imported from Mexico, since I am an exchange student from there, and my studies are related to agri-food production. The passed summer, I did an internship as a quality control assistant in an asparagus production field in Guanajuato state. I noticed that during harvesting, there is very few food safety measures taken. This is a major area of opportunity for Mexican agronomists, since most of the production targets exportation to the US & Canada. Applying food safety measures at the very beginning of the food chain (field production) can greatly help reduce pathogen contamination, just like in this salmonella recall case of Mexican cucumber.

    • Michelle Ebtia 10:43 am on October 27, 2015 Permalink | Reply

      Considering the benefits of eating raw fruits and vegetables, and the fact that cooking or any type of thermal processing may reduce their nutrient content through leaching in the cooking medium (Leong and Oey. 2012) I would not cut back on consuming them, but prefer to adopt two strategies to minimize the associated risk: first, I can make sure I wash the produce thoroughly, and second, I would avoid consuming those that are considered very high risk in general (e.g. raw sprouts) or those that have been implicated in an ongoing or very recent outbreak!

      Leong, S. Y., & Oey, I. (2012). Effects of processing on anthocyanins, carotenoids and vitamin C in summer fruits and vegetables. Food chemistry, 133(4), 1577-1587.

    • MarinaMoon 4:36 pm on October 31, 2015 Permalink | Reply

      It’s fascinating and scary at the same time that salmonella can withstand such various stresses. While I was reading through the article, I wanted to mention that there are ways Koreans eat cucumber by fermenting and pickling it in an acidic condition. However, as soon as it mentioned that it could even survive very low acidity I thought it would be impossible to safely consume cucumbers other than not consuming contaminated ones. I’m still curious what will happen to fermented vegetables in terms of pathogen survival. Overall, I would try to avoid those easily contaminanle fresh vegetables during the times that are easily contaminated, especially look out for outbreaks announced by CDC and FDA and other food safety agencies.

    • MichelleLui 2:50 pm on November 16, 2015 Permalink | Reply

      Very informative article. With the increase consumption of produce, the industry and government sectors must work together to ensure the food safety compliance of the growers and processors. Importers must source their produce from a GAP certified supplier. Random sampling for micro analysis should be carried out by both the importers and regulatory agency for verification purpose. It’s great you brought up the consumer food handling practices. As the trend of consuming raw food on the rise, consumers will also need to be aware of the food safety risk involved in the consumption of raw produce.

    • WinnieLiao 10:30 am on November 18, 2015 Permalink | Reply

      It’s interesting to know that cucumbers can also be contaminated with Salmonella on its surface. As a raw cucumber lover, this article definitely helps me to gain knowledge about handling cucumbers. These methods can also be applicable to other vegetables and produces as well. I usually wash my hands and the cucumber thoroughly with water, but never used a scrub for surface cleaning! This article also reminds me to clean and wash in small portions, firstly as to reduce the chance of contaminating other cucumbers, second as to reduce the possibility of bacterial growth if there happens to be any leftover portions!

    • cheryl lau 3:15 pm on December 4, 2015 Permalink | Reply

      This blog post was very informative. With the increased cases of contaminated produce, my household has also started follow the practices listed above. We separate our groceries depending on if the food will be consumed raw or if further preparations are necessary. We barely eat salads as well. However, when vegetables are heat treated, they typically lose a lot of nutrients. It has been a constant struggle between the convenience of eating a raw healthy snack and the ensuring the safety of the food being consumed. Lately, there has been more research on technological advances to address the problem of contaminate produce. One approach that I have come across utilizes bacteriophages in sanitizers that can be sprayed on and be fit for human consumption. Perhaps these approaches can be
      Improved so that consumers can feel safe and not be as reluctant when eating salads.

    • CandiceZheng 3:17 pm on December 14, 2015 Permalink | Reply

      Thank you for your informative blog! Cucumbers, same as many other vegetables, have very short shelf life. As stated in the blog, only 14 days. However, with traditional microbial testing method, this is pretty much the time required to get a result. Also, as mentioned in the blog, some customers may store the cucumbers and do not notice the recall of these contaminated cucumbers. In this case the food safety is a huge concern, and it is essential to develop some rapid detection method to detect the pathogenic microorganisms in food matrix and report any hazard on time.

    • teewong 12:00 am on December 15, 2015 Permalink | Reply

      It fascinates me how salmonella can be found in cucumbers because i’ve only heard of it being present in eggs and poultry. What really shocks me is how vulnerable we are when it come to these types of vegetable because like you said we usually eat it raw, therefore, the likelihood of us killing the bacteria in high temperatures is really low unlike other vegetables we cook. On top of all that, it is very unfortunate that because it takes some time to find out where salmonella came from from the ill, the chances of the company recalling cucumbers back is slim to non as people would’ve already consumed it. Therefore, your statement that many more reports of ill people from salmonella are to come, it really disturbs me that those people are just waiting for the illness to take place. On the other hand, this information is very valuable to me as I will probably cook most of my food and vegetables from now on.

  • yichen25 10:31 pm on October 17, 2015 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , Brisbane, Eggs, food safety, , ,   

    Australia: Unresolved egg problem 

    042815-fb-gudetama1

    In the past week, a Salmonella outbreak was reported at the South Bank Surf Club in Brisbane, Australia where the restaurant was inspected after receiving some complaints from consumers who felt sick. After further investigation, it was found out that it was due to a bad batch of eggs which was provided by the supplier and the eggs were used in the sauces in seafood platter. As a major egg lover myself, it will be a terrible nightmare to know that you will end up sick eating your favorite food and not knowing the cause of it.

    In Australia, despite an overall decline in the national rate of foodborne illness cases each year, the number of Salmonella– related food-poisoning cases continues to increase drastically, posing a health threat to the local community. According to the statistics shown by the Victoria’s Department of Health Figures, there has been a 50% increase in Salmonella-related food poisoning since 2012 along with a doubling of Salmonella poisoning cases occurring in the past 12 months in Queensland with 1895 reported cases so far. A table of past raw eggs related outbreak in Australia was carefully tabulated which shows recurring food outbreaks occurring year by year revolving around eggs. This also indirectly implies the fact that the existing intervention strategies to combat against Salmonella were not as efficient in the prevention of raw egg contamination.

    For your information, Salmonella food-poisoning is one of the most common food-borne illnesses reported which is often associated with contaminated poultry products such as eggs. Salmonella can be naturally found in soil and water and contamination of Salmonella is prone to occur with unsanitary food handling and improper cooking of raw food items. Besides, ingestion of food contaminated with Salmonella can lead to salmonellosis which shows symptoms such as abdominal cramping, vomiting and diarrhea.

    In conjunction to the recent outbreak which points upstream to the reservoir, studies have shown that some Salmonella serovars, especially Salmonella enterica serovar have the capacity of infecting developing eggs within the oviduct. Therefore, contaminated eggs which serve as an ecological amplifier could then facilitate the dissemination of Salmonella into the food chain and further leads to human transmission.

    Besides the possibility of initial product contamination, it is also undeniable that proper food handling techniques are mandatory when it comes to the prevention of food contamination. To properly address that issue, new guidelines have been released by the Fresh Produce Safety Centre Australia New Zealand to spread more awareness and knowledge about the importance of proper food safety standards. In conclusion, I personally think that the Australian Government should properly educate the public about the importance of proper food handling techniques and how does it relate to foodborne illnesses. Also, strict policies in regard to proper food handling practices and maintenance of hygienic standards should be further enforced from farm to fork to minimize the occurrence of foodborne illnesses in Australia.

    Please leave some comments on your thoughts on the increasing Salmonella outbreak cases in Australia. Thanks.

    Yi Chen Teh

     

     

    • BarbaraCorreiaFaustino 9:23 pm on October 18, 2015 Permalink | Reply

      Interesting article! I wonder why there is that increase in Salmonella-related foodborne diseases, even though there is a decline in the number of overall foodborne diseases. Clearly the strategies that the Australian authorities are using to prevent food poisoning from other pathogens are not working so well to prevent food poisoning from Salmonella-contaminated food. So I’m glad that at least they released those new guidelines, which are very helpful, so that people will have more information on how to properly handle and prepare their food in order to prevent salmonellosis and, therefore, also prevent Salmonella outbreak cases in Australia.

    • NorrisHuang 10:31 pm on October 18, 2015 Permalink | Reply

      I am also curious about why Salmonella infection is still so common while the rate of occurrence of other identified pathogens such as E.coli is decreasing. I don’t know much about guidelines in Australia but I checked on their government website and I don’t see much advices on how to prevent Salmonella infections whereas in the USA, for example, they actually request restaurants to use pasteurized eggs to make food that contains lightly cooked/raw eggs. I wonder if that is one reason of the increasing trend of Salmonella infections.

      ps. I am a big fan of gudetama too :p

    • Susanna Ko 6:56 pm on October 19, 2015 Permalink | Reply

      Unfortunately I think that it is not uncommon to use raw egg in food dishes. For example, in asian hot pot, my friends add a raw egg to their soy sauce. In French cuisine, beef tartare with a raw egg. I guess egg adds flavour and texture to these sauces. Eggnog made with raw egg is deemed to be “true eggnog”. As you’ve pointed out, there are many risks involved with raw egg and Salmonella. The general population probably doesn’t know about the significant risk involved with raw eggs. However, if companies started bottling pasteurized/retorted versions of the sauces with (cooked) egg, then it might alleviate some of these issues.

    • YaoWang 1:17 pm on October 20, 2015 Permalink | Reply

      I’m an egg lover too! It’s so bad to hear the news. But I’m curious why Salmonella–related food-poisoning cases still continue to increase drastically while the overall food safety environment is getting much better these years. And I’m wondering what are the proper handling techniques at home. Does that mean I have to cook the eggs thoroughly? The thing is I personally prefer medium raw eggs and I believe many people even consume raw eggs. Is it possible to have the producers to prevent initial contamination so that we can still eating eggs without much cook?

    • wen liao 10:41 pm on October 21, 2015 Permalink | Reply

      HA Salmonella is literally everywhere and they grow very fast! I remembered when I was in lab grow them, they can reach a OD value of 1 within just 16 hours! Therefore, it is important that food producers are following the guidelines for safe production. I am very curious about the Australia standards of raising their chickens as such. To be honest, with the technology we have now, I feel like it would not be hard if we really want to control the existence of Salmonella in the eggs. Japan for example. is a country that have a long history of consuming raw eggs. However, very seldom was Japan reported to host a large foodborne pathogen related outbreak, including Salmonella outbreak. They have a very established system for food safety surveillance. I believe that there must be some human errors that are causing this Salmonella outbreak in Australia.

    • Mandy Tam 3:02 pm on October 23, 2015 Permalink | Reply

      Eggs produced from local farms or self raised are more popular nowadays because of the trend of organic foods, and getting food from local areas/ themselves. Although this seems to be a good idea, most of the fresh egg from local farms or self raised are not pasteurized like commercial production. Also, they do not go through microbe testing like most companies required. I wonder the suppliers for that restaurant is from a local farm or from a bigger company. It will be interesting to know because it can determine if the result of such outbreaks are due to bad manufacturing practices or lack of regulation in self raised chicken/ eggs and/or local farms.

    • angel519 4:56 pm on October 25, 2015 Permalink | Reply

      It is not surprising that the number of foodborne illnesses caused by Salmonella still remains high. As mentioned in the blog, eggs are one of the main source of Salmonella in the diet; and because eggs are so preferability to be eaten raw or half cooked, there is a higher chance of being infected by Salmonella. I agree that the government should emphasize the consequences of getting infected by Salmonella. And that the quality control and safety control of eggs should be addressed and strictly inspected.

    • laurenrappaport 6:17 pm on October 25, 2015 Permalink | Reply

      Super interesting article! I cant believe that there are still so many cases of foodborne illness in relation to Salmonella. For some reason we cant seem to get rid of it! Its scary to know that you can get so sick on a food so commonly consumed in our society and around the world! As eating raw eggs or partially cooked eggs occur so frequently, people don’t really think about the consequences it may cause. The impacts of this are clearly highlighted in your article when you said that there has been a 50% increase in Salmonella poisoning over the past 3 year which I found so crazy! I totally agree that stronger government regulations should be implemented in Australia as clearly so many people have been effected by this. When it comes to the case of Salmonella in eggs I think education about proper handling and storage would be the most effective way to prevent contamination and the illnesses associated with it.

    • amreenj 7:43 pm on October 25, 2015 Permalink | Reply

      Really interesting article! Like many of the people who posted before me, I am also really surprised that the occurrence of Salmonella related food poisonings have increased by a staggering 50%. What is confusing is that the occurrence of food-borne illnesses in general has drastically declined over the years. I wonder what would be causing this? It seems as though the strategies (food preventative measures) they have currently are working to some extent but perhaps they need to develop Salmonella -directed measures to better eliminate Salmonella related food borne illnesses!

    • Ya Gao 8:18 pm on December 15, 2015 Permalink | Reply

      I personally enjoy eating eggs that are not fully cooked, and it is scary for me to see that eating eggs rare will cause so much trouble. People tend to cook poultry products entirely to well done, but I saw most people having eggs not completely cooked, as sunny side up for example. Since it takes time for people to adapt to a new habit, I believe Australian government should focus more on regulating egg farms and improving their sanitary condition to reduce the cases of Salmonella-related food poisoning. 1895 reported cases in a year is a shocking number to see, and number of real cases must be much more because of the under-reporting situation that exists worldwide. Hope the condition in Australian egg farms will get better!

  • MichelleLui 7:02 pm on October 16, 2015 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , food safety, South Africa   

    E. coli found in South Africa drinking water 

    South Africa drinking water

    In March 2015, AfriForum, a South African civil-right organization, found E. coli in the drinking water of four local South Africa municipalities: Molteno-Inkwanca, Tarkastad-Tsolwana, Coligny-Ditsobotla and Vryheid-Abaqulusi. Under the South African National Standard for Drinking Water (SANS 241:2011) and the World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines, E. coli must not be detected (count per 100 ml) in any drinking water samples. Local communities were notified not to drink the water. The non-compliance municipalities’ water authority was told to investigate the source of contamination and implement corrective actions. Follow-up samples were taken and tested clean.

    E. coli is found in the intestines of human and animal. While most E. coli strains are harmless, some are pathogenic and can cause severe human illnesses. According to the study undertaken by WHO’s Foodborne Disease Burden Epidemiology Reference Group (FERG),enteropathogenic E. coli was one of the top three enteric disease agents responsible for most deaths globally in 2010. Enteropathogenic E. coli associates with infantile diarrhea and it is the major cause of infant mortality in developing countries. Enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli (ETEC), the most common cause of travel-associated diarrhea, can be found in less-developed countries. ETEC can also cause mortality for children under the age of 5.

    In Inkwanca Municipality: Integrated Development Plan 2012-2017, one of the remarks made on Molteno water supply concern was the need to upgrade the monthly raw water treatment system. Molteno raw water source is abstracted from Molteno Dam, the Jubilee Dam and a borehole in Denekruin Township. As the dams are open water sources, it may carry more of a risk for E. coli contamination than closed water sources. Precautionary measures such as restricting domestic, livestock or wild animals access to these dams should be taken. Surface water should also be in adequate distance from untreated manure and human sewage waste system. Borehole water can also be contaminated by agricultural livestocks effluent. It is important for the municipality to maintain and upgrade the raw water source treatment and purification work as recommended in the development plan.

    Both Ditsobotla and Abaqulusi have experienced water shortages due to the growth demand outstripping the water supply. The National Treasury advises that all municipalities should ensure that the water tariffs can cover the cost of maintenance and renewal of purification plants, water networks and water infrastructure expansion. To prevent low income households from opting for unsafe water sources due to the water tariffs, Free Basic Water Policy and water subsidies are implemented in some municipalities. To prevent reoccurrence of E. coli detection in drinking water, South African municipalities must put in a sustainable water supply budget plan in order to supply high quality potable water for households of all income levels.

     

    • ColleenChong 5:42 pm on October 18, 2015 Permalink | Reply

      Hi Michelle this article connects nicely with the Escherichia Coli topic we learned in class, particularly with Enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli, which causes up to 30% mortality in infants. This specific microorganism is a major concern in developing countries, such as Africa. This article explains that raw water carry a high risk of being contaminated with E.coli since the water may have been in contact with livestock and wild animals. I agree with you that the government should create a better plan in providing a safe water source for citizens across the nation. This is a great plan, however, it is costly and will require sometime before everyone is able to receive safe water. In the meantime, I think it is important to educate the people ways to obtain safe water. For example by treating it with chlorine or boiling water to kill off pathogenic organism that maybe in raw water.

    • carissarli 9:56 pm on October 23, 2015 Permalink | Reply

      Hi Katrina, I think you made a great emphasis on how E. Coli influence mortality rate in South Africa greatly. As Colleen mentioned, the use of chlorine can kill pathogenic organisms in raw water since it is a disinfectant. However, the use of chlorine can cause cancer due to the byproduct it produces. I suggest using ozonation instead since it does not produce any byproduct and it is very effective. There are several other disinfectants too which I found from a website: http://www.prominent.co.za/Applications/Disinfection.aspx.

    • kathykim 2:03 am on October 24, 2015 Permalink | Reply

      As I read this posting, I immediately thought of the infant formula/milk feeding. The water shortage is problematic by itself, but if contaminated water is used to make infant formula, the result would be infections involving diarrhea, and this could be heavily contributing to the high infant mortality rate in developing countries. When there is no choice but to consume water that is available, I feel like the people would still drink the water even after they are advised not to do so. So I guess this all connects with poor living conditions and environments that make them more vulnerable to such infections…

    • BarbaraCorreiaFaustino 11:35 am on November 2, 2015 Permalink | Reply

      I liked your article! I believe that South African authorities should try to correct this problem as soon as possible, and try to provide potable water to the population to avoid contamination with E. coli, with can lead to very serious consequences, especially in children. As said by the other commenters, it will take some time to build a good water infrastructure capable of providing drinkable water to people, so campaigns should also be made to teach the population how to make the water potable, boiling it for example. One very important point that you wrote is the availability of free potable water to low income populations, and I’m glad to read that there are a Free Basic Water Policy and water subsidies, and I hope they are implemented in other places as well.

  • angel519 11:00 pm on October 15, 2015 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: breast milk, , , food safety   

    Breast Milk: a potential source of Escherichia coli 

    “Liquid gold” as known as breast milk is the natural way of providing energy and nutrients to young infants for healthy growth and development. World Heath Organization (WHO) recommends breastfeeding particularly colostrum (breast milk produced at the end of pregnancy) to new born within the first few hours of birth. Unfortunately, there are mothers with extremely vulnerable hospitalized babies (preterm birth, birth defects) are unable to provide adequate amount of breast milk to support their babies; or there are mothers that generally cannot produce enough breast milk. With the increase of Internet usage and online shopping, people have started to sell breast milk online.

    1253281000

    source: http://hamptonroads.com/2013/10/chkd-begin-work-breast-milk-bank-next-month

    An investigation done by the “BBC Inside Out” program took 12 samples of online bought breast milk around Europe for microbiological tests at Coventry University. The results showed that four of the samples contained pathogenic Escherichia coli, two of samples contained candida and one contained pseudomonas aeruginosa, which lead to death of four infants in neonatal units in Belfast in 2012. Even though the investigation had very small sample size, the test result indicated that online breast milk has the potential of containing pathogenic bacteria. Infants have immature immune system and devoid of natural gut microflora, which make them the most vulnerable population that has the highest risk of being infected by pathogenic bacteria. Small amount of pathogenic bacteria can cause severe illness or death of infants. Thereby, online breast milk from unauthorized websites should be banned to prevent foodborne illness from happening on those fragile babies.

    01

    In Europe and other parts of the world, there are many authorized Milk Banks that offers pasteurized breast milk for premature babies or babies recovering from surgeries. To ensure the safety of donor milk, serological screening, medical history and lifestyle are done and checked before receiving donor milk. According to the European Milk Bank Association (EMBA), there are 210 active milk banks around Europe to support infants that need safe breast milk. A study on nutrients and bioactive factors in human milk indicated that heating process like pasteurization does have a certain degree of destruction on the functionality of bioactive protein components. However, it is not worth the risk of feeding infants with unknown source breast milk that is potentially pathogenic.

    Despite there are no outbreaks caused by E.coli in online sold breast milk, preventions should be done to avoid such incidence from happening.

    The following video shows a clear procedure on how milk bank handle donated breast milk. (Video from the Mother’s Milk Bank Northeast)

    Click link to see the video: http://milkbankne.org/for-healthcare-professionals/

    Angel Chen

     

    • yichen25 1:55 am on October 16, 2015 Permalink | Reply

      I personally think that it is not a wise choice to purchase breast milk online as the milk source is not known and you have no idea if the breast milk is properly processed and pasteurized. With online shopping nowadays, it is difficult to determine the authenticity of the item and this applies to breast milk as well. Food fraud is more likely to happen online as the buyers are convinced based on the description and pictures given without seeing the real product. Also, even with proper pasteurization, breast milk still stands a chance of being contaminated with improper packaging, storage and delivery. Therefore, to avoid infants risking their lives for breast milk that might endanger their lives, it is best for local authorities to restrict the sales of breast milk on an online platform unless it is properly authorized.

    • CandiceZheng 1:39 pm on October 16, 2015 Permalink | Reply

      I’d say this is a brilliant angle for the food safety issues! As online shopping is becoming increasingly popular and everyone enjoys its convenience, lots of home prepared food come to the market without proper processing method, which might lead to lots of potential food safety issues. Nowadays the inspection agency should pay their attention to those online sources as well.

    • CandiceZheng 2:02 pm on October 16, 2015 Permalink | Reply

      Online shopping is a new angle for the food inspection agency to consider. Online shopping is becoming increasingly popular currently and we all enjoy the convenience. However, this also bring about a lot of home processed food and even things like breast milk, which poses a significant threat to food safety. Although it might be hard to regulate the selling of all those types of food online, the authorities should pay more attention to the food that potentially have more significant impact and probably ban the sales. For example, online breast milk are used to feed infants, who do not have a complete immune system yet. While by consuming contaminated foods normal individuals might only get mild symptoms, infants are very fragile and might get very severe problems.

    • catherine wong 5:38 pm on October 16, 2015 Permalink | Reply

      I also agree that purchasing breast milk online from an unknown stranger is very dangerous. If they were purchasing or receiving the breast milk from an authorized source such as a milk bank then it would be different because it technically should be treated and handled by professionals hopefully. I understand that some new mothers are unable to give their newborns enough breast milk and decide that the only way their babies can get benefits of colostrum is from other new mothers, but they have to understand that there are lot of risks associated with this. The mothers selling the breast milk may not even know that the milk contains harmful pathogens and since they are not trained on ways to keep breast milk safe through the packaging, handling and storage process, they really should not be selling it.

    • elaine chan 3:29 pm on October 18, 2015 Permalink | Reply

      Interesting article! Since breast milk comes from our own human body as a natural source of food for our babies, it’s understandable how some people can overlook the safety factor. Majority of the population may assume that since it’s a natural source, and under normal conditions, it would be fed straight to the baby, there will be no health hazards associated with purchasing breast milk from another source. I also agree that even though there are no reported outbreaks, preventative measures should be implicated to avoid its occurrence. Setting out regulations for the sale of breast milk would be a good solution to manage its distribution. However, regulations can only manage so much and the distribution of breast milk can still occur in secrecy. I think it will be important to educate mothers that are planning to either buy or sell breast milk. This will allow both sides to understand the risks associated and be more cautious about the breast milk they’re handling with for babies.

    • TamaraRitchie 9:00 pm on October 18, 2015 Permalink | Reply

      Really interesting article. I had never thought about breast milk being a possible source of bacterial contamination as it usually goes directly from mother to baby, therefore minimizing the risk of cross contamination. I think it is great what is being done in Europe with having the Milk Banks that supply safe and fresh milk to babies who are in need. It is a great alternative for Mothers who want to supply breast milk to their babies but cannot do so for a number of reasons. I think it is very unsafe for breast milk to be sold online without any regulations or screening. I agree with Elaine Chan that it would be a great idea to educate mothers that are considering buying breast milk online. I believe if many of these mothers knew the health dangers associated with infants and bacterial contamination of foods that they would reconsider the purchase of breast milk from an online source.

    • RainShen 10:26 pm on October 18, 2015 Permalink | Reply

      I think purchasing human breast milk from unauthorized online stores is not wise at all. Newborns’ immune system is not nearly as effective as an adult’s or even an older child’s, and that it takes many months before a newborn can fight off infection as well as someone whose immune system is fully matured. Breast milk provides the babies with an added level of immune protection, because it contains large numbers of antibodies and other infection fighting cells, but it must be not pathogenic in the first place. It is very nice that these authorized Milk banks can provide safe breast milk, but if the breast milk has already been pasteurized, is it still providing those unique antibodies for the baby? Comparing to the commercial formula, is the pasteurized breast milk still much more beneficial for the newborns? I’m thinking that during the transportation or storage, there might be other contamination.

    • amreenj 7:01 pm on October 19, 2015 Permalink | Reply

      A really interesting article! Taking into consideration that breast milk is highly recommended as the primary food source for infants and that infants have a unestablished microflora it seems counterintuitive that breast milk would be a source of illness/death. However, purchasing dairy products online, seems rather unwise. We have learnt the importance of proper sanitation/ processing at various stages of the food processing/distribution continuum and that failing to do so can lead to serious harm. When buying products online, especially with low shelf-life foods, it is critical that they be stored (before/after/ during transport) at the correct temperature and treated appropriately. In knowing this, it should raise a red flag to potential consumers that plan on buying such products online (unauthorized online stores). On the other hand, the presence of Milk Banks, serve as a safer alternative, and make breast milk more accesible to those who perhaps can’t provide this to their infants.

    • MarinaMoon 2:28 am on October 20, 2015 Permalink | Reply

      In my opinion, I would never risk my baby to consume breast milk from another unknown source even if breastfeeding has many positive benefits to a baby. I think it is better to provide baby formulas which ensure of containing all of the nutrients that a baby needs as well as safety of the baby. Even if the breastmilk to be sold had been free of bacteria may become contaminated through out the process of transportation to handling of the milk. There is so many other factors that needs to be supervised which cannot be done online. On the other hand, the milk bank that provides pasteurized breastmilk that confirms safety seems like a better approach in allowing women who lack the ability to breastfeed to be able to give breastmilk to their child. However, as mentioned in the summary of article, the first thing that came to my mind was nutrient content of the pasteurized milk. I remember one of the article on this blog talked about raw milk to be more nutritious and beneficial to the body than pasteurized milk although it does have negative consequences such as presence of bacteria. Nevertheless, this evidence indicates that pasteurizing milk does in fact reduce the nutrient content of the product. This being said, I would rather feed baby formulas which compensates women who cannot breastfeed to be able to give their children the nutrients that they need.

    • YaoWang 2:56 pm on October 20, 2015 Permalink | Reply

      The article is really interesting! As online shopping is becoming more and more popular and convenient, people can buy almost whatever they can think of via the internet. However, I won’t buy food from any unauthorized sources online especially for vulnerable populations such as babies. I think in order to prevent people from risking their babies’ lives, it is more important for the government to make the authorized Milk Banks more available rather than just regulate online shopping environment.

    • cheryl lau 6:05 pm on October 21, 2015 Permalink | Reply

      This article about breast is brings up interesting concerns as there is an increasing demand for these types of products. Whether or not people feel that selling breast milk is controversial does not take away from the fact there should be some sort of system to ensure the safety of these products. Since the breast milk is supposed to benefit babies, there should even more emphasis on ensuring that these products are not contaminated with foodborne pathogens. Breast milk sold online are sold at higher prices because of its claimed benefits and limited supply, therefore it should go without saying that consumers of these products would not mind if they paid a little more to have the milk tested before going on the market.

    • laurenrappaport 4:45 pm on October 22, 2015 Permalink | Reply

      This is such an interesting post! I had never considered breast milk to be a potential source of foodborne pathogens before reading this. As babies have not developed any sort of immune system or gut microflora this is something that should be of major concern. Selling un-testing breast milk online creates a huge risk factor for the health of the baby and I dont think it should be done without pasteurization techniques and testing. For mothers who cannot produce their own breastmilk the milk banks are an amazing alternative to providing their baby with the nutrients and introduction of microflora compared to the alternative of formula. Although there is a degree of uncertainty when you use the milk from the banks as the milk is coming form an unknown source, with the proper use of sanitation, preparation and storage it provides a great opportunity to babies to get the all the benefits even though it is not coming from their mother directly.

    • Stephanie Chen 1:37 pm on October 23, 2015 Permalink | Reply

      This article gives an interesting insight to the issue of breast milk banks online. While the intentions may be good, buying breast milk from online sources really is a flashing red light to me. Multiple dangers may come with breast milk purchased from the internet, most importantly, health and safety risks for your baby. Each step of the collection, processing, testing (if any), and storage of breast milk may introduce a route of entry for pathogen contamination. Even if they are said to be pasteurized, you have no way of ensuring the process will eliminate all pathogenic factors in the breast milk. Moreover, the FDA recommends against feeding babies with breast milk acquired directly from individuals or through the internet. While understanding the need for alternative sources of milk for those who cannot breastfeed, personally, I believe the risks to infants’ health and safety outweigh any benefits that they may get from breast milk. Many types of formula are available for babies with medical conditions and may be the better alternative.

    • Silvia Low 4:50 pm on October 23, 2015 Permalink | Reply

      I think it is absolutely disgusting that people would purchase breast milk ONLINE for their infants. What is wrong with people? This activity should be completely banned and illegal. To me, this is equivalent to purchasing blood, kidneys, and other miscellaneous organs online. Why would people want this? I’m flabbergasted. “Recommendations” to not purchase online break milk from the FDA and other authorities are not enough. They should make this a criminal act. Especially if one day, by chance, death does occur from consumption of this product. Because, killing someone is a crime! Intentional or not!

    • EmilyLi 11:51 pm on October 23, 2015 Permalink | Reply

      In my opinion, since breast milk is considered to be the “gold standard” for infants, the intention and the availability of breast milk banks is wonderful. However, because the breast milk from the the milk banks are for vulnerable infants, milk bank facility should be run by under government authorities to ensure tight regulations. The facility should be able to provide health information of the donor mother for the safety of the consumer. I think breast milk bank provided another option for very vulnerable infants who are not taking formula well, but something like breast milk shouldn’t be order online and have it mail to you. The process of shipping may introduce more risk factor of the breast milk which can be life threatening to infants.

    • Mandy Tam 8:48 pm on December 1, 2015 Permalink | Reply

      Great article and I remember we discuss this in class. I think nothing is better than breast milk to infant, however, food safety is very important as well. Like local farm market, I think government will have a hard time to control online selling as they are too “scatter” to track unlike large industrialize production.

      I think starting a register program and also recommend people to provide milk to such program are a great start since breast milk becomes more and more popular over formula.

      Anyway, I learn a lot from this post!

  • NorrisHuang 11:08 pm on October 12, 2015 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: Alberta, , , contamination, , food safety, , , Vancouver,   

    Escherichia coli on fresh produce 

    Escherichia coli (E. coli) are gram-negative, rod-shaped bacteria that cause a great number of food-borne illnesses annually. For example, according to PHAC, there were 470 reported cases of E. coli O157:H7 infections in Canada in 2013, which was the third highest among all pathogenic bacteria. Although E. coli infection is often referred to as “hamburger disease”, these bacteria also contaminates fresh produce. Earlier this year (between March 13 and 31), there were several E. coli infections cases identified in Canada, majority (9 out of 12 cases) of which were reported in Alberta. More investigations by CFIA are underway, however, leafy greens are considered to be the most possible cause of infections. Depending on strains, consequences of E. coli infections vary. Most people suffer from stomach discomfort, diarrhea and vomiting. Those who are infected with pathogenic strains such as O157:H7 may develop more severe symptoms, such as kidney failure.

    In addition to bacterial contamination, a research done by a group of UBC researchers shows a concerning fact that 97% of E. coli isolated from leafy greens samples purchased from several farmers market in Vancouver were antibiotic-resistant. To be more specific, antimicrobial resistance of E. coli on fresh green, red, and romaine lettuce samples were evaluated. 58% of samples were resistant to amikacin, 48% were resistant to trimethoprim and 45% were trimethoprim-sufamethoxazole-resistant. Resistance to nalidixic acid, kanamycin, ampicillin, amoxicillin-clavulanic acid, cefoxitin, gentamicin and tetracycline were also found. Luckily, only 13% of samples were found to be contaminated with trace amount of E. coli and the microbiological quality of produce was acceptable according to Health Canada guidelines.

    You can read more about the 12 E. coli cases in Canada here: http://globalnews.ca/news/1942601/health-officials-suspect-e-coli-illnesses-linked-to-leafy-greens/

    The use of antimicrobial agent on food animal (e.g. chicken) is one possible cause of antibiotic-resistance in E. coli on fresh produce. Antimicrobial agent is used to promote growth of food animal. Nonetheless, only 10% of the drug would be absorbed by animals and the rest will be excreted. As the wastes are applied as fertilizers. Antibiotics are also introduced to the environment (e.g. soil, water) and vegetables. Antibiotics selects for drug-resistant bacteria on leafy produce, which leads to predominant of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Additionally, contaminated irrigation water, poor personal hygiene and inadequate food processing also adversely affect microbiological safety of greens.

    To protect ourselves from E. coli contaminations on vegetables, the following precautions can be taken:

    • Wash produce thoroughly before consumption
    • Clean and sanitize food-contact surfaces properly, including cutting boards, knifes, etc.
    • Wash hands for at least 20 seconds with warm water and soap regularly during food handling
    • Keep raw meat and vegetables separated to avoid cross-contamination
    • Store food at refrigerating temperature (< 4 ͦC) to inhibit bacterial growth

    For more information about E. coli, see: http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/fs-sa/fs-fi/ecoli-eng.php

     

    • Duncan 1:37 pm on October 13, 2015 Permalink | Reply

      This is a test of the blog’s comment system

    • Duncan 1:39 pm on October 13, 2015 Permalink | Reply

      This is a test of the blog’s comment system, take 2.

    • wen liao 2:51 pm on October 16, 2015 Permalink | Reply

      Haha this is like a very classical example about the effect of antimicrobial misuse as we have talked in class. I have also read similar articles talking about how the bacteria isolated from vegetables are resistant to one or multiple antimicrobials, which sounds quite scary to me, to be honest. However, although the issue with antimicrobial misuse has been prevalent for years and scientists have been addressing this problem at different scenarios, not very many people have taken it seriously. I have a friend who recently got flu, and his doctor prescribed him with antibiotics LOL….In addition although the stuff turkey season is almost gone, I till recall this news I read about how you should not wash store packaged turkey before you baked it in the oven. While wash the turkey with running water cannot remove the bacteria on the surface of the turkey skin, this action might spread the cells all over on the turkey causing more contamination. I don’t know if it would be the same case for your e. coli suggestions haha.

    • dgozali 9:07 pm on October 18, 2015 Permalink | Reply

      I think your article brought up a very important issue of growing antimicrobial resistance. Its quite alarming that a large proportion of E. coli found on leafy greens are resistant as most people consume these vegetables raw and some might not even bother washing them as they’re often labelled as a “ready to eat” food. Hence this makes it much easier for people to get sick from consuming these products. This reminds me of the recent outbreak at UBC’s centenniel celebration where many people got sick from eating the produce from the UBC farm. Perhaps the microbes were resistant strains as well. Either way, this is an increasingly prominent issue that should be taken more seriously!

    • CindyDai 10:42 am on October 23, 2015 Permalink | Reply

      The increasing antimicrobial resistance of E. coli indicates the increasing difficulty of controlling E. coli in food industry. To protect our families, handling food safely is crucial to eliminate any E. coli survived the factory processing in leafy greens. In the original news, there are a few more useful tips from PHAC on safe food handling. I learned that we should always reheat leftovers until steaming hot before eating. Especially for leafy greens, we should always keep them refrigerated and only take them out of fridge right before consumption. When there are E. coli outbreaks, cooking vegetables is a better choice. Food safety is in our hands!

    • ya gao 9:00 pm on October 23, 2015 Permalink | Reply

      After reading this post, I think it is important for government agencies like CFIA to realize the presence of antimicrobial resistant strains of E. coli on leafy green products. Although only 13% of samples were found to be contaminated with trace amount of E. coli and the microbiological quality of produce was acceptable according to Health Canada guidelines, it is a serious problem once breaks out. Leafy green products are usually considered as ready to eat foods and people consume them without heat processing step. With the increasing problem of antimicrobial resistant strains of E. coli on ready to eat foods, food safety may be threaten. CFIA should find a way to resolve this problem by controlling the use of fertilizer from animal waste, as well as doing sample testing on leafy green products more frequently.

    • AngeliMalimban 6:11 pm on December 12, 2015 Permalink | Reply

      I think it is interesting how people have a common misconception about how E. coli can only be found in raw beef. I remember my friend freaking out about my other friend preparing raw beef burgers, while she ate the salad that was from fresh produce. Could she have washed it well enough? Even then, it probably would still contain E. coli since it does not come out unless it is cooked.
      Salads are such a big fad in our society due to its nutritional value, but people should not be surprised if they get sick eating this. It’s also hard to cook vegetables because its nutritional value is best when raw, as most of the vitamins and minerals could dissolve in the water (if boiled) and let’s be real… it’s just SO much easier to eat vegetables raw so we do not have to go through the labour of cooking it!

  • elaine chan 12:51 am on October 9, 2015 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , food safety, , , raw milk, United States   

    Claravale Farm Raw Goat Milk Linked to Cases of Campylobacteriosis 

    Claravale Farm is a well-known dairy product distributor located in the state of California. The company lives up to their motto by producing “pure, natural and raw” dairy products for their customers, which includes raw, unpasteurized milk products. Among these raw milk varieties include goat milk, known for its nutritional and health benefits.

    With a nutrient profile similar to that of cow’s milk, goat milk’s additional health benefits is what draws a consumer’s attention. More notably, goat milk contains less allergenic proteins, easily digestible fats and proteins, and lower in cholesterol. For more information about the benefits of goat milk, please visit this site.

    Drinking goat milk does not seem to be quite a bad idea; however, consuming raw goat milk on the other hand, might be. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in the United States warns consumers about the risks associated with drinking raw milk. Although raw, unpasteurized milk is nutritionally dense, it contains a wide variety of disease-causing bacteria, including Brucella, Campylobacter, Salmonella, Mycobacterium bovis, Listeria, and Shiga-toxin producing Escherichia coli. Any individual that drinks raw milk has the risk of consuming such bacteria; thus, increasing the risk of illness. The risk of illness from consumption is particularly high for infants and young children, elderly, pregnant women, and individuals with weakened immune systems.

    On June 2015, the Health Officials in Orange County, California confirmed three cases of campylobacteriosis linked with Claravale Farm, due to the consumption of raw goat milk. The three cases were three young children less than 5 years of age. One of the children was hospitalized, but fortunately, all three were expected to fully recover. Campylobacteriosis is an infectious disease caused by the bacteria, Campylobacter. Its symptoms are seen within two to five days after exposure, and typically include diarrhea, cramping, abdominal pain and fever. This infectious bacterium is commonly associated with contaminated water, poultry, produce, and in this case, unpasteurized dairy products.

    The risk of getting campylobacteriosis is not solely limited to consuming raw goat milk; it applies to other raw, unprocessed products as well. Earlier in year during March 2015, six individuals from North California were diagnosed with campylobacteriosis after drinking Claravale Farm’s raw milk. The farm’s raw milk and cream products were then subjected to a statewide recall when the California Department of Public Health tested positive for Campylobacter. A similar situation occurred previously in March 2012, where positive test results for Campylobacter led to a statewide recall of Claravale Farm’s raw products.

    Claravale Farm is a strong and passionate company that is proud of their raw products, as demonstrated by their statement found on their company website:

    “Raw milk is unique in that it is the only significant source of a complete food in our diet that is not processed in some form being eaten. For instance, the enzymes are all available, whereas in pasteurized milk, less than 10% remain. What this means, is that your body can more readily utilize all of the nutrition that is available in this milk. That’s good for you, and it’s great for your kids!”

    Truthfully, there is no ‘perfect’ milk product. Indeed, pasteurized milk lacks the enzymes and natural nutrient profile found in raw milk. However, pasteurized milk also lacks the wide range of disease-causing bacteria raw milk contains. It is the pasteurization process that helps eliminate such bacteria to produce a food safe product ready for consumption. Yet, it is also the pasteurization process that eliminates the beneficial enzymes and natural nutrient profile present in the raw milk. This can be an on-going debate, but ultimately, the decision is upon the consumer, you.

    What is your ultimate decision? Raw or processed milk?

     

     

     

    Interested in the taste difference between goat’s milk and cow’s milk?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MZ9hHS5Okc

    Curious about the effects of Campylobacter?

     

     

    • TamaraRitchie 11:38 am on October 9, 2015 Permalink | Reply

      While I believe that buying raw milk should be an individual choice and each individual should decide if the health benefits outweigh the risk of disease, I am not comfortable with the idea of individuals buying raw milk products and feeding raw milk products to their children. Children are more immunological acceptable to food borne pathogens and the outcomes of contracting a food borne pathogen can be more severe than in a healthy adult. For this reason I am against the sale of raw milk products because once in the consumers hand there is no way to control who he/she shares these raw milk products with.

    • CherylLau 3:29 pm on October 9, 2015 Permalink | Reply

      Although I do agree that the choice is ultimately on the consumer whether or not to purchase raw milk products, however, I believe that responsibility falls on everyone to prevent cases of food bourne illness. Manufacturers should be responsible for upholding the regulations for such products to ensure that their goods are within certain quality standards. Consumers should make an effort to be well informed in the dangers associated with the products before purchasing and feeding them to people who are highly susceptible to food bourne illnesses. Raw milk itself has many benefits and it would be unfair to ban it from the market if it was deemed safe to consume.

    • CherylLau 3:49 pm on October 9, 2015 Permalink | Reply

      Although I do agree that the choice is ultimately on the consumer whether or not to purchase raw milk and its products, however, I believe that the responsiblity falls on everyone to prevent food bourne illness. Manufacturers should uphold the regulations set for these types of products to ensure that their goods are within certain quality standards. Consumers should make an effort to be well informed and to be aware of the dangers associated with feeding these types of products to people who are highly susceptible to food boure illnesses. Raw milk products have many benefits as stated above, it would be unfair to exclude them from the market due to the chance of careless practices, as long as they are deemed safe to consume.

    • ColleenChong 11:22 am on October 10, 2015 Permalink | Reply

      A small portion of the population, such as dairy farmers, would have immunity to most of the bacteria found in raw milk since they been exposed to that environment for a period of time. But most people in the urban areas do not have this immunity and would have a much higher risk of getting sick, especially the elderly and young children. As for obtaining loss nutrients it can be complement with other food source. I am against the sales of raw milk to the general public because the risk is too high. Food safety is key to public health.

    • Cheryl Lau 2:46 pm on October 10, 2015 Permalink | Reply

      Although I do agree that the choice is ultimately on the consumer whether or not to purchase raw milk and its products, however, I believe that the responsibility falls on everyone to prevent food borne illness. Manufacturers should uphold the regulations set for these types of products to ensure that their goods are within certain quality standards. Consumers should make an effort to be well informed and to be aware of the dangers associated with feeding these types of products to people who are highly susceptible to food borne illnesses. Raw milk products have many benefits over pasteurized milk products as stated above, it would be unfair to exclude them from the market due to the chance of careless practices that might cause food borne illness, even if they were deemed safe to consume.

    • cheryl lau 2:59 pm on October 10, 2015 Permalink | Reply

      Although I do agree that the choice is ultimately on the consumer whether or not to purchase raw milk and its products, however, I believe that the responsibility falls on everyone to prevent the onset of food borne illnesses due to contaminated products. Manufacturers should uphold the regulations set for these types of products to ensure that their goods are within certain quality standards. Consumers should make an effort to be well informed and to be aware of the dangers associated with feeding these types of products to people who are highly susceptible to food borne illnesses. Raw milk products have many benefits over the pasteurized varieties as stated above, it would be unfair to exclude them from the market due to the chance of careless practices, even if they were deemed safe to consume.

    • Catherine Wong 3:38 pm on October 10, 2015 Permalink | Reply

      I personally also feel that raw milk should not be available for purchase because of all that pathogens present causing harm that would have been killed off with pasteurization. However on the other hand, are we able to actually take away the choice to purchase raw milk from the consumers who are adamant on consuming it? If there is enough demand for it, producers would continue producing and selling it. For raw milk consumers, they should be educated on both the benefits and detrimental effects of consuming raw milk. I know people who are quite obsessed with consuming all natural products and actually try to promote drinking raw milk to others by talking about all the benefits and none of the harm. This is a problem especially if the people they are promoting to do not know about the pathogens associated with raw milk. For this aspect, I feel that there is still a lot of work that needs to be done with educating the general public on the line that needs to be drawn between wanting to consume less processed foods and to the point where it becomes a risk to human health.

    • catherine wong 6:22 pm on October 10, 2015 Permalink | Reply

      In my opinion, I feel that raw milk should not be readily available for purchase due to all the pathogens present, which could cause a lot of harm when pasteurization could have killed them off. However on the other hand, are we able to actually take away the choice from consumers who are adamant on purchasing and consuming raw milk? If there is enough demand for it, producers would continue producing and selling it. For raw milk consumers, they should be educated on both the benefits and detrimental effects of consuming raw milk. I know some people who really enjoy consuming unprocessed foods and are trying to promote drinking raw milk to others by talking about all the benefits, but none of the harm. This is a problem especially if the people they are promoting to do not know about the pathogens associated with raw milk. For this aspect, I feel that there is still a lot of work that needs to be done with educating the general public on the line that needs to be drawn between wanting to consume less processed foods and to the point where it becomes a risk to human health.

    • DonnaKong 11:09 pm on October 10, 2015 Permalink | Reply

      Personally, I prefer consuming pasteurized milk not only because I am used to the taste, but for my own safety. However, like many have already stated, there are pros and cons to both types. As Catherine mentioned, banning the products may not be as easy as it seems because many who enjoy raw milk and would be devastated if there was a ban in place. Indeed the prohibition of raw milk would not be fair for consumers as it restricts their choices. I believe that for a product such as this, there should be a new policy in which there are warnings required on the label of the milk. Similar to how tobacco is sold in Canada, there should be warnings of possible risks that come with the product. The consumer is still given the option of purchasing the milk but they can be more informed of the consequences and be given specifications on who is less suitable to consume the product (children under 5, seniors, immuno-compromised, etc.). I am not sure if there should be an age limit required to buy this product, but I definitely think that informing risks will help people understand and react quicker should there ever be presence of campylobacter bacteria.

    • MichelleLui 11:16 pm on October 11, 2015 Permalink | Reply

      As a consumer, I would drink raw goat milk from an approved producer, providing that its operations meet the established food safety guidelines of the government regulatory agency. There are many high risk food items out on the market and restaurants. I do think the supplier should provide sufficient food safety information on the products so the consumer can make a well-informed decision. As kids are one of the high-risk group to food poisoning, the company should emphasize the food safety risks associated with kids consuming raw goat milk. Especially when they sell their milk using statement such as “Great for your kids”.

    • Mandy Tam 4:11 pm on October 13, 2015 Permalink | Reply

      I understand that Canada does not allow raw milk to be sale in the market. Therefore, I do not think there is a negotiate point in Canada rather raw milk should be consume or not. According to this article, raw milk seems to be allowed to sale in America. Therefore, it will be interesting to know what extra step America takes to prevent outbreak caused by raw milk. Also, it will be interesting to have a professional to share the difference in regulation/ microbe protocol in America.

    • dgozali 7:22 pm on October 13, 2015 Permalink | Reply

      Although raw milk may have several health benefits such as digestible fats and lower cholesterol levels, the health risks are far greater. For this reason, I feel that raw milk should not be sold to consumers without stating the health risks associated with it. Ultimately, the consumer should be able to make a choice whether or not to take that risk. Furthermore, there should be an indication on the packaging regarding the risk groups such as children and immunocompromised people who may have a greater chance of falling ill from consuming raw milk.

    • MarinaMoon 4:42 pm on October 14, 2015 Permalink | Reply

      As many have already stated, I also believe that raw milk should remain prohibited in Canada. Although there are many health benefits associated with raw milk, the negative consequences are too severe to risk the population to consume raw milk. Also, we live in a location where food availability is relatively abundant thus there are so many other alternatives where those nutrients can be consumed. I don’t think it is necessary to allow production of raw milk and risk the outbreaks that may result as a result. Also, as many are already adapted to and familiar with the taste of pasteurized milk, even if raw milk becomes available, I don’t think it would be consumed widely despite the nutritious aspects that it provides. Additionally, I would personally prefer to drink milk that I can trust its safety rather than milk that I need to be cautious of so many different diseases everytime I drink.

    • Rain Shen 12:23 am on October 17, 2015 Permalink | Reply

      As a milk drinker, I personally prefer safe pasteurized milk rather than the nourishing raw milk. Food safety is the most critical point when I purchase food products. It is true that choosing raw milk or not is a very personal choice. Some raw food zealots are eating all kinds of food in raw. However, those beneficial enzymes and nutrients in the raw milk might be uptake from other type of food. Even if the enzymes and nutrients in the raw goat milk are unique , we can still uptake these nutrients from the supplements, but they are not that essential for our metabolism or health. On the other hand, there is a high risk to get sick or even severe diseases by consuming the raw milk. Not speaking of different kinds of negative effects of the following medical treatments for the sickness. In my opinion, it is not worth taking the risk to drink raw milk, which will be more likely to get infected by the bacteria in it. Government should prohibit the sale of raw milk to ensure the food safety of most people.

    • RainShen 12:59 am on October 17, 2015 Permalink | Reply

      As a milk drinker, I prefer safe pasteurized milk rather than nourishing raw milk. The safety of the food will be the most critical point when I purchase food products. It is true that choosing to purchase raw milk or not is a very personal choice. Some raw food zealots are eating all kinds of food in raw. However, the enzymes and nutrients in the raw milk might be uptake from other kinds of food. Even if the enzymes and nutrients in the raw goat milk are unique, we can still uptake them from the supplements, but these nutrients are not essential for our body metabolism or health. Not consuming those nutrients won’t hazard our health. On the other hand, the bacteria in the raw milk will be more likely to cause sickness or even severe diseases. Not speaking of the negative effects of the following medical treatments. In my opinion, it is not worth taking the risk to consume raw milk which has the high possibility to threaten your health. Government should prohibit the sale of raw milk to ensure the food safety of most people.

    • teewong 12:28 am on December 15, 2015 Permalink | Reply

      I suppose one of the biggest contradiction between raw and pasteurized milk is that what is the point of drinking milk when the all the available nutrients are depleted in a pasteurized milk? With most of the benefits swept away, is there really a need to drink milk? Of course, many people prefer drinking milk because they like the taste of it, so I suppose drinking fortified pasteurized milk (adding nutrients that were lost back into the milk due to pasteurization) would probably satisfy both the hazardous concerns and taste buds. I am not a milk drinker myself because I do not enjoy the taste very much and I have not tried raw milk before, so this issue does not really bother me. However, I do believe in consuming products in the most natural state and in the least processed way as much as possible due to their bioavailability. I believe that raw milk could help promote different types of microbiota to flourish in our gut, which could lead us to better prevent from contracting different types of diseases. If we strip away the nutrients from raw milk, I feel that it would just be useless and wasting our money on something that we do not necessarily need.

Newer posts →

c
Compose new post
j
Next post/Next comment
k
Previous post/Previous comment
r
Reply
e
Edit
o
Show/Hide comments
t
Go to top
l
Go to login
h
Show/Hide help
shift + esc
Cancel

Spam prevention powered by Akismet