Slashdot Mirror


Chipotle Plans To DNA Test Produce After E-Coli Outbreaks In Nine States

HughPickens.com writes: Lisa Jenning reports at Restaurant News that Chipotle plans to do DNA-based tests of all fresh produce before it is shipped to restaurants. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says that the E. coli outbreak linked to Chipotle now includes seven more people in three new states, including Illinois, Maryland and Pennsylvania, for a total count of 52 sickened in nine states. Most of the illnesses were in Washington, with 27 cases, and Oregon, with 13 cases. Twenty people have been hospitalized but there have been no reported deaths. Health officials say a meal or ingredient from Chipotle was likely the cause, but they have not yet identified the specific source of the outbreak. Chipotle's founder and co-chief executive, Steve Ells apologized to patrons who fell ill after eating at the company's restaurants. "This was a very unfortunate incident and I'm deeply sorry that this happened, but the procedures we're putting in place today are so above industry norms that we are going to be the safest place to eat." The chain will begin end-of-shelf-life testing to ensure quality specifications are met throughout the shelf life of products. The data collected will be used to measure the performance of vendors and suppliers to enhance food safety throughout the system.

But food safety experts are mixed about the effectiveness of such screening efforts for the prevention of foodborne illness. Bob Whitaker, chief science and technology officer for the Produce Marketing Association, says such tests are not practical as a screening tool. Instead, restaurant chains should focus on whether their suppliers have adequate food-safety programs in place. "You can't test your way to safety," says Whitaker. "The problem with product testing by itself is that it's hard to take enough samples to be confident that the product is free of any pathogens." DNA tests are considered among the most accurate and fast, with same-day testing available for organisms like E. coli or salmonella, says Morgan Wallace. Some manufacturers don't wait for results, since produce is perishable, but that introduces the risk of a produce recall if a pathogen has been identified after shipment. Others hold the product until test results are confirmed, but that practice adds holding costs and reduces the shelf life.

5 of 147 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Well.. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Informative

    If they actually cooked the food properly instead of leaving it luke-warm, this wouldn't be a problem.

    This has nothing to do with cooking. This is raw produce picked by farmworkers that didn't wash their hands after taking a dump. The solution is better field sanitation and better enforcement. The farmworkers need to have clean toilets, and they need to wash their hands in chlorinated water, and that hand washing needs to be mandatory and observed, with penalties for violations.

  2. Re:Sounds like buzzword marketing. by stevez67 · · Score: 4, Informative

    They take a sample, extract all of the DNA, analyze it for sequences that are only found in pathogens, reject any lots of produce that carry pathogen sequences. The USDA requires a similar test on meat products like hamburger. The world needs a lot less wtf and more scientific literacy.

  3. Food Irradiation by schmaustech · · Score: 4, Informative

    This could all be avoided by simple food irradiation. However most Americans are too ignorant to understand this.

    1. Re:Food Irradiation by zippthorne · · Score: 4, Informative

      Depends on what you call it. No one bats an eye about "cellulose" as a "non-nutritive filler" (a.k.a. sawdust), so if you have the right name, irradiated foods should also be accepted.

      How about something like, "Photon Pasteurized"

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
  4. Re:Interesting idea by KGIII · · Score: 4, Informative

    Botulism? When you're shitting bile and blood, projectile shitting at times, it's pretty rough. They have a treatment for it, I've undergone it, where they basically increase your immunity by feeding you small amounts of botulism on crackers. It's a strange process but once you've had botulism then you'll be more susceptible to it in the future. The treatment was fairly new when I went through it (it was my second bout with it) and they're able to build the resistance back up over time with the smaller doses.

    In an earlier post, I mentioned that I'd spare the details of botulism for those who have never had it. I still will as not even *I* have words enough to describe it. Unless things have changed, the leading cause of death (and botulism is *very* deadly - even in intensive care units) is because of the stress from evacuating your alimentary canal causes your heart to rupture. Yes, you puke (even without anything coming out) or shit (again, with nothing except maybe some intestinal wall tissue, white milky liquid, and yellow bile forced from your system coming out) so forcefully that your heart explodes.

    So, that - the above description - *is* sparing them the details. You will be months, years even, getting to the point where you're well again and you may never be fully well again. I can now eat honey and chicken again and I'm usually only worried about the chicken and I tend to avoid it unless I am damned sure of the cooking process. I consume a little honey every day (that I remember) in order to help keep my resistance up. Do *not* give young children honey!

    There are other sources for botulism but those are the two primary sources. The effects of botulism are beyond my ability to type. There are few things on this planet that are truly worse than death, botulism is one of them. Botulism doesn't mean you were ill and threw up a little after dinner. Botulism means you nearly died.

    --
    "So long and thanks for all the fish."