XXIII, No. 13
September/October 1999
FOOD BIOTECHNOLOGY: SAFE, NUTRITIOUS, HEALTHFUL, ABUNDANT, AND TASTY FOOD
This issue of The Texas Food Processor is dedicated to a better understanding of genetically altered crops as it pertains to our nation's food supply. Thanks to the American Dietetics Association, International Food Information Council, Institute of Food Technologists, Council of Agricultural Science and Technology (CAST), and The Georgetown Center for Food and Nutrition Policy.
New advances in biotechnology mean that food production can be more efficient, food may spoil less quickly, certain foods may be more nutritious, and fruits and vegetables may taste better. Biotechnology allows a greater variety of fresh food to be available year-round and farmers to produce more food on less land. Biotechnology allows food producers to develop crops such as potatoes and corn with insect protection, squash and potatoes with disease protection, soybeans and canola with herbicide tolerance, and vegetable oils with less saturated fat.
What is food biotechnology?
Food biotechnology applies biological methods to improve plants and animals. For centuries, farmers have bred crops and animals to develop foods with higher yields, better drought resistance, sweeter flavor, or faster ripening. Traditional breeding methods are unpredictable and inefficient because unwanted traits are often passed along with the desirable ones. Using food biotechnology, agricultural scientists build on traditional breeding methods and identify which genes cause certain traits, such as disease protection or better nutrient quality for flavor. They can copy and transfer genes to a plant or animal to give it that characteristic.
What are the benefits of food biotechnology?
-- Fruits and vegetables may develop better flavor, have longer storage time, and be less likely to be spoiled or damaged before they are eaten. This means fresher, better-tasting produce year-round.
-- Grains, fruits, and vegetables can be produced with more nutrients, such as protein, vitamins, and minerals, or less fat or saturated fat. Extra vitamin C Vitamin E and beta carotene may help reduce the risk of heart disease and cancer. Extra protein may help combat malnutrition in developing countries.
-- Crops with built-in disease protection need fewer applications of insecticides to control the insects that carry disease. More crops can be grown with less dependence on chemical insecticides.
-- Plants may be adapted to grow in areas of low rainfall or extreme temperatures.
Are foods produced using biotechnology safe?
Foods produced using biotechnology are as safe as traditional foods. The Food and Drug administration (FDA) is responsible for overseeing the safety of most foods in the supermarket. New foods derived from biotechnology are judged by whether they are safe and nutritious, not by the process by which they were developed.
Some vegetarians and religious groups have been concerned about genes being transferred between plants, that would not normally breed, or from animals to plants. One example is the possible use of a gene from fish to make freeze-resistant tomatoes. However, plants and animals are made up of millions of genes and many of the same genes are found naturally in plants and animals. In fact, biotechnology is possible because genes are so similar. An individual gene is neither a plant nor animal gene. All the genes together determine whether something is an animal or plant.
Will foods produced using biotechnology carry a special label?
Most new foods will be so similar to traditional foods that they will not need a special label. If a genetically modified food could cause an allergic reaction for some people, it must be labeled. For example, if a gene from a food that could cause an allergic reaction (such as peanuts) is transferred into another food, the new food must be labeled unless the developer can show that it does not produce an allergic reaction. Foods also must be labeled if there is a major change in nutrient composition. For example, if a food contains much more or less of a vitamin, mineral, or other nutrient than usual, the food must be labeled. Foods that have been crossbred to create a new food are also required to be labeled. Broccoflower, or green cauliflower, is an example of a new plant food developed by traditional crossbreeding.
What foods are produced using biotechnology?
More than half of the cheese produced in the U.S. is made using chymosin, an enzyme prepared using biotechnology, instead of rennin extracted from a calf's stomach. Biotechnology has increased the availability and quality of the enzyme, leading to more consistent food quality. Also, tomatoes are available that can be ripened on the vine and shipped without spoiling during transport. They may taste better than traditional commercial tomatoes that are picked and shipped green to protect them from bruising and then ripened with a plant gas, ethylene. Potatoes and corn protected from insects and soybeans tolerant of specific herbicides also are entering the market place. Other foods produced using biotechnology will be available in the near future.
-- high-protein vegetables,
-- low-caffeine coffee beans.
-- freeze-resistant tomatoes,
-- french fries and potato chips made from potatoes that absorb less fat,
-- vegetable oils lower in saturated fat.
CONSUMERS, HEALTH EXPERTS DESIRE BENEFITS OF BIOTECH FOODS AND CONCUR WITH CURRENT F.D.A. LABELING POLICY
The Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (CAST), The Georgetown Center for Food and Nutrition Policy and The International Food Information Council (IFIC) agree with Consumer Reports' statement that, "There is no evidence that genetically engineered (biotech) foods on the market are not safe to eat.
This is supported by other leading medical and nutrition experts who advocate the benefits of agricultural biotechnology in light of a September 1999 Consumer Reports article reaffirming the safety of biotech foods. While the article refers to one question from a survey commissioned by IFIC, it left out other important consumer findings from the survey relevant to labeling and other issues raised in the article.
The February 1999 survey, by the Wirthlin Group and commissioned by IFIC, indicated that consumers remain strongly in favor of the potential benefits that can be garnered through biotechnology. While many consumers may not be biotechnology experts, they remain optimistic about its possibilities and three out of four consumers expect to derive benefits for their families from biotechnology in the next five years.
Nearly a decade of consumer research by IFIC indicates that consumers want to learn more about biotechnology and suggests that providing information from credible sources, such as brochures sponsored by government agencies, academic institutions and health professional organizations, and 800 numbers, is more effective than food labels.
By combining modern scientific techniques with age-old agricultural processes, biotechnology is helping farmers produce higher quality crops that require fewer inputs for their growth while preserving natural resources, such as land and water. Crops enhanced through biotechnology have become commonplace in the US years after health professional organizations such as The American Dietetic Association and American Medical Association endorsed their safety and promise of future benefits.
Daniel Johnson, M.D., World Medical Association president and former president of the American Medical Association, stated "Almost ten years ago, the AMA Council on Scientific Affairs took a hard look at biotechnology applied to food, and the Council hasn't modified the very positive recommendations it made at that time. Those recommendations were very supportive of continuing development of agricultural biotechnology, but were also positive in admonishing physicians like myself and other to go out and educate people about the positive benefits."
Edith Hogan, R.D., Spokesperson for The American Dietetic Association stated, "We know it is possible for nutritional value and quality to be enhanced. We know a number of things now, but there may be even greater benefits in the future."
Three federal agencies, the Food and Drug Administration, the US Department of Agriculture, and the Environmental Protection Agency, have been studying and monitoring biotechnology crops for over a decade. The FDA regulates food produced using biotechnology just as stringently as other foods and has the power to remove any food it deems unsafe from the market. According to Hogan, "We can be sure that biotech foods are safe, and I think that's very important. It's important to me-- as a mother and as a grandmother--as well as a dietitian, to feel sure about our food supply.
Although in the future many biotech foods my offer benefits such as enhanced nutrition that may be indicated on a food label, virtually all of today's agricultural biotech crops produce food ingredients that are essentially the same as other ingredients. Consumers may benefit indirectly from reduced pesticide use or stable prices, but not in a recognizable way that would trigger a required statement on a food label. The IFIC survey indicated nearly four out of five Americans support the current FDA policy on labeling foods produced using biotechnology. The FDA policy requires special labeling only when the food has been significantly changed or when a potential safety concern such as an unexpected food allergen has been introduced. However, no foods that would mandate such labeling are currently in the marketplace.
While many of the current benefits may be taken for granted, Dr. Johnson commented on the need for biotechnology from his perspective as head of the World Medical Association. "I am convinced that what we've been able to do for our farmers, by giving them the tools to increase the yield of their products and at the same time reducing use of chemicals such as herbicides and pesticides is very positive for the people who sit around the dinner table at night. Beyond that, increasing the amount of soybean production, increasing the amount of corn production, means that we have better opportunity to take care of the people around the world where food shortages still exist."
From A Joint Release by: The Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (CAST), The Georgetown Center for Food and Nutrition Policy, and The International Food Information Council (IFIC)
COMMUNICATION TENETS FOR CONSUMER ACCEPTANCE OF FOOD BIOTECHNOLOGY
(The following tenets are suggested for any opinion leaders charged with communicating food biotechnology issues to the public.)
1. The purpose for each new product of food biotechnology and its consumer benefits must be explained clearly at the beginning of public discussion.
2. Biotechnology must be placed in context with the evolution of agricultural practices.
3. Emphasis should be placed on farmers who plant the seeds that already contain beneficial traits developed through biotechnology.
4. An accurate, rather than absolute, view of food and environmental safety determinations by regulators should be communicated for each product in each country.
5. Communications should emphasize the exhaustive research over many years that led to the introduction of each new product of food biotechnology.
6. Communications should underscore that additional food labeling requirements are necessary only when there is a significant change in the composition, nutritional value or introduction of a potential food allergen from a gene transfer.
7. Government and industry communications on food biotechnology must be consistent in order to earn consumer confidence.
8. Consumer group activism does not necessarily reflect consumer attitudes, and many consumer groups either support or do not oppose biotechnology.
9. Multi-national approvals on many products of food biotechnology are the result of strong international scientific consensus.
10. It is important to stress that food biotechnology also provides important benefits in addressing hunger and food security throughout the world.
MYTHS AND FACTS ABOUT FOOD BIOTECHNOLOGY
------------------
MYTH: The application of biotechnology to crops and food is very different from traditional agricultural methods.
FACT: Biotechnology is an evolution of traditional agricultural methods. In the past 10,000, years people have routinely used their knowledge of plants to improve food production. Biotechnology is simply the latest development in the evolution of agricultural methods. Farmers used to rely on plant breeding to add or eliminate specific genetic traits in a plant. For example, corn today looks nothing like it did one hundred years ago because of plant breeding. Although it typically took several growing seasons to produce a plant that expressed a desired trait, farmers were able to create crops that:
-- were resistant to drought, insect pests and diseases;
-- possessed stronger stalks and improved ability to withstand strong winds; and
-- produced higher yields.
Genetic enhancement, a key feature of modern agricultural biotechnology, is a more efficient and precise way to achieve the benefits of crop improvement. Using new technologies, scientists are now able to pinpoint the gene responsible for a particular trait, then extract, or add, that gene to a specific plant. This process is faster and more precise than previous methods of plant breeding, and offers farmers a broader choice of how to improve their crops and manage their farms.
----------------------
MYTH: Foods produced using biotechnology have not been established as safe nor are they adequately regulated.
FACT: Biotechnology is one of the most extensively researched and reviewed agricultural developments ever. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the United States Department of agriculture (USDA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as well as individual state governments work together to ensure that crops produced through biotechnology are safe to eat. In 1992, FDA determined that crops produced by biotechnology must meet the same rigorous standards as those created through traditional means.* While there is no such thing as "zero risk" for any food, consumers can be confident that foods produced using biotechnology meet the government's stringent food safety standards. Years of research indicate the benefits of agricultural biotechnology far outweigh any risks.
* Federal Register Vol. 57 No. 104/Friday, May 29, 1992
Companies conduct advanced research and analyses on food developed using biotechnology. This adds an additional layer of safety. FDA recently applauded several companies for taking extra steps to protect consumers and "doing far more extensive testing than has ever been done . . .* This combination of efforts to ensure safety indicates a high level of care administered in bringing food products using biotechnology to market.
* James Maryanski, Ph.D., May 26, 1999 Worldnet interview
--------------------
MYTH: Foods produced using biotechnology are brand new.
FACT: Foods produced using modern biotechnology have been available since 1990. Modern agricultural biotechnology can be likened to the process that bakers, brewers, vintners and dairymen have been used for centuries when they applied biology to modify genes to make bread, beer, wine and cheese.
Examples of foods and crops produced using biotechnology that are currently available in the U.S. include:
-- Tomatoes with delayed ripening traits that have better flavor, remain fresh longer and withstand transport better than traditional tomatoes.
-- Soybeans, canola, corn, cotton and potatoes resistant to either insects, herbicides or both.
-- Squash resistant to a virus that often kills the vegetable on the vine.
-- Soybeans and canola that produce reduced saturated fat cooking oil.
All of these foods have undergone rigorous testing and have proven to be safe to eat.
-------------------
MYTH: The application of biotechnology to food only benefits food producers, not consumers.
FACT: Biotechnology benefits both producers and consumers. Products recently introduced to the market provide obvious consumer benefits such as enhancing flavor and freshness, boosting nutritional value and reducing saturated fat content. Biotechnology has additional indirect benefits for consumers including reduced use of pesticides and more sustainable tillage practices, which address costly environmental problems like water pollution. For developing countries, biotechnology can increase yields, thereby helping to address food shortages and hunger.
In time, biotechnology may produce: biodegradable packaging; alternatives to chemical pharmaceuticals; and more healthful food products (e.g., vegetables with increased quantities of antioxidants to reduce the risk of cancer; fruits as a delivery medium of vaccines for diseases that devastate Third World countries).
Research shows that U. S. Consumers strongly support these products. According to a study conducted by the International Food Information Council (IFIC) in February 1999, 62 percent of U. S. Consumers were likely to buy produce modified to improve taste and freshness. Seventy-seven percent were likely to buy produce modified to protect against insects.* Most important, consumers are optimistic about the potential of biotechnology. Three out of four Americans surveyed in February 1999 for a study conducted by IFIC believe biotechnology will provide benefits to their family in the next five years.**
* "U.S. Consumer Attitudes Toward Food Biotechnology," International Food Information Council and the Wirthlin Group, February 1999.
** "U.S. Consumer Attitudes Toward Food Biotechnology," International Food Information Council and the Wirthlin Group, February 1999.
---------------------
MYTH: Without special labeling, consumers face unknown risks from food biotechnology.
FACT: The Food and Drug Administration's labeling policy for foods produced using biotechnology ensures that consumers are given important information about a change in the end product, not the process used to make the food. The FDA's guidelines were developed in the late '80s and early '90s.
The guidelines that FDA finalized in 1992 require foods grown using biotechnology, or foods containing ingredients that were derived from biotechnology, to have special labels if:
-- a known food allergen has been introduced;
-- the nutritional content of the food has been changed; or
-- the product's composition has been substantially changed.
Most American consumers support this policy. A study conducted by IFIC in February 1999 showed that four of five Americans (78 percent) support FDA's policy. Even when given the opposing view of some critics, consumers are more likely to agree with the labeling position of the FDA (58 percent) over that of others who want all biotech foods to be labeled even if the food has the same safety and nutritional content as other foods.
---------------------
MYTH: If crops from biotechnology are allowed into the food supply, people with food allergies will not be able to identify the foods to which they are allergic.
FACT: FDA has gone to great lengths to protect people with food allergies. The agency's 1992 guidelines require companies to label an end product if it contains any of the eight most common food allergens including milk, eggs, wheat, fish, shellfish, tree nuts, peanuts and soy. FDA evaluates all new foods--including those produced through biotechnology--for the presence of these allergens. Foods containing allergens would not be approved until FDA is satisfied there is a secure mechanism in place to protect sensitive consumers. In such situations, companies would label their products and identify the allergen. There are no foods currently on the market containing allergens transferred via biotechnology. Biotechnology may one day provide allergy experts the key to minimizing allergens from many foods that cause allergic reactions, by isolating and removing the level of protein from a particular allergen.
---------------------
MYTH: Crops and foods developed from biotechnology will increase a consumer's resistance to
antibiotics.
FACT: The FDA has determined there is no evidence of increased risk of antibiotic resistance in humans from foods developed using biotechnology. In past years, scientists have used genes derived from bacteria (also known as "selectable marker genes") to determine whether or not a specific trait has been successfully added or extracted from a plant. On occasion, antibiotic proteins are used as selectable markers, raising concerns the proteins will pass into the food supply and, when consumed, cause people to become resistant to antibiotics. However, in its review of this method, the FDA has determined its safety.
----------------------
MYTH: Crops produced using biotechnology will negatively impact the environment.
FACT: Biotechnology is a key element in sustainable agriculture that will benefit the environment. Benefits include reduced pesticide use, water and soil conservation and greater safety for workers and the ecosystem.
Many crops--including tomatoes, potatoes, corn and cotton--now have the internal ability to repel insects. Consequently, few applications of pesticide need to be applied to the plant. A certain type of corn used to feed hogs will reduce the phytic acid in animal waste that traditionally cause algae to grow in water supplies. Finally, the ability to obtain greater crop yield from existing land decreases the need to convert forests to farmland. All of these environmental benefits are possible because of biotechnology.
-----------------------
MYTH: The production of crops resistant to certain pests and weeds will trigger a natural evolution and lead to "Super Bugs" and /or "Super Weeds" immune to existing methods of pest and weed management.
FACT: There are no scientific studies suggesting this kind of scenario could occur as a result of crops developed through biotechnology. There are, however, many systems in place--including crop rotation, hybrid rotation and integrated pest management--as a precautionary measure to help prevent it from occurring. Insects and weeds already evolve and develop tolerance or resistance to their environment, so biotechnology can potentially better manage this evolution in resistance. The potential transfer of traits by pollen remains the same as ever.
As an example of such a precautionary measure, in January 1999 guidelines on insect resistance management (IRM) were developed by corn growers in cooperation with government, industry, academia and the environmental community to address the issue of adequate refuges. These guidelines require:
i) Growers to plant a minimum of 20 percent crops other than BT corn on their farm;
ii) Non-BT crops must be planted no more than a quarter mile from BT corn plants;
iii) All growers must sign an IRM agreement acknowledging they will use BT corn in accordance with the crop management standards outlined in i and ii above;
iv) Seed companies must use a uniform IRM agreement and pay for the continuing education needed for growers to implement IRM practices;
v) Growers are monitored for compliance;
vi) Companies must limit access to BT Technology to growers who repeatedly do not comply with IRM practices.
------------------------
MYTH: Genetically modified corn kills monarch butterflies.
FACT: In May 1999, Nature magazine published a letter from researchers at Cornell University that reported findings suggesting further research is needed in the relationship between pollen from select strains of BT corn and the monarch caterpillar. Since that publication, many university researchers have stepped forward to stress that the monarch study did not represent natural conditions, and that extensive environmental research has confirmed the safety of BT corn on non-target insects, such as the ladybird beetle, honeybee and the green lacewing, in the natural environment.
Dr. John Losey, the Cornell University entomology professor who conducted the research agreed with these researchers and noted, "Our study was conducted in the laboratory and, while it raises an important issue, it would be inappropriate to draw any conclusions about the risk to monarch populations in the field based solely on these initial results.*
As with any scientific issue, several studies are needed before conclusions can be made.
* 55 John Losey, Ph.D., press release, 6/10/99
------------------------
MYTH: Biotechnology cannot relieve world hunger.
FACT: Biotechnology can help alleviate hunger worldwide. In the next 50 years the global population is expected to double, reaching more than 8 billion people by 2050. Population growth and diet upgrading will require the food supply to increase by at least 205 percent from its current quantity." * The amount of land currently committed to food production--approximately 36 percent of the earth's cumulative land mass--cannot yield the amount of food needed by this increased population." ** Although forests could be cleared to obtain needed acreage, a better approach is to find ways of getting greater crop yield from existing land. Biotechnology can increase the quantity of the harvest by addressing the factors that traditionally deplete crops: pests, weeds, drought and wind. Plants from biotechnology can deal with these hardships, and dramatically increase the percentage of crops that survive and are harvested each year.
Developing countries such as China are already using biotechnology to develop crops valuable to their local economy that were previously not possible due to drought, high salinity and disease infestation. Biotechnology can help developing countries improve their agricultural productivity in environmentally-friendly ways, while not relying solely on distribution of foods grown elsewhere.
Former President Jimmy Carter stated in an August 1998 editorial that developing countries need biotechnology products. "If imports like these are regulated unnecessarily, the real losers will be the developing nations. Instead of reaping the benefits of decades of discovery and research, people from Africa and Southeast Asia will remain prisoners of outdated technology. Their countries could suffer greatly for years to come."
* Alex Avery, Hudson Institute, 6/23/99, Based on projections by World Bank, UN & FAO
** Alex Avery, Hudson Institute, 6/23/99 (Note: 11% of current land committed to food production is used for crops production; 26% is used for pasture and (grazing.)
------------------------
MYTH: The long-term effects of foods developed using biotechnology are unknown.
FACT: From years of research, we know that the benefits of food biotechnology are tremendous, with no additional risk. The scientific consensus is that the risks associated with food biotechnology products are fundamentally the same as for other foods. Current science shows that foods made from biotechnology are safe to consume, and safe for the environment. For this reason, FDA, USDA, EPA and a host of other regulatory agencies have determined that these products are safe to introduce to the food supply. While there is no such thing as "zero risk" for any food, consumers can be confident that foods produced using biotechnology meet the government's most stringent food safety standards. The future is never guaranteed, but years of research and the absence of harmful evidence indicates the benefits of agricultural biotechnology far outweigh any risks.
When asked about the "hysteria" surrounding the application of biotechnology to food in Europe, Dr. James Watson, the scientist who discovered the structure of DNA, likened the resistance to the initial ban placed on medical biotechnology. If that ban had continued, it would have stopped us from understanding cancer and a whole host of things," he noted. "To argue that you don't know what is going to occur is true about everything in life. People wouldn't get married, have children, do anything . . ."
ITEMS OF INTEREST
1999 ALMANAC PUBLISHED
Pre-publication orders for THE 1999 ALMANAC of the Canning, Freezing, Preserving Industries were shipped the week of July 28th, Edward E. Judge & Sons-Publishers, have announced.
True to its name "THE 1999 ALMANAC" contains a wealth of information updated to June 15, 1999 bound into 824 pages. Divided into eleven major sections it includes: food law and regulations, FDA labeling and CGMP regulations, nine years of fruit and vegetable crop statistics, frozen food pack statistics, import/export data, USDA Quality grade Standards, FDA and trade association contacts, a machinery buyer's guide and so on.
The ALMANAC contains numerous "finding aids" allowing fast access to the complex federal rules. Topical subheads at strategic locations throughout the regulations make it possible to go directly to a specific regulatory topic or to browse effectively. The Almanac's eight page Index To Contents includes extensive subject indexing and cross-indexing. Each Almanac section contains a Section Index. There are "at a glance" Part Indexes to The Code of Federal Regulations (21CFR, 1-199), and The Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, with Almanac page numbers referenced. References to proposed rules and FDA compliance-policy guides at strategic places are unique to this handy reference source.
For immediate shipment phone or write: Edward E. Judge & Sons, Inc.--Publishers, P.O. Box 866, Westminster, MD 21158 USA, Telephone 800-729-5517 or 410-876-2052, Fax: 410-848-2034, or E-mail: info@eejudge.com. The company also publishes THE DIRECTORY of the Canning, Freezing, Preserving Industries.
M.U. FOOD SCIENTIST TRAINS FOOD 'SANITARIANS' TO TEACH FOOD SAFETY AS THEY INSPECT KITCHENS
It's a moment restaurant owners dread: the unannounced arrival of a city or county health inspector, thermometer and clipboard in hand, ready to hand out demerits for food safety violations.
The other side of the story comes from the inspectors themselves. They steal a line from Rodney Dangerfield -- they get no respect. It's a tough job showing up in an eatery's kitchen, playing the "bad guy," looking for violations that could result in fines or even shutting down the restaurant.
Doug Holt from the University of Missouri-Columbia is trying to make the inspectors' jobs easier. He's conducting a series of 13 train-the-trainer sessions for inspectors (called sanitarians) across Missouri to make their jobs educational.
"Better than handing out demerits, I believe in a teachable moment," said Holt, M.U. associate professor of food science. "When you walk in a place and find cockroaches, use that moment to teach them how to prevent cockroaches rather than hit people over the head," he said. "You have a teachable moment."
The Missouri Department of Health sponsors Holt's two-day course. The training helps the sanitarians to conduct smoother inspections and to train restaurant workers in food safety. "Regulatory requirements for receiving food-handling certificates vary across the state. This can be a problem for operators of restaurants located in different cities. Yet the techniques for safe food handling are the same," he said.
Holt tells participants to know their audience, whether in teaching workers or conducting an inspection. Talking to a group of 16-year-old fast food workers is a lot different than dealing with a chef in a fine restaurant, he said. "You also have to consider gender, educational levels, and racial and ethic issues in working with people," he said.
"A typical sanitarian may inspect 200 restaurants a year," Holt said. "About a third of them also conduct regular training sessions for food service workers. The idea of my course is to teach them how to teach groups of food workers," said Holt. "I want the community to see the sanitarian as a resource rather than someone who comes in and watches over you. This is important," Holt says, "in light of increased national interest in consumer food safety."
Coleslaw, blamed for two large restaurant outbreaks in North Carolina and Indiana, caused 175 illnesses. Drinking water and pool water caused the second greatest number of illnesses, accounting for 147 illnesses and one death. Ground beef was suspected in 10 outbreaks, causing 83 illnesses and one death.
Sanitarians learn tips on effective lectures, demonstrations, and use of video and visual aids in their work. These are the main things sanitarians look for when inspecting a restaurant kitchen: the temperature of hot foods must be kept above 140 degrees F. and temperature of cold foods must be below 45 degrees F.; a special food thermometer must be readily available; food must be stored properly, not spoiled and not in damaged cans; and stored food must be properly covered.
In addition, chemicals like silver polish or disinfectants must not be kept near food or food preparation areas. There should be no evidence of vermin. Kitchen staff should wear hats and gloves and not eat, drink or smoke. There should be no dirty dish rags on counter tops, and dishes should be stacked upside-down.
Rules & Regulations
NEW EGG SAFETY ANNOUNCED; SAFE-HANDLING LABELS AND REFRIGERATION WILL BE REQUIRED
Continuing their joint efforts to combat food-borne illness, the US Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) and the US Department of Health and Human Services' Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced three important new measures to prevent illnesses caused by contaminated eggs.
The FDA is proposing to require safe-handling statements on labels of shell eggs to warn consumers about the risk of illness caused by Salmonella Enteritidis (SE). FDA's proposed handling instructions will contain the following statement on each carton of eggs: "Safe Handling Instructions: Eggs may contain harmful bacteria known to cause serious illness, especially in children, the elderly, and persons with weakened immune systems. For your protection, keep eggs refrigerated, cook eggs until yolks are firm, and cook foods containing eggs thoroughly."
In addition, for the first time, there will be a uniform federal requirement that all eggs and egg products packed for consumers be refrigerated at 45 degrees F. or below. Retail establishments governed by the proposed FDA regulation include supermarkets, restaurants, delis, caterers, vending operations, hospitals, nursing homes and schools. In addition, FSIS is issuing a directive applying the refrigeration requirement to warehouses and other distribution locations that store shell eggs packed into containers destined for consumers, including transport vehicles. A joint FDA-FSIS risk assessment found that refrigeration makes it more difficult for SE bacteria to grow.
Finally, the President's Council on Food Safety will develop by November 1 a strategic plan to further improve the safety of shell eggs and processed egg products. The strategic plan will address the issue of controlling pathogens, including SE, and will suggest further steps to help better coordinate egg safety from the farm to the table.
"The Clinton Administration has made ensuring food safety a top priority," said Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman. "These additional steps will help educate consumers and reduce food-borne illness caused by contaminated eggs."
"Eggs are a good source of protein and can be a healthy and economical contribution to a well-balanced diet," said HHS Secretary Donna E. Shalala. "However, they need proper handling or they could potentially be the source of food-borne illness."
From 1996 to 1998, there has been a 44 percent decrease in the number of illnesses caused by SE, according to the Food-borne Diseases Active Surveillance Network, known as "Food Net," a collaborative effort of FSIS, FDA, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The measures announced may prevent up to 66,000 illnesses and 40 deaths per year. SE outbreaks have been attributed to under-cooked eggs or foods containing under-cooked eggs served in homes, private gatherings, commercial establishments such as restaurants, hospitals, nursing homes and schools.
Persons infected with SE microorganisms may experience diarrhea, fever, abdominal cramps, headaches, nausea and vomiting. Children, the elderly and persons with weakened immune systems may develop severe or even life-threatening illness.
FDA and FSIS share federal regulatory responsibility for egg safety, with the regulation of shell eggs primarily the responsibility of FDA. In may 1998, FSIS and FDA announced plans for additional measures to ensure the safety of eggs and requested public comments on these plans. These announcements are the latest steps in the ongoing effort.
The FDA proposal is on display in the Federal Register. Written comments and recommendations on the proposed rule will be accepted for the next 75 days. The FSIS directive takes effect on August 27.