In New Zealand where I live, we have a phrase "On the turps". It means "drinking alcohol" usually, but not always, beer. When you've been on the turps, you may have a hangover if you were serious about it.
I have a thing about ill-informed food and drink advice, some of which is downright dangerous. Totally unqualified people seem to think that they can hand out advice on diet, so-called "super foods" and other health issues.
The latest whacky outpouring from a minor celebrity suggests that drinking a small quantity of turpentine with sugar will rid you of a cold overnight. This is a BAD IDEA.
Turpentine is prepared from the resin of pine trees and, I have to say, smells really nice and fresh. I used it when I was painting in oils to thin the paint. Another person giving the advice, this time a disbarred doctor, claims that her IQ "went up like 50 points". I think she has the sign wrong - it should be -50 points.
There is plenty of scientific evidence to show that turpentine is poisonous, causing irritation to the eyes and central nervous system and severe damage to the kidneys, or, in sufficient quantities, death.
We have been considering natural turpentine here. Hardware stores sell "mineral turps" which is a turpentine substitute prepared from petroleum. Consumption of mineral turps may not be fatal, but can result in lung damage and irreversible brain damage.
Of course, this post is not strictly about food safety, but I believe it is important to get this message out there.
I feel so strongly about misleading food and nutrition advice that I am chairing a conference in New Zealand with the theme "In food we trust: confidence built on science and technology".
Wednesday, March 28, 2018
Monday, March 26, 2018
A useful Sanitation Checklist.
This checklist was sent to me by Meyer Industrial Solutions. I have provided it for the benefit of readers, without endorsement of the company.
This was created by Meyer Industrial
There are a couple of things that I think merit comment:
- Step 1. The use of compressed air to move residues may have the effect of spreading them around the processing area. Better to manually sweep.
- Step 2. If the equipment is contaminated with proteinaceous material, I recommend using warm water for the intial rinse. Hot water may set the protein and make it more difficult to remove.
- Step 3. I agree that the use of pressurised water for rinsing tends to spread contamination around. I once visited a meat processing facility and found meat scraps on the ceiling, put there by pressurised water!
Friday, March 9, 2018
Raw milk comments cause another minor furore
This time, a senior scientist has kicked over the beehive and created a minor furore. Professor Nigel French FRS, Director of the New Zealand Food Safety Science and Research Centre, has stated in an interview that he would not drink raw milk, nor give it to his family.
In my opinion, he is correct in stating that even the most careful production of raw milk cannot avoid some contamination by cow faeces, which, of course, contain bacteria and viruses. Some of these bacteria and viruses can cause serious human disease. As a microbiologist, I am fully aware of the sensitivity of microbiological testing and can confirm Prof. French's comment that bacteria can still be present, even if the test shows negative.
Scrupulous cleanliness and attention to detail can reduce the chances of faecal contamination of the milk, but cannot eliminate the risk. Since the beginning of the year, there have been two recalls of raw milk over fears of contamination by Campylobacter, a bacterium that can cause diarrhoea (frequently bloody), abdominal pain, fever, headache, nausea, and/or vomiting. Occasionally, it can produce more serious symptoms requiring hospitalisation.
Reading the comments on the article, it is clear that the proponents of raw milk consumption will not be swayed by scientific facts, and it is their right to drink raw milk. However, the New Zealand
Prime Minister's Chief Science Advisor Dr Peter Gluckman concluded: "The claimed health benefits of raw milk compared with pasteurised milk are for the most part not backed by scientific evidence, making the risk-benefit ratio very high for this food product ..."
I have written about the hazards of drinking raw milk before (see the label Raw Milk) and the latest recalls simply confirm my opinion. Many of the people commenting on the report are saying that they grew up drinking raw milk without problems. What they appear not to appreciate is that our lifestyle has changed. We don't collect our milk daily; children are coddled and protected from exposure to bacteria by the use of antibacterial soaps and cleansers, they don't go out to play in the dirt and often they are not exposed to farm animals. In my opinion, their immune systems are less robust. At the very least, children should not be fed raw milk - they have no ability to refuse it.
The regulations surrounding sale of raw milk have been tightened considerably, including labelling and warnings on bottles. Raw milk cannot be sold from health food stores and use-by dates must be printed on the packaging. It is interesting to note that sales of raw milk are not permitted in Australia.
In my opinion, he is correct in stating that even the most careful production of raw milk cannot avoid some contamination by cow faeces, which, of course, contain bacteria and viruses. Some of these bacteria and viruses can cause serious human disease. As a microbiologist, I am fully aware of the sensitivity of microbiological testing and can confirm Prof. French's comment that bacteria can still be present, even if the test shows negative.
Scrupulous cleanliness and attention to detail can reduce the chances of faecal contamination of the milk, but cannot eliminate the risk. Since the beginning of the year, there have been two recalls of raw milk over fears of contamination by Campylobacter, a bacterium that can cause diarrhoea (frequently bloody), abdominal pain, fever, headache, nausea, and/or vomiting. Occasionally, it can produce more serious symptoms requiring hospitalisation.
Reading the comments on the article, it is clear that the proponents of raw milk consumption will not be swayed by scientific facts, and it is their right to drink raw milk. However, the New Zealand
Prime Minister's Chief Science Advisor Dr Peter Gluckman concluded: "The claimed health benefits of raw milk compared with pasteurised milk are for the most part not backed by scientific evidence, making the risk-benefit ratio very high for this food product ..."
I have written about the hazards of drinking raw milk before (see the label Raw Milk) and the latest recalls simply confirm my opinion. Many of the people commenting on the report are saying that they grew up drinking raw milk without problems. What they appear not to appreciate is that our lifestyle has changed. We don't collect our milk daily; children are coddled and protected from exposure to bacteria by the use of antibacterial soaps and cleansers, they don't go out to play in the dirt and often they are not exposed to farm animals. In my opinion, their immune systems are less robust. At the very least, children should not be fed raw milk - they have no ability to refuse it.
The regulations surrounding sale of raw milk have been tightened considerably, including labelling and warnings on bottles. Raw milk cannot be sold from health food stores and use-by dates must be printed on the packaging. It is interesting to note that sales of raw milk are not permitted in Australia.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)