GYTI USDA INTEREST!! Is Green Meat Safe to Eat? By Snowden

GYTI >> USDA INTEREST!! Is Green Meat Safe to Eat?
By Snowden Bishop

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that each
year, more than 48 million Americans, one out of every six people, become
ill as a result of ingesting food-borne pathogens (bacteria, viruses and
microbes) such as such as Salmonella, Toxoplasma, Listeria, Norovirus and
Escherichia-coli O157:H7 (E-coli). Of those, hundreds of thousands are
hospitalized, and more than 3,000 people die. While a number of recent
outbreaks to make headlines have been linked to contaminated fruits and
vegetables, most incidences of food-borne illness, including those sourced
to fruits and vegetables, are traced to wild animals, livestock production
or contaminated meat.

Salmonella and E-coli have become household words since outbreaks at
high-profile places like Jack-in-the-Box and Costco made national headlines.
Most commonly referred to as "food poisoning," these pathogens cause serious
digestive illness, especially among young children, elders and those with
compromised immune systems. According to Dr. Keith Belk, Associate Professor
of Animal Sciences at Colorado State University, E-coli bacteria are
responsible for 176,000 illnesses, 3700 hospitalizations, and 20 deaths
annually in the United States. They can be transmitted easily by ingesting
contaminated food, but they are also passed along through personal contact
with infected surfaces or by shaking hands with someone who has come in
contact with infected surfaces. Most people can prevent exposure to these
pathogens by thoroughly washing hands and food preparation surfaces with
soap and water, and by thoroughly cooking poultry and meat.

Despite efforts to minimize exposure, anyone can unknowingly come into
contact with undercooked meat, contaminated fruit or under-washed
vegetables.  Contamination is often attributed to food preparation at home.
At room temperature, kitchen counters and cutting boards used for preparing
raw meat and poultry provide ideal breeding conditions for deadly pathogens.
Following proper food preparation and storage guidelines such as cooking
meat thoroughly, promptly chilling leftovers and keeping kitchen and
lavatory surfaces clean will minimize chances that bacteria can spread.

However recent outbreaks have been linked to the food production process,
and more often than not, have been traced to some form of animal
contamination such as exposure to animal waste.

One of the most deadly outbreaks originated in a batch of cantaloupe -- the
contamination was traced to its packaging origins.  The fruit had been
processed in areas that had been exposed to animal waste, processed on
equipment that was not sterile and stored and packaged in temperate
conditions that hastened the decomposition process and expedited the
bacterial multiplication process.  The outbreak resulted in 13 deaths and
the massive recall of these fruits cost millions of dollars. Despite
assurances that precautions would prevent a recurrence, what remained was
faltering consumer confidence that such an outbreak could be prevented in
the future.

The residual confusion has raised questions.  If an outbreak of e-coli in
fruit was traced back to animal contamination, then what warrants confidence
that meat can ever be trusted?  The organic food movement and growing
interest in chemical and additive-free food sources leads to other safety
concerns, especially when it comes to organically produced beef.  Is green
meat safe to eat? At what level must consumers sacrifice food purity to
ensure safety?

According to a 2010 dissertation study ("Zurich study") conducted by a
doctoral candidate at the University of Zurich titled, Antibacterial
Activity of Decontamination Treaments for Cattle Hides and Beef Carcases, a
growing interest in organic food and meat produced without hormones,
antibiotics and chemical microbiological intervention has raised concerns
about potential increase in the presence of food-born pathogens of processed
meat. The study examined numerous physical, chemical and biological
intervention methods to ascertain effectiveness of each.  Despite growing
public interest in chemical free food production, the Zurich study's
foregone conclusion was, "Decontamination treatments always must be
considered part of an integral food safety system."

"The beef industry has been focused on dealing with E. coli O157:H7 since
the 1993 Jack in the Box outbreak.  Thus, beef contamination has been the
subject of intense research and intervention development for nearly twenty
years," said Tommy Wheeler, of the USDA- Agricultural Research Service, U.S.
Meat Animal Research Center, Clay Center, NE.  "During that time, great
progress has been made in minimizing pathogen contamination in beef
products.  A multi-hurdle approach has been implemented that includes
numerous antimicrobial interventions at various stages of processing -
because no one intervention is 100% effective - plus rigorous testing for
pathogens."

In a report on beef decontamination technologies circulated by the National
Cattlemen's Beef Association, Dr. Belk stated, "Such (multi-hurdle) systems
improve regulatory compliance and enhance product safety, provided that
processing and preparation for consumption are also performed using good
hygiene practices."

Regulatory efforts to minimize food-borne illnesses outlined in the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) include surveillance, testing,
reporting and enforcement guidelines. The FDA Food Safety Modernization
signed into law by President Obama in 2011 essentially amends the FFDCA with
new, more rigorous guidelines in an effort to improve food safety,
strengthen enforcement and broaden public transparency. These new guidelines
apply higher standards for sanitation and protection against food
adulteration, which can occur in food processing whether intentional or not.
The meat industry as a whole must find a balance: apply decontamination
methods that both minimize use of natural acids, cleansing agents,
chemicals, and maximize effectiveness when it comes to eliminating harmful
pathogens while avoiding food adulteration in the process.

Pathogens such as E-coli are naturally present in the intestines of cattle,
and proliferate in their waste. Without immediate intervention, colonies of
E-coli and other bacteria can grow rapidly as a natural part of the carcass
decomposition process.  Existing colonies can actually be spread when simple
washing with cool or warm water occurs.  Therefore, eliminating exposure to
bacteria entirely is particularly challenging if not downright impossible.
The main objective remains minimizing cross-contamination of the pathogen
during the slaughter process, and then eliminating the pathogen via a
decontamination process prior to sending the processed meat to market.  

According to the Zurich study, the transfer of microorganisms from hides to
carcass during the de-hiding process poses the greatest threat by sheer
numbers common pathogen-transmitters such as fecal matter most often found
in the animal's hide prior to slaughter. "Cattle hides often show high
bacterial loads and have been identified as a primary source of carcass
contamination."  

To minimize exposure to E-coli, beef producers must first eliminate the
primary source: contaminated hair.  Two most common methods include chemical
hair removal and washing carcasses with a combination of high-pressure water
and antimicrobial compounds such as chlorine or phosphates. Once the carcass
is washed then de-haired, additional decontamination continues throughout
the entire production process. The Zurich study found that chemical
de-hairing method was less effective than washing in preventing airborne
bacterial transmission to carcasses during the process.

Once hide is removed, a series of interventions occur at nearly every phase
of production.

Post slaughter, the most common method of meat decontamination used today
involves spraying the meat with acids such as lactic acid or citric acid,
which are known to kill bacteria, followed by washing away acid residue with
water combined with an emollient which facilitates removal of acid and
bacteria, then immediately chilling the meat to prevent any new bacteria
from forming.  While this method is approved by the USDA, and produces
results that fall within guidelines generally recognized as safe (GRAS) by
the USDA's Food Safety Inspection Service, the process requires excessive
water usage and expensive biological agents to be effective.  

For some, "GRAS" is a loosely cast net.  Agents such as lactic acid, citric
acid and acetic acid are common in most processed forms of food, widely used
as preservatives or flavorings, however, an overabundance of these stirs
consternation about whether GRAS equates to "good for you."  

"The beef industry uses a combination of various antimicrobial interventions
because they have different mechanisms of action and some work better than
others on specific pathogens. This provides the maximum level of safety for
the final meat products," said Wheeler.  "Just because a compound is called
a 'chemical' does not mean it bad for you or toxic in some way. They are all
natural compounds that are commonly found in the environment and many
foods."

Despite the fact that many of the chemicals used in meat decontamination
processes are substances derived from nature, the public perception that
their use in meat processing poses health concerns remains an issue.
However, the bigger issue is dealing with pathogens that, if left untreated,
would cause larger public health concerns.

One of the most effective interventions for killing bacteria is heat.  Most
common pathogens cannot survive boiling temperature.

According to Wheeler, hot water and steam pasteurization are the most
commonly used heat interventions in the industry today. However, water hot
enough to kill bacteria does cause what he calls denaturation, or cooking,
of lean areas exposed to the heat. The method amounts to more waste because
the "cooked" areas are trimmed off.  This method does not fully eliminate
the need for chemicals because once meat is sectioned or cut, high-pressure
washing is both impractical and wasteful.  

Citing research studies conducted in the early and mid 1990s under
commercial conditions, the Zurich study reported that water alone was not
nearly effective enough to eliminate pathogens, and rather, washing can
actually spread bacteria on carcass surfaces.  Commonly, the hot water and
steam pasteurization methods are deemed most effective if followed by
application of a chemical compound such as lactic acid, bromine, acidified
sodium chlorite, or peroxyacetic acid.  This process can be costly,
according to Wheeler, who explained, "Keeping an adequate supply of hot
water or steam is very expensive."

And while public demand for a reduction in use of chemicals in food remains
one concern, similarly, organic consumers might also be concerned with the
environmental impact of excessive use of resources such as water, chemicals
and electricity, as well as the entry of bacteria and/or chemicals into
water waste streams.  

Two more methods that minimize use of water are chilling and dry heat
applications.  Both of these were also addressed in the Zurich study, which
concluded that dry heat poses some of the same disadvantages as hot water as
it tends to desiccate the surface of the meat; and chilling without some
organic acid intervention is may be effective for slowing contamination but
not eliminating all pathogens.  The study concluded that these methods were
not as effective as hot water and chemical decontamination methods overall.

"Ironically, one of the most effective and safest antimicrobial treatments
is electron beam irradiation," said Wheeler. "This technology is one of the
most researched but implemented only by a few ground beef producers because
of the perception that consumers will not buy irradiated product."

In the past, irradiation of food generally used gamma rays, which intervene
with microbial activity via ionizing radiation that damaged DNA and
generated free radicals. This method, like other heat decontamination
methods, sufficiently denatured the surfaces of meat. New methods of
irradiation using electron beams, on the other hand, have been effective in
vastly reducing inoculated pathogens without affecting sensory
characteristics of the meat. According to the Zurich study, electron beam
radiation is twice as effective as any conventional washing or heating
method of decontamination.

New technology involving use of the gyrotron beam, a high-frequency,
microwave-based elecronic beam that "flash-heats" contaminants without
denaturing the proteins of the meat, has recently been researched. According
to Dr. Vlad Sklyar, inventor of gyrotron beam technology and President of
Gyrotron Technology Inc., "The millimetric wavelength of the gyrotron beam
makes it a more efficient heater of non-metallic materials including water,
blood and fat. It is also more effective

Studies have concluded that gyroton method is as effective as electron beam
irradiation and may be more palatable to health-conscious consumers because,
according to Wheeler, it eliminates the radiation perception issues because
it uses microwave technology, which has broad acceptance publicly.
Furthermore, whereas ionizing irradiation (electron beam) requires product
labeling, gyrotron beam decontamination does not.

For health-conscious and environmentally concerned consumers, the major
advantage of this technology over traditional carcass decontamination
methods lies in the reduction in chemical use, conservation of water and
reduced generation of waste streams containing organic acids, chemical
compounds and contaminated or denatured meat.  

"We have conducted independent lab tests using the gyrotron beam.  What we
found is that, whereas in conventional methods of decontamination, one of
1,000 units of bacteria survive, with this method, less than one in 100,000
units of bacteria survive," said Dr. Sklyar. "We also found that this method
is not only more effective, it is far more efficient in terms of its
expenditure of electricity, water and chemicals.  Therefore, it could be
considered a green technology and will ultimately be more sustainable for
the agriculture industry."

The USDA is looking further into gyrotron beam technology.  Wheeler
concludes, "Only limited preliminary data are available for the gyrotron so
far, but we have applied for grant funding to evaluate it more extensively."

The evaluation may eventually answer the question: Is Green Meat Safe to
Eat?

"Is Green Meat Safe to Eat?" first appeared in AZGreen Magazine, where
author, Snowden Bishop is Editor-in-Chief.