In this issue . . .
You may click on the following articles, or scoll down.
- To Be Really Safe, Lets Ban Everything
- Who Benefits From r DNA Biotechnology Derived Foods?
- Frequently Asked Questions about rDNA Biotechnology
- Heat Inactivation of E.coli 0157:H7 in Apple Juice Exposed to Chlorine (Abstract)
- Items of Interest
- Nutrition Labeling Info.
- Food Safety Survey Flunks Majority
- Food Recalls: How Can You Prepare
- Coming Events
- Crisis Management Workshop
- Institute of Thermal Processing Specialist Annual Conference
- NFPA Thermal Processing Workshop
- National Spinach Conference
Editor's Note -- Dr. Whelan is president and a founder of the ACSH. She holds masters and doctoral degrees in public health from the Yale School of Medicine and the Harvard School of Public Health. This newsletter is prepared for the Texas food processing industry by Al Wagner, Extension Food Technologist. It is sent to you as a service of the Texas Agricultural Extension Service, an educational agency of The Texas A&M University System. Requests for additional information on topics addressed in this newsletter should be directed to:
Al B. Wagner
Extension Food Technologist
HFSB 225
Texas A&M University
College Station, Texas 77843-2134
(409) 845-5341 FAX (409) 845-8906
To Be Really Safe, Let's Ban Everything
The following article was written by Dr. Elizabeth M. Whelan, science advocate for the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH).
In the attached article, she emphasizes some very important concerns about the current philosophy at EPA toward regulation of chemicals. She illustrates EPA's "emerging and unscientific code for 'protecting public health'" as being based on:
- If it can be detected in trace amounts in humans or the environment, ban it.
- If it causes health problems in rodents, ban it.
- If it can be misused or abused, ban it even for its rational, approved uses.
hile Americans blithely go about their business, an insidious and irrational flee from technology is taking place–all in the name of "public health." Over the past two months alone, two safe and useful products have been taken away from consumers–despite the conclusions that the approved use of those products are safe. To make matters worse, some manufacturers of these rejected technologies are joining forces with some extreme environmentalist groups and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to protect us from hazards that do not exist.
Recently, ACSH criticized 3M's withdrawal–prompted by pressure from the EPA–of its unique fabric protector, Scotchgard. The product will soon disappear from the supermarket shelves, not because there is any evidence it is unsafe, but because trace levels of some of the product's chemical components have been persistent in human blood samples and in the environment. These trace levels of chemicals in the blood have not been deemed harmful–but their mere detection was enough to be fatal to Scotchgard.
Last week, the EPA announced its intention to ban one of the most common ingredients in home, lawn and garden bug killers, Dursban. This compound is found in familiar household pesticide sprays, like Raid and Black Flag roach and ant killer. EPA Administrator Carol Browner defends her decision to ban this useful product by claiming that Dursban causes damage in the brains of newborn rats. She further argues that both children and adults have been harmed from the use of these products. These sprays can indeed, when misused, be toxic and misuse and accidental ingestion of the products could cause serious health hazards. Yet, Ms. Browner presents no evidence that the approved and intended use of Dursban products poses any health problems at all.
Thus, the 3M Scotchgard episode and the Dursban sequel illustrate an emerging–and unscientific–code for "protecting public health:"
- Ban the product if you can find traces of any chemical component persisting in the body or the environment. Scientists know that the ability to merely measure the presence of a chemical that is potentially harmful does not indicate that human health is in jeopardy. Furthermore, it is well known that human blood contains traces of nearly all the myriad natural and synthetic chemicals to which we are exposed daily.
- If it causes health problems in rodents, ban it. Yet repeated laboratory animal studies using extremely high levels of naturally occurring chemicals (in food, water and air) can cause toxic effects, cancer and reproductive damage. For example, the naturally occurring chemicals hydrazines, found in mushrooms are carcinogenic in rodents. Arsenic and solanine, natural components of potatoes can be highly toxic to humans and animals in high doses–but harmless in the trace levels found in spuds.
- If the product is abused or misused, ban it even for its rational approved use. Yet common pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, cleaning agents–and even table salt–can cause injury and death if misused or accidentally ingested. In the case of a small child, even small amounts of such ingested material can pose a grave risk. Are we pursuing such a degree of safety in our society that we are willing to discard any and all useful technology where no valid evidence of a health threat with intended use exists? And what negative consequences might we face from the purging of these allegedly hazardous materials?
That "household hint" guru, Heloise, has appeared on the Today Show recently, suggesting primitive ways of protecting our clothes from stains now that Scotchgard will be gone. But what her comments made clear is that there are no-good alternatives to Scotchgard available, and that means higher costs for all of us to replace blighted clothes and furniture. And with Dursban gone–most likely to be joined in the graveyard of chemicals by pesticides with similar properties–we have lost even more of our tools in fighting off the asthma-inducing effects of cockroaches and other pests.
The most troubling aspect of this insidious threat is that consumers seem unaware that we are on a slippery slope, with most any useful and safe consumer product now vulnerable to strident cries to "be safe rather than sorry" to "protect the children." And to make matters worse, some manufactures seem to be willing to fold their tents and move on rather than stand up for their science-based conviction that their products are safe.
Who Benefits from rDNA
Biotechnology-Derived Foods?
uch has been said about food biotechnology's potential to feed the world in the future. But the benefits aren't all in the future. Right now, rDNA biotechnology-derived foods offer concrete benefits to farmers and consumers. Products on the market or already under development offer advantages that might never be achieved using conventional breeding techniques.
"Modern biotechnology adds tremendous timeliness and precision to traditional crossbreeding techniques. It is the result of scientists understanding and using what nature has been doing unaided since life began," according to Dr. Sanford Miller, Dean of the Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences and Professor in the Department of Biochemistry and Medicine at the University of Texas Health Science Center. Miller chaired the expert panel that produced the benefits and concerns section of the IFT Experts Report on Biotechnology and Foods.
After a comprehensive review of the available scientific evidence, IFT has found many people benefit from rDNA biotechnology-derived foods.
- Farmers benefit from increase yields on the same acreage, decreased production costs, less exposure to pesticides and herbicides, and more flexibility in crop rotation.
- People with allergies will gain foods in which the allergens have been reduced or eliminated and from increased knowledge about which proteins trigger allergic reactions.
- People who want low cost, nutritious food will benefit from foods with longer shelf life and less spoilage, increased crop yields with lower production costs, and foods with improved nutritional characteristics.
- People who are concerned about the environment will appreciate less pesticide and herbicide use, increase use of no-till agriculture, and less deforestation in sensitive ecosystems because food demand can be met by increased yields on existing farmland.
- People in developing countries will benefit by planting crops tolerant of local soil and weather conditions, increasing yields without expensive chemical treatments for disease by using virus resistant varieties, and getting basic nutrition from crops enriched with essential vitamins and minerals not present in sufficient quantities in the traditional diet.
It is rare for a new technology to receive a broad and enthusiastic welcome. For example, pasteurized milk was originally viewed with deep suspicion, although it is a life-saving technology in its elimination of the microorganisms that cause tuberculosis and undulant fever. Similarly, all sorts of health threats–far beyond pacemaker interference–were originally attributed to microwave cooking. Biotechnology is no exception.
"Although it is not surprising that consumers are wary of rDNA biotechnology-derived foods, the scientific evidence does not support their concerns," said Miller. Numerous national and international scientific organizations have considered the potential risks associated with rDNA biotechnology-derived foods, and have consistently concluded that these foods pose risks less severe, or no more severe, than those risks associated with conventional breeding techniques that have been practiced for centuries.
"The science involved in many of these issues is extremely complex. People worry about potential risks that sound logical, given their understanding of the science. However, a thorough analysis reveals that the risks have already been adequately addressed, "Miller said.
Food biotechnology offers tremendous promise for the future. It is another powerful tool to use in our continuing efforts to provide low-cost, enjoyable, nutritious food to the world.
Frequently Asked Questions About
rDNA Biotechnology and Foods
Q. What is rDNA?
A. Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is the universal code for inheritance of all living things. Recombinant DNA (rDNA) is two pieces of DNA from difference organisms that have been joined together into a single piece of DNA. The term recombinant is also used to describe the recombination DNA from the two parent organisms during sexual reproduction.
A. Genes are short segments of DNA that code for a protein. In essence, they contain the instructions for how to make a certain protein, which is called the gene product. Most genes do no have characteristics specific to the organism in which they are found. In fact, it is impossible to determine the organism from which a gene arises by examining the gene sequence alone; there is no way to identify "fish genes" or "tomato gene." The uniqueness of the organism lies not only in the DNA sequences of its genes, but also the organization of the genes which are present, and at what time and to what extent they are expressed. Identical genes are regularly found in organisms that are only remotely related.
A. The plants and animals produced by modern agriculture today are the result of more than 10,000 years of genetic modification and refinement. As our scientific understanding of genetic has grown, so has out ability to alter organisms to promote desirable characteristics.In conventional cross breeding techniques, the DNA of two organisms is randomly combined in the hope that the desired trait will be transferred. However, undesirable traits are also transferred and must be removed through selection in the next several generations. Because the amount of DNA involved is so great and researchers cannot control which genes are transferred into the new organism, this method is far less precise and predictable then rDNA biotechnology methods.
Recombinant DNA technology involves the introduction of one or a few well defined genes. Researchers seeking specific plant characteristics can precisely identify, characterize, enhance, and transfer the appropriate individual genes rather than uncontrolled and randomly assorted groups of tens. The increased precision reduces the chances of unintended effects, and the ability to select genes from virtually any source in nature greatly increases the diversity of useful genes that can be incorporated.
A. The random and uncontrolled combination of DNA that takes place during cross breeding is limiting. Trying to cross breed a fish with a strawberry would not yield a viable organism; the genetic makeup of the two organisms is simply too different and the amount of DNA involved is too great. Using rDNA biotechnology, scientists can select a gene in a fish that is responsible for producing a protein that protects the fish from cold temperatures. They can than transfer this single gene into a strawberry plant. Which incorporates the gene and produces the new protein. The modification of the genetic makeup of the strawberry is extremely slight–one additional gene joined to tens of thousands of existing genes. Everything about the strawberry is essentially the same, except it now produces a protein that increases its cold resistance.
A. Probably, unless they eat only 100 percent organic foods. One major trade association has estimated that 70 percent of processed foods contain ingredients derived from corn or soy. Because rDNA biotechnology-derived corn and soy are not stored and handled separately from conventional varieties, most processed foods on the market today contain some ingredients that are at least partially rDNA biotechnology-derived.
A. Yes. The regulation of rDNA biotechnology-derived foods is divided among three major federal agencies: the Food and Drug Administration, the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Environmental Protection Agency. FDA is responsible for ensuring the safety and proper labeling of foods for human consumption (except for meat and poultry) and for animal feed. It also is responsible for the safety and efficacy of human and animal pharmaceutical products and for human vaccines. USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service is responsible for the safety and labeling of meat and poultry products for human consumption. The agency's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service regulates the field testing and commercial sale of agricultural rDNA biotechnology-derived crops and is responsible for the safety and efficacy of animal vaccines. EPA is responsible for registering pesticides, setting environmental tolerances for pesticides, and establishing safe levels for pesticide residues in and on crops. Pesticides are substances intended for preventing, destroying, repelling, or mitigating pests.
A. Religious leaders are carefully monitoring and evaluating the developments in rDNA biotechnology. All of the rDNA biotechnology-derived foods on the market to date are considered kosher. In fact, certain applications of rDNA biotechnology have already expanded the used of range of products that would otherwise face religious restrictions. Using rDNA biotechnology-derived chymosin instead of rennet from calves' stomachs has expanded the range of cheese considered vegetarian, kosher and halal.
A. Yes. The rDNA biotechnology-derived foods on the market are indistinguishable from conventional foods for taste, color and other sensory characteristics.
A. The rDNA biotechnology-derived foods currently on the market fall within the normal range for all major nutrients as compared to their conventional counterparts. If they didn't , the label would disclose the difference. In the not-so-distant future, consumers can expect to see rDNA biotechnology-derived foods that have improved nutritional characteristics such as higher levels of important vitamins. These food will be appropriately labeled to allow consumers to select these beneficial products.
ABSTRACT Heat Inactivation of Escherichia coli 0157:H7 in Apple Juice Exposed to Chlorine*
Center for Food Safety and Quality Enhancement
Department of Food Science and Technology
University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia 30602-2106, USA
Exposure of Escherichia coli 0157:H7 to chlorine before heat treatment results in increased production of heat shock proteins. Current heating regimens for pasteurizing apple cider do not account for chlorine exposure in the wash water. This research determined the effect of sublethal chlorine treatment on thermal inactivation of E. coli 0157:H7.
D58-values were calculated for stationary-phase cells exposed to 0.6 mg/liter of total available chlorine and unchlorinated cells in commercial shelf-stable apple juice (pH 3.6). D58-values for unchlorinated and chlorine-exposed cells in buffer were 5.45 and 1.65 min, respectively (P<0.010).
Death curves of chlorine-exposed and unchlorinated cells in apple juice were not completely linear. Unchlorinated cells heated in apple juice exhibit a 3-min delay before onset of linear inactivation. Chlorine treatment eliminated this shoulder, indicating an overall loss of thermotolerance. The linear portion of each curve represented a small fraction of the total population. D58–values calculated from these populations are 0.77 min for unexposed cells and 1.19 min for chlorine-exposed cells (P=0.05). This indicates that a subpopulation of chlorine-treated cells is possibly more resistant to heat because of chlorine treatment.
The effect of chlorine treatment, however, is insignificant when compared with the effect of losing the shoulder. This is illustrated by the time required to kill the initial 90% of the cell population. This is observed to be 3.14 min for unchlorinated versus 0.3 min for chlorine-exposed cells (P<0.001). These indicate that current heat treatments need not be adjusted for the effect of chlorine treatment.
*Reprinted from J. of Food Protection Vol. 63, No. 8,2000
Items of Interest
Nutrition Labeling Information
The FDA CFSAN web site has an excellent resource on-line called "A Food Labeling Guide." It can be accessed at:
http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/label.htmlFederal food labeling regulations are within Title 21 Part 101 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) and can be accessed at:
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_00/21cfrv2_00.html
Scientists put cameras in the kitchens of 100 families in Logan, Utah, and caught citizens of this middle-class, well-educated college town making multiple food safety fumbles, reported Associated Press. People skipped soap when hand-washing. Used the same towel to wipe up raw meat juice as to dry their hands.Surveys show most Americans blame restaurants for foodborne illnesses. Asked if they follow basic bacteria-fighting tips listed on the Internet most insist they're scrupulous in their own kitchens. But FDA consumer research chief Alan Levy says most food poisonings probably occur at home. Utah State University nutritionist Janet Anderson was quoted as saying, "People have no idea they're messing up. You just go in the kitchen and it's something you don't think about."
In the study, 30 percent didn't wash the lettuce; others placed salad ingredients on counters where they had placed raw meat; 35 percent who made the meat loaf undercooked it; 42 percent undercooked the chicken; and 17 percent undercooked the fish.
A series of food recalls in December prompted Insurance Brokers Service, Inc. (IBS) president and CEO Bob Greenebaum to offer the following advice to food companies: Get coverage. "The truth is, for big and small food producers alike, recalls can cost millions of dollars in product losses and operational delays, not to mention intangible losses to a company's reputation and customer confidence," Greenebaum said. "Protecting the consumer is the number one priority in a product recall. But can you do so without crippling your business?"Greenebaum, whose company offers product recall insurance for food companies, stresses that while manufacturers and processors may have an understanding of the operational aspects of a recall-which regulators to notify, how to contain the exposed product and how to track a problem–they may not have a plan that incorporates these logistical requirements with reputation-saving communications efforts. He suggests that companies must be prepared to deal with a recall from several angles, including financial protection, logistical planning and effective communication with the public and media.
Currently, there are a number of different insurance products on the market offering financial coverage for both accidental contamination and products tampering. For example, IBS's Total Recall PLUS product includes a unique crisis management component that assists companies both with logistics and communications considerations, as well as real-time crisis support to safeguard the insured's reputation.
Again emphasizing the growing number of recalls, Greenebaum advises companies to prepare for a worst case scenario. "It's an up-front investment that can save your company."
Coming Events
Crisis Management Workshop
Tuesday, November 7, 2000 - 8 a.m. - 5 p.m.
Texas A&M University, Room 401 Rudder Tower
College Station, Texas
A crisis can hit a company like a bomb. But, if a company is well prepared, it can successfully manage through the crisis with relatively few scars. This workshop will introduce the basics in crisis prevention, planning, and management, specific to the food industry. Learn how to manage a crisis now before it's too late!For Registration info please contact Audrey Thomas, Institute of Food Science and Engineering, 1500 Research Parkway Suite 220 College Station, Texas 77843-2259. Phone: 979/862/2036 - Fax: 979/458-3405.
The Institute of Thermal Processing Specialist will hold their Annual Conference November 14-16, 2000 at the Sheraton Crystal City Hotel near Washington, D.C. For registration info contact Bill Cornelius at 703/426-9020.
The National Food Processors Association will hold their Thermal Processing and Deviation Workshop in early December. Call Kurt Wiese for details 510/551-4202.
The National Spinach Conference will be held December 14, 15, and 16, 2000 in San Antonio, TX. For additional information see web site at:http://aggie-horticulture.tamu.edu/ PLANTanswers/publications/spinach/index.htmlor call Larry Stein at 830/278-9151.
Web page construction: Jill Stavenhagen
