The owner of a Canberra Centre food court cafe has been convicted after health inspectors found salads contaminated with salmonella for sale in 2010.

Anna Ciardullo, the owner of the Nutmeg Cafe in the shopping centre food court, pleaded guilty to one charge of selling unsafe food likely to cause harm.

The ACT Magistrates Court heard health inspectors went to the cafe in October two years ago and took swab samples from food on display, including a tandoori chicken salad, a chicken pesto salad and a Greek salad. Tests later revealed two salads - the chicken pesto and the Greek salad - were contaminated by salmonella bacteria.

The cafe was given an improvement notice which was lifted three days later on October 25. Ciardullo and her husband, Vincent, faced multiple charges for breaching food safety regulations but prosecutors later dropped all charges against Mr Ciardullo and all but one of the charges against Anna Ciardullo.

The court heard that in the intervening two years there had been no suggestion of further food safety breaches. The Nicholls woman gave evidence that her husband had drawn up a comprehensive plan to prevent food contamination.
She said staff now had inst

The court heard Ciardullo came to Australia in the 1990s as a 22-year-old from Italy who spoke no English and had worked for the past 13 years in the food and beverage industry.

Only Washington-types could take a story about recent successes and failures in foodborne illness rates and surveillance – 18 fascinating papers -- and turn it into a whine about how lobbyists were excluded from access, ahead of mere mortals.

The Washington Post reports that unlike last year, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control released the data without reaching out to consumer groups and other key stakeholders who typically are notified in advance. Instead, the charts and graphs were quietly posted online Friday.

I’m not sure who these key stakeholders are, and how many of them are self-proclaimed. The solution is for CDC to publish a press release summarizing the findings, note their existence, and releasing it to everyone at the same time.

And only in Washington would people whine that delayed passage of the Food Safety Modernization Act is leading to increases in foodborne illness.

“Everyone was hoping that this new food safety law would be in place and we’d start seeing improvements by now,” said Erik Olson, a director at the Pew Health Group. “What these CDC numbers show is that unless new protections are put into place, millions of Americans are going to continue to get sick from contaminated food.”

I’m immediately suspicious of people who speak on behalf of everyone (and people who say trust me). I have yet to see a credible, detailed analysis that shows FSMA will lower rates of foodborne illness.

But that’s the bizness of Washington. They don’t seem good at it.

Four years ago, the CDC numbers yielded the same story – rates were stagnant, but still way too many sick people. There is no evidence educational campaigns do anything except make people feel like they are doing something, there is no evidence legislation does much, yet that’s always the punchline: we need more laws, we need more education.

Doesn’t work.

We need new messages using new media to really create a culture that values microbiologically safe food.

That’s what I said four years ago, it could have been 20 years ago. Same as it ever was.
The most recent figures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that the rates of infections linked to four out of five key pathogens it tracks — salmonella, vibrio, campylobacter and listeria — remained relatively steady or increased from 2007 through 2011. The exception is a strain of E. coli, which has been tied to fewer illnesses in the same time frame.

The CDC found that the most frequent cause of infection in 2011 was salmonella, followed by campylobacter.

Below are actual excerpts from the CDC summary report. All 18 abstracts will appear on bites-l as soon as I complete a long plane ride, custom(s) probing, and return to the land of unlimited Internet.

Foodborne disease is an important public health problem in the United States, with an estimated 9.4 million domestically acquired illnesses and 1351 deaths from known pathogens each year. The Foodborne Diseases Active Surveillance Network (FoodNet) tracks important foodborne illnesses, generating information that provides a foundation for food safety policy and prevention efforts. FoodNet has provided information that contributes to food safety efforts by estimating numbers of foodborne illnesses, monitoring trends in incidence of specific foodborne illnesses over time, attributing illnesses to specific foods and settings, and disseminating information. Since it started in 1996, FoodNet has been an excellent example of partnership among federal and state agencies. This Clinical Infectious Diseases supplement contains a variety of articles that provide new information on current issues; together, they highlight FoodNet’s central role in U.S. surveillance and investigation of foodborne disease.

FoodNet’s core work is ongoing active, population-based surveillance for laboratory-confirmed infections caused by 9 pathogens transmitted commonly through food, as well as for hemolytic uremic syndrome. Several articles in this supplement report on these core data, examining trends and providing regulatory and public health agencies, industry, and consumer groups with data needed to prioritize and evaluate food safety interventions and monitor progress toward national health objectives. For example, Ong et al report the dramatic decline in Yersinia enterocolitica infections since 1996, particularly among young black children. Not all the news is good, however; Newton et al [analyze data from FoodNet and the Cholera and Other Vibrio Illness Surveillance System (COVIS), showing that Vibrio infections have increased nationally. Two articles in this supplement examine FoodNet surveillance data on invasive listeriosis. The article by Silk et al summarizes trends in surveillance data from 2004 to 2009, whereas Pouillot et al use FoodNet surveillance data to estimate the relative risk of listeriosis by age, pregnancy, and ethnicity, providing new insights into variations in risk across the population. Together, these articles emphasize that to substantially decrease the incidence of listeriosis, prevention measures should target higher-risk groups, particularly pregnant women, especially Hispanics, and older adults. Hall et al examine trends in Cyclospora infection, showing that outbreaks and international travel play an unusually large role in the epidemiology of these infections and suggesting that prevention efforts would most effectively focus on foods from and travel to endemic areas.

FoodNet continuously works to improve the quality of its surveillance data and methods for analysis. In this supplement, Henao et al describe the methods and rationale surrounding the introduction, in 2011, of a measure of overall change in the incidence of infection over time using surveillance data on infections caused by 6 bacterial pathogens. This measure, which provides a comprehensive picture of changes in incidence of foodborne infections, documents a 23% decline overall in incidence for these pathogens in 2010 compared with the first 3 years of surveillance (1996–1998). Although it does not replace pathogen-specific trend data, this summary measure can help inform the development and assessment of policies and interventions to prevent foodborne illness. Another article, by Manikonda et al, reports on a study to validate the reporting of deaths in FoodNet surveillance, an important issue because deaths, although rare, are disproportionately responsible for the economic and human costs of foodborne disease. Finally, Ong et al examine the impact of case ascertainment strategies and case definitions on surveillance for pediatric hemolytic uremic syndrome in FoodNet.

Several articles in the supplement elucidate aspects of the “surveillance steps” that are necessary for a case of infection to be ascertained by FoodNet surveillance. FoodNet and many other surveillance systems for bacterial enteric infections are based on culture-confirmed infections, so FoodNet surveillance data must be interpreted in the context of the “surveillance steps” that lead to culture confirmation: the ill person must seek medical care, a stool specimen must be submitted, and the clinical laboratory must test for and identify the pathogen. In particular, the recent and ongoing shift among clinical laboratories toward culture-independent methods for detecting enteric pathogens is of great importance.

In 2011, the CDC released new estimates of the number of foodborne illnesses in the United States, the Food Safety Modernization Act was signed into law, and new national health objectives for foodborne illness were set as part of the Healthy People 2020 goals. All of these initiatives, as well as continued concern about food safety on the part of the public and policy makers, emphasize the need for precise and accurate information about foodborne disease. Regulators and other public health officials, consumer advocates, industry, and others need information on trends, high-risk populations, and the foods causing illness so that interventions can be targeted most efficiently and effectively. FoodNet provides the articles in this supplement as part of its efforts to disseminate the results of its surveillance and analytic work. Although FoodNet surveillance is conducted in a geographic area that covers only 15% of the US population, the data it generates are a valuable resource for the entire United States. The FoodNet program shows the impact that high-quality, nationally coordinated surveillance can have on public health and policy.

Margaritas, a Holland, Michigan Mexican restaurant has been closed for the past few days due to yet-to-be identified cluster of gastrointestinal illnesses. According to reports, the Ottawa County Health Department is conducting interviews and testing food samples to search for a pathogen and source.

Spokeswoman for the health department, Shannon Felgner, said health department staff have called those who reported symptoms to gather a food history and timeline of the illness onset and recovery.

She said the number infected will be more than 50, but didn't give an estimate of what they expect it will be.

The owner of Margarita’s, Alonzo Salinas, closed the restaurant Friday after several people were hospitalized earlier in the week.

Salinas said it's not clear whether the illnesses were passed along by food or employees.

According to a Holland Sentinel picture, the operators posted a sign that says "We will be Closed…for cleaning and remodeling. We apologize for any inconvenience."  Remodeling might not be the best word here. Mentioning the outbreak and directing customers who might be ill to health care providers is a better message.
 

Food giant Axfood AB has been forced to recall two tonnes of pork, following test samples showing salmonella bacteria present in the meat.

The Local reports the pork has been sold all over Sweden, but as of yet there have been no reports of anyone falling ill.

According to Axfood’s press manager Ingmar Kroon, the affected meat is pork imported mainly from Denmark, including chops, marinated loin and mince. The products have been sold by supermarket chains Willys, Hemköp, Prisextraand Tempo.

“We’re recalling it from all over the country, but we don’t know how much has already been sold,” he said to the TT news agency, adding, “but only some of the meat has been infected. …

“It’s happened twice this summer that we’ve had infected meat from Denmark, and that might look bad, but Denmark isn’t bad at handling. I definitely don’t want to point the blame at them.”

In Jan. 2009, the beginnings of the world’s largest known restaurant-based norovirus outbreak began to take hold in Heston Blumenthal’s fancy pants Fat Duck restaurant.

A new report in Epidemiology and Infection reiterates much of what was known at the time and summarized in a subsequent U.K. Health Protection Agency report, but still hammers home the point that a series of errors can culminate in a lot of people barfing.

About 591 in this outbreak.

The report doesn’t mention The Fat Duck by name, but rather, states the restaurant “uses an approach based on the principles of molecular gastronomy, prepares and serves unusual dishes using what it describes as innovative methods.”

Nice dig.

“The complex nature of food preparation in this particular restaurant, with extensive handling of foods, requires excellent food management systems to ensure safety. Two of the 22 food samples taken from the restaurant were contaminated with E. coli and Enterobacteriaceae, reported to be an indicator of a breakdown in food hygiene practices.”

Ouch.

This was after the restaurant failed to notify public health types as dozens of complaints poured into the restaurant, hired its own food safety consultant, did a deep clean, and then temporarily closed.

The figure (bottom) is particularly instructive.

Once the health types got involved, they started testing some staff and ill diners; even late in the outbreak, six of 63 staff members tested positive for norovirus (44 were tested).

“Diners were infected with multiple norovirus strains belonging to genogroups I and II, a pattern characteristic of molluscan shellfish-associated outbreaks. The ongoing risk from dining at the restaurant may have been due to persistent contamination of the oyster supply alone or in combination with further spread via infected food handlers or the restaurant environment. Delayed notification of the outbreak to public health authorities may have contributed to outbreak size and duration.”

Norovirus in raw shellfish, especially oysters, is nothing new. But the amplification of risk by a series of dumb assumptions (we can contain this) and omissions (don’t tell anyone) is staggering.

“The size and duration of this outbreak exceed any other commercial restaurant-associated norovirus outbreaks in the published literature. It is hoped that lessons learned from this outbreak will help to inform future action by restaurateurs especially in early notification to public health authorities once an outbreak is suspected.”

Orange County, Florida, health officials are investigating a cluster of illnesses linked to Walt Disney World's "Wild Africa Trek" experience, a boutique tour in which small groups of people get up-close access to some of the wildlife in Disney's Animal Kingdom and a catered meal served on the theme park's manmade savannah.

The Orlando Sentinel reports investigators have documented "several dozens of cases" of illnesses among guests who took the Disney tour in June and July, said Dain Weister, a spokesman for the Orange County Health Department.

The source of the illness remains a mystery.

"It appears to be some kind of stomach bug," Weister said. "It could be foodborne, it could be waterborne, it could be something that's passed on person-to-person, it could be something that's picked up by surface."

Disney has taken several precautionary steps, including "deep cleaning" various surfaces that guests touch, distributing more hand sanitizers, and re-emphasizing hand-washing policies to guests and employees.

"We are working closely with the Orange County Health Department to review the situation," Disney spokeswoman Andrea Finger said.

The year-and-a-half-old Wild Africa Trek is one of the most-exclusive experiences at Disney World. Guests pay from $139 to $249 a person — on top of basic park admission — for the three-hour tour, during which they pick their way through wooded overgrowth, peer over a cliff at a pool of hippos, cross a rickety bridge above Nile crocodiles, and dine in a safari-style camp.

Five cases of locally-acquired Vibrio parahaemolyticus infection have been reported in British Columbia this year. In 2011, 42 cases of Vibrio were reported. These illnesses have been linked to raw shellfish served in restaurants, bought at retail, or self-harvested in communities throughout the province including, Gibsons, Sechelt, Powell River, Ladysmith, Qualicum, Ucluelet, Gabriola Island, Cortes Island and Parksville.

The BC Centre for Disease Control says that in addition to individual cases, BC has also experienced outbreaks associated with shellfish. In 2010, an outbreak of norovirus from raw oysters affected over 30 people and in 2011 more than 60 people became ill after consuming cooked mussels contaminated with diarrhetic shellfish poisoning.

Satefy tips to reduce the risk of all shellfish-related illnesss:

Purchase shellfish only from approved sources. All bivalve shellfish sold in British Columbia must come from a federally approved source, and outlets and restaurants selling them must be able to provide a shellfish shipper’s tag, which ensures federal inspection.

Consume only cooked shellfish. Cooking will destroy viruses and bacteria and decrease the risk of gastrointestinal illness. When cooking shellfish at home, ensure shellfish are kept in a cold environment at all times, use drinking-quality water to rinse ready-to-eat shellfish, and ensure adequate cooking time. To ensure adequate cooking, test oysters with a meat thermometer and make sure the temperature reaches 90°C (195°F) for 90 seconds. This will kill the vibrio bacteria and minimize the risk of other infections.

Do not cross-contaminate when handling raw and cooked seafood. Prevent cross-contamination by storing raw and cooked seafood separately, cleaning and sanitizing knives and cutting boards and working with clean hands.

In January 2012, a human case of brucellosis was diagnosed by blood culture in a district of the French Alps. The isolated strain was identified as Brucella melitensis biovar 3. Excerpts from the paper by Mailles et al. in the current issue of Eurosurveillance appear below.

In April 2012, brucellosis was confirmed in a dairy cow in a herd of the same district of the French Alps. The seropositive cow had aborted in late January, and a strain of Brucella melitensis biovar 3 was isolated from the milk sampled from the animal. The animal belonged to a herd 21 dairy cows, and no other animal in the herd presented with symptoms suggesting brucellosis or showed any serological reaction. Approximately 20 kg of Reblochon cheese (soft raw milk cheese) are usually produced daily on the affected farm.

France has been officially free of brucellosis in cattle since 2005, and the last outbreak of brucellosis in sheep and goats was reported in 2003. In order to detect and prevent any re-emergence of the disease, annual screening using Rose Bengale test or complement fixation test is carried out in all cattle, sheep and goat farms producing raw milk as well as in all cattle herds, and every one to three years in small ruminant, according to EU regulations. Moreover, abortion in ruminants is mandatorily notifiable and the investigation of abortion includes examination for brucellosis.

Reblochon cheese is a raw milk soft cheese, requiring a maturation period of three weeks to one month. The cheese from the affected farm had been commercialised after the abortion in seven districts. Cheese was sold directly at the farm, and as whole pieces or in parts in supermarkets. Cheese produced by the affected farm had not been exported to other countries but might have been bought by foreign tourists during their winter holidays in several ski resorts in the area. For this reason, the European rapid alert system for food and feed (RASFF) was informed.

After the identification of the first bovine case, the human case was interviewed again to investigate any direct or indirect epidemiological link with the infected herd. During the second interview, it became clear that the patient and their family had visited the infected farm in autumn 2011, although it was not possible to determine the exact date. During this visit, the family had bought Tome Blanche cheese, a fresh cheese obtained during the first step of Reblochon production. The four family members had shared the Tome Blanche on the same day, but the index case was the only one who later presented with symptoms.

All cheese pieces produced by the affected farm and still within the shelf life were withdrawn from retailers. In addition, a recall of already sold products was carried out via a national press release by the cheese producer and by posters in the sale points. Medical doctors in the concerned districts were informed by the regional health authorities. Consumers of these products were advised to seek medical attention should they present symptoms consistent with brucellosis.
The release of cheese from the affected farm was immediately stopped. The movements of animals from other herds that had epidemiological links with the infected herd (those that were geographically close to the infected herd, or had been bought from the infected herd) have been restricted until the end of the investigation. Furthermore, raw cheese products from farms with epidemiological links to the infected farm were put on sale only after negative bacteriological tests results had been obtained.

About 10 years ago, eldest daughter Madelynn got a job at a local supermarket.

I asked her if she got any food safety training.

“Yeah, we watched a video for 20 minutes, but we all forget that.”

If the daughter of a food safety nerd had such contempt for food safety training, I thought, maybe we should look at what works and what doesn’t.

We’ve reviewed various training packages over the years, and have a paper about a specific training approach coming out, but haven’t done the kind of observational research I’d like to. No one has.

But that doesn’t stop groups from trumpeting the glories of training.

The U.S. National Restaurant Association has offered the food safety training program, ServSafe, for almost 40 years and has now certified 5 million people.

I say some training is better than none, if only for introducing awareness that food safety is an issue. To coach a travel team in little girls’ ice hockey requires 32 or so hours of training; most people serve food with none.

But the more important question is what training or information works and what doesn’t. And collecting meaningful evidence to verify claims.