MEAT PROCESSING-THE ACHILLES'S FEET OF FOOD INDUSTRY?

World never seems to learning from its past mistakes and the consequences can be terrible as reflected by the recent meat poisoning episode in the US caused by a strain of Salmonella, the culprit being one of the largest meat industry players in the world. Though fatality was some what limited to a few persons, the incidence raises valid questions regarding the soundness of meat processing practices vis-a-vis consumer safety. If such large manufacturers with state of the art processing facilities cannot ensure guarantee for their products, who else can? Going by the report about the role of safety agencies responsible for monitoring food safety compliance by the industry, less said better it is! The million dollar question is on which side of the "fence" does the safety agency stand? In this particular case the agency seems to have erred on the side of too much caution, literally giving benefit of doubt to the industry, thus jeopardizing the consumer safety. Here is a take on this unfortunate episode that rattled that country:

"On July 29, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS) announced a nationwide outbreak of a deadly strain of Salmonella food poisoning that is resistant to multiple antibiotics. According to the FSIS, the cases of Salmonella heidelberg were associated with the use and consumption of ground turkey. No supplier or source of the outbreak was provided. No names, no brands, no source -- just advice on cooking and handling meat properly. Then, on Aug. 3, the multinational food monolith Cargill announced the largest ever Class I recall of tainted meat. In a press release Cargill stated that, based on information from public health officials, the company was "voluntarily" recalling 36 million pounds of fresh and frozen ground turkey produced over a seven-month period beginning in February 2011 at one of their meat processing facilities at Springdale, Ark. According to a spokesperson, while there was no conclusive proof about the source of the Salmonella heidelberg contamination, Cargill was recalling the meat out of "concern for what has happened, and our desire to do what is right for our consumers and customers." Consumers were urged to return specific fresh and ground turkey products. Hidden in the list of recalled products are 40-pound chubs (catering packages) of ground turkey. These chubs are used in the food service industry and combined with other food products -- and thus, presumably, are now well beyond the reach of this recall. Processing at the Arkansas plant was also suspended, although production at Cargill's four other meat processing plants would continue unaffected. So far, the contamination has resulted in one death in California and at least 79 illnesses across 26 states. According to reports, it appears the outbreak "officially" began in March 2011, when a growing number of cases of Salmonella heidelberg were noted. However, the FSIS didn't issue a public warning until July 29, and even then this was a broad statement about potential links with ground turkey. Questions are already being asked about the significant time lag between the March detection of the spike in cases, the FSIS announcement in late July, and Cargill's voluntary withdrawal in early August. But I have far graver concerns about this outbreak.Cargill's statement read, "It is regrettable that people may have become ill from eating one of our ground turkey products and, for anyone who did, we are truly sorry. We go to great lengths to ensure the food we produce is safe and we fully understand that people expect to be able to consume safe food, each serving, every time." But these are hollow words indeed, for in almost the same breath, Cargill abdicated responsibility saying, "We all need to remember bacteria is everywhere, and we must properly handle and prepare fresh foods wherever they are served." The American Meat Institute has also leapt to Cargill's defense, reassuring U.S. consumers that the turkey supply is safe, especially if standardized safe handling and cooking procedures are followed".

It is very true that practically all meat purchased in raw form undergoes cooking and by such thermal exposure all pathogens are supposed to be killed. However there is always the possibility of inadequate looking or non-uniform cooking that can leave some contaminants unaffected which can spring to life causing the harm. That this particular strain of Salmonella did not respond to antibiotic treatment makes it all the more worrisome. Liberal incorporation of many antibiotic chemicals in animal feed is a practice widely prevalent in the US and this must have resulted in antibiotic resistance noticed with Salmonella heidelberg, being held responsible for the current meat poisoning episode. As for the manufacturer, it is not clear how they can get away by just saying sorry is some what puzzling. Are they not sensitive to the sufferings of those who had put faith on their brand of product trusting fully about the safety? There must be a an automatic redressal system that will punish the violator severely depending on the seriousness of violation. The safety agency deserves a rap on its knuckles for its dereliction of duty. It is still not unclear as to why low doe ionizing radiation is not permitted considering the enormous logistical restraints the meat industry faces in delivering the products in a sterile condition to the consumer.

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com