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?
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 Platformtoday 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.
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.”
Gerald Zirnstein, a former microbiologist with USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service, calls the product “pink slime” and doesn’t “consider the stuff to be ground beef,” according to a report carried yesterday evening on ABC National News.
The meat industry, including producers such as Beef Products Inc. and HRR Enterprises, Inc. call it Lean Finely Textured Beef, or LFTB – a far less catchy, but more accurate name.
Where does Lean Finely Textured Beef come from?
Producers of LFTB start with beef trim. This is the “waste” meat and fat that results from trimming higher quality beef cuts (such as steaks) to customer specifications, and is usually used to make ground beef.
The LFTB process begins by separating most of the fat from the beef. This is done by warming the trim and “spinning out” the fat in centrifuges. The result is a very lean beef: approximately 94-97% lean, according to Beef Products Inc. This lean beef can be mixed with higher-fat beef in order to produce low-fat ground beef and processed meat products.
What’s the deal with ammonia? Is it legal? Is it safe?
Ammonia is formed naturally in the body as a result of protein digestion by bacteria that live in the intestines. The ammonia is carried in the blood (as ammonium hydroxide) to the liver; there it is converted to urea, which exits the body in the urine. It is normal and usual to find a certain amount of ammonium hydroxide in meat.
“Ammonia and the ammonium ion are integral components of normal metabolic processes and play an essential role in the physiology of man. Although there have been no significant feeding studies specifically designed to ascertain the safety threshold of ammonium compounds as food ingredients, numerous metabolic studies have been reported in the scientific literature. Extrapolation of these findings to the concentrations of ammonium compounds normally present in foods does not suggest that there would be untoward effects at such levels. In the light of the foregoing, the Select Committee concludes that: There is no evidence in the available information on ammonium bicarbonate, ammonium carbonate, ammonium chloride, ammonium hydroxide, mono and dibasic ammonium phosphate, and ammonium sulfate that demonstrates, or suggests reasonable grounds to suspect, a hazard to the public when they are used at levels that are now current or that might reasonably be expected in future.”
Ammonium hydroxide also is included in the USDA’s list of Safe and Suitable Ingredients Used in the Production of Meat, Poultry, and Egg Products (FSIS Directive 7120.1, Revision 2; last revised 4/12/10). It is used as a pH control agent in brine solutions for meat products, and as an antimicrobial agent for beef carcasses (in hot boxes and holding coolers) and boneless beef trimmings. Ammonia gas (anhydrous ammonia) is also used as an antimicrobial agent for lean finely textured beef.
Ammonia and ammonium hydroxide are among several antimicrobial agents that may be used on beef and poultry without labeling disclosure. Organic acid blends, calcium hypochlorite, chlorine gas, citric acid, lactic acid, and trisodium phosphate are other examples. All of these agents are considered by FDA and USDA to be processing aids rather than ingredients, when they meet one of the following criteria:
(a) substances that are added during the processing of a food but are removed in some manner from the food before it is packaged in its finished form;
(b) substances that are added to a food during processing, are converted into constituents normally present in the food, and do not significantly increase the amount of the constituents naturally found in the food; or
(c) substances that are added to a food for their technical or functional effect in the processing but are present in the finished food at insignificant levels and do not have any technical or functional effect in that food.
Do we need to worry about E. coli and Salmonella in LFTB from Beef Products Inc.?
Beef Products Inc. has adopted ammonium hydroxide treatment of its LFTB products in order to kill the pathogenic bacteria that may otherwise be present in the meat. And they’ve gone beyond USDA’s current pathogen testing requirements for these harmful bacteria. In July 2011, the company announced that it had initiated a “test and hold” policy in addition to its various preventative sanitation and food safety programs.
Every box of LFTB is sampled, and the samples sent to independent third-party labs for analysis. Every box of LFTB is held at the plant until the labs confirm that all specifications – including the absence of Salmonella, E. coli O157:H7 and other STEC bacteria – have been met. Only once the satisfactory results have been confirmed does the company allow its product to leave the premises.
What do the experts say about LFTB?
I asked Dr. James Marsden (Regent’s Distinguished Professor of Food Safety and Security at Kansas State University) for his opinion.
“There are,” he said in an emailed reply, “all kinds of ingredients in food products that can be falsely characterized as unappetizing when viewed out of context. When lay persons see the processes of cheese manufacturing, wine making and the production of the most high quality gourmet processed meats, some of the stages in the process are less than appetizing.”
“I think the criticism of BPI’s products are based on quality perceptions, not food safety,” Dr. Marsden added. “It should, however, be recognized that BPI made great strides in improving the safety of ground beef through their unique food safety processes. On the one hand, consumers demand safe foods and are right to do so; they also need to recognize that the production of safe foods requires processing interventions.”
In other words, it might have an image problem, but Lean Finely Textured Beef – aka ‘pink slime’ – is safe to eat.
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.
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.
eFoodAlert 