Irradiation - Evaluating the Investment
With a fair amount of fanfare , last week the FDA approved irradiation of iceburg lettuce and spinach. For restaurant owners, the question is whether they should invest in this process.
Like pasteurization, irradiation may provide an added level of protection from food-borne illnesses such as salmonella and E. coli. When used in combination with other state-of-the-art food handling practices, irradiation should dramatically reduce the chances of transmitting food-borne illnesses to consumers.
The FDA estimates that irradiated fruits and vegetables will cost two to three cents more per pound than nonirradiated products. Irradiation does not substitute for any other food safety practices or investments. Indeed, without added precautions against cross-contamination or field-to-fork regulation of the supply chain, irradiation provides little benefit.
Perhaps more significant than cost is the question of consumer acceptance. The good news is that the FDA does not require labeling of irradiated foods by restaurants (as it currently does for supermarket products). Yet some organic foods advocates are passionate about what they believe to be harmful effects of irradiation and are already lobbying restaurants and consumers to steer clear of irradiated foods.
At this point, arguments against irradiated foods are similar to those against pasteurization and appear to be grounded more in emotion than in science. In weighing issues of consumer acceptance and lowered risk to human health, businesses should understand that unlike economics and politics, in food safety, perception is not reality. Failure to irradiate will likely result in more personal injury claims and a significant threat to the business and the brand.
Update On Distillers Grains - E. coli Link Not Established
By Guest Blogger Jason JohnsWe've previously discussed ongoing research concerning safety of distillers grains previously. An article on distillers grains and E. coli in Distillers Grains Monthly (Third Quarter 2008) suggests that the scientific debate continues, and questions remain unanswered.
Conflicting studies have now been released by Kansas State University and the University of Nebraska regarding the link between distillers grains and the presence of E. coli O157:H7. In December 2007, KSU released a study showing that E. coli O157:H7 levels were approximately two-fold higher in cattle fed dried distillers grains. In reaction to the KSU findings, researchers at Nebraska revisited their findings from an earlier distillers grains feeding trial and arrived at a conclusion different than that of KSU.
Nebraska researchers found E. coli O157:H7 produced at statistically significant levels between diets low in distillers grains and those high in distillers grains. However, neither of those diets produced E. coli O157:H7 at levels statistically significant from the control diet. The Nebraska data also showed that diets low in distillers grains may help animals to shed the microbe in feces.
Apart from the studies, the article explains that much remains unknown about the effects of distillers grains when introduced into cattle diets. For example, researchers do not know why cattle respond differently when fed dried distillers grains-spiked steam-flaked corn and dried distillers grains-supplemented dry-rolled corn. Researchers are also unaware of how distillers grains produced from different sources--sorghum, barley, and so forth--may affect cattle differently.
Hopefully, we will learn more in October 2008, when Nebraska plans to make available a study involving 480 cattle and high levels of distillers grains. Until then, it appears the link between distillers grains and the presence of E. coli O157:H7 in cattle remains unsettled.
