E Ennhhaanncciinngg FFoooodd SSaaffeettyy · tion” process for “solid” food such as meat,...

EEEEnnnnhhhhaaaannnncccciiiinnnngggg FFFFoooooooodddd SSSSaaaaffffeeeettttyyyy TTTThhhhrrrroooouuuugggghhhh IIII rrrrrrrraaaaddddiiiiaaaatttt iiiioooonnnn

International Consultative Group on Food Irradiation(ICGFI)

The ICGFIJoint FAO/IAEA Division of Nuclear Techniques

in Food and Agriculture,Wagramerstrasse 5,

P.O.Box 100,A-1400 Vienna, Austria

1999

Contents

For eword 5

Executive Summar y 6

Intr oduction 8

Worldwide Incidence of Foodborne Illness 9

Cost of Foodborne Illness 12

Pr evention of Foodborne Illness by Irradiation 13

Red meat and poultry 14Seafood 14Fruits and vegetables 14Dairy products 14Egg products 15Spices 15

Specific Benefits of Food Irradiation 16

Cost of Food Irradiation 17

Irradiation is not a Panacea 18

Conclusions and Recommendations 18

Refer ences 19

The International Consultative Group onFood Irradiation (ICGFI) was established on 9 May 1984 under the aegis of FAO, IAEA andWHO. ICGFI is composed of experts andother representatives designated by govern-ments which have accepted the terms of the“Declaration” establishing ICGFI and havepledged to make voluntary contributions, incash or in kind, to carry out the activities ofICGFI.

The functions of ICGFI are as follows:

❐ to evaluate global developments in thefield of food irradiation;

❐ to provide a focal point of advice on theapplication of food irradiation toMember States and the Organizations;and

❐ to furnish information as required,through the Organizations, to the JointFAO/IAEA/WHO Expert Committeeon the Wholesomeness of IrradiatedFood, and the Codex AlimentariusCommission.

As of May 1998, the following countriesare members of ICGFI:

Argentina, Australia, Bangladesh, Belgium,Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica,Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Czech Republic,Ecuador, Egypt, France, Germany, Ghana,Greece, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Israel,Italy, Republic of Korea, Malaysia, Mexico,Morocco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Pakistan,People’s Republic of China, Peru, Philippines,Poland, Portugal, South Africa, Syrian ArabRepublic, Thailand, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine,United Kingdom, United States of America,Viet Nam, and Yugoslavia.

The 11th Annual Meeting of ICGFI held inBali, Indonesia, November 1994 requestedthat a comprehensive Programme of Work andBudget of ICGFI for 1996-98 be developed tofacilitate the consideration of ICGFI membergovernments on the extension of its mandate.A Working Group was therefore convened forthis purpose in Vienna in April 1995 whichrecommended, among other things, that

urgent consideration be given to thedevelopment of ICGFI documents whichwould clearly define the role that irradiationcan play in achieving the general policy goalsendorsed by Member States of various UNOrganizations. Five such policy documents inthe areas of Food Safety, Food Security, TradeDevelopment, Environment, and EnergyConservation were recommended by theWorking Group. However, in view of thefinancial constraints, the 12th ICGFI AnnualMeeting held in Vienna, November 1995,decided to prepare only the first three suchdocuments.

Issues affecting food safety have driventhe agenda of many governments, the foodindustry and consumer organizations duringthe 1990’s and are likely to continue doing soduring the next decade. Irradiation as a methodto ensure hygienic quality of food, especiallythose of animal origin, is gaining acceptanceand application in a number of countries. It isincreasingly recognized as a “cold pasteuriza-tion” process for “solid” food such as meat,poultry, seafood and spices, similar to thermalpasteurization of liquid food, e.g. milk, whichis widely accepted by the consumer.

This publication was prepared by Dr. ElsaA. Murano and Dr. H. Russell Cross, of theInstitute of Food Science and Engineering,Centre for Food Safety, Texas A&M University,USA, on behalf of ICGFI. It clearly explainsthe effectiveness of irradiation as a method toensure hygienic quality of food. It providesvaluable information for regulatory authori-ties, the food industry and consumers on theuse of irradiation for this purpose. Afterundergoing a peer review and comments bynational contact points of ICGFI and subse-quent revisions by the author, this documentwas approved for publication as one of theinformation documents by the 14th ICGFIMeeting. The ICGFI Secretariat gratefullyacknowledge the valuable contribution of Dr. Murano and Dr. Cross and those whowere involved in reviewing this document.This document was professionally edited by Mr. R. Peniston-Bird, a former editor ofIAEA.

Enhancing Food Safety Through Irradiation

5

Foreword

Food safety is one of the leading healthissues concerning consumers, the foodindustry, academia, and government offi-cials worldwide. Bacteria such asSalmonella and Escherichia coli O157:H7 arethe primary cause of food poisoning inindustrialized countries, with an estimated9000 deaths per year in the USA alone. Indeveloping countries, parasitic diseasesconstitute a major problem, and togetherwith bacterial and viral foodborne illness,account for hundreds of millions of casesper year. The true incidence of diseasestransmitted via foods is very difficult todetermine, mainly due to the lack of ade-quate reporting mechanisms. In addition,many patients do not seek medical atten-tion during the illness, resulting in under-estimation of the problem. To illustrate thispoint, from 1990 to 1992, there were tentimes fewer outbreaks of foodborne illnessreported in Italy than in France, in spite ofsimilar population sizes.

Foodborne diseases are caused by vari-ous microorganisms: parasites, bacteria,and viruses. Parasites such as the porktapeworm, Taenia solium, are endemic inmany rural areas of Latin America, Asia,and Africa. Another parasite, Trichinella spi-ralis, is involved in outbreaks due to con-sumption of game meats in Europe, and ofpork in the former Soviet Union and thePeople’s Republic of China. Renewed inter-est in foodborne parasites has emerged inthe USA, due to recent outbreaks caused byCyclospora cayetanensis from contaminatedimported fruits and vegetables originatingin Latin America.

Bacteria are by far the leading cause offoodborne illness worldwide. The majorityof outbreaks are caused by Salmonella,Shigella, and Staphylococcus aureus, pathogens

found primarily in foods of animal origin.Vibrio cholerae, an organism associated withwater and seafood, has caused over onemillion cases of illness in Latin Americaand Asia since 1995. The organism E. coliserotype O157:H7 has revolutionized themeat inspection system in the USA, andoutbreaks in Japan and Wales due to thisorganism have resulted in thousands ofcases and dozens of deaths from consump-tion of contaminated, undercooked meat.In considering the causes for foodborne ill-ness, improper holding temperature andpoor personal hygiene rank highest.

Food irradiation is a technology that hasbeen proven safe, resulting in wholesomeproducts, through research, spanning over40 years, conducted worldwide. The dosesused for eliminating foodborne pathogensare in the medium range, between 1 and 10 kGy. These doses can readily decreasethe number of microorganisms by at least 5 log10, resulting in the total elimination ofpathogenic bacteria in most cases. As a critical control point during processing offresh foods, irradiation is easy to monitor,has quantifiable parameters, and science-based critical limits. For this reason, foodirradiation fits well within the HazardAnalysis Critical Control Points (HACCP)system recently mandated throughout themeat and seafood industries in the USA.

Specific benefits of this technology inimproving food safety include: (1) effec-tiveness in destroying microorganisms ofpublic health significance, (2) elimination ofpost-processing contamination due to irra-diation of product already packaged, and(3) maintenance of food quality, as long asthe process is applied correctly. Regardingcost, economists have calculated that itwould cost just under US $0.02 per pound


6

Executive Summary

for a plant to irradiate 52 million pounds offood per year at a dose of 2.5 kGy. Althoughthese costs may not be accurate, it has beenshown that consumers are willing to pay asmuch as US$0.30, once the benefits of irra-diation are presented to them.

Application of food irradiation can have atremendous impact on food safety.Organizations like the World HealthOrganization (WHO), the Institute of FoodTechnologists, and the American MedicalAssociation, among many, have endorsed

this technology for enhancement of foodsafety, which it offers. Education of all con-sumers is the first step towards its imple-mentation. However, governments must notdelay the approval of irradiated foods anylonger than necessary. Incentives should beprovided for those willing to use the tech-nology. Finally, academia, government,industry, and consumer advocacy groupsshould work together to bring irradiatedfoods to the marketplace, offering consumersthe choice of safer products made so by theintelligent application of this technology.


7

Foodborne illness is a problem recog-nized by many as one of the leading healthconcerns facing consumers worldwide. TheWorld Health Organization (WHO) has esti-mated that 70% of all cases of diarrhoea ininfants and young are attributable to con-sumption of contaminated food. Bacteria,such as Salmonella and Campylobacter andothers, are primarily responsible for a rise inthe number of cases of foodborne illness inindustrialized countries from 1965 to 1990,with an estimated 7000 annual deaths fromsalmonellosis in the USA alone. In develop-ing countries, foodborne bacterial, viral andparasitic diseases are a major problem,affecting hundreds of millions of peopleevery year (Käferstein, 1997).

The World Summit for Children in 1990addressed foodborne illness, by stating thatproviding adequate diets for children, oneswhich are, nutritionally acceptable as well assafe, is one of the steps that must be includ-ed in any plan of action to protect and help thechildren of the world. In 1992, the UnitedNations Conference on the Environment andDevelopment adopted a measure to protectand promote health through the control ofinfectious diseases, including those transmit-ted by food. In the same year, theInternational Conference on Nutrition hostedby the Food and Agriculture Organization(FAO) and the WHO stated that access tonutritionally adequate and safe food was aright of every individual (Motarjemi andKäferstein,1996).

Food irradiation is a technology that hasbeen studied for over 40 years worldwide,offering several important benefits. The mostimportant of these is the effectiveness of irra-diation in reducing, if not totally eliminating,

microbial pathogens in food. This is especial-ly significant when applied to minimallyprocessed foods, or to foods intended to beconsumed raw. Elimination or reduction offoodborne pathogens in such foods is espe-cially important to people with compro-mised immune systems, such as the elderly,cancer patients and AIDS patients. Food irra-diation provides them with a source of fresh,wholesome, nutritious and, most important-ly, safe food not otherwise available.

The doses that have been approved invarious countries for the decontamination ofmost foods range from 1.5 to 7.0 kGy. Theseare sufficient to eliminate from 3 to 10 log10cycles per gram of bacterial pathogens,depending on the organism. Most disease-causing bacteria are found in numbers rang-ing from <10 to 100 cells per gram of food.Thus, population reductions as describedabove would certainly render contaminatedproducts free, or almost free, from pathogen-ic contaminants, having reduced their num-bers to such low levels that foodborne illnessdoes not develop.

There is ample evidence that the bene-fits of applying this technology will morethan offset its costs. Food irradiation offersopportunities to reduce significantly theincidence of foodborne illness throughoutthe world. The benefits of increased imple-mentation of this technology should beseriously considered by governments,industry and consumers. This documentprovides information on the global prob-lem of foodborne illness, the methods cur-rently used to counter it, the cost that out-breaks represent for society, and how foodirradiation can be used to enhance foodsafety.


8

Introduction

The worldwide incidence of foodborneillness is very difficult to establish, mainlyowing to the low rate of reporting by manycountries, especially those with very limitedresources. Countries must often rely onpoorly organized entities within their healthagencies to collect data on outbreaks. Suchdata, if obtainable at all, are usually gatheredonly by the physicians involved, so do notinclude people who allow the disease to ‘runits course’, choosing not to seek medicalattention. In the USA, foodborne diseases arereported to local and state health depart-ments, which then report this information tothe Centers for Disease Control andPrevention in Atlanta, Georgia. Since this is apassive system, cases frequently go unre-ported.

It has been estimated by many expertsthat in the USA only 10% of the actual casesof foodborne illness are reported, despite thefact that this country possesses one of themost advanced reporting networks of allindustrialized nations. Figure 1 representsthe average number of annual cases reportedin the USA, while Figure 2 depicts the esti-mates made by Bennett and Todd in 1987and 1989, respectively, on what the actualnumbers may be. Even if we follow the moreconservative figures, it is clear that the num-ber of cases is exceedingly high.

The Pan-American Institute of FoodProtection and Zoonoses (INPPAZ) has pub-lished information on the number of cases offoodborne illness in several developingnations in Latin America during the first halfof 1995 (Table I). The inconsistency in report-ing in this part of the world is evident, withCuba showing vastly higher numbers ofcases than much larger countries. This isprincipally due to a superior system ofreporting in Cuba compared to its neigh-

bours. This emphasizes the fact that, untilbetter systems can be developed, any num-ber of cases of foodborne illness in LatinAmerica must be thought of as indicative ofa larger problem. Table II lists the outbreaksof foodborne illness reported by variousEuropean health agencies. Upon close exam-ination, it is easy to suspect underreportingby some countries. For instance, Italy report-ed ten times fewer outbreaks than France,although their population sizes are similar(57 million for the former, and 55 million forthe latter). In addition, we must be aware ofthe fact that the system followed for report-ing of foodborne illness episodes (cases oroutbreaks) are different in each country,making comparisons of the data highly spec-ulative.

In a report by 20 European countries,including those mentioned in Table II, aswell as Albania, the Czech Republic, theNetherlands, Slovakia, Switzerland, Englandand Wales, the causative agent was known in80.5% of the outbreaks. Of these, 94.9% werecaused by bacteria, 2.3% were caused bychemicals and mushroom intoxications, 1.5%were caused by parasites and 0.6% werecaused by viruses (WHO, 1995).

This is not to say that diseases caused byagents other than bacteria are not significantin their morbidity and their impact on soci-ety. The pork tapeworm, Taenia solium, isendemic in many rural areas of LatinAmerica, Asia, and Africa. A similar organ-ism, Taenia saginata, found in beef, infectsabout 200 million people worldwide (Steeleand Engel, 1992). From 1988 to 1992, in theUSA alone, there were 195 reported cases offoodborne disease caused by the parasiteTrichinella spiralis, and 184 cases caused byGiardia lamblia (CDC, 1996a). However, inEurope trichinellosis is recorded very rarely,


9

Worldwide Incidence of Foodborne Illness

with most of the cases now due to con-sumption of game meats such as bear. Thisis mainly attributable to the fact that inspec-tion of pork in those countries involvestrichinoscopy, or the microscopical examina-tion of small pieces of muscle from swinecarcasses, a practice not performed in theUSA. Outbreaks of varying severity are stilloccurring in eastern Europe, the formerSoviet Union, and China (Hui et al., 1994).

Parasites have actually gained newmomentum in terms of outbreaks of food-borne illness due to the consumption of con-taminated fruits and vegetables. Before1996, most documented cases of cyclospori-asis in the USA (caused by Cyclospora cayeta-nensis) were limited to individuals returningfrom travel in Third World countries (CDC,1996b). However, with the expansion ofglobal markets and increased food imports,this parasite has gained prominence as anemerging foodborne pathogen. In 1997, atleast 21 clusters of cases of cyclosporiasiswere reported in eight states in the USA,and in one province of Canada. Fresh rasp-berries were served at 19 of the 21 events.These were reported to originate fromGuatemala, prompting the US Food andDrug Administration (FDA) to request vol-untary suspension of exports of fresh rasp-berries to the USA (CDC, 1997).

In the case of toxins produced by molds,mycotoxicoses affecting humans have beenrecorded since the Middle Ages. Theseorganisms can grow on a variety of sub-strates and conditions, making foods verysusceptible to mold infection if not storedproperly. In the USA, grains are easily andfrequently contaminated with Fusarium tox-ins, with zearalenone and others beingfound in corn (NAS, 1983). Deoxynivalenolhas been detected in wheat in the USA afterinfestation of the grain by F. gramineareum(Trenholm et al., 1985). There is very littleinformation on the risk of illness, includingtoxicity, carcinogenicity, and teratogenicityof mycotoxins. Even though safe levels havenot been established, the FDA sets ‘practical

limits’ for aflatoxins in foods and feeds.

The relationship between ingestion ofmycotoxins and human disease is not veryeasy to determine, mainly because there islittle direct evidence in terms of controlledexperiments with human subjects. However,ergotism, alimentary toxic aleukia, acute car-diac beriberi, Balkan endemic nephropathy,and aflatoxicosis are all attributable to con-sumption of fungal toxins in foods such ascereal grains (peanuts, corn, wheat, rice),cheese and rotted apples (Bullerman, 1979).Mold growth on food can be minimizedthrough good sanitation during productionand handling, as well as by proper storage.Thus, it is no surprise that the greatest poten-tial for human disease caused by mycotoxinsis in countries that are least able to reject low-quality foods, and with the most inadequateconditions for storage of grains.

Regarding bacteria, in countries such asthe USA, Canada, England and Wales, theleading causes of foodborne illness out-breaks are Salmonella, Staphylococcus aureusand Clostridium perfringens (Figs 1, 3(a) and(b)). This is in contrast to what happens inLatin America, where Shigella species,Salmonella, and Escherichia coli (excludingenterohaemorrhagic serotypes) are responsi-ble for the majority of the outbreaks (Figure3(c)). An entirely different picture is seen incountries such as Taiwan, where the leadingcause of foodborne illness is Vibrio para-haemolyticus (Figure 3(d)). It is worth notingthat the organism Vibrio cholerae has been asignificant disease agent in Latin Americaand Asia in the last six years. From 1991 to1994, infection with V. cholerae has causedover a million cases of profuse, watery diar-rhoea, with 9642 deaths reported in the west-ern hemisphere alone (CDC, 1995). Thesecases, however, are attributed mainly to con-tamination of drinking water, and not direct-ly to food.

Of concern to many health officials is theemergence of new causative agents of food-borne illness. The organism responsible for


10

haemorrhagic colitis, E. coli serotypeO157:H7, is one such example, with casesnumbering eight per 100 000 in WashingtonState in the USA alone, compared with 21 forSalmonella. Outbreaks have been numerousthroughout the world, especially in industri-alized nations. In 1996 alone, Japan sufferedover 9500 cases of haemorrhagic colitis, withat least 11 deaths in only three months (IASR,1996).

The type of organism involved in a caseof foodborne illness can point to specificpractices, diets, or eating habits that may beresponsible for it. These practices can bethought of as risk factors, and their identifi-cation can help us determine how these canbe controlled in order to prevent foodborneillness. Organisms found in the intestinaltract of animals and humans, such asSalmonella, Shigella and pathogenic serotypesof E. coli, are usually involved in cases wheremishandling, cross-contamination of cookedproduct with raw product, or undercookingare seen. In such cases, strict observation ofproper sanitation practices, application ofthe Hazard Analysis Critical Control Points(HACCP) system, achieving the properinternal temperature during cooking, andmaintaining proper temperature duringholding or storage are critical in preventingfoodborne illness. The same can be said forVibrio, which is a problem in countries whereraw or undercooked seafood is consumed. Inthe case of Staphylococcus aureus, an organ-ism found in human skin and mucous mem-branes, care in handling raw product is thekey. With Clostridium perfringens, rapid cool-ing of heated foods containing this organismis important in preventing germination ofthe spores during storage.

Data submitted by seven European coun-tries with advanced reporting systems con-firm the above, pointing to temperatureabuse as the leading factor that contributes

to outbreaks of foodborne illness (Table III).Similarly, it has been recently reported in theUSA that improper holding temperaturesand poor personal hygiene are responsiblefor most of the outbreaks in that country(Table IV).

Another risk factor that could be consid-ered, besides food preparation practices, isthe place in which the outbreaks of food-borne illness occur. Figure 4 (a - d) showssome variation in where most of the prob-lems lie, according to country. In the USA,where a large portion of the populationdines outside the home, restaurants are theleading source. There have also been severaloutbreaks of foodborne illness from foodconsumed at public gatherings, such aschurch picnics (Figure 4(a)). Thus, food-borne illness is mostly caused by under-cooking and poor sanitation practices, mostof which are usually found where food isprepared and served, not where it is manu-factured. However, it must be stressed thatthese data represent only the reported cases,not the actual number of cases. Thus, con-clusions drawn on the risk of consumingfoods in the various locations listed may notbe completely accurate.

A third risk factor to consider is thetypes of food that are involved in out-breaks of foodborne illness. In countriessuch as the USA, Canada, England andWales, muscle foods are responsible formost outbreaks, with the actual number ofcases due to consumption of seafood, redmeat and poultry differing somewhatamong these nations (Figs 5(a - c)). Saladsalso contribute significantly, but the lead-ing vehicle of infection is unknown.Similarly, in Taiwan the source of mostoutbreaks is not known (Figure 5(d)).However, foods of animal origin con-tribute to the majority of cases of food-borne illness there as well.


11

Estimating the cost of foodborne illnessaccurately is a difficult task, because thereare many variables to consider, and for someof these, it is difficult to assign a cost. Forexample, deciding how much time was lostfrom work, or how much medical care wasgiven as a result of foodborne illness, is sim-ple to figure out. However, it is not so easy todecide how much the quality of life wasdiminished because of an outbreak, or howmuch the reputation of a restaurant or foodsupplier was affected.

In determining the cost of foodborne ill-ness, economists consider costs such as med-ical care, loss of productivity, loss of leisuretime, pain and suffering, death, investiga-tion, loss of business, and legal action. Thereare several factors which influence thesecosts. One is the seriousness of the diseasefor those directly affected, and for those whoare at risk of being exposed to the same haz-ard. For example, an outbreak involving E.coli O157:H7 will likely result in immediategovernment and industry action withnational publicity, which will increase thecost compared with an outbreak involvingStaphylococcus aureus.

A second factor is the type of establish-ment where mishandling of the foodoccurred. Problems at home or at restaurantsare more likely to be self-limiting than onecaused by an error at a food processingplant, and certainly the cost to an establish-ment is greater, the larger and more well-known it is. A third factor is the number ofepisodes of foodborne illness that are takeninto consideration in calculating cost. Themore evaluations, the more accurate are thefigures.

A summary of the latest report publishedby the US Department of Agriculture

(USDA) Economic Research Service on thecost of foodborne is presented in Table V.

One approach in estimating cost is tocompare the cost of illness versus the cost ofreduced quality of life. Using a method thatestimates losses in quality-adjusted life-years based on changes in time spent by theindividual in different health conditions(mild, moderate, and severe), Mauskopf andFrench (1991) determined the cost of avoid-ing a case of salmonellosis (Figure 6).Clearly, the more severe the condition thehigher the cost, with figures ranging fromUS $250 to US $6800 for avoiding one case ofsalmonella food poisoning. Of course, thisdoes not include the cost of loss of life, whichwas estimated at over US $600 000 by theseeconomists.

All these figures are certainly reasonable,but only when actual costs (as determined ina real-life outbreak) are considered, can we becloser to knowing what foodborne illnessmeans to the economy. One such study wasconducted after an outbreak of salmonellosisin England, discovered by routine surveil-lance of laboratory reports. A total of 245cases was reported, with 51 patients admittedto a hospital and 20 developing serious infec-tion. Because of this discovery, warningswere issued to the public, distribution of theproduct stopped, and 80% of the productalready in the market was recalled anddestroyed. In performing a cost analysis, itwas relatively simple to determine the actualcosts (Figure 7). More importantly, it was fea-sible to determine the benefit, or savings, dueto having stopped the outbreak so quickly.Therefore, an outbreak that would have costapproximately £1.8 million ended up costingabout £400 000, pointing to the substantialsavings that could have been enjoyed if theoutbreak had been completely avoided.


12

Cost of Foodborne Illness

The methods that are used worldwide toprevent outbreaks of foodborne illness aresurprisingly simple. They are based onthree principles: (1) slowing down or mini-mizing the growth of microorganismsalready present in the food, usually byrefrigeration or freezing, (2) eliminating orreducing the number of contaminants, usu-ally by some form of heat treatment, acidifi-cation, addition of antimicrobial agents,drying, salting, or addition of sugar, and (3)preventing the contamination of the prod-uct in the first place (Motarjemi et al., 1995).

For products that are sold raw, either tohomes via retail or to food services, caremust be taken by the processor at the slaugh-ter or harvesting plant, to deliver a productthat is as free of contaminants as possible,knowing that contamination by foodbornepathogens by other users further down theline may be unavoidable. Subsequently, caremust be taken by the food preparer to makesure that proper storage temperatures aremaintained. In addition, whatever proce-dures are used in preparing the meal, allhandling must be done in a sanitary manner,and avoiding temperature abuse of the product.

Adherence to slaughter or harvestingprocedures that follow good manufacturingpractices in order to avoid further contami-nation of the product, and to prevent growthof contaminants already present, is the firstline of defence, and a prerequisite pro-gramme to the establishment of the HACCPsystem. This is a preventive tool that hasbeen developed to help processors identifythe significant hazards that may be intro-duced, minimized or enhanced during pro-duction. The steps along the production linewhich must be controlled in order to elimi-nate, minimize, or control these risks are

then identified. These are termed ‘criticalcontrol points’ and are closely monitored sothat they do not exceed a specific limit, thusmaintaining control of the process. However,the system is designed in such a way thateven when failure to maintain control ofthese points occurs, the processor is alerted,and specific, predescribed actions are takento prevent the product from reaching theconsumer (Molins and Motarjemi, 1997).

Red meat and poultry

The effectiveness of HACCP is enhancedby the introduction of intervention strategiesalong the line, so that if these are controlled,health risks are minimized or eliminated.There are several strategies that can be used.In animal slaughter plants, for instance,some degree of decontamination of carcassescan be achieved using hot water (Reagan etal., 1996), steam and a vacuum-and-washsystems (Dorsa et al., 1996), as well as organ-ic acid rinses (Hardin et al., 1995). However,these do not completely eliminate pathogensand, because they are applied to the productbefore packaging, do not obviate post-pro-cessing contamination.

In contrast, irradiation has been shown tobe an effective intervention measure forfresh meat. It readily decreases microbialcounts by at least 5 log10 cycles at mediumdoses (Radomyski et al., 1994). Given thatmost foodborne pathogens are found in rawfoods at levels not exceeding 102 to103cells/g, irradiation can result in theirtotal elimination. Irradiation lends itself wellto the treatment of packaged wholesale cutsor ground meat, providing the last criticalcontrol point before the product reaches theconsumer. And, as a critical control pointduring the processing operation, irradiationfits the ideal characteristics, given that it is a


13

Prevention of Foodborne Illness by Irradiation

process that is easy to monitor, with quan-tifiable parameters, and that its critical limitsare scientifically based, having been identi-fied after many years of thorough research.

Seafood

Many outbreaks of foodborne illness inthe world today are due to the intentionalconsumption of raw seafood, such as oys-ters. The consumer relies entirely on the san-itary conditions of the environment wherethe product was harvested, processed andprepared. There are various pathogenicorganisms naturally found in the marineenvironment, such as Vibrio species,Aeromonas species and Clostridium botulinum.Thus, contamination of seafood by these ispractically unavoidable. Seafood may alsobecome exposed to microorganisms presentin the human intestine due to the presence ofsewage waste water in the environment.Examples of such organisms are salmonel-lae, hepatitis virus, E. coli, Streptococcus andShigella. Bacteria can also be introducedthrough handling by the workers in a pro-cessing plant, with the major concern beingStaphylococcus aureus, an organism common-ly found on the hands and mucous mem-branes of many people. Good harvestingpractices can preclude the fishing of seafoodfrom contaminated waters, although notentirely.

As with red meat and poultry, irradiationcan be useful in decontamination of seafood.It has been shown effectively to reduce bac-terial pathogens such as those mentionedabove, with Vibrio species being especiallysusceptible to it. In fact, based on a D valueof 0.15 kGy, irradiation at medium doseswould destroy at least 10 log10 cycles of thisorganism (Radomyski et al., 1994). Thisprocess might be the only method we canuse to treat fresh, raw seafood, allowing us tohave these products in the marketplace with-out fear of disease. Such products are con-sumed regularly, yet there is no effectiveintervention strategy preventing outbreaksof foodborne illness from occurring.

Fruits and vegetables

These commodities are frequently in con-tact with soil, and thus can easily becomecontaminated with soilborne organisms, aswell as those found in manure and othermaterials that may be deposited on the soil.Thus, salmonellae, E. coli, Clostridium botu-linum, Bacillus cereus and many other patho-genic organisms can contaminate these com-modities. Contamination can also occur dur-ing harvesting, when produce comes in con-tact with dirty equipment, and when rela-tively clean items become commingled withhighly contaminated ones. Processing offruits and vegetables consists of washingwith treated water, which can itself serve asa source of contaminants to the product ifnot chlorinated properly. Produce can alsobecome contaminated if allowed to dry inenvironments where a high number of air-borne microorganisms are present.

For fruits and vegetables intended to beconsumed in the raw state, just as withseafood, consumers rely on the sanitarypractices observed during the production,harvesting and processing of these products.As we have seen from health agency reports,improper and unsanitary handling practicesare the leading cause of foodborne illnessoutbreaks, with significant numbers beingattributed to consumption of raw vegetables.Irradiation can serve to decontaminate thesurface of these commodities, supplying anadded measure of safety and, as with rawanimal products, is a critical control point inany HACCP system. Doses ranging from0.15 to 1.0 kGy can be applied withoutappreciable loss of food quality, while theyeffectively, but not completely, decontami-nate the surface, increasing the safety ofthese products (CAST, 1989).

Dairy products

Even the safety of processed foods suchas cheese and other dairy products, can becompromised by bacterial contamination,resulting in outbreaks of foodborne illness.


14

Examples are the outbreaks of listeriosis inthe 1980s in the USA, where Jalisco-brandcheese was the carrier of the organism. Inthis case, there was much speculationregarding whether Listeria monocytogenescould survive milk pasteurization, orwhether the outbreak occurred due to failureto carry out the process adequately. In anyevent, irradiation of the final product wouldhave given the final step of assurance thatthis pathogen had been eliminated from theproduct. Studies have shown that irradiationat 1.4 kGy can significantly reduce, if noteliminate, this organism from mozzarellacheese (Hashisaka, 1989). In other dairyproducts such as ice cream, where one of theingredients sometimes used is raw egg, irra-diation would again ensure that any patho-genic organism surviving the freezing treat-ment would be significantly reduced, if noteliminated. In addition, the fact that thisproduct is frozen aids in preventing thedevelopment of flavour changes that couldoccur due to irradiation. It is for this latterreason that fluid milk is not suitable for irra-diation, since organoleptic changes due tolipid oxidation of the product can occur bythis process.

Egg products

Raw shell eggs are normally given a chlori-nated water wash or a wash with an antisepticsolution to remove faecal contamination resid-ing on the shell. However, it has been docu-mented that microorganisms such asSalmonella enteritidis may be introduced intothe yolk through infected ovaries andoviducts of the hen (Humphrey et al., 1989;Hopper andMawer,1998).,

Heat treatment and dehydration can

reduce or eliminate these contaminants.However, these treatments irreversiblychange the nature of the product. Low-doseirradiation is an alternate process that can beused to decontaminate the inside, as well asthe outside, of shell eggs without alteringthem in any significant way (Ley et al., 1962).Studies have shown that irradiation at 1.5kGy is sufficient to significantly reduce (byat least four log cycles) S. enteritidis in liquidwhole eggs, while not affecting its quality(Serrano et al., 1997). Similarly, a dose of 5kGy is sufficient to reduce this organism byat least eight log cycles in frozen whole eggsand in dried egg albumen (Thornley, 1963).

Spices

Spices usually harbour microorganismsthat are associated with soil and which areresistant to the dehydration process used inproducing condiments. Spores of Clostridiumbotulinum and Bacillus cereus, among others,can be found on spices, with the potential ofgerminating and producing potent toxins infoods to which the spices are added. In addi-tion, spices can become contaminated withenteric pathogens such as salmonellaethrough the process of open-air drying(CAST, 1996). Ethylene oxide is a commonlyused gas which can eliminate bacteria aswell as mold from these products. Ionizingradiation is an alternative process, which canalso effectively eliminate these organismsfrom spices. There is a current trend favour-ing the use of processes other than fumiga-tion, mainly because of the potential of gaseslike ethylene oxide to deplete the ozone, aswell as its high flammability and toxicity(CAST, 1996). A dose of about 10 kGy can beused to achieve virtually total decontamina-tion of spices by irradiation (CAST, 1989).


15

Many studies carried out over the last 50years have proven the efficacy of irradiationin destroying in foods, microorganisms ofimportance to public health. Irradiation offresh poultry at 5 kGy, for instance, lowersthe number of salmonellae by 10 log10 cyclesper gram, a very significant reduction(Idziak and Incze, 1968). Irradiation ofground beef, turkey and other products at 2kGy has been shown to be very effectiveagainst another pathogen of concern,Campylobacter jejuni (Lambert and Maxcy,1984). Listeria monocytogenes and E. coliserotype O157:H7, pathogens which haveattracted much attention from health offi-cials and the food industry in the last decade,can be easily eliminated by irradiation atmedium doses in a variety of products(Radomyski et al., 1994). In addition, the par-asite Trichinella spiralis, the beef and porktapeworms, and the protozoan Toxoplasmagondii are all inactivated by irradiation atdoses up to 1.5 kGy (CAST, 1996). Table VIprovides the range of doses needed toreduce the number of various organisms inspecific foods of interest by one log10 cycle(D value).

Bacteria and parasites are very easilyeliminated by irradiation. Toxoplasma gondiicannot tolerate irradiation above 0.1 kGy, atwhich dose all infectivity of this parasite iseliminated, with 0.3 kGy being sufficient tokill it. The adult form of Trichinella spiralisand other worms can be sterilized at 0.3 kGy,which also inhibits their ability to invademuscle tissue (CAST, 1989).

A second benefit of irradiation is the factthat food can be processed in the package,minimizing the possibility of cross-contami-nation until it is ready to be used. Within thecontext of a HACCP system, irradiationwould make an effective critical control

point in wholesale meat cuts, ground meat,seafood, cut vegetables, and fruit, providinga crucial step in enhancing their safety. Thiswould also apply to irradiation of foodsintended to be minimally processed, such asoffal and sausages.

Unfortunately, mycotoxins produced byfoodborne molds are only slightly affectedby ionizing radiation, and only when rela-tively high doses are applied. In a study byO’Neill et al. (1993), destruction of only10–20% of the toxins deoxynivalenol and 3-acetyl deoxynivalenol was achieved, evenafter irradiation of infected corn at 50 kGy.

A third benefit of irradiation, whichcan be considered an advantage over otherprocessing methods, is that the quality ofthe product can be maintained because theprocess is carried out under specific andwell-defined conditions. For example,keeping the temperature low and exclud-ing oxygen are two ways in which changesdue to lipid oxidation during irradiationcan be minimized. The lower the dose, theless the need for these measures, resultingin a product that is indistinguishable bysensory evaluation from non-irradiatedsamples. Such is the case with ground beefirradiated at 1.0 kGy, with no significantdifference being observed from non-irra-diated controls (Tarkowski et al., 1984).Similarly, ground beef patties irradiated at2.0 kGy under vacuum were deemed morejuicy and more acceptable than non-irradi-ated controls by sensory panellists sevendays after irradiation (Murano et al.,1995). A fourth benefit of irradiation isthat it eliminates the need for fumigants indisinfesting fruits and vegetables, just aswith spices, and can be used instead ofcertain food additives and preservatives.


16

Specific Benefits of Food Irradiation

One of the questions that processors andconsumers usually ask regarding irradiationis how much it is going to cost. It is fairlystraightforward to calculate the costsinvolved in using this technology. One needonly consider the facility capital costs, theradiation source cost (which varies accord-ing to whether isotopes or machine sourcesare used), maintenance, overheads andlabour. Cleland and Pageau (1987) calculatedthat, taking all these costs into consideration,the unit cost of material irradiated in a facil-ity with a throughput of 4 million ft3 at adose of 2.5 kGy would be US $0.64 per ft3(US $ 22.6 per m3) for a gamma facility and$0.52 (US $18.4) for one using X-rays. Thetotal annual costs would be between US$2–2.5 million.

As one would expect, these costs areaffected by the size of the facility andincrease with the dose. Roberts (1989) pub-lished a report in which these factors were taken into consideration. Table VII containsthe information in terms of costs as calculat-ed in 1988 by Roberts, as well as an estimateof these figures for 1996, based on theInternational Consumer Price Indices (CPIs)published by the US Department of Labor.These figures can be obtained from their home-

page via the World Wide Web at the followingInternet address: http://stats.bls.gov/cpi-home.htm. From the CPIs for each year, the per-centage change in dollars from 1988 to 1996was calculated to be 15.24%.

Thus, a plant irradiating 52 million poundsper year at a dose of 2.5 kGy would generatea cost of US $0.017/lb or US $0.037/kg (thatis, less than 2 cents per pound or 4 cents perkilo). The same facility operating to irradiate416 million pounds (189 000 tonnes) per yearat that same dose would have a cost of$0.006/lb (less than 1 cent per pound, or justover 1 cent per kilo).

Another way of examining the questionof the cost of irradiation is to determinehow much consumers are willing to pay forthis technology. Auction-type experimentshave been conducted to answer such aquestion (Hayes, 1995). Subjects areinformed of the risk of their contractingfoodborne illness if they eat a certain prod-uct. Then, they are asked to bid to exchangethis product for one that has been irradiat-ed. The overwhelming response has beenfor participants to bid in favour of exchang-ing their food, and when doing so, they arewilling to pay as much as $0.30/lb more forthe irradiated product.


17

Cost of Food Irradiation

Food irradiation has its limitations, justlike other technologies. It has not beenshown to be effective for inactivating toxinsor other chemicals that may pose a threat toour food supply. Similarly, it has not beenfound to be effective in destroying viruses atthe doses that are in use for decontaminationof foods from bacterial pathogens.Irradiation, although very effective in elimi-nating bacterial contaminants, cannot guardthe food against contamination after process-ing through contact with unsanitized sur-faces or hands. Thus, like all other interven-tion strategies, irradiation must be appliedas part of a total sanitation programme,where handwashing and proper operatingprocedures are followed to prevent contami-nation of product, whether irradiated or not.

We have seen the tremendous impact thatfoodborne illness has in our society, both fromthe social and economic points of view. In orderfor people to have the right to have access tofood that is nutritious as well as safe, as statedat the FAO/WHO International Conference onNutrition in Rome in 1992, we need to availourselves of technologies that can provide suchaccess. Now is the time to include food irradia-tion in the arsenal of weapons in the fightagainst foodborne illness. It has been proven anefficacious and versatile tool, which can be costeffective. Organizations such as the WHO, theInstitute of Food Technologists, and theAmerican Medical Association, among many,have endorsed this technology for the enhance-ment of food safety that it offers. Governmentsand industry must examine their reasons fornot using this technology, and in light of themorbidity and mortality that foodborne illnesscauses, determine a course of action.

To begin with, education of people at all lev-els is the first step. They must understand theproblem before they can be expected to accepta solution. Education regarding foodborne ill-ness and the effectiveness of irradiation should,therefore, go hand-in-hand. Products that havegovernment approval must be made availableto consumers. They will decide with their pur-chasing power whether irradiated productshave a future. Government agencies must notdelay the approval of those products, for whichpetitions have been submitted, any longer thannecessary. Incentives should be provided forthose willing to use the technology, as well asfor those willing to buy products treated thisway. Academia, government, industry andactivists should work together to bring irradiat-ed foods to the marketplace. These groups arealso consumers: they should have the right tochoose whether to purchase products madesafer by this technology.


18

Irradiation is Not a Panacea

What irradiation offers, however, is anopportunity to begin with a product thatis practically, if not completely, devoid ofpathogens, so that if errors are committedduring cooking the risk of foodborne ill-ness is minimized. Food irradiation, ifimplemented correctly, can be used as anintervention strategy that would serve asa critical control point during the process-ing of fresh foods of animal origin. Usingit would markedly increase the safety ofsuch products, just as pasteurization doesfor milk. In addition, irradiation wouldgive consumers the freedom to eat foodsin the raw or semi-raw state, as is thepractice with seafood and offal in somecultures, with a reduced risk of becomingill from doing so.

Conclusions and Recommendations

Bennett, J.V., Holmberg S.D., Rogers, M.F., Solomon, S.L., ”Infectious and para-sitic diseases”, Closing the Gap: The Burden of Unnecessary Illness, (Amler, R.H., Dull, H.B.,Eds), Oxford University Press, New York (1987) 102-114.

Bullerman, L.B., Significance of mycotoxins to food safety and human health., J. Food Prot.42 65 (1979).

Buzby, J.C., Roberts, T., Jordan Lin., C.T., Macdonald, J.M., Bacterial FoodborneDisease: Medical Costs And Productivity Losses, Agric. Econ. Rep. No. 741, United StatesDepartment of Agriculture, Washington, DC (1996).

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Update: Outbreaks ofcyclosporiasis – United States and Canada, Rep. MMWR 46, No. 23, CDC, Atlanta, GA(1997).

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Surveillance Summaries, Rep.MMWR 45, No. SS-5, CDC, Atlanta, GA (1996a).

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Update: Outbreaks ofCyclospora cayetanensis infection - United States and Canada, 1996, Rep. MMWR 45 No.611-2, CDC, Atlanta, GA (1996b).

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Update: Vibrio cholerae O1 -Western hemisphere, 1991-1994, and V. cholerae O139 - Asia, 1994, CDC, Rep. MMWR 44,CDC, Atlanta, GA (1995) 215-219.

Chiou, A., Chen, L.-H., Chen, S.-K., Foodborne illness in Taiwan, 1981-1989, FoodAust. 43 (1991) 70-71.

Cleland, M.R., Pageau, G.M., ”Comparison of x-ray and gamma-ray sources for indus-trial irradiation processes”, Nuclear Instruments and Materials in Physics Research, Elsevier,New York (1987) 967-972.

Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (CAST), RadiationPasteurization of Food, Issue Paper No. 7, CAST, Ames, IA (1996).

Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (CAST), Ionizing Energy inFood Processing and Pest Control: II. Applications, No. 115 CAST, Ames, IA (1989).

Djuretic, T., Will, P.G., Ryan, M.J., Evans, H.S., Adak, G.K., Cowden, J.M.,General Outbreaks of Infectious Intestinal Disease in England and Wales 1992 to 1994,Commun. Dis. Rep. CDR Rev. 6 (1996) 57-63.

References


19


20

Dorsa, W.J., Cutter, C.N.,Siragusa, G.R., Koohmaraie, M., Microbial decontami-nation of beef and sheep carcasses by steam, hot water spray washes, and a steam-vacuumsanitizer, J. Food Prot. 59 (1996) 127-135.

Hardin, M.D., Acuff, G.R., Lucia, L.M., Oman, J.S., Savell, J.W., Comparison ofmethods for contamination removal from beef carcass surfaces, J. Food Prot. 58 (1995) 368-374.

Hashisaka, A.E., Weagant, S.D., Dong, F.M., Survival of Listeria monocytogenes inmozzarella cheese and ice cream exposed to gamma radiation, J. Food Prot. 52 (1989) 490-492.

Hayes, D.J. ”The economics of marketing irradiated foods”, Food Irradiation: ASourcebook, (Murano, E.A., Ed.), ISU Press, Ames, IA, (1995) 111-126.

Hopper, S.A., Mawer, S., Salmonella enteritidis in a commercial layer flock, Vet. Rec.123 (1988) 351-353.

Hui, Y.H., Gorham, J.R., Murrell, K.D., Cliver, D.O., Foodborne DiseaseHandbook: Diseases Caused by Viruses, Parasites and Fungi, vol. 2, Marcel Dekker, Inc.,New York.

Humphrey, T.J., Baskerville, A., Chart, H., Rowe, B., 1989. Infection of egg layinghens with Salmonella enteritidis PT4 by oral inoculation, Vet. Rec 125 (1989) 531-532.

Idziak, E.S., Incze, K., Radiation treatment of foods: I. Radurization of fresh evisceratedpoultry. Appl. Microbiol. 16 (1968) 1061-1066.

Infectious Agents Surveillance Center (IASR), Outbreaks of enterohemorrhagic E.coli O157:H7 infection, IASC, National Institute of Health, Japan, 17 198 (1996).

Instituto Panamericano de Protección de Alimentos Y Zoonosis (INPPAZ),Resumen de los brotes de ETA informados por los países, INPPAZ en las Américas, BuenosAires (1995) 5-7.

Käferstein, F., Food safety, A commonly underestimated public health issue, World HealthStatistics Quarterly, 50 1/2 (1997).

Lambert, J.D., Maxcy, R.B., Effect of gamma radiation on Campylobacter jejuni, J. FoodSci. 49 (1884) 665-667, 674.

Ley, F.J., Glew, G., Cornford, S.J., ”The effect of gamma radiation on the quality offrozen whole egg”, Proc. Int. Cong. Food Sci. Technol., London, 1962.

Mauskopf, J.A., French, M.T., Estimating the value of avoiding morbidity and mortali-ty from foodborne illness, Risk Anal. 11 (1991) 619-631.


21

Molins, R.A., Motarjemi, Y., “Irradiation: A critical control point in ensuring the micro-biological safety of foods, World Congress of Food Hygiene (Proc. Conf. World Assn ofVeterninary Food Hygienists, The Hague, Aug. 1997) Wageningen Pers (1997).

Motarjemi, Y., et al., Food Technologies and Public Health, World Health OrganizationDoc. WHO/FNU/FOS 95.12, WHO, Geneva (1995).

Motarjemi, y., Käferstein, F., International Conference on Nutrition: a challenge to thefood safety community, World Health Organization Doc. WHO/FNU/FOS 96.4, WHO,Geneva (1996).

Murano, P.S., Murano, E.A., Olson, D.G., ”Quality characteristics and sensory eval-uation of meat irradiated under various packaging conditions”. Abst. Ann. Meet. Recip.Meat Conf., San Antonio, TX (1995).

National Academy of Sciences (NAS), Protection against trichothecen mycotoxins.National Academy Press, Washington, DC (1983).

O’Neill, K., Damoglou, A.P., Patterson,, M.F., The stability of deoxynivalenol and3-acetyl deoxynivalenol to gamma irradiation, Food. Add. Contam. 10 (1993) 209-215.

Radomyski, T., Murano, E.A., Olson, D.G., Murano, P.S., 1994. Elimination ofpathogens of significance in food by low-dose irradiation: a review, J. Food Prot. 57 (1994)73-86.

Reagan, J.O., et al., Trimming and washing of beef carcasses as a method of improving themicrobiological quality of meat, J. Food Prot. 59 (1996) 751-756.76 (1997) 202-205.

Roberts, J.A., Sockett, P.N., Gill, O.N., Economic impact of a nationwide outbreak ofsalmonellosis: Cost-benefit of early intervention, Comm. Dis. Rep. 298 (1989) 1227-30.

Roberts, T., Human illness costs of foodborne bacteria, Am. J. Agric. Econ. 71 (1989) 468-474.

Serrano, L.E., Murano, E.A., Shenoy, K., Olson, D.G., D-values of Salmonellaenteritidis isolates and quality attributes of shell eggs and liquid whole eggs treated withirradiation, Poult. Sci. 76 (1997) 202-205.

Steele, J.H., Engel, R.E., Radiation processing of food, J. Amer. Vet. Med. Assoc. 201(1992) 1522-1529.

Tarkowski, J.A., Stoffer, S.C.C., Beumer, R.R., Kampelmacher, E.H., Low dosegamma irradiation of raw meat. I. Bacteriological and sensory quality effect in artificiallycontaminated samples, Int. J. Food Microbiol. 1 (1984) 13-23.

Thornley, M., “Microbiological aspects of the use of radiation for the elimination of sal-monellae from foods and feeding stuffs”, Radiation Control of Salmonellae in Food and FeedProducts, Technical Reports Series No. 22, IAEA, Vienna (1963) 81-106.


22

Todd, E.C.D., Foodborne disease in Canada – a 10-year summary from 1975 to 1984, J.Food Prot. 55 (1992) 123-132.

Todd, E.C.D., Preliminary estimates of costs of foodborne disease in the United States, J.Food Prot. 52 (1989) 595-601.

Trenholm, H.L., Thompson, B.K., Standish, J.F., Seaman, W.L., “Occurrence ofmycotoxins in Canada”, Mycotoxins: A Canadian Perspective, NRCC Publication No. 22848,National Research Council of Canada, Ottawa, ON (1985).

World Health Organization (WHO), Surveillance of Foodborne Infections andIntoxications in Europe, 6th Report (Schmidt, K., Ed), Federal Institute for Health Protectionof Consumers and Veterinary Medicine, Berlin (1995).


23

Country O utbreaks Cases

Baham as 3 302

Chile 78 939

Costa Rica 24 53

Cuba 197 10 924

Dom inican Republ ic 3 19

M exico 37 2 006

Nicar agua 8 35

Panam a 6 95

Paraguay 2 10

Uruguay 3 347

Venezuel a 1 9

TOTAL 362 14 739

Table I. O utbreaks of foodborne illness duri ng first hal f of 1995

(INPPAZ, 1995)

Table II. O utbreaks of foodborne illness in vari ous European count ri es(1990- 1992)

(Adapted from W HO, 1995)

Country O utbreaks

Austria 2743

Bulgaria 76

Denm ark 125

Finland 89

France 2026

Germ any 385

Hungary 735

Israel 111

Italy 227

Li thuani a 146

Poland 2131

Rom ania 139

Scotland 512

Spain 2818

Sweden 104


24

Table I I I . Major factors contr ibuting to outbreaks of foodborne illnessin var ious European countr ies (1990-1992)

(Adapted from WHO, 1995)

Table IV. Factors contr ibuting to outbreaks of foodborne illnessin the USA (1988-1992)

(Adapted from CDC, 1996a)

Factor Sum of Outbreaks (1990–1992)

Temperature misuse

Inadequate refrigeration

Inadequate thawing

Inadequate cooking

Inadequate holding

Inadequate storage

Prepared too far in advance

962

9

541

21

141

464

Raw mater ial

Contaminated/unsafe source

Contaminated ingredients

Poisonous (mushrooms)

Chemical contamination

563

8

222

8

Inadequate handling

Inadequate processing

Cross-contamination

Inadequate hygiene

487

181

84

Environmental factors

Contamination by personnel

Contaminated equipment

457

287

Contr ibuting factor Average number of outbreaks peryear

Improper holding temperature 170

Poor personal hygiene 103

Inadequate cooking 80

Contaminated equipment 46

Food from unsafe source 14


25

Table V. Cost summary for selected bacter ial pathogens in the USA, 1993(Adapted from Buzby et al., 1996)

Table VI . D-value of var ious microorganisms in fresh meat and seafood

(Adapted from Radomyski et al., 1994, and CAST, 1996)

Table VI I . Cost of ir radiation as affected by var ious processing parameters(Adapted from Roberts, 1989)

Pathogen Cases Deaths Cost(billion US$

Campylobacter jejuni or coli 1 375 000 - 1 750 000 100 - 511 0.6 - 1.0Clostridium perfringens 10 000 100 0.1Escherichia coli O157:H7 8 000 - 16 000 160 - 400 0.2 - 0.6Listeria monocytogenes 1526 - 1767 378 - 485 0.2 - 0.3Salmonella 696 000 - 3 840 000 696 - 3840 0.6 - 3.5Staphylococcus aureus 1 513 000 1210 1.2TOTAL 3 603 526 - 7 130 767 2654 - 6546 2.9 - 6.7

Microorganism Food (refr igerated) D-value(kGy)

Salmonella Poultry, pork, eggs, seafood 0.40 - 0.50

Campylobacter Poultry, beef, eggs 0.14 - 0.32

Listeria Pork, beef, dairy 0.40 - 0.60

Yersinia Pork, beef 0.04 - 0.21

Aeromonas Shellfish, finfish 0.14 - 0.19

Escherichia coli O157:H7 Beef 0.25 - 0.35

Vibrio Prawns, clams, oysters 0.11 - 0.15

Staphylococcus aureus Beef, pork, ham 0.29 - 0.32

Volume

(million lba

per year)

Dose

(kGy)

1988Annual cost

(million US$)

1996Adjusteda cost

(million US$)

1988Cost per lb

(cents)

1996Adjustedb cost

per lb(cents)

52 2.5 0.77 0.89 1.487 1.714104 2.5 0.94 1.08 0.905 1.141208 2.5 1.28 1.48 0.616 0.710416 2.5 2.16 2.49 0.520 0.59952 5.0 0.79 0.91 1.512 1.742

104 5.0 1.08 1.24 1.041 1.200208 5.0 1.93 2.22 0.930 1.107

a 1 lb = 454 gb Based on 15.24% change from 1988 to 1996 calculated from the International Price Index


26

B. ce

reus

Cam

pyloba

cter

C. bo

tulin

um

C. pe

rfrin

gens

E. co

li

Shige

lla

S. au

reus

Oth

er ba

cter

ia

Salm

onella

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

B. ce

reus

C. bo

tulin

um

Shige

lla

Cam

pyloba

cter

C. pe

rfrin

gens

Salm

onella

Oth

er ba

cter

ia

S. au

reus

E. co

li

0

500000

1000000

1500000

2000000

2500000

3000000Bennett

Todd

Figure 1 Number of annual cases of foodborne illness in the USA by bacterial agent(1988-1992) Adapted from CDC, 1996)

Figure 2 Estimated number of annual cases of foodborne illness by bacterial agentin the USA (as per Bennett et al., 1987; Todd, 1989)


27

B. ce

reus

Cam

pyloba

cter

C. bo

tulin

um

C. pe

rfrin

gens

E. co

li

Shige

lla

S. au

reus

Salm

onella

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

* E.coli data does not include haemorrhagic serotypes

B. ce

reus

Cam

pyloba

cter

C. bo

tulin

um

C. pe

rfrin

gens

E. co

li Shige

lla

S. au

reus

Oth

er ba

cter

ia

Salm

onella

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450


Figure 3a Number of cases of foodborne illness by bacterial agent per yearin Canada (1975-1984) (Adapted from Todd, 1992)

Figure 3b: Number of cases of foodborne illness by bacterial agent in Englandand Wales (1992-1994) (From Djuretic et al., 1996)


28

Shigella

Salmonella

E. coli C. perfringens

S. aureus

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000


S. au

reus

E. co

li

Salm

onella

B. ce

reus

C. bo

tulin

um

V. pa

raha

emol

yticu

s

0

25

50

75

100

125

150


Figure 3c Number of cases of foodborne illness by bacterial agent invarious countries in Latin America during first half of 1995

(Adapted from INPPAZ, 1995)

Figure 3d Number of cases of foodborne illness by bacterial agent in Taiwan(1981-1989) (Adapted from Chiou et al., 1991)


29

Church picnic 1%

Home 19%

Deli/Restaurant 43%

Other 30%

School 4%

Camp 1%Church meal 2%

Home 31%

Restaurant 15%

Hospital 15%

Hotel 10%

School 8%

Market 3%

Canteen 3%

Unknown 13%Army dining hall

2%

Figure 4a Percent of cases of foodborne illness in the USA bysuspected location where meals were consumed

(1988-1992) (Adapted from CDC, 1996)

Figure 4b Percent of cases of foodborne illness in England and Wales bysuspected location where meals were consumed

(1992-1994) (Adapted from Djuretic et al., 1996)


30

Home 34%

Restaurant 6%

Hospitals/Prison 5%Gambling house

6%

Market 15%

Street vendor6%

Processing plant 5%

Unknown 23%

Street vendor 1%

M ilitary camp 2%

Other 2%

Unknown 3%

Restaurant 21%

School 31%Office 20%

Home 20%

Figure 4c Percent of cases of foodborne illness in Latin America duringfirst half of 1995 by suspected location where meals were consumed

(Adapted from INPPAZ, 1995).

Figure 4d Percent of cases of foodborne illness in Taiwan bysuspected location where meals were consumed (1981-1989)

(Adapted from Chiou et al., 1991)


31

Red meat 5%

Seafood 7%

Poultry 3%

Dairy 2%Bakery 1%

Fruits/Vegetables

3%

Salads 5%

Other/Unknown

74%

Fruit 4%

Red meat 23%

Seafood 7%

Poultry 10%

Eggs 0%

Dairy 6%Bakery 8%

Other/Unknown

35%

Salads 3%

Vegetables 4%

Figure 5b Percent of cases of foodborne illness by vehicleof infection in Canada (1975-1984) (Adapted from Todd, 1992)

Figure 5a Percent of cases of foodborne illness by vehicleof infection in the USA (1988-1992)

(Adapted from CDC, 1996)


32

Red meat 21%

Seafood 10%

Poultry/Eggs 30%

Dairy 3%

Desserts 14%

Fruits/Vegetables

11%

Sauces 4%

Other 7%

Desserts 1%Fruits/Vegetables

2%Cereals 2%

Unknown 54%

Other 18%

Eggs 1%

Red meat &

poultry 5%

Seafood 17%

Figure 5c Percent of cases of foodborne illness by vehicleof infection in England and Wales (1992-1994)

(Adapted from Djuretic et al., 1996)

Figure 5d: Percent of cases of foodborne illness by vehicleof infection in Taiwan (1981-1989)(Adapted from Chiou et al., 1991)


33

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

Mild Moderate Severe

Severity of disease condition

Cost of illness

Cost of reduced quality of life

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

Lab/Investigation Health Care Family & Society

Am

ount

(Brit

ish

poun

ds x

1000

)

Actual Cost of Outbreak

Benefit (Savings) Due toOutbreak Curtailed

Potential Cost of Outbreak

Figure 7 Cost/Benefit Analysis of a Nationwide Outbreak ofSalmonellosis in England (1982)

(Adapted from Roberts et al., 1989)

Figure 6 Dollar estimates for avoiding a case of salmonellosis according tocost due to illness vs. cost due to loss in quality of life in the USA

(Adapted from Mauskopf and French, 1991)

The ICGFI SecretariatJoint FAO/IAEA Division of Nuclear Techniques

in Food and Agriculture,Wagramerstrasse 5,

P.O.Box 100,A-1400 Vienna, Austria

Tel.: (+43 1) 2600 - 21638Fax.: (+43 1) 26007

E-Mail:[email protected]

Date post:	29-Jul-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times

E Ennhhaanncciinngg FFoooodd SSaaffeettyy · tion” process for “solid” food such as meat,...

Documents