What Does Ground Beef Need to Be Contaminated From to Get E Coli

The purpose of the Preparation Module is to approximate the occurrence and extent of E. coli O157:H7 contamination in consumed ground-beef servings. The approach involves determining the frequency of exposure of consumers in unlike age groups to East. coli O157:H7 in ground beef served at and abroad from home. Six main steps are evaluated: grinding of beef, basis-beef storage during processing or by the retailer or benefactor; transportation to the abode or to hotels, restaurants, and institutions (HRI); storage at dwelling or in HRI; cooking; and consumption. Consumption patterns are modeled every bit being dependent on the age of the consumer and the location of the meal. Ground beef is consumed in many forms, but the FSIS draft risk assessment focuses on hamburger patties and on ground beef used equally a major ingredient in beef-based foods (such equally meatballs and meatloaf). The model does non include ground beef as a granulated ingredient (equally in commercial meat sauce for spaghetti).

Cantankerous CONTAMINATION

A central issue for the committee in its review of the draft Preparation Module was the factoring in of the contributing influence of cross contagion on human illness. Cantankerous contamination during training results when Due east. coli O157:H7 is transmitted from contaminated ground beef to such vehicles as other foods, food preparation and processing surfaces, and nutrient handlers. Because of the highly infectious nature of the pathogen, which has an estimated depression infectious dose of under 100 cells, vehicles cross-contaminated through straight or indirect exposure to E. coli O157:H7-tainted raw basis beef are probable to be important sources of human illness (Buchanan and Doyle, 1997).

A case-control analysis of sporadic infection with E. coli O157:H7 by Mead et al. (1997) substantiates that notion. It determined that most ill persons in question had eaten hamburgers prepared at home and that the primary risk factors associated with infection were food preparers who had non washed their hands or piece of work surfaces subsequently handling raw basis beef. The investigators concluded that in many instances hamburgers were non the direct vehicle of transmission of E. coli O157:H7, just rather that transmission occurred more commonly when the food preparers' hands, contaminated by raw ground beef, were allowed to cantankerous-contaminate other repast items or utensils. In a multistate outbreak of Eastward. coli O157:H7 infection in 1995, cantankerous contagion from raw ground beefiness was identified as the likely contributing cistron associated with eating cooked ground-beef sandwiches prepared at fast-nutrient restaurants of a specific concatenation (CDC, 1996).

Although they did not address the upshot of E. coli O157:H7 directly, two studies released while the draft chance cess was under evolution support the notion that cross contamination during food preparation is an important risk factor for foodborne illness in general. Audits International (2001) published a study of food-preparation practices that identified cross contamination (25% of failures) every bit the third nearly-common disquisitional violation^ane of good hygienic practices in the home. Previous Audits International studies had ranked it as the near mutual critical violation, with a frequency of 71% in 1997 and 31% in 1999. Another study researching commercial and institutional food operations was prepared by the Nutrient and Drug Assistants (FDA, 2000). Researchers at FDA found that 15% of fast-food restaurants and 44% of full-service restaurants examined were out of compliance with ane or more items in the category "contaminated equipment/protection from contamination". Those items included whether raw animal foods were separated from one another, whether raw and set up-to-eat foods were separated, and whether surfaces and utensils were cleaned or sanitized.

The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) of the U.s.a. Department of Agriculture (USDA) itself identifies cantankerous contamination during training every bit a significant factor in food safety. Two of the 4 steps in USDA's Fight BAC!^two entrada—"Clean—wash hands and surfaces often" and "Separate—don't cross-contaminate"—address interventions intended to minimize it.

Withal, the FSIS draft take chances assessment indicates that cross contamination in the grooming phase is outside the scope of the analysis (p. 3). Later (p.74), it states:

Currently, quantitative modeling of cross-contamination in foods is hampered by a dearth of evidence. Furthermore, cross-contamination pathways are potentially complex, and each pathway may require as much data regarding growth dynamics and cooking upshot as the chief product of involvement. The model, however, tin can serve every bit a starting point for analyzing the effects of cross-contamination on homo exposure to E. coli O157:H7.

The committee understands and respects the decision of the modelers to found reasonable bounds on the reach of their work; it is a necessary role of any risk assessment. It observes, nonetheless, that cross contamination during preparation is an established, important adventure factor; that the lack of data on its effects is no more than severe than the lack of data for some other parts of the draft model; and that further attention to cross contamination will help to lay the groundwork for an analysis and better identify the data gaps that need to be filled by hereafter inquiry efforts.

The value of the risk assessment in informing public health policy and supporting regulatory interventions will be increased if information technology is able to factor in the effect of cantankerous contamination on Due east. coli O157:H7 infections and perhaps address the influence of interventions. Only as important, the committee is concerned that the draft risk assessment may foster the inaccurate and misleading impression that proper cooking of basis beefiness will prevent all associated E. coli O157:H7 infections. If the model is used to simulate the effects of various interventions on homo health outcomes, omission of this major road of infection could produce ambiguous results and potentially deficient policy decisions.

The commission recognizes that data are lacking on the extent to which various forms of exposure—whether directly (through contact with contaminated beef itself) or indirect (through contact with meat drippings or with surfaces that have previously been in contact with contaminated drippings or beef)—to E. coli O157:H7-tainted raw ground beef during storage, transportation, and repast-making bear upon infection. Yet, that is not the only circumstance in the FSIS typhoon model in which there is a dearth of information. Equally noted elsewhere in the chapter, for example, some estimates of the amount of raw ground beef consumed in subpopulations are derived from rather scanty data, and simplifying assumptions or conjectures are used in lieu of data in several steps of the Slaughter Module.

The commission besides acknowledges that information technology may not at present be possible to model cantankerous contamination at a level of detail that would permit informed analysis of the efficacy of specific interventions. Yet, it points out that the ability to specify the particulars of the myriad scenarios past which cantankerous contagion with raw ground beefiness tin occur is not a prerequisite for accounting for this take a chance factor in the model. As noted elsewhere in this review, the process of amalgam a risk assessment necessarily results in the identification of critical data gaps. With a better understanding of what information would be needed to perform more-sophisticated modeling, USDA will exist in a improve position to define a inquiry agenda.

In summary, disregarding the contribution of cross contamination of Eastward. coli O157:H7-tainted raw ground beefiness to human illness weakens the typhoon risk assessment. The committee suggests that consideration be given to factoring in cross contamination every bit an additional step. If that is not possible, it recommends that the final FSIS risk assessment highlight more clearly the role of cross contamination in E. coli O157:H7 infection and emphasize the limitations in the model engendered by a conclusion to not factor it in.

MODELING IN THE Grooming MODULE

Data Selected for Use and Means of Analysis Take Weaknesses

An important limitation in modeling in the Preparation Module is the paucity of adequate or validated data regarding some components of the grooming steps. It leads to diminished confidence in estimates derived from these data.

One case is the modeling of storage times. At that place are no information that direct document the length of time that ground beefiness is stored at refrigeration temperature. The draft uses storage temperature data of Audits International (1999) (Table 3-sixteen in the draft risk assessment) for home and HRI storage (Pace 4). Yet, those data were obtained from a super-market place study in which temperatures were monitored from the retail distribution channel into the home, and it is inappropriate to extrapolate them to the whole of the HRI industry, because the vast majority of ground beefiness distributed through the food-service segment of HRI is distributed frozen. Such basis beef is processed into patties that are transported frozen and cooked from the frozen state. Hence, it is of import to recognize that the Audits International data are relevant but to retail products and a pocket-sized portion of HRI ground beef. The vast majority of ground beef used in HRI is stored frozen, so the storage-temperature profiles of the product would exist much different from those of fresh basis beef stored in a domicile setting.

The FSIS typhoon gamble assessment does attempt to model the effects of freezing ground beefiness on E. coli O157:H7 cell numbers during storage and distribution (p. 83), assuming a compatible distribution of 20–fourscore% of ground beef is produced frozen. That estimate, though, is and so broad as to be uninformative. The committee suggests that expert opinion exist sought regarding a more precise estimate and distribution and, if it is found useful, that it be documented in the text and used in the model until data become available. Whatever revised approximate should recognize that nigh basis-beefiness products used by the food-service sector are stored frozen.

The committee recommends, in full general, that more than precise information regarding the percentage of ground beefiness that is stored and distributed frozen and cooked from the frozen country be obtained and used for determining estimates associated with frozen ground beefiness, particularly that used by fast-food restaurants. A trade clan, such as the American Meat Institute, could exist a source of this information.

Differences in Cooking Practices Based on Location Are Not Appropriately Considered

Practices for cooking footing beef in the home, at fast-food restaurants, and in other HRI facilities vary considerably; those of major chain fast-nutrient restaurants are well defined and validated to kill pathogens, whereas those used in the home are based largely on the advent of the cooked product and may result in pathogen survival. A 2002 example-control study conducted by the Centers for Affliction Control and Prevention to identify risk factors associated with sporadic E. coli O157 infections adamant that eating hamburgers cooked in the home was a major run a risk gene (Kennedy et al., 2002), whereas an earlier case-control study based on data obtained through the same FoodNet system identified eating hamburgers served at table-service restaurants—but not restaurants of major fast-food chains—equally a major risk factor (Kassenborg et al., 1998). The committee recommends that each location—the home, fast-nutrient restaurants, and the residual of HRI facilities—where ground beefiness is cooked exist modeled separately. That would necessitate that information on internal temperatures of cooked basis-beef patties exist obtained or estimated for the three full general locations. The Risk Label affiliate in the typhoon correctly notes that "data on variability in nutrient preparation behavior between consumers (home) and food preparers (HRI) are lacking" (p. 141) but this does non necessarily foreclose modeling. The committee notes, for case, that most fast-food restaurants that cook patties from the frozen state would not run into the wide variation in pretreatment storage conditions that was used in the draft to model cooking of basis beef and that variability in pretreatment storage conditions would more likely occur in ground beef cooked in homes.

Caution should be used in applying to the model the information of Jackson et al. (1996) regarding the mean reduction in E. coli O157:H7 in grilled ground-beef patties because some of their results (summarized in the draft's Table 3-20) are counterintuitive. There are several observations where greater or equivalent E. coli O157:H7 populations were killed at 62.8°C (145°F) than at 68.three°C (155°F). It is well established that the higher the temperature (above the maximal growth temperature), the greater the number of bacteria killed. Furthermore, pretreatment past freezing may increase the sensitivity of pathogens like E. coli O157:H7 to thermal inactivation. The Jackson et al. data contradict that: more E. coli O157:H7 were inactivated at equivalent cooking temperatures in patties previously held refrigerated at 3°C for ix hours than in patties held frozen at 18°C for 8 days. The committee recommends that, until more than reliable data become available, D values ³ established for East. coli O157:H7 inactivation in ground beef be used to model the effect of pretreatment storage conditions on rates of E. coli O157:H7 inactivation. The analysis should account for the varied fat content of ground beef used in the domicile, fast-nutrient restaurants, and other HRI environments.

Estimates of Amount of Raw Basis Beef Consumed Are Flawed

The draft model calculates that "cooking" does not yield any log reduction of E. coli O157:H7 in 4–8% of footing beef servings. The explanation—described in a footnote (on p. 89)—is that the USDA's Continuing Survey of Food Intakes past Individuals (CSFII) data used equally the sole reference reported that 4 people (three 25–64 years sometime and one less than five years old) consumed "raw" basis beef. For modeling purposes, the servings were considered to be a subset of servings that had no log reduction in E. coli O157:H7 during cooking (for instance, grossly undercooked servings). That information is disquisitional to agreement the rationale for the relatively loftier occurrence of no-log-reduction ground-beef servings. Considering of the importance of log-reduction information for interpreting calculated estimates, the committee recommends that the cloth in the footnote be moved to the text after the estimates that are presented as having no log reduction.

More important, uncomplicated extrapolation of data from the 1994–1996 and 1998 CSFII surveys for estimating the annual number of raw ground-beef servings is scientifically unfounded because of the small number of observations available in some subsets. Table three-24 in the draft indicates that children 0–5 years one-time swallow an estimated 522,315 servings of raw ground beefiness annually away from home but none at dwelling. That calculation is based on a single observation, and confidence intervals are not included. The committee recommends that FSIS acknowledge that information technology lacks adequate information on the consumption of raw ground beef in the The states. Linear scaling of observations from ane or a pocket-sized number of individuals to the entire U.s.a. population is statistically inappropriate. The commission believes that in this circumstance adept judgment, with appropriate accounting for uncertainty, may exist superior to using extant data and suggests that FSIS solicit such input in the brusque term. ^four For the longer term, the committee suggests that better information on raw-meat consumption exist gathered and that research account for the fact that some groups of individuals consume raw ground beef in traditional dishes or in keeping with cultural traditions. USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service or industry sources may have boosted information begetting on this question.

Human Exposure to Eastward. coli O157:H7 in Ground Beef Fails to Address Potentially Of import Variables

The primary outputs of the FSIS typhoon Preparation Module are estimates of distributions that depict the prevalence of E. coli O157:H7 in footing-beef servings prepared during the seasons in which East. coli O157:H7 is more and less prevalent in cattle at slaughter. The Grooming Module relies solely on outputs of the Slaughter Module related to seasonal differences rather than using FSIS ground-beef sampling data. In addition, because the major differences in handling of frozen ground beef and in cooking ground beef betwixt fast-nutrient restaurants and the home, there may exist substantial differences in distributions of E. coli O157:H7 in ground-beef servings, depending on the location where the meat is prepared, cooked, and consumed. The committee recommends that FSIS basis-beefiness sampling information be used to determine seasonal differences in Due east. coli O157:H7 contamination of basis beefiness and that inputs into the model be further differentiated on the basis of location of ground-beefiness preparation and consumption.

Insight into some other potentially important variable is provided by the CSFII. The 1994–1996 data regarding ground-beef consumption, repro duced below in Tabular array 4-1, suggests that both sexual activity and age are important in serving size. Age is factored in by the model, only sexual practice is not accounted for in the label of the quantity of basis-beefiness products consumed. The proceeds in precision from including sexual practice is likely to be small compared with other elements for which data are weak or absent-minded. The committee suggests that the final risk assessment at least note the possible role of sexual practice for completeness and future reference.

TABLE 4-1

Ground-beef quantity (g) consumed per eating occasion by age and sex (2-day sample).

REFERENCES

• Audits International. 2001. Audits International 2000 Home Food Condom Study.

• Buchanan RL, Doyle MP. 1997. Foodborne disease significance of Escherichia coli O157:H7 and other enterohemorrhagic Eastward. coli. Food Engineering science 51:69–75.

• CDC (Centers for Affliction Control and Prevention). 1996. Outbreak of Escherichia coli O157:H7 infection Georgia and Tennessee June 1995. Morbidity and Bloodshed Weekly Report 45(12):249–251. [PubMed: 8965785]

• FDA (Food and Drug Administration). 2000. Written report of the FDA Retail Nutrient Plan Database of Foodborne Affliction Risk Factors. FDA Retail Food Programme Steering Committee. Baronial 10, 2000.

• Jackson, TC, Hardin MD, Acuff GR. 1996. Rut resistance of Escherichia coli O157:H7 in a nutrient medium and in footing beef patties as influenced by storage and property temperatures. Periodical of Nutrient Protection 59:230–237. [PubMed: 10463438]

• Kassenborg H, Hedberg C, Evans G, Chin 1000, Fiorentino T, Vugia D, Bardsley Chiliad, Slutsker 50, Griffin P. 1998. Instance-command study of sporadic Escherichia coli O157:H7 infections in v FoodNet sites. Abstracts of the International Conference on Emerging Infectious Diseases, p. fifty.

• Kennedy, MH, Rabatsky-Ehr T, Thomas SM, Lance-Parker S, Mohle-Boetani J, Smith K, Keene W, Sparling P, Hardnett FP, Mead PS, and the EIP FoodNet Working Group. 2002. Chance factors for sporadic Escherichia coli O157 infections in the United States: A example-command study in FoodNet sites, 1999–2000. Abstracts of the International Briefing on Emerging Infectious Diseases, p. 169.

• Mead PS, Finelli L, Lambert-Off-white MA, Champ D, Townes J, Hutwagner L, Barrett T, Spitalny 1000, Mintz East. 1997. Risk factors for sporadic infection with Escherichia coli O157:H7. Archives of Internal Medicine 157(2):204–208. [PubMed: 9009977]

• Nauta MJ, Evers EG, Takumi K, Havelaar AH. 2001. Take a chance assessment of Shiga-toxin producing Escherichia coli O157 in steak tartare in the Netherlands. Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en Milieu (RIVM). Report 257851 003.

• Smiciklas-Wright H, Mitchell DC, Mickle SJ, Cook AJ, Goldman JD. 2002. Foods Unremarkably Eaten in the United States: Quantities Consumed per Eating Occasion and in a Twenty-four hours, 1994– 1996. United states Department of Agriculture NFS Written report No. 96-five, prepublication version. http://www​.barc.usda​.gov/bhnrc/foodsurvey/Products9496.html , accessed July 10, 2002.

• USDA (U.s.a. Department of Agriculture), Agronomical Inquiry Service. 2000. Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals 1994–96, 1998. National Technical Information Service. CD-ROM. NTIS Accession no. PB2000-500027.

1

Critical violations are defined equally weather condition or actions that by themselves can cause foodborne illness.

2

Where "BAC" refers to leaner.

3

D (or decimal reduction) value is the amount of time in minutes required to reduce the number of organisms of a detail bacterium by ninety% at a specified temperature. A 90% reduction—from x^vi to 10⁵ colony-forming units, for example—is equivalent to a i-log decrease.

4

Faced with a similar problem in their risk cess of Shiga-producing Eastward. coli O157 in steak tartare, Dutch researchers convened an skilful solicitation workshop to estimate values for parameters for which no information were plant (Nauta et al., 2001).

willisgeorld.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK221093/

Share this post