blog poll quesiton - Who is responsible?
2 views
Skip to first unread message
Tom
Jul 15, 2008, 3:16:04 PM7/15/08
to Foodsafe
I know blog poll questions can be tiresome, but the Fresh Talk poll
question this week asks
Who do you think is to blame for most cases of foodborne illness?
Growers
Retailers
Foodservice
Consumers
Of course, I want you all to vote in the poll
www.freshtalk.blogspot.com
but more than that, I'm curious if we know the answer to this
question. My guess, of course, would be that consumer actions lead to
the most cases of illness from food. Anyone seen any stats - why
doesn't industry trot out a statistic like this when it is under fire?
Tom K
question this week asks
Who do you think is to blame for most cases of foodborne illness?
Growers
Retailers
Foodservice
Consumers
Of course, I want you all to vote in the poll
www.freshtalk.blogspot.com
but more than that, I'm curious if we know the answer to this
question. My guess, of course, would be that consumer actions lead to
the most cases of illness from food. Anyone seen any stats - why
doesn't industry trot out a statistic like this when it is under fire?
Tom K
Bill Marler
Jul 15, 2008, 3:31:29 PM7/15/08
to Tom, Foodsafe
Lawyers
William D. Marler
William D. Marler
Marler Clark LLP PS
6600 Columbia Center
701 Fifth Avene
Seattle, Washington 98104
Peter Snyder
Jul 15, 2008, 3:36:16 PM7/15/08
to Tom, Foodsafe
Tom,
It is the food service if you accept hand washing is the leading cause
as CDC statistics show. But on the other hand, if we didn't have the
cook to wash the fruits and veg and cook the meat, poultry and fish,
there would be a massive amount of illness, much more than today, and
the source would be the growers and harvesters.
Pete Snyder
--
O. Peter Snyder, Jr., Ph.D.
Hospitality Institute of Technology and Management
670 Transfer Road, Suite 21A; St Paul, Minnesota 55114; USA
http://www.hi-tm.com
Tel 651-646-7077 FAX 651-646-5984
One worldwide uniform set of retail food safety guidelines
David Cherelin
Jul 15, 2008, 4:22:55 PM7/15/08
to Tom, Foodsafe
As soon as I saw Consumer on the list, that was a given, but consumer ones don't make the news. Even if the consumer causes their own problems they are more likely to blame it on the last place they ate out, than their practices at home. Unless there is enough people who get sick, there is no way to track an illness anyway.
David J. Cherelin
Foodlink
936 Exchange Str.
Rochester, NY 14608
(585) 328-3380 x113
Fax (585) 328-9951
Foodlink
936 Exchange Str.
Rochester, NY 14608
(585) 328-3380 x113
Fax (585) 328-9951
Carl Custer
Jul 15, 2008, 4:34:39 PM7/15/08
to Tom, Foodsafe
> but more than that, I'm curious if we know the answer to this
> question. My guess, of course, would be that consumer actions lead to
> the most cases of illness from food. Anyone seen any stats - why
> doesn't industry trot out a statistic like this when it is under fire?
> question. My guess, of course, would be that consumer actions lead to
> the most cases of illness from food. Anyone seen any stats - why
> doesn't industry trot out a statistic like this when it is under fire?
[Carl]: O.K. not as succinct as counselor Marler's but:
That "The consumer mishandled our product." is one of industry's
favorite defenses.
Both FDA and FSIS have carefully tread the line between action and the
status quo. Both FDA and FSIS have similar definitions for
adulteration and both use the "may render" and "does not ordinarily
render it" . . . "injurious to health" clauses (See below)
I'm more familiar with the Meat Inspection Act so will use it as an
example. Decades ago, the Secretary of Agriculture determined that
certain diseases of animals, e.g. brucellosis and tuberculosis would
ordinarily be a hazard to consumers. Therefore he (way before Ann
Veneman) determined that those carcasses and any meat derived from
them were adulterated (9 CFR 311). In some cases, he determined that
the meat could be salvaged by cooking (9 CFR 315).
In 1994, The FSIS Administrator, acting on behalf of the Secretary of
Agriculture, determined on the basis of epidemiological evidence, that
Escherichia coli O157:H7 in ground beef was ordinarily injurious in
the hands of consumers and therefore, an adulterant-in-ground-beef.
That determination for the end product has wagged the entire industry
by the tail.
In a similar vein, The Secretary of HHS (or his designee) has
determined that certain pathogens on fresh produce, such as melons,
spinach, etc. are ordinarily injurious to health in the hands of
consumers and therefore adulterated.
As I mentioned, these determinations are based on epidemiological
evidence. But, "Show me the bodies" or "Show me more bodies" has been
another industry response to proposed regulatory policy.
How much should consumers be protected is a tough question. The judge
in his opinion for American Public Health Association v. Butz, 511
F.2d 331, 335 (D.C.Cir.1974), opined that "The American consumer is
not stupid and knows to cook food thoroughly" ergo, doesn't need a
warning label on raw poultry.
O.K. when you stop laughing and pick yourself of the floor. Consider
that the Feds don't have an easy job. They are criticized for wanting
to form a "Nanny State" and for letting industry run amok. It's not a
perfect system. But, neither is the "Precautionary Principle".
Food Act excerpts:
SEC. 402. [21 USC 342] Adulterated food.
A food shall be deemed to be adulterated
(1) If it bears or contains any poisonous or deleterious substance
which may render it injurious to health; but in case the substance is
not an added substance such food shall not be considered adulterated
under this clause if the quantity of such substance in such food does
not ordinarily render it injurious to health;
Sec 601 21 USC 21 12:
(m) The term "adulterated" shall apply to any carcass, part thereof,
meat or meat food product under one or more of the following
circumstances:
(1) if it bears or contains any poisonous or deleterious substance
which may render it injurious to health; but in case the substance is
not an added substance, such article shall not be considered
adulterated under this clause if the quantity of such substance in or
on such article does not ordinarily render it injurious to health;
Roy Costa
Jul 15, 2008, 9:58:45 PM7/15/08
to Tom, Foodsafe
Dear Tom:
You asked: "Who do you think is to "blame" for most cases of foodborne illness"?
I believe you have to ask a different question to get the answer you are looking for. The better question is: "What is the "population attributable risk" for FBI at each step in production for each of the major FBI pathogens"? You must ask this question because FBI hazards flow down through the chain creating exposures at each link.
Definition: Population attributable risk (PAR) is the reduction in incidence that would be observed if the population were entirely unexposed, compared with its current (actual) exposure pattern.
In the example below, if all the risk from Salmonella exposures attributed to primary producers was removed, the remaining risk of salmonellosis in the population would be 80%, etc. These following estimates are mostly my best judgment, but I have some data to support them. (OK. I will dig it all up if you are willing to send me a retainer, whataya want fo free?)
Costa's estimates for Population Attributable Samonellosis Risk
Primary producers 20%
Manufacturers 20%
Retailers 10%
Foodservice 40%
Consumers 10%
To get the final answer (I believe this is known as Combined Population Attributable Risk), you probably have to estimate PAR for each of the top 8 or so FBI etiologies (PAR would change, for example, PAR for Shigellosis at the consumer level would be higher than anywhere else) then calculate the relative risk for each sector (any biostatisticians out there, that can help me out on this one?).
Roy E Costa, R.S., M.S./M.B.A.
Public Health Sanitarian Consultant
Environ Health Associates, Inc
1.386.734.5187
www.haccptraining.org
www.safefoods.tv
rco...@cfl.rr.com
> Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 12:16:04 -0700
You asked: "Who do you think is to "blame" for most cases of foodborne illness"?
I believe you have to ask a different question to get the answer you are looking for. The better question is: "What is the "population attributable risk" for FBI at each step in production for each of the major FBI pathogens"? You must ask this question because FBI hazards flow down through the chain creating exposures at each link.
Definition: Population attributable risk (PAR) is the reduction in incidence that would be observed if the population were entirely unexposed, compared with its current (actual) exposure pattern.
In the example below, if all the risk from Salmonella exposures attributed to primary producers was removed, the remaining risk of salmonellosis in the population would be 80%, etc. These following estimates are mostly my best judgment, but I have some data to support them. (OK. I will dig it all up if you are willing to send me a retainer, whataya want fo free?)
Costa's estimates for Population Attributable Samonellosis Risk
Primary producers 20%
Manufacturers 20%
Retailers 10%
Foodservice 40%
Consumers 10%
To get the final answer (I believe this is known as Combined Population Attributable Risk), you probably have to estimate PAR for each of the top 8 or so FBI etiologies (PAR would change, for example, PAR for Shigellosis at the consumer level would be higher than anywhere else) then calculate the relative risk for each sector (any biostatisticians out there, that can help me out on this one?).
Roy E Costa, R.S., M.S./M.B.A.
Public Health Sanitarian Consultant
Environ Health Associates, Inc
1.386.734.5187
www.haccptraining.org
www.safefoods.tv
rco...@cfl.rr.com
> Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 12:16:04 -0700
> Subject: [Foodsafe] blog poll quesiton - Who is responsible?
>
>
> I know blog poll questions can be tiresome, but the Fresh Talk poll
> question this week asks
>
> Who do you think is to blame for most cases of foodborne illness?
> Growers 20%
> Retailers 10%
> Foodservice 50%
> Consumers 30%
> Retailers 10%
> Foodservice 50%
> Consumers 30%
> but more than that, I'm curious if we know the answer to this
> question. My guess, of course, would be that consumer actions lead to
> the most cases of illness from food. Anyone seen any stats - why
> doesn't industry trot out a statistic like this when it is under fire?
>
> question. My guess, of course, would be that consumer actions lead to
> the most cases of illness from food. Anyone seen any stats - why
> doesn't industry trot out a statistic like this when it is under fire?
>
> Tom K
>
>
>
>
>
>
Roy Costa
Jul 15, 2008, 10:07:33 PM7/15/08
to dche...@foodlinkny.org, Tom, Foodsafe
But David, where do these pathogens come from? They don't manufacture them at home, they come to the consumer in the food they purchase, excpet for a few notable exceptions. But if you consider Salmonella, Campy and E coli to be the most prevelant FBI agents, its all about raw food, and the reservoirs for infection start at the primary producer and are further spread and proliferate at manufacture. Also note we eat about 50% of our meals away from home. The numbers do not point to the consumer level as the problem. Consumers are an easy scapegoat for industry, and yes the data are weak so its easy to blame them.
Roy E Costa, R.S., M.S./M.B.A.
Public Health Sanitarian Consultant
Environ Health Associates, Inc
1.386.734.5187
www.haccptraining.org
www.safefoods.tv
rco...@cfl.rr.com
From: dche...@foodlinkny.org
To: tck...@gmail.com; Foodsa...@googlegroups.com
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 20:22:55 +0000
Subject: [Foodsafe] Re: blog poll quesiton - Who is responsible?
Tom
Jul 16, 2008, 7:10:39 AM7/16/08
to Foodsafe
I am floored by the level of expertise here. Thanks for the responses.
As a consumer, I am amazed that more of "we consumers" don't get sick
more often in view of the way food can be left outside the "safe zone"
more often than not and still do us no harm. Interesting thread here
that I will make note of in my blog.....
Tom Karst
The Packer
www.freshtalk.blogspot.com
http://groups.google.com/group/Freshproduce?hl=en
On Jul 15, 9:07 pm, Roy Costa <royeco...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> But David, where do these pathogens come from? They don't manufacture them at home, they come to the consumer in the food they purchase, excpet for a few notable exceptions. But if you consider Salmonella, Campy and E coli to be the most prevelant FBI agents, its all about raw food, and the reservoirs for infection start at the primary producer and are further spread and proliferate at manufacture. Also note we eat about 50% of our meals away from home. The numbers do not point to the consumer level as the problem. Consumers are an easy scapegoat for industry, and yes the data are weak so its easy to blame them.Roy E Costa, R.S., M.S./M.B.A.Public Health Sanitarian ConsultantEnviron Health Associates, Inc1.386.734.5187www.haccptraining.orgwww.safefoods.tvrcos...@cfl.rr.com
>
> The i’m Talkaton. Can 30-days of conversation change the world?http://www.imtalkathon.com/?source=EML_WLH_Talkathon_ChangeWorld
As a consumer, I am amazed that more of "we consumers" don't get sick
more often in view of the way food can be left outside the "safe zone"
more often than not and still do us no harm. Interesting thread here
that I will make note of in my blog.....
Tom Karst
The Packer
www.freshtalk.blogspot.com
http://groups.google.com/group/Freshproduce?hl=en
On Jul 15, 9:07 pm, Roy Costa <royeco...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> But David, where do these pathogens come from? They don't manufacture them at home, they come to the consumer in the food they purchase, excpet for a few notable exceptions. But if you consider Salmonella, Campy and E coli to be the most prevelant FBI agents, its all about raw food, and the reservoirs for infection start at the primary producer and are further spread and proliferate at manufacture. Also note we eat about 50% of our meals away from home. The numbers do not point to the consumer level as the problem. Consumers are an easy scapegoat for industry, and yes the data are weak so its easy to blame them.Roy E Costa, R.S., M.S./M.B.A.Public Health Sanitarian ConsultantEnviron Health Associates, Inc1.386.734.5187www.haccptraining.orgwww.safefoods.tvrcos...@cfl.rr.com
>
> From: dchere...@foodlinkny.orgTo: tcka...@gmail.com; Foodsafe-l...@googlegroups.comDate: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 20:22:55 +0000Subject: [Foodsafe] Re: blog poll quesiton - Who is responsible?As soon as I saw Consumer on the list, that was a given, but consumer ones don't make the news. Even if the consumer causes their own problems they are more likely to blame it on the last place they ate out, than their practices at home. Unless there is enough people who get sick, there is no way to track an illness anyway.
> David J. Cherelin Foodlink 936 Exchange Str. Rochester, NY 14608 (585) 328-3380 x113 Fax (585) 328-9951
>
> -----Original Message-----From: Tom [mailto:tcka...@gmail.com]Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 03:16 PMTo: 'Foodsafe'Subject: [Foodsafe] blog poll quesiton - Who is responsible?I know blog poll questions can be tiresome, but the Fresh Talk poll question this week asks Who do you think is to blame for most cases of foodborne illness? Growers Retailers Foodservice Consumers Of course, I want you all to vote in the pollwww.freshtalk.blogspot.combut more than that, I'm curious if we know the answer to this question. My guess, of course, would be that consumer actions lead to the most cases of illness from food. Anyone seen any stats - why doesn't industry trot out a statistic like this when it is under fire? Tom K _________________________________________________________________
> From: dchere...@foodlinkny.orgTo: tcka...@gmail.com; Foodsafe-l...@googlegroups.comDate: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 20:22:55 +0000Subject: [Foodsafe] Re: blog poll quesiton - Who is responsible?As soon as I saw Consumer on the list, that was a given, but consumer ones don't make the news. Even if the consumer causes their own problems they are more likely to blame it on the last place they ate out, than their practices at home. Unless there is enough people who get sick, there is no way to track an illness anyway.
> David J. Cherelin Foodlink 936 Exchange Str. Rochester, NY 14608 (585) 328-3380 x113 Fax (585) 328-9951
>
>
> The i’m Talkaton. Can 30-days of conversation change the world?http://www.imtalkathon.com/?source=EML_WLH_Talkathon_ChangeWorld
CarlHansenMD
Jul 16, 2008, 7:11:37 AM7/16/08
to Foodsafe
"Who do you think is to blame for most cases of foodborne illness?"
(This question is a form of psychological and perceptual distortion,
better known as blaming the victim - the people doing the work.)
When you ask about blame it is a different list.
"Who do you think is to blame for most cases of foodborne illness?"
(This question is a form of psychological and perceptual distortion,
better known as blaming the victim, i.e., the people doing the work.)
When you ask about blame, it is a vastly different list.
This list is a list of people charged with carrying out actions not
designing, training, governing, promoting and funding the actions
involved with feeding people and caring for public health and sick
people.
What is the motive behind the present failure?
"Follow the money and leaders."
When you follow the money and leaders you'll discover how people have
used the money and power rather than carrying out their fiduciary and
professional responsibilities governing the design and operation of a
variety of organizations.
It's no different that what we are seeing in various banking or
"healthcare" companies.
Follow the money and leaders and you’ll see did instead of meeting
their responsibilities to the people who work do the work and buy
products and services.
Steve
Jul 16, 2008, 10:06:58 AM7/16/08
to Foodsafe
I think we have the "holes" to blame for the problem.
-We have for the most part responsible growers who are trying to do
their very best. If there weren't a couple holes in the fence, birds
in the sky or shortcomings in their food handling policies their
product would be wholly acceptable.
-Then we go to the processor that washes and packs the product...
sure, they may use chlorine in their wash water, but at pH >8 (and
dirty washwater will likely have an elevated pH) chlorine is
ineffective. If the washwater isn't changed regularly the soil in the
water will quickly neutralize the chlorine anyway. Was the washwater
effective at killing potentially pathogenic organisms? We'll never
know, no microbial testing of the washwater is required. Another
hole.
-Storage and Distribution... Where did the product originate, what
path did it follow? There isn't much of a map out there as far as
traceback procedures for most products. Walmart places radio
frequency identification locators on shipments to know where in the
distribution loop a particular shipment is. Why can't the produce
industry?
So say you are a grower or processor and spend a lot of time and money
getting your product chain up to speed with good practices and
microbial testing, you're doing a great job. The FDA notices a
concentration of sickness caused by a particular strain that "may"
have originated or passed through your area. They then issue a
blanket recall that includes your superior product as "suspect".
You've been doing everything right and still get thrown under the bus
by a regulatory agency that doesn't have much for information and
little control. The biggest hole of them all.
Roy Costa
Jul 16, 2008, 1:22:44 PM7/16/08
to chris....@ncc.edu, dche...@foodlinkny.org, Tom, Foodsafe
Chris: Yes consumers are prone to error and we need to work on this as public health professionals.
Regardless of the some of the nonsense in the way the retail baseline risk data was configured by FDA, I wish AMC was the norm at the FS level but it is far from being universally adopted thanks to the interference of the industry at CFP. AMC it is not manadatory and as long as the industry lobby at CFP calls the shots for FDA, it never will be. Most FS operators I see have no controls in place, its mostly haphazard procedures that do nothing.
The pathogens that show the highest prevalence in population studies are Salmonella, E coli, and Campylobacter. These pathogens do not originate in the home these are in the food purchased. So the question becomes not who is to blame but who is responsible for the food hazards. It has to be the industry with biggest share and then also a smaller shared responsibility (see my recent discourse on PAR) for the consumer since pathogens cannot be completely eliminated in manufacture (although E coli is an adulterant and there is zero tolerance and zero for LM which cannot be in a finished RTE product by law).
When I look at outbreak data, only a tiny fraction is coming from the home. We can debate the lack of reporting but if it was the consumer who is responsible for the majority of the FBI burden in this country we should se more than +/-1% in epidemiological studies of outbreaks. In addition since we eat about 50% of our food in restaurants the exposures are clearly happening on a grand scale here, instead of in isolated events at home. My thinking for how and why the data is skewed away from the home as the the major location for exposures to the key pathogens.
Consumers could be an important control point but no one seems to want to invest in giving them the capacity to do any real interventions, and once the food is contaminated, they/we are just sitting ducks anyway.
And no offense to you Chris, I am just tired of industry folks throwing out these invalid stats about how much FBI is attributable to mistakes at home, it is really very misleading, but serves their purpose well, to confuse the issues and provide someone else to blame.
Regardless of the some of the nonsense in the way the retail baseline risk data was configured by FDA, I wish AMC was the norm at the FS level but it is far from being universally adopted thanks to the interference of the industry at CFP. AMC it is not manadatory and as long as the industry lobby at CFP calls the shots for FDA, it never will be. Most FS operators I see have no controls in place, its mostly haphazard procedures that do nothing.
The pathogens that show the highest prevalence in population studies are Salmonella, E coli, and Campylobacter. These pathogens do not originate in the home these are in the food purchased. So the question becomes not who is to blame but who is responsible for the food hazards. It has to be the industry with biggest share and then also a smaller shared responsibility (see my recent discourse on PAR) for the consumer since pathogens cannot be completely eliminated in manufacture (although E coli is an adulterant and there is zero tolerance and zero for LM which cannot be in a finished RTE product by law).
When I look at outbreak data, only a tiny fraction is coming from the home. We can debate the lack of reporting but if it was the consumer who is responsible for the majority of the FBI burden in this country we should se more than +/-1% in epidemiological studies of outbreaks. In addition since we eat about 50% of our food in restaurants the exposures are clearly happening on a grand scale here, instead of in isolated events at home. My thinking for how and why the data is skewed away from the home as the the major location for exposures to the key pathogens.
Consumers could be an important control point but no one seems to want to invest in giving them the capacity to do any real interventions, and once the food is contaminated, they/we are just sitting ducks anyway.
And no offense to you Chris, I am just tired of industry folks throwing out these invalid stats about how much FBI is attributable to mistakes at home, it is really very misleading, but serves their purpose well, to confuse the issues and provide someone else to blame.
Roy E Costa, R.S., M.S./M.B.A.
Public Health Sanitarian Consultant
Environ Health Associates, Inc
1.386.734.5187
www.haccptraining.org
www.safefoods.tv
rco...@cfl.rr.com
> Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 11:43:38 -0400
> From: Chris....@ncc.edu
> Subject: Re: [Foodsafe] Re: blog poll quesiton - Who is responsible?
> To: roye...@hotmail.com
> CC: dche...@foodlinkny.org; tck...@gmail.com; foodsa...@googlegroups.com
>
> Roy,
>
> FOODSAFE has impressed 'upon me':
> **Perhaps as much as 55-75% of FBI are a result of consumers' poor Personal Hygiene, Cross Contamination Awareness & Prevention, and absence of T&T Controls(Guess Cooking)
> **Restaurant Industry has "more control", education, training, Mgmt. Systems Approach, Active Managerial Control, Thermometers, SOP's for Food Flow, and "No Pets" permitted in the establishment??
>
> Have I been mislead / failure to comprehend/process available data?
>
> Thanks,
> Chris Argento
> From: Chris....@ncc.edu
> Subject: Re: [Foodsafe] Re: blog poll quesiton - Who is responsible?
> To: roye...@hotmail.com
> CC: dche...@foodlinkny.org; tck...@gmail.com; foodsa...@googlegroups.com
>
> Roy,
>
> FOODSAFE has impressed 'upon me':
> **Perhaps as much as 55-75% of FBI are a result of consumers' poor Personal Hygiene, Cross Contamination Awareness & Prevention, and absence of T&T Controls(Guess Cooking)
> **Restaurant Industry has "more control", education, training, Mgmt. Systems Approach, Active Managerial Control, Thermometers, SOP's for Food Flow, and "No Pets" permitted in the establishment??
>
> Have I been mislead / failure to comprehend/process available data?
>
> Thanks,
> Chris Argento
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Roy Costa <roye...@hotmail.com>
> Date: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 10:07 pm
> Subject: [Foodsafe] Re: blog poll quesiton - Who is responsible?
>
> >
> > But David, where do these pathogens come from? They don't
> > manufacture them at home, they come to the consumer in the food
> > they purchase, excpet for a few notable exceptions. But if you
> > consider Salmonella, Campy and E coli to be the most prevelant FBI
> > agents, its all about raw food, and the reservoirs for infection
> > start at the primary producer and are further spread and
> > proliferate at manufacture. Also note we eat about 50% of our
> > meals away from home. The numbers do not point to the consumer
> > level as the problem. Consumers are an easy scapegoat for
> > industry, and yes the data are weak so its easy to blame them.Roy
> > E Costa, R.S., M.S./M.B.A.Public Health Sanitarian
> > ConsultantEnviron Health Associates,
> > manufacture them at home, they come to the consumer in the food
> > they purchase, excpet for a few notable exceptions. But if you
> > consider Salmonella, Campy and E coli to be the most prevelant FBI
> > agents, its all about raw food, and the reservoirs for infection
> > start at the primary producer and are further spread and
> > proliferate at manufacture. Also note we eat about 50% of our
> > meals away from home. The numbers do not point to the consumer
> > level as the problem. Consumers are an easy scapegoat for
> > industry, and yes the data are weak so its easy to blame them.Roy
> > E Costa, R.S., M.S./M.B.A.Public Health Sanitarian
> > ConsultantEnviron Health Associates,
> > Inc1.386.734.5187www.haccptrai...@cfl.rr.com
> > From: dche...@foodlinkny.orgTo: tck...@gmail.com; Foodsafe-
> > li...@googlegroups.comDate: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 20:22:55 +0000Subject:
> > From: dche...@foodlinkny.orgTo: tck...@gmail.com; Foodsafe-
> > li...@googlegroups.comDate: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 20:22:55 +0000Subject:
> > [Foodsafe] Re: blog poll quesiton - Who is responsible?As soon as
> > I saw Consumer on the list, that was a given, but consumer ones
> > don't make the news. Even if the consumer causes their own
> > problems they are more likely to blame it on the last place they
> > ate out, than their practices at home. Unless there is enough
> > people who get sick, there is no way to track an illness anyway.
> > David J. Cherelin Foodlink 936 Exchange Str. Rochester, NY 14608
> > (585) 328-3380 x113 Fax (585) 328-9951
> >
> > I saw Consumer on the list, that was a given, but consumer ones
> > don't make the news. Even if the consumer causes their own
> > problems they are more likely to blame it on the last place they
> > ate out, than their practices at home. Unless there is enough
> > people who get sick, there is no way to track an illness anyway.
> > David J. Cherelin Foodlink 936 Exchange Str. Rochester, NY 14608
> > (585) 328-3380 x113 Fax (585) 328-9951
> >
> > -----Original Message-----From: Tom [tck...@gmail.com]Sent:
> > Tuesday, July 15, 2008 03:16 PMTo: 'Foodsafe'Subject: [Foodsafe]
> > blog poll quesiton - Who is responsible?I know blog poll questions
> > can be tiresome, but the Fresh Talk poll question this week asks
> > Who do you think is to blame for most cases of foodborne illness?
> > Growers Retailers Foodservice Consumers Of course, I want you all
> > to vote in the poll www.freshtalk.blogspot.com but more than that,
> > I'm curious if we know the answer to this question. My guess, of
> > course, would be that consumer actions lead to the most cases of
> > illness from food. Anyone seen any stats - why doesn't industry
> > trot out a statistic like this when it is under fire? Tom K
> > Who do you think is to blame for most cases of foodborne illness?
> > Growers Retailers Foodservice Consumers Of course, I want you all
> > to vote in the poll www.freshtalk.blogspot.com but more than that,
> > I'm curious if we know the answer to this question. My guess, of
> > course, would be that consumer actions lead to the most cases of
> > illness from food. Anyone seen any stats - why doesn't industry
> > trot out a statistic like this when it is under fire? Tom K
> > _________________________________________________________________The i’m Talkaton. Can 30-days of conversation change the world?
> > http://www.imtalkathon.com/?source=EML_WLH_Talkathon_ChangeWorld
> > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
> > You received this message because you subscribed to the "Foodsafe"
> > group.To post to this group, send email to Foodsafe-
> > li...@googlegroups.comTo unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > Foodsafe-lis...@googlegroups.com
> > For more options, visit this group at
> > http://groups.google.com/group/Foodsafe-list?hl=en
> > If you're having problems with the list, contact Cindy Roberts at
> > foodsa...@gmail.com-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~----
> > --~--~---
> >
> >
Time for vacation? WIN what you need. Enter Now!
> > http://www.imtalkathon.com/?source=EML_WLH_Talkathon_ChangeWorld
> > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
> > You received this message because you subscribed to the "Foodsafe"
> > group.To post to this group, send email to Foodsafe-
> > li...@googlegroups.comTo unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > Foodsafe-lis...@googlegroups.com
> > For more options, visit this group at
> > http://groups.google.com/group/Foodsafe-list?hl=en
> > If you're having problems with the list, contact Cindy Roberts at
> > foodsa...@gmail.com-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~----
> > --~--~---
> >
> >
Time for vacation? WIN what you need. Enter Now!
CarlHansenMD
Jul 16, 2008, 4:52:14 PM7/16/08
to Foodsafe
Consumers and patients have no way of knowing if the food they receive
is provided free of contamination and handled in a safe manner.
Production schedules and practices go against food safety in many
restaurants and health facilities.
If employees do not work fast enough they receive warnings and
termination notices from their employer.
Training offered on Monday is often forgotten and not in application
by Thursday.
The management principles of Deming are rarely in practice.
Safety strategies are not given a prime position by the leaders and
people controlling the money.
Plants, animals as well as humans have immune systems that do poorly
when they are malnourished, stressed, inadequately or inappropriately
supplemented or poorly treated. How to manage pests and microbes in
truck produce is well established gives the best guarantee that
consumers will enjoy healthy food.
It comes down to safe food handling being a realistic practice in a
hygienic environment with built-in failsafe systems on ongoing
monitoring of quality measures and hazards established and funded by
corporate leaders.
On Jul 16, 12:22 pm, Roy Costa <royeco...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Chris: Yes consumers are prone to error and we need to work on this as public health professionals.
>
> Regardless of the some of the nonsense in the way the retail baseline risk data was configured by FDA, I wish AMC was the norm at the FS level but it is far from being universally adopted thanks to the interference of the industry at CFP. AMC it is not manadatory and as long as the industry lobby at CFP calls the shots for FDA, it never will be. Most FS operators I see have no controls in place, its mostly haphazard procedures that do nothing.
>
> The pathogens that show the highest prevalence in population studies are Salmonella, E coli, and Campylobacter. These pathogens do not originate in the home these are in the food purchased. So the question becomes not who is to blame but who is responsible for the food hazards. It has to be the industry with biggest share and then also a smaller shared responsibility (see my recent discourse on PAR) for the consumer since pathogens cannot be completely eliminated in manufacture (although E coli is an adulterant and there is zero tolerance and zero for LM which cannot be in a finished RTE product by law).
>
> When I look at outbreak data, only a tiny fraction is coming from the home. We can debate the lack of reporting but if it was the consumer who is responsible for the majority of the FBI burden in this country we should se more than +/-1% in epidemiological studies of outbreaks. In addition since we eat about 50% of our food in restaurants the exposures are clearly happening on a grand scale here, instead of in isolated events at home. My thinking for how and why the data is skewed away from the home as the the major location for exposures to the key pathogens.
>
> Consumers could be an important control point but no one seems to want to invest in giving them the capacity to do any real interventions, and once the food is contaminated, they/we are just sitting ducks anyway.
>
> And no offense to you Chris, I am just tired of industry folks throwing out these invalid stats about how much FBI is attributable to mistakes at home, it is really very misleading, but serves their purpose well, to confuse the issues and provide someone else to blame.Roy E Costa, R.S., M.S./M.B.A.Public Health Sanitarian ConsultantEnviron Health Associates, Inc1.386.734.5187www.haccptraining.orgwww.safefoods.tvrcos...@cfl.rr.com> Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 11:43:38 -0400> From: Chris.Arge...@ncc.edu> Subject: Re: [Foodsafe] Re: blog poll quesiton - Who is responsible?> To: royeco...@hotmail.com> CC: dchere...@foodlinkny.org; tcka...@gmail.com; foodsa...@googlegroups.com> > Roy,> > FOODSAFE has impressed 'upon me':> **Perhaps as much as 55-75% of FBI are a result of consumers' poor Personal Hygiene, Cross Contamination Awareness & Prevention, and absence of T&T Controls(Guess Cooking) > **Restaurant Industry has "more control", education, training, Mgmt. Systems Approach, Active Managerial Control, Thermometers, SOP's for Food Flow, and "No Pets" permitted in the establishment??> > Have I been mislead / failure to comprehend/process available data?> > Thanks,> Chris Argento> > ----- Original Message -----> From: Roy Costa <royeco...@hotmail.com>> Date: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 10:07 pm> Subject: [Foodsafe] Re: blog poll quesiton - Who is responsible?> > > > > But David, where do these pathogens come from? They don't > > manufacture them at home, they come to the consumer in the food > > they purchase, excpet for a few notable exceptions. But if you > > consider Salmonella, Campy and E coli to be the most prevelant FBI > > agents, its all about raw food, and the reservoirs for infection > > start at the primary producer and are further spread and > > proliferate at manufacture. Also note we eat about 50% of our > > meals away from home. The numbers do not point to the consumer > > level as the problem. Consumers are an easy scapegoat for > > industry, and yes the data are weak so its easy to blame them.Roy > > E Costa, R.S., M.S./M.B.A.Public Health Sanitarian > > ConsultantEnviron Health Associates, > > Inc1.386.734.5187www.haccptraining.orgwww.safefoods.tvrcos...@cfl.rr.com> > From: dchere...@foodlinkny.orgTo: tcka...@gmail.com; Foodsafe-> > l...@googlegroups.comDate: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 20:22:55 +0000Subject: > > [Foodsafe] Re: blog poll quesiton - Who is responsible?As soon as > > I saw Consumer on the list, that was a given, but consumer ones > > don't make the news. Even if the consumer causes their own > > problems they are more likely to blame it on the last place they > > ate out, than their practices at home. Unless there is enough > > people who get sick, there is no way to track an illness anyway.> > David J. Cherelin Foodlink 936 Exchange Str. Rochester, NY 14608 > > (585) 328-3380 x113 Fax (585) 328-9951 > > > > -----Original Message-----From: Tom [tcka...@gmail.com]Sent: > > Tuesday, July 15, 2008 03:16 PMTo: 'Foodsafe'Subject: [Foodsafe] > > blog poll quesiton - Who is responsible?I know blog poll questions > > can be tiresome, but the Fresh Talk poll question this week asks > > Who do you think is to blame for most cases of foodborne illness? > > Growers Retailers Foodservice Consumers Of course, I want you all > > to vote in the poll www.freshtalk.blogspot.com but more than that, > > I'm curious if we know the answer to this question. My guess, of > > course, would be that consumer actions lead to the most cases of > > illness from food. Anyone seen any stats - why doesn't industry > > trot out a statistic like this when it is under fire? Tom K > > _________________________________________________________________The i’m Talkaton. Can 30-days of conversation change the world?> > http://www.imtalkathon.com/?source=EML_WLH_Talkathon_ChangeWorld> > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~> > You received this message because you subscribed to the "Foodsafe" > > group.To post to this group, send email to Foodsafe-> > l...@googlegroups.comTo unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > Foodsafe-lis...@googlegroups.com> > For more options, visit this group at > > http://groups.google.com/group/Foodsafe-list?hl=en> > If you're having problems with the list, contact Cindy Roberts at > > foodsafety...@gmail.com-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~----> > --~--~---> > > >
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Time for vacation? WIN what you need- enter now!http://www.gowindowslive.com/summergiveaway/?ocid=tag_jlyhm
is provided free of contamination and handled in a safe manner.
Production schedules and practices go against food safety in many
restaurants and health facilities.
If employees do not work fast enough they receive warnings and
termination notices from their employer.
Training offered on Monday is often forgotten and not in application
by Thursday.
The management principles of Deming are rarely in practice.
Safety strategies are not given a prime position by the leaders and
people controlling the money.
Plants, animals as well as humans have immune systems that do poorly
when they are malnourished, stressed, inadequately or inappropriately
supplemented or poorly treated. How to manage pests and microbes in
truck produce is well established gives the best guarantee that
consumers will enjoy healthy food.
It comes down to safe food handling being a realistic practice in a
hygienic environment with built-in failsafe systems on ongoing
monitoring of quality measures and hazards established and funded by
corporate leaders.
On Jul 16, 12:22 pm, Roy Costa <royeco...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Chris: Yes consumers are prone to error and we need to work on this as public health professionals.
>
> Regardless of the some of the nonsense in the way the retail baseline risk data was configured by FDA, I wish AMC was the norm at the FS level but it is far from being universally adopted thanks to the interference of the industry at CFP. AMC it is not manadatory and as long as the industry lobby at CFP calls the shots for FDA, it never will be. Most FS operators I see have no controls in place, its mostly haphazard procedures that do nothing.
>
> The pathogens that show the highest prevalence in population studies are Salmonella, E coli, and Campylobacter. These pathogens do not originate in the home these are in the food purchased. So the question becomes not who is to blame but who is responsible for the food hazards. It has to be the industry with biggest share and then also a smaller shared responsibility (see my recent discourse on PAR) for the consumer since pathogens cannot be completely eliminated in manufacture (although E coli is an adulterant and there is zero tolerance and zero for LM which cannot be in a finished RTE product by law).
>
> When I look at outbreak data, only a tiny fraction is coming from the home. We can debate the lack of reporting but if it was the consumer who is responsible for the majority of the FBI burden in this country we should se more than +/-1% in epidemiological studies of outbreaks. In addition since we eat about 50% of our food in restaurants the exposures are clearly happening on a grand scale here, instead of in isolated events at home. My thinking for how and why the data is skewed away from the home as the the major location for exposures to the key pathogens.
>
> Consumers could be an important control point but no one seems to want to invest in giving them the capacity to do any real interventions, and once the food is contaminated, they/we are just sitting ducks anyway.
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Time for vacation? WIN what you need- enter now!http://www.gowindowslive.com/summergiveaway/?ocid=tag_jlyhm
Christopher Argento
Jul 16, 2008, 11:43:38 AM7/16/08
to Roy Costa, dche...@foodlinkny.org, Tom, Foodsafe
Roy,
FOODSAFE has impressed 'upon me':
**Perhaps as much as 55-75% of FBI are a result of consumers' poor Personal Hygiene, Cross Contamination Awareness & Prevention, and absence of T&T Controls(Guess Cooking)
**Restaurant Industry has "more control", education, training, Mgmt. Systems Approach, Active Managerial Control, Thermometers, SOP's for Food Flow, and "No Pets" permitted in the establishment??
Have I been mislead / failure to comprehend/process available data?
Thanks,
Chris Argento
----- Original Message -----
From: Roy Costa <roye...@hotmail.com>
Date: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 10:07 pm
Subject: [Foodsafe] Re: blog poll quesiton - Who is responsible?
>
> But David, where do these pathogens come from? They don't
> manufacture them at home, they come to the consumer in the food
> they purchase, excpet for a few notable exceptions. But if you
> consider Salmonella, Campy and E coli to be the most prevelant FBI
> agents, its all about raw food, and the reservoirs for infection
> start at the primary producer and are further spread and
> proliferate at manufacture. Also note we eat about 50% of our
> meals away from home. The numbers do not point to the consumer
> level as the problem. Consumers are an easy scapegoat for
> industry, and yes the data are weak so its easy to blame them.Roy
> E Costa, R.S., M.S./M.B.A.Public Health Sanitarian
> ConsultantEnviron Health Associates,
> Inc1.386.734.5187www.haccptrai...@cfl.rr.com
> From: dche...@foodlinkny.orgTo: tck...@gmail.com; Foodsafe-
> li...@googlegroups.comDate: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 20:22:55 +0000Subject:
> [Foodsafe] Re: blog poll quesiton - Who is responsible?As soon as
> I saw Consumer on the list, that was a given, but consumer ones
> don't make the news. Even if the consumer causes their own
> problems they are more likely to blame it on the last place they
> ate out, than their practices at home. Unless there is enough
> people who get sick, there is no way to track an illness anyway.
> David J. Cherelin Foodlink 936 Exchange Str. Rochester, NY 14608
> (585) 328-3380 x113 Fax (585) 328-9951
>
> -----Original Message-----From: Tom [tck...@gmail.com]Sent:
> Tuesday, July 15, 2008 03:16 PMTo: 'Foodsafe'Subject: [Foodsafe]
> blog poll quesiton - Who is responsible?I know blog poll questions
> can be tiresome, but the Fresh Talk poll question this week asks
> Who do you think is to blame for most cases of foodborne illness?
> Growers Retailers Foodservice Consumers Of course, I want you all
> to vote in the poll www.freshtalk.blogspot.com but more than that,
> I'm curious if we know the answer to this question. My guess, of
> course, would be that consumer actions lead to the most cases of
> illness from food. Anyone seen any stats - why doesn't industry
> trot out a statistic like this when it is under fire? Tom K
> _________________________________________________________________The i’m Talkaton. Can 30-days of conversation change the world?
> http://www.imtalkathon.com/?source=EML_WLH_Talkathon_ChangeWorld
> --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
> You received this message because you subscribed to the "Foodsafe"
> group.To post to this group, send email to Foodsafe-
> li...@googlegroups.comTo unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> Foodsafe-lis...@googlegroups.com
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/Foodsafe-list?hl=en
> If you're having problems with the list, contact Cindy Roberts at
> foodsa...@gmail.com-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~----
> --~--~---
>
>
CarlHansenMD
Jul 17, 2008, 11:49:32 AM7/17/08
to Foodsafe
I want to frame the context of my remarks so there is no
misunderstanding as to their scope. They are limited to the topic
under discussion and are NOT about all food and health care systems.
Changes in lifestyle, leadership, capital, and training and
educational systems can take an excellent system and run it into the
ground.
Excellent systems are at a competitive disadvantage against systems
that do not have comparable investments in safety and quality.
When there is not an interest in careers that sustain and maintain
those systems they will breakdown.
Presently, there is a nursing shortage and it is not because these is
a shortage of individuals who want to become nurses. It is because
these is a shortage of nursing educators.
Presently, we are experiencing a shortfall of students pursuing
careers in engineering. That shortfall has tremendous implications for
the food and health industries. Students want to pursue a masters in
business administration or finance rather than engineering.
Presently, school budgets are slated to reduce the number of school
nurses allocated across school districts. Rising costs for health
insurance is putting pressure on staffing when more children have
health problems than ever before.
Presently, many schools have eliminated home economic, agricultural,
and mechanical arts from their course of study. In the past, they were
courses where students gained a sense of practical hygienic and safe
practices as well as what to look for as a consumer.
Yesterday, we stopped and picked up a sandwich for lunch. When my wife
opened the top of her sandwich we saw that the new staff person had
put in the top of a tomato. When I had a change I visited with the
manager about what happened. She shared with me the challenges
encountered with young workers. They have no experience preparing food
at home or cleaning up.
I have seen similar patterns with youth in a range of clinical and
community settings. If kids do not have the opportunity to learn about
food at home, in school and in community activities, employers and the
public will be at an advantage if they handle food in a hospital,
restaurant, grocery store, warehouse, packing plant or field.
Over 100 languages and many different cultural approaches to food and
health are found in the schools here in Minnesota. Communities are
grappling with these various challenges that require a renewed focus
on good health and food hygiene.
A recent article in the New York Times addresses the importance
understanding how to establish good hygiene habits. It has tremendous
local and global implications.
Link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/13/business/13habit.html?pagewanted=4&ei=5087&em&en=32c3ec23ab8a7f51&ex=1216440000&adxnnlx=1216300096-UsCwpT5c8hBLzffSr/McBg
misunderstanding as to their scope. They are limited to the topic
under discussion and are NOT about all food and health care systems.
Changes in lifestyle, leadership, capital, and training and
educational systems can take an excellent system and run it into the
ground.
Excellent systems are at a competitive disadvantage against systems
that do not have comparable investments in safety and quality.
When there is not an interest in careers that sustain and maintain
those systems they will breakdown.
Presently, there is a nursing shortage and it is not because these is
a shortage of individuals who want to become nurses. It is because
these is a shortage of nursing educators.
Presently, we are experiencing a shortfall of students pursuing
careers in engineering. That shortfall has tremendous implications for
the food and health industries. Students want to pursue a masters in
business administration or finance rather than engineering.
Presently, school budgets are slated to reduce the number of school
nurses allocated across school districts. Rising costs for health
insurance is putting pressure on staffing when more children have
health problems than ever before.
Presently, many schools have eliminated home economic, agricultural,
and mechanical arts from their course of study. In the past, they were
courses where students gained a sense of practical hygienic and safe
practices as well as what to look for as a consumer.
Yesterday, we stopped and picked up a sandwich for lunch. When my wife
opened the top of her sandwich we saw that the new staff person had
put in the top of a tomato. When I had a change I visited with the
manager about what happened. She shared with me the challenges
encountered with young workers. They have no experience preparing food
at home or cleaning up.
I have seen similar patterns with youth in a range of clinical and
community settings. If kids do not have the opportunity to learn about
food at home, in school and in community activities, employers and the
public will be at an advantage if they handle food in a hospital,
restaurant, grocery store, warehouse, packing plant or field.
Over 100 languages and many different cultural approaches to food and
health are found in the schools here in Minnesota. Communities are
grappling with these various challenges that require a renewed focus
on good health and food hygiene.
A recent article in the New York Times addresses the importance
understanding how to establish good hygiene habits. It has tremendous
local and global implications.
Link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/13/business/13habit.html?pagewanted=4&ei=5087&em&en=32c3ec23ab8a7f51&ex=1216440000&adxnnlx=1216300096-UsCwpT5c8hBLzffSr/McBg
Pr. Frank Hartman
Jul 18, 2008, 10:08:14 AM7/18/08
to Foodsafe
I believe we are missing the true problem.
Every refrigerated container carries a massive number and variety of
pathogens,
Take three perti dishes and place them in any truck container for food
or plants.
the entire refrigerated container system is contaminated.
http://www.zp-research-group.com/FoodBornePathogens-1.html
On Jul 15, 9:58 pm, Roy Costa <royeco...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Tom:
>
> You asked: "Who do you think is to "blame" for most cases of foodborne illness"?
>
> I believe you have to ask a different question to get the answer you are looking for. The better question is: "What is the "population attributable risk" for FBI at each step in production for each of the major FBI pathogens"? You must ask this question because FBI hazards flow down through the chain creating exposures at each link.
>
> Definition: Population attributable risk (PAR) is the reduction in incidence that would be observed if the population were entirely unexposed, compared with its current (actual) exposure pattern.
>
> In the example below, if all the risk from Salmonella exposures attributed to primary producers was removed, the remaining risk of salmonellosis in the population would be 80%, etc. These following estimates are mostly my best judgment, but I have some data to support them. (OK. I will dig it all up if you are willing to send me a retainer, whataya want fo free?)
>
> Costa's estimates for Population Attributable Samonellosis Risk
> Primary producers 20%
> Manufacturers 20%Retailers 10%Foodservice 40%Consumers 10%
Every refrigerated container carries a massive number and variety of
pathogens,
Take three perti dishes and place them in any truck container for food
or plants.
the entire refrigerated container system is contaminated.
http://www.zp-research-group.com/FoodBornePathogens-1.html
On Jul 15, 9:58 pm, Roy Costa <royeco...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Tom:
>
> You asked: "Who do you think is to "blame" for most cases of foodborne illness"?
>
> I believe you have to ask a different question to get the answer you are looking for. The better question is: "What is the "population attributable risk" for FBI at each step in production for each of the major FBI pathogens"? You must ask this question because FBI hazards flow down through the chain creating exposures at each link.
>
> Definition: Population attributable risk (PAR) is the reduction in incidence that would be observed if the population were entirely unexposed, compared with its current (actual) exposure pattern.
>
> In the example below, if all the risk from Salmonella exposures attributed to primary producers was removed, the remaining risk of salmonellosis in the population would be 80%, etc. These following estimates are mostly my best judgment, but I have some data to support them. (OK. I will dig it all up if you are willing to send me a retainer, whataya want fo free?)
>
> Costa's estimates for Population Attributable Samonellosis Risk
> Primary producers 20%
>
> To get the final answer (I believe this is known as Combined Population Attributable Risk), you probably have to estimate PAR for each of the top 8 or so FBI etiologies (PAR would change, for example, PAR for Shigellosis at the consumer level would be higher than anywhere else) then calculate the relative risk for each sector (any biostatisticians out there, that can help me out on this one?).
> Roy E Costa, R.S., M.S./M.B.A.Public Health Sanitarian ConsultantEnviron Health Associates, Inc1.386.734.5187www.haccptraining.orgwww.safefoods.tvrcos...@cfl.rr.com> Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 12:16:04 -0700> Subject: [Foodsafe] blog poll quesiton - Who is responsible?> From: tcka...@gmail.com> To: Foodsa...@googlegroups.com> > > I know blog poll questions can be tiresome, but the Fresh Talk poll> question this week asks> > Who do you think is to blame for most cases of foodborne illness?> Growers 20%> Retailers 10%> Foodservice 50%> Consumers 30%> > Of course, I want you all to vote in the poll> >www.freshtalk.blogspot.com> > but more than that, I'm curious if we know the answer to this> question. My guess, of course, would be that consumer actions lead to> the most cases of illness from food. Anyone seen any stats - why> doesn't industry trot out a statistic like this when it is under fire?> > Tom K> > > _________________________________________________________________
> To get the final answer (I believe this is known as Combined Population Attributable Risk), you probably have to estimate PAR for each of the top 8 or so FBI etiologies (PAR would change, for example, PAR for Shigellosis at the consumer level would be higher than anywhere else) then calculate the relative risk for each sector (any biostatisticians out there, that can help me out on this one?).
Carl Custer
Jul 18, 2008, 10:35:07 AM7/18/08
to Pr. Frank Hartman, Foodsafe
Frank Hartman Professed,
"I believe we are missing the true problem.
Every refrigerated container carries a massive number and variety of pathogens,
Take three perti dishes and place them in any truck container for
food or plants.
the entire refrigerated container system is contaminated.
<http://www.zp-research-group.com/FoodBornePathogens-1.html>"
"I believe we are missing the true problem.
Every refrigerated container carries a massive number and variety of pathogens,
Take three perti dishes and place them in any truck container for
food or plants.
the entire refrigerated container system is contaminated.
<http://www.zp-research-group.com/FoodBornePathogens-1.html>"
[Carl]:
1. That might be true for containers for raw produce. The Listeria
monocytogenes hazard has prompted responsible ready-to-eat processors
to implement ways to clean and sanitize the evaporator units in their
coolers.
2. Most food pathogens are obligate mesophiles (the psychrotrophic
capability of listeriae is what makes it such a PITA). The cooler and
cooling units are not lethal but they do favor psychrotrophs over most
pathogens. Your petri dishes will contain bacteria but few pathogens.
3. The root of the problem, is the food, carrying pathogens, going
through those coolers that contaminate the cooler surfaces, plus, the
conveyor belts, worker's hands, implements, crates, and every other
surface.
Robert A LaBudde
Jul 18, 2008, 12:02:40 PM7/18/08
to Foodsa...@googlegroups.com
At 01:22 PM 7/16/2008, Roy wrote:
><snip>
>And no offense to you Chris, I am just tired of industry folks
>throwing out these invalid stats about how much FBI is attributable
>to mistakes at home, it is really very misleading, but serves their
>purpose well, to confuse the issues and provide someone else to blame.
><snip>
>And no offense to you Chris, I am just tired of industry folks
>throwing out these invalid stats about how much FBI is attributable
>to mistakes at home, it is really very misleading, but serves their
>purpose well, to confuse the issues and provide someone else to blame.
I agree.
Attempts to blame FBI illness on consumer behavior are typically pure
conjecture. And there is no scientific evidence to support these
conjectures, except a feeling that "it must be true".
Having said this, there are situations and pathogens where consumer
(and restaurant) behavior plays a key role. Backyard barbeques and E.
coli O157:H7 in ground beef are an obvious example. In this case,
however, the extreme carefulness to avoid cross-contamination and to
provide proper cooking are an unrealistic expectation (implied by
FSIS' rules) for consumer behavior.
================================================================
Robert A. LaBudde, PhD, PAS, Dpl. ACAFS e-mail: r...@lcfltd.com
Least Cost Formulations, Ltd. URL: http://lcfltd.com/
824 Timberlake Drive Tel: 757-467-0954
Virginia Beach, VA 23464-3239 Fax: 757-467-2947
"Vere scire est per causas scire"
================================================================
Tom
Jul 18, 2008, 2:15:37 PM7/18/08
to Foodsafe
Frank,
Interesting point about trucks and pathogens. I never would have
thought to put transport containers the list of options -.Do you have
any reserach to cite about this facet of the supply chain?
Tom K
Interesting point about trucks and pathogens. I never would have
thought to put transport containers the list of options -.Do you have
any reserach to cite about this facet of the supply chain?
Tom K
Roy Costa
Jul 19, 2008, 10:17:55 PM7/19/08
to Carl Custer, Pr. Frank Hartman, Foodsafe
This is very true. Transport is a missing link and we are involved in a risk assessment study now to define the parameters for safe transport. Should be published in the Federal Regitrar this fall or early winter.
Roy E Costa, R.S., M.S./M.B.A.
Public Health Sanitarian Consultant
Environ Health Associates, Inc
1.386.734.5187
www.haccptraining.org
www.safefoods.tv
rco...@cfl.rr.com
> Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 10:35:07 -0400
> From: carl....@gmail.com
> To: suem...@gmail.com
> Subject: [Foodsafe] Re: blog poll quesiton - Who is responsible?
> CC: Foodsa...@googlegroups.com
> From: carl....@gmail.com
> To: suem...@gmail.com
> Subject: [Foodsafe] Re: blog poll quesiton - Who is responsible?
> CC: Foodsa...@googlegroups.com
Roy Costa
Jul 19, 2008, 10:20:55 PM7/19/08
to Pr. Frank Hartman, Foodsafe
Hi: We are working on this, yes the figure when we have an idea should go into the PAR calculations. It may be published in the Federal Register as early as later this year.
Roy E Costa, R.S., M.S./M.B.A.
Public Health Sanitarian Consultant
Environ Health Associates, Inc
1.386.734.5187
www.haccptraining.org
www.safefoods.tv
rco...@cfl.rr.com
> Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 07:08:14 -0700
> Subject: [Foodsafe] Re: blog poll quesiton - Who is responsible?
>
>
> I believe we are missing the true problem.
> Every refrigerated container carries a massive number and variety of
> pathogens,
> Take three perti dishes and place them in any truck container for food
> or plants.
> the entire refrigerated container system is contaminated.
>
>
> http://www.zp-research-group.com/FoodBornePathogens-1.html
>
>
Carl Custer
Jul 20, 2008, 7:37:48 PM7/20/08
to Roy Costa, Foodsafe
On Sat, Jul 19, 2008 at 10:17 PM, Roy Costa <roye...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> This is very true. Transport is a missing link and we are involved in a risk
> assessment study now to define the parameters for safe transport. Should be
> published in the Federal Regitrar this fall or early winter.
> This is very true. Transport is a missing link and we are involved in a risk
> assessment study now to define the parameters for safe transport. Should be
> published in the Federal Regitrar this fall or early winter.
[Carl]: USDA ARS has published several papers on the effect
transportation and the spread of salmonellae during transport of food
animals. But, the Risk Assessment Committee probably has those and
the ones on fruit and produce.
At least produce doesn't lick and defecate during transport.
Roy Costa
Jul 20, 2008, 7:48:10 PM7/20/08
to Carl Custer, Foodsafe
Yes but what is preventing the truck coming from the stockyards hauling a load of cantaloupes on the next trip??
Roy E Costa, R.S., M.S./M.B.A.
Public Health Sanitarian Consultant
Environ Health Associates, Inc
1.386.734.5187
www.haccptraining.org
www.safefoods.tv
rco...@cfl.rr.com
> Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2008 19:37:48 -0400
> From: carl....@gmail.com
> To: roye...@hotmail.com
> Subject: Re: [Foodsafe] Re: blog poll quesiton - Who is responsible?
> CC: foodsa...@googlegroups.com
> From: carl....@gmail.com
> To: roye...@hotmail.com
> Subject: Re: [Foodsafe] Re: blog poll quesiton - Who is responsible?
> CC: foodsa...@googlegroups.com
Use video conversation to talk face-to-face with Windows Live Messenger. Get started.
Carl Custer
Jul 20, 2008, 9:03:27 PM7/20/08
to Roy Costa, Foodsafe
"A lick of sense" hope.
But then . . . =8^O
But then . . . =8^O
CarlHansenMD
Jul 20, 2008, 11:07:58 PM7/20/08
to Foodsafe
That would certainly set off the next event in the CDC and P summation
dataset with exponential growth and decay function characteristics.
The operational characteristics and topology are similar to
neurophysiological models without the neuroanatomical and cellular
complexities.
The post-consumption of contaminated food also follows stochastic
models.
On Jul 20, 6:48 pm, Roy Costa <royeco...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Yes but what is preventing the truck coming from the stockyards hauling a load of cantaloupes on the next trip??
>
> Roy E Costa, R.S., M.S./M.B.A.Public Health Sanitarian ConsultantEnviron Health Associates, Inc1.386.734.5187www.haccptraining.orgwww.safefoods.tvrcos...@cfl.rr.com> Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2008 19:37:48 -0400> From: carl.cus...@gmail.com> To: royeco...@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: [Foodsafe] Re: blog poll quesiton - Who is responsible?> CC: foodsa...@googlegroups.com> > On Sat, Jul 19, 2008 at 10:17 PM, Roy Costa <royeco...@hotmail.com> wrote:> > This is very true. Transport is a missing link and we are involved in a risk> > assessment study now to define the parameters for safe transport. Should be> > published in the Federal Regitrar this fall or early winter.> > [Carl]: USDA ARS has published several papers on the effect> transportation and the spread of salmonellae during transport of food> animals. But, the Risk Assessment Committee probably has those and> the ones on fruit and produce.> At least produce doesn't lick and defecate during transport.
> _________________________________________________________________
> Use video conversation to talk face-to-face with Windows Live Messenger.http://www.windowslive.com/messenger/connect_your_way.html?ocid=TXT_T...
dataset with exponential growth and decay function characteristics.
The operational characteristics and topology are similar to
neurophysiological models without the neuroanatomical and cellular
complexities.
The post-consumption of contaminated food also follows stochastic
models.
On Jul 20, 6:48 pm, Roy Costa <royeco...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Yes but what is preventing the truck coming from the stockyards hauling a load of cantaloupes on the next trip??
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Use video conversation to talk face-to-face with Windows Live Messenger.http://www.windowslive.com/messenger/connect_your_way.html?ocid=TXT_T...
CarlHansenMD
Jul 20, 2008, 11:18:33 PM7/20/08
to Foodsafe
This process sets off a series of different events for different human
subpopulations much the way nosocomial infections have different
effects as a result of contaminated food trays, equipment and unwashed
hands in a hospital.
>
> The post-consumption (event) of contaminated food also follows stochastic
> models.
>
Reference:
Modelling within-host spatiotemporal dynamics of invasive bacterial
disease.
Grant AJ, Restif O, McKinley TJ, Sheppard M, Maskell DJ, Mastroeni P.
PLoS Biol. 2008 Apr 8;6(4):e74.
Mechanistic determinants of bacterial growth, death, and spread within
mammalian hosts cannot be fully resolved studying a single bacterial
population. They are also currently poorly understood. Here, we report
on the application of sophisticated experimental approaches to map
spatiotemporal population dynamics of bacteria during an infection. We
analyzed heterogeneous traits of simultaneous infections with tagged
Salmonella enterica populations (wild-type isogenic tagged strains
[WITS]) in wild-type and gene-targeted mice. WITS are phenotypically
identical but can be distinguished and enumerated by quantitative PCR,
making it possible, using probabilistic models, to estimate bacterial
death rate based on the disappearance of strains through time. This
multidisciplinary approach allowed us to establish the timing,
relative occurrence, and immune control of key infection parameters in
a true host-pathogen combination. Our analyses support a model in
which shortly after infection, concomitant death and rapid bacterial
replication lead to the establishment of independent bacterial
subpopulations in different organs, a process controlled by host
antimicrobial mechanisms. Later, decreased microbial mortality leads
to an exponential increase in the number of bacteria that spread
locally, with subsequent mixing of bacteria between organs via
bacteraemia and further stochastic selection. This approach provides
us with an unprecedented outlook on the pathogenesis of S. enterica
infections, illustrating the complex spatial and stochastic effects
that drive an infectious disease. The application of the novel method
that we present in appropriate and diverse host-pathogen combinations,
together with modelling of the data that result, will facilitate a
comprehensive view of the spatial and stochastic nature of within-host
dynamics.
link:
http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0060074&ct=1
subpopulations much the way nosocomial infections have different
effects as a result of contaminated food trays, equipment and unwashed
hands in a hospital.
>
> The post-consumption (event) of contaminated food also follows stochastic
> models.
>
Reference:
Modelling within-host spatiotemporal dynamics of invasive bacterial
disease.
Grant AJ, Restif O, McKinley TJ, Sheppard M, Maskell DJ, Mastroeni P.
PLoS Biol. 2008 Apr 8;6(4):e74.
Mechanistic determinants of bacterial growth, death, and spread within
mammalian hosts cannot be fully resolved studying a single bacterial
population. They are also currently poorly understood. Here, we report
on the application of sophisticated experimental approaches to map
spatiotemporal population dynamics of bacteria during an infection. We
analyzed heterogeneous traits of simultaneous infections with tagged
Salmonella enterica populations (wild-type isogenic tagged strains
[WITS]) in wild-type and gene-targeted mice. WITS are phenotypically
identical but can be distinguished and enumerated by quantitative PCR,
making it possible, using probabilistic models, to estimate bacterial
death rate based on the disappearance of strains through time. This
multidisciplinary approach allowed us to establish the timing,
relative occurrence, and immune control of key infection parameters in
a true host-pathogen combination. Our analyses support a model in
which shortly after infection, concomitant death and rapid bacterial
replication lead to the establishment of independent bacterial
subpopulations in different organs, a process controlled by host
antimicrobial mechanisms. Later, decreased microbial mortality leads
to an exponential increase in the number of bacteria that spread
locally, with subsequent mixing of bacteria between organs via
bacteraemia and further stochastic selection. This approach provides
us with an unprecedented outlook on the pathogenesis of S. enterica
infections, illustrating the complex spatial and stochastic effects
that drive an infectious disease. The application of the novel method
that we present in appropriate and diverse host-pathogen combinations,
together with modelling of the data that result, will facilitate a
comprehensive view of the spatial and stochastic nature of within-host
dynamics.
link:
http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0060074&ct=1
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages