Guest Blog: Reducing E. coli O157:H7 In Frozen Ground Beef

The following Guest Blog first appeared on Safety Zone, a regular blog feature on the Meatingplace.com site, and is reproduced here with the kind permission of its author, Dr. James Marsden.

Retail Frozen Ground Beef Patties and Risks of E. coli O157:H7

It’s time to recognize that retail frozen ground beef patties pose an increased risk to consumers and take steps to reduce that risk.

If you conduct a Google search using the words “frozen ground beef patties and E. coli”, you will see that this product category has been implicated in an inordinate number of cases, outbreaks and recalls. The Topps recall and other highly publicized events over the past several years resulted from contaminated frozen ground beef patties. The October New York Times story that described a devastating illness that resulted from E. coli O157:H7 contamination also involved retail frozen ground beef patties.

Frozen ground beef patties were also implicated in the 1993 Jack-in-the-Box outbreak and other early public health events involving E. coli O157:H7. Fast food chains have taken steps to assure the safety of frozen beef patties, including raw material and finished product testing, the implementation of validated cooking processes that fully inactivate E. coli O157:H7 and process control measures that guarantee proper cooking every time. These systems have been effective in controlling the problem in fast food restaurants and other restaurants that use frozen beef patties.

The problem still exists when consumers prepare retail frozen ground beef patties at home. This is because frozen patties are inherently difficult to cook uniformly and sufficiently to control pathogens. If all consumers were educated about the risks associated with frozen beef patties, and took the same steps that have been successful in restaurant preparation, the problem would be solved. This would require that great care be taken when cooking frozen beef patties and the universal use of thermometers to verify that the cooked product has reached a minimum temperature of 160 degrees F. Efforts to inform and encourage consumers to adhere to these practices should continue. However, it is not realistic to expect that all consumers will apply perfect cooking methods when preparing frozen ground beef patties. The risk of E. coli contamination in these products has to be reduced upstream.

Here are 6 steps that I believe would make frozen ground beef patties safer for consumers:

Assure that beef carcasses are processed to minimize the risk of pathogen contamination.
Apply a validated intervention to chilled beef carcasses prior to fabrication.
Test beef trimmings for E. coli O157:H7 using N-60 sampling procedures at slaughter plant.
Apply at least one validated intervention to beef trimmings before grinding.
Adopt a test and hold policy for finished frozen ground beef patties that applies to every production lot (Microbiological testing procedures now allow for results in less than 24 hours).
Implement a prominent labeling statement for frozen ground beef patties with consumer information that underscores the importance of proper cooking (in addition to safe handling labels).

These steps in addition to continued efforts to identify and implement pre-harvest interventions and carcass pasteurization technologies would reduce the risk of E. coli O157:H7 in retail frozen ground patties and also help restore consumer confidence in beef products in general.

About Jim Marsden: Dr. James L. Marsden is Regent’s Distinguished Professor of Food Safety and Security at Kansas State University, and the senior science advisor for the North American Meat Processors Association. He is the past president of the American Meat Institute Foundation in Washington, DC and a graduate of Oklahoma State University.

Guest Blog: Ten things government can do

Ten things government can do to help small plants improve food safety

Food safety standards are the same for all plants, big and small. Large companies usually have more resources to hire people, invest in interventions and maintain microbiological testing programs. Of course, this puts small plants at a disadvantage. The US Congress, USDA and other government agencies need to develop strategies to assist small plants or the meat industry will become even more concentrated. Here are 10 things that could be done to help small businesses improve food safety:

Congress should provide tax credits for investment in equipment and process improvements. This has the benefit of helping small businesses improve their food safety systems plus it will improve public health and reduce costs associated with foodborne disease.
USDA should establish a library of reference materials for use as supporting documentation for HACCP plans and SSOP’s.
The mission of USDA inspectors and EIAO Officers should be formally changed to facilitate food safety improvements.
USDA should establish requirements that beef slaughter plants implement at least two validated interventions (USDA’s AMS has already implemented this requirement for school lunch purchases).
USDA should require beef slaughter plants and plants that produce trimmings to test for E. coli O157:H7 and maintain process control records (AMS has already implemented this requirement for school lunch purchases as well). The combination of steps 4 and 5 will reduce the risk of pathogen contamination in meat raw materials for small businesses.
USDA should encourage better control of Listeria monocytogenes by dropping Alternative 3 and requiring all plants to either incorporate a growth inhibitor or use a post lethality treatment(or both). Small plants that operate under Alternative 3 are just waiting their turn for a recall.
Establish a dedicated USDA resource desk for small plants to help answer technical questions.
USDA should provide clear direction on methods for microbiological sampling and testing.
HACCP training should be offered on a USDA website that allows employee training without the expense of travelling to a course site and paying for registration.
USDA should protect small plants from being shut off by suppliers as a result of microbiological tests results or food safety policies.

No doubt there are many other actions that could be taken to help small plants improve food safety. This list of 10 is a good place to start.

Some explanatory notes for eFoodAlert readers:

USDA = United States Department of Agriculture

SSOP = Sanitation Standard Operating Practices

EIAO = Enforcement Investigations and Analysis Officer

AMS = Agricultural Marketing Service (an agency of USDA)

Alternative 3 = An alternative method for controlling Listeria monocytogenes in ready-to-eat meats that relies solely on sanitation and testing, without requiring the use of antimicrobial agents or a final lethal treatment to kill the bacteria.

Guest Blog: The Raw Milk Debate

The following Guest Blog first appeared on the ePerspective, a feature of the IFT newsletter, the weekly, and is reproduced here with the kind permission of its author, Dr. Catherine Donnelly.

The Raw Milk Debate: Economic Opportunity or Legal Liability?

Despite claims of health benefits associated with raw milk consumption, raw milk is a well documented source of bacterial pathogens which can cause human illness, and in some instances, death. Consumers who choose to purchase and consume raw milk should understand that raw milk may contain dangerous bacterial pathogens. Consumers should also understand whether they are in a risk group, which increases their chances of adverse health impacts from exposure to bacterial pathogens.

The dangers posed to public health by bacterial pathogens associated with raw milk consumption are numerous. Listeria monocytogenes, Salmonella Typhimurium, Escherichia coli O157:H7, and Campylobacter are just four of the pathogens of concern in raw milk. The bacterial pathogens posing a risk to consumer health have become more dangerous in the past two decades.

During this same period, the percentage of our population at risk for foodborne illness has increased significantly. It is critically important to understand risks posed by raw milk consumption, why the pathogens have become so dangerous, who is at greatest risk for severe illness and death, and why we need public health policies that limit exposure and warn susceptible consumers about dangers posed by raw milk consumption.

Of all of the food commodity sectors in the U.S., no sector is more committed to public health than the dairy industry. The reason for the absolute commitment to public health stems from early in the 1900s when raw milk was a major source of human disease, including tuberculosis and scarlet fever. Numerous deaths were linked to raw milk consumption. The public health response to this crisis was the crafting in 1924 of the Pasteurized Milk Ordinance (PMO), a comprehensive document which governs all aspects of production, processing, and marketing of milk and dairy products. Pasteurized milk is not a safe product simply due to the heat treatment which milk receives; milk safety is achieved because the PMO outlines a comprehensive system to assure milk safety.

The PMO is constantly updated, guided by scientific experts, farmers, and dairy industry personnel working through the National Conference on Interstate Milk Shipments (NCIMS) which works to “assure the safest possible milk supply for all the people” through enforcement of Grade A milk sanitation laws. The PMO has made pasteurized milk one of the safest food products available to consumers, and this ordinance has had a profound positive impact on public health. The PMO is the accepted operating guideline for the handling and production of milk and dairy products in most states. Adherence to the PMO importantly protects the U.S. milk market by enhancing consumer confidence in dairy product safety and reducing liability costs of this economically significant sector of the U.S. agricultural economy.

Many states have recently passed legislation to expand the sale of unpasteurized milk, allowing farmers to sell larger quantities of unpasteurized milk and thereby enhance economic opportunities in these times of severe economic challenges for so many dairy farmers. However, should economic opportunity be met at the expense of public health? Does pursuit of economic opportunity for some create the right to jeopardize the image of an entire industry that has built its reputation on the safety and wholesomeness of its products? Has this legislation created two standards for milk production in the U.S. and if so, what does this pose for the future of the U.S. dairy industry? There are important liability issues faced by individuals producing products causing harm to consumers, so the key question remains: Has raw milk legislation created economic opportunity or legal liability for farmers engaged in the sale of unpasteurized milk?

About Cathy Donnelly: Dr. Catherine Donnelly is Professor, Dept. of Nutrition and Food Science, University of Vermont and Co-director, Vermont Institute for Artisan Cheese.