Where's my PhD student?

I had a scheduled meeting with my PhD student this morning, but she didn't turn up.  I got a somewhat graphic text message, saying that she had food poisoning.  It seems that she, her partner and two friends went out for dinner in a restaurant in Auckland on Saturday.  They all appear to have food poisoning.

Of course, this doesn't prove that the restaurant was responsible.  Indeed, her description of the symptoms and time of onset make me wonder if another common source was involved.

However, a TVNZ One News investigation shows that on average, one Auckland food establishment per week has been shut down this year because of safety or cleanliness violations.

http://tvnz.co.nz/health-news/shocking-food-hygiene-figures-auckland-3800902

An Auckland City Council Environmental Health spokesperson said that the increase in closures was a result of tougher action by health inspectors in response to unsatisfactory performance and suggested that this was partly because of the economic recession - companies were selling food that would previously have been thrown out.

A disturbing statistic given in the TVNZ report is that over 100 restaurants and cafes are still operating, despite poor hygiene ratings, though to be fair, businesses are given the opportunity to clean up their act before being closed down if they don't improve.

This report begs the question "If inspectors had previously found unsatisfactory conditions in food outlets, why didn't they close them down at the time?  What has changed in the requirements to serve wholesome, safe food in clean premises?"

To test, or not to test – that is the question (with apologies to Shakespeare).

I had intended to write my next blog article on the latest information on Campylobacter in New Zealand.  However, in view of the continuing Salmonella-in-eggs problem in the USA and yet another recall in New York State of ground beef owing to the detection of Salmonella, I decided to write about product testing and the alternatives.

It had been suggested that the feed was the source of Salmonella that infected the Wright County Egg Co.  Reporting in the Wall Street Journal last week, Alicia Mundy and Bill Tomson wrote that the Food and Drug Administration had failed to detect Salmonella at the premises of the suppliers of the feed: 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704394704575496191032884412.html

Officials warned that the investigation was continuing, but from my point of view, the fact that Salmonella was detected in the Wright County Egg Co. farm(s) on 426 occasions from 2008 to present is a pointer to the farms at least having some responsibility.

Testing of products, be they eggs, steaks or lettuces, can potentially detect Salmonella and other pathogenic bacteria, such as Escherichia coli O157:H7, allowing us to reject the lot.  Unfortunately, testing doesn’t guarantee that we will detect Salmonella.  In all sampling plans that I am aware of, detection of Salmonella in the sample is cause for rejection.  Under the ICMSF 2-class attribute sampling plan nomenclature, ‘n’ is the number of samples to be taken from a lot, ‘c’ is the number of failures permitted and ‘m’ is the threshold above which the sample fails. Thus for Salmonella testing, c = 0 and m = 0.  What number of samples should we take?

Statistics show us that when the frequency of contamination in the lot is 1 in 1000, setting c = 0 we would need to examine 2995 samples to achieve 95% confidence in detecting the defective sample; that is, we would still have a 5% chance of accepting a contaminated lot.

Put another way, extensive testing is prohibitively expensive, and many sampling plans call for only 5 samples to be taken from a lot. Even with 40% of the lot being defective, we would still accept the lot about 8% of the time.

So, testing seems a bit unreliable.  Is there a better way?  Well, yes there is.  It’s called HACCP (Hazard Analysis Critical Control Points) and it came out of the space programme, developed initially as the Modes of Failure Programme by the Natick laboratory and then by The Pilsbury Corporation.  Without going into detail on this occasion, it involves looking at the ingredients, the process and the processing facilities and looking for every way the food might become unsafe.  These aspects are eliminated where possible and those hazards that cannot be eliminated are controlled by keeping tight control over Critical Control Points, such as cooking operations.

The hazard analysis can then be used to develop a Food Safety Programme for the factory.  The factory runs the process according to this programme and monitors the CCPs and keeps accurate records of the entire process.  There is then no need for end product testing – if the process is under control,  safe food will be produced.  Regulatory monitoring becomes a matter of checking the records and auditing the programme on a regular basis.  This is a really good system and in a perfect world, it would work perfectly.

The problem with this approach is that the regulators need to have enough staff to do the inspections and the companies running the factory have to obey the rules, keep accurate records and come clean the minute something goes wrong.  Companies must want to produce safe food, rather than just make money.

It is very sad that in many of the recent food poisoning outbreaks, it has eventually been shown that companies falsified records, while supposedly independent inspections were at best inadequate and at worst negligent and corrupt.  

In this environment, the regulators need more staff, better legislation and more powers to shut down unsafe operations.  I have watched in horror as one outbreak after another has resulted in severe injury to some consumers, massive food recalls and in some cases permanent shutdown of factories and wondered, “Where will it all end?  Will there be any food manufacturers left in business?  Will testing requirements become so onerous that food becomes ridiculously expensive?”  

I don’t think there is an easy solution, but until the cowboys have all gone, I see no alternative to better legislation, more truly independent inspection, more frequent testing of product and full traceability of raw materials and finished products.

Would you like your Salmonella over easy or sunny side up, sir?

550,000,000 eggs have now been withdrawn from the market in two recalls in USA.

380m eggs were recalled early last week by Wright County Egg and now 170m eggs have been recalled by Hillandale Farms of Iowa.  Eggs from both companies have been linked with salmonellosis affecting at least 1700 people.

Salmonella is a bacterium found in the gut of man, animals and birds.  It causes nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain and diarrhoea that may last for several days and can be fatal in the very young or elderly.  It is usually contracted by ingestion of faecally contaminated food, though this is not the only route of infection.  The disease is described as a “food borne infection”, because after ingestion of infected food, the bacteria grow in the gut, causing the symptoms, which appear 12 to 14 hours after ingestion. 

Why have so many eggs been withdrawn?  I think it’s probably because of the way the regulations governing poultry farming in the US are written.  As I understand it, testing is conducted under the FDA “Egg Rule” -Environmental Testing for Salmonella Enteritidis (21 CFR 118.5).  Samples are taken from the environment to determine if S. Enteritidis is present, because this is an indicator of the effectiveness of the SE control plan.  The pullet environment is tested when the pullets are 14 – 16 weeks old and in addition, the environment in each poultry house is tested when any group of laying hens reaches 40 – 45 weeks of age.  

If rodents, birds or insects introduce Salmonella to the poultry house, between testing times, the infection could spread rapidly throughout the flock and eggs could be produced from infected hens. Hens can become infected internally and eggs can be infected before the shell is formed.  There is no way to tell if an egg is infected with Salmonella, other than cracking it and culturing the contents. Eggs are required to be tested only when an environmental sample is shown to be positive.  So the huge recall is to ensure that all potentially contaminated eggs are removed from the market place and homes.

How can consumers protect themselves from contracting salmonellosis?  The most obvious precautions are the proper refrigerated storage and cooking of eggs, washing hands after handling eggs and avoidance of products containing raw eggs, such as home made ice cream and mayonnaise, or coddled eggs.  If you have eggs subject to the recall, dispose of them or return them to the retailer for a refund.

Eggs in New Zealand are unlikely to contain Salmonella.  In the next posting, I’ll discuss this and the latest on Campylobacter in New Zealand.

Just a thought:  How are they going to dispose of 550m eggs?  At 60g (about 2 ounces) each, that is about 33,000 tonnes (36,376 US tons) of eggs.

More on Salt in Foods

It’s generally accepted that we eat too much salt in New Zealand – up to 150% of the maximum recommended intake (see Sodium in Food, 13 July 2010). Excessive consumption of sodium raises blood pressure and may increase the risk of cardiovascular disease. Bread is the greatest contributor to our sodium intake, followed by sausages and processed meats.

One of the concerns of manufacturers of foods that contain added salt is that the consumer will detect the change if salt content is reduced and refuse to buy that brand.

In 2003, I took part in a trial in which we tested three commercially baked breads with varying levels of salt, from the standard content at that time of 550 mg/100g, 5% reduction (530 mg/100g) and 10% reduction (490mg/100g). We performed controlled trials in which 60 consumers were given three samples - two identical and one different - and asked to pick the odd one out. This is called a triangle test. Twenty eight percent of the panellists correctly identified the 5% reduced sample and 37% identified the 10% reduced salt bread. This relatively small trial showed that these differences in perception of salt content were not statistically different i.e. that the consumers could not detect the lowered salt breads. Recent figures show that some breads now have 20% less salt than equivalent products in 2003.

As I wrote in “Sodium in Food”, July 2010, sodium chloride has many functions in foods besides flavouring. What are the alternatives to salt? We can replace some sodium with other ions, such as potassium, magnesium and calcium. We can purchase reduced sodium table salt, though the UK Food Standards Agency does not recommend the use of salt substitutes, as they don’t reduce consumers’ taste for salt. Replacement of 40% of sodium by potassium in manufactured foods may result in detectable flavour changes and there may be problems for people with kidney conditions. We could use other preservatives, but consumers have been fed the line that preservatives are bad for them, so there is likely to be resistance to this approach. We could target other sources of sodium in the diet, such as monosodium glutamate (MSG, a flavour enhancer), or water binding agents, such as sodium tripolyphosphate.

How will we know if reducing salt in our food will result in safe food? We can conduct computer-based modelling experiments, using the vast resources of microbial growth models stored in databases. Some of these databases are freely available and allow us to predict such things as “time to spoil” or “time to toxicity” or simply “how long will it take this initial level of contamination to grow to an unacceptable population?” We can vary the formulation of the food and run the model again to see how it performs. In a matter of minutes, we can do extensive trials of alternative formulations.

Unfortunately, these models are not real foods. Once we have modelled the likely shelf life etc. we have to make samples and test them under normal storage and abuse conditions. This is not straightforward and can be very costly. The likelihood therefore is that we will not see rapid reductions in salt content of our manufactured foods, but rather a progressive reduction, as was the case with bread. We can, however, make a start on personal salt intake reduction by using other seasonings and spices in our homes.

The joy of cleaning (yeah, right)

I was recently interviewed for a forthcoming television programme dealing with mould in the bathroom. I decided to brush up on my knowledge of cleaning chemicals to try to avoid getting caught flat-footed by the interviewer. When you really get into it, the science behind modern cleaning technologies is quite fascinating and more complex than you might expect.

My research team specialises in the study of biofilms. These accumulations of microorganisms and their sticky products on surfaces are extremely hard to clean. Since I have mentioned biofilms in earlier posts, I thought that it might be time to examine them in more detail here.

Pasteur and Koch laid the foundations of modern microbiology by culturing bacteria on solid media in pure culture. This development enabled microbiologists to study individual strains of bacteria without the interference of other types and we have continued to use their techniques. However, it is now generally accepted that bacteria grow preferentially as biofilms – complex communities growing on a surface and surrounded by polysaccharide slime known as glycocalyx. Among other things, this glycocalyx gives the bacteria protection from cleaning agents. Failure to take account of this when formulating cleaners and disinfectants can result in incomplete removal of the film. This is particularly important when the surface is a piece of food processing equipment.

Go and have a look at your beautiful stainless steel kitchen sink or the shower tray. They look perfectly smooth and should be easy to clean. However, when we use a scanning electron microscope to see the surface on the same scale as bacteria, it is clear that the surface is anything but smooth (see first figure). Bacteria can get down into the troughs between the grain boundaries and it’s obvious that getting them out of there is going to be difficult. The difficulty of cleaning is made worse if the bacteria are left to grow long enough to form a proper biofilm. The bacteria produce a sticky mixture of polysaccharides, which glues them to the surface and attracts other bacteria and traps food particles (see image at right).

When we buy a cleaning product from the supermarket, we are buying a carefully formulated mixture of chemicals that has a number of functions: it must bring the chemicals into close contact with the biofilm; proteins, carbohydrates and fats must be solubilised or suspended so that they can be rinsed away; for domestic cleaning it is also desirable that the cleaning product should kill bacteria. (In industrial cleaning, a separate sanitiser is usually applied after cleaning).

To satisfy these requirements, most cleaning products contain a surfactant to break down the surface tension of water (to make it “wetter”) and an alkali to solubilise proteins and fats. Sometimes an acid is used to remove scale deposits. Industrial cleaners for food processing equipment often also contain hypochlorite, which releases hypochlorous acid and ultimately an oxygen radical, both of which are strong oxidising agents that can break down dirt. Because of the potential danger to consumers, domestic cleaning products are usually much less alkaline and generally weaker than industrial cleaners.

I am often asked whether there is an alternative to the “harsh chemicals” used in cleaning products. Well, there are so-called “green cleaners” derived from plant materials, but the principles behind the formulations are the same – combination of surfactant such as an alkyl polyglucoside from palm and coconut, with citric acid and a solvent, D-limonene, from citrus skins. I have heard of white vinegar being used to remove bathroom mould instead of the chlorine-based cleaners. However, even the proponents of such substitutions admit that a lot more effort is required to remove the mould and that it soon comes back. This is partly because vinegar has no surfactant properties.

Successful cleaning requires four things: the right concentration of cleaning product, suitable temperature, mechanical energy (“elbow grease”) and sufficient time for the chemicals to penetrate the dirt and destroy bacteria. The best way to ensure that cleaning is successful is to follow the instructions on the label – the manufacturer has formulated and tested the product to be used in a certain way.


If done correctly, cleaning will remove biofilms from stainless steel. The two images at left show a piece of stainless steel before and after cleaning. The bacteria were stained with a fluorescent dye and observed under UV light in a fluorescence microscope.











However, a successful cleaning operation is only a temporary fix and regular cleaning is essential to prevent biofilms from forming. Like death and taxes, it’s not much fun and there’s really no getting away from having to clean.




Credits for photographs provided by my research group:
First image by Steve Flint and Doug Hopcroft; Second image by Shanthi Parkar and Doug Hopcroft; Third and Fourth images by Shanthi Parkar.

(The description given above is still a simplification of cleaning technology. I have tried to capture just the essentials of the process and the cleaning products).

Sodium in food

Most people like to have salt on their food. In mediaeval England, salt was expensive and only the nobility could afford it, as it was made by evaporating salt water over a fire. The salt was placed in the middle of the high table; the commoners sat at lower trestle tables and did not have access to the salt. Thus they were "below the salt" and this came to be an indication of rank.

Around 1650, rock salt was mined in Cheshire and salt became more readily available. The connotation of the value of salt remains, however, in expressions like "He's worthy of his salt".

These days, we probably have too much salt in our diets. In New Zealand, for instance, we consume around 150% of the recommended upper intake level. Much of this intake is involuntary - manufacturers add it to foods including bread, sausages and pies. The recent television series "Master Chef" had the judges saying repeatedly "Don't forget the seasonings", meaning not just herbs and spices, but also salt.

So, should we just ban salt in food and let individuals add salt to taste?

The answer may surprise some readers. Salt (sodium chloride) contributes to the safety of food and is essential for developing texture and flavour in processed meats. It helps to bind proteins, improving texture; it increases water binding capacity of proteins, also contributing to texture and assists in stabilising meat batters by improving fat binding. It also decreases fluid loss in vacuum-packed, thermally processed products.

Not only that - salt improves safety and shelf life by inhibiting the growth of bacteria, though relatively high levels are required if salt is used alone. It helps to reduce the water activity^* of the food, making it more difficult for bacteria to grow. That's why salted beef and pork were carried on long sea voyages - the meat was preserved.

Stringer and Pin (Institute of Food Research, Norwich, UK) have noted that "There is scope to reduce salt in foods. However, as salt influences bacterial growth, survival and recovery after adverse treatments, reducing salt in foods will have consequences for food safety that must be considered". These researchers used predictive models to show that reducing sodium content from 1.5g/100g to 0.76g/100g food allowed a much greater growth rate of certain foodborne pathogens. This could be acceptable, but other preservative mechanisms would need to be put in place. For example, other preservatives might be added at low levels and refrigeration might be necessary. Above all, reducing salt content would require even stricter adherence to good manufacturing practices, particularly with respect to plant and operator hygiene.

I'll write more on sodium in food in a follow-up posting.

* See the end of "Free Choice or Safety of the Population" in this blog for an explanation of water activity.

Old lessons not learned - Re-post

I have just returned from a meeting of food experts in Wageningen, Holland. One evening, we were taken to the Zoo in Arnhem. This fantastic place has a number of indoor environments, such as a jungle, ocean, desert and a restaurant.

After the visit, we had a meal in the somewhat inappropriately named Burgers Zoo Restaurant. A feature of this is the do-it-yourself barbeque. This ingenious device is like the continuous toasters you see in some hotel dining rooms – the food is placed on a continuous belt grill and passes over heated briquettes. Diners select their meats and salads from the large range set out on side tables.

Not having completely switched out of professional mode, I watched my fellow foodies to see how they would cope. I guess I should not have been surprised to see several of them take their raw meats and salads onto a single plate. They cooked the meats and then put them back onto the same plate! Nobody took fresh tongs or heated the ones used to put the meat on the grill.

Clearly, not all the participants were experts in food safety, but I had hoped that they would know about basic food safety rules – cooked food should NEVER be put on a plate that has held uncooked meat and cross contamination of salads from raw meats must be avoided. When I pointed out their mistake to a couple of my colleagues, they understood, but still didn’t know what to do about it.

At the other end of the scale, one young lady expressed concern as to whether she had cooked her steak sufficiently and was she at risk of food poisoning? In my opinion, her meat was over-cooked, but it would certainly have been safe to eat. Raw steaks from a healthy animal are essentially sterile on the inside, so they can be made safe by cooking the outside properly. (Minced or ground meat has had the outside mixed into the inside, so cannot safely be eaten rare). She expressed the view that barbequing was a bloke’s job, but I wonder if it should be left to food microbiologists?