August, 2003 Newsletter Food Safety Resources for Food Safety Month;
Information Sways Consumer Attitudes Towards Biotech Foods;
Controversy Surrounds Irradiated Meat;
What’s On Your Mind? View as PDF document; MS Word document Food Safety Resources for Food Safety Month Food safety continues to be an especially important issue for all Americans. Because of this, the USDA has developed new educational materials for pregnant women, food service employees, and volunteer food handlers. September is National Food Safety month, and each of these groups will be a target of outreach efforts that month. Please consider ordering the following resources, by checking the separate ad in this month’s FL Connection, so that you will be ready for Food Safety month and other programs in 2003-2004! - Listeriosis and Pregnancy: What is Your Risk? Fact sheets designed to provide much-needed information on how to reduce the risk of listeriosis for pregnant women and their unborn babies.
- Temperature Rules! Cooking for Food Service. A poster and magnet, based on the popular Thermy? campaign, developed for retail operations, restaurants and other food service operations.
- Cooking for Groups- A Volunteer’s Guide to Food Safety/ Cocinando para Grupos- Guia de Seguridad Alimentaria para Voluntarios (English AND Spanish versions). This colorful guide takes consumers through the steps necessary to safely plan and serve food for a large event. Several counties have planned very successful programs using the English-language version of this material. You may want to consider using the Spanish-language version for outreach to other groups as well.
What’s New in Publications in this month’s FL Connection contains more information about these resources. If you find you need more information, you may contact USDA-FSIS at: fsis.outreach@usda.gov Or fax: (301) 504-0204. back to top Information Sways Consumer Attitudes Towards Biotech Foods (Note: The following article appeared in the June 2003 issue of Amber Waves, or online: http://www.ers.usda.gov/AmberWaves/June03/Findings/InformationSways.htm) Scientists use modern biotechnology (biochemical manipulation of genes or DNA) to develop new varieties of foods and agricultural products, commonly called biotech foods. Large shares of common crops, such as corn and soybeans, are grown from bioengineered seed. Many processed foods on U.S. supermarket shelves contain biotech ingredients.
Labeling of biotech foods has been a contentious issue in the U.S. and between the U.S. and its trading partners. Proponents of mandatory biotech food labeling argue that consumers have a right to know how their food has been produced. Opponents argue that such labeling will confuse and, in many cases, unnecessarily alarm consumers. In the U.S., when biotechnology introduces a known allergen or substantially changes a food’s nutritional content or composition, Federal regulations require that the label indicate this change. So far, no biotech foods on the market have required labeling. In 2001, UDSA-Economic Research Service (ERS) scientists and university researchers held experimental auctions to gauge consumers’ willingness to pay for food items with and without biotech labels. In the absence of sales data, experimental auctions more closely simulate purchasing behavior and better gauge consumer preferences than surveys of consumer attitudes. Auction participants could bid on and purchase three different food products—potatoes, vegetable oil, and corn tortilla chips—with and without a label indicating that the food contained biotech ingredients. None of the foods had biotech-enhanced attributes or traits that could be detected without sophisticated testing technologies, if at all. Before the bidding, each participant received one of six information packets containing statements about biotechnology gathered from a variety of sources. Information played a powerful role in shaping how the participants responded to biotech foods. They reacted not just to the information itself, but also to whether the information came from biotech firms, an environmental advocacy group, or independent third-party sources.
Participants who received only pro-biotech information actually put a slight average premium of 2 % on the biotech-labeled foods relative to foods without biotech labels for two of the three products. Participants who received only anti-biotech information discounted the biotech-labeled foods by an average of 36%. Those who received both pro- and anti-biotech information discounted the biotech-labeled foods by an average of 23 %. Interestingly, participants placed a greater weight on negative information than on positive information, a result consistent with other studies. The ERS study also looked at the role of science-based information on consumer attitudes towards biotech foods.
Implications for Extension. Education will continue to be an important factor in consumer acceptance of genetically-modified foods. Even-handed information that highlights the benefits of biotechnology, while also acknowledging the concerns, is likely to lead to greater acceptance of this technology. Where can I find out more information?
The Effect of Information on Consumer Demand for Biotech Foods: Evidence from Experimental Auctions, by Abebayehu Tegene, Wallace Huffman, Matt Rousu, and Jason Shogren, TB-1903, March 2003.
back to top Controversy Surrounds Irradiated Meat The August 2003 issue of Consumer Reports contains an article- The Truth About Irradiated Meat- that claims that irradiated meat is not as safe or tasty as claimed. This article has generated controversy since it was printed. Certain supermarkets and restaurants are touting irradiated beef and chicken in response to record meat recalls of recent years. Since information suggests that ‘irradiation eliminates any bacteria that might exist in food,’ or ‘you can’t taste the difference’ Consumer Reports decided to put these claims to the test. They analyzed more than 500 packs of irradiated and non-irradiated meat and chicken samples from groceries in 60 cities for taste and microbial analysis. Their conclusions were: - Bacteria levels in the irradiated, uncooked ground beef and skinless chicken tenders were generally much lower than levels in the non-irradiated meat. In fact, irradiated meats had 90%-99% fewer bacteria than non-irradiated meats. But the irradiated meat still contained some bacteria. And, like any meat, irradiated meat can become contaminated if it is not handled properly so packages of irradiated meat still carry the same safe handling and cooking instructions as non-irradiated meat.
- Trained taste testers noted a slight but distinct off-taste and smell in most of the irradiated beef and chicken that was cooked and sampled. Because it was usually subtle, however, some consumers may not notice it.
The article also asked for more study on the chemical by-products that irradiation creates in meat. Consumer Reports concluded that irradiation wasn’t doing its job in creating a safer food supply, and they further downplayed any benefits of irradiation due to the subtle flavor changes in the meat. There are some groups that think that the Consumer Reports article didn’t go far enough in discouraging the use of food irradiation. Groups such as Public Citizen think that the whole process of irradiation needs further study. But on the other side of the issue, a 2001 study by the Center for Disease Control (CDC) calculated that if half of all the ground beef, pork, poultry, and processed meat in the U.S. were irradiated, it would prevent 6% of all food-borne illnesses each year. That's 350 lives saved and 6,000 grave illnesses avoided. Others, however, point up the fallacies in the Consumer Reports article. First, the report confuses and misrepresents the presence of bacteria in raw ground beef and chicken. All raw foods contain bacteria, most of which are benign species common to air, water, soil and virtually all human and household surfaces. Irradiation has been compared to cold pasteurization; just as pasteurized milk is not sterile, irradiated meat can, and does, contain benign bacteria- often bacteria that contribute to the eventual spoilage of the meat. Further, to discount irradiated meat just because it contains the safe handling information found on non-irradiated meat may be seen as irresponsible. Irradiated meat can become contaminated after processing- at home, at a restaurant, or at a food processing facility. So including the safe handling information on irradiated meat is a prudent step, it does not suggest that the irradiation process has done nothing to ‘help’. Second, the report alleges that irradiated ground beef products have a distinctive and detectable taste and odor. However, it was a trained panel that noted ‘subtle’ differences in the flavor of irradiated meat. Most sensory scientists would deem it inappropriate to use a trained panel to determine the average consumer’s reaction to a product.
Seen from this perspective, the Consumer Reports article may be important in initiating a discussion as to the safety and quality of irradiated meat. The scientific community, by and large, stands behind this technology and the benefit that irradiation represents in terms of food safety. However, consumers, restaurants and food processors must still take care to safely handle raw meat and poultry products. Overall, safe handling recommendations for raw meats will continue to include: - Thaw meat in the refrigerator or in the microwave oven. Don't thaw meat
on a countertop. - Keep meat refrigerated at 40° F, or less. Don't let meat packages drip on other foods -- put them on a plate while in the refrigerator.
- Wash everything that comes in contact with raw beef or poultry. This
includes your hands, work surfaces, and utensils. - Don't judge cooking doneness by meat color. Do use a meat thermometer.
Ground beef is safe at 160°F. Whole chicken is safe at 180°F. Chicken breasts and chicken tenders are safe at 170°F. - If you aren't going to use meat in one or two days, freeze it.
- Think about buying plant-packaged beef. It usually has fewer germs than
store-packaged beef. - When eating out, order your meat cooked at least to medium.
What's On Your Mind? Care and Cleaning of Water Bottles
Both Theresa Wimann (Adams County) and Rita Straub (Marathon County) asked about concerns over reusing water bottles. Rita pointed to an article in the August 2003 issue of Better Homes and Gardens magazine (p. 224-226) highlighting potential carcinogens released from plastic bottles. As a result, I have prepared a short fact sheet on this issue. The fact sheet can be3 found online with the Food Facts newsletter:
http://www.wisc.edu/foodsafety/consumer/food_facts.htm Are dry kidney beans toxic? – Renee Vertin (Washington County) brought to my attention an issue that may be raising concern in school districts. An email has been circulating that purports that dry kidney beans are toxic and thus should not be used in manipulative areas for young children. Concern was also raised over the use of crock pots to cook kidney beans. I requested insight into this issue from food and nutrition specialists nationwide and received a response highlighting information from the FDA Bad Bug Book that I have summarized below: 1. Acute Disease: Red Kidney Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) Poisoning, Kinkoti Bean Poisoning, and possibly other names. 2. Nature of Disease: A natural component of kidney beans, a lectin or hemagglutinin, is known to agglutinate many mammalian red blood cell types, alter cell membrane transport systems, alter cell permeability to proteins, and generally interfere with cellular metabolism. The onset time from consumption of raw or undercooked kidney beans to symptoms varies from between 1 to 3 hours. Onset is usually marked by extreme nausea, followed by vomiting, which may be very severe. Diarrhea develops somewhat later (from one to a few hours), and some persons report abdominal pain. Some persons have been hospitalized, but recovery is usually rapid (3 - 4 hours after onset of symptoms) and spontaneous.
3. Associated Foods: Phytohaemagglutinin, the presumed toxic agent, is found in many species of beans, but it is in highest concentration in red kidney beans (Phaseolus vulgaris). The unit of toxin measure is the hemagglutinating unit (hau). Raw kidney beans contain from 20,000 to 70,000 hau, while fully cooked beans contain from 200 to 400 hau. White kidney beans, another variety of Phaseolus vulgaris, contain about one-third the amount of toxin as the red variety; broad beans (Vicia faba) contain 5 to 10% the amount that red kidney beans contain. The syndrome is usually caused by the ingestion of raw, soaked kidney beans, either alone or in salads or casseroles. As few as four or five raw beans can trigger symptoms. Several outbreaks have been associated with "slow cookers" or crock pots, or in casseroles which had not reached a high enough internal temperature to destroy the glycoprotein lectin. It has been shown that heating to 176°C may potentiate the toxicity five-fold, so that these beans are more toxic than if eaten raw. In studies of casseroles cooked in slow cookers, internal temperatures often did not exceed 167°C. 4. Relative Frequency of Disease: While this syndrome has occurred in the United Kingdom with some regularity, reports of this syndrome in the United States are anecdotal and have not been formally published.
5. Course of Disease and Complications: The disease course is rapid. All symptoms usually resolve within several hours of onset. Vomiting is usually described as profuse, and the severity of symptoms is directly related to the dose of toxin (number of raw beans ingested). Hospitalization has occasionally resulted, and intravenous fluids may have to be administered. Although of short duration, the symptoms are extremely debilitating.
6. Target Populations: All persons, regardless of age or gender, appear to be equally susceptible; the severity is related only to the dose ingested. 7. Safe consumption of dry beans. While the risk of toxicity from dry beans is quite unlikely, the following procedure has been recommended so that kidney beans, and other dry beans, are safe for consumption when cooked: - Soak in water for at least 5 hours.
- Pour away the water.
- Boil briskly in fresh water, with occasional stirring, for at least 10 minutes; or cook in a slow cooker until boiling rapidly and the beans are thoroughly softened- usually 6-10 hours depending on power level.
- Undercooked beans may be more toxic than raw beans.
Overall, there is certainly no reason to avoid consuming dry beans. Kidney beans and other dry beans are good sources of protein, fiber, plant-based iron and other nutrients. They are easy to cook in a slow cooker and attention to detail will assure that they are safe to consume when cooked. And, even though scientists have been able to document toxicity associated with raw or undercooked dry beans, I feel certain that they can safely be used in children’s games and art projects. There have been no reports of actual instances of human toxicity in the U.S.
From: FDA/CFSAN Bad Bug Book http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~mow/chap43.html Can homemade baby food be safely made from beets? Donna Peterson (Iowa County) shared this question from one of her WIC clients. Thanks to feedback from Susan Nitzke on the nutritional aspects related to this question, here is my general response to this question: In general, large quantities of beets, carrots, and spinach should not be given to infants under 6 months of age because of the high content of nitrate in these vegetables. Due to an undeveloped intestinal system, young infants have low stomach acidity and can convert nitrate to nitrite. Nitrite can displace oxygen in hemoglobin and, under extreme circumstances, this can lead to ‘blue baby’ syndrome. By age 6 months, stomach acidity increases and nitrate overload is less of a problem. The other issue with beets involves the fact that they are a root crop and thus likely to be contaminated with spores of Clostridium botulinum, a natural soil-borne organism. This is not at all a problem for adults, but can be an issue for children since the spores can be toxic to those under 1 year of age. Commercially processed baby food and commercially canned vegetables are processed to destroy the spores of C. botulinum, but in home-cooked foods like boiled beets some spores of C. botulinum may remain. Of course, washing and peeling of root crops such as beets and carrots will help to remove soil-borne spores. Even though there have not been documented cases of infant poisoning due to consumption of root crops, it is prudent to limit a child's exposure to these potentially toxic spores. Thus, children under 1 year of age should certainly receive only well-washed vegetables, and root vegetables such as beets, carrots and potatoes should also be peeled. Can Pectin and Sure Gel™ be used interchangeably? What about gelatin? Jackie Carattini (Wood County) shared question from a workshop participant. While they aren't the same thing, it would be easy to confuse them. Sure Gel™ is corn starch, a large polysaccharide molecule extracted from corn, that has been modified so that the gel won’t break down on extended heating. The gel formed by regular corn starch will break down on canning. Pectin is also a polysaccharide, but it is a fiber source, an indigestible carbohydrate. As we know from making jam and jelly, pectin is also unstable on prolonged heating- which is why we cook jams or jellies only for 1 minute after adding pectin, and we process these products for such a short period of time in a boiling water canner. So pectin (liquid or powdered) is not interchangeable with Sure Gel™. Gelatin is very different since it is a protein and also not stable to heating because the protein will denature on heating. This can be rather confusing because all 3 products- Sure Gel™, pectin, and gelatin can form what we refer to as a 'gel' - all 3 products can bind liquid and allow for thickening of a product- but each can be used only under certain circumstances. The gelatin that you might find in some jams and jellies won't even withstand the heating of a 'canning' process- 5 minutes in a water bath is too much! Jellied fruit products that contain gelatin must be stored in the refrigerator. Jackie also inquired about a bulletin with instructions for smoking fish safely. Here is a reminder of where those resources are located:
http://www.wisc.edu/foodsafety/consumer/resources.htm or here,
http://www.wisc.edu/foodsafety/consumer/fact_sheets/smokingyourcatch.pdf Are there some acceptable web resources for jam and jelly recipes? Donna Peterson asked if we could recommend the Kraft website Preserving Summer:
http://web.kraftfoods.com/main.aspx?s=food&m=ff/preservingSummer/preservingSummer
Here is my response:
These recipes are fine (and sound yummy) and I would only add that we may need to remind consumers that these must be refrigerated since they are not heat processed. Much to my dismay, Kraft continues to include instruction on their pectin packages that indicate that inverting jars is an appropriate last step in the manufacture of jams and jellies, when it really isn't. Also, the plastic containers are perfectly acceptable and may be preferable in the freezer. Are there any safety concerns associated with eating ‘beer-butt’ chicken? Nancy Anne Livingston (Vilas County Youth Development Agent and Master Food Preserver) asked this question. I am sharing the answer in this newsletter primarily because the August issue of Cooking Light contained an article about chicken prepared in this way. In general, a tall beer can (containing most of the beer plus spices and seasonings) is inserted into the cavity of a chicken, and the chicken grills vertically sitting on the hindquarters. The resulting product is very moist when done- I know; I had to try this method for grilling chicken after answering this question! Nancy’s question had to do with the ink and other markings coming off of a beer can and passing into the bird. I posed this question to my colleagues and received many favorable replies in return. This practice of preparing ‘beer-butt’ chicken is very common: the beer steams the interior of the chicken, and the metal can conducts heat to the interior of the chicken to improve cooking. No one that responded knew of any concerns with ink from the can contaminating the chicken flesh- or more realistically the chicken interior. But, just to be safe you can do what I did, and purchase a tall can of canned asparagus or other vegetable; remove the lid, the contents and the label. Oil the outside of the can and add to the can some good quality beer, a few crushed garlic cloves and other seasonings. Insert the beer-containing can into the chicken cavity and grill. The use of a tall aluminum can without any external ink does away with any food safety concerns, however minor. |