blogger

Food (Safety) Fight By Richard Raymond
Dr. Richard Raymond is the former undersecretary of agriculture for food safety.

Should salmonella be declared an adulterant?

(The views and opinions expressed in this blog are strictly those of the author.)

Maybe, but with some serious deliberations first.

In 1993, E coli O157:H7 was declared an adulterant in ground beef after the outbreak in the western United States of that pathogen sickened hundreds and was associated with deaths in children.

Not all E coli, just the one specific serotype associated with human illnesses and deaths.

Of course, in recent history Dr. Elisabeth Hagen also announced that six specific non-O157:H7 STECs were also adulterants after laboratories began increasing testing for these pathogens and finding them to be the cause of sickness in persons suffering a foodborne illness too frequently. It helped that there were two serious outbreaks of human illness caused by non-O157 STEC pathogens in the EU and Japan.

There are thousands of salmonella serotypes, but only a handful are recognized as significant players in foodborne illnesses.

To declare all salmonella serotypes as adulterants would be wrong. Part of the definition of an adulterant is that it is a pathogen that can make you ill.

The only ones pushing for this broad change of policy are probably those who do not want us raising animals for slaughter and human consumption. Be very wary of this approach.

There is also a push by many to declare all multi-drug resistant (MDR) salmonella to be adulterants. Again, not all MDR salmonella make us sick. Bad move, with no science backing it as good policy.

A narrower version of the cry for MDR salmonella to be declared as adulterants limits the serotypes to only those that threaten our health. Closer, but still no cigar.

Foodborne outbeaks from MDR salmonella are not necessarily untreatable infections.

If the drugs that the bacteria are resistant to are limited to antibiotics that would never be used as first-line drugs to treat salmonellosis, then the ability to treat and cure remains intact.

We saw this in the recent Foster Farms related outbreak caused by MDR salmonella that sickened hundreds but caused no deaths. The antibiotics that this strain of salmonella was resistant to were rarely used antibiotics like tetracycline, streptomycin and gentamycin.

None of the specimens revealed resistance to the classes of specific antibiotics used to treat salmonellosis. The antibiotics that retained their potency in this outbreak included the flouroquinolones, the macrolides, Bactrim DS and third generation cephalosporins.

But what if the MDR salmonella were the serotypes that cause human illness, and what if they were resistant to those antibiotics listed above that are front-line drugs used against Salmonella infections? Would that be a game changer?  

Maybe, but I doubt those calling for salmonella to be declared an adulterant would settle for such a narrow definition.

As my friend Chuck Jolley often says, that’s not gonna happen because it makes perfect sense based on reality, common sense, science and practicality.

The USDA’s Acting Undersecretary for Food Safety, Brian Ronholm, is a good man, but he is not going to get close to this one. He has his hands full with the proposed modernization of the poultry inspection system.

Another major policy change based on common sense, reality and science.

3/24/2014

 
Loading Comments