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

AMERICA'S FOOD SAFETY WOES-NEW LAWS ARE RIGHT ANSWER?

Food safety management is an art of balancing the interests of various stakeholders such as the consumer, farmer, processor and the government. No Food Law can be deemed to be perfect but striving hard to bring it to near perfection is the bounden duty of the government which has immense power to do that. Americans are known to be sensitive to food borne infections of different kind and most of the focus is on preventing such pathogen driven poisoning episodes that can take a toll on the health of the citizens. It is in this context that new food safety rules being implemented there are being scrutinized for their effectiveness. Many observers feel that the new protocols being put in place can only bring additional economic burden to the processing industry with practically no impact on food safety breaching in the coming years. Here is a critique on the above issue which is causing some consternation in that country.

'In pushing for passage of the law, the FDA and its supporters billed the law as a necessary solution to a problem of great magnitude. Indeed, some 48 million Americans suffer from some form of foodborne illness each year—a figure the FDA cites at several of its FSMA web pages. The agency claims the FSMA will "better protect public health by strengthening the food safety system" and helping to eliminate the "largely preventable" problem of foodborne illnesses. But if we can largely prevent foodborne illness, we won't have the new FSMA regulations to thank. In truth, the law's real impact on food safety will be minimal. The FSMA would permit the FDA to hire about 2,000 new food-safety inspectors in order to increase the frequency of food-safety inspections. Specifically, the proposed rules would require that "[a]ll high-risk domestic facilities must be inspected within five years of enactment and no less than every three years, thereafter." Given that the FSMA rules are just now open to public comment and won't be final for another year or two, this translates into a likely total of exactly two inspections of what the FDA refers to as the most "high-risk domestic facilities" over the next decade. How's that for impact? Even if these inspections were to take place more than once in a blue moon, just how effective at preventing foodborne illness are FDA inspections? Not very. The Center for Science in the Public Interest, for example, notes that FDA food safety inspections dropped by 47 percent between 2003 and 2006. During that same period, according to CDC data, rates of infection from bacteria like listeria were flat, and below traditional averages. This reflects what the CDC has reported—that despite the misconception that cases of foodborne illnesses are mushrooming, there has been a general "downward trend in foodborne infections."
A relevant question that is being asked is whether food borne diseases are really so wide spread as is being made out as the data show that such food safety failures are declining over the years. Probably the powerful electronic media which brings to the living rooms of millions of families even small episodes, is creating an impression that Americans are in danger of being overwhelmed by food poisoning incidences! The genuine concern expressed by the industry, especially the small scale players, about the economic burden on them in adhering to new safety regime put in place must be addressed to prevent a dislocation of the processed food manufacture and distribution system due to over zealous inspecting officials.

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

INDIA -A COUNTRY "ON THE ROLL" WITH FREEBIES!

Many honest citizens in India must be wondering what value work has in the lives of people with dedication and commitment. This assumes relevance when in the name of social equity billions of rupees are squandered on subsidies on different accounts being conferred on a constituency broadly classified as "common man", though no one has any idea what this oft repeated words mean. Though much has been written about this obnoxious phenomenon by many critics, the "merry go around" continues unabated with politicians, bureaucrats or economists in the power corridor,not unduly concerned because of the over obsession with vote bank dynamics! A Malaysian journalist has the following to say about the repercussions of subsidies for future generation that will have to bear the burden left behind by to day's "netas".

It is good that India's Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee acknowledged last week that the country's budget deficit, forecast to balloon to a 16-year high this year, cannot be sustained for many more years. He should know. After all, Mukherjee borrowed a record 4.51 trillion rupees (RM331 billion) in 2009 to fund stimulus packages and revive growth in Asia's third-largest economy. Damaging: Instead of subsidies on power and fertiliser, agricultural productivity would go up much more if the money was put in infrastructure. It has been shown that the subsidies on fertilizers, power and irrigation lead to "huge inefficiencies". One aspect of the revenue-expenditure equation he might usefully look at would be India's hugely expensive system of subsidies.Indeed, a marked failure of the reform process in India has been its inability to come to grips with and reduce the widespread granting of subsidies, often to people who don't need them. Subsidies, in almost all areas where the government still has discretionary powers, have grown exponentially, contrary to the spirit of the economic reforms begun in 1991".

Is it not a paradox that to day's Prime Minister was instrumental in opening up the Indian economy as the Finance Minister in 1991 and in spite of being the CEO of the country to day, he seems to be acquiescing with the reckless economic policies being pursued that is bound to increase the misery of the citizens in the coming years!

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