Friday, August 1, 2025

The P-word



The European Commission set new limits for the use of nitrites and nitrates as food additives in 2008.  These chemicals are intended to protect against the growth of pathogenic bacteria such as Listeria, Salmonella, and Clostridium botulinum, while the EU limits are aimed at reducing exposure to nitrosamines.  We have long used nitrate and nitrite as preservatives in curing meat.  Nitrate and nitrite are permitted for use in foods in many countries such as Mainland China, the United States, the European Union, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.  The concern is that nitrate can be converted into nitrite in the gut and then form N-nitroso compounds such as nitrosamines, which may cause cancer in humans, though evidence as to whether nitrate or nitrite per se in food can cause cancer in humans is inadequate or limited.  We need to be very careful before branding food additives as causing human disease - we can find naturally occurring nitrates and nitrates in water and vegetables, especially in leafy and root vegetables such as lettuce, beets, celery, carrots, and more.  
There is a group of people who regard preservatives as being unhealthy and added by unscrupulous manufacturers.  They want their food to be “all-natural, with minimal processing and no chemicals”.  Apart from the fact that this description is meaningless, it got me thinking about additives and specifically preservatives.

As a first step in preparing this post, I followed standard research principles and surveyed the packaged foods in our kitchen cupboard and read all the ingredient labels - a challenge in itself for anyone with less than 20:20 vision.  It came as something of a surprise to find that few of the foods contained anything that I would regard as unnecessary in the food type.  Sure, there were acidity regulators and anti-caking agents, salt and the occasional antioxidant, natural colours and flavours, while some of the wines declared sulphur dioxide, but very few specific mentions of the dreaded preservatives.  A list of permitted additives can be found on the New Zealand Government food safety website.  [1]

From the microbiologist’s point of view, preservatives are added to prevent the growth of pathogens or spoilage organisms during the shelf life, reducing loss and increasing food safety.  Acidulants, organic acids and parabens have all been used, but ‘natural alternatives’ are being increasingly used.  Many leafy and root vegetables contain nitrate and nitrite and it is estimated that around 80% of the nitrates and nitrites we consume are naturally occurring from the plants we eat.  Nitrite may be formed by reduction of nitrate by bacteria in the food.

While I was at Hong Kong University, I co-supervised a PhD student who was studying the use of extracts of traditional Chinese herbs as food preservatives.  Several of the papers that came out of that work have been my most heavily cited, and it is clear that there is great interest in these natural chemicals in the preservation of meats and dairy products.  However, the potential for reliance on extracts may be limited because of source availability, and synthetic nature-identical versions of the active components may be necessary if natural preservatives are to be used extensively. 

Of course, manufacturers will often use chemical additives in conjunction with other preservation processes, such as refrigeration, freeze-drying or UV irradiation.  Boiling and addition of sugar, followed by sealing in airtight jars and packages, kills bacteria and prevents their regrowth and recontamination.  Canned foods are processed for long-term shelf stability and if the food is “low acid” i.e. with a pH greater than 4.5 and thus able to support the germination and growth of Clostridium botulinum spores, the heat process is designed to reduce the spore count by a factor of 1012, resulting in a sterile product that will keep for years, provided that the can remains sealed.

[1]  Identifying Food Additives.  ISBN No.: 978-1-99-004303-1 Online). https://www.mpi.govt.nz/dmsdocument/3433/direct



 

Wednesday, July 30, 2025

Germ Warfare



I’m sure that many people yearn for the glamorous life of the food microbiologist leading the war against microorganisms - yeah, right!  Perhaps those people visualise the microbiologist surrounded by modern laboratory equipment, such as PCR machines and gene sequencers, but the sad fact is that what is portrayed in films and television just isn’t reality.  It might be the case in forensic work or pathogen testing, but in the food industry, much of the work involves monotonous sampling and plate counting.

This is because there is a constant battle between food manufacturers and the microorganisms that can cause spoilage or food poisoning.  Food safety is assessed in relation to counts of specific bacteria, yeasts and moulds.  The International Commission on Specifications for Foods was formed in 1962 and wrote Microbiology of Foods Volume 2: Food Commodities in 1980.   This was updated in 1996 (1).  Our Microbiological Reference Criteria for Food were published by the Ministry of Health and Version 2 appeared in 1995.  The Reference Criteria are expressed in the ICMSF format as a guide to indicate when food can be considered unacceptable or unsafe.  

The result is that many food microbiologists and technicians spend a large part of their working day conducting plate counts on foods.  This is particularly so in the dairy industry, though large laboratories such as these may use automation for plating, such as spiral platers, robotic sample diluters, and image analysis for counting.  This is, of course, very expensive and involves a lot of plastic that probably cannot be recycled. Modern devices, such as the flow cytometer - a machine that counts particular cell types flowing through a tube by reflection of laser beams.  Against this background, it is disappointing that food-borne infections continue unabated in the USA, UK and Europe.  

Of course, some food microbiologists do lead an interesting life.  These are the Special Agents investigating food contamination, poisoning and spoilage.  While it might be argued that there is nothing new under the Sun, each case is different - human error, mechanical breakdown, packaging failures and poor equipment design may all figure in the systematic examination, leading to an understanding of what has gone wrong and a suggested solution.  Investigation often involves looking closely at the process and interviewing operators.  Access to a suitable microbiological testing laboratory is often essential in identifying the problem.

Looking back over many years as a consultant microbiologist, I can think of lots of investigations where the explanation was a surprise: 

A dried vegetable processing operation in which the product had spikes of contamination.  On this occasion, I was fortunate to see the problem immediately.  The vegetables passed through a steam blancher which was located under a cold air trunking.  Steam condensed on the trunking, which was covered in a thick black tarry layer, and every so often, condensate would fall onto the vegetables being conveyed to the drier.  A factory design fault.

Staphylococcus aureus contamination of canned product.  This was not a low acid food and therefore was not subject to a 12-D process.  The immediate suggestion was that the cans were leaking during cooling, sucking in cooling water.  However, it was found that the cans were dump loaded into a lidded vessel and hot water was introduced and held for the duration of the process schedule.  With a temperature above 75oC for a suitable time, the Staphylococci should have been destroyed.  We eventually discovered that the vessel was overloaded and some of the cans were above the water level, so did not receive the scheduled process.

In a small pie shop, minced meat for pie filling was cooked on a stove in large pans of about 35 L capacity, which were then put into a chiller to cool.  On occasion, the pies spoiled after the growth of Clostridial spores activated by the heating.  I found that the pans of meat took over 48 hours for the centre to cool to about 12oC.  The solution was simple - put the filling into shallow trays for cooling.

 Listeria monocytogenes was found in sliced meat.  The slicer was a standard design, but was very difficult to clean properly and dried meat residue was found in the transfer mechanism.  The slicer was mounted on a stainless steel table, and the whole area was meticulously cleaned.  However, the table surface was heavily scratched and two feet mounting spikes penetrated the stainless steel.  Unfortunately, the stainless steel was only a couple of millimetres thick and was laid on Medium Density Fibreboard (MDF).  The result was that the MDF got wet every time the table was cleaned and became colonised by L. monocytogenes.

These examples show that those working in processing facilities may be essentially blind to potential failures and a fresh set of eyes with appropriate experience may recognise the problems quickly. 



References

1.  ICMSF. (1996) Microoganisms in Foods 6:  Microbial Ecology of Food Commodities.
2.  Ministry of Health (1995)  Food Administration Manual S. 11: Microbiological Criteria

Friday, June 6, 2025

Still want to drink raw milk?

 I hesitate to post this and it may offend some readers, but the message is, in my opinion, entirely valid.  And, hey, we microbiologists have to have a little fun every now and again.

https://youtube.com/shorts/CuSwN2CYylQ?si=DYigRj0-nNJ2Kcu1

 

To those who followed this yesterday, I'm sorry that the link was wrong.  This one should direct you to the intended short vid. 

Sunday, March 30, 2025

Germ of a new food microbiology

 Think of a food microbiologist you know.  I’m guessing that you now have in mind someone wearing a white laboratory coat, surrounded by food samples, Petri dishes and agar slopes, using an inoculating loop and making smears on microscope slides.  This might be accurate in most cases.

In the 80s, I read an article entitled “Germ of a New Food Microbiology”.  The author’s argument was that the so-called “Standard Plate Count” gives us less information on food safety than just about any other analysis.  There is no indication of how the microbial population will perform in the hands of the consumer;  the SPC is anything but total - many of the bacteria in the sample may not be able to grow on the count medium or at the incubation conditions; single cells and clumps will both be counted as one cell; if we use selective media to count specific types of bacteria, perhaps pathogens, they may not grow if they have been stressed during processing or storage; sample preparation, incubation and transfer to selective media may involve several days, meaning that the count may be obtained only after a significant proportion of the shelf life is over.  We also get no information on how the consumer might react after eating the food

The situation hasn’t changed very much.  Any modern analytical technique still has to be able to correlate with the plate count because of the way food safety is measured..  

The development of rapid microbiological methods now has a long history.
In many cases, the development has involved reducing the number of steps in the process, automating manipulative procedures and reducing the scale of operations to reduce costs.

Many so-called ‘rapid methods’ will give a result within hours of being set up.  However, they may involve significant technician time.

Modern methods often involve molecular techniques, particularly the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and sequencing.  PCR relies on the ability of DNA polymerase to replicate a portion of a DNA molecule, using specific primers that bind to complementary strands of the target DNA.  The laboratory process usually involves a thermal cycler.  The replication of regions between the primer binding sites results in an exponential amplification of the target, so that within a few hours, millions of copies are produced.  

Recent developments have enabled real-time detection of the products by means of fluorescent reporter molecules that bind to the amplified products.  The progress of the amplification can be followed by monitoring the increase in fluorescence as the number of cycles increases.  The larger the number of target molecules in the sample, the fewer numbers of cycles are required to reach a detection threshold, so the number of cycles required indicates the level of contamination of the sample.

Though the PCR technique can detect a single molecule of DNA, there are some hurdles to overcome.  If we are looking to detect numbers of bacteria in the range <3 cfu/g to 10^2 cfu/g  either large samples or enrichment of the samples is required.  However, if we want to retain the relationship between the initial numbers in the food sample and enumeration by PCR, enrichment cannot be used.  In addition, the food matrix itself may interfere with the replication process.   

Taking this a step further, we can now analyse the population in particular parts of the processing equipment, using small portable real-time sequencers that allow microbiome-based monitoring of surfaces within the plant.  In turn, this may enable the identification of sources of the contamination and allow timely intervention by suitable control measures.

In order to get away from assessment of food safety based on plate counts, we need to formulate microbiological reference criteria based on these new methods and introduce them to our microbiological food standards.

The material presented here represents a great simplification of the techniques involved.  If the article has inspired you to seek further information, you will find hundreds of explanatory articles on the Internet - just search for RT-qPCR, and Microbiome-based environmental monitoring etc.