FDA officially refers consumers to Wikipedia for information on food pathogens

I was perusing the Bad Bug Book while doing some research on the recent Blue Bell outbreak and came across a hyperlink. After hearing “do you want to know more?” in my head, I clicked through on some non-L. mono species of Listeria and was…confused. I quickly doubled back, thinking that maybe I had been redirected, but there it was.

FDA Bad Bug Book linking directly to wikipedia

FDA Bad Bug Book linking directly to Wikipedia

FDA describes the reference as “current information about the major known agents that cause foodborne illness.” Descriptions also include a statement that it should not be used as a comprehensive or clinical reference. However, this isn’t an excuse for making a consumer and industry reference link to a completely uncontrolled document source. The Bad Bug Book (2nd ed.) is a wonderfully written resource, both for a lay and industry audience; but the fact that the authors of the Listeria page referred to Wikipedia as an ongoing resource, without knowing or being able to control the content presented to consumers, is irresponsible. A nefarious Wikipedia troll could at any moment have an article claiming that L. grayi is a GMO herbicide borne bacteria found in bananas that causes uncontrolled crying and hair growth, and have the full support of the FDA behind their article.

Please don’t write that article.

A  currently live example of why this was such a poor decision is that if you click through to some of the pages, they don’t exist (as of 7/27/15). I don’t know if the author intended to write them him/herself and never got around to it, or if they simply assumed the pages existed, and then didn’t bother to review the content. I’m not satisfied with either of those answers, and if alternatively the reference articles were removed at some point, that also highlights what a poor decision those links were.

Given the sheer number of PhD’s involved in the book’s creation, I think taxpayers should expect a resource with material actually reviewed and sanctioned by FDA. The poor editing here is unacceptable and a change should be made to the current edition of the book.

Many of the other pages in the book name multiple related species, but either included links to NIH or CDC or included no link at all, both of which are acceptable alternatives. I won’t name the authors and editors of the book here, anyone who wants to know can find them at the front of the document. If you’re interested in bringing this to FDA’s attention in your own way, they’re on twitter as @US_FDA and additional points of contact are available at http://www.fda.gov.
ResearchBlogging.org

Food and Drug Administration (2012). Listeria Monocytogenes Bad Bug Book, Foodborne pathogenic microorganisms and natural toxins. Second Edition, 99-100

Misinformation and selective coverage change perception of outbreaks, but can be corrected by presenting the facts

While it’s not an animal product, the Listeriosis outbreak recently traced to apples is just as relevant to the food industry as a whole as any other food-borne illness outbreak. While I was looking for more information on the outbreak, I came across this gem* of an article posted on cnn.com.

*When this post was originally written, the text on the website read: “At least seven people have died after eating caramel apples that may have been infected with Listeria monocytogenes. Followed immediately by a quote from CDC which stated ‘Thirty-one ill people have been hospitalized and six deaths have been reported. Listeriosis contributed to three of these deaths, and it is unclear whether it contributed to an additional two deaths. The sixth death was unrelated to listeriosis.'” CNN has since removed the CDC quote, but kept their original ‘7 deaths’ statement.”

I found this disturbing on two levels. First, the fact that they reported that at least six people had died after eating contaminated apples, when listeriosis was only confirmed as cause of death for 3 of the cases and ruled out for the 6th.

“Hey Jen, what’s the body count up to on that outbreak article?”

“Looks like 3 for sure, could be 3-5”

“Thats it?”

“Don’t worry, we’ll round up to 6+, if you use a Log scale, they’re practically the same number.”

Second, they used the direct quote from CDC’s 12/31 update to directly contradict themselves in the following sentence. Who wrote this article? (update, clearly they wizened up and removed the quote on Jan 15, I wonder if they saw the reddit post. This is also a rhetorical question, their name is on the article, but we also need to assign blame to their editor.).

So what sort of impact could this statement have? Young, Norman, and Humphries reviewed the impact of media coverage on how dangerous we think they are. They found that indeed, those conditions/diseases that receive more media coverage are perceived by medical students as a “worse” condition. This can actually be a very good thing for infectious disease outbreaks, as rapid media coverage of the danger encourages people to avoid contact with others, leading to exponentially fewer cases the earlier you do it. This is less good however, when non-infectious diseases or inaccurate correlations are blown out of proportion (e.g. people avoiding pork to avoid H1N1).

The literature review included in the beginning of the article shows that this isn’t necessarily new information. However, the authors also examined the effect or including additional “objective” information about the conditions when asking students to rank their risk. The result was that, as seen in the chart below, when provided additional information the study participants then changed their views of the diseases. The large separation between what they had seen in media and what they had not seen shrank and they assigned more risk to those threats that aren’t often talked about, and became less nervous of the high coverage items in comparison.

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0003552As a science blogger, this is my soapbox, as this study highlighted the responsibility for those who know more than the headline to speak up and share their knowledge, because people can and will be receptive to it as long as it’s available.

Unfortunately, the study was inherently biased as medical students are more likely to be receptive to new data (especially related to disease) as opposed to other groups with stronger existing bias’ (e.g. CAM users, anti-vaccination proponents, specialist doctors, or epidemiologists who may be swayed by previous outbreak coverage). The authors specifically did not survey students on their current media usage or biases, and therefore could not demonstrate the power of providing additional information on subjects they may have already formed strong opinions on.

I’d like to see the study repeated with an older group, as student’s opinions are more likely to be malleable as they are less likely to know as much about these illnesses or had personal experiences with them. A repeated study with participants of at least 40-years-old would be more telling and help us understand what effect providing additional objective information can have.

After all, as nice as it is to know students can be taught, they’re not the ones in public office. Are they also willing to change their minds when new information is made available?
Young ME, Norman GR, & Humphreys KR (2008). Medicine in the popular press: the influence of the media on perceptions of disease. PloS one, 3 (10) PMID: 18958167

Mummert A, & Weiss H (2013). Get the news out loudly and quickly: the influence of the media on limiting emerging infectious disease outbreaks. PloS one, 8 (8) PMID: 23990974ResearchBlogging.org

Anatomy of a “Serving”

NFPIs it how much you’re expected to eat? How much you should eat? Pardon me, but if I want to eat an entire bag of potato chips, that’s exactly what I’m going to do.

I say this as the guy who helps create nutrition facts panels for food products for a living. I have read, reread, proof read, and colored red hundreds of these little tables in my time, and believe it or not, people aren’t lining up at parties to hear my thrilling stories.

I know!

Right now you’re thinking, “But Austin, I remember back in 2008 the FDA called 2,584 adults from the US to ask them questions about their diet. And 24% of the respondents said they had no idea if serving sizes were determined by government rules or by manufacturers.”

Your oddly specific observation would be correct, and I should have at least ¼ of the room hovering around me in rapt attention, waiting for me to clarify this confusing point. Time has shown however that everyone is clearly too intimidated to approach and ask the simple questions, even when I’m subtly firing off labeling trivia from the empty cracker box carelessly left by the cheese platter, or establishing my mastery of the dance floor.

Fact: Every party has a dance floor, here’s the label. dance floor Well let’s clear this up right now while I’ve got you at home/work/somewhere, on your computer/phone/tablet (scary that I know where you are, isn’t it?). Who determines serving sizes, manufacturers or the government?

Answer: The government!…ish.

Well that was unsatisfying, but it’s the most accurate answer I can give. Essentially what happens is that our government, via the FDA and FSIS (Food Safety Inspection Service), determine how serving sizes are to be calculated and presented, but also leave manufacturers options in specific situations.

So how are serving sizes determined?

Step 1, what are you eating?

he first step companies need to take when determining serving size is to determine what type of product they are selling. Back in 1993 when they had to decide all of this stuff, FDA determined that they could use data collected in the NHANES dietary surveys conducted in 1978 and 1988 to set these standards. These were nationwide surveys that collected all sorts of data, including nutritional intake and food frequency data. With this information, FDA created “Reference Amounts Customarily Consumed,” or RACC, for different categories of food.

The first step is easy, find the category that a food falls into, and look up the RACC used to determine the serving size in 21 CFR 101.12 (for non-meat items). For example, if I was making mashed potatoes, my category would be “Potatoes and Sweet Potatoes/Yams: Mashed, candied, stuffed, or with sauce” and my RACC would be 140 grams.

Step 2, how can someone measure it out?

Here’s where the variation begins! You might just want to use that 140 grams we saw above; however, not everyone has a scale in their kitchen, and let’s see you try to guess how much mashed potato makes up 140 grams. Can you think of the last time you weighed your food, much less with metric weights (provided you live in the U.S.)?

So at this juncture, the government instructs manufacturers to determine what the closest “common household measurement” to one RACC of your product is. So if we take 140g of our potatoes and see that that’s about 2/3 of a cup, our serving size becomes 2/3 of a cup!

>THIS IS IMPORTANT<

Imagine we made a new, super fluffy mashed potato with more butter, and 140 grams of these potatoes actually wind up closer to ¾ of a cup. This means that even though both potato products were based on a RACC of 140g, they might have two completely different serving sizes, and the manufacturer arrived at each using the same government reference amount!

So there you have it, two serving sizes created based on a government standard, but completely different once observed on the store shelf. How could there be even more variation?

Single Serving

Ah, right. For many products, if the entire container contains less or near 200% of the RACC amount, then there are different rules to play by. In most cases, the product will be considered a single serving, but in others, manufacturers have the choice to label them as one or two servings. This is why you see different types of labeling in small containers such as ice cream, muffins, soda, and other “single serving” containers that appear significantly larger than the usual RACC amount.

As eaten, not as sold

Ah, and this is critical. When you ask someone how much cake they eat, they typically don’t respond with, “about 1/3 of a box of cake mix”. RACC values are based on products as they are consumed. However, serving sizes are based on products as they are sold. The reasoning? Because it would be bizarre to buy a bag of flour and see “two slices of bread” for a serving size. This makes more sense for some products than others, but ultimately serving sizes for products that require further preparation are the amount of packaged product it takes to make about 1 RACC of product as eaten. And remember, this must be rounded off at a common household measure!

Final thoughts

As we realize that our beloved nutrition facts panel is now old enough to drink (enforcement began in ’94), we look back and start to wonder if that data from the 70’s and 80’s used to determine RACC values still holds water. I can’t think of anyone who eats ½ cup of ice cream in a sitting, nor leaves the potato chip bag untouched after their first 10-20 chips.

But how about we think about RACC values in a different way. These values were never intended to be an expectation, but simply a way to bring nutrition information into context using consumer data. The thousands of calories in a 20 lb. bag of rice don’t have a lot of context when I eat it one bowl at a time, but that’s also not to say that I’ll never eat an obscene amount of rice in one sitting just because I’m starving.

Instead think of it this way, if these values are simply references to what we customarily consume at a time, we’ve got a great tool on our hands. I wouldn’t expect you to eat only ½ cup of ice cream, but have you noticed that many ice cream scoops happen to portion about ½ cup of ice cream at a time? And while I’ve been known to turn a bag of kettle fried chips into a meal, I still eat them one handful at a time, which just so happens to contain approximately 10-15 chips.

If only some sort of reference was available so that I could tell about how many calories I ate with each handful…

To learn more about how serving sizes are determined for all food products, check out the labeling and nutrition documents on the FDA website, this PowerPoint provided by the FSIS, or the Guide to Federal Food Labeling Requirements for Meat, Poultry, and Egg Products. Check out what consumer opinions of labels are looking like since 2008 in the FDA’s consumer research.

Choinière C. & Lando A. (2008). 2008 Health and Diet Survey, DOI:

ResearchBlogging.org

Conrad J. Choinière, & Amy Lando (2008). 2008 Health and Diet Survey FDA Consumer Behavior Research Foos Safety Surveys (FSS)

Microscopic observation in live tissue, awesome! But don’t ignore the methods

It has been far too long since I wrote a blog post. Look out internet, I have a blogging itch that needs scratching, and it’ll probably cause a rash!

…I apologize for that mental image.

The NIH sent me an email this week (via the various government listservs I’m enrolled in) that was proudly declaring that the mysteries of the cell were being solved right now, so I took the clickbait. In it was a cool study where we were able to actively watch mitochondria oscillate inside a living animal.

There are two rabbit holes to enter with this article. The first is the observation of interest, which was mitochondrial oscillation. While these slinky moves have been observed in cell cultures, the authors wanted to see if there were any differences in cells that were part of a living, breathing animal.

Movement isn’t a surprising thing. If you’ve ever drawn the ATP synthase lollipop (totally relatable experience for everyone, right?), you already know that some of the main membrane proteins in mitochondria are constantly rolling around attaching phosphates to create ATP. The cool thing though, is that since they’re synching up with each other, that means there could be cellular communication mechanisms that are helping coordinate mitochondrial efforts to produce energy as needed. Which makes sense if you’re generating ATP in response to a stress event on a cellular level.

But what if you’re an animal? A slice of muscle tissue is made up of many muscle fibers, all of which contain mitochondria. It seems like there would be a need to coordinate increased energy production if you were planning to use all those fibers in sync to move. When looking at the cellular tissue inside a living rat’s salivary gland epithelium (the covering layer of the gland), the authors observed that mitochondria oscillated in sync not only within individual cells, but in sync with other cells in the tissue. The authors describe it in their press release wonderfully:

“You look through the microscope, and it almost looks like a synchronized dance”

It’s always more fun looking at living cells and tissue, it reminds you that all of that stuff we can’t see is always buzzing around without our notice and crawling all over our skin and gut.

Hypochondriacs I apologize for that second image.

So since we like looking at living things, let’s get to the second cool part that the press release seems to gloss over, how the hell were we observing cell structures in a living animal!

The principal author, Roberto Weigert, was the first one to publish this technique, so I went to that article to better understand what’s going on. I don’t want to dig into the microscopy so much, as the technical information is a little overwhelming. I’ll just say that there are really cool microscopes that can use near-infrared light to penetrate deep into different tissues (segregated visually by the injection of fluorescent dyes). The article has some amazing images of mouse vasculature that are both easy to observe and understand. But that technology isn’t what this blog is about. What I want to know is, what did this study entail for the animals used?

For this procedure, the research rats were anesthetized and had their salivary glands “externalized”, meaning that they gained access to them presumably by opening/removing the skin, fat, and muscle layers and segregating the gland as far as they could for the procedure (you’d be surprised how far you can pull things out while they’re still attached). Then, they bathed/saturated the glands with various dyes and chemical/hormone baths depending on what they were observing in that particular instance.

Once the images were taken, presumably these brave rats were euthanized, I couldn’t find a reference in the procedure but ultimately it had no bearing on the ability to replicate the experiment and was not included.

Now imagining these experiments in vivo (in living animals) brings up nasty words like vivisection. However it’s always important that the authors of the study aren’t left to singly decide if the research is necessary or not, it’s up to the Animal Care and Use Committee to allow the use of animal subjects for research at the NIH.

In order to use and ultimately euthanize these animals, the authors had to prove that: the information learned from the study will benefit humans and/or animals, there is a rationale for using animals including why a surrogate (e.g. cell culture) would not work (the authors make a great statement in their press release by describing the observations as if you’re looking at a tree vs. the forest), and a description of how the authors have actively attempted to minimize pain and discomfort for the animals used.

Ultimately I chose to write about this article because the methods were cool, but also to acknowledge the animal use inherent, but understated, in this type of research. It’s important to remember that often new information comes at the cost of continuing to support animal research when justified, and to not hide the facts from ourselves.

In order to responsibly care for all of our domestic species, we need to remember that before they were beef, eggs, milk, nuggets, or a data point, they needed to be cared for and euthanized humanely.

ResearchBlogging.org

Natalie Porat-Shliom, Yun Chen, Muhibullah Tora, Akiko Shitara, Andrius Masedunskas, & Roberto Weigertemail (2014). In Vivo Tissue-wide Synchronization of Mitochondrial Metabolic Oscillations Cell Reports : http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep.2014.09.022

Weigert R, Porat-Shliom N, & Amornphimoltham P (2013). Imaging cell biology in live animals: ready for prime time. The Journal of cell biology, 201 (7), 969-79 PMID: 23798727

Why isn’t the USDA declaring the invisible feces in our meat?

No, that wasn’t a typo. Today I came across this petition for rulemaking to FSIS from the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine.

First off: PCRM has some great programs that promote research, animal welfare, and better medicine. The overall merit of their organization cannot be judged by a single program or campaign they have in place.

Now let’s tear this petition apart, because I actually had to check their website to make sure it was real, and not an over-the-top satire from The Onion.

The concern the committee wishes to correct via this petition is thus:

“Inconsistent with its statutory mandate, USDA regularly passes at inspection meat and poultry that is  contaminated with feces. Although USDA implements a “zero tolerance” policy for fecal contamination, this policy applies to visible fecal contamination only. The result is that fecally contaminated meat and poultry products pass inspection as long as the feces on them are not “visible” to the naked eye.

This inspection policy conveys a misleading promise of “wholesomeness.” Feces may contain round worms, hair worms, tape worms, and leftover bits of whatever the animal excreting the feces may have eaten, not to mention the usual fecal components of digestive juices and various chemicals that the animal was in the process of excreting. Americans deserve fair notice that food products deemed “wholesome” by USDA would be deemed disgusting by the average consumer and adulterated under any reasonable reading of federal law.”

Not to quote without context, the petition goes on to list the ways in which non-obvious feces may be introduced to meat product, the most valid being shared scald/chill tanks in processing operations.

Ultimately, the corrections the committee is seeking are removal of the “wholesome” description from USDA inspected meats, begin treating feces as an adulterant, and:

“USDA should amend sections 317.2(l)(2) and 381.125(b)(2)(i) of the Code of Federal Regulations to exclude from the current mandatory label the sentence that reads, “This product was prepared from inspected and passed meat
and/or poultry.” USDA should amend sections 317.2(l)(2), 381.125(b)(2)(i), and 381.125(b)(2)(ii) of Title 9 to include in the mandatory label the following as the second-to-last sentence: “This product may be permeated with feces, which cooking does not remove.”

That’s some pretty heavy language, perfectly stated to play on the fears and squeamishness of your average consumer. However, I see nothing written there about food safety, so the intention of the change is obvious: prevent people from eating meat.

While the about page for PCRM mentions nothing about being proponents of animal rights, the amount of articles devoted to encouraging a purely vegan diet clearly shows that they have an anti-meat agenda. While they correctly advertize the health benefits of vegan foods, a quick search of their website saturates any visitor with the message “meat is bad, and animal agriculture is always cruel”.

The petition shines a light on a group that is ready to intentionally scare and mislead consumers into changing their lifestyle. As part of their justification that feces is everywhere, they cite one of their own studies, “Fecal Contamination in Retail Chicken Products“. In this study, the committee proved that invisible fecal contamination is everywhere by “testing for the presence of feces.”

No such test exists.

What they actually did was test for generic E. coli, which can act as an indicator organism for fecal contamination.  HACCP programs in slaughter facilities use on-line enumeration of E. coli and other coliforms to validate critical control points for just that purpose. But in this case, rather than setting limits and using a statistical rationale to make a conclusion about the level of contamination, it appears that any evidence of the presence of E. coli  led to the determination that the sample was contaminated with feces. Because there are no methods declared, this evidence could be as mundane as RNA fragments from a non-pathogenic strain recovered in an enriched sample.

The study is absolutely meaningless. There is no available data to review in terms of the levels of contamination, no methods listed for how the E. coli was enumerated, and finally no legitimate publication, suggesting that the construction of the study and its conclusions would not have passed peer review.

As part of the rule change, PCRM would like feces to be declared as an adulterant. Generally, USDA inspectors cannot allow adulterated products to enter commerce, adding to the ludicrosity of this proposal. By the PCRM’s definition, all meat products are covered in invisible feces, and the presence of invisible feces should prevent any product from entering commerce. In one swift move, PCRM will ensure that only clean, wholesome meats will be sold, i.e. none.

But have things changed over the years to make eating meat less safe? The PCRM thinks so. I have no data to argue whether or not Americans are cooking less (PCRM also neglected to provide data), and eating more RTE products, but I did think it was funny that when I read this:

“Americans today consume far more meat and poultry than ever before, thereby increasing their potential exposure to fecal contamination in these products”

When the first link I read on their website contained this graph…
Which is it PCRM? Whichever is more convenient for the ad campaign at the time?
(side note: if people indeed are eating out more in restaurants, that would mean they are eating at inspected restaurants where county health inspectors ensure adequate cooking temperatures, rather than at home where people rarely if ever have proper process control)

Finally, the idea that the USDA needs to declare the presence of invisible feces on every product that passes inspection makes no logical sense,  and does nothing but mislead the consumer, not only by implying that the product isn’t safe in general, but that fully cooking the product makes no difference. If it wasn’t obvious by now that this proposed rule change isn’t solely to earn points with vegans, look closely the wording. In order to turn consumers off meat, PCRM would risk undoing years of public education and trust in proper cooking temperatures.

Clearly I took this proposal too literally, but because FSIS will actually have to review the proposal, and PCRM wants to brag about how these changes might occur, I offer one last piece of evidence to support my view that this proposal belongs on a tabloid.
Proposed legends

…one of their proposed inspection marks literally contains a DO NOT EAT symbol.

ResearchBlogging.org

Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (2013). Re: Fecal Contamination of Poultry and Meat USDA Petition for Rulemaking

claimtoken-529d75f1bc9a5

New name and URL

Animal Science Review is now Fur, Farm, & Fork! Because I graduated from OSU, I have had to move the hosting for this blog to a wordpress URL.

I will continue to generate new content, with a completely unpredictable schedule as usual, at the new location. So if you’re someone who actually likes to read my stuff, be sure to change your bookmarks and RSS over to furfarmandfork.wordpress.com, as I will no longer update at blogs.oregonstate.edu/abouck.

 

Cheers,

-Austin

The poultry microbiome, once again proving that culture-based ecology misleads us all

Shigella penetrating the intestinal wall. Source: cellimagelibrary.org

If the world was enriched and homogenized, we would actually have a very good idea of what the microbiological community within looks like. Fortunately, the world is much more complex than the miniature environments we culture in the lab, and high throughput sequencing (HTS) is allowing us to fully appreciate micro-biodiversity. As new information becomes available, many of our models for microbial communities continue to be challenged by the actual composition of species in natural environments.

In the world of food safety, we rely on these models to set policy on a regulatory level, and to set critical limits down at the production level. Which tests we run on what products depend directly on what organisms (that cause food borne illness or spoilage) are supposed to be found on that type of food. The authors of this study that came out in PLOS ONE this February examined the microbiome associated with poultry products from farm to fork (meaning from clucking chicken to packaged poultry product) using HTS rather than culture/enrichment methods. The results indicate that there is an unappreciated amount of diversity between different stages of the poultry production process, and that we may not acknowledge the presence of some organisms as much as we should.

In the study, samples were taken from multiple steps in the poultry production process: wet and dry litter, fecal samples, fluid from carcasses collected during the cooling process following slaughter, and fluid from raw retail poultry products (legs, wings, and breasts). Other than the retail portion, all of the samples collected were from the same batch of birds from start to finish. The available RNA from viable cells in each sample was amplified and identified as belonging to specific species using a combination of Illumina sequencing and database referencing (blastn and usearch).

From this pile of data, lists of organisms were compiled to compare the ecosystem profile for each point in production.

The numbers refer the the number of unique taxa found in each group

The authors were very surprised by the amount of diversity between the two litter samples (wet and dry) and the fecal sample. They expected to see very similar profiles, as all of the predicted microbes in those groups would be inoculated from contact with fecal material (young chicks have no inherited microflora, and are coprophagous); however, all of the groups’ microbial communities had very little in common. As shown above, of the hundreds of unique species identified, only 52 were actually found at every stage from farm to fork.

In evaluating food safety, several results are of concern. The first was that the authors found significant amounts of Shigella spp., which have traditionally not been associated with poultry products and may not be a part of many sanitation programs. The second is that in one of their dry litter samples, the authors found a large amount of C. jejuni. It’s presence was interesting as previous studies have found it difficult to cultivate C. jejuni onto dry litter, suggesting that it will not grow in that environment. This discovery further shows that our attempts to cultivate bacteria are not indicative of their behavior in “the wild”. There may be nutrient gradients or a symbiont in play that allows C. jejuni to grow; therefore the possible contamination of dry litter has to be acknowledged in that facility’s Campylobacter monitoring program.

The last point of interest I’ll discuss here is the large amount of unique species that were found in samples following slaughter. This suggests that these species did not come from the farm, but rather were introduced during slaughter and processing. Interestingly, among Campylobacter spp., there was little to no abundance of C. jejuni in the samples, but differing amounts of other Campylobacter spp. This is revealing, as we have been predisposed to expect C. jejuni to be present due to our use of selective media.

Let’s fully appreciate the amount of diversity found within the processing facility, the authors collected two post-processing samples labeled carcass rinse and carcass weep. The rinse was composed of fluid shaken off of the carcass following its removal from the chlorinated chill tanks, and the weep was the drippings from the same carcass 48 hours later. 2/3 of the unique species found the weep samples were not found in the rinse. The authors interpret this as being due to the fact that the sterilization of carcasses is not the goal of poultry processing, and provide the example that viable Salmonella can be recovered from carcasses even after they are sent through the standard antimicrobial processes. The goal is to reduce enumeration, not sterilization.

Finally, in examining the retail samples, we get what we expect. Similar organisms as the weep, with some new faces, presumably because they persisted through processing at undetectable levels, and slowly grew as the product was stored in refrigeration.

The authors conclude by examining some potential symbionts that would allow C. jejuni to persist, but ultimately say that due to the high number of environments C. jejuni can occupy, attempting to exclude it in a universal way will not be very effective.

So all in all, a thorough example of the misdirection we receive from culture bias, and a startling look at how, given enough incubation time, properly processed meat can still support a huge amount of microbial diversity, including many food borne pathogens.

Appreciate this diversity, and make sure you cook your chicken to temperature.

 

ResearchBlogging.org

Oakley BB, Morales CA, Line J, Berrang ME, Meinersmann RJ, Tillman GE, Wise MG, Siragusa GR, Hiett KL, & Seal BS (2013). The Poultry-Associated Microbiome: Network Analysis and Farm-to-Fork Characterizations. PloS one, 8 (2) PMID: 23468931