An outbreak of food poisoning first linked to a bacterium called Salmonella Saintpaul in raw tomatoes has spread to at least 16 states over the past several months. At least 160 cases of illness caused by this organism have been reported in the West, Midwest and Northeast. On Monday, McDonald's, Burger King, Wal-Mart and other restaurants and supermarkets pulled tomatoes from their sandwiches and shelves due to health concerns.

This is not a new problem. As is the case for many fruits and vegetables that are eaten raw, tomatoes harbour many potential pathogens, including various strains of Salmonella. In 2006, two high-profile outbreaks of E. coli-related illnesses traced to spinach and lettuce, respectively, received wide publicity. The casualties: three deaths and approximately 300 illnesses nationwide.

These incidents are only the tip of a vast iceberg. Each year, food contaminated with microorganisms is responsible for 76 million cases of food poisoning and 5,000 deaths in the US, according to government estimates. Food-borne infections are most often caused by the bacteria Campylobacter, Salmonella and E. coli 0157:H7, and by caliciviruses, also known as the Norwalk and Norwalk-like viruses. (These organisms cause a syndrome consisting of fever, diarrhoea and abdominal cramps; although sometimes dubbed "stomach flu", that is a misnomer because none of these organisms is related to the influenza virus.)

As we approach the summer, when food poisoning is most common – often caused by meats and salads left unrefrigerated in warm temperatures – it is appropriate to ask: on whom can we rely to protect us from future outbreaks of contamination and food-borne illness?

First, it's clear that growers of fresh produce cannot protect us 100% of the time. Modern farming operations – especially the larger ones - already employ strict standards and safeguards designed to keep food free of pathogens. And most often they work: Americans' food is not only the least expensive, but also the safest, in the history of humankind. The vast majority of cases of food poisoning result from consumers' improper handling of food – in particular, from inadequately cooking chicken or permitting the juices from raw poultry to contaminate other foods.

Because agriculture is an outdoor activity and subject to all manner of unpredictable challenges, there are limits to how safe we can make it. If the goal is to make a cultivated field completely safe from microbial contamination, the only definitive solution is to pave it over and build a parking lot on it. But we'd only be trading very rare agricultural mishaps for fender-benders.

It has also become painfully clear that we can't rely on processors to remove the pathogens from food in every case. The 2006 spinach- and lettuce-based outbreaks of illness demonstrated that our faith in processor labels such as "triple washed" and "ready to eat" must be tempered with at least a little scepticism. Processors were quick to proclaim the cleanliness of their own operations and deflect blame toward growers. But all of those in the food chain share responsibility for food safety and quality.

In fairness to processors, there is ample evidence to suggest that no amount of washing will rid all pathogens from produce. The reason is that the contamination may occur not on the plant, but in it. Exposure to Salmonella, E. coli or other microorganisms at key stages of the growing process may allow them to be introduced into the plant's vascular system.

Citing this, advocates of food irradiation have claimed that their technology can provide the assurance consumers demand and deserve. To be sure, irradiation is an important tool to promote food safety and is vastly under-used, largely due to opposition from the organic food lobby and to government over-regulation. "If even 50% of meat and poultry consumed in the United States were irradiated, the potential impact of food-borne disease would be a reduction [of] 900,000 cases and 300 deaths," according to Michael Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research at the University of Minnesota.

But irradiation is no panacea. Although it quite effectively kills the bacteria, it does not inactivate the potent toxins secreted by certain bacteria such as Staphylococcus aureus and Clostridium botulinum. The toxins can cause serious illness or death even in the absence of the bacteria – a fact certain to be appreciated by anyone who ingests food contaminated with them.

So, if consumers can't be protected by growers or processors or even irradiation, what can protect them?

There is technology available today that could both inhibit microorganisms' ability to grow within plant cells and block the synthesis of the bacterial toxins. This same technology can be employed to produce antibodies that can be administered to infected patients to neutralise the toxins and can even be used to produce therapeutic proteins (such as lactoferrin and lysozyme) that are safe and effective treatments for diarrhoea, the primary symptom of food poisoning.

But don't expect your favourite organic producer to embrace this triple-threat technology, even if it would keep his customers from getting sick. Why? The technology in question is gene-splicing (also known as "genetic modification", or GM) - an advance the organic lobby has repeatedly vilified and rejected.

For organic marketers, the irony is more bitter than fresh-picked radicchio. The proven technology that affords them the best method of safeguarding their customers is the one they've fought hardest to forestall and confound.

In the wake of the recent tomato contamination, will the organic lobby rethink its opposition to biotechnology? Will they begin to appreciate the ways in which this technology can save lives and advance their industry? Will they permit science, common sense and decency to trump ideology?

I'm not betting the farm on it.

This article is reproduced by permission of the author.

Source:

Henry Miller (10.6.08). Attack of the killer tomatoes. Outbreaks of food poisoning in the US will continue unless we take a different approach to food safety. The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk:80/commentisfree/2008/jun/10/foodsafety.foodtech)

<<<back