“Not so!” said some. “None of those non-O157 STEC’s have been found in meat and no one has been reported as ill because of those rascals.”
So Mr. Marler hired IEH Labs to look for them. The lab found them in a very small portion of their samples. And just a few weeks ago, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention reported that non-O157’s as a group sickened more people than their big brother. It was probably because of improved testing, said federal health officials. There were 442 cases of E. coli O157 and about 41 percent required medical care. The other strains produced 451 cases, and 15 percent of those victims were hospitalized.
“But wait!” said some. “Lab tests are too slow and expensive and besides, the hurdles we’ve put in place for O157 should work just as well for the other six”
But the incidents caused by those six were still so rare that there was no rush to do something about them. Then came that European outbreak caused by a seventh cousin – O104:H4 - that was never even on the U.S. radar. After over two months of stumbling back and forth between several wrong ‘vectors’ and creating panic among consumers – the first symptoms were reported on March 25 - German authorities finally pinned the blame on bean sprouts from one small farm during a June 10 press conference. In the meantime, illnesses struck people in 13 European nations as well as Michigan, Massachusetts, Wisconsin and North Carolina.
The lab test objection also fell by the wayside in May when the USDA announced a standardized test for all six serotypes: 026, 0103, 045, 0121, 040 and the more virulent 0111.
Brand new research completed just days ago by German scientists indicates that the strain of E. coli bacteria that caused at least 3,792 illnesses (862 cases of HUS and 2,930 non-HUS illnesses) and 44 deaths in Europe is a ‘rare’ genetic mix with an ability to stick to intestinal walls that may have made it so lethal. The study, published in The Lancet on June 22, said the killer strain, E. coli O104:H4, was a hybrid first detected in a young German patient ten years ago.
Its virulence come from a marriage of two strains; An enterohemorragic E. coli (EHEC) that releases poisons called Shiga toxins and an enteroaggregative E. coli (EAEC) that adheres in a “stacked brick” fashion to the intestinal lining.
The New York Times said U.S. experts praised the German scientists’ work. According to Dr. Philip I. Tarr, a professor of pediatrics and expert in gut infections at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, the work and the entire outbreak are ‘a real game-changer.’
The study said the deadly EHEC/EAEC mix had been around for a decade. What is different from the 2001 bacteria is a newly developed resistance to a broad class of antibiotics including all penicillins and cephalosporins.
The lead scientist on the research project was Dr. Helge Karch who said, “E. coli O157:H7 came to Europe from America, spread by cattle. But O104:H4 seems to be different. I think it is human-specific.”
It’s definitely a human problem on a large scale and North America’s leading academics spent a considerable amount of time discussing E. coli and its ever-growing family tree during this week’s AMSA Reciprocal Meat Conference (RMC) at Kansas State University. This annual biggest gathering of meat science professionals takes a serious look at the issues that affect meat science and event organizers devoted hours of time to reviewing the latest findings about E. coli and discussing what new studies need to be funded.
The sometimes overheated rhetoric about the STECS’ had to be set aside in Manhattan to allow the science to be heard. What we heard was research indicates that the hurdles that help identify and destroy O157:H7 are also effective against those six STEC’s. No work has been done, though, on their ability to combat the European strain of O104:H7.
One of the more eloquent RMC presentations about the scientific research was from the American Meat Institute’s Dr. Betsy Booren. Not to be stampeded by panicked rhetoric, she looked out over a packed room on Tuesday and talked about what’s known about those STEC’s.
Q. Dr. Booren, your presentation on the health significance of shiga toxin producing E. coli during the Concurrent Session on Food Safety at the Reciprocal Meat Conference seemed to downplay the dangers of “The other six STEC’s.” Put them in perspective. Should consumers be concerned?
A. Let’s be clear: my message to the audience at the RMC was that I’m confident that U.S. beef is safe and that we are effectively targeting and destroying harmful bacteria. We’ve made dramatic, documented progress in this area.
Given the many things we still don’t know about non-O157 STECS and their prevalence on various foods, it’s tough at this point to put the risk in perspective.
But two things we do know are these. First, to date there has only been one recall with three illnesses of non O157 STECS linked to a beef product. Second, we know that the practices we have in place to combat E. coli O157:H7 do not discriminate. They are effective against all E. coli strains. As a scientist, I certainly want more information about non-O157 STECS. But I also know that the evidence points to a very safe beef supply.
Q. Your colleague, AMI Executive Vice President Jim Hodges, said this about the STEC’s: “Given the knowledge gaps that exist regarding non-O157:H7 STEC, it is particularly concerning that some policymakers and bloggers are advocating solutions without first scoping out the problem.”
Would you scope out the problem for me? What needs to be discovered before the industry can move forward?
A. In our August 2010 letter to Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, we recommended that a baseline study needs to be conducted to better understand the prevalence and etiology of non-O157 STECS. We also recommended a comprehensive risk assessment.
We feel strongly that we must address this issue comprehensively across all foods. We should not act based upon what we think we know based upon limited information because that can send us down the wrong path. We must operate with a more complete picture, which we just don’t have yet.
As we are creating this more complete picture, we can feel confident that our existing strategies against E. coli O157:H7 will be effective to the degree that non-O157 STECS can be found in beef.
Q. One of the most repeated concerns about STEC’s is we don’t know if the hurdles designed to combat O157:H7 are equally as effective on the other six. The AMI Foundation has backed some research aimed at identifying strategies to destroy non-O157:H7 E. coli. Would you talk about some of that research and the results?
A. We commissioned a white paper by Dr. Ellin Doyle of the University of Wisconsin to put the entire issue in perspective. That paper is complete and available on our Foundation Web site.
Currently, we have three additional projects ongoing at the University of Nebraska, University of Arkansas and Colorado State looking at various intervention strategies and decontamination methods. In addition, we are funding two projects at USDA’s ARA Meat Animal Research Center (MARC) that are validating the effectiveness of commonly used anti-microbials against pathogens that include non-O157 STECS.
The research projects not yet fully complete, but we have received preliminary data that confirm previous findings from USDA-MARC that existing interventions work effectively against all types of E. coli. These previous findings have been shared at FSIS/CDC/FDA public meetings on STEC in 2007 and 2008.
Q. The recent European outbreak created a lot of anxiety in the E. U. It was finally traced to sprouts after over a month of false starts, suggesting their food safety systems might be deficient. A similar outbreak here would create serious concern about the safety of our food supply. Are the U.S. systems capable of handling a similar outbreak more efficiently?
A. There definitely were challenges in the European investigation and they are testament to how much is still to be learned about non-O157 STECS.
I will admit my American bias, but we have some of the best investigative capabilities in the world to respond to disease investigations. If an outbreak occurred here, I think we would certainly handle it in the best way possible. However, these situations are never easy. Typically, in foodborne illness outbreaks, you are dealing with delayed onset of symptoms coupled with challenges in recalling what was consumed. Sometimes it is also difficult to find remaining suspect food to test once a problem arises.
Europe’s outbreak was tragic. If something good can come of it, it is this: policymakers and scientists globally have learned much from it and we will use what we have learned to prevent tragedies like the one that just occurred.
Q. During a press teleconference last week, AMI said they “have long advocated a measured, scientific approach to the potential risk posed by all STEC strains, including non-O157:H7 STEC.” That sentiment was captured in your August, 2010 letter to Agriculture Secretary Vilsack in which AMI recommended “eight strategies that would help build future public policy efforts on a sound foundation.” What are those strategies?
A. Focus on Prevention. Any new regulatory programs that USDA contemplates should be addressed within the framework of the existing Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point regulation. USDA should commission a group of qualified experts to review the current science related to the development of a comprehensive farm-to-table preventative strategy for non-O157:H7 STECs in beef products and report their finding to USDA and other stakeholders.
Conduct a Comprehensive Public Health Risk Assessment. Conducting a public risk assessment that is subjected to public review before regulators embark on any regulatory program to control non-O157:H7 STECs in raw beef products will provide a better understanding of the public health issues association with non-O157:H7 STECs.
Validate Analytical Laboratory Test Methods. We urged USDA to share with the meat and poultry industry, testing laboratories and test kit manufacturers the sampling and analytical methods that the agency will use to implement any regulatory program and ensure that the analytical methods are peer-reviewed before any regulatory program is initiated. An accurate, validated rapid analytical test must be available to the industry to effectively implement any regulatory program that would make it illegal to enter product containing non-O157:H7 STECs into commerce.
Conduct a Baseline Survey of Non-O157:H7 STECs on Beef Products: It’s simply imperative that FSIS conduct a baseline survey of beef products to include beef carcasses, ground beef and the raw materials used to manufacture ground beef in order to assess the impact of any new regulatory program that the agency may be contemplating.
Measure Progress Based on the Public Health Outcome: If FSIS decides to further regulate non-O157:H7 STECs, it is prudent to evaluate the success or failure of any such initiative by actual illness reductions.
Expedite Approval of New Microbial Interventions: We recommended that USDA convene a joint task force of all federal agencies that are involved in the approval of new microbial intervention technologies and the affected meat and poultry industry to identify approval roadblocks and to develop a better, expedited approval process that can rapidly move new technology to commercialization. New preventive technologies that are effective against all STECs are needed to control these pathogens before USDA considers making non-O157:H7 an adulterant on beef products.
Determine Impact on International Trade. USDA, the U.S. Trade Representative, and the Department of State should commission a study to determine the impact on international beef trade that would result from declaring non-O157:H7 STECs an adulterant on beef products. Such a policy shift will be viewed by our trading partners as erecting a non-tariff trade barrier to prevent entry of beef products into the U.S.
Provide an Open and Transparent Public Policy Process. We recommended that if FSIS decides to further regulate non-O157:H7 STECs in beef products, it should only be done through notice and comment rulemaking. The questions surrounding non-O157:H7 STECs demand a disciplined, open, and transparent regulatory process.
Q. The AMI as well as members of the American Meat Science Association work long and hard on the science to ensure meat and poultry products are safe. Jim Hodges said. “We want our customers to enjoy safe and nutritious products throughout their lives and that means we must stay vigilant at all times in meeting emerging food safety challenges. That is exactly what we are doing.”
No question that the AMI understands the science behind food safety but those groups that stand on the other side of the aisle often use emotional appeals when they go on the attack. What do you say to the large number of people who don’t trust the science?
That’s a great question. I understand the emotion of the issue, especially for those who have been impacted by a foodborne illness. I say to them that ensuring food safety to the best of our ability is ethically appropriate, it’s good for our businesses and it’s good for our families, too, who eat from the same meat supply.
And then we need to unabashedly encourage them to look to the science because it’s the science which shows that we have a strong defense system against non-O157 STECS – like food safety management systems that typically include anti-microbial interventions -- that appears to be serving us well in the U.S. I’m reassured by this, and I can only hope that others will embrace the evidence.
Good science is what has helped us face public health issues historically and it will serve us well into the future.
Chuck Jolley is a free lance writer, based in Kansas City, who covers a wide range of ag industry topics for Vance Publishing.
For twenty years, the news about E. coli has been so thoroughly one-sided that the public probably thinks its last name is O157:H7. Then that notorious barrister Bill Marler introduced us to six close relatives, the so-called non-O157 STEC’s that had the capability of making us sick.
Comments (3) Leave a comment