Water "Biome"-A peep into the world of bacteria in water and its significance

Water borne diseases are known to cause havoc in human society since long and some of the diseases caused by them can prove to be fatal. It is this concern which is driving an entire industry called water purification industry that offers many technologies and equipment for supposedly making water potable. A new study questions the rationale of such an approach in using chemicals to purify water and hypotheses that natural water supply containing millions of bacteria is capable of purifying itself needing no elaborate treatment through intervention of any technology. It sounds crazy and may even be scary to believe such a claim though scientists may have their own rationale to come out with such a finding. In today's world even a child may not accept untreated water from a tap as is the case in most parts of India because of fear of serious diseases like cholera, dysentery and jaundice. The report of a scientific group on this issue can be seen below and it is very difficult to understand the logic of such an argument. 

"A glass of clean drinking water actually contains 10 million bacteria. But that is how it should be - clean tap water always contains harmless bacteria, researchers said. These bacteria and other microbes grow in the drinking water treatment plant and on the inside of our water pipes, which can be seen in the form of a thin, sticky coating - a so-called biofilm. All surfaces from the raw water intake to the tap are covered in this biofilm. These findings show that the diversity of species of bacteria in water pipes is huge, and that bacteria may play a larger role than previously thought. Among other things, the researchers suspect that a large part of water purification takes place in the pipes and not only in water purification plants. "A previously completely unknown ecosystem has revealed itself to us. Formerly, you could hardly see any bacteria at all and now, thanks to techniques such as massive DNA sequencing and flow cytometry, we suddenly see eighty thousand bacteria per millilitre in drinking water," said Catherine Paul from Lund University in Sweden. At least a couple of thousand different species live in the water pipes. According to the researchers there is a connection between the composition of bacteria and water quality. "We suspect there are 'good' bacteria that help purify the water and keep it safe- similar to what happens in our bodies. Our intestines are full of bacteria, and most of the time when we are healthy, they help us digest our food and fight illness," said Paul. Although the research was conducted in southern Sweden, bacteria and biofilms are found all over the world, in plumbing, taps and water pipes. This knowledge will be very useful for countries when updating and improving their water pipe systems, researchers said. "The hope is that we eventually may be able to control the composition and quality of water in the water supply to steer the growth of 'good' bacteria that can help purify the water even more efficiently than today," said Paul.

Though most people to day, educated on a staple diet of science may question the logic of the above findings, anecdotal episodes regarding millions of people in India living healthy by drinking water from natural resources in village area defies our understanding. In most metropolitan regions, it is hardly possible to find any people without a bottle of packed water in their hands because of the common perception that municipal water supply cannot be trusted for its safety. Under such a contradictory scenario what to believe or where lies the truth defy an answer.  Are we to believe that the multibillion dollar water purification industry has been taking us for a ride for decades by insisting on installing domestic purifiers or the large scale urban water purification systems working across the world are redundant?  Why is that health experts advise people to boil water before consumption? If the water pipes, storage tanks and water taps have biofilms of friendly bacteria, where is the need for any elaborate processing to make such waters potable? WHO of UNO must intervene to make the record straight for common man across the world to adopt a living practice that ensures safe water for drinking.

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

Is Turmeric's antibacterial prowess over rated? Time for a reassessment

Lately the spice or condiment known as Turmeric, used widely in India and other Asian countries has been eulogized as one of the most powerful health protectants and many claims are made in different publications regarding its properties that benefit mankind. Look at the list of diseases/disorders it is supposed to "cure" and one is struck by the diversity of ailments this humble food adjunct is capable of curing.  If the Ayurvedic system of medicine so widely adopted in India is to be relied upon turmeric can cure a host of disorders affecting skin, heart, liver and lungs. Besides turmeric is also touted as a remedy for epilepsy, bleeding disorders, skin diseases, decongestion of lungs, alterative, analgesic, antibacterial, anti inflammatory, antitumor, antioxidant, antispasmodic, appetizer, astringent, cardio vascular issues, carminative, cholagogue, digestive, diuretic, stimulant and vulnerary! Quite a mouthful! Well why this narrative now regarding a spice with 5000 years history behind it? Provocation comes from a study recently published which talks of turmeric as a powerful antibacterial, advocating resurgence of this spice as an alternative to modern antibiotics. How far such a claim is backed by scientific evidence on hand?  Look at the report emanating from one of the universities in the US which claims that curcumin can be coated on cookwares and knives to make the food cooked at home safer.  

"What if our next-generation, futuristic antimicrobial turns out to be the same thing people have been using for the last 4,000 years? A new invention could improve food safety by borrowing a trick from ancient civilizations: using spice to fend off germs. If you want to keep food from spoiling you can load it with sugar (see preserves), or salt (see pickles), or fat (see confit, or SPAM) — but then you end up with a lot of sugar, salt, and fat. You can use synthetic preservatives, or natural chemicals (like the ones you get from smoking food). You can freeze food, but then you have to keep it cold until you are ready to eat it. Another alternative is to add spices, which can inhibit the growth of harmful microbes. Garlic, onion, cinnamon, allspice, oregano, thyme, cumin, turmeric, and the chemical that makes peppers spicy are all bacteria killers. It's likely that equatorial cultures have spicier foods because the warm climate leads to faster food spoilage. The flavors that those spices lend to food is a side effect — a delicious side effect. But we don't always want everything to taste spicy. Ruplal Choudhary, a food and bioprocess engineer at Southern Illinois University Carbondale, is part of a research team that has found a way that the antimicrobial properties of the spice turmeric might be employed without making foods taste like turmeric. They discovered how to coat glass and metal with curcumin — the main antibacterial chemical in turmeric. The curcumin is embedded in nano-capsules, so it doesn't rub off and flavor foods. You could imagine using this technology to coat the insides of cans (a substitute for BPA perhaps) or knives and countertops — to provide a new line of defense against food-borne illness. Choudhary also thinks this technology could be used to make fresh produce safer. As he told the university's news service: "Where I grew up, our house was surrounded by gardens," Choudhary said. "My father never liked to eat produce that came from the store, especially if it was harvested early and ripened in transit or at the store – he said it had no taste. We know now fresher foods are also higher in antioxidants and nutritive value. My goal is to find practical ways to use this technology to preserve food freshness as well as to create antimicrobial surfaces."

If one looks at the composition of turmeric it does contain curcumin which had been studied extensively all over the world confirming its value as a natural therapeutic substance with some positive influence on human health. The standard extraction procedures using solvents like ethyl alcohol, ethyl acetate, hexane, acetone, fluid carbon dioxide can separate curcumin from dried turmeric rhizome but industrially solvent extraction is done after distilling out the essential oil through steam distillation. The oil content can vary from 2-7% depending on the variety cultivated (there are 2 dozens of varieties grown in the world). The deoiled residue yields oleoresins containing resins, less volatile oils, waxes etc from which curcumin has to be fractionated out.. Curcumin content in turmeric varies between 2-7%. The big question is what are the active principles involved in conferring antibiotic properties to turmeric powder? Most experts believe that it is the essential oil component that is responsible for this property. In turmeric essential oil there are constituents like ar-turmerone (22%), a-turmerone(26%), b-turmerone(17%), curione(24%, ar-curcumene(6.3%) and a host of others making up about 24%. Out of the 54 compounds separated more than 20 are yet to be identified. It is reported that actually turmerones and curione fractions of turmeric oil have some antibiotic properties and evidence is there about the antimicrobial property of turmeric oil against Staphylococcus aureus, Candida albicans and Aspergillus niger. The new study cited above talks of using curcumin as a coating to confer antibacterial property which needs further exploration before application. No doubt the nano technology used for coating is a novel one but how effective it is against pathogens must be independently verified.

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

The bacteria that controls the hunger-A new twist to satiety and hunger in humans.

Thousands of words have been written about the importance of consuming a balanced diet in moderate quantities and many workshops have taken place to impress upon people the need to exercise regularly for maintaining good health. Unfortunately consumers do not seem to be paying too much attention to these cautionary advices as evidenced by the gross indiscipline seen among the consumers regarding their choice of foods. With massive promotion of nutrient light and calorie rich junk foods by the industry, consumers are tempted to go in for foods which are cheap, tasty and satisfying ignoring costlier options like fruits, vegetables, whole grains based products and others. The result is the galloping trend of uncontrolled weight gains often tending to cross the obesity rubicon! Who is to be faulted for this population degeneration-the industry, government or the consumer.? The answer depends on who is going to reply! The industry says that consumer must do necessary exercise to maintain good health, government has not much of an opinion on this and the consumer cannot decide what to eat. With sugary and salty foods now being bracketed with tobacco and alcohol as addictive substances, the onus seems to be on the consumer to shun these types of foods for their own good. But how can they do this unless there is strong will which cannot be expected from every body. Now comes another twist to this food addiction story narrated by some scientists who opine that it is actually the gut bacterial composition that determines the hunger and decision to eat how much. Read further below to get a better idea about the new postulations made by them.   

"Gut microbes could be the one responsible for telling people that dinner is done. Researchers of a new study have found chemical clues suggesting that when certain bacteria in the stomach already had enough to eat, they inform the brain it is time to push away the plate. In animal experiments, researchers found evidence suggesting that certain microbes in the body have a way of letting the brain know they have had enough nutrients. The signals they send also appear to have the ability to turn on and off the hunger of their host. For the new study published in Cell Metabolism, Serguei Fetissov, from Rouen University in France, and colleagues looked at the proteins produced by the E.coli bacteria, which are prevalent in the human gut, and noticed that about 20 minutes after feeding and multiplying in number, the bacteria switch from producing a set of proteins to another. When Fetissov and colleagues injected small doses of the post-meal proteins into rodents, they noticed that they reduced their food intake regardless if they were previously fed or kept hungry. Further analysis likewise revealed that one protein stimulated the release of a hormone that play a role in satiety.  "Our study shows that bacterial proteins from E. coli can be involved in the same molecular pathways that are used by the body to signal satiety, and now we need to know how an altered gut microbiome can affect this physiology," Fetissov said. Once they are provided with nutrients, the bacteria were found to produce more or less a billion more of their kind. Interestingly, they stop growing after producing about one billion and then start producing new proteins that inhibit the effect of appetite. The researchers said that E.coli could be hijacking a molecular pathway to produce signals that make animals feel full. By doing so, the bacteria also find a way to self-regulate their populations. The findings of the study show the microbes have a crucial role in the physiology of appetite and may even help people who suffer from eating disorders. "These data show that bacterial proteins produced after nutrient-induced E. coli growth may signal meal termination," the researchers wrote. "Continuous exposure to E. coli proteins may influence long-term meal pattern."

E.coli is a microorganism not liked by the hygiene scientists and its presence in any food is taken as indication of fecal contamination. This surmise is based on the fact that there are over 500 species of microorganisms which inhabit the human gut. Naturally among these colony of bugs there could be good ones as well pathogens depending on the source of fecal contamination. Thus E.coli is more known as a marker microbe for the microbiological quality of any food. However the revelation by the French scientists that it may be playing a role in controlling the hunger is indeed startling and by this score it deserves our respect. There may be significant implications of these findings for future research on obesity control. A natural question that arises in this context is whether inclusion of favorable nutrients of E.coli in human diet can bring in satiety faster and there fore lesser intake of food? This is a gray area requiring further studies. Of course the results of the animal experiments itself need not be applicable to humans in all cases and naturally the research opens up wide vistas for further studies in the coming years. If confirmed by human trials, there is even the possibility of growing E.coli under controlled conditions for producing the typical protein that is implicated in satiety and including the same in the diet for creating quicker satiety.

V.H.POTTY

http://vhpotty.blogspot.com
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

Creation of new aluminum surface with bactericidal effect-A nano technology approach

Food contamination inadvertently or through negligence is one of the major challenges to the food industry as well as the safety authorities all over the world.Thousands of innocent consumers are maimed or killed by a dozen highly virulent bacteria and in spite of best of efforts food poisoning continues unabated. Bactericidal processes using heat, chemicals, high pressure, ultra filtration,osmotic pressure, salination, acifdification etc are routinely practiced by the processing industry reducing the episodes of food poisoning to the barest minimum.possible. Consumers still feel that the manufacturers must be more efficient in checkmating pathogens in the foods being offered to them. Scientific community is continuously engaged in a "war of wits" with their tiny adversary, the microbes, which show from time to time remarkable ability to outwit them through mutational changes. The amazing bio-film phenomenon unearthed some time back is a remarkable ploy by these bugs to stick together, attached to a solid surface capable of resisting most of the bactericidal methods to get rid of them. It is against this tendency of some pathogens to form bio-films and contaminate foods that a new strategy has been developed by which the metal contact surfaces are made hostile for the bugs to develop such films. Here is a take on this new exciting development.   

"The technology, developed collaboratively by researchers from Cornell University and Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, uses an electrochemical process called anodization to create nanoscale pores that change the electrical charge and surface energy of a metal surface, which in turn exerts a repulsive force on bacterial cells and prevents attachment and biofilm formation. These pores can be as small as 15 nanometers; a sheet of paper is about 100,000 nanometers thick. When the anodization process was applied to aluminum,it created a nanoporous surface called alumina, which proved effective in preventing surrogates of two well known pathogens, Escherichia coli O157:H7 and Listeria monocytogenes, from attaching, according to a study recently published in the journal Biofouling. The study also investigates how the size of the nanopores changes the repulsive forces on bacteria."

Modern metallurgical developments have enabled the scientists to treat metal surfaces by an electrochemical process whereby bacteria find it difficult to adhere there resisting cleaning, washing or various sterilization processes. According to the innovators the nano porous surface created by the anodizing process has electrical charges that repel the microbes when bio-film formation process is attempted by them. Since the surface so created has extremely minute pores, less than 15 microns in size, no food particles can be expected to be trapped inside them to provide any scope for microbes to survive. Though these materials have been tested against only two virulent organisms, viz, E.coli O157 H7 and Listeria monocytogens, there is no reason why it should not be effective against others also. Probably the nanopore size may have to be altered suitably to deal with other pathogens like Salmonella, Shigella and others. Besides application in food industry the new "nanopore" technology may benefit other sectors like medicines, water treatment, shipping industry etc where bacteria poses a challenge.

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

Heritable microbiome? New findings with some hope for overcoming life style diseases

Can any one believe that microbes can be inherited by children from their parents and the vulnerability of the off springs to major diseases like CVD, Diabetes and obesity is determined by the bacterial species inherited? Such a hypothesis is being put forward by a group of scientists working together from the UK and the US. The study further claims that lean individuals with least susceptibility to put on weight have a family of bacteria that may hold key to solving the obesity epidemic confronting the world. They have been able to confirm their hypothesis through animal experiments using these specific bacterial cultures and would be looking for a pro-biotic therapy approach to treat obesity related diseases. Here is a take on this unbelievable claim which if proved correct may open up an entirely new therapy giving hope to millions of obesity affected people across the world.

A new study has determined that not only are bacteria naturally found in the gut involved in obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease, but they are genetically inherited. Researchers at King's College London and Cornell University identified a highly-heritable bacterial family that is more common in individuals with low body weight and that could pave the way for genetics-based personalized probiotic therapies for obesity-related diseases. The study examined 1,081 fecal samples taken from 977 people – 171 pairs of identical twins and 245 pairs of non-identical twins, plus 145 other, individual twins. Microbes from a bacterial family called Christensenellaceae, and to a lesser extent other specific microbe populations, were significantly more similar in the identical twins than non-identical twins, suggesting a strong genetic (and thus hereditary) influence in gut microbe composition. The study suggests that altering the Christensenellaceae population may have a direct impact on susceptibility to obesity, as mice treated with the microbe gained less weight than untreated mice. The researchers believe that similar personalized microbe treatments in humans could be a promising new aid in the fight against obesity – both in terms of prevention and reduction.

Whether the word "inherited" can be used here is some what questionable because bacterial cells are not considered transferable to the child while in the womb. Usually the new born child develops its microbiome during the early days of breast feeding by the mother and during suckling only surface bacteria can be transferred through the oral route. The gut bacteria which is a part of the gastrointestinal system of the mother may have no easy route to the GI of the child though many organisms in the gut are also present in other parts of mother's body. Whether such passage of microbiome from mother to the off spring is determined by the genes of the mother inherited by the baby is not clear. Another confusing picture is that the gut microbiome is influenced very much by the diet and its profile rapidly changes depending on the food consumed. Probably further research may bring out how mother's gut bacteria is transmitted to the baby to develop the "weight" control faculty of the mother in the child.

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

Food poisoning burden-Staggering cost for suffering from food borne infections

Improperly stored and processed foods can cause many diseases, some of them being fatal to humans. Food industry is expected to take highest precaution in handling foods intended for the market to avoid delivery of tainted foods with serious consequences and it must be said that most processors do a reasonably good job in ensuring consumer protection investing heavily in preventive practices to stop release of suspected products in the market. Unfortunately some undesirable practices and the diverse sources from where food ingredients are sourced from different parts of the world make it difficult to avoid occasional hiccups in the form of food illness among a small group of consumers. Traceability of contamination across the food supply chain is now a priority with the industry and if a fool proof system is evolved even when food contamination is detected the source from where it emanated can be ascertained for restricting the damage to the minimum. Excellent ,fast, and reliable techniques for testing food contaminants have further enabled the industry to take maximum care to ensure food safety. In the US where reliable system of documentation of food contamination incidences exists, the consequences in terms of economic damage to the country due to food pathogens are well illustrated as seen below: 

"Salmonella causes an estimated $3.7 billion each year in medical costs for Americans, according to the latest estimates from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Economic Research Service. That figure places Salmonella at the top of the rankings for the15 most costly foodborne illnesses. USDA says it regularly updates its cost estimates for food borne pathogens to keep policy makers and the public informed about the relative impact of food borne illness.The top 15 foodborne pathogens account for 95 percent of illnesses and deaths related to food in the U.S.

The 15 costliest foodborne pathogens are as follows:
    1. Salmonella – $3.7 billion; 1,027,561 total cases; 19,336 hospitalized; 378 deaths
    2. Toxoplasma gondii – $3.3 billion; 86,686 cases; 4,428 hospitalized; 343 deaths
    3. Listeria monocytogenes – $2.8 billion; 1,591 cases; 1,173 hospitalized; 306 deaths
    4. Norovirus – $2.3 billion; 5,461,731 cases; 14,663 hospitalized; 149 deaths
    5. Campylobacter – $1.9 billion; 845,024 cases; 8,463 hospitalized; 76 deaths
    6. Clostridium perfringens – $343 million; 965,958 cases; 438 hospitalized; 26 deaths
    7. Vibrio vulnificus - $320 million; 96 cases; 93 hospitalized; 36 deaths
    8. Yersinia enterocolitica - $278 million; 97,656 cases; 480 hospitalized; 29 deaths
    9. E. coli O157 – $271 million; 63,153 cases; 2,138 hospitalized; 30 deaths
    10. Vibrio (all other non-cholera species) - 17,564 cases; 83 hospitalized; 8 deaths
    11. Shigella – $138 million; 131,254 cases; 1,456 hospitalized; 10 deaths
    12. Cryptosporidium – $52 million; 57,616 cases; 210 hospitalized; 4 deaths
    13. Vibrio parahaemolyticus – $41 million; 34,664 cases; 100 hospitalized; 4 deaths
    14. E. coli non-O157 – $27 million; 112,752 cases; 271 hospitalized; 1 death
    15. Cyclospora – $2 million; 11,407 cases; 11 hospitalized; zero deaths

Deaths accounted for the greatest costs incurred from food poisoning. For example, the 378 deaths attributed to Salmonella accounted for 89 percent of the total cost associated with the pathogen, despite Salmonella's 0.04-percent death rate. Other costs incurred can include medical costs, time away from work, and the societal willingness to pay to prevent deaths, USDA said. "Cost estimates of food borne illnesses have been used in the past to help inform food-safety policy discussions," the agency noted, "and these updated cost estimates will provide a foundation for economic analysis of food safety policy."

Why such colossal damage happens only in the US is some what puzzling but one can get a clue when the reporting systems regarding food safety incidences elsewhere in the world is examined. In most developing countries there is very little data base to look at when any comparison is to be drawn with the record of the US in safety vigilance. In most of the developed countries there is reliable data base though they may not be as meticulous as that practiced in the US. Probably WHO of the UN can help those countries not having data recording system vis-a-vis food poisoning to set up the same with a little bit of economic and technical help which will go a long way in tackling food related diseases through scientific surveillance and rapid response regime.

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

LITMUS PAPER-THE ARCHIVAL pH TESTER FOR BACTERIA TESTING?

Who ever has not heard of the "Litmus Test" which in Society means proving the truth! In chemistry practical classes use of litmus paper was a standard procedure in deciding the acidity or alkalinity of a solution during early days of development of chemistry. Modern tools like pH meter and other more sophisticated tools were neither available nor affordable to colleges running on shoe string budgets and litmus paper was the only means of assessing the pH of a liquid. Though many of the modern generation chemistry students might have forgotten about this simple tool, now comes the news that litmus paper may see a revival if the reports about its utility to detect microbial presence in water and some liquid foods are true. Here is a take on this significant finding.  

"Litmus paper, long known as a low-tech method of testing substances for acidity, might have a new use as a cheap, quick way to test for E. coli, according to researchers at McMaster University in Ontario. The researchers correlated levels of E. coli bacteria with pH values represented by the colors to which the litmus paper changes. The work has been led by Dr. Yingfu Li of McMaster's Sentinel Bioactive Paper Network, which has a goal of finding innovative uses for paper. The researchers say that the test, which costs just a few cents, can be easily used by homeowners to test private wells or swimming pools and see the results within hours. If the paper changes color, there are bacteria present. Compare that to the current standard test for homeowners, which requires a sterile testing kit supplied by a local health authority, with the test results coming later by mail. Even public health agencies currently need laboratory personnel to perform tests of lakes and beaches for E. coli and other bacteria. If the litmus paper test shows promise outside the research environment, it could significantly hasten testing of public waters. The research team is now looking at testing methods for other food- and water-borne bacteria, including Listeria and Salmonella. They have also received a grant to develop a similar test for colorectal cancer."

If what has been reported really works out, as claimed, in many applications, litmus paper can be a valuable aid to consumers also to find out whether water they are drinking is free of organisms like E.coli. How far this is reliable and accurate under different conditions is a crucial question for which scientists will have to come out with more data. Also critical is the versatility of litmus paper in detecting the presence of more hazardous pathogens like Salmonella, Listeria and other food borne ones due to which thousands of food poisoning cases are reported world over. There is a presumptive thinking that once a sample shows positive for E.coli the same must be examined further for the possible presence of pathogens through further testing. One can be sure that the pioneering scientists who stumbled upon this new use for litmus paper will come out with more useful findings regarding the usefulness of the same.

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

ICE MAKING MACHINE AND TOILET WATER-WHAT IS THE CONNECTION?

Toilets are receiving much more attention than what they really deserve. It was not long ago that some one reported that toilet seat showed less bacteria than that present in a kitchen cutting board! Here comes another report with some shock value that declares that the bacterial quality of crushed ice that is thrown out from the ice making machines in many restaurants is significantly inferior to that of toilet water! How far this is universally true cannot be gauged by the limited studies conducted by the media as a part of their investigative journalism. But it does raise some inconvenient questions regarding the possibility of shirked responsibility of the restaurant management to keep their ice making machine clean and hygienically satisfactory. Also not clear is how serious is the problem vis-a-vis the safety of consumers who visit such ill maintained restaurants. Here is a take on this latest revelation.   

"The Daily Mail collected ice from ten fast-food franchises — McDonald's, Burger King, and Starbucks among them — and determined that in six out of ten locations, those innocuous-seeming cubes contained higher levels of bacteria than the water samples taken from toilet bowls at the same establishments. The Mail doesn't identify the bacteria by type or warn of a specific food-safety risk, instead noting only that four of the samples contained a sufficient bacterial load to present a "hygiene risk." So, does this mean we should all be drinking out of the toilet? The short answer is no, don't drink toilet water, but also, maybe be a little bit wary of ice. In most instances of germy ice, the likely culprit is dirty ice machines, and while the presence of pathogens like E. coli in anything meant for ingestion is cause for alarm, the Mail sort of flubs its own "investigation." The article doesn't make clear how much of the ice taken from each of the ten establishments was tested. Moreover, it doesn't emphasize how much one study parameter — fast-food workers were asked to put the ice into sterilized bags — was flawed, which renders the entire thing somewhat useless. "For the tests," itnotes, "staff were asked to provide a sample of ice in a sterile bag." The reader has to make it to the very end of the article to learn that the worker at Starbucks, for example, "inadvertently" contaminated the sample at the point of collection. While the ice at these places is no doubt bacteria-filled, it might help to have workers trained in taking sterilized samples actually, you know, collecting the sample. Moreover, this kind of study isn't particularly novel. Some highlights from the last ten years:
• In an effort to dissuade her friends from chewing on ice — a habit she found annoying — a 12-year-old kid from Tampa devoted her 2006 middle-school science project to comparing bacterial loads in fast-food ice samples and toilet water. Jasmine Roberts won a few awards and garnered national attention with her conclusion that ice-machine ice was dirtier than toilet water 70 percent of the time.
• A local news affiliate found coliform bacteria in 13 out of 25 ice samples taken from Indianapolis-area bars in 2008.
• The U.K. Health Protection Agency found enterococci and E. coli in 30 percentof ice samples taken from 88 establishments in 2011.
• And it's not just the innards of ice machines that harbor bad germs. All that sugar-filled plastic tubing inside soda machines can feed several gazillion colonies of bad bacteria. In 2010, for example, researchers from Hollins University in Virginia took samples of 90 drinks from 30 soda fountains located within a twenty-mile radius of Roanoke. They found coliform bacteria in 48 percent of the drinks and antibiotic-resistant E. coli in 11 percent.

It's pretty safe to assume that, on a widespread basis, nasty bacteria run the innards of ice machines just like Master Blaster runs Bartertown. Does that mean that ice from fast-food places will make you sick? As with most foods, the risk increases if you are either very old, are very young, or have a compromised immune system. Other than that, these studies are effective at upending one misconception about pathogens in particular: that freezing temperatures destroy bad germs. Instead of comparing ice and toilet water, it'd be good to get samples from a few more surfaces that aren't toilet water, which is usually treated with disinfectants in food service settings, anyhow".

The conclusion by the reporter that the ice is not a safety risk to normally healthy person because bacteria does not survive freezing temperatures cannot be accepted. Scientifically most bacteria might be killed at sub-zero temperatures due to cell disruption but few stubborn cells do survive capable of springing back to active life once favorable conditions are obtained. It is forgotten that many food infection episodes in the West are more or less confined to frozen foods and if such foods which are contaminated during the processing operations or storage are not cooked by the consumer there is a definite risk to the health. Another way of looking at this issue is that if these contaminated ice is used for chilling an alcoholic beverage or a carbonated beverage the safety risk is minimal or nil at at all. Still it is the primary responsibility of the food eateries to clean up their ice machines periodically to ensure that bacteria is not harbored by them. Same is true with thousands of water coolers found so commonly in public places.  

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

BIOFILMS-A SERIOUS CHALLENGE TO SANITATION SCIENTISTS

Man has been striving ever since his advent on this planet to keep the harmful microorganisms at bay and this endeavor is still continuing even to day. An array of technology to destroy pathogenic microorganisms is available for the industry that has been able to ensure safety of foods manufacture by them to a reaosnable extent. Traditional technologies like salt steeping, sugar infusion, sun drying, fermentation etc are supplemented by modern ones involving high temperature treatment, water removal at controlled temperatures, low and very low temperature preservation, high pressure processing, aseptic packing, vacuum packing etc. Still there is nothing absolutely safe in the light of continuous modification in the behavior of microbes to overcome all the hurdles created by man. Latest finding that bacteria  like Listeria and others can form highly impenetrable biofilms within which they survive under severely adverse environmental conditions is startling to say the least. Here is a commentary on this new phenomenon which will keep the industry on its toes when it comes to ensuring food safety.

"The slimy film that forms in damp areas, typically around drains and in trunk lines, is known as biofilm. Harboring pathogens such as Listeria, Salmonella and E. coli, biofilm creates a protective environment for illness-causing microorganisms to thrive.Eliminating biofilm and the pathogens it breeds has proven to be difficult for the food processing and retail sanitation industry. It tends to persist in damp areas and is resistant to traditional cleaners and sanitizers. Typical drain cleaners such as enzymatic cleaners, drain openers, and hard surface sanitizers don't have EPA approval to remove biofilm and are ineffective against the pathogens found in it." 

If claims by some of the manufacturers of sanitation aids are to be believed, specially formulated preparations are required which can only penetrate biofilms and destroy the bacteria residing within. As most of these products are patented and branded, very little is known regarding the scientific basis of such claims. Most difficult task in a food processing facility is to access remote nooks and crevices where there may be dampness, ideal for harboring biofilm clusters and which can infect the food during contact with the surface when processing is going on. Still efficient preparations containing active chlorine does a decent job with minimum risk of contamination. If biofilms pose real danger to the food processing sector as being claimed, it is time that safety authorities revisit the range of sanitizing agents approved and include more efficient ones for tackling dangers posed by the biofilms of pathogenic bacteria.    

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

LIFE AMONG THE CLOUDS-NEW FINDINGS

It looks like microorganisms are going to play an increasing role in the lives of humans with whom they have close association. The story of microbiome in the human body is now well known and over 1000 species of microbes cohabiting within and outside human body have a profound influence on the quality of health of the people. Microbes also are involved in production of many chemical substances and food materials of immense value complimenting human effort to ensure food security. Recent discovery that microbes can convert 30% of all plant materials on this planet into consumable forms of food is indeed reassuring. Equally true is the fact that there are many destructive bugs which can cause serious health problems including fatal conditions. While man has learned to live with these diverse microorganisms living near him , the new startling discovery that these tiny creatures can also live in highly hostile conditions that prevail in thin and rarefied air thousands of feet above the earth raises many questions regarding their role on climate moderation and well being of humans. Here is a take on this new revelations.       

"To find out, Nenes had some of his students hitch a ride on a NASA airplane that was on a mission to study hurricanes. They made multiple flights and were able to collect air samples from about 30,000 feet over both land and sea. The samples turned out to contain some fungi — and a lot of bacteria. "And this was a big surprise because we didn't really expect to see that many bacteria up there," Nenes says.It's not exactly a friendly place. It's cold, it's dry, and there's a lot of damaging UV light. But Nenes says the bacteria seemed to be able to handle it. "They were alive," Nenes says. "More than 60 percent of them were actually alive, and they were in an active state that that you could say they should be metabolizing and eating things that are up there." Back on the ground, other members of the research team used genetic techniques to identify the bacteria. One of them was Georgia Tech microbiologist Kostas Konstantinidis. "We were able to see at least close to 100 different species, of which about 20 were in most samples," Konstantinidis says. Some of those 100 species were from the ocean. Others came from the soil and from fresh water".

It will be interesting to know further about their nature and impact on humans on earth and whether some of the pathogens identified would be more virulent than their earth bound counterparts? Will the current antibiotic therapy be effective against them? With the frequency of high altitude flights, including outer space flights, increasing will there be more transfer of them to ground level mingling with the existing cocktail of microbes? What will be the consequences? A more detailed and intensive study including genetic mapping of these high altitude microorganisms only can find answers to these vexing questions. An international study on these issues is called for with minimum delay 

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

KITCHEN VS TOILET-NEW FINDINGS

Food safety is now one of the hottest topics receiving serious attention from the safety agencies, paradoxically in developed countries where foods are supposed to be handled/processed, distributed, stored and tested at laboratories with most modern and sophisticated instruments. Still episodes of food poisoning from pathogens that infect foods are much more in these countries than that reported in undeveloped and under developed countries. Why? Is it because of the extra susceptibility of the population there with low immunity and resistance? How can that be when they have access to best foods that can be purchased in their countries, churned out by their modern food industry? Here is an interesting story coming out from the US which highlights the paradox.

Would you chop your vegetables on your toilet seat? I think pretty much all of us would say No. But maybe we should think again. Dr Chuck Gerba, professor of microbiology at the University of Arizona, studies how diseases are transferred through the environment. This involves swabbing household items and measuring how many bacteria - and what sort - develop. He particularly looks for faecal bacteria such as E.coli and Staphylococcus aureus. His studies have found that on the average in the toilet seat there are 50 bacteria per square inch.  "It's one of the cleanest things you'll run across in terms of micro-organisms," he says. "It's our gold standard - there are not many things cleaner than a toilet seat when it comes to germs." We should be more worried about other household items, it seems. "Usually there are about 200 times more faecal bacteria on the average cutting board than on a toilet seat," he says. In the kitchen it doesn't necessarily get there through actual contact with faeces. It comes via raw meat products or the viscera from inside of the animal, where a lot of the faecal bacteria originate.

The research studies which claim that the toilet seat used every day in these households is microbiologically much superior to the kitchen cutting board probably can be believed because every house wife considers toilet as the dirtiest place at home. Naturally that makes them use some of the most powerful germ killer chemicals known with plenty of water, giving no chance for the microbes to proliferate, though theoretically toilet is the most concentrated source of E.coli! The fact is that same attention is not given to wash thoroughly utensils, cutting boards and other paraphernalia in the kitchen, raising the chance for microbes to survive and proliferate. The problem becomes more acute for those house holds cooking both animal foods and plant derived ones regularly. While such reports may ring alarm bells among many families, there may not be really a dangerous situation as almost all foods are cooked at temperatures above 100C causing a 100% kill of these vectors. Of course salad vegetables and other cold foods may be vulnerable to cross contamination and it is advisable that separate boards and knives are kept for them as far as possible.

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

PLASTIC FROM BACTERIA-TECHNICALLY FEASIBLE?

Fast depleting fossil fuel resources is raising alarms all around with private and public funded research efforts striving to evolve alternate sustainable energy sources. While tapping solar energy, wind energy, wave energy, geothermal energy, etc can help to fill the gap to some extent after the era of easy and cheap fossil fuels, still there is no clear solution to this vexing problem. One of the areas where fossil fuels have contributed enormously is in the manufacture of a variety of plastics for packaging consumer products including food and it is an irrefutable fact that both production and disposal of plastics pose technical, environmental and economic challenges. There are alternate technologies for production of plastics from basic chemicals produced by the plants and some microbiological sources though they have not yet gained universal acceptance. Recent break through in research studies to convert carbon dioxide, the very villain of peace to day in the global warming debate, are considered exciting and here is a critique on this development with some far reaching future potential to clean up the Globe.

Today, the world consumes 120 million tons of the chemical ethylene to make the world's most widely used plastics. Almost all of that ethylene is derived from fossil fuels. Between 1.5 to 3 tons of carbon dioxide is released for every ton of ethylene produced, which is why plastic has such an enormous carbon footprint. Now, researchers have inserted a gene into bacteria that turns it into one of the world's most efficient factories for ethylene by eating carbon dioxide, instead of releasing it into the air. On the opposite end of the plastic production line, a newly discovered fungus in the Amazon eats plastic, finally giving us a way to get rid of the stuff. The new cyanobacterium works in the opposite way of traditional plastic production: Its photosynthetic capabilities means it harnesses today's photons from sunlight (as opposed to old photons stored in the energy of chemical bonds in petroleum) to add carbon from the air to ethylene molecules. This saves six tons of carbon dioxide emissions for every ton of ethylene created: Three tons are absorbed by bacteria and three are avoided from the usual fossil fuels, says the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. "Our peak productivity is higher than a number of other technologies, including ethanol, butanol, and isoprene," said NREL principal investigator, Jianping Yu, in a release from the Lab. "We overcame problems encountered by past researchers. Our process doesn't produce toxins such as cyanide and it is more stable than past efforts. And it isn't going to be a food buffet for other organisms."

The new genetically modified bacteria offers exciting possibilities if harnessed properly. The fact that it can create the basic building blocks of plastics by absorbing atmospheric carbon dioxide has future repercussions for both the packaging industry as well as environmental managers since it will considerably reduce the green house effect due to carbon dioxide while providing an inexhaustible source for making plastics for consumer use. The commercial feasibility part of the research has to be established in no uncertain terms and if technical feasibility is confirmed all countries in this Universe must join hands to evolve this technology further to the point of global use. The technological developments for optimizing the production of ethylene by the bacteria and exploitation of the Amazon fungus must be a common property of the mankind and there should not be any reservation on the part of NREL to share this with the world community at large.

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

MAKING BACTERIA IN FOODS"VISIBLE"-MAGIC OR REALITY?

If consumer is given a chance to wish for any thing that is related to food safety, most probably that wish could be to equip one with the capacity to see the bacteria that poses danger to the food! A recent development in Europe where a group of scientists is reported to have developed a technique to see bacteria on meat carcasses, comes very near to the above consumer wish. Unfortunately the visibility is not with naked eyes but using UV scanner and the technique is suitable only for poultry meat processors with integrated farming and slaughter facilities. Success of such scanning is contingent on administering a special feed to the birds just before slaughter containing a natural additive which helps to highlight the bacteria on the carcass with a glow easily visible under a UV scanner.

Scientists will today unveil a new weapon in the battle against food poisoning, which could also cut the thousands of tonnes of meat thrown away by supermarkets. The Aberystwyth University experts believe the new system which can highlight millions of tiny bacteria invisible to the human eye could revolutionize food safety and Wales' £10m-a-year poultry industry. Developed at the university's Institute of Biological, Environmental and Rural Sciences (IBERS), it aims to use a natural additive to poultry feed to make any contamination in chicken carcasses glow a bright ultra-violet fluorescent color. Dr Michael Lee, from IBERS, said the aim was to create a gold standard system in Wales for screening carcasses at abattoirs and to develop commercial solutions to benefit Wales' food industry.

As the development is still in its early stage, potential seems to be there for evolving a reliable tool to fight meat contamination during processing and before releasing to the market. Whether it will reduce the number of market recalls depend on its reliability against some of the worst food pathogens encountered by the poultry industry. What is not clear from the bare details provided by the innovators is regarding the safety of the additive used and how long the glow will last before the product is packed. It is also not clear whether consumers at the retail market level would be able to assess their purchase under the scanner provided by the retailer before buying. Standards need to be evolved regarding the number of such glowing "hot spots" that can be safe for release into the market. Such critical questions are required to be answered if the laboratory findings have to be become an industry reality.

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