• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

More Canadians suffer food poisoning

PORKER

Well-known member
Posted: Fri Aug 10, 2007 8:53 pm Post subject: More Canadians suffer food poisoning

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

More Canadians suffer food poisoning
A rise in the number of cases involving foodborne illnesses is a strong signal of the need for change, says Paul Sockett, director of foodborne, waterborne and zoonotic infections at the Public Health Agency of Canada.
Published: Tuesday, August 07, 2007

Source of Article: http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=ee66451e-aa59-4bf1-90d7-7ecd7985f582&k=33656

Up to 13 million Canadians, more than 40 per cent of the population, will suffer from food-borne illnesses this year, an epidemic that medical experts say costs up to $1.3 billion annually in lost productivity and medical expenses.

E. coli-tainted spinach from the U.S.; cantaloupes from Costa Rica contaminated with salmonella; and pet food containing a toxic chemical imported from China -- recent safety scares have raised serious questions about the security of Canada's food supply and sparked criticism that the government and food industry don't do enough to ensure food imported from other countries is safe to eat.

It's an epidemic some fear will only worsen as large and small grocery stores rely increasingly on food grown on foreign soil that Canadian officials will probably never see or inspect.

In 2006, Canada imported $19.2 billion worth of food from 195 countries and jurisdictions, according to Statistics Canada. While the bulk of imports -- about $11.6 billion -- came from the U.S., Canada also imported about $756 million in food from China, $607 million from Brazil and $599 million from Mexico. Imports from the Philippines hit $91 million, nearly $66 million from Malaysia, about $26.8 million from Iran and $24 million from Ghana.
Food imports increased 21.5 per cent from 1996 to 2006, according to Statistics Canada.

A major portion of the food Canadians eat will never be inspected by the federal government before it goes on store shelves.

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency also doesn't scrutinize products based on the country of origin
, but instead looks more closely at high-risk food products.

High-risk food, such as meat, faces the most rigorous checks and 100 per cent of shipments into Canada are inspected, said Paul Mayers, executive director of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's animal products directorate. The agency is also currently inspecting 100 per cent of shipments of leafy greens, like lettuce, into Canada as a result of last year's outbreaks.

But the agency inspects less than 10 per cent of shipments of low-risk products, which includes a majority of fresh produce that comes into Canada.

It's a "risk-based" approach to food safety -- which the agency and many food experts say helps the government manage resources and focus on areas that have the greatest potential risk.

But as the number of outbreaks and illnesses linked to foreign food continues to mount and an increasing proportion of the Canadian diet is made up of food imported from other countries, there are serious questions about whether food growers and sellers, as well as the government, are doing enough to keep what Canadians eat safe.

Produce safety is a relatively new concept and there are still many farms in North America -- let alone less-developed countries -- that haven't adopted the systems needed to help prevent problems with food, said Ben Chapman, a PhD student at the University of Guelph's plant agriculture department. Mr. Chapman, who is doing his doctoral thesis on food handlers, has visited about 500 farms as part of his research and says simple things like controlling water sources and having permanent, clean bathroom facilities can help prevent bacteria from getting in our food supply.

"There's lots of different factors that lead to foodborne illness," Mr. Chapman said. "The things that make people sick are hard to inspect for."

Federal health officials say they're becoming more and more worried about the fact fresh fruits and vegetables shipped to Canada from other countries, including those with lower safety standards, are making up an increasingly large proportion of cases of foodborne illness.

"One of the more recent trends that we've observed that is of some concern to us is we are seeing an increasing number of outbreaks linked to produce," said Paul Sockett, director of foodborne, waterborne and zoonotic infections at the Public Health Agency of Canada, which estimates up to 13 million people in this country will suffer from a foodborne illness this year. "I'm talking about plants, fruit, types of materials, even nuts. A lot of this, actually, is coming into the country rather than the stuff that's actually produced within Canada itself."

While imported products help keep prices down and give consumers choices, the reality is that the farther away our food originates, the more difficult it is for the government and food industry to guarantee it's safe.

"It's getting worse, not better, because of the fact we're importing more and more food from places like China, where food safety is a joke," said Ronnie Cummins, national director of the Organic Consumers Association. "It's endemic, inherent in an industrialized food production system that you have a lot of filth and disease spread."

Foreign-grown produce has brought new types of bacteria and foodborne illness into Canada in recent years, such as a parasite found on soft fruit grown in central South America and salmonella bacteria on bean sprouts and lettuce from the United States.

The cumulative effects of foodborne illness on the Canadian economy are significant, says the Public Health Agency of Canada.

"This would actually translate into fairly substantive costs into terms of health care and lost productivity from time off work," Mr. Sockett said.

A growing number of critics say it's a major problem that Canada imports a significant amount of food from less-developed countries in South and Central America, Africa and Asia that may not have, or properly enforce, strict farm safety guidelines to keep food from becoming contaminated with harmful bacteria, high levels of pesticides or chemicals that are banned from use in Canada.

"In other countries, they're going to still be using pesticides that are banned in Canada, so it increases our exposure to some things we've already decided are a problem," said Dr. Kapil Khatter, director of health and environment at Environmental Defence, an advocacy group.

Under the current system, food suppliers and retailers are supposed to conduct quality checks and take other measures to ensure the food they bring into the country is safe. Often, that means checking food shipments to make sure they have the proper documentation required for imports, said Justin Sherwood, western region vice-president of the Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors, an industry association that represents retail grocery stores.

But the industry doesn't normally conduct tests for pesticide levels or bacterial contamination of food. It's a job the industry says it leaves up to the federal government.

Yet, while the CFIA conducts random checks to see if food is safe, the agency says the industry bears a significant amount of responsibility for keeping the food supply safe.

Loblaw Cos. Ltd., A&P Canada and Sobeys Inc. all declined requests for interviews on the topic of food safety and deferred all questions to the Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors.

Sobeys, "along with the other members of the CCGD, has a common position on food safety and food safety practices," Andrew Walker, vice-president of communications and corporate affairs at Sobeys Inc., wrote in an e-mail.

The industry association said Canada's food retailers take food safety seriously and always conduct quality checks and look for proper documentation before food is allowed in the country.

"There has been a significant amount of surveillance," Mr. Sherwood said.

But that is not enough to stop problems on the factory farm or in the production plant, such as a contaminated water supply, employees who forget to wash their hands or work in the field while sick, said John Kukoly, product manager of food safety and organic certification for the Quality Management Institute, which is part of the Canadian Standards Association.

Governments and companies that produce and buy food should put a greater emphasis on adopting on-farm food-safety programs and enforcing clean, safe procedures from the time food is grown until it's ready for sale, he said.

"Realistically, you can't test incoming materials for every possibility," he said. "What you have to do is ensure the systems are in place, the management systems are in place."

The consumer demand for fresh food at low prices and subsequent competition between producers, suppliers and grocery retailers can make food safety a unique and difficult challenge for government and industry.

"We need to do the work at our own borders and obviously be aware that when we are buying things from abroad we are potentially taking those kinds of risks," Dr. Khatter said.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
But Q said, "In canada we make sure imported food is inspect by our inspectors. If you want to import food it is your responsibility to inspect it before it gets to the consumer. .... You see up here we do not trust others to do important work and we bear the cost of extra testing but it is done to confirm food safetey for the consumer. So that is how canadians know food is safe. Maybe the US should take a page from the CFIA . " I think you had better stick to R-CALF bashing, Q. :lol: :lol:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
PORKER said:
In 2006, Canada imported $19.2 billion worth of food from 195 countries and jurisdictions, according to Statistics Canada. While the bulk of imports -- about $11.6 billion -- came from the U.S., Canada also imported about $756 million in food from China, $607 million from Brazil and $599 million from Mexico. Imports from the Philippines hit $91 million, nearly $66 million from Malaysia, about $26.8 million from Iran and $24 million from Ghana.
Food imports increased 21.5 per cent from 1996 to 2006, according to Statistics Canada.

A major portion of the food Canadians eat will never be inspected by the federal government before it goes on store shelves.

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency also doesn't scrutinize products based on the country of origin
, but instead looks more closely at high-risk food products.


But as the number of outbreaks and illnesses linked to foreign food continues to mount and an increasing proportion of the Canadian diet is made up of food imported from other countries, there are serious questions about whether food growers and sellers, as well as the government, are doing enough to keep what Canadians eat safe.


Federal health officials say they're becoming more and more worried about the fact fresh fruits and vegetables shipped to Canada from other countries, including those with lower safety standards, are making up an increasingly large proportion of cases of foodborne illness.

"One of the more recent trends that we've observed that is of some concern to us is we are seeing an increasing number of outbreaks linked to produce," said Paul Sockett, director of foodborne, waterborne and zoonotic infections at the Public Health Agency of Canada, which estimates up to 13 million people in this country will suffer from a foodborne illness this year. "I'm talking about plants, fruit, types of materials, even nuts. A lot of this, actually, is coming into the country rather than the stuff that's actually produced within Canada itself."

While imported products help keep prices down and give consumers choices, the reality is that the farther away our food originates, the more difficult it is for the government and food industry to guarantee it's safe.

"It's getting worse, not better, because of the fact we're importing more and more food from places like China, where food safety is a joke," said Ronnie Cummins, national director of the Organic Consumers Association. "It's endemic, inherent in an industrialized food production system that you have a lot of filth and disease spread."

Foreign-grown produce has brought new types of bacteria and foodborne illness into Canada in recent years, such as a parasite found on soft fruit grown in central South America and salmonella bacteria on bean sprouts and lettuce from the United States.

A growing number of critics say it's a major problem that Canada imports a significant amount of food from less-developed countries in South and Central America, Africa and Asia that may not have, or properly enforce, strict farm safety guidelines to keep food from becoming contaminated with harmful bacteria, high levels of pesticides or chemicals that are banned from use in Canada.

"In other countries, they're going to still be using pesticides that are banned in Canada, so it increases our exposure to some things we've already decided are a problem," said Dr. Kapil Khatter, director of health and environment at Environmental Defence, an advocacy group.

Yet, while the CFIA conducts random checks to see if food is safe, the agency says the industry bears a significant amount of responsibility for keeping the food supply safe.


"We need to do the work at our own borders and obviously be aware that when we are buying things from abroad we are potentially taking those kinds of risks," Dr. Khatter said.

Sounds like the same issues that brought 92% of US consumers to demand M-COOL......
 

QUESTION

Well-known member
Sand H i must be making an impression if you can Quote me from that far back. I make my living from cattle so when a group from any country makes statements to put me out of business, cost me money, or endangers my livelyhood I take it seriously especially when people belonging to that group do not make their living from cattle. I don't bash i hold people accountable for their actions and if i find out they are intentionally misleading others i call them on it if it threatens my livelyhood. So anytime a group spreads disimformation be it r-calf or PETA i call them on it.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
QUESTION said:
Sand H i must be making an impression if you can Quote me from that far back. I make my living from cattle so when a group from any country makes statements to put me out of business, cost me money, or endangers my livelyhood I take it seriously especially when people belonging to that group do not make their living from cattle. I don't bash i hold people accountable for their actions and if i find out they are intentionally misleading others i call them on it if it threatens my livelyhood. So anytime a group spreads disimformation be it r-calf or PETA i call them on it.

Why can you buck when something threatens your livlihood but R-CALF can't?

Yep, you have made an impression.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandhusker said:
QUESTION said:
Sand H i must be making an impression if you can Quote me from that far back. I make my living from cattle so when a group from any country makes statements to put me out of business, cost me money, or endangers my livelyhood I take it seriously especially when people belonging to that group do not make their living from cattle. I don't bash i hold people accountable for their actions and if i find out they are intentionally misleading others i call them on it if it threatens my livelyhood. So anytime a group spreads disimformation be it r-calf or PETA i call them on it.

Why can you buck when something threatens your livlihood but R-CALF can't?

Yep, you have made an impression.


Give up Sandhusker-- you just showed what an uncredible idiot he is-- and he didn't even understand that....Flew right over the top... :shock: :wink: :lol:

To him/her/it the worlds problems are all caused by R-CALF- and he can't see anything else...
 

QUESTION

Well-known member
Sorry but before BSE canada accounted for 3% of the US market currently less than 1% now that is quite an accomplishment. Personally i do not want to target the US market rather the UK for my product. As far as r-calf doing the same thing as i am you are comparing beets and oranges. I am not organization who spend million on lawyers, Nor do i have a full time staff promoting my views.
 

Kato

Well-known member
High-risk food, such as meat, faces the most rigorous checks and 100 per cent of shipments into Canada are inspected, said Paul Mayers, executive director of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's animal products directorate. The agency is also currently inspecting 100 per cent of shipments of leafy greens, like lettuce, into Canada as a result of last year's outbreaks.

Just keepin an eye on those risky American imports. :wink: :wink:
 

PORKER

Well-known member
Kato, How much beef does Canada import from other countries,OTHER THEN not US beef ? Could beef come from Austrailia,then its shipped to the US? How about Algeria?Brazil ??Could we call that imported beef ,Canadian Beef? Not!!!

“A December 2005 report by USDA’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) revealed that Canadian plants were allowed to circumvent U.S. equivalency requirements for nearly two years – a perfect example of how COOL would afford consumers an additional level of protection against breaches in foreign food safety inspection systems.”
 

TimH

Well-known member
Quote from the posted article-

In 2006, Canada imported $19.2 billion worth of food from 195 countries and jurisdictions, according to Statistics Canada. While the bulk of imports -- about $11.6 billion -- came from the U.S.

:D :D :D Canada imported over $11.5 billion worth of food products from the USA.......... but.... but ....but .......NAFTA is just a one way street.....and...and ....and Canucks are just riding the USA's shirt-tails and stealing our domestic USA market!!!!!!

Ya.......OK. :D :D :D :D :D :roll:
 

PORKER

Well-known member
Mastro brand salami recalled for salmonella danger
Posted on August 27, 2007 by Salmonella Attorney

Santa Maria Foods ULC is recalling the salami which was sold in Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia and B.C. for possible salmonella contamination. Full Story from CBC News in Canada

The product was sold in variable weight packages with the lot code 3317A191 in Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia and B.C., the Canadian Food Inspection Agency said in an advisory issued Thursday.

No associated illnesses have been reported.

Consumption of food contaminated with salmonella may cause serious and even deadly infections in children, the elderly and people with weakened immune systems.

In healthy adults, salmonella bacteria can cause high fevers, severe headaches, vomiting, nausea, abdominal pain and diarrhea.

CFIA Health Alert
 

flounder

Well-known member
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON EMERGING INFECTIOUS DISEASE
Slide Session 11
molecular epidemiology Around the globe:
Implications for Intervention
Imperial A
Monday, March 20, 2006, 1:15 pm - 2:45 pm


http://www.iceid.org/documents/AbstractsFinal.pdf


Slide Session 12
foodborne Infection
Imperial B
Monday, March 20, 2006, 1:15 pm - 2:45 pm

42

Trends in Shiga Toxin-producing Escherichia coli

(STEC) Incidence and Differences in Reported
Exposures between Non-O157 and O157, Connecticut
2000-2005

Q. Phan1, S. Hurd2, P. Clogher2, T. Rabatsky-Ehr1, P. Mshar1, C. Welles3, R.
Howard3, J. Hadler1;
1Connecticut Department of Public Health, Hartford, CT, 2Connecticut
Emerging Infections Program, New Haven, CT, 3Connecticut State
Laboratory, Hartford, CT.

Background: E. coli O157 is the most common STEC in the United States.
Because standard culture methods do not detect non-O157 STEC, incidence,
trends, and exposures for non-O157 infection are not well understood. In
1999, some laboratories in Connecticut (CT) began using tests to detect
Shiga
toxin (ST) rather than culture for O157. We describe trends in incidence of
STEC infections and epidemiologic features of non-O157 STEC.
Methods: As part of laboratory-based surveillance for all STEC infections,
since 2000, laboratories are required to submit ST-positive broths to the
State
Laboratory for further testing. Non-O157 isolates are forwarded to CDC for
serotyping. We interviewed all STEC cases during 4/1/04 to 9/30/05.
Results: From 1/1/00 to 9/30/05, 390 STEC infections were reported: 268
(69%) O157; 122 (31%) non-O157. Overall, 201 (52%) were detected by
ST testing. Among these, 39% were O157 and 61% were non-O157 with no
trend toward changing percentages. The number of laboratories in CT that
do ST testing increased from 4 in 2000 to 10 in 2005. The percentages of
STEC and O157 isolates found because of ST testing increased significantly
over time (33% to 62%, p<0.0001 and 23% to 42%, p=0.004). Overall,
incidence of O157 declined 64% (2.5 to 0.9 cases per 100,000) while non-
O157 increased 75% (0.4 to 0.7). Compared to O157 found by ST testing,
persons with non-O157 STEC were less likely to be hospitalized (12% vs
24%, p<0.03) and less likely to develop hemolytic uremic syndrome (0 vs
3%, p<0.06). There were no differences between non-O157 and O157 with
regard to eating ground beef, contact with farm animals, or visiting farms/
petting zoos.

Conclusions: ST testing in CT has increased over the past 6 years. When
using ST testing, non-O157 STEC are found more often than O157. Overall,
incidence of O157 has declined while incidence of non-O157 has increased.
Increase in non-O157 incidence is likely due to increased ST testing.
Severity of illness from non-O157 appears to be milder. There appear to
be no differences between non-O157 and O157 in frequency of exposure to
known risk factors for O157. Ongoing surveillance for all STEC is necessary
to better describe trends in STEC incidence and epidemiology of non-O157
STEC.


====================================


46
An Outbreak of Gastroenteritis Among Rafters On the
Colorado River Caused by Norovirus Contamination of
Commercially Packaged Deli Meat.
E. J. Barzilay1, M. A. Malek1, A. Kramer2, B. Camp3, C. L. Higgins2,
L. Jaykus4, L. D. Williams1, M. Gaither5, S. Boone6, J. M. Barajas7, M.
Lynch1, M. Widdowson1;
1Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, 2National
Park Service Public Health Program, Washington, DC, 3CDC Experience
Fellow, Atlanta, GA, 4North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC,
5Coconino County Health Department, Flagstaff, AZ, 6University of
Arizona, Tucson, AZ, 7Arizona Department of Health Services, Phoenix,
AZ.
Background: Noroviruses are the most common cause of outbreaks of
gastroenteritis and are often transmitted by contamination of food at the
point
of service. In September 2005, we investigated reports of gastroenteritis
among rafters from several unrelated companies on the Colorado River.
Methods: We surveyed all companies that launched rafting trips on the
Colorado River from August 19 to September 12, 2005. We conducted a
case-control study among participants of trips that reported >3 ill rafters
with
a standardized phone questionnaire to collect data on illness and potential
exposures. We defined a case as a person with onset of diarrhea or vomiting
within 48 hours of trip launch. Controls were rafters who were not ill
within
72 hours of trip launch. Collected stool and food specimens were tested for
norovirus by polymerase chain reaction. We performed a traceback of the
suspected food vehicle and inspected the implicated processing plant.
Results: Of 91 trips, 12 (13%) had = 3 cases of gastroenteritis. We
interviewed
57 cases and 95 controls from 232 participants of these 12 rafting trips. Of
57 cases, 55 (96%) reported eating deli meat versus 75 (79%) of 95 controls
(odds ratio = 7.3, 95% confidence interval 1.7-66.7). No other food item was
associated with illness. These 12 rafting trips were operated by 5 companies
that purchased all deli meat from the same processing plant. The employee
that slices meat for the processing plant had recovered from diarrhea and
vomiting in August and had sliced deli meat using bare hand contact one
day after recovery. The implicated batch of meat was vacuum-packed and
frozen at -10 ºF (-23 ºC) for 7-28 days prior to consumption. Norovirus was
detected in deli meat from sealed frozen packages and in 2 of 3 collected
stools from cases on different trips.
Conclusions: This is the first reported outbreak of norovirus illness caused
by commercially packaged food contaminated during processing. Outbreaks
caused by such contamination may be underrecognized since they are likely
characterized as widespread small clusters of illness. Freezing and
vacuumpacking
did not prevent transmission. Food should be appropriately handled
during processing as well as at the point of service.

====================================


54
Spread of Multiple Resistant Salmonella
Schwarzengrund from Thailand to Denmark and USA
through International Trade with Food Products
F. M. Aarestrup1, R. S. Hendriksen1, J. Lockett2, K. Gay2, D. G. White3,
A. Bangtrakulnonth4, S. Pornreongwong4, C. Pulsrikarn4, H. Hasman1, G.
Sørensen1, F. J. Angulo5, P. Gerner-Smidt2;
1WHO Collaborating Centre for Antimicrobial Resistance in Food
borne Pathogens, Danish Institute for Food and Veterinary Research,
Copenhagen, DENMARK, 2Foodborne & Diarrhoeal Diseases Branch,
Centers for Disease Control & Prevention, Atlanta, GA, 3Center for
Veterinary Medicine, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Laurel, MD,
4WHO International Salmonella and Shigella Centre, National Institute of
Health, Bangkok, THAILAND, 5Foodborne & Diarrhoeal Diseases Branch,
Centers for Disease Control & Prevention,, Atlanta, GA.
Background: Salmonella Schwarzengrund are of increased importance in
broilers in Thailand and seem to to have increased importance in patients
in Denmark, Thailand and USA. This simultaneous emergence of S.
Schwarzengrund in different countries could indicate a common source.
This study was done to explore this hypothesis by determining the clonal
relatedness of S. Schwarzengrund from various sources in Denmark,
Thailand and USA.
Methods: We compared 597 S. Schwarzengrund isolates from patients, food
products and food animal sources in Thailand, USA and Denmark by XbaI
PFGE typing. In addition 159 isolates from Denmark and Thailand were
examined for antimicrobial susceptibility.
Results: Of the isolates from Denmark and Thailand, 14 were fully resistant
to ciprofloxacin (MIC > 8). They originated from patients (11 isolates)
and chicken meat (2 isolates) in Thailand and one Dane. A high frequency
of nalidixic acid resistance was observed in chicken meat and humans in
Thailand (90%) and medium in humans in Denmark (50%). All isolates
from Danish animals were susceptible.
183 unique PFGE patterns were observed, with 136 (22.8%) isolates
belonging to the three most common patterns. The most common pattern
was only found among patients in USA. The 2nd most common pattern was
frequent among isolates from chicken meat and patients in both Denmark
and Thailand, while the 3rd most common pattern was found in chicken meat
in Denmark and Thailand and patients in Denmark, Thailand and USA.
26 of 411 US patient isolates belonged to patterns found in Denmark or
Thailand.
Seven of 14 isolates from Danish patients belonged to patterns found in
patients
and chicken meat in Thailand and 20 of 23 isolates obtained from chicken
meat
in Denmark belonged to patterns found in chicken meat in Thailand.
Conclusions: This study indicates a spread of multiple resistant S.
Schwarzengrund from chickens to humans in Thailand and from chickens
produced in Thailand through imported chicken meat to humans in Denmark
and via other contaminated imported food products (e.g. chili’s) into the
USA. In addition, pigs and pork products seem to be a source of the
most susceptible S. Schwarzengrund isolates for humans in Denmark and
potentially in the USA.

==========================================


111
A Comparison of Surveillance for Non-Typhi Salmonella
in Humans and Retail Meat: NARMS, 2003
L. M. Stancik Rosenthal1, T. J. Barrett2, S. K. Hubert3, E. Hall-Robinson3,
D. G. White3, T. M. Chiller4;
1Atlanta Research and Education Foundation, CDC, Atlanta, GA, 2CDC, Atlanta,
GA, 3FDA, Laurel, MD, 4US Public Health Service, CDC, Atlanta, GA.
Background: Antimicrobial-resistant Salmonella may result from the use
of antimicrobials in food animals and be transmitted to humans through
the food supply. We compared serotypes and resistance phenotypes from
non-Typhi Salmonella (NTS) isolated from humans and meats purchased in
grocery stores in the USA.
Methods: In 2003, all state public health laboratories sent every 20th human
NTS for susceptibility testing to the National Antimicrobial Resistance
Monitoring System: Enteric Bacteria (NARMS) lab at CDC. Retail chicken
breasts, ground turkey, ground beef, and pork chops were purchased from
grocery stores in 8 states (CA, CT, GA, MD, MN, NY, OR, TN), and isolated
NTS were sent to the NARMS lab at FDA-CVM. Minimum inhibitory
concentrations were determined for 16 antimicrobials using a semiautomated
broth microdilution according to CLSI standards.
Results: In 2003, 1,866 human and 212 retail meat NTS isolates were tested.
Over 140 serotypes were found in human compared with 27 in retail meat.
Table 1 shows the top 10 serotypes from human and retail meat, 5 (in bold)
appear on both lists.
NTS isolated from humans exhibited increased rates of resistance as compared
with retail meat isolates to chloramphenicol (11% vs. 4%), trimethoprim/
sulfamethoxazole (2% vs. 0%) and ciprofloxacin (0.6% vs. 0%). Retail
meat isolates were more resistant as compared with human isolates to
streptomycin (38% vs. 15%), tetracycline (36% vs. 16%), ampicillin (32%
vs. 14%), sulfamethoxazole (26% vs. 16%), gentamicin (15% vs. 2%), and
ceftiofur (14% vs. 4%). Interestingly, 62% of S. Typhimurium retail meat
isolates exhibited resistance to ceftiofur compared to 5% of human isolates,
whereas 2% of human S. Typhimurium isolates displayed resistance to
gentamicin compared to none of the retail meat isolates.
Conclusions: The most common NTS serotypes causing human infection are
also recovered from retail meats. NTS isolated from retail meats displayed
resistance to most of the antimicrobials tested compared to human isolates.
These data stress the importance of monitoring and comparing serotypes and
resistance phenotypes between humans and retail meats to identify possible
sources of zoonotic foodborne pathogens.
Table 1: List of Top 10 Serotypes among NARMS Human and Retail Meat
Isolates
Rank Human Isolates Retail Meat Isolates
1 Typhimurium Heidelberg
2 Enteritidis Saintpaul
3 Newport Typhimurium
4 Heidelberg Kentucky
5 Javiana Hadar
6 Saintpaul Reading
7 Muenchen Mbandaka
8 Oranienburg Agona
9 Montevideo Enteritidis
10 Monophasic Typhimurium Montevideo

==============================================

SNIP........PLEASE READ, A REAL EYE OPENER. ...TSS


http://www.iceid.org/documents/AbstractsFinal.pdf
 

PORKER

Well-known member
Pencils made in China recalled due to lead levels
Updated Sat. Sep. 1 2007 3:36 PM ET

Canadian Press

OTTAWA -- Another children's product made in China has been added to the growing list of recalls over concerns about lead, making it the fourth such recall in less than one month.

Health Canada has recalled Favor Set children's pencils because the coating contains high amounts of lead, just two days after another children's product was recalled due to similar concerns.


Amscan Canada is voluntarily recalling 140,000 units of all 16 models of the pencils.

The company and Health Canada advise that Favor Set pencils purchased since January should immediately be taken away from children.

There is no risk of lead exposure from holding a pencil with a coating that contains lead, only from sucking or chewing on a pencil.

Health Canada has not received any reports of incidents or injuries from use of these pencils.

Several other children's toys made in China have been recalled recently because of high amounts of lead -- including 27,000 crayon and paint sets recalled by Toys "R'' Us Inc. just two days ago.

Imaginarium Wooden Coloring Cases were recalled because the packaging of the wooden box contains lead, as does some of the watercolour paint.

On Aug. 17, Toys "R'' Us said it was removing all vinyl baby bibs from its Toys "R'' Us and Babies "R'' Us stores as a precaution, after two bibs made in China for one supplier showed lead levels that exceeded the company's standards.

Just three days earlier, on Aug. 14, toy giant Mattel recalled 32,800 "Sarge'' character die-cast vehicles from the "CARS'' line in Canada, sold from May to August 2007, because of excessive amounts of lead in the paint.

Under the Hazardous Products Act, pencils with more than 600 mg/kg of lead in the applied coating are prohibited from being sold, imported or advertised in Canada.

Health Canada is developing a "lead risk reduction strategy'' to control lead levels in consumer products to which children may be exposed. It proposes to regulate, under the Hazardous Products Act, the lead content of such products.

The Favor Set pencil models sold since January 2007 included in this recall are:

Prehistoric Party Favor Set
Keep on Truckin Favor Set
Championship Baseball Favor Set
Championship Soccer Favor Set
Championship Basketball Favor Set
Championship Football Favor Set
Camouflage Favor Set
Pirate Party Favor Set
Hearts & Flowers Favor Set
Unicorn Magic Favor Set
Frogs & Lizards Favor Set
Princess Favor Set
Shimmering Butterfly Favor Set
Underwater Friends Favor Set
Safari Party Favor Set
Glitzy Girl Favor Set
 

PORKER

Well-known member
Dole recalls bagged salads in Canada


Tuesday, September 18, 2007


By LISA LEFF
Associated Press Writer

SAN FRANCISCO—A package of Dole salad mix that tested positive for E. coli has prompted an international recall, just over a year after the company issued a massive recall over baby spinach contaminated by the bacteria.Food contaminated with this strain of E. coli may not look or smell spoiled but health officials say the bacteria can cause life-threatening illnesses.

The tainted bag of Dole's Hearts Delight salad mix was sold at a store in Canada, officials said. Neither Canadian health officials nor Dole Food Co. have received reports of anyone getting sick from the product.

The voluntary recall, issued Monday, affects all packages of Hearts Delight sold in the United States and Canada with a "best if used by" date of September 19, 2007, and a production code of "A24924A" or "A24924B," the company said.

The product was sold in Ontario, Quebec and the Maritime Provinces in Canada and in Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Tennessee starting around Sept. 8, said Marty Ordman, a Dole spokesman.


The romaine, green leaf and butter lettuce hearts that went into the blend were grown in California, Colorado and Ohio, then processed at Dole's plant in Springfield, Ohio, on Sept. 6, according to Ordman. Eighty-eight cases—or 528 bags—were distributed in Canada and 755 cases containing 4,530 bags in the U.S., he said.

Last year, an E. coli outbreak traced to bagged baby spinach sold under the Dole brand was blamed for the deaths of three people and for sickening hundreds more across the U.S. State and federal authorities ultimately identified a Central California cattle ranch next to spinach fields belonging to one of Dole's suppliers as being the source of the bacteria.

"Our overriding concern is for consumer safety," Eric Schwartz, president of the Monterey-based Dole Fresh Vegetable division, said in a statement of Monday's recall. "We are working closely with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, and several U.S. state health departments."

FDA spokesman Michael Herndon confirmed that the agency was talking with Dole about the situation.

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency said it would be looking to find out at what point the salad blend became contaminated and to see if any other products are affected, spokesman Garfield Balsom said.

"We'll go back and find the origins and determine where the product was produced and packaged," Balsom said.

Dole contacted the FDA on Sunday night, as soon as the company got word of the contaminated bag of salad in Canada, said Ordman.

"They have been to our plant and they will visit the growers," he said.

The salad mix subject to the recall may have been available in the U.S. in states other than the nine already identified by Dole because in some areas the product was distributed by a wholesaler with clients in overlapping markets, Ordman said.
 

PORKER

Well-known member
HEALTH HAZARD ALERT

Dole brand Hearts Delight lettuce salad
may contain E. coli 0157:H7 bacteria

OTTAWA, September 16, 2007 - The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) is warning the public not to consume Dole brand Hearts Delight lettuce salad (Ready to eat blend of romaine, green leaf & butter lettuce hearts) described below because this product may be contaminated with E. coli O157:H7 bacteria.

The affected product, Dole brand Hearts Delight lettuce salad (Ready to eat blend of romaine, green leaf & butter lettuce hearts), produce of USA, is sold in 227 g packages bearing UPC 0 71430 01038 9, BIUB (Best If Used By) date 07SE19 and lot code A24924B. This product may have been distributed nationally.

There have been no reported illnesses associated with the consumption of this product.

Food contaminated with E. coli O157:H7 may not look or smell spoiled. Consumption of food contaminated with this bacteria may cause serious and potentially life-threatening illnesses. Symptoms include severe abdominal pain and bloody diarrhea. Some people may have seizures or strokes and some may need blood transfusions and kidney dialysis. Others may live with permanent kidney damage. In severe cases of illness, people may die.
The CFIA is working with the importers to have the affected product removed from the marketplace. The CFIA will be monitoring the effectiveness of the recall.

For more information, consumers and industry can call the CFIA at 1-800-442-2342 / TTY 1-800-465-7735.

For information on E. coli O157:H7, visit the Food Facts web page at http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/fssa/concen/cause/ecolie.shtml.
 

PORKER

Well-known member
Food-recall system worthy of our trust


Sat Sep 29 2007



WARNING: Scanning the regular food recall bulletins put out by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency could be hazardous to your appetite.
This is not a column for the queasy.

The federal agency in charge of safeguarding Canada's food supply routinely issues alerts warning the public about hazardous food due to bugs, contaminants or allergens.

Reading through them is testament to the exotic food choices we take for granted in this country -- a diversity of selection and origins unimaginable a generation or two ago when finding a mandarin orange in your stocking was a Christmas morning highlight.

The fact that certain product runs of the Flying Swallow brand of tender bamboo shoots contained undeclared sulphites a few weeks ago probably doesn't mean a whole lot to most of us. But to bamboo-shoot eaters who are allergic to sulphites, it is information that could mean the difference between life or death.

Speaking of death, it's hard to escape the irony of this recall: "The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) is warning people with allergies to walnuts not to consume Bella Cucina Death by Chocolate cookies. The affected product may contain walnuts which are not declared on the label."
It brings to mind a certain dinner party at which one guest paused his fork between the carrot cake and his mouth long enough to ask, "Any walnuts in this?" A second or two later and the dinner party would have ended in the emergency ward.

Allergies are a culinary nightmare for the afflicted. But they are no picnic for companies trying to market through an industrialized food chain either. Large plants running multiple product runs risk accidental contamination, say of peanuts getting into a product that normally doesn't contain them.

That's where precautionary labelling comes into play. Health Canada came up with a policy in 1994 that allowed companies to warn consumers of that risk up front. But it is reviewing that policy in light of recent recalls.

Too many companies were using it as a backstop, resorting to blanket statements such as "may contain traces of" a certain allergen. "Health Canada is currently updating their policy to remove terms, such as "may contain traces of X" and restrict the options for precautionary statements," a notice posted on the CFIA website says.

In the future, companies will not be allowed to refer to "traces." The proposed labelling options include: "may contain" a specific allergen or "not suitable for consumption by persons with an allergy to..."

If the raw ingredients are labelled as a risk factor, manufacturers will also be required to place the same statement on the finished product, unless they can show the allergen is not present or not likely to cause a health risk.

Allergens in food are scary enough. But what about the presence of harmful bacteria -- those recalls that end up on the national news and cross over international boundaries?

Recent recalls that hit a little closer to the general population involve foods most of us eat and which have become contaminated by bacterial toxins or other organisms. In August, Dole brand Hearts Delight lettuce, which was available in Manitoba grocery store coolers, was recalled because officials found it was contaminated with E. coli 0157:H7 bacteria.

That same month, the Los Angeles Salad Company's baby carrots were found to contain shigella bacteria, an organism that infected at least four people who became ill with diarrhea, fever and nausea.

Now, why anyone would be buying baby carrots from Mexico in the midst of a Manitoba summer is worthy of a separate discussion. But the case for local dieting aside, the fact remains that a potentially harmful product occasionally makes it to a grocery shelf near you.

What's a consumer to do? If you can't trust the system, what can you trust? Most of us now lack the skills necessary to grow and safely process our own food. Home canning, once a domestic reality of the Prairie household, is now more hobby than survival skill. Basic cooking fundamentals aren't far behind.

Choosing a specific production system, such as organic, isn't fail-safe either -- especially if that organic product is marketed through an industrialized network. If people choose to buy only from local suppliers, they need to understand that some of those products fall outside of quality inspection systems.

The system is by and large worthy of our trust. There are notable exceptions of course, but the vast majority of recalls are executed and the offending products pulled before they make anyone sick. Companies caught cutting corners are prosecuted.

So while hearing about recalls is worrisome, not hearing about them would be more so.

Rather than wavering between blind faith and blanket distrust, our best defence against foods that could make us ill is our own knowledge of how the food system operates and how to handle the products we choose to eat.

Laura Rance is editor of the Manitoba Co-operator. She can be reached at 792-4382 or by email: [email protected]
 

PORKER

Well-known member
U.S. bans some Canadian poultry products

(MEATPOULTRY.com, October 03, 2007)
by Bryan Salvage


WASHINGTON ― In the wake of the Sept. 27 announcement by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (C.F.I.A.) that test results from samples collected at a commercial broiler breeder farm in Saskatchewan were positive for a North American strain of the H7N3 highly pathogenic avian influenza (H.P.A.I.) virus, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has banned the importation of some Canadian poultry products.

In accordance with an established protocol with Canada, A.P.H.I.S.’ veterinary services program placed a temporary ban on the importation of poultry and commercial shipments of live birds, hatching eggs and unprocessed avian products from Saskatchewan. The ban will remain until additional epidemiological information becomes available to reduce the area of restriction.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
PORKER said:
U.S. bans some Canadian poultry products

(MEATPOULTRY.com, October 03, 2007)
by Bryan Salvage


WASHINGTON ― In the wake of the Sept. 27 announcement by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (C.F.I.A.) that test results from samples collected at a commercial broiler breeder farm in Saskatchewan were positive for a North American strain of the H7N3 highly pathogenic avian influenza (H.P.A.I.) virus, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has banned the importation of some Canadian poultry products.

In accordance with an established protocol with Canada, A.P.H.I.S.’ veterinary services program placed a temporary ban on the importation of poultry and commercial shipments of live birds, hatching eggs and unprocessed avian products from Saskatchewan. The ban will remain until additional epidemiological information becomes available to reduce the area of restriction.

But we can't do that! We've got a trade agreement! This is just a protectionist move! :roll: :lol:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
They were saying on the local radio that all the US hunters that went to Canada hunting were getting all their gamebirds they had shot confiscated at the border, when they tried to return to the US-- and they were buried by the Customs folks....
 
Top