Potato Day, which falls on January 28^th each year, has long passed, but I choose to celebrate potatoes today.  To spuds all over the world, in all their many forms, I rejoice in your palatability.

But as sweet as they may be, potatoes are simultaneously defiant—infamous for causing foodborne illnesses.  In fact, food-safety-and-you.com has ranked potatoes as one of the “Ten Riskiest Foods.”  To give you an idea of how many people have become sick on account of potatoes, food-safety-and-you.com’s author estimates that there have been over 100 outbreaks and 3,600 illnesses associated with spuds since 2000.

Why?  One of the reasons potatoes are so susceptible to pathogens is because they are often prepared improperly.  Baked potatoes are commonly cooked in tin foil, and that is fine, but if the wrapped potatoes are left out to cool on the counter too long, the combination of being wrapped up and sitting out for an extended period of time creates an ideal environment for Clostridium botulinum—or botulism—to occur.

Another way that potatoes become dangerous is through light exposure.  If potatoes are stored in the light, rather than a dark abode, a naturally occurring toxin—solanine—is produced.  Solanine turns potatoes green and gives them a bitter taste, not to mention causes solanine poisoning.

Like most foodborne illnesses, however, botulism and solanine poisoning can be prevented.  How?  By practicing food safety!  Cool down potatoes properly and refrain from storing potatoes in the tin foil you baked them in.  Also, store raw potatoes in a cool (between 50 and 65 degrees Fahrenheit), dark place.  If you notice a potato has been sitting out for too long—or is discolored or bitter, throw it out.  The pennies you paid for the potatoes are not worth the foodborne illnesses you could get.

So if you love potatoes, commit to keeping them—and yourself—safe.

–Aubrey Pontious

Resources: food-safety-and-you.com, extension.psu.edu, culinaryarts.about.com

Reselling a pair of returned tennis shoes is one thing, but is it acceptable to resell cheese that a dissatisfied customer has returned? As it turns out, you probably shouldn’t. Four individuals have recently been indicted for their involvement in a 2007 scheme to distribute more than 110,000 pounds of previously-owned, contaminated Mexican-style cheese. The four indicted individuals had scraped off the moldy or defective parts of the cheese to try to resell it, and they lied to the FDA inspectors. An analysis of the cheese showed that it contained traces of Salmonella, E. coli, and other harmful bacteria, but luckily the product was recalled and foodborne illness cases were avoided. The product was being sold in 35-40 lb. blocks in retail stores in Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Georgia, and Texas.

The defendants are now being charged with “conspiracy to violate the federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act by introducing adulterated cheese into interstate commerce and three counts of violating food safety law.” If the individuals are found guilty in court, they could face jail time and fines up to $250,000.

Didn’t these individuals know that selling defective cheese is not a “gouda” idea? Sorry, I just had to throw in a cheese joke!

–Madelyn Tucker

Source: foodsafetynews.com

Since the 1960s, Bisphenol A (BPA) has been used in plastic beverage containers and the sealants in metal food cans. Concerns about the safety of this chemical were raised when research showed that small amounts of BPA leak into food and beverages from their containers, possibly posing a health hazard to consumers. You probably have noticed “BPA free” labels placed on reusable water bottles in response to this research. However, the FDA recently issued a consumer update that claims there is no convincing evidence to support the supposed hazardous nature of BPA. The FDA has stated that the trace amounts of the chemical that may enter the body are not a cause for concern because they are “rapidly metabolized and eliminated.” The FDA also recently denied a petition from the Natural Resources Defense Council to ban the use of BPA in some products.

Consumer safety organizations, a number of scientists, and other opponents of the FDA’s decision and statement regarding the safety of BPA are concerned about the validity of the FDA’s research. According to Frederick Vom Saal, a BPA expert from the University of Missouri-Columbia, the FDA is essentially ignoring “all independent academic science” that has researched and shown the dangers of BPA. The agency’s research is also being questioned because it may have failed to detect BPA levels in human blood that could pose health hazards. Laura Vandenberg, a postdoctoral fellow at Tufts University, participated in a study that showed how chemicals like BPA can negatively affect hormonal signals even in small doses. She argues that the FDA has rejected studies like her own and “the majority of the data that is available [about BPA] in favor of two highly flawed studies.”

It is clear that the FDA’s statement has failed to solve the BPA debate. As with any other controversial topic, consumers should research various sides of the issue and make an informed decision about whether to trust products containing BPA, especially when their health is possibly on the line. The FDA does say that consumers who “want to limit their exposure to BPA” should avoid plastic containers that have the recycle codes 3 or 7 written on the bottom.

–Madelyn Tucker

Sources: huffingtonpost.com, fda.gov

The mention of Hepatitis A makes my toes curl.  As if the thought of an inflamed liver isn’t bad enough, the idea of fecal matter being passed on through food makes me want to dry heave.  So if you ask me, taking every precaution to avoid this virus is crucial.  But what do you think?  What would you be willing to do to prevent this virus from spreading?  Bill Marler, on his blog Marler Blog: Providing Commentary on Food Poisoning Outbreaks and Litigation, suggests, “We should be getting Hepatitis A vaccines—especially food service workers.”  And he has a good point.

Marler points to two recent cases that could have benefitted from Hepatitis A vaccines: In Boise, Idaho, an employee of the Cheesecake Factory tested positive for Hepatitis A, while a Gonzales Restaurant employee of Dallas County, Texas, also tested positive for the virus.  In both cases, customers of these restaurants are waiting—because that is all they can do now—to find out if they, too, will become infected.

But could this tension and possible contamination have been prevented?  Probably.  If food workers started getting Hepatitis A vaccines, outbreaks of this virus would cease to be a concern.  Like Marler points out in his article, these cases “would not be news if [the employees] had had a Hepatitis A vaccine.”  On that same note, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) also realize that a push is needed to provide not only the immunization, but also the education that will help people understand the importance of the vaccine.  Hopefully, through efforts like these, more food handlers will become aware of the dangers of Hepatitis A and feel a stronger desire to become immunized.

–Aubrey Pontious

To learn more about Hepatitis A and its effects, check out the video on MarlerBlog.com.

Blaise Pascal, a French scientist of the 17th century, researched the effects of pressure on fluids. His research led him to a method called high pressure processing (HPP) which uses pressure—rather than heat, chemicals, or irradiation—to preserve and sanitize food. Although discovered long ago, HPP has become quite a big deal in the food industry as of late.

In a Food Safety News article called “Putting on the Pressure: ‘No Heat’ Way to Zap Pathogens,” Cookson Beecher explains that more than four centuries after Pascal’s scientific advance, HPP is being utilized by companies like Maple Lodge Farms, Starbucks, Cargill, and Hormel to kill harmful pathogens like E.coli, Listeria, and Salmonella. And the good news is that this process does not change the nutritional quality or the taste of the treated food.

Many people in the food safety world regard HPP as a “natural option for food safety” and a “technological breakthrough.” V.M. Balasubramaniam, an HPP researcher, says that Cargill’s use of HPP is “the most promising food-safety innovation in recent years” and will become a “key player in food safety.” Companies are learning that HPP, though a more expensive way of preserving and sanitizing food, is worth the extra money to their consumers who are becoming increasingly aware of food safety issues.

–Aubrey Pontious

To learn more about HPP and its process, check out this video.