Lettuce Recalled Over E. Coli Concerns

[KitchenQueen]

full article here..

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/10/08/D8KKMSL82.html

Less than a week after the Food and Drug Administration lifted its warning on fresh spinach grown in California's Salinas Valley, a popular brand of lettuce grown there has been recalled over concerns about E. coli contamination.

The lettuce does not appear to have caused any illnesses, Salinas- based Nunes Co. Inc. said in a statement.

The company initiated a voluntary recall Sunday of green leaf lettuce purchased last week under the Foxy brand name. Foxy is one of the nation's largest suppliers of lettuce, celery, broccoli, vegetable platters and stir-fry mixes.

[andiesenji]

Someday, if people in this country ever get over the irrational fear of irradiated foods, all these kinds of vegetable products can be treated at point of packaging with no possibility of harmful pathogens getting into the food chain.

The technology is affordable, the treatment does not alter the nutritional values and it would save lives, not to mention millions of dollars for growers, processors and markets. (It might take a few bucks out of the pockets of some lawyers but I do not see that as a bad thing!)

[BrentKulman]

Someday, if people in this country ever get over the irrational fear of irradiated foods, all these kinds of vegetable products can be treated at point of packaging with no possibility of harmful pathogens getting into the food chain.

The technology is affordable, the treatment does not alter the nutritional values and it would save lives, not to mention millions of dollars for growers, processors and markets.  (It might take a few bucks out of the pockets of some lawyers but I do not see that as a bad thing!)

←

You are absolutely right but its an indictment of the scientific education of the American public that junk and pseudo science have frightened off people from a perfectly rational solution to this problem.

[andiesenji]

In Europe many food items are treated in Belgium, France, the Netherlands and the UK, some in Italy and Spain but it is forbidden in Germany.

Some "public information" groups always refer to it as "controversial technology" while ignoring that millions of people die every year because of eating contaminated food, from food lost to spoilage and continue to spout the diatribes that they want to "protect" citizens of the world from the "pressures from the nuclear lobby, governments and international organisations backing liberal globalisation and the expansion of trans-national corporations (TNCs)."

Luddites, they can never see beyond their own prejudices.

[JasonZ]

Irradiation is a good solution, but remember, that only kills current contaminating bacteria. Post-irradiation, food can be recontaminated, if not properly packaged (sealed) and handled.

[scubadoo97]

My only problem with irradiated foods is not a fear from the irradiation but what to do with the radioactive waste. This is a big issue for me.

[KitchenQueen]

A good article about this situation ..

Outbreak Exposes Weakness in Food Chain

The recent outbreak of E. coli in spinach from California exposed a weakness in the nation's food chain: A system that quickly delivers meat, fruits and vegetables to consumers just as easily can spread potentially deadly bacteria

Full article here

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/10/09/D8KLCAT80.html

[andiesenji]

My only problem with irradiated foods is not a fear from the irradiation but what to do with the radioactive waste.  This is a big issue for me.

←

There is no active radioactive waste production in these instruments.

[McAuliflower]

My only problem with irradiated foods is not a fear from the irradiation but what to do with the radioactive waste.  This is a big issue for me.

←

There is no active radioactive waste production in these instruments.

←

link to the cdc site addressing irradiated food concerns and nuclear waste.

"What radioactive waste is generated?"

Is waste storage or transport a problem? Cobalt 60 is manufactured in a commercial nuclear reactor, by exposing non-radioactive cobalt to intense radiation in the reactor core. Cesium 137 is a by-product of the manufacture of weapons-grade radioactive substances. Thus the supply of these two substances, like that of other radioactive materials used in medicine, science and industry, is dependent on the nuclear industry.

The food irradiation facilities themselves do not become radioactive, and do not create radioactive waste. The cobalt sources used in irradiation facilities decay by 50% in five years, and therefore require periodic replacement. The small radioactive cobalt "pencils" are shipped back to the original nuclear reactor, where they can be recharged for further use. The shipment occurs in special hardened steel canisters that have been designed and tested to survive crashes without breaking. Cobalt is a solid metal, and even if somehow something should break, it will not spread through the environment. Cobalt 60 may also be disposed of as a radioactive waste. Given its relatively short half life(5 years) and its stable metallic form, the material is not considered to be a problematic waste.

In contrast to metallic cobalt, cesium is a salt, which means it can dissolve in water. Cesium 137 sources decay by 50% in 31 years, and therefore are not often replaced. When they are replaced, the old cesium sources will be sent to a storage site in the same special transport canisters. If a leak should occur, there is the possibility that the cesium salts could dissolve in water and thus spread into the environment. This happened at a medical sterilizer facility in Decatur, Georgia in 1992, when a steel container holding the cesium cracked, and some cesium leaked into the shielding water tank.

E-beams and X-ray facilities do not involve radioactive substances.

[Hawthorne]

Someday, if people in this country ever get over the irrational fear of irradiated foods, all these kinds of vegetable products can be treated at point of packaging with no possibility of harmful pathogens getting into the food chain.

The technology is affordable, the treatment does not alter the nutritional values and it would save lives, not to mention millions of dollars for growers, processors and markets.  (It might take a few bucks out of the pockets of some lawyers but I do not see that as a bad thing!)

←

You are absolutely right but its an indictment of the scientific education of the American public that junk and pseudo science have frightened off people from a perfectly rational solution to this problem.

←

Silly me. I think they ought to demand much higher standards of agribiz and the packers.

Irradiation is just a high tech patch which will allow the quality of food to keep dropping.

And the easiest way to avoid the risks on an individual level is to buy local and organic.

And yes, I know that organic is expensive, and that we all don't have access to local sources, but that is what we need. Instead of agreeing that irradiation is a good idea, we should be demanding more supply options.

Better quality. Lower prices. Support for family farms.

[scubadoo97]

My only problem with irradiated foods is not a fear from the irradiation but what to do with the radioactive waste.  This is a big issue for me.

←

There is no active radioactive waste production in these instruments.

←

In that case, what are we waiting for??

[MissAmy]

I'm really shocked that so many people here are calling for the irradiation of foods when the long-term effects are not known.

Sorry, but I'm not buying that it's totally harmless and safe.

[Hawthorne]

I'm really shocked that so many people here are calling for the irradiation of foods when the long-term effects are not known.

Sorry, but I'm not buying that it's totally harmless and safe.

←

To my mind, the part that is not totally harmless and safe is the mindset that says 'don't worry about the contamination, we'll just zap it with this chemical/drug/process and all will be well'.

Contaminate away. Feel free.

I suppose it's all in your point of view.

[russ parsons]

without arguing in favor of contamination, let's try to remember that these are living plants that are grown outdoors amongst the birds and wild beasts and then are harvested and packed by minimum wage workers. all it takes is one guy forgetting to wash his hands after a potty break and you're in trouble. to my mind, the real issue is the scale at which these things are done, which amplifies the risks of even a minor slip-up into a national concern.

as for irradiation, i'm not sure how i feel about it, but i do know that it has been extensively tested and that to my knowledge there has never been a risk demonstrated from produce that has been treated in this manner. if i'm wrong, i hope someone will point out a responsible peer-reviewed study so that i can learn from it.

[jayt90]

This morning I read a news report that food inspectors have found e coli 157 bacteria i cattle manure at a large cattle operation about a mile away from the source of suspect spinach. There is no causal link, yet, but the association is strong.

I'm sure we will find out more very soon.

[russ parsons]

This morning I read a news report that food inspectors have found e coli 157  bacteria i cattle manure at a large cattle operation about a mile away from the source of suspect spinach. There is no causal link, yet, but the association is strong.

←

we had that story too, but i don't remember seeing those specific words. our story said cattle grazing in fields nearby, which conjures up a different impression.

i'm not trying to be argumentative here. it's natural when a disaster like this happens to try to find something where we can say "oh, that's what they did wrong." but sometimes, bad stuff just happens. again, these are crops that are grown out of doors in poorly controlled environments. unless you want to move everything indoors under greenhouses (or irradiate), i'm afraid that every once in a while something like that is going to happen.

i covered the odwalla outbreak years ago and when all was said and done, the culprit was a farmer tossing in some apples that had been picked up off the ground--and unpasteurized fruit juices, which are now almost totally unavailable.

and how do you feel now about raw milk cheeses?

[docsconz]

and how do you feel now about raw milk cheeses?

←

I feel the same as I always have. If they are produced by reputable cheesemakers, I will take my chances.

[russ parsons]

my point exactly. it all depends on how you asssess the risks. and you have to remember that eliminating risk (or trying to eliminate risk) almost always entails a trade-off.

[docsconz]

Agreed, Russ. Ironically, there are risks to being too fastidious. My personal approach is to try to keep as many of the risks as possible, reasonable risks. Sooner or later something is going to get me, but that will happen whether I am ultrafastidious or not. In the meantime, I prefer to try to enjoy the life that I have and not get overly concerned about every remote possibility.

[JohnL]

and how do you feel now about raw milk cheeses?

←

I feel the same as I always have. If they are produced by reputable cheesemakers, I will take my chances.

←

My concern is more that the cheeses are handled and stored correctly.

Not just flavor concerns but safety as well.

I try to buy from reputable cheese mongers.

I feel safe in my assumption that these folks deal with reputable

sources.

[docsconz]

and how do you feel now about raw milk cheeses?

←

I feel the same as I always have. If they are produced by reputable cheesemakers, I will take my chances.

←

My concern is more that the cheeses are handled and stored correctly.

Not just flavor concerns but safety as well.

I try to buy from reputable cheese mongers.

I feel safe in my assumption that these folks deal with reputable

sources.

←

This is a key part of the equation as well. I never buy my cheeses from the back of a truck being sold by strangers (unless it happens to be the local farmers market )

[mizducky]

Shifting focus a little ...

In the course of researching an article on the recent E. coli O157:H7 outbreak (you'll see why I'm emphasizing the exact strain of E. coli shortly) I got especially deep into how a normally harmless--and even, according to some authorities, beneficial--gut bacterium had this propensity for turning deadly. In the course of that research, I came across this excellent New York Times article from 1998:

click - Detective Work and Science Reveal a New Lethal Bacteria

Dr. O'Brien examined the rogue E. coli, and sure enough, discovered that it had somehow taken on the Shigella toxin gene. Moreover, in many of the E. coli, that gene was slightly altered in a way that made the bacterium produce toxin even deadlier than the original toxin made by Shigella.

No one knows exactly how the Shigella toxin genes jumped to E. coli, but Dr. O'Brien has an educated guess. Viruses that infect bacteria can sometimes pick up a gene from one bacterium and carry it to another.

But if that was the seminal event, Dr. O'Brien said, it probably did not occur in the United States, where Shigella bacteria do not have the dangerous toxin gene. Shigella in Central America do have that gene, however, and in the 1970's, that area was hit with a pandemic of Shigella dysentery. As the Shigella mixed with harmless E. coli in people's intestines, or as it mixed with harmless E. coli that inhabited animal manure, a virus may have carried Shigella toxin genes to E. coli. The result would have been a strain that had never been seen before: the toxin-armed E. coli O157:H7.

Now, it's not just the science geek in me that's fascinated by this stuff. The fact that the culprit of these contamination outbreaks is a rare but deadly mutation of a beneficial bacterium (while some sources merely call E. coli harmless, other reputable sources point out that its normal form aids significantly in digestion) means that we can't just go wiping out all sources of E. coli in the environment without negative consequences. And managing the food chain so that only the nasty O157:H7 (and a couple other deadly mutations) get wiped is a significantly more challenging task.

And it doesn't even start to address the possibility of other such mutations arising. They're bacteria, after all--they reproduce fast and mutate fairly easily.

[docsconz]

Shifting focus a little ...

In the course of researching an article on the recent E. coli O157:H7 outbreak (you'll see why I'm emphasizing the exact strain of E. coli shortly) I got especially deep into how a normally harmless--and even, according to some authorities, beneficial--gut bacterium had this propensity for turning deadly. In the course of that research, I came across this excellent New York Times article from 1998:

click -  Detective Work and Science Reveal a New Lethal Bacteria

Dr. O'Brien examined the rogue E. coli, and sure enough, discovered that it had somehow taken on the Shigella toxin gene. Moreover, in many of the E. coli, that gene was slightly altered in a way that made the bacterium produce toxin even deadlier than the original toxin made by Shigella.

No one knows exactly how the Shigella toxin genes jumped to E. coli, but Dr. O'Brien has an educated guess. Viruses that infect bacteria can sometimes pick up a gene from one bacterium and carry it to another.

But if that was the seminal event, Dr. O'Brien said, it probably did not occur in the United States, where Shigella bacteria do not have the dangerous toxin gene. Shigella in Central America do have that gene, however, and in the 1970's, that area was hit with a pandemic of Shigella dysentery. As the Shigella mixed with harmless E. coli in people's intestines, or as it mixed with harmless E. coli that inhabited animal manure, a virus may have carried Shigella toxin genes to E. coli. The result would have been a strain that had never been seen before: the toxin-armed E. coli O157:H7.

Now, it's not just the science geek in me that's fascinated by this stuff. The fact that the culprit of these contamination outbreaks is a rare but deadly mutation of a beneficial bacterium (while some sources merely call E. coli harmless, other reputable sources point out that its normal form aids significantly in digestion) means that we can't just go wiping out all sources of E. coli in the environment without negative consequences. And managing the food chain so that only the nasty O157:H7 (and a couple other deadly mutations) get wiped is a significantly more challenging task.

And it doesn't even start to address the possibility of other such mutations arising. They're bacteria, after all--they reproduce fast and mutate fairly easily.

←

Outstanding post! You've captured the essence of this conundrum in rather few words.

[Hawthorne]

This morning I read a news report that food inspectors have found e coli 157  bacteria i cattle manure at a large cattle operation about a mile away from the source of suspect spinach. There is no causal link, yet, but the association is strong.

←

we had that story too, but i don't remember seeing those specific words. our story said cattle grazing in fields nearby, which conjures up a different impression.

i'm not trying to be argumentative here. it's natural when a disaster like this happens to try to find something where we can say "oh, that's what they did wrong." but sometimes, bad stuff just happens. again, these are crops that are grown out of doors in poorly controlled environments. unless you want to move everything indoors under greenhouses (or irradiate), i'm afraid that every once in a while something like that is going to happen.

i covered the odwalla outbreak years ago and when all was said and done, the culprit was a farmer tossing in some apples that had been picked up off the ground--and unpasteurized fruit juices, which are now almost totally unavailable.

and how do you feel now about raw milk cheeses?

←

In the Oregonian this morning, it was stated that they found the same strain of eColi in 5 different samples.

They didn't say whether the samples were taken directly from the cattle, or sampled on the ground somehow. They didn't say how many samples were taken altogether.

But it's certainly suggestive.

[mizducky]

In the Oregonian this morning, it was stated that they found the same strain of eColi in 5 different samples.

They didn't say whether the samples were taken directly from the cattle, or sampled on the ground somehow. They didn't say how many samples were taken altogether.

But it's certainly suggestive.

←

And if you read the article I posted just above, you'll also discover that cattle may be Typhoid Marys in this scenario (the article's choice of metaphor) -- the E. coli O157:H7 toxin has absolutely no effect on cattle, but the bug is quite hardy enough to survive the trip through the steer's/cow's gut and thrive in its manure (and then percolate via runoff into the water supply). Plus, again according to that article, as few as 10 cells of this bacterium are sufficient to multiply into a significant infestation. These are prolific little buggers.