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.
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.
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.
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.
This could all be avoided by simple food irradiation. However most Americans are too ignorant to understand this.
The truly effective method would include not only banning lots that carry it, but publicly identifying the source, and after a couple such lots, dropping that supplier permanently (and announcing it). Once supplying infected stock becomes a business-ending practice, suppliers will become a lot more careful themselves, which is what is truly needed here.
"Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
Very true, and furthermore, short of hand-washing each leaf, there's no way they can guarantee against e. coli.
This all started because they wanted to appeal to the food religion by going organic, which means growing vegetables, literally, in cow shit. Synthetic fertilizer doesn't have this problem. It's not at all a coincidence that they had ZERO problems before that switch.
More likely the usage of liquid manure from cows or pigs as fertilizer.
No. Farmers may spread cow/pig poop on a cornfield, but they do not, and cannot legally, spread fresh manure on produce that is eaten raw. They can use manure that is thoroughly composted, but by then the e-coli is long gone.
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."
That's actually not a bad idea, but I'm pretty sure they can't label something as organic if it has been irradiated.
I would have to research that to be sure, but in general, when it comes to organic, technology is frozen in the 1950's, because according to organic dogma, technology = bad, because you know, it's not "natural", even though there's no scientific evidence that "natural" is better.
See the studies on this page for measured differences between the types of eggs.
http://www.motherearthnews.com...
What a spammy, biased site. First of all, just about everything on that site falls afoul of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Second of all, they don't have any kind of whitepaper or anything, just some unsubstantiated claims. Show me some peer reviewed evidence, with a clearly drawn cause and effect. Third of all, I've seen sites like this all the time, e.g. naturalnews.com, mercola.com, etc. They make these stupid wild claims with no scientific evidence and use "because it's natural" as their proof. (They also seem to attract a lot of conspiracy theorist types, electromagnetic hypersensitivity believers, anti-vaxers, etc, but that's another topic.)
The risk of organic spinich is about the same as conventional spinach
"But Francisco Diez-Gonzalez, a professor of food safety microbiology at the University of Minnesota's department of food science and nutrition, disagrees. In 2006, he published a study comparing E. coli contamination in organic and conventional produce. He concluded that the presence of E. coli seemed to depend more on the type of produce than whether it had been grown conventionally or organically.
"At this timeâ¦there is no sufficient evidence either epidemiological or scientific, to support the idea that organic produce is most likely to carry foodborne pathogenic bacteria," wrote Diez-Gonzalez in an email. ....
Oh look, another spammy "natural is better" site! You pulled this straight from organicconsumers.org, no way that's biased! At least we have some scientific investigation going this time, which is an improvement over your previous "becuz mother earth sez!" article.
Well guess what, here's a less biased site, and it sheds a better light on the issue, specifically mentioning Professor Francisco Diez-Gonzalez:
A new study on food safety reveals that organic produce may contain a significantly higher risk of fecal contamination than conventionally grown produce.
A recent comparative analysis of organic produce versus conventional produce from the University of Minnesota shows that the organically grown produce had 9.7 percent positive samples for the presence of generic E. coli bacteria versus only 1.6 percent for conventional produce on farms in Minnesota.
The study, which was published in May in the Journal of Food Protection, concluded, "the observation that the prevalence of E. coli was significantly higher in organic produce supports the idea that organic produce is more susceptible to fecal contamination."
In addition, the study found the food-borne disease pathogen salmonella only on the organic produce samples. There was no evidence found of the deadly strain of bacteria, E. coli O157:H7, in either type of produce tested. The study looked at fruits and vegetables at the "preharvest" stage, not at the retail store level.
The principle investigator of the University of Minnesota study, Francisco Diez-Gonzalez, told CNSNews.com that "organic agriculture was more susceptible to carry fecal indicators."
"In many ways it is confirming what is believed, indeed, if you are using animal manure for fertilizer, the chances that you are going to get fecal bacteria on the product are greater," Diez-Gonzalez said.
Now granted, he goes on later to contradict himself somewhat, but if you read further on, a few more experts chime in and confirm everything mentioned above.
Alex Avery, director of research and education at the free-market Hudson Institute's Center for Global Food Issues, says the latest scientific study confirms years of research that organic produce may pose a higher risk for food-borne i