Modernist-Cuisine-Vol.-1-Small

3
T H E POLITICS OF
The E. Coli Outbreak of 2006
A foodborne outbreak can readily test whether a government’s
epidemiological tools, consumer protection mechanisms,
and regulatory systems are functioning properly.
A major outbreak of the pathogenic bacterium Escherichia
coli O157:H7 in 2006 provided a telling look at all three.
In the summer and fall of that year, foodborne E. coli
O157:H7 sickened 205 people in the United States. Half of
them had to be hospitalized, and three died. Epidemiologists
were able to trace the outbreak back to fresh baby spinach
that had been packaged at a California facility on August 15,
but were unable to pinpoint the exact origins of the contamination.
A joint investigation by the California Department of
Health Services and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
(FDA), however, suggested that the contamination could have
begun in one of four implicated spinach fields exposed to the
feces of cattle or wild boar—or it could have stemmed from
tainted irrigation water.
A subsequent multi-agency study published by the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) concluded that
a surprisingly high number of bacterial isolates from the wild
boar, cattle, surface water, sediment, and soil at a ranch near
the outbreak matched the implicated E. coli strain. It was the
first time E. coli O157:H7 had been isolated from wild boar in
the United States and the first indication that these animals
were either sentinels of, or active participants in, a potentially
overlooked mechanism of produce contamination.
Although it is difficult to know for sure what caused the
outbreak, the most likely scenario is rather complicated.
Herds of cattle in ranches near the spinach farms had members
infected with E. coli O157:H7. This infection is not uncommon
in cattle because it doesn’t produce serious illness
in them. But the cattle were isolated from the spinach fields,
so how could they have caused the outbreak?
California, where the spinach was grown, is also home to
European wild boar that were imported in the 1920s to be
hunted but that broke free and interbred with feral pigs from
domestic farms. It appears that the wild boar became infected
from the cattle, probably by eating their feces. The boar then
broke into the spinach fields and defecated on the spinach.
Ironically, the last stage in the infection chain resulted from
conservation measures based on good intentions: facilities at
the packing plant washed the spinach, but then reused the
washing water, allowing contamination from only a tiny
fraction of the spinach to be spread throughout the entire
output of the plant.
Although the epidemiological investigation broke new
ground, other governmental responses to the outbreak
suggested ample room for improvement. In its first consumer
warning, issued September 14, the FDA advised that “consumers
not eat bagged fresh spinach at this time. ” The next
day, the FDA added the important caveat that the real danger
lay with raw spinach in particular, not cooked spinach. “FDA
advises that people not eat fresh spinach or fresh spinachcontaining
products that are consumed raw.”
Such nuanced advice lasted only a day, however. On
September 16 and for the next full week, the agency issued
variations on the same general (and oversimplified) warning:
“FDA advises consumers not to eat fresh spinach or fresh
spinach-containing products until further notice.”
Arguably, the best advice came not from the FDA but from
the CDC. Although it warned against selling, serving, or
eating any spinach implicated in the outbreak, the CDC also
correctly noted that “E. coli O157:H7 in spinach can be killed
by cooking at 160° Fahrenheit [71 °C] for 15 seconds.” The
agency also warned against cross-contamination: “If consumers
choose to cook the spinach, they should not allow the
raw spinach to contaminate other foods and food contact
surfaces, and they should wash hands, utensils, and surfaces
with hot, soapy water before and after handling the spinach.”
A 2008 report prepared for the U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform took
the FDA to task for its repeated failure to protect consumers
from tainted produce. Titled “FDA and Fresh Spinach Safety,”
the report noted that the E. coli O157:H7 outbreak was only
the latest of at least 20 linked to fresh spinach or lettuce in
the last 12 years. The growing popularity of freshly cut produce
undoubtedly factored into the surprising number of
outbreaks, but the report also faulted the FDA’s lack of
oversight. “It appears that FDA is inspecting high-risk facilities
infrequently, failing to take vigorous enforcement action
when it does inspect and identify violations, and not even
inspecting the most probable sources of many outbreaks,”
the report charged. Many of those faults may have been
linked to a common denominator: a chronic lack of funding.
For chefs, the take-home lesson is that government agencies
charged with safeguarding public health cannot entirely
prevent foodborne outbreaks and often do not issue the most
accurate advice during an outbreak itself. Arming yourself
with scientifically sound food safety information is your best
bet for minimizing the risk both to you and to your guests.
would meet with enormous resistance there.
The United States, however, lacks a broadly
recognized culture of making or eating raw milk
cheeses. Not coincidentally, health officials have
imposed inconsistent regulations on such cheeses.
Raw milk cheese aged less than 60 days cannot be
imported into the United States and cannot legally
cross U.S. state lines. Yet in 24 of the 50 states, it is
perfectly legal to make, sell, and consume raw
milk cheeses within the state. In most of Canada
raw milk cheese is banned, but in the province of
Quebec it is legal.
How can these discrepancies among and even
within countries persist? It comes down to politics.
In areas without a substantial local population
demanding unpasteurized milk cheeses
a few gourmets, foodies, and chefs don’t count for
much politicallyno backlash has ensued. So the
seemingly conservative rule holds, banning
anything that seems remotely suspicious.
Where artisanal cheese producers have more
public support, the laws allow raw milk cheese. Raw
milk cheese is a product of small-time artisans. As
of this writing, no large, politically connected
producers are making these cheeses in the U.S., so
no movement has emerged to make laws on raw
milk cheese more consistent and reasonable.
Producers and enthusiastic consumers did
manage to prevail against a U.S. ban on Jamón
Ibérico de Bellota, the great Spanish raw-cured
ham made from free-ranging pigs that eat only
acorns. Until late 2007, the ham was barred from
importation into the U.S., even though millions
of Spaniards have safely savored it. A Spanish
processing facility and fans of the ham jointly
spent a decade and millions of dollars to secure
a special license that allows hams processed in
that facility alone into the United States. This
concession represents a small victory for ham
connoisseurs. But it’s an odd precedent, given that
the officially licensed ham is no safer than the
traditional Spanish product lacking the requisite
paperwork.
More recently, bureaucratic forces seem to have
begun conspiring against the ham. Traditionally,
the hams come with the hoof attached to show
that the ham really is from a black-footed (pata
negra) pig, but in 2009 this practice was found to
violate a USDA regulation. So off with the hooves.
In another development, a trade dispute
between the United States and the European
Union caused the U.S. government to slap a 100%
tax on a variety of food products, including hams
imported from Europe with an intact bone. That
hams with a bone should be taxed while boneless
hams are not is bizarre, but such are the ways of
the government.
Bureaucracy affects food safety rules in more
subtle ways as well. Changing a regulation is
always harder than keeping it intact, particularly if
the change means sanctioning a new and strange
food or liberalizing an old standard. No one will
praise public health officials and organizations for
moist pork chops, but plenty will heap blame
should someone fall ill after regulators relax
a safety standard.
Cutting boards are prime territory for
cross-contamination among different
foods if they aren’t properly sanitized
between uses. Food on the cutting board
can contaminate whatever food next
comes in contact with the board’s surface
or the cutting knife. To prevent this, wash
cutting boards and other tools between
every use.
172 VOLUME 1 ·· HISTORY AND FUNDAMENTALS
FOOD SAFETY 173