Welcome to the Microbiology Information

United Food Group, LLC, a Vernon, California establishment is expanding it’s voluntarily recall of ground beef products because they may be contaminated with E. coli O157:H7.

There has been a link between illnesses in several states and the ground beef subject to recall was determined through an investigation carried out by the California Department of Health Services and the Colorado Department of Health, in coordination with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The expanded recall totals approximately 370,000 pounds.

The ground beef products in the expanded recall were produced on April 13, while the products subject to the original recall were produced on April 20. The ground beef products were shipped to retail distribution centers in Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington and Wyoming.

E. coli O157:H7 is a potentially deadly bacterium that can cause bloody diarrhea and dehydration. The very young (children), aged (seniors) and persons with compromised immune systems such as people with Aids are the most susceptible to food borne illness.

Any questions about the recall should contact company Customer Service Representative James Turner at (800) 325-4164. Media with questions about the recall should contact company Vice-President for Sales and Marketing Brian Levy at (323) 588-5286.

The identity labels of the products subject to recall bear the establishment number “EST. 1241″ inside the USDA mark of inspection or printed on the package. All of the products bear a sell-by date of “APR/29/07,” “APR/30/07″ or “May/06/07,” a freeze-by date of “APR/28/07,” “APR/29/07,” “APR/30/07″ or “May/07/07,” or a produced on date of “APR/13/07″ or “APR/20/07.”

The following ground beef products are subject to recall.

The list is inclusive of products included in both the original and expanded recall actions.
5-pound chubs of “1ST STREET 73/27 ground beef.”
3-pound chubs of “BASHAS 73/27 ground beef.”
1-pound chubs of “SIR BASHA 90/10 ground beef.”
5-pound chubs of “INTER-AMERICAN PRODUCT 73/27 ground beef.”
1-pound chubs of “INTER-AMERICAN PRODUCTS 80/20 ground beef.”
2-pound chubs of “INTER-AMERICAN PRODUCTS 93/7 ground beef.”
1-pound chubs of “STATER BROS. MARKET 73/27 ground beef.”
3-pound chubs of “STATER BROS. MARKETS 73/27 ground beef.”
1-pound chubs of “MORAN’S All Natural 73/27 ground beef.”
3-pound chubs of “MORAN’S All Natural 73/27 ground beef.”
5-pound chubs of “MORAN’S All Natural 73/27 ground beef.”
10-pound casings of “MORAN’S All Natural, 73/27 fine ground beef.”
10-pound casings of “MORAN’S 73/27 coarse ground beef.”
10-pound casings of “MORAN’S 75/25 fine ground beef.”
3-pound chubs of “MORAN’S All Natural 80/20 ground beef.”
1-pound chubs of “MORAN’S All Natural 80/20 ground chuck.”
10-pound casings of “MORAN’S 80/20 coarse ground chuck.”
10-pound casings of “MORAN’S 80/20 fine ground chuck.”
10-pound casings of “MORAN’S All Natural 81/19 fine ground beef.”
2-pound chubs of “MORAN’S All Natural 85/15 ground beef.”
3-pound chubs of “MORAN’S All Natural 85/15 ground beef.”
10-pound casings of “MORAN’S 85/15 coarse ground beef.”
10-pound casings of “MORAN’S 85/15 fine ground beef.”
1-pound chubs of “MORAN’S All Natural 85/15 ground round.”
10-pound casings of “MORAN’S All Natural 85/15 coarse ground round.”
10-pound casings of “MORAN’S All Natural 85/15 coarse ground sirloin.”
10-pound casings of “MORAN’S All Natural 85/15 fine ground sirloin.”
10-pound casings of “MORAN’S 90/10 fine ground beef.”
1-pound chubs of “MORAN’S All Natural 90/10 ground sirloin.”
1-pound chubs of “MORAN’S All Natural, 90/10 fine ground sirloin.”
10-pound casings of “MORAN’S All Natural, 90/10 fine ground sirloin.”
10-pound casings of “MORAN’S 90/10 coarse ground sirloin.”
2-pound chubs of “MORAN’S All Natural 93/7 ground beef.”
2-pound chubs of “MORAN’S All Natural 93/7 fine ground beef.”
10-pound casings of “MORAN’S 93/7 coarse ground beef.”
10-pound casings of “MORAN’S 93/7 fine ground sirloin.”
5-pound chubs of “MORAN’S 95/5 fine ground beef.”
1-pound chubs of “MORAN’S All Natural 96/4 ground beef.”
2-pound chubs of “MORAN’S All Natural 96/4 ground beef.”
10-pound casings of “MORAN’S All Natural 96/4 fine ground beef.”
5-pound chubs of “MORAN’S All Natural 96/4 fine ground beef.”

Consumers with food safety questions can “Ask Karen,” the FSIS virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov. The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in English and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety messages are available 24 hours a day.

source

A natural cleaning fluid made from bacteriophage could help meat processors get rid of pathogens from animal hides which is a key source of cross-contamination within processing plants.

The product became available on the market after the US Department of Agriculture gave approval for its bacteriophage treatment for killing E. coli O157:H7 on the hides of live animals must before they are slaughtered.

The bacteriophage product for E. coli can also be used to treat holding areas, transportation vehicles, containers and living quarters. USDA researchers also discovered that killing pathogens in hides before removal is an effective way of reducing the risk of carcass contamination.

Current treatment include broad spectrum antibiotics, harsh chemicals and irradiation have created super bugs, pollutants, harmed field workers and have even lowered the quality of some food products without effectively controlling the harmful bacteria.

Bacteriophages are specific against certain bacteria and it is believed that phages can succeed as a long-term solution for controlling unwanted bacteria where these old methods have failed. EDI Foods has already marketed LISTEX for lsiteria in cheese.

Bacteria in the world’s oceans can efficiently exploit solar energy to grow, thanks to a unique light-capturing pigment. This discovery was made by researchers at University of Kalmar in Sweden, in collaboration with researchers in Gothenburg, Sweden, and Spain. The findings are described in journal Nature.

It was long thought that algae were the only organisms in the seas that could use sunlight to grow,” says Jarone Pinhassi, a researcher in Marine Microbiology at Kalmar University College. These microscopic algae carry out the same process as green plants on land, namely, photosynthesis with the help of chlorophyll.

In 2000 scientists in the U.S. found for the first time that many marine bacteria have a gene in their DNA that code for a new type of light-capturing pigment: proteorhodopsin.

Proteorhodopsin is related to the pigment in the retina that enables humans to see colours. It should be possible for this pigment to enable marine bacteria to capture solar light to generate energy, but until now it had not been possible to confirm this hypothesis.

Last year researchers from Kalmar collected 20 marine bacteria from different ocean areas and mapped their genomes. Several of them proved to contain the pigment proteorhodopsin. This made it possible to run a series of experiments that clearly show that growth in bacteria with this pigment is stimulated by sunlight, because the pigment converts solar energy to energy for growth. In other words, the scientists had found a new type of bacterial photosynthesis that takes place in the seas.

It’s easier to understand the importance of understanding new mechanisms in marine bacteria to making efficient use of solar energy if we consider the fact that one litre of natural sea water contains roughly a billion bacteria. The activity of these bacteria is of great importance to the carbon cycle, through, for example, the amount of carbon dioxide they produce, and also to how the solar energy that reaches the earth is channelled through the nutrition cycle.

“Bacteria in the surface water of the world’s oceans swim in a sea of light,” says Jarone Pinhassi. “And it is shouldn’t be too surprising that evolution has favoured micro-organisms that can use this rich source of energy. This type of protein may also play a role in commercial and environmental perspectives, for the development of artificial photosynthesis for the environmentally friendly production of energy.”

Alaska Food Diagnostics claims that its Fastrak Salmonella test, can produce results six hours earlier than other comparable test methods including the TECRA and BAX.

By reducing the time of the salmonella tests, processors can save hundreds of thousands of dollars as any delays in their delivery time impacts on their efficiency.

The group of Alaskan scientists, working at UK government’s Defense Science and Technology Laboratory in Northern Ireland, have exploited adenylate kinase (AK) phage technology to develop the highly sensitive and specific fastrAK rapid assay system, the company claims.

The Fastrak Salmonella is based on established bioluminescence technology fastrAK™ which uses immunomagnetic beads to attract and isolate target pathogens and then AK-Phage® technology employs bacteriophage that infect the target organism. As the bacteriophage multiplies the bacteria rupture releasing Adenylate Kinase (AK). The AK converts ADP to ATP which reacts with luciferase to produce measurable light.

The only hurdle is passing the rigorous AOAC and AFNOR validations that proves is effectiveness and compete with other cost effective test method.

Pradip Patel, head of microbiology research and development at Alaska said the speed of the assay is a real breakthrough, along with its accuracy.

‘”We are confident it will make a significant impact in the drive for improved food safety standards” he said.

Sample pre-enrichment for 16 hours can be initiated throughout the day, ready for testing the next morning, the manufacturer said.

After just two hours, products with known quality control results can be shipped in time to meet ready-to-eat poultry standards, Alaska said.

Source

According to the Herald Sun, the nursing home (Broughton Hall) responsible for the dealths of 5 people due to Salmonella food poisoning has past 3 of its previous audits with a 100% compliance.

The agency responsible for accrediting nursing homes said that it would re-examine the audits to check if they were accurate.

Due to the delay in reporting and investigating the case, all tests of food taken from the kitchen failed to locate the source as the implicated food was already consumed.

A draft report of the investigation released late last month, found the home was in breach of 12 of the 44 accreditation standards. Broughton Hall has formally responded to the audit and a final report, by the Aged Care Standards and Accreditation Agency, is expected this month.

The agency today during Senate estimates hearings revealed it had given the nursing home “44 out of 44 in expected outcomes” in its last three audits. This represents a 100% compliance with the most recent audit before the outbreak had been in April last year.

Labor’s ageing spokeswoman Senator Jan McLucas asked if the agency had “gone back and looked” if its previous audits were right. She also questioned whether the failure to identify a problem earlier indicated the system was not working.

Chief executive Mark Brandon said the agency had not yet re-examined the earlier audits because its current focus was on improving Broughton Hall’s current level of compliance.

But he said it had identified a significant level of staff turnover at the facility since the most recent audit before the incident, which was a potential danger sign.

“It was in April 2006, which is a long time in aged care, I might add,” he told the Senate estimates hearings.

“There is activity that happens between the audits that looks at various things.

“But until we look at (the previous) audits, I’m not in a position to talk about the accuracy of those audits.”

Senator McLucas has previously called for Ageing Minister Christopher Pyne to explain inconsistencies in the accreditation process that would have allowed the facility to fail 12 criteria despite passing all 44 a year ago.

“Why is it that every time there has been an aged care incident reported in the media the agency will visit and find a facility has failed several accreditation outcomes but only a short time previously it would have been given a clean bill of health?,” Senator McLucas asked after the outbreak was revealed.

“There is a view in the sector that there is inconsistency in the application of the accreditation standards.”

Mr. Brandon today said the home was still within its appeal period so he could not go into details of the final report into the outbreak.

“I can summarize it by saying the audit found substantial non-compliance,” he said.

Source