Food Surveillance News - Spring 2007
In this Edition
Melamine contamination incident triggers National Food Incident Response Protocol
Imported seafood survey prompts review of testing arrangements
New Zealand survey gives consumers confidence in their own food
AQIS imported horticultural products survey
Keeping an eye on food recalls
FSANZ welcomes visitors from the Hong Kong Centre for Food Safety visit FSANZ
Clamping down on fishy practices
South Australia acts on contaminated hen eggs
Tasmanian report on salmonella infections caused by eating raw eggs
Melamine contamination incident triggers National Food Incident Response Protocol
Food Standards Australia New Zealand activated the National Food Incident Response Protocol (the Protocol) last March due to reports from the US of numerous pet deaths associated with contaminated pet food.
The trigger for the Protocol was a national recall by the US Food and Drug Administration of imports from China containing gluten concentrate that was contaminated with melamine and aminopterin. Melamine is an industrial chemical and is not permitted in food in Australia.
FSANZ liaised with the Australian Customs Service and Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service to investigate possible imports from the same Chinese supplier as well as imported vegetable-based protein concentrates more generally.
FSANZ also convened a special teleconference of the Food Surveillance Network to discuss the issue with the Australian and New Zealand food regulatory agencies which enforce the Food Standards Code. Following the teleconference all the jurisdictions conducted further investigations with businesses that may have imported vegetable-based protein concentrates.
These investigations found it was unlikely that any melamine contaminated ingredients had entered the human food supply. The jurisdictions found that only a small amount of vegetable-based protein concentrates were imported during this period and most of this material was used for animal feed. Food industry quality assurance systems provided additional safeguards as they were already requiring independent test certificates from suppliers or arranging their own analytical testing of products prior to distribution.
The New Zealand Food Safety Authority is part of the Food Surveillance Network and also investigated possible contamination of vegetable proteins such as wheat gluten and soy and corn meal. The NZFSA found no residues at all.
The NZFSA’s Glen Neal, Assistant Director (New Zealand Standards), said: “We found that very little of these products are imported into New Zealand from China. We have tested 15 samples since mid-May and not found any traces of either melamine or cyanuric acid.”
At FSANZ we are continuing to liaise with overseas regulatory agencies and domestic agencies through the Food Surveillance Network in relation to this issue.
This incident was the seventh time the Protocol has been triggered since it was first used in October 2006 to recall sodium nitrite and sodium borate after consumption of sodium nitrite was linked to cases of food poisoning in New South Wales.
The Protocol was created to provide clear guidance to Implementation Sub Committee member agencies across the country so they can respond to a range of food incidents in a “timely, appropriate, consistent and coordinated manner”.
Developed with assistance from the New South Wales Food Authority and other jurisdictions, the Protocol requires FSANZ to coordinate the dissemination of information about any incident and describes an “incident” as “any situation within the food supply chain where there is a risk, potential risk or perceived risk of illness or confirmed illness associated with the consumption of a food or foods”.
It recognises the value of notifying a food incident early in its course, perhaps even before the extent of the problem is really known, so all jurisdictions are aware of events as they occur and will be prepared if the problem spreads, or media interest suddenly peaks. Also, pre-emptive information sharing, coordination and early action may prevent the incident escalating and thus reduce its effects.
The National Incident Response Protocol has been activated eight times since it was first used in October 2006 and a summary of these incidents is provided in the table.
Food incident | Description of incident | Outcome |
2006-01 – Sodium nitrite and sodium borate | In October FSANZ coordinated a recall of sodium nitrite and sodium borate ( recalls 2006/56 and 2006/57) after consumption of sodium nitrite was linked to cases of poisoning in NSW. Both products were imported into Victoria and are potentially harmful to health. Victoria recalled this product under food legislation because it had a Nutrition Information Panel (NIP). Similar products were identified in NSW but could not be recalled under food legislation because those products did not have a NIP. This difference could be seen to be inconsistent by consumers, who may not be aware of how products are deemed to be foods or otherwise. | Activation of the Protocol heightened jurisdiction awareness of the overlap and limitations of food and poisons legislation in their State/Territory. |
2006-02 – Salmonellain rockmelons | In October 2006 OzFoodNet reported an increase in cases of Salmonella Saintpaul linked to consumption of rockmelons. Although there was strong epidemiological evidence linking illness to eating rockmelons,Salmonella Saintpaul could not be isolated from rockmelons but it was isolated from the environment. | The Protocol was activated to alert other jurisdictions to this outbreak. Although no regulatory action was required, discussions were held with industry and recommendations were made on: - reviewing, where applicable, quality assurance programs, - food hygiene and sanitation practices, - product identification, production and distribution records, - water quality management, - nationally consistent communication messages.
|
2006-03 - Poultry deaths from excess feed additive | In November 2006 Safe Food Production Queensland reported poultry deaths due to producers adding too much of the feed additive nicarbazin to poultry feed. Potentially affected poultry were tested and results showed levels of nicarbazin below the MRL. These birds were subsequently sent for slaughter for human consumption. | The Protocol was activated early in this incident so that other jurisdictions were fully informed and could respond appropriately. |
2006-04 - Vibrio cholerae- whitebait | Three cases of Vibrio cholerae O1 serovar Ogawa linked to consumption of raw whitebait were reported in NSW. Significant media coverage transpired. The whitebait was later determined to be imported from Indonesia. | The Protocol was activated to alert other jurisdictions to this incident and to provoke discussion on risk management measures for these types of incidents. |
2007-01 – Clostridium botulinumtype A associated with consumption of nachos | A case of adult botulism was confirmed in Melbourne. The affected person had bought a microwave meal of pre-packaged nachos from a supermarket to eat at work. The package contained a sachet of corn chips, a sachet of nacho cheese and a sachet of tomato salsa sauce. The remains of the nachos meal were tested approximately 5 days later. Tests confirmed Clostridium botulinum type A toxin. | The Protocol was activated to alert other jurisdictions to this case of botulism. Jurisdictions were also requested to liaise with their jurisdictional CDNA representative to check with all Intensive Care Units for any undiagnosed neurological illnesses that could be related to this case. |
2007-02 – Nestle Chunky Kit Kat plastic contamination | An incident of Nestle Kit Kat Chunky Caramel 65g and Kit Kat Chunky Cookie Dough 65g being contaminated with pink plastic moulding was reported. Nestle were unable to determine how much plastic had been lost over the previous 12 months, leading to the possibility that all batches of these products manufactured prior to the corrective action on 13 November 2006 may have been contaminated. Medical advice indicated that the plastic pieces had the potential to perforate the lower small intestine if consumed. The products were recalled on 30 March 2007. | The Protocol was activated to alert other jurisdictions to this issue. Jurisdictions were also requested to check with their public health units for any medical complaints that could be related to this issue. |
2007-03 – Imported wheat gluten from China | The USA issued a recall of pet food containing gluten sourced from China as a result of ‘pet food’ problems. Gluten from the same supplier was reported as being imported into Australia for use in meat processing and bakery products. The gluten was analysed for aminopterin and melamine, with only aminopterin being detected. These imports were subsequently determined not to be related to the US situation. | The Protocol was activated to alert jurisdictions to this issue. Jurisdictions were also requested to check whether there were any importers of wheat gluten from China in their jurisdiction. |
2007-04 – Apple juice contamination | A 60yr old woman suffered oesophageal burns after drinking a mouthful of Cascade Sparkling Apple Juice. Analysis of the juice indicated a pH of 14. ACT Health liaised with ACT Policing, Tas Health and Cascade to determine whether this incident was associated with any threats or extortion attempts. The investigation identified the most likely cause as inadequate rinsing of head filler. | The Protocol was activated to alert other jurisdictions to this issue. Jurisdictions were also requested to report back on whether similar incidents had occurred regarding this product. |
Imported seafood survey prompts review of testing arrangements
A recent survey of chemicals in imported seafood has prompted the Australian government to review testing arrangements at the border.
The Australian Quarantine Inspection Service (AQIS) surveyed 100 samples of imported seafood for chemical residues from April 2006 to March 2007. The purpose of the survey was to provide a snapshot of the level of chemical residues (pesticide and antimicrobial) in seafood imported into Australia from the usual source countries.
Samples of seafood including; fish, crab, prawns and eel were screened for 49 pesticide and 39 antimicrobial chemicals. A summary of the chemicals tested for in the survey can be found in Table 1. The samples included both wild caught and aquacultured products that were chilled or frozen and cooked or uncooked. Processed seafood products such as canned, battered or mixed seafood products were not included in the survey.
Samples were submitted voluntarily to AQIS officers by the seafood importers. Analytical testing was performed by a laboratory accredited for testing under the Imported Food Inspection Scheme.
The AQIS survey found no traces of any of the 49 pesticides tested for but 31 of 100 samples taken from prawns, fish, crabs and eels contained minute traces of antimicrobial chemicals. The residues were from 14 antimicrobial chemical groups belonging to the; sulphonamide, tetracycline, malachite green, penicillin, quinolone, fluoroquinolone and phenicol groups.
While not permitted in seafood by the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code at any level the amounts found were very low at a few parts per billion.
“The residues detected were at low levels and did not represent a food safety issue, but the survey showed that some imported seafood did not comply with Australia’s rigorous standards,” Federal Agriculture Minister, Mr Peter McGauran said.
He referred the AQIS test results to Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) and the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) for further technical scrutiny and advice. The Minister also announced new interim testing for a range of antibiotics, including flouroquinolones, quinolones and penicillins as a result of the survey.
New Zealand survey gives consumers confidence in their own food
The results of a New Zealand Food Safety Authority (NZFSA) food monitoring and surveillance program indicate New Zealanders can continue to have confidence in the safety of their domestically produced food.
The NZFSA looked at both domestic foods and imports, especially those from China following the findings by other countries of dangerous contaminants in some Chinese produce.
We report on the findings of the Chinese imports elsewhere in this Food Surveillance News but look here at the results of domestic surveillance.
Glen Neal, NZFSA’s Assistant Director (New Zealand Standards) said the results from domestic testing show that farmers and growers continue to take seriously their legal requirement to supply safe and suitable food, though the survey did find a small number of breaches in a wide range of tests.
“None of these represented any risks to health,” Mr Neal said.
In the dairy industry food residue results reflected a generally very high consciousness of food safety, with almost 100,000 tests over the 2006/07 season finding all residues to be below the relevant limits for more than 250 compounds, natural toxins and chemical elements.
Testing of animal products (which include red meat, pigs, broiler chickens, feral animals, farmed animals and ostriches) also revealed few issues.
“As with dairy, a wide range of compounds and contaminants is looked for,” Mr Neal said. “Testing is of the tissues of highest accumulation (such as the liver) rather than the food product where levels are likely to be far lower. In almost 4500 tests there were just seven samples that exceeded the New Zealand MRL. These were: one broiler with nicarbazin (an anticoccidial), two pigs with carbadox (an antibiotic), one pig and a lamb with levamisole (an anthelmintic), one pig with flumethrin (a parasiticide) and a bobby calf – that did not enter the food chain – with sulphonamides (an antibiotic). None of these present human health issues.
“Each of these exceptions was investigated and all were found to be farmer error. In the case of the pigs and poultry these were carryover of medicated feed to rations used for animals near slaughter. The mechanical problems were rectified. Suppliers of the non-compliant animals were added to the surveillance list, and subject to enhanced testing.”
However, fresh produce testing found some problems.
Mr Neal said the Food Residues Surveillance Program (FRSP) specifically targets foods where NZFSA believes there might be need for closer scrutiny of the food safety systems.
“The FRSP tests for more than 200 agricultural compounds, and we have recent results for many types of fresh produce. For many (onions, plums, wheat, cabbage, pumpkin, green beans, cauliflower, peaches and raspberries) there were no residues above the relevant MRLs.
“For other products, there were only a few results slightly above MRLs: the herbicide pendimethalin was found in carrots (0.06 mg/kg (MRL 0.05)). In cucumbers, the insecticide methamidophos (0.33 and 0.26 mg/kg (MRL 0.2) and fungicide iprodione (0.11 mg/kg (MRL 0.10)) were found, and in apricots the insecticide carbaryl was at twice the MRL (6.0 mg/kg (MRL 3.0)).”
Celery, spinach and tomatoes proved to more problematic, with an unacceptable number of breaches of the relevant standard. Although NZFSA’s risk assessment found that the vegetables would still be safe to eat, it appears that a few growers may not have been taking the care NZFSA expects.
“There were three insecticides found above the MRL in some samples of tomatoes. Bifenthrin (0.11 and 0.18 mg/kg (MRL 0.05)), fluvalinate (0.13, 0.17, 0.23 mg/kg (MRL 0.1)), and methamidophos (0.11 (MRL 0.10)).
Celery had 16 results above the MRL of 0.10 mg/kg and spinach had 13.
“There were seven compounds above the 0.10 mg/kg limit in celery, with seven residues of the fungicide difenoconazole (0.42, 0.27, 0.25, 0.25, 0.16, 0.13, 0.12 mg/kg), two each the insecticides methamidophos (0.27 and 0.21) and methiocarb (0.26 and 0.18) and two of the fungicide trifloxystrobin (0.24 and 0.12). There was just one residue above the MRL for the insecticides acephate (0.44) and primiphos methyl (0.63).
“Spinach had 11 residues of the fungicide chlorothalonil (5.21, 3.47, 2.39, 1.86, 1.06, 1.06, 0.90, 0.72, 0.18, 0.12 and 0.11 mg/kg). There was also one result above the MRL for each of the insecticides chlorpyrifos (0.15) and methamidophos (3.5 mg/kg).”
However, there are no health concerns with the levels found of these residues, Mr Neal said.
“Our risk assessments show that even big eaters of celery and spinach can be assured of the safety.
“However, the results do indicate that the use of agricultural compounds in these crops needs to be improved, and NZFSA is working with the appropriate industry bodies to institute remedial action. We have already begun providing additional information on the use of chemicals on minor crops, and will be investigating other avenues to ensure that regulatory limits are met. We will be testing these crops again in future seasons to ensure that these steps are working.”
For more information on Agricultural Compound Residues in Food see:
For links to the results of NZFSA’s residue t esting see:
http://www.nzfsa.govt.nz/consumers/food-safety-topics/chemicals-in-food/residues-in-food/index.htm
AQIS imported horticultural products survey
The Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service is intent on improving the safety of imported horticultural products.
AQIS first had to find out how efficient its inspections of such products are so took two ‘snapshots’, in the form of surveys, of the status of the products to see whether any pesticide residues or microbiological contaminants were slipping through its imported foods inspection net.
AQIS did the surveys in addition to its normal testing regime of five per cent of all food imports. It does this on the advice of Food Standards Australia New Zealand, which has responsibility for the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code (the Code).
All food sold in Australia must comply with the Code, including imports. So it was gratifying for both FSANZ and AQIS that the first survey found the imported food controls are working as they should.
AQIS compared its survey results with data from state government surveys of domestic foods and found their microbiological and chemical levels to be at similarly low levels. When our FSANZ experts analysed the results, we were able to advise that the imported horticultural products constitute a negligible food safety risk.
In the initial survey carried out between August and October 2005, AQIS collected 97 samples from four entry points into Australia, Sydney, Perth, Melbourne and Brisbane. The samples were mainly fresh foods, ranging from snow peas through baby corn to shallots, though AQIS also selected at random a small number of dried or frozen packaged foods for good measure.
The National Measurement Institute (NMI) did all the testing and looked specifically for:
E. coli (with results reported in colony forming units per gram per sample – cfu/g – and counts of less than 10 cfu/g were considered negative),Salmonella(with results reported as detected or not detected in 25g of sample), and pesticide residues, using a mix of High Performance Liquid Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry and Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry.
The NMI found no Salmonella in any of the samples and 14 positive results forE. coli. Of these 14, 10 were isolated from a single horticultural producer in Fiji, three from different producers in Thailand and one from China.
For chemicals the NMI tested 50 samples for 139 different chemical residues – a total of 6950 tests. Of these only two returned positive results. A sample of semi-dried tomatoes tested positive to procymidone at 0.06mg/kg, which is well below the maximum residue level of 2.0 mg/kg permitted by the Code. A sample of garlic tested positive to fenvalerate, which the Code does not allow on garlic but which is permitted on other foods. We advised that the detected level of 0.14 mg/kg was unlikely to pose an appreciable risk to public health, even though it technically did breach the Code.
Based on scientific advice, and to be consistent with the National Horticulture Survey being coordinated by FSANZ, AQIS extended the initial survey. In the second survey, conducted between January and December 2006, AQIS was looking specifically for the pathogenic bacteriumE. coli0157:H7. AQIS field staff sampled 41 fresh vegetables because these were the foods that hadE. colipresent in the first survey. The samples included five samples of baby corn from Thailand. NoE. coli0157:H7 were detected.
EML Consulting Services Pty Ltd Queensland conducted the analysis of all samples for this extension survey using their NATA accredited Bax System PCR Assay for ScreeningE. coli0157:H7 Kit.
FSANZ has advised AQIS that the overall survey results showed that good hygienic practices are generally in place and the risk associated with microbiological contamination of imported fresh fruit and vegetables remains low. However, since the AQIS survey there has been an outbreak of Shigella sonnei in 11 people in Queensland last August. This is believed to have been caused by one consignment of baby corn from Thailand. The outbreak is possibly linked to an earlier Danish outbreak through a common source in Thailand.
For the AQIS report see www.daff.gov.au/ aqis /import/food/surveys/horticultural
Keeping an eye on food recalls
Over the winter season food manufacturers in Australia and New Zealand have notified their respective agencies of a number of food recalls due to problems with the food, including:
In Australia:
Woolworths Ltd and its supplier global Resourcing Pty Ltd recalled Homebrand Oyster Sauce in 500ml bottles because the sauce contained wheat flour that had not been declared on the label.
Sprout Farms Pty Ltd and Woolworths Ltd have recalled Green Sprouts Pure Onion onion sprouts in 50g clear plastic punnets with a Green Sprouts or Woolworths label because tests showed they may be contaminated withE. coli bacteria.
Windsor Farm Foods and Franklins recalled 425g cans of No Frills Potato Salad in Mayonnaise because they contained milk products that were not declared on the label.
Betta Foods Australia Pty Ltd and Woolworths Ltd recalled 300g white plastic bags of milk chocolate scorched almonds that may have contained peanuts not declared on the label.
Better Choice Fisheries recalled 500g red plastic bags of frozen and supposedly cooked and peeled prawns because of a labelling error. The prawns were in fact raw and not cooked and the company decided eating them raw may have posed a safety risk.
The Kettle Chip Company recalled its 200g cellophane bags of Kettle Chilli Potato Chips because they contained dairy and wheat products that were not declared on the label.
In New Zealand:
Santa Rosa recalled its ready to eat Santa Rosa Smoked/Cooked Chicken products, fearing they may be contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes.
Hubbard Foods Ltd recalled 500g packs of Signature Range Lighten Up Light and Fruity Breakfast Cereal after discovering the food contained peanuts that were not declared on the label.
Heinz recalled its 900g cans of Heinz Nurture PLUS Formula for infants because they may have contained soy lecithin that was added during the manufacturing process. While independent tests found no detectable soy protein, Heinz recalled the cans because it had not declared the soy lecithin on the labels.
Delago recalled a series of different packages, including Delago Cow Feta in 200g packs and Delago Goat Feta in Oil in 380g packs, because they may have been contaminated withE.colibacteria.
Nestle New Zealand recalled its Kit Kat Caramel and Kit Kat Cookie Dough in 65g packs because they may have been contaminated with plastic pieces that `got into the packaging during the manufacturing process.
For a full list of recalls see:
http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/foodmatters/foodrecalls/index.cfm
or
http://www.nzfsa.govt.nz/recalls/
FSANZ welcomes visitors from the Hong Kong Centre for Food Safety visit FSANZ
Three representatives from the Food and Environmental Health Department in Hong Kong visited the FSANZ Canberra office last July to learn more about how we do things.
Specifically, the two technical officers from The Centre for Food Safety and one from the Information Technology Division wanted to know about the Australian Total Diet Study, dietary exposure assessments, other food surveillance activities and how we at FSANZ deal with laboratories in relation to food surveillance activities.
The officers, Dr Xiao Ying, Ms Melissa Liu and Mr Kim-fung Ng, are in the process of completing a national nutrition survey and wish to conduct a total diet study of their own.
During their two days visit the officers met many FSANZ staff from a variety of sections, including the Food Composition Evaluation and Modelling Section, the Strategic Science and Surveillance Section and the International and Consultation Unit.
The FSANZ Dietary Modelling team presented an overview of their dietary exposure assessments and a demonstration of the custom developed exposure assessment computer program DIAMOND. The visitors met our DIAMOND programmer to assist them in thinking about setting up their own program. They also had time to play with DIAMOND.
Members of the FSANZ Surveillance Team had detailed discussions about how FSANZ conducts Australian total diet studies and other surveys. EASI staff discussed APEC related issues and to build networks for work in this area.
FSANZ also arranged trips to the ACT Government Analytical Laboratories and the laboratories of the National Measurement Institute so the visitors could see how food surveys are dealt with at the laboratory end.
The visitors also gave a seminar to all FSANZ staff on Food Safety Control in Hong Kong and the Total Diet Study in Hong Kong. This informative presentation described the very different nature of the food supply in Hong Kong, where the majority food is imported, unlike in Australia and New Zealand. The total diet study presentation aired issues related to their national food consumption survey and the difficulty they have in getting respondents to participate.
Clamping down on fishy practices
Not everyone can tell the difference between imported Nile perch and barramundi when the fillets are lying there on a fishmonger’s slab.
Unfortunately some fishmongers will pretend the cheaper perch is much more expensive barramundi, while others apparently make genuine mistakes.
State fisheries and food authority surveillance officers monitor fish sales to make sure people are buying what they want and, to help put a stop to substitutions and standardise the process, it was agreed a Fish Names Standard was required.
Standards Australia worked closely with the seafood industry, the CSIRO and, even though fish naming is not a food safety issue, Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ), to create a general standard for uniform fish names in 2006. The standard ensures the seafood industry uses standard names for fish, which often vary from state to state, and it will help prevent consumer confusion.
To decide which fish should be called by what name, a Fish Names Committee was set up and this now comes under the auspices of Seafood Services Australia. The committee looked at Australia’s 4500 species of finfish and many more crustaceans and molluscs and, in accordance with rigorous procedures that have been agreed to by government, industry and other stakeholders, developed the Australian Fish Names List, a list of uniform names that everyone now agrees on. So there is no longer an excuse for naming a fish wrongly.
Seafood is an important part of the diet for consumers in Australia and New Zealand. The
sector is an important part of the Australian food industry - the fourth largest after beef,
wheat and milk – with a considerable focus on exports.
The gross value of production during 2000-01 was $2.44 billion. Since 1992, the value has increased, on average, by 10 per cent a year. About 87 per cent of the value and 34 per cent of the edible volume of Australian seafood is exported.
During 2001-02, 186,777 tonnes of seafood were produced in Australia, covering approximately 600 marine and freshwater seafood species. Australians ate about 66 per cent of that tonnage and exported the rest. We imported another 144,474 tonnes, mainly from Thailand and New Zealand.
But while fish naming is not a food safety issue, it’s also important that the fish sold is fresh and safe. We at FSANZ, a s requested by the Ministerial policy guidelines and under the direction of the Board, set up a Standards Development Committee in September 2002 to help develop a new Primary Production and Processing Standard governing all seafood from the moment it is caught to the consumer’s plate.
Seafood was selected as the first PPP standard for a number of reasons. No national regulatory standard existed and the peak seafood industry body was in the advanced stages of developing its own industry-preferred voluntary standard for the hygienic production of seafood. Through this process, the seafood industry offered and provided timely support to the development of a nationally enforceable PPP standard. Also, some States were beginning to develop separate regulations for their own needs, and we wanted to avoid the duplication and fragmentation of effort. The standard took effect in May 2006 and businesses had until May 2007 to comply.
In the meantime, state food authorities have made a number of successful prosecutions, including one last March in New South Wales when a Shellharbour retailer was fined $12,000 for not displaying the country of origin of prawn meat, baby octopus, basa and vannamei prawns, and for trying to pass off tilapia as fresh bream.
Head of enforcement at the NSW Food Authority, Christine Tumney, said in the past year the state has brought seven prosecutions with fines totalling $120,000.
In Western Australia the owners of an East Fremantle restaurant were fined $15,000 plus $5000 costs for substituting cheaper fish for red throat emperor.
Things have certainly improved since 2003 when a pilot survey on the identity of fish sold throughout Australia found fish substitution in 32 of 138 samples. The survey was conducted by FSANZ with NSW, the Northern Territory, South Australia, Queensland and WA.
The survey followed earlier evidence of inappropriate labelling, such as in Victoria, where inspectors found that up to 75% of premises selling fish claimed to be barramundi had falsely labelled the fish. Something had to be done and the survey turned out to be a significant event.
By any account, the 2003 survey met its objectives of: taking samples across the whole supply chain to assess the incidence of misnaming; discovering what procedures were needed to stop the rorting; becoming a precursor to the launch of a fully-integrated Australia-wide investigation – which ultimately led to the Fish Names Standard and FSANZ’s PPP for seafood.
South Australia acts on contaminated hen eggs
In South Australia so far this year cases of salmonellosis have nearly doubled compared with 2006 and surface-contaminated eggs are believed to have contributed to the increase.
Following detection of Salmonella serovars associated with human illness on eggs and in environmental samples from farms, the Department began working with Primary Industries and Resources SA (PIRSA), the egg industry and the Australian Egg Corporation Ltd to improve egg grading and handling on farm.
The result is a comprehensive 10 point plan that aims to reduce the sale of contaminated eggs. The plan has been distributed nationally through the Egg Corporation to egg farmers. Also the Department of Health has written a food industry bulletin on the safe handling of eggs and distributed it to more than 13,000 food businesses in the State.
The 10 point plan provides egg producers with the minimum requirements for food safety for egg production and advises them they must strictly adhere to the points:
- It is illegal to sell cracked eggs for retail sale or for catering purposes. It is essential that all eggs for sale must be candled to remove cracked eggs. Cracked eggs must be disposed of or only sold to businesses to be pasteurised.
- Minimise faecal contamination of feed and chlorinated water by using equipment which prevents birds perching above feed and chlorinated water supplies or is designed to prevent direct contamination.
- Nests should be kept as clean as possible by removing faeces and broken eggs from nests and by cleaning nest pads. Nest material must be kept topped up and fresh.
- Collect eggs daily and more often in the event of increased floor eggs or in hot weather. Dirty or cracked eggs must be separated from clean eggs as soon as possible to minimise contamination.
- Eggs must be collected and packed on clean cardboard packaging or clean and sanitised plastic packaging or clean and sanitised baskets to prevent contamination.
- Dirty eggs must either be dry cleaned or washed and these procedures must be carried out very carefully to prevent the risk of increased contamination.
(a) Dry cleaned eggs must be cleaned using a dry, sanitised cloth and the cloth must be sanitised or exchanged on a regular basis to prevent cross contamination.
(b) Egg washing must be carried out with strict attention to water temperatures and effective sanitation. Eggs must not be allowed to soak in the washing solution. Eggs must then be immediately dried and cooled. (Detailed procedures in industry Codes of Practice must be adhered to and the effectiveness of the process should be verified daily). - Cool all eggs immediately after collection. Cool rooms should be set at 15ºC and be capable of maintaining this temperature.
- Eggs offered for sale must be free of faeces, dirt and stains and must only be sold in clean and dry packaging.
- There must be some method of identifying the source of all eggs offered for sale.
- Premises and equipment for handling and storage of eggs must be maintained in a sanitised state fit for the production of food for human consumption.
These points cover the absolute minimum requirements for egg safety. Egg producers can manage them through a HACCP-based food safety program such as Egg Corp Assured, administered by the Australian Egg Corporation Ltd.
For further information contact PIRSA Food Safety Program on 08 8207 7934.
Tasmanian report on salmonella infections caused by eating raw eggs
Communicable diseases specialists in Tasmania have published a report into one of the largest egg-associated outbreaks of foodborne illness in Australia for many years.
Between June and December 2005 five outbreaks ofSalmonellaTyphimurium phage type 135 affected 125 people who had eaten foods containing infected raw eggs.
Exhaustive investigations by the specialists from the Tasmanian Department of Health and Human Services included case and food handler interviews, cohort studies, environmental health investigations of food businesses, microbiological testing, traceback and inspections and drag swabbing of an egg farm.
After they found the source, the Health Department team, led by Nicola Stephens, an epidemiologist with the Communicable Diseases Prevention Unit (CDPU), began their interventions by targeting the general public and food handlers to promote better handling of egg products and followed this up with advice to egg producers on harm minimisation strategies, which brought the outbreaks under control.
WhileS.Typhimurium phage type 135 is the second most commonly reportedSalmonellaserotype in Tasmania, it historically caused an average of only 1.7 cases per 100,000 people. So when the number of laboratory notifications of salmonellosis caused by this bacterium began to mount dramatically, the CDPU quickly began an outbreak investigation.
Ultimately from case interviews and questionnaires asking about the victims’ food history
the CDPU found 91 per cent of the cases in the five outbreaks were linked to food businesses supplied by one poultry farm. The businesses themselves had inadequate food handling and/or storage procedures that increased the infection hazard and, had their food handling standards been better, most of the cases might have been prevented.
When the CDPU team investigated the first outbreak involving 11 cases in June in northern Tasmania they were unable to find the cause. Then came the second outbreak in the south in October, which was linked to two separate birthday parties. After excluding numerous suspicious cream-based foods, they identified a sponge-cream cake from one bakery as the source of this outbreak.
In outbreak three less than three weeks later, all 10 cases had eaten at the same café in the state’s south, where the source was a raw egg sauce and home-made – but obviously undercooked – hamburgers.
Outbreak four came a month later in the north, where five cases were reported, followed by outbreak five back in the south again. This time 11 separate groups of people ate at functions catered by the same restaurant over a period of eight days and 36 people fell ill. Investigations showed that raw egg had been used to make a mayonnaise and this proved to be the source of infection.
The Health Department subsequently sent a letter to all Tasmanian egg producers with recommendations on how to reduce Salmonella contamination of eggs. It issued a media release advising people not to eat raw or under-cooked eggs. Then, in a separate letter to all Tasmanian food businesses, it made recommendations regarding their use of clean eggs, refrigerated storage of eggs and the safe preparation and handling of foods containing raw eggs.
The department also informed general practitioners and hospital emergency departments across the state about the outbreaks and asked them to increase microbiological testing of patients presenting with gastroenteritis.
Thanks to the work of the CDPU and colleagues, the rate of notifications decreased markedly and only three cases of STm135 were notified in Tasmania throughout January 2006.
Poor people eat better than expected
One of Britain’s biggest studies into the population’s eating habits has exposed the popular myth that the rich eat better than the poor.
The $12 million study of 3500 people, funded by the UK Food Standards Agency and published last July 2007, found that those in the bottom 15 per cent of society, about nine million people, eat no worse than everyone else.
Australian sociologists such as Dr Pat Crotty, now retired, are not surprised by the findings that reinforce, though go further than, their own research.
In a 2004 study by Dr Crotty and Dr John Germov, titled “Food and Class”, the authors also questioned the assumption that the poor have worse diets than the better off after reviewing the work of other researchers who assessed the 1995 Australian National Nutrition Survey (ANNS).
After analysing a study of 6680 people drawn from the ANNS who completed a food frequency questionnaire, Crotty and Germov said it lent credence to the thesis that differences between class and consumption patterns are diminishing.
“There is evidence that we should be cautious in generalising about such broad categories,” they wrote.
“In developed countries, there is mounting evidence that differentials in diet between the upper and working classes are diminishing and that those that persist are not great.”
Dr Crotty told Food Surveillance News that although she has not seen the detail of the UK study, it follows logically her own research and it is reasonable to suggest a similar study done in Australia now would reach similar findings.
“I’m not altogether surprised (by the UK findings),” she said.
With the British study, only in their consumption of fruit and vegetables and fat and fibre are the eating habits of the poor “slightly worse” than the national average. The poorest families eat similar amounts of saturated fat as the rich, but they like more sugar and are not so fond of fruit and vegetables.
However, the agency pointed out that while the diet of the poor is better than it thought, the study findings are still worrying because the whole population is not eating as healthily as it should.
Food experts and sociologists have long assumed society’s poorest people eat less nourishing food and are more likely to suffer long-term health problems. Well, they do, but in this they are little different from other Britons; like the rest of the population, the low earners are overweight, smoke too much, do too little exercise and do not eat enough fresh food.
The FSA’s head of nutrition, Rosemary Hignett, said the research, which was carried out for the agency by King’s College, London, the Royal Free and University College Medical School and the National Centre for Social Research, found no direct links between a poor diet and income, nor access to shops, nor cooking skills.
“The gap between the diets of people on low incomes and those of the rest of the population is not as big as some feared,” she said.
“It is also positive that most people in this group say they feel confident about their cooking skills, have reasonable kitchen facilities and access to large supermarkets. Small changes to diet can make a big difference to health so we urge everyone to think about the food that they and their family are eating.”
The study took place over a 15-month period between November 2003 and January 2005. Volunteer participants had a mean income of £201 ($468) a week and were selected on their overall pay, state benefits and living conditions.
They filled out food diaries for four random 24-hour periods and had their physical measurements noted and a blood sample taken by a nurse.
Sixty-two per cent of men and 63 per cent of women and more than a third of children were overweight or obese, in line with the general population, though there were more smokers – 45 per cent of men and 40 per cent of women. Most drank more alcohol than higher social groups, though twice as many were teetotal, perhaps reflecting the higher ethnic minority representation.
Poor people’s average consumption of vitamins – which are used to fortify bread and breakfast cereals – was close to the recommended level, apart from vitamins A and D. There were few noticeable regional or income differences.
The study’s authors suggested supermarkets, which in Britain tend to set up fruit and vegetable displays near the entrance of stores, might in some ways be helping to improve the nation’s diet. They found that women who shopped at large supermarkets ate significantly higher amounts of fruit and vegetables than other women.
They also found increasing awareness among poorer families about the need to eat healthier food, with more than 75 per cent of those surveyed saying they wanted to improve their diet.
More than 80 per cent said they shopped mainly at a large supermarket and most had good cooking and food storage facilities at home. The researchers suggested this undermined the popular theory that the disappearance of ‘corner shop’ greengrocers has led to the creation of food deserts in inner cities.
Food retailers have cited the survey as evidence that they are not to blame for poor diet, but that it is the result of personal choice.
British Retail Consortium director general Kevin Hawkins said the study confirms that British retailers have made healthy food accessible at affordable prices to families of all incomes.
“Today an average trolley of food from the supermarket costs 7% less in real terms than it did in 2000 and 15% less than in 1990,” Mr Hawkins said.
In an associated issue, Dr Karen Webb et al, writing in the Medical Journal of Australia last year, said Australia does not have enough information about nutrition – and who gets it – and that we need continuous nutritional surveillance as part of a comprehensive policy to combat nutritional disorders.
“Where such surveillance exists, such as in the US, the data have been used to evaluate dietary guidelines, revise food selection guides, develop and evaluate fortification programs, set “real-life” serving sizes for nutrition information panels on food labels, make decisions about specific food processing regulations, and model the impacts of bioterrorism threats from food contamination,” the authors wrote.
“Many disparate groups in Australia — in food production, marketing, regulation, and consumer health — now concur about the need for continuous food and nutrition monitoring, as well as the imperative to find workable solutions to long-term funding needs.
“While a national cross-sectional nutrition survey of children is currently being planned, its value would be greater if it were the start of a continuing surveillance program. In this regard, the recent announcement by the Minister for Health and Ageing of $3 million initially for a survey of diet, physical activity, and the weight status of Australian children, and $1 million annually thereafter for the collection of similar data on all population groups in Australia, is
welcome, especially if it evokes a matching response from other key data users, including the states and territories.”