Perhaps, like me, you have been wondering why some unscrupulous Chinese suppliers would put plastic first into pet food (2007) and then milk (2008). The extent of my knowledge was that melamine is a monomer used in making hard plastic products as diverse as bowls, shoehorns and bench coverings. It seemed to me that such a compound would be more expensive than the product it was substituting and thus not worth the effort. So I did a little searching on the Internet.
There is some confusion in terminology. Melamine is a ring structured compound containing a lot of nitrogen (66% by mass). It is combined with formaldehyde to produce melamine resin, a thermosetting plastic. However, the plastic is also often called simply “Melamine”. There are a number of ways of making the monomer; these days it is usually made from urea, but it can also be made from coal. China is the largest producer of melamine in the world.
The current story probably has its origins in a patent from 1958, which described the use of melamine as a source of non-protein nitrogen in cattle feed. However, a study conducted in 1978 suggested that melamine is digested more slowly and less completely than cottonseed or urea, so its use is probably limited.
Melamine itself has a low toxicity – approximately the same LD50* as sodium chloride. However, the combination of melamine and cyanuric acid in the diet causes acute renal failure in cats. This came to light after the contaminated pet food incident. I think it is unlikely that many humans consume cyanuric acid in their diets, though this compound has been approved by FDA for use in animal feed and is used as a precursor to N-chlorinated cyanurates, which are used to disinfect water e.g. in spa and swimming pools. Chronic ingestion of melamine can lead to formation of kidney and bladder stones and it may be that this is a particular problem in very young children.
Perhaps the reason for the adulteration of the Chinese products was that melamine can increase the apparent protein content of the food. It has been reported that melamine scrap is widely incorporated into livestock and fish feed in parts of China (New York Times, 30th April, 2007). Since “melamine scrap” is an impure and less valuable form of the chemical produced as a by-product, for example in coal gasification, this could explain why it might be economical to replace milk or meat protein with this non-protein nitrogen source if it can be concealed from the authorities and customers. Measurement of protein content by the Kjeldahl or Dumas methods, which actually measure nitrogen content, would not detect the adulteration. Testing for melamine directly is difficult and expensive, though test kits are now available.
As an aside, since melamine is used in food packaging and tableware, small amounts of the compound (parts per million level) may be found in foods and beverages as a result of migration from melamine polymers in contact with the food. These levels are not considered to be a health risk.
* LD50 is the amount of a material, given all at once, which causes the death of 50% (one half) of a group of test animals.
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Saturday, August 23, 2008
Exercise viewed from the relative safety of the couch
We are constantly urged to get out and do some exercise. This can be as simple as walking to work or doing a workout in the gym. However, walking at this time of the year in New Zealand has the distinct disadvantage that you can arrive at work looking like a drowned cat. The gym is less of a problem in that respect, but just pumping iron or running on a treadmill can get mighty boring.
What about mountain or cross-country biking? That can get your heart rate up and can be very exciting. There can also be a downside. Campylobacter.
There, I bet you immediately thought “What has mountain biking got to do with chilled chicken?” Certainly, we have heard a lot about Campylobacter and chicken meat over the last couple of years, much of it not good news. But this piece is not about transmission in poultry.
On July 5th and 6th this year, a mountain bike marathon was run on Builth Wells, Wales. The two-day event attracted 947 participants, up to 160 of whom became ill after the event. The conditions were very muddy and the course was contaminated with “sheep slurry”. The result was that contaminated mud splashed over the riders and their gear. An investigation* revealed that accidental ingestion of mud was the most statistically significant risk factor. Consumption of energy drinks and energy bars from feed stations was also associated with infection. It is easy to see how these factors might be linked – riders covered in mud would contaminate their drink bottles and dirty hands could transfer mud to food. Only the competitors became ill – support crew and visitors were not involved.
The running of this type of event over muddy agricultural land makes it almost inevitable that competitors would be exposed to zoonotic infectious agents, such as Campylobacter, Salmonella and Listeria.
It is very tempting to ask whether the high incidence of campylobacteriosis in new Zealand could be at least partly explained by our passion for strenuous outdoor sports that involve getting muddy and the high proportion of the country given over to farming. We already have some data on risk factors in New Zealand see http://foodsafetywithjaybee.blogspot.com/2008/04/what-interests-you-most.html
Perhaps it would be worth including questions in the surveys about contact with mud and activities such as cross country running or rugby.
* Griffiths, S. et al (2008) Preliminary report of the epidemiological investigation into the outbreak of diarrhoeal illness in Mountain Bike Marathon participants, Builth Wells. National Public Health Service for Wales
What about mountain or cross-country biking? That can get your heart rate up and can be very exciting. There can also be a downside. Campylobacter.
There, I bet you immediately thought “What has mountain biking got to do with chilled chicken?” Certainly, we have heard a lot about Campylobacter and chicken meat over the last couple of years, much of it not good news. But this piece is not about transmission in poultry.
On July 5th and 6th this year, a mountain bike marathon was run on Builth Wells, Wales. The two-day event attracted 947 participants, up to 160 of whom became ill after the event. The conditions were very muddy and the course was contaminated with “sheep slurry”. The result was that contaminated mud splashed over the riders and their gear. An investigation* revealed that accidental ingestion of mud was the most statistically significant risk factor. Consumption of energy drinks and energy bars from feed stations was also associated with infection. It is easy to see how these factors might be linked – riders covered in mud would contaminate their drink bottles and dirty hands could transfer mud to food. Only the competitors became ill – support crew and visitors were not involved.
The running of this type of event over muddy agricultural land makes it almost inevitable that competitors would be exposed to zoonotic infectious agents, such as Campylobacter, Salmonella and Listeria.
It is very tempting to ask whether the high incidence of campylobacteriosis in new Zealand could be at least partly explained by our passion for strenuous outdoor sports that involve getting muddy and the high proportion of the country given over to farming. We already have some data on risk factors in New Zealand see http://foodsafetywithjaybee.blogspot.com/2008/04/what-interests-you-most.html
Perhaps it would be worth including questions in the surveys about contact with mud and activities such as cross country running or rugby.
* Griffiths, S. et al (2008) Preliminary report of the epidemiological investigation into the outbreak of diarrhoeal illness in Mountain Bike Marathon participants, Builth Wells. National Public Health Service for Wales
Friday, August 22, 2008
A hard course to row: the colossal task of making food safe in China
The heartbreaking spectacle of New Zealand Olympic rower Mahe Drysdale pulling to the front of the field in the finals of the single sculls and then fading only 250 m from the finish will be hard to forget, no matter which country you support. We have all experienced the debilitating effects of food poisoning and some of us know how it feels to go beyond our physical limits, though perhaps at a much lower level of competition.
Drysdale apparently suffered a food borne infection that left him unable to eat and severely dehydrated. These are common sequelae of food poisoning. The normal way of dealing with this is rest and careful intake of suitable rehydration fluids. To go out and exercise strenuously in high temperatures would definitely not be recommended. That he did is a testament to Mahe’s true grit and determination.
It seems that Drysdale was not the only Olympian to suffer from food poisoning. About 15% of the U.S. track team also became ill, despite their team managers having taken precautions to protect them. Large quantities of food were imported into China from the United States to reduce the risk from eating local food. However, the track team spent a period of training in Dalian, 300km from the Olympic Village and did not have access to the imported food. The infections could not be attributed definitively to food, according to a chef brought from the U.S. to prepare the team’s meals. He suggested that water used to prepare the food might have been the source of contamination. The team doctor described the illnesses as “normal stomach bugs… not widespread… not out of the ordinary for international trips”.
Whatever the explanation, to find 15% of a very healthy population succumbing to gastro-intestinal illness in such a short period suggests to me a food or water borne infection or indirect contact with infective faecal matter, perhaps via an unclean restroom surface. (Norovirus is often transmitted in this way, though at this stage there is no indication that the team contracted Norovirus).
It is actually quite difficult to avoid all possible sources of infection. Drinking only beer, wine, hot tea or sealed bottles of water and eating only hot foods helps, but also means that you miss many wonderful culinary experiences. Even fresh fruit may have been washed in contaminated water before being sliced and this has sometimes been shown to be the vector for intestinal pathogens.
China has tried to provide safe food for teams and spectators at the Olympics. Unfortunately, their approach illustrates the enormity of the task and the collateral damage of draconian measures. John Garnaut, writing in the Sydney Morning Herald on 15th August, told of chefs and hoteliers across Beijing being forbidden to purchase foods from their normal suppliers. Fresh and processed foods could be bought only from a Government-approved list of 64 suppliers. This effectively gave those favoured suppliers a licence to print money, so costs have gone up by as much as 1200 per cent. Though it has avoided food scandals so far, there is no guarantee that food is any safer.
In a parallel to the problem of fake luxury goods, it will require a long process of education and rooting out of corrupt food suppliers - those who use substandard materials, illegal chemicals and inadequate processes to make a fast buck - before we can be reasonably sure that food in China will be as safe, microbiologically and chemically, as our food here in New Zealand.
Drysdale apparently suffered a food borne infection that left him unable to eat and severely dehydrated. These are common sequelae of food poisoning. The normal way of dealing with this is rest and careful intake of suitable rehydration fluids. To go out and exercise strenuously in high temperatures would definitely not be recommended. That he did is a testament to Mahe’s true grit and determination.
It seems that Drysdale was not the only Olympian to suffer from food poisoning. About 15% of the U.S. track team also became ill, despite their team managers having taken precautions to protect them. Large quantities of food were imported into China from the United States to reduce the risk from eating local food. However, the track team spent a period of training in Dalian, 300km from the Olympic Village and did not have access to the imported food. The infections could not be attributed definitively to food, according to a chef brought from the U.S. to prepare the team’s meals. He suggested that water used to prepare the food might have been the source of contamination. The team doctor described the illnesses as “normal stomach bugs… not widespread… not out of the ordinary for international trips”.
Whatever the explanation, to find 15% of a very healthy population succumbing to gastro-intestinal illness in such a short period suggests to me a food or water borne infection or indirect contact with infective faecal matter, perhaps via an unclean restroom surface. (Norovirus is often transmitted in this way, though at this stage there is no indication that the team contracted Norovirus).
It is actually quite difficult to avoid all possible sources of infection. Drinking only beer, wine, hot tea or sealed bottles of water and eating only hot foods helps, but also means that you miss many wonderful culinary experiences. Even fresh fruit may have been washed in contaminated water before being sliced and this has sometimes been shown to be the vector for intestinal pathogens.
China has tried to provide safe food for teams and spectators at the Olympics. Unfortunately, their approach illustrates the enormity of the task and the collateral damage of draconian measures. John Garnaut, writing in the Sydney Morning Herald on 15th August, told of chefs and hoteliers across Beijing being forbidden to purchase foods from their normal suppliers. Fresh and processed foods could be bought only from a Government-approved list of 64 suppliers. This effectively gave those favoured suppliers a licence to print money, so costs have gone up by as much as 1200 per cent. Though it has avoided food scandals so far, there is no guarantee that food is any safer.
In a parallel to the problem of fake luxury goods, it will require a long process of education and rooting out of corrupt food suppliers - those who use substandard materials, illegal chemicals and inadequate processes to make a fast buck - before we can be reasonably sure that food in China will be as safe, microbiologically and chemically, as our food here in New Zealand.
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Coming soon to a store in New Zealand?
I have written several times about the potential hazards of consuming raw milk and raw milk products. Search this site using keyword “raw milk” for other posts.
Currently the New Zealand food regulations allow only three particular hard and very hard Swiss cheeses, extra-hard Parmesan style grating cheeses like Grana Padano, Pamigiano Reggiano, Romano, Asiago and Montasio and the semi-hard Roquefort cheese. Local manufacture of similar products is not permitted. See www.nzfsa.govt.nz/publications/media-releases/2008/2008-08-07-raw-milk.htm
The New Zealand Food Safety Authority is now asking for submissions on a proposed framework for the manufacture, importation and sale of raw milk products. See www.nzfsa.govt.nz?consultation
Aficionados of raw milk cheeses will applaud this move. It is quite possible to produce safe cheeses without pasteurization of milk and, provided that the resulting products are safe, manufacturers and consumers should be given the opportunity to make and taste them. However, the process requires strict control of animal health and rigorous processing hygiene - good regulations and inspection will be needed.
Even the cheesemakers are divided on the desirability of permitting the manufacture of raw milk cheeses. One, quoted in the Otago Daily Times on 11th August 2008 said that cheeses made from non-pasteurised milk could be “lovely", but they could also be “bloody awful stuff". The explanation for this is that pasteurized milk contains only heat resistant bacteria, such as some Streptococcus species and sporeformers. The cheese is made by inoculating the pasteurized milk with known cultures of "starter bacteria", which will produce lactic acid to coagulate the milk protein and produce a curd. When cheese is made from unpasteurized milk, the bacteria present in the raw milk may grow beside the starters. This can result in more complex flavours, but can also lead to variation between batches. Unfortunately, the non-starter bacteria can sometimes cause disease, such as salmonellosis and campylobacteriosis, or may produce toxins, such as staphylococcal enterotoxin.
Softer raw milk cheeses represent a greater risk to the consumer because of their higher water activity, which allows some pathogens to survive and grow. Control over the milk production and handling and the cheesemaking process itself must therefore be absolutely spot-on for these products.
Under the proposed framework, raw milk products would be categorised according to the risks they present. Category one products would pose no greater food safety concerns than pasteurised cheeses, such as Parmesan-style raw milk cheeses. Category two products would pose a low risk for the general population but vulnerable consumers with reduced immunity might be at greater risk. Products in this category would include semi-hard Roquefort. Category three would cover those raw milk products that cannot currently be produced to an acceptable level of safety for the general population. (As far as I know, this category has not yet been defined more closely).
Assuming that the consultation process approves the proposed framework, locally produced raw milk cheeses and other raw milk products may soon hit the delicatessen and specialty store shelves. It may be too soon to expect these products to be sold in supermarkets.
Would I eat raw milk cheese? Probably not until the framework were shown to be working well and the suppliers had built up a record of selling safe products. Even then, I would eat only the hard or semi-hard varieties. Would I give it to my little granddaughter? Not a chance! Raw milk products are not for little children or the immunocompromised.
Currently the New Zealand food regulations allow only three particular hard and very hard Swiss cheeses, extra-hard Parmesan style grating cheeses like Grana Padano, Pamigiano Reggiano, Romano, Asiago and Montasio and the semi-hard Roquefort cheese. Local manufacture of similar products is not permitted. See www.nzfsa.govt.nz/publications/media-releases/2008/2008-08-07-raw-milk.htm
The New Zealand Food Safety Authority is now asking for submissions on a proposed framework for the manufacture, importation and sale of raw milk products. See www.nzfsa.govt.nz?consultation
Aficionados of raw milk cheeses will applaud this move. It is quite possible to produce safe cheeses without pasteurization of milk and, provided that the resulting products are safe, manufacturers and consumers should be given the opportunity to make and taste them. However, the process requires strict control of animal health and rigorous processing hygiene - good regulations and inspection will be needed.
Even the cheesemakers are divided on the desirability of permitting the manufacture of raw milk cheeses. One, quoted in the Otago Daily Times on 11th August 2008 said that cheeses made from non-pasteurised milk could be “lovely", but they could also be “bloody awful stuff". The explanation for this is that pasteurized milk contains only heat resistant bacteria, such as some Streptococcus species and sporeformers. The cheese is made by inoculating the pasteurized milk with known cultures of "starter bacteria", which will produce lactic acid to coagulate the milk protein and produce a curd. When cheese is made from unpasteurized milk, the bacteria present in the raw milk may grow beside the starters. This can result in more complex flavours, but can also lead to variation between batches. Unfortunately, the non-starter bacteria can sometimes cause disease, such as salmonellosis and campylobacteriosis, or may produce toxins, such as staphylococcal enterotoxin.
Softer raw milk cheeses represent a greater risk to the consumer because of their higher water activity, which allows some pathogens to survive and grow. Control over the milk production and handling and the cheesemaking process itself must therefore be absolutely spot-on for these products.
Under the proposed framework, raw milk products would be categorised according to the risks they present. Category one products would pose no greater food safety concerns than pasteurised cheeses, such as Parmesan-style raw milk cheeses. Category two products would pose a low risk for the general population but vulnerable consumers with reduced immunity might be at greater risk. Products in this category would include semi-hard Roquefort. Category three would cover those raw milk products that cannot currently be produced to an acceptable level of safety for the general population. (As far as I know, this category has not yet been defined more closely).
Assuming that the consultation process approves the proposed framework, locally produced raw milk cheeses and other raw milk products may soon hit the delicatessen and specialty store shelves. It may be too soon to expect these products to be sold in supermarkets.
Would I eat raw milk cheese? Probably not until the framework were shown to be working well and the suppliers had built up a record of selling safe products. Even then, I would eat only the hard or semi-hard varieties. Would I give it to my little granddaughter? Not a chance! Raw milk products are not for little children or the immunocompromised.
Sunday, June 8, 2008
Tuberculosis and Mexican cheese
Quite by chance, on the day I was writing my last blog article on raw milk, the Orange County Register published an article by Doug Irving on an outbreak of tuberculosis in San Diego. See http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/homepage/abox/
article_2060722.php?orderby=TimeStampDescending&showRecommended
Only=0&oncommentsPage=2#slComments
Mycobacterium bovis is relatively rare in humans, but can be serious and difficult to treat. It is thought that the disease jumped from cattle to humans somewhere between 8000 and 4000BC, when cattle were domesticated. There is archaeological evidence that humans suffered the disease, pulmonary tuberculosis, which may have been contracted through consumption of raw milk. The human specialized form M. tuberculosis was probably spread by migrating Indo-Europeans and by 1000BC it had spread to the whole of the known world.
It appears that in the San Diego area, the disease is spreading primarily through the Latino population and scientists there believe that it may be being brought into the country from Mexico in queso fresco, a popular soft crumbly cheese that may be produced as a cottage industry.
The article in the OC Register contains some inaccuracies. Not all milk sold in the USA must be pasteurized; it depends on the particular State legislation. In addition, the article implies that the outbreak has suddenly flared. However, the actual study by UCSD Medical Center and county health officials, showed that between 1994 and 2005, there were 3,291 cases of active infection reported by the county's Tuberculosis Control Program and of those, about 8 percent were ill with M. bovis. Roughly the same pattern was observed in 2007.
The sale of raw milk cheeses in New Zealand is currently limited and subject to strict controls. See http://foodsafetywithjaybee.blogspot.com/2007/06/
free-choice-or-safety-of-population.html
Extra hard Italian Parmesan-style raw milk cheeses like Grana Padano, Pamigiano Reggiano, Romano, Asiago and Montasio have a low water activity of about 0.693, which prevents the growth of bacterial pathogens.
article_2060722.php?orderby=TimeStampDescending&showRecommended
Only=0&oncommentsPage=2#slComments
Mycobacterium bovis is relatively rare in humans, but can be serious and difficult to treat. It is thought that the disease jumped from cattle to humans somewhere between 8000 and 4000BC, when cattle were domesticated. There is archaeological evidence that humans suffered the disease, pulmonary tuberculosis, which may have been contracted through consumption of raw milk. The human specialized form M. tuberculosis was probably spread by migrating Indo-Europeans and by 1000BC it had spread to the whole of the known world.
It appears that in the San Diego area, the disease is spreading primarily through the Latino population and scientists there believe that it may be being brought into the country from Mexico in queso fresco, a popular soft crumbly cheese that may be produced as a cottage industry.
The article in the OC Register contains some inaccuracies. Not all milk sold in the USA must be pasteurized; it depends on the particular State legislation. In addition, the article implies that the outbreak has suddenly flared. However, the actual study by UCSD Medical Center and county health officials, showed that between 1994 and 2005, there were 3,291 cases of active infection reported by the county's Tuberculosis Control Program and of those, about 8 percent were ill with M. bovis. Roughly the same pattern was observed in 2007.
The sale of raw milk cheeses in New Zealand is currently limited and subject to strict controls. See http://foodsafetywithjaybee.blogspot.com/2007/06/
free-choice-or-safety-of-population.html
Extra hard Italian Parmesan-style raw milk cheeses like Grana Padano, Pamigiano Reggiano, Romano, Asiago and Montasio have a low water activity of about 0.693, which prevents the growth of bacterial pathogens.
Thursday, June 5, 2008
It had to happen!
In the USA, the argument about raw milk still rages. We now see the spectacle of lawyers claiming that consumers are being deprived of their rights to choose their food, while others sue the suppliers for selling dangerous milk.
The raw milk lobby claims that pasteurization robs the milk of its nutritional value and the natural enzymes that help the human digestive system. I am not aware of any scientific evidence to support this. They also vociferously claim that pasteurization kills the “good bacteria”. The zealous consumers claim that their rights are being trampled if they are prevented from buying the product. The regulators point to the dangers of consuming raw milk, such as the diseases caused by Salmonella, Campylobacter, Escherichia coli, Listeria and others, a point conveniently ignored by the raw milk proponents.
The hazards of consuming raw milk have been known for a long time. In Ontario around 1900, over 10% of all childhood tuberculosis was thought to be caused by unpasteurized milk. The rate of tuberculosis infection and many other milk-borne diseases in children fell dramatically after enactment of a law in 1938 requiring milk to be pasteurized; this was hailed as a major achievement.
The fact is that between 1998 and 2005, a total of 45 outbreaks resulting in more than 1,000 illnesses, 104 hospitalizations and two deaths due to raw milk or soft raw milk cheese were reported to the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention. There have been more recent, high-profile cases. Pathogens were found in 13 percent of bulk tank raw milk samples by a survey of Pennsylvania dairy farms in 2006. In California, 2008, new regulations set a limit of 10 coliforms per millilitre of raw milk. Raw milk suppliers maintain that the regulation will put them out of business, which suggests to me that they feel unable to meet this specification. But it's the same standard used for pasteurized milk. <For an explanation of the use of coliforms, see "Is hamburger a greater risk for E. coli" this blog, posted 3rd May 2008>.
Farmers who are selling raw milk are able to charge a significant premium for their product and understandably wish to continue supply. However, nothing comes without a price, and the right to sell a particular food product imposes certain responsibilities. Some American consumers have contracted serious disease from drinking raw milk. Unfortunately, children have no choice in the source of their milk and several have suffered haemolytic uremic syndrome (which has a 90% mortality rate without treament) and a number have required kidney transplants. The suppliers are now being sued.
In New Zealand, NZFSA has recently renewed its warning to consumers about raw milk cheeses, which have recently been approved for sale here. People with compromised immune systems, the elderly or pregnant women are urged to avoid these products.
The raw milk lobby claims that pasteurization robs the milk of its nutritional value and the natural enzymes that help the human digestive system. I am not aware of any scientific evidence to support this. They also vociferously claim that pasteurization kills the “good bacteria”. The zealous consumers claim that their rights are being trampled if they are prevented from buying the product. The regulators point to the dangers of consuming raw milk, such as the diseases caused by Salmonella, Campylobacter, Escherichia coli, Listeria and others, a point conveniently ignored by the raw milk proponents.
The hazards of consuming raw milk have been known for a long time. In Ontario around 1900, over 10% of all childhood tuberculosis was thought to be caused by unpasteurized milk. The rate of tuberculosis infection and many other milk-borne diseases in children fell dramatically after enactment of a law in 1938 requiring milk to be pasteurized; this was hailed as a major achievement.
The fact is that between 1998 and 2005, a total of 45 outbreaks resulting in more than 1,000 illnesses, 104 hospitalizations and two deaths due to raw milk or soft raw milk cheese were reported to the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention. There have been more recent, high-profile cases. Pathogens were found in 13 percent of bulk tank raw milk samples by a survey of Pennsylvania dairy farms in 2006. In California, 2008, new regulations set a limit of 10 coliforms per millilitre of raw milk. Raw milk suppliers maintain that the regulation will put them out of business, which suggests to me that they feel unable to meet this specification. But it's the same standard used for pasteurized milk. <For an explanation of the use of coliforms, see "Is hamburger a greater risk for E. coli" this blog, posted 3rd May 2008>.
Farmers who are selling raw milk are able to charge a significant premium for their product and understandably wish to continue supply. However, nothing comes without a price, and the right to sell a particular food product imposes certain responsibilities. Some American consumers have contracted serious disease from drinking raw milk. Unfortunately, children have no choice in the source of their milk and several have suffered haemolytic uremic syndrome (which has a 90% mortality rate without treament) and a number have required kidney transplants. The suppliers are now being sued.
In New Zealand, NZFSA has recently renewed its warning to consumers about raw milk cheeses, which have recently been approved for sale here. People with compromised immune systems, the elderly or pregnant women are urged to avoid these products.
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
It’s happened before, it’s happened again and it won’t be the last.
The Queenstown District Court (South Island, New Zealand) was told an all too familiar tale a couple of days ago. Two women had been poisoned and subsequently hospitalized after consuming a contaminated drink. On this occasion, the drink was mulled wine; the contaminant was sodium hydroxide – industrial dishwashing liquid.
At first sight, this would seem to be an impossible occurrence. Closer inspection shows a familiar pattern. I expected that the mulled wine would have been made on the premises from wine, sugar, cinnamon stick etc. However, the drink was apparently dispensed from a bulk container of pre-prepared “mulled wine”. Unfortunately, the container appears to have been used to deliver the cleaning chemical. Presumably, the label was not changed and the person serving the product didn’t detect the substituted liquid. It is not clear to me why the industrial chemical looked to all involved like mulled wine.
This is utterly poor practice of the worst sort. I have been teaching HACCP for the last 30 years and during the whole of that time, the use of food containers for other materials has been proscribed as part of the food safety plan. Proper labelling of containers is also critical. There have been so many cases where this practice has resulted in injury or even death that I have lost count. Some examples include preservative being mistaken for sugar; fire retardant powder being mistaken for cattle feed; cleaning agents being used in food preparation instead of the expected food ingredient. In one admittedly non-commercial case, a person died after drinking from a spirit bottle containing paraquat - a herbicide.
No food container should ever be used to store non-food chemicals; chemicals should not be stored with food ingredients and all containers should be clearly labelled with the identity of the contents.
At first sight, this would seem to be an impossible occurrence. Closer inspection shows a familiar pattern. I expected that the mulled wine would have been made on the premises from wine, sugar, cinnamon stick etc. However, the drink was apparently dispensed from a bulk container of pre-prepared “mulled wine”. Unfortunately, the container appears to have been used to deliver the cleaning chemical. Presumably, the label was not changed and the person serving the product didn’t detect the substituted liquid. It is not clear to me why the industrial chemical looked to all involved like mulled wine.
This is utterly poor practice of the worst sort. I have been teaching HACCP for the last 30 years and during the whole of that time, the use of food containers for other materials has been proscribed as part of the food safety plan. Proper labelling of containers is also critical. There have been so many cases where this practice has resulted in injury or even death that I have lost count. Some examples include preservative being mistaken for sugar; fire retardant powder being mistaken for cattle feed; cleaning agents being used in food preparation instead of the expected food ingredient. In one admittedly non-commercial case, a person died after drinking from a spirit bottle containing paraquat - a herbicide.
No food container should ever be used to store non-food chemicals; chemicals should not be stored with food ingredients and all containers should be clearly labelled with the identity of the contents.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
