From The Mailbag: Botulism and Vacuum-Packed Fish

I received an email a couple of weeks ago from Pamela in Canada, who asked the following question:

“I live in Canada, in Toronto, and I’ve noticed that there have been two or maybe even three separate and apparently unrelated incidents here involving botulism in vacuum-packed fish in gourmet grocery stores. I think that at least in some cases, this is fish from other suppliers that the stores have simply repackaged. From my limited knowledge I also understand that botulism can flourish in an anaerobic environment – like that of a vacuum bag?? Which leads me to wonder….. Are vacuum bags safe? What’s going on here?”

I was reminded of Pamela’s question yesterday, courtesy of the latest food safety alert from FDA. Euphoria Fancy Food Inc. (Brooklyn, NY) is recalling Dried Bream (7.5-oz vacuum packed plastic bags; Product of Russia; No batch or date codes; UPC 7 930042 250954), which was found by the New York Department of Agriculture and Markets to not have been properly eviscerated prior to processing.

Several US states – including New York – have banned the sale of uneviscerated preserved fish, because the spores of Clostridium botulinum are more likely to be concentrated in the viscera than in any other part of the fish. New York State monitors for this hazard on a routine basis and issues an alert whenever it finds that uneviscerated or incompletely eviscerated fish are offered for sale. The state has posted three such alerts so far this year.

The hazard is not just academic. In April 2012, three people in the Greater Toronto (Ontario, Canada) area developed botulism after eating a traditional uneviscerated, salted and cured fish (fesikh) at a catered event. The fesikh was supplied by Lotus Catering and Fine Food in Toronto.

Fesikh is a traditional dish served as part of Egypt’s spring celebration, according to an article in the Egypt Independent. “The best fesikh,” the owner of a fish shop in Old Cairo told the reporter, “is made of grey mullet fish from either Bardawil Lake, or from Kafr al-Sheikh Governorate, and then left out in containers until distended. When it is sufficiently putrefied, salt is added and the fish are left to pickle for at least 40 days.”

Not all dried, smoked or preserved foods are encouraged to putrefy as part of their recipe. But, allowing the contents of the intestinal tract to remain inside the fish during its drying, salting, smoking or pickling steps is not a safe practice, even without the putrefaction step.

In addition to the fesikh health hazard alert, there have been two recalls of vacuum packaged fish in Canada in 2012 – both in Toronto. McEwan Gourmet Grocery Store recalled two brands of Smoked Salmon in April, and Pusateri’s Fine Foods recalled several different products in June. Unfortunately, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency did not explain why it thought that these products were potentially contaminated with Clostridium botulinum.

Pamela is correct – Clostridium botulinum loves a vacuum. Manufacturers who use vacuum-packaging as a means of extending the shelf life of a product must pay special attention to the processing and to the ingredients used to prevent this pathogen from growing. Nevertheless, the risk of contracting botulism from a correctly preserved and processed vacuum-packaged food is extremely low. Nor must a food be vacuum-packed in order to be the source of a botulism incident.

In 1978, a Colorado restaurant wrapped potatoes in foil, baked them, and allowed them to cool – still foil-wrapped – overnight without refrigeration. The next day, the potatoes were cut up to make potato salad. Twelve people developed botulism symptoms; seven of them were hospitalized. The temperature/time combination used to bake the potatoes was not enough to kill the Clostridium botulinum spores, and the ambient temperature cooling period allowed the microbe to germinate, grow, and produce its toxin in the tightly wrapped potatoes.

The bottom line is that food must be processed, stored and handled in a safe manner regardless of whether or not it is vacuum-packed. Or, as I recently told Food Safety News

Food safety is a farm-to-table responsibility, whether the table is in a family’s kitchen, a seniors’ residence dining hall, a school cafeteria or a five-star restaurant.

Who Cares Which E. coli Makes Someone Ill?

There’s been some hoopla in the food news this week. Six more E. coli serotypes (in addition to E. coli O157:H7) are now to be treated as adulterants by USDA when they are found in raw beef trim.

The addition of these toxin-producing E. coli serotypes to the pantheon of named adulterants is largely due to the efforts of Bill Marler. And I applaud his desire to advance food safety.

But what happens when an eighth serotype causes an illness outbreak? For example, E. coli O104:H4 the serotype that caused last summer’s massive outbreak in Germany, is not one of the “super six” newly named adulterants.

I was reminded of this problem yesterday while speaking with Dr. Raoult Ratard, State Epidemiologist with the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals. We were discussing the illness outbreak in several southern US states, and the shiga-toxin-producing E. coli O145 strain that was recovered from patients. As of today, there are 12 confirmed illnesses in Georgia (5), Louisiana (3, including a 21-month-old girl who did not survive), Alabama (2), Florida (1) and Tennessee (1).

I asked Dr. Ratard whether he could confirm that the Louisiana illnesses were due to E. coli O145. With a verbal shrug, he replied that he did not know; Louisiana does not do an immunological identification of E. coli strains, beyond determining whether or not they are E. coli O157:H7. He opined that this would be a waste of time and resources, given the number of different strains in circulation.

Instead, Louisiana looks for shiga-toxin producting E. coli, determines whether or not the strain is E. coli O157:H7, and runs a genetic profile (known as PFGE). The PFGE result is emailed to the CDC, and the culture is purified and shipped to the agency labs. As far as Louisiana is concerned, the exact identification of the E. coli serotype is interesting from an academic perspective, but not something that they care to spend time on.

After thinking about this for a couple of minutes, I found myself agreeing with Dr. Ratard. There was a time when determining the serotype was a useful tool in tracing the source of a disease outbreak. That tool has been supplanted by a much more precise and reliable tool, in the form of genetic profiling.

Which brings me back to USDA and the “super six serotypes” that are in the media spotlight. What the agency should have done – and what I proposed back in 2009 – was to simply declare ANY shiga-toxin producing E. coli as an adulterant.

The toxin doesn’t care which serotype is producing it.
The patients don’t care which serotype is making them ill.
The epidemiologists no longer rely on serotyping to define an outbreak.

So why should USDA set up seven individual small targets (E. coli O157:H7 and the “super six”) instead of a single inclusive target known around the world as “shiga-toxin producing E. coli?

Beats me!

What’s The Beef With BPI?

It comes from a cow.

It’s heated. The fat is separated from the protein by centrifugation, then added back to the protein in precise amounts to achieve a targeted fat percentage.

It has been treated to kill harmful bacteria.

It contains ammonia.

Its label does not disclose any of this.

GOT MILK?!??!??!

Next time you pick up a carton or jug of pasteurized reduced fat milk, look at the label. It doesn’t say “skim milk with 2% fat added back.” It doesn’t say “whole milk processed to remove the fat and add back a measured amount.” It doesn’t say “milk contains ammonia.” It says “reduced fat milk.”

After weeks of media reports, blog posts – some accurate, others less so – and public reaction to the “pink slim” story, I am left wondering why the target has been glued so firmly to the corporate back of Beef Products, Inc. After all, BPI is not the only producer of Lean Finely Textured Beef.

Cargill, a corporation that has had its share of food safety issues over the years, also makes and sells this product. Both Cargill and BPI treat their products chemically to eliminate harmful bacteria. BPI uses ammonia, which is a natural constituent of beef. Cargill uses citric acid, which – although a natural constituent of citrus fruit – typically is produced by fermentation of a sugar solution. Chemists use a calcium hydroxide treatment, followed by a sulfuric acid treatment to recover citric acid from the fermented solution.

Contrary to how it has been characterized in a number of media reports, BPI’s lean beef product is not a filler. Fillers, according to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) are “…mostly plant substances, low in protein and high in carbohydrates such as cereals, roots, tubers and vegetables and some refined products such as starches and flours. Pure meat products are very low in carbohydrates. Hence the addition of carbohydrate-rich substances is not an “extension” of the protein mix, but some new components “fill-up” the product volume. Apart from their volume-filling capacity, some fillers, in particular starches and flours, are also used for their capability to absorb extensive quantities of water.”

Bill Marler suggested in his Food Safety News Publisher’s Platform today that BPI should invite the public – not politicians – to tour its plant and taste its meat. Sounds like a great idea, but how many individual consumers have the time, the motivation, or the money to travel to BPI’s production plant? And would the company still be in business by the time its message was spread by word of mouth by these few consumers – even in this era of instant Internet news?

Bill also suggested that BPI should post its lab test results online, and should tell the public how the product is made and what is in it. “If you are proud of your product,” he writes, “explain in honest and clear terms why you are.”

The company has been trying to do this, including on YouTube. But their positive message is being overwhelmed by national media follow-up reports that continue to feed consumer concerns.

So, BPI invited ABC News – its most powerful media critic – to bring its camera into the plant. Yes, it also invited governors from the states in which it operates. And it invited consumer food safety advocate Nancy Donley, whose nonprofit organization, STOP Foodborne Illness, it helps support.

The plant tour was followed by a news conference, which can be viewed in its entirely here.

This is no longer a story about food safety – if it ever was. Near the end of the news conference, Jim Avila of ABC News was taken to task by Texas Governor Rick Perry. After first declining to answer Perry’s questions, Avila acknowledged that the safety of BPI’s meat was not at issue.

“We have,” Avila admitted, “never said this product is unsafe.”