International Survey of Food Fraud and Related Terminology: Preliminary Results and Discussion.

The food industry is advancing at a rapid pace and consumer sensitivity to food safety scares and food fraud scandals is further amplified by rapid communication such as by social media. Academia, regulators, and industry practitioners alike struggle with an evolving issue regarding new terms and definitions including food fraud, food authenticity, food integrity, food protection, economically motivated adulteration, food crime, food security, contaminant, adulterant, and others. This research addressed some of the global need for clarification and harmonization of commonly used terminology. The 150 survey responses were received from various food-related workgroups or committee members, communication with recognized experts, and announcements to the food industry in general. Overall food fraud was identified as a "food safety" issue (86%). The food quality and manufacturing respondents focused mainly on incoming goods and adulterant-substances (<50%) rather than the other illegal activities such as counterfeiting, theft, gray market/diversion, and smuggling. Of the terms included to represent "intentional deception for economic gain" the respondents generally agreed with food fraud as the preferred term. Overall, the preference was 50% "food fraud," 15% "economically motivated adulteration" EMA, 9% "food protection," 7% "food integrity," 5% "food authenticity," and 2% "food crime." It appears that "food protection" and "food integrity" are terms that cover broader concepts such as all types of intentional acts and even possibly food safety or food quality. "Food authenticity" was defined with the phrase "to ensure" so seemed to be identified as an "attribute" that helped define fraudulent acts. PRACTICAL APPLICATION: Food Fraud-illegal deception for economic gain using food-is a rapidly evolving research topic and is facing confusion due to the use of different terms and definitions. This research survey presented common definitions and publication details to gain insight that could help provide clarity. The insight from this report provides guidance for others who are harmonizing terminology and setting the overall strategic direction.

Comparative Effect of Heat Shock on Survival of O157:H7 and Non-O157 Shiga Toxigenic Escherichia coli and Salmonella in Lean Beef with or without Moisture-Enhancing Ingredients.

Thermal tolerance of pathogenic bacteria has been shown to increase after exposure to sublethal elevated temperatures, or heat shock. We evaluated the effect of heat shock at 48°C on thermal tolerance (D55°C) of cocktails of O157 and non-O157 Shiga toxigenic Escherichia coli (STEC) and Salmonella in lean ground beef with or without moisture-enhancing ingredients. Beef was moisture enhanced to 110% (w) with a 5% NaCl-2.5% sodium tripolyphosphate (w/w) brine. Meat, with or without added brine, was inoculated (∼108 CFU/g) and heat shocked at 48°C for 0, 5, or 30 min, followed by isothermal heating at 55°C. Inoculated control samples were unenhanced and were not subject to heat shock. From the linear portion of the log CFU per gram surviving cells over time plots, D55°C-values (minutes) were calculated. D55°C was 20.43, 28.78, and 21.15 min for O157, non-O157, and Salmonella controls, respectively. Overall, heat shock significantly increased D55°C, regardless of pathogen (P < 0.05). After 30 min of heat shock, D55°C increased 89 and 160% for O157 STEC, 32 and 49% for non-O157 STEC, and 29 and 57% for Salmonella, in unenhanced and enhanced samples, respectively, relative to the pathogen control. D55°C for Salmonella was the same or significantly less than for O157 and non-O157 STEC, regardless of heat shock, and was significantly less than for O157 and non-O157 STEC in all trials with moisture-enhanced meat (P < 0.05). Moisture-enhancing ingredients significantly increased D55°C, regardless of pathogen (P < 0.05). We suggest that thermal processes validated against Salmonella may not prove effective against STEC in all cases and that regulators of the beef industry should focus attention on STEC in nonintact moisture-enhanced beef products.

Instilling fear makes good business sense: unwarranted hysterectomies in Karnataka.

This paper uses data from two fact-finding exercises in two districts of Karnataka to trace how government and private doctors alike pushed women to undergo hysterectomies. The doctors provided grossly unscientific information to poor Dalit women to instil a fear of "cancer" in their minds to wilfully mislead them to undergo hysterectomies, following which many suffered complications and died. The paper examines a review, made by two separate panels of experts, of women's medical records from private hospitals to illustrate that a large proportion of the hysterectomies performed were medically unwarranted; that private doctors were using highly suspect diagnostic criteria, based on a single ultrasound scan, to perform the hysterectomies and had not sent even a single sample for histopathology; and that the medical records were incomplete, erroneous and, in several instances, manipulated. The paper describes how a combination of patriarchal bias, professional unscrupulousness and pro-private healthcare policies posed a serious threat to the survival and well-being of women in Karnataka.

Thermal tolerance of O157 and non-O157 Shiga toxigenic strains of Escherichia coli, Salmonella, and potential pathogen surrogates, in frankfurter batter and ground beef of varying fat levels.

The non-O157 Shiga toxigenic Escherichia coli (STEC) serogroups most commonly associated with illness are O26, O45, O103, O111, O121, and O145. We compared the thermal tolerance (D55°C) of three or more strains of each of these six non-O157 STEC serogroups with five strains of O157:H7 STEC in 7% fat ground beef. D55°C was also determined for at least one heat-tolerant STEC strain per serogroup in 15 and 27% fat ground beef. D55°C of single-pathogen cocktails of O157 and non-O157 STEC, Salmonella, and potential pathogen surrogates, Pediococcus acidilactici and Staphylococcus carnosus, was determined in 7, 15, and 27% fat ground beef and in frankfurter batter. Samples (25 g) were heated for up to 120 min at 55°C, survivors were enumerated, and log CFU per gram was plotted versus time. There were significant differences in D55°C across all STEC strains heated in 7% fat ground beef (P < 0.05), but no non-O157 STEC strain had D55°C greater than the range observed for O157 STEC. D55°C was significantly different for strains within serogroups O45, O145, and O157 (P < 0.05). D55°C for non-O157 STEC strains in 15 and 27% fat ground beef were less than or equal to the range of D55°C for O157. D55°C for pathogen cocktails was not significantly different when measured in 7, 15, and 27% fat ground beef (P ≥ 0.05). D55°C of Salmonella in frankfurter batter was significantly less than for O157 and non-O157 STEC (P < 0.05). Thermal tolerance of pathogen cocktails in ground beef (7, 15, or 27% fat) and frankfurter batter was significantly less than for potential pathogen surrogates (P < 0.05). Results suggest that thermal processes in beef validated against E. coli O157:H7 have adequate lethality against non-O157 STEC, that thermal processes that target Salmonella destruction may not be adequate against STEC in some situations, and that the use of pathogen surrogates P. acidilactici and S. carnosus to validate thermal processing interventions in ground beef and frankfurter batter would be of limited utility to processors.

Thermal tolerance characteristics of non-O157 Shiga toxigenic strains of Escherichia coli (STEC) in a beef broth model system are similar to those of O157:H7 STEC.

The non-O157 Shiga toxigenic Escherichia coli (STEC) serogroups most commonly associated with illness are O26, O45, O103, O111, O121, and O145. In the United States, these serogroups are considered adulterants in raw nonintact beef. To begin to understand the behavior of these pathogens in meat systems, we compared the thermal tolerance of acid-adapted cells of non-O157 STEC and O157:H7 STEC in a beef-derived broth. D58°C-values were determined for at least three strains per serogroup, and D54.6°C-values and D63.6°C-values were determined for one strain per serogroup. Each strain was grown to stationary phase in brain heart infusion broth (BHIB; pH 7.0) and inoculated into prewarmed BHIB in a shaking water bath for thermotolerance experiments at 54.6, 58.0, or 63.6°C (three trials per strain). Samples were heated for up to 160 min at 54.6°C, 3 min at 58.0°C, or 45 s at 63.6°C, with periodic sampling followed by rapid cooling and plating on modified Levine's eosin methylene blue agar. For each strain and temperature, the log CFU per milliliter was plotted versus time, and D-values were determined. Across all strains, the least and most heat tolerant STEC serogroups at 58°C were O145 and O157, respectively. D58°C-values in BHIB ranged from 0.44 min for an O145 strain to 1.42 min for an O157:H7 strain. D58°C-values for O157 STEC strains were significantly higher than those for at least one strain in each of the non-O157 STEC serogroups (P < 0.05) except for serogroup O103. At 54.6°C, the most heat-resistant STEC strain belonged to serogroup O103 and was significantly more heat tolerant than the O157:H7 strains (P < 0.05). Grouping the strains, there were no significant differences in heat tolerance between O157 and non-O157 STEC at 63.6°C (P ≥ 0.05). The z-values for non-O157 STEC strains were comparable to those for O157:H7 STEC strains (P ≥ 0.05), ranging from 4.10 to 5.21°C. These results suggest that thermal processing interventions that target destruction of E. coli O157:H7 may have adequate lethality against non-O157 STEC.