Findings highlight the public health risk associated with these items and provide further justification for continued surveillance and controls during production and throughout the food chain, according to the study published in the journal Epidemiology and Infection.
It reviewed microbiology results from 2,500 raw drinking milk and dairy products made with unpasteurized milk examined in England between 2013 and 2019. Samples were collected from the point of sale and place of manufacture as part of incidents of contamination, investigation of infections, or routine monitoring and were tested using standard methods for pathogens and hygiene indicators.
Raw cow’s milk for drinking can only be sold at farms and farm shops at production, including local deliveries and farmer’s markets. These restrictions do not apply to milk from other species or other dairy products made from unpasteurized milk.
Results and outbreaks
The dataset included: 719 raw cow’s milk from 2017 to 2019, 584 raw milk from non-bovine animals; 100 cream, two ice cream, 37 butter, 24 kefir, and 1,063 cheeses from 2013 to 2019.
Amongst all 2,529 samples tested, 69 percent were classed as satisfactory microbiological quality, 10 percent were borderline, 16 percent were unsatisfactory and 5 percent were unsatisfactory and posed a potential risk to public health due to pathogens. Results from routine monitoring were satisfactory for 62 percent of milk, 82 percent of cream, all ice cream, 51 percent of butter, 63 percent of kefir, and 79 percent of cheeses.
For all samples, 56 bovine milks and 79 cow or goats milk cheeses were associated with six incidents of infection. These included three raw cow’s milk outbreaks in 2017 with seven cases of STEC O157: H7, four Campylobacter infections, and one patient with Salmonella Dublin.
One person got Salmonella Mbandaka from cheese made at the same farm previously linked to a STEC outbreak, one listeriosis patient bought cheese from a farm shop in 2016, and coagulase-positive staphylococci (CPS) contamination involved hard goat’s milk cheese which did not enter the food chain in 2013.
Results of microbiological testing of cow’s drinking milk and cheese samples collected during incidents and foodborne outbreaks showed a higher proportion as potentially injurious to health: 44 percent compared to 20 percent for those taken for routine monitoring.
Routine monitoring findings
In raw drinking milk collected for routine monitoring, cow’s milk was generally of poorer microbiological quality than goat’s or sheep’s milk, for the presence of indicators and pathogens. Two unsatisfactory goat’s milk samples had high levels of CPS and unsatisfactory levels of aerobic colony counts (ACC) and coliforms: both samples came from the same farm in the same year.
For raw cow’s drinking milk tested in routine monitoring, results from 24 samples were unsatisfactory because of the presence and levels of pathogens. Campylobacter spp. were isolated from 18 cow’s milk samples, 13 of which came from three producers. In five other samples, Salmonella Mbandaka was isolated from one, unsatisfactory levels of coliforms detected in three, and unsatisfactory ACCs were found in the final sample. In one cow’s milk sample there was an unsatisfactory level of Listeria monocytogenes.
Salmonella was detected in three samples, once it was Salmonella Mbandaka and in the other two, Salmonella Dublin was isolated on different occasions from the same dairy. In the remaining three cow’s milk samples potentially risky to health, STEC was isolated. Two isolates came from different samples from the same farm and were both STEC O113: H4, the final isolate was STEC O15: H16.
Amongst the 984 kinds of cheese tested as part of routine monitoring, 80 percent were of satisfactory microbiological quality, 5 percent were borderline, 10 percent were unsatisfactory and 5 percent potentially injurious to health.
Goat milk cheeses were of poorer microbiological quality than those from the milk of other species. The 47 cheese were categorized as posing a risk to health because of high levels of Listeria monocytogenes or CPS, or isolation of Salmonella, E. coli O157, or STEC. Two possible cases with indistinguishable Salmonella Newport isolated from a hard cow’s milk cheese were found. Two samples of kefir were unsatisfactory due to CPS: one was prepared from cow’s milk and the other from goat’s milk.
Results indicated statutory hygiene indicator tests for raw drinking milk do not correlate well with the presence of pathogens but analysis of data from cheese showed an association between increasing levels of indicator E. coli with elevated levels of CPS and detection of stx genes. Isolation of STEC was significantly associated with lower levels of indicator E. coli.
The review found a similar level of adverse results to that reported previously for samples tested between 2014 and 2016 showing there is no evidence to support improvement in microbiological quality despite efforts by the Food Standards Agency. The FSA recommends businesses test raw bovine milk for indicator bacteria (E. coli, Listeria spp., ACCs, coliforms) and pathogenic bacteria (Salmonella, STEC, Campylobacter, CPS, and Listeria monocytogenes).
(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety Website, click here.)
]]>In the midst of this COVID-19 pandemic, misinformation has spread rapidly and the need for a place to find fact-checked information has become vital. CSPI has met this need with a filterable directory of web sites identifying clinical trials of treatments, vaccines, diagnostic tests, and effective public health measures to address the COVID-19 pandemic.
CSPI’s Evidence Hub is organized based on three content categories (or some combination of these):
Three new sites have been added to the Evidence Hub:
These sites function as databases that allow quick access to COVID-19 studies.
CSPI says that it is maintaining an evidence hub for vaccines, treatments, and tests, and is working to stop the spread of disease by advocating for worker safety. They also say that, “to alleviate hunger and stimulate the economy CSPI is urging Congress to increase access to, and benefits from, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP. And, CSPI is policing the marketplace and urging regulators to crack down on supplement manufacturers and others who would try to exploit the pandemic for profit.”
For more information on CSPI or the Evidence Hub, visit their website.
(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety Website, click here)
]]>Organizers specifically said they based their decision on the fact that the virus continues to spread, calling the pandemic “persistent.” The event usually attracts thousands of attendees from around the world. The organization’s (IAFP’s) website includes a page to submit virtual registrations. Registration opens Aug. 10 for the Oct. 26-28 meeting and symposia conference.
“IAFP is committed to producing a high-quality program in the virtual setting, including presentations, general sessions, exhibits, and award recognitions. After-hour options are being planned to offer conversation and networking opportunities,” according to the organization’s announcement.
Attendees can find information about this year’s virtual event on the IAFP’s page of frequently asked questions.
No action is required for attendees who registered for the in-person event. The registration will be transferred to the Virtual Annual Meeting. Registrants will receive an email confirming registration by Aug. 15, according to IAFP officials.
Two other key FAQs are included on the page:
Q: I am currently registered for the Annual Meeting and do not plan to attend the Virtual Annual Meeting. What do I need to do?
A: You may request a full refund by sending an email to Julie Cattanach at jcattanach@foodprotection.org.
Q: I had canceled my registration for the previously scheduled Annual Meeting, but I am now able to attend the Virtual Annual Meeting. Can I reinstate my registration?
A: Yes. You may register beginning the week of Aug. 10 for the Virtual Annual Meeting.
Other FAQ questions cover housing, trade show details, and information for presenters.
All registration related questions should be directed to Julie Cattanach at jcattanach@foodprotection.org.
(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety Website, click here.)
]]>In other words, the Purdue research team’s technology can create hard metal surfaces that kill bacteria trying to attach to it.
David Bahr, team leader and professor of materials engineering at Purdue, said this technology applies primarily to food processing and cutting surfaces, which can be especially vulnerable to bacteria growth because of the materials and surface designs.
This technology can reduce the risk of cross-contamination. Cross-contamination is the transfer of harmful bacteria to food from other foods, cutting boards, utensils, etc. This is especially true when handling raw meat, poultry, and seafood, as placing them on the same hard surface as already cooked or ready-to-eat foods and fresh produce can spread harmful bacteria.
“Our technology can help ensure that if a food processing facility was chopping salad greens, bacteria would not transfer from a contaminated surface to a cutting tool, thereby contaminating many more parts,” said Bahr. “When used in conjunction with food washing and other safe handling, this should allow fewer outbreaks of foodborne illness.”
Bahr explained that the Purdue team creates an oxidized metal surface with nanometer-wide and micrometer-deep cracks where antimicrobial peptides can be infused in these microscopic cracks with a simple wet process. The material stored in the cracks release over time, and the oxidation process also colors the material, which provides a visual indicator of the materials remaining antimicrobial resistance. The process works on stainless steel and titanium and can be used on a wide range of commercial metal alloys.
The creators are now looking for partners to commercialize their technology.
For more information on licensing this innovation, contact Dipak Narula of Purdue Research Foundation Office of Technology Commercialization at dnarula@prf.org.
(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety Website, click here)
]]>More than a dozen scientists, government officials and corporate representatives joined forces yesterday for the “COVID-19 & Food Safety Global Summit,” which was organized by the International Association for Food Protection. The three-session web event attracted hundreds of attendees from around the world. Registered attendees will have access to a playback of the webinar and will be notified by email on how to access it.
During Sessions 1 and 3 presenters touched lightly on the knowledge gap involving the coronavirus and food safety. During Session 2 the presenters and moderator gave their full discussion to what we don’t know and what that means.
“. . . The science is moving very quickly,” said Ben Chapman, panelist and professor and extension specialist at North Carolina State University. “. . . We’re kind of making decisions a little bit blind.”
Also on the panel was Lawrence Goodridge, Leung Family Professor in Food Safety, Director of the Canadian Research Institute for Food Safety, Director of the Food Safety & Quality Assurance MSc Program, all in the Department of Food Science at the University of Guelph. Donald Schaffner moderated the panel. He also comes from academia, being distinguished professor and extension specialist at Rutgers University.
Goodridge agreed that knowledge gaps are hampering food safety decisions and plans in regard to COVID-19 mitigation. One thing, Goodridge said, that is not unknown are the hygiene practices and food safety procedures that are already in place. Current best practices are a better jumping off point than a food system with no controls at all.
Chapman and Goodridge also agreed that there is very little in the way of published research on the topic of food safety and the virus. Both acknowledged the current thinking is that the current form of the virus is not foodborne, but both pointed to other ways it is impacting food safety.
Without that research, Chapman said, it is “really hard to make best practices decisions.”
Specific knowledge gaps mentioned by Goodridge included information about different virus strains and different foods, buffet and self-serve situations, and various retail scenarios.
In addition to the nuts and bolts of needed research, the panelists discussed the need for the focus right now in the food industry to be on worker-to-worker infection control.
“One factor we are trying to address here is worker-to-worker transmission and it’s impact on food safety,” Chapman said.
During the question and answer portion of the session one attendee asked about environmental sampling to determine whether the virus is present in food facilities on hard surfaces or other contact points. Chapman did not hesitate with his answer.
“The early detection system of watching for sick employees (is key). We need to focus on person-to-person transmission, not environmental sampling,” Chapman said.
The summit was partially sponsored by the Seattle law firm Marler Clark LLP. Founding partner Bill Marler is publisher of Food Safety Website.
(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety Website, click here.)
]]>Speakers for the summit’s third of three sessions included:
Navigating COVID in the Food Supply Chain
John Donaghy, head of food safety for Nestle S.A.
Donaghy presented “lessons from the land of lockdown” on how Nestle has dealt with the pandemic. Nestle is a global company with factories even in China, which put the company on the front line of dealing with and adapting to this pandemic. He explained that information about the coronavirus started as a trickle and turned into an avalanche of data. The company’s first priority was the health and safety of workers, followed by protecting business continuity.
A number of factors worked together to make producing enough food possible:
Challenges
Nestle has thousands of suppliers, many of which were not able to supply for periods during this pandemic. On site visits have had to stop amid travel restrictions and now Nestle has had to do off site audits.
“We had to reassure them about the safety of packaging,” Donaghy said. People who listened to the news were worried about where the packages came from, and if they could get sick from the contents.
“A piece of equipment doesn’t know a pandemic is going on,” Donaghy said, explaining how normal problems and breakdowns became bigger issues. Mechanics and experts on machines could not get to the places to fix things in person. This required things to be fixed through virtual instruction.
There was also a massive move to eCommerce. Nestle had to shift to new types of packaging and increase significantly the number of eCommerce products they were producing.
Other strategies and points of control for Nestle included everything from locker rooms to more buses.
Administrative and engineering solutions
Physical distancing: not just in the production area
Added restrictions and distancing solutions
Questions about how to proceed in the beginning
Donaghy talked about how face masks and whether or not to wear them became a big issue and evolving issue during the past few months. The availability of masks was questioned when the World Health Organization initially told the public not to wear masks to save them for healthcare workers. Other issues that arose were questions of where to procure masks, how to train/educate on wearing masks, whether masks needed to be disposed of, or could be reuse or washed.
Food Safety and COVID Employee Training
Michelle Danyluk, professor of food science, University of Florida
Danyluk provided information on how food workers’ food safety training has changed. The approach now includes a focus on viral pathogens, she said before listing other factors.
Risk of virus spread was focused on the fecal-oral route and now includes a respiratory route and person to person transmission.
Emphasis on hand hygiene/washing and personal hygiene now includes an emphasis on exposure risks outside the workplace.
Focus on cleaning and sanitizing must now add mask use as PPE.
Social distancing
It must be explained that 6 feet is not a magical number that the virus can’t move beyond, more distance is better, the professor said. Dunyluk explained that “these discussions are not easy for workers to have.”
Challenges with COVID Training
Danyluk, frankly, is concerned about a lack of concern. No direct emotional connection is also a negative factor in her opinion.
People think precautions infringe on rights or that the whole thing is fake, “just the flu” she said. Complicating the problems are a lack of hard science and vaccine reluctance. Understanding the bullet points of transmission is key for workers.
Agricultural workers have a reduced risk of transmission because they are outside, but there’s still risk. “Hard for them to understand the risk,” Danyluk explained. “They think (low-risk) means no risk.”
Danyluk emphasized the importance of employee trust, that workplaces must convince workers that they care if they get sick.
Mask challenges
Lastly, Danyluk explained how these efforts can become more difficult with the spread of misinformation in media and social media.
Implementing an optimal hygiene program
Ruth Petran, senior corporate scientist for food safety and public health for Ecolab
Petran explained that an overall risk-based approach for COVID-19 management should include considerations for implementing an optimal hygiene program.
The challenge Petran presented is to answer the question — How can we optimally manage risks of a new illness agent that we are still learning about?
“The good news is that coronavirus is a small-enveloped virus. Enveloped viruses are the least resistant to disinfection, which means disinfectants can be used to effectively kill coronavirus on surfaces,” Petran said.
There can be confusion, however, about the differences between various procedures — Cleaning removes soil; sanitizing reduces the number of bacteria; disinfecting destroys bacteria and viruses; and we need to use disinfecting against Sars-CoV- 2.
Four steps
Key Points
AOAC RI Emergency Response Validation for Detection of SARS-CoV-2 on Surfaces
Sharon Brunelle, AOAC technical consultant
In Brunelle ‘s talk, she explained how AOAC Research Institute is working on validating commercial proprietary SARS-CoV-2 test kits for surfaces. More information on AOAC RI SARS-CoV-2 tests can be found on their website.
How might wastewater surveillance fit into the big picture of detection and control?
Kali Kniel, professor of microbial food safety in the Department of Animal and Food Sciences, University of Delaware
Last in the IAFP Global Summit session, Kniel talked briefly about how wastewater surveillance is being used as a method of early coronavirus outbreak detection.
“Now it (wastewater surveillance) is being used to find an increase in SARS-CoV-2 in areas.”
Though this process is early in its development, Kniel thinks it has exciting potential to get ahead of the curb in dealing with the virus. “Why we still don’t know the best fit, it is a complementary tool for surveillance.”
The summit was partially sponsored by the Seattle law firm Marler Clark LLP. Founding partner Bill Marler is publisher of Food Safety Website.
(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety Website, click here)
]]>Takeaways, sandwich shops and convenience retailers are significantly less likely to meet hygiene standards compared to restaurants.
The study paper, published in the journal Health and Place, used statistics from the Food Hygiene Rating Scheme (FHRS) alongside small area socio-demographic data and neighborhood characteristics.
Researchers said based on bias and inaccurate data, food safety interventions have focused on the vulnerable, and fail to consider populations at risk due to negative neighborhood features.
Datasets were collected from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) digital boundaries, ONS 2011 census, ONS 2011 UK Townsend Deprivation Scores, ONS Rural and Urban Classification 2011 and FHRS scores from October 2018.
Food outlets are given a FHRS score ranging from zero, meaning urgent improvement required, to five, meaning very good. Display of scores is mandatory in Wales and optional in England.
Link between compliance and deprivation
Presence of non-white ethnicities is negatively associated with the probability of food establishment compliance. Results of modeling show that outlets in areas with a higher percentage of white individuals have an increased probability of compliance.
Food outlets in the fourth and fifth sections of deprivation have statistically decreased probability of compliance, showing an association between compliance and deprivation. Probability of food site compliance decreases as deprivation increases, with those in the most deprived areas 25 percent less likely to meet hygiene standards compared to the least deprived areas.
Outlets in areas with high percentages of individuals without access to a car, and zones with a high rate of overcrowded households have decreased probability of compliance.
For establishments in rural hamlets and isolated dwellings the probability of compliance is 24 percent higher than those in an urban city or town. Premises within a multi-municipality area have a decreased probability of compliance and are 32 percent less likely to meet FSA hygiene standards.
As rural areas have lower net-migration compared to urban ones, this could result in increased staff retention, more in-depth training, and a better understanding of food hygiene practices. In urban areas, higher business turnover could be a driver of decreased probability of compliance, according to researchers.
Compliance by outlet type
Supermarkets and hypermarkets are up to three times more likely to meet hygiene standards than restaurants, cafes and canteens. Takeaways and sandwich shops are 50 percent less likely to be compliant compared to restaurants.
Results show that age and ethnicity have small but significant associations with hygiene standards, whereas deprivation, urbaness and outlet type have a larger and significant impact.
Takeaways, sandwich shops, small retailers such as convenience stores, and outlets in deprived and metroplex areas have significantly decreased probability of compliance compared to restaurants, cafes, canteens, and sites in affluent areas, rural areas, cities and towns.
Populations of non-white ethnicity and those under 5 years of age should be considered at higher risk of exposure to a foodborne pathogen than white populations and individuals aged over 5 when eating outside the home, according to researchers.
Findings show that supermarkets and hypermarkets are more likely to have better hygiene practices than smaller stores such as newsagents, which increases food safety risk for deprived populations and those who may not be able to shop far away from their home.
Results could be used to prioritize inspections in places where the probability of compliance is lower. Increasing inspections in areas with a higher number of non-compliant outlets could decrease outbreaks. However, more inspections in deprived and primarily non-ethnic areas could be seen as an oppressive measure, which would place a larger burden on the proprietors, the scientists said..
“Based on our findings, we recommend that food establishment inspections are prioritized for takeaways, sandwich shops and small retailers such as convenience stores, especially in deprived and large urban areas. Conversely, restaurants, cafes, supermarkets, pubs, bars, hotels and guesthouses can be considered low risk, especially in more affluent and rural areas,” according to the research report.
The study does not account for food ordered via online delivery services which typically have a larger network than establishments offering traditional delivery services or behaviors such as consuming food after its use-by date and not cooking it thoroughly.
(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety Website, click here.)
]]>Toxoplasma gondii DNA was detected in 48 of 149 venison samples over two sampling periods. Consumption of undercooked meat is a known risk factor for toxoplasmosis infection.
Findings could be used to inform quantitative microbial risk assessments of foodborne toxoplasmosis in Scotland, according to the study published in the journal Food and Waterborne Parasitology.
Sampling results
Of the 300 meat samples purchased for testing in the first sampling period, 39 were positive for Toxoplasma gondii DNA. It was detected in one of 21 chicken samples, six of 87 lamb samples, three of 71 pork samples and 29 out of 82 venison samples. None of 39 beef samples were positive.
Some venison products in the first sampling period also contained pork. Of the 67 pure venison samples purchased in the second sampling period, 19 were positive for Toxoplasma gondii DNA.
Antibodies to Toxoplasma gondii were detected in the meat juice of two of 38 beef samples, three of 21 chicken samples, 14 of 85 lamb samples, two of 68 pork samples and 19 of 128 venison samples.
An average of 365 toxoplasmosis cases are clinically diagnosed in England and Wales each year and 33 infections are recorded annually in Scotland.
The first sampling period in April and November 2017 involved meat purchased from butchers, farmers markets, farm shops, and supermarkets. In the second round, 67 pure venison samples were bought from farmers markets, farm shops and supermarkets between June and August 2018. Of these samples, 28 were from wild deer and 39 from farmed deer.
All samples were purchased fresh and pre-packed except those from butcher shops which were packaged upon purchase. Different cuts were collected for each meat type.
When rearing conditions was available, 22 out of 39 beef samples were from pasture-reared animals, 10 of 21 chicken and 20 of 71 pork samples were from outdoor-reared animals and all lamb samples were from animals reared in the UK so were assumed to be outdoor-reared.
Venison market push
As part of Scotland Food and Drink Ambition 2030, there is planned expansion of the farmed venison sector with an emphasis on making it the main meat of choice for consumers. As it is common and sometimes recommended on packaging to consume venison undercooked, this meat could present a potentially significant source of foodborne toxoplasmosis, said researchers.
Out of three DNA isolates partially genotyped in the study, only one had Type II alleles at all the amplified markers and the others had Type I or a mix of alleles. Strains containing Type I or atypical alleles are more pathogenic or more likely to cause severe disease.
“The presence of Toxoplasma gondii with Type I alleles in a meat product which is commonly consumed undercooked, such as venison, could pose a potentially significant public health problem,” said researchers.
Further work is underway with additional fresh samples of venison to determine the viability of Toxoplasma gondii in these meat products to assess the foodborne risk.
(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety Website, click here.)
]]>Swiss experts have created and tested a portable device paired with a smartphone app that can measure methanol levels. When placed over an open container, the device uses a sensor that absorbs a vapor or gas sample from the beverage, and will warn if the methanol level is potentially harmful. It processes the methanol and ethanol at different speeds, allowing the chemicals to be detected in succession.
As the technology is inexpensive, it is suitable for poorer regions where food safety is a concern.
Scientists at the Particle Technology Laboratory (ETH) in Zurich, Switzerland spiked 89 alcoholic drinks with known levels of methanol. They found the device detected methanol accurately for 107 days of consecutive use, according to the study published in the journal Nature Food.
From 2017 to 2019, there were 306 registered methanol poisoning outbreaks, affecting 7,104 people and causing 1,888 fatalities. Ninety percent of the outbreaks were in Asia. The chemical can be formed naturally during fermentation but drinks are often deliberately adulterated with cheap methanol at up to 50 percent volume to increase profit and potency. Methanol can also accumulate in alcoholic drinks through improper brewing or distilling. It becomes highly toxic when metabolized by the human body.
Scale of the problem
In 2019, Israel’s Ministry of Health said at least 13 people had died in the country since 2018 because of methanol poisoning from alcohol. Also in 2019, Costa Rican health officials reported 76 patients had been hospitalized due to methanol poisoning and 29 had died. A total of 66,000 containers of banned beverages were seized.
In the last half of 2019, 40 cases were reported in Colombia while 33 have been recorded this year which could be associated with quarantine measures due to the coronavirus pandemic, according to the National University of Colombia.
In May this year, Mexican authorities issued a warning after the death of almost 50 people in different states due to consumption of allegedly adulterated alcoholic beverages. More than 110 people were affected in Jalisco, a Mexican state. The State Council against Addictions (CECA) said there had been around 190 deaths recently in different states due to adulterated beverages. It also estimated that between 40 to 50 percent of bottled alcohol sold in the country was tainted.
In June, officials in the Dominican Republic revealed more than 200 deaths and nearly 350 intoxications due to methanol adulterated beverages called “Clerén.”
It is believed that 500 patients have died and 60 people developed complete blindness due to methanol poisoning in Iran.
A July report in Alcohol and Alcoholism said fake news about the efficacy of substances to treat or prevent COVID-19 spread across social media. Production, distribution, and drinking alcoholic beverages are prohibited in the country.
“It was even recommended that ‘gurgling or drinking alcoholic beverages would disinfect the mouth or inside the body and prevent the infection by killing the viruses’. These factors altogether have led to numerous methanol poisoning deaths,” according to officials.
Finding methanol in beverages
Chemical methods have been needed to detect methanol but they are expensive, slow and only suitable for the laboratory. Compact gas sensors only work with a low alcohol content and cannot distinguish methanol from harmless ethanol. Currently, liquid chromatography is used for methanol testing, this is a lab technique that separates and measures different types of chemicals within a mixture. However, it is time-consuming and expensive.
In September 2019, ETH Zurich researchers presented the new technology which finds methanol and ethanol vapors within two minutes.
“The main innovation is that we have turned the initial concept into a fully integrated, handheld detector, which sniffs out the smallest amounts of methanol in beverages from all continents and displays the results on a smartphone wirelessly,” said Dr. Andreas Güntner.
The device weighs only 94 grams and is powered by a battery. Results are sent to a smartphone via Wifi and displayed immediately. If no Wifi connection is available, Bluetooth can be used. The app runs on Android and iOS and should be compatible with older devices.
It can be used by consumers and manufacturers to determine methanol content of alcoholic beverages. The design could be applied to other food contaminants such as to detect ammonia in spoiled fish.
The alcohol sensor uses nanoparticles of tin oxide doped with palladium. The two types of alcohol are separated in an attached tube filled with a porous polymer, through which the sample air is sucked by a small pump. As its molecules are smaller, methanol passes through the tube faster than ethanol due to its weaker adsorption onto the polymer surface.
A patent application has been submitted that covers the concept of selective methanol detection and is pending.
(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety Website, click here.)
]]>“Microorganisms Move a Short Distance into an Almond Orchard from an Adjacent Upwind Poultry Operation” comes as romaine growers continue to study the impact of a 100,000-head cattle feed lot adjacent to Arizona growing fields.
Lettuce growers from regions in California are also looking at implications of having animal operations in the areas near food crops. The Food and Drug Administration recently posted a conclusion that animal operations were the likely cause behind romaine E. coli outbreaks in 2018-19.
The almond research, published in the peer-reviewed journal Applied and Environmental Microbiology, involved a number of scientists:
Christopher G. Theofel, Thomas R. Williams, Eduardo Gutierrez, Gordon R. Davidson, Michele Jay-Russell, Linda J. Harris, and editor Donald W. Schaffner. They tested swab samples taken from orchard soil surface and air, soil, and almond leaf samples.
Researchers took samples from orchard air downwind of the unnamed poultry operation and at varying distances. Some samples came from around trees immediately adjacent to the poultry farm. Researchers took other samples from 60 and 120 meters into each orchard.
By far the air closest to the poultry operation had more E. coli than that further away.
“E. coli was isolated from 41 of 206 (20 percent) and 1 of 207 (0.48 percent) air samples in the almond-poultry and control orchards respectively,” according to the research abstract.
“Salmonella was not isolated from any of the 529 samples evaluated. On average, the amount of dry solids on leaves collected from trees closest to the poultry operation was more than 2-fold greater than from trees 120 meters into the orchard or from any of the trees in the control orchards.”
The researchers also looked at numbers for members of the Staphylococcaceae family of pathogens, which are often associated with poultry. They were, on average, significantly more abundant in orchard air closest to the poultry operation (10% of relative abundance) than in trees 120 meters into the orchard (1.7% relative abundance) or from any of the trees in control orchards (0.41% relative abundance).
Scientists wrapped up the study abstract with strong words about food fields near animal operations.
“Poultry-associated microorganisms from a commercial operation transferred a short distance into an adjacent downwind almond orchard,” according to the abstract.
“This study provides evidence that dust and bioaerosols moved from a commercial poultry operation a short distance downwind into an almond orchard and altered the microbiome recovered from the leaves. These data provide growers with information they can use to assess food safety risks on their property.”
(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety Website, click here.)
]]>