Public health agencies and laboratories have a crucial role to play in the BP oil spill crisis as testers of seafood. Chemical testing ensures that seafood from the Gulf of Mexico is not contaminated by oil and is therefore safe to eat. NOAA’s seafood-testing method is the current gold standard—and sole approved testing method—for reopening waters. The test is able to detect PAH, an oil compound, in both fish and shellfish.
All 50 US states participate in a food-testing network called the Food Emergency Response Network (FERN). NOAA’s test is available to all FERN labs and, as the testing workload expands, FDA will increasingly encourage FERN labs to utilize NOAA’s test. In addition to detecting PAH, labs can assist with baseline testing by comparing pre- and post-spill PAH levels. In performing these chemical analyses, public health labs will be instrumental to the re-opening of fisheries.
Showing posts with label food safety. Show all posts
Showing posts with label food safety. Show all posts
Monday, June 21, 2010
Monday, April 19, 2010
Case Study 1 -- The Response
To follow up on our previous post about Mr Fudd and his family's mysterious illness...
Response:
If the specimen was initially tested in a sentinel clinical laboratory where analyses are unable to rule out a possible Bioterrorism agent (in this case, Yersinia pestis) using standard methods they would immediately refer suspicious isolates and specimens to their collaborating LRN reference laboratory.
Case Investigation:
Upon investigation the Fudd family was attending a family and friends reunion in New Mexico. One of the Fudd family traditions is to organize a wascially wabbit hunt the morning of the reunion, and dine on rabbit stew and other assorted rabbit dishes at that evening’s party.
In humans, Yersina pestis is most often acquired from the bite of infected fleas that feed from animal reservoir such as squirrels, rabbits, and prairie dogs. Although rare, there have been several documented reports of Y. pestis infection from the direct contact of contaminated meat products either through ingestion or inhalation.
Response:
If the specimen was initially tested in a sentinel clinical laboratory where analyses are unable to rule out a possible Bioterrorism agent (in this case, Yersinia pestis) using standard methods they would immediately refer suspicious isolates and specimens to their collaborating LRN reference laboratory.
Case Investigation:
Upon investigation the Fudd family was attending a family and friends reunion in New Mexico. One of the Fudd family traditions is to organize a wascially wabbit hunt the morning of the reunion, and dine on rabbit stew and other assorted rabbit dishes at that evening’s party.
In humans, Yersina pestis is most often acquired from the bite of infected fleas that feed from animal reservoir such as squirrels, rabbits, and prairie dogs. Although rare, there have been several documented reports of Y. pestis infection from the direct contact of contaminated meat products either through ingestion or inhalation.
Celebrating Lab Week -- Case Study 1
Happy National Medical Laboratory Professionals Week!
As a fun activity during the week several programs at APHL will be posting fun case studies related to the work being done in public health laboratories across the country. Today’s case study comes from Infectious Disease, Food Safety, and Emergency Preparedness.
Case Study
Mr. Fudd presents in the emergency room in Chicago with fever, lethargy, severe pharyngitis, tonsillitis and a striking swelling of his neck. The ER Physician ordered Rapid Streptococcus A Dtesting, gram stain, and respiratory cultures.
Two days following the first patient presentation, three additional Fudd family members present to the same emergency room with similar symptoms.
Laboratory Tests --
(Photo: Blood Agar Plate Growth at 48 hours)
Biochemicals --
(Photo: Gram Stain of Culture Isolate)
Please include your comments/answers below. APHL is excited to hear what your laboratory would do next! The response and case investigation will be posted this afternoon. Stay tuned...
As a fun activity during the week several programs at APHL will be posting fun case studies related to the work being done in public health laboratories across the country. Today’s case study comes from Infectious Disease, Food Safety, and Emergency Preparedness.
Case Study
Mr. Fudd presents in the emergency room in Chicago with fever, lethargy, severe pharyngitis, tonsillitis and a striking swelling of his neck. The ER Physician ordered Rapid Streptococcus A Dtesting, gram stain, and respiratory cultures.
Two days following the first patient presentation, three additional Fudd family members present to the same emergency room with similar symptoms. All patient specimens were sent to the laboratory for ordered laboratory testing. The lab results included the following:
Laboratory Tests --
(Photo: Blood Agar Plate Growth at 48 hours)
- Rapid Streptococcus A: Negative
- Gram Stain: Gram Negative Rods
- Culture incubated at 37C for(24 hours): Pin point colonies on Blood agar Plate and Chocolate agar
- Culture incubated at 37C for (48 hours): Grey, white, translucent colonies on Blood agar Plate and Chocolate agar; Clear White Non Lactose Fermenting colonies on MacConkey agar
(Photo: Gram Stain of Culture Isolate)
- Catalase: Positive
- Oxidase: Negative
- Urease: Negative
- Indole: Negative
Please include your comments/answers below. APHL is excited to hear what your laboratory would do next! The response and case investigation will be posted this afternoon. Stay tuned...
Thursday, April 8, 2010
National Public Health Week -- APHL Honors Public Health Laboratories
By Mary Shaffran, Senior Director, Public Health Programs, APHL
Along with our partners, the public health laboratories are working to keep communities healthy. Laboratorians work behind the scenes. Public health laboratories serve as the nation’s early warning system for diseases and other health hazards. When health risks emerge or re-emerge, public health laboratories analyze the threat, provide the answers needed to mount an effective response and act to protect the public in collaboration with other decision makers. They protect our health by monitoring continuously for diseases and other health hazards.
- Public health laboratories in every state are the backbone of our nation’s infectious disease surveillance networks. They are analyzing infectious diseases such as influenza to determine if they are changing and reporting this information to public health officials so they can determine effective prevention measures. [More on the Infectious Disease Program]
- More than 11,000 babies are screened daily for potentially life-threatening genetic and congenital disorders.
- In order to detect foodborne outbreaks and ultimately keep Americans safe from foodborne disease, public health laboratorians test human specimens and food samples for bacteria such as Salmonella and E. Coli.
Join APHL and our many partners in celebrating National Public Health Week. For more information, visit http://www.nphw.org/.
Along with our partners, the public health laboratories are working to keep communities healthy. Laboratorians work behind the scenes. Public health laboratories serve as the nation’s early warning system for diseases and other health hazards. When health risks emerge or re-emerge, public health laboratories analyze the threat, provide the answers needed to mount an effective response and act to protect the public in collaboration with other decision makers. They protect our health by monitoring continuously for diseases and other health hazards.
Just a few of the things that laboratories are doing every day to make sure that you and your neighbors are healthy:
- Public health laboratories in every state are the backbone of our nation’s infectious disease surveillance networks. They are analyzing infectious diseases such as influenza to determine if they are changing and reporting this information to public health officials so they can determine effective prevention measures. [More on the Infectious Disease Program]
- More than 11,000 babies are screened daily for potentially life-threatening genetic and congenital disorders.
- Matt and Noelle Bamonte discovered that their seemingly healthy baby boy had PKU, a serious disorder that can cause brain damage if not treated from a very early age. Noelle is certain that without laboratory screening, her little boy would have been vastly different. Now, aside from a strict diet, he lives a normal life! [More of their story]
- In order to detect foodborne outbreaks and ultimately keep Americans safe from foodborne disease, public health laboratorians test human specimens and food samples for bacteria such as Salmonella and E. Coli.
- In 2006, the New Mexico public health laboratory pinpointed the exact source of the E. Coli that made its way into spinach and made hundreds of people sick. [More on the E.Coli outbreak]
- California scientists are collecting specimens from 2,000 people to test for the presence toxins used in used in industry, agriculture and the home. They’ll use this information to explore such things as the connection between exposure and diseases, and to examine changes in exposure over time and the connection to changing health policies and industry regulations working to reduce exposure. [More on the work in California]
- In 2008, severe flooding in Mason City, Iowa caused the closure of the water treatment facility. Residents were advised to boil their water until the system was restored and the water was tested to ensure it was safe to drink. The Hygienic Lab rose to the task and tested the water quickly bringing the treatment operation back online. [More on the floods in Iowa]
We would like to thank our unsung heroes in lab coats for protecting the public’s health – every day.
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
Salmonella Outbreak Leads to Heightened Surveillance
As laboratory and epidemiology surveillance systems expand and improve, more foodborne outbreaks are being detected. Additionally, the vehicles responsible have become more diverse. Whereas the classic “church supper” and other point source outbreaks once made headlines, now fresh produce, peanut butter, veggie snacks and even reptiles have been implicated in localized and complex multi-state outbreaks.
New culprits, including ingredients that were overlooked years ago, are now being detected as the source of food contamination. In the past few weeks, public health officials have heightened surveillance for Salmonella in the wake of the recalls of hydrolyzed vegetable protein or HVP. HVP is a flavoring additive that has been widely used in the food industry. It is sometimes referred to on packaging as “natural flavors.” This additive is found in thousands of products ranging from snack foods, ready-to-eat products (hot dogs, for example) soups, sauces and other processed foods. This recall may be the largest to date. (List of recalled foods.) Although no human illness has been associated with the recalls to date, the implicated strain of Salmonella was found at a food flavoring processing plant in Nevada.
APHL continues to support member laboratories on foodborne surveillance networks such as PulseNet. This laboratory-based surveillance system detects clusters of foodborne illnesses by using DNA fingerprinting technology. APHL supports member laboratories in the PulseNet network to improve surveillance though trainings, technical meetings, information dissemination, and grants.
This recall demonstrates the critical importance of the public health laboratory system and the need for maintaining and expanding food safety surveillance networks. By catching contamination more quickly, labs are able to prevent widespread outbreaks of foodborne illnesses; another important way that public health laboratories are keeping you healthy.
New culprits, including ingredients that were overlooked years ago, are now being detected as the source of food contamination. In the past few weeks, public health officials have heightened surveillance for Salmonella in the wake of the recalls of hydrolyzed vegetable protein or HVP. HVP is a flavoring additive that has been widely used in the food industry. It is sometimes referred to on packaging as “natural flavors.” This additive is found in thousands of products ranging from snack foods, ready-to-eat products (hot dogs, for example) soups, sauces and other processed foods. This recall may be the largest to date. (List of recalled foods.) Although no human illness has been associated with the recalls to date, the implicated strain of Salmonella was found at a food flavoring processing plant in Nevada.
APHL continues to support member laboratories on foodborne surveillance networks such as PulseNet. This laboratory-based surveillance system detects clusters of foodborne illnesses by using DNA fingerprinting technology. APHL supports member laboratories in the PulseNet network to improve surveillance though trainings, technical meetings, information dissemination, and grants.
This recall demonstrates the critical importance of the public health laboratory system and the need for maintaining and expanding food safety surveillance networks. By catching contamination more quickly, labs are able to prevent widespread outbreaks of foodborne illnesses; another important way that public health laboratories are keeping you healthy.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Yet Another Multi-state Salmonella Outbreak Proves Need for PulseNet
The latest large-scale foodborne disease outbreak—involving Salmonella-tainted Italian salami products—has sickened at least 225 people in 44 states and Washington, DC. More than 50 are suffering illness severe enough to require hospitalization.
Coming on the heels of several high-profile, multi-state outbreaks involving everything from spinach to peanut butter, the latest incident raises questions about the safety of the food supply.
A quick review of the current outbreak reveals several trends.
1) The outbreak involves a collection of food items: about two dozen different ready-to-eat salami products. (Recall that a 2008-2009 Salmonella outbreak was linked to more than 400 different peanut-butter-containing foods).
2) The volume of products recalled is immense: more than 1.25 million pounds of meat.
3) The suspected source of the bacterium is an imported food item: the black pepper used to flavor the salami products.
In short, the food chain has become increasing convoluted and global in nature. Foods travel farther distances to reach consumers, and one product may contain ingredients sourced from several distinct producers (who may be based in the US or abroad, potentially in countries with more lax food safety regulations than the US). All of these factors increase the risk for contamination.
While APHL has no formal role in preventing food contamination, the association has played a pivotal role in detecting it so fewer people suffer illness. Laboratory-based surveillance—using the APHL/CDC PulseNet system—enables outbreaks to be identified much more swiftly than would otherwise be the case (including the ongoing salami-related outbreak), and undoubtedly detects small outbreaks that would otherwise go unnoticed. In the absence of more stringent food-safety regulations, PulseNet offers some assurance that tainted food products will be brought to the attention of state and federal authorities. In fact, the PulseNet system has proven so effective that there has been great interest in expanding it internationally.
APHL has also provided substantive input into the Guidelines for Foodborne Disease Outbreak Response recently released by the Council to Improve Foodborne Outbreak Response. These guidelines are important because they provide a model and benchmarks for the kind of multi-disciplinary and multi-agency collaboration essential to contain an outbreak. The recent Salmonella outbreak, for example, involves ingredients regulated by two different federal agencies: the USDA, which regulates meat, and the FDA, which regulates pepper.
Coming on the heels of several high-profile, multi-state outbreaks involving everything from spinach to peanut butter, the latest incident raises questions about the safety of the food supply.
A quick review of the current outbreak reveals several trends.
1) The outbreak involves a collection of food items: about two dozen different ready-to-eat salami products. (Recall that a 2008-2009 Salmonella outbreak was linked to more than 400 different peanut-butter-containing foods).
2) The volume of products recalled is immense: more than 1.25 million pounds of meat.
3) The suspected source of the bacterium is an imported food item: the black pepper used to flavor the salami products.
In short, the food chain has become increasing convoluted and global in nature. Foods travel farther distances to reach consumers, and one product may contain ingredients sourced from several distinct producers (who may be based in the US or abroad, potentially in countries with more lax food safety regulations than the US). All of these factors increase the risk for contamination.
While APHL has no formal role in preventing food contamination, the association has played a pivotal role in detecting it so fewer people suffer illness. Laboratory-based surveillance—using the APHL/CDC PulseNet system—enables outbreaks to be identified much more swiftly than would otherwise be the case (including the ongoing salami-related outbreak), and undoubtedly detects small outbreaks that would otherwise go unnoticed. In the absence of more stringent food-safety regulations, PulseNet offers some assurance that tainted food products will be brought to the attention of state and federal authorities. In fact, the PulseNet system has proven so effective that there has been great interest in expanding it internationally.
APHL has also provided substantive input into the Guidelines for Foodborne Disease Outbreak Response recently released by the Council to Improve Foodborne Outbreak Response. These guidelines are important because they provide a model and benchmarks for the kind of multi-disciplinary and multi-agency collaboration essential to contain an outbreak. The recent Salmonella outbreak, for example, involves ingredients regulated by two different federal agencies: the USDA, which regulates meat, and the FDA, which regulates pepper.
Friday, January 22, 2010
The Scoop: Michael Taylor, FDA’s First Deputy Commissioner For Foods
By Nancy Maddox, MPH
The new Food and Drug Administration (FDA) post, deputy commissioner for foods (DCF), was created to help fulfill President Obama’s pledge to strengthen food safety in the wake of a number of multi-state outbreaks that have made Americans wary of the food-industrial complex.
According to an FDA press release, the deputy commissioner will:
• Help the agency plan and implement a “prevention-based strategy for food safety.”
• Implement new food safety legislation being crafted in Congress that will almost certainly expand FDA oversight authority.
• Ensure accurate nutritional information on food labels.
The first person to hold this post, Michael Taylor, has received mixed reviews from the blogosphere owing his industrial ties. Taylor has been in and out of government service, mixing work at the FDA and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) with a “public policy” (a.k.a. lobbying) position at Monsanto, a position at a law firm representing Monsanto, a stint at a think tank (Resources for the Future) and a research and teaching position at the George Washington University (GWU) School of Public Health and Health Services.
The Washington Post reports that Taylor was responsible for unpopular federal safety regulations impacting producers of seafood, juices, meat and poultry. But during his FDA tenure, the agency approved Monsanto’s bovine growth hormone, declared that milk producers have no requirement to disclose BGH use, and issued a policy stating that genetically-engineered plant varieties (such as those produced by Monsanto) require no special agency oversight.
Most recently, as a senior FDA advisor, Taylor tried to ban the sale of warm-water oysters harvested between April and October, unless treated to kill Vibrio vulnificus. Faced with opposition from Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) and others, the agency has agreed to postpone a ban and study the issue further.
Noted nutritionist Marion Nestle, a professor at New York University, considers Taylor a good choice. She points out that as head of the USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service, he required science-based hazard analysis and critical control point (HACCP) systems in every meat and poultry plant—a move that took “real courage.”
Nestle also applauds “Stronger Partnerships for Safer Food: An Agenda for Strengthening State and Local Roles in the Nation’s Food Safety System,” a report Taylor co-authored while at GWU in collaboration with the Association of Food and Drug Officials, the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials and the National Association of County and City Health Officials.
The report endorses many APHL food safety priorities, including implementation of guidelines produced by the Council to Improve Foodborne Outbreak Response (CIFOR), of which APHL is a member.
Among other things, the report calls for more uniform laboratory methods for food safety testing, increased funding for FoodNet, greater multi-disciplinary collaboration in food safety investigations and greater federal investment—specifically in the form of a food safety block grant and federal matching grant program—to build the capacity of state and local food safety programs and “foster improvement and innovation beyond base capacity building.”
APHL wishes the new commissioner the best of luck and looks forward to working with him to advance many of these goals.
The new Food and Drug Administration (FDA) post, deputy commissioner for foods (DCF), was created to help fulfill President Obama’s pledge to strengthen food safety in the wake of a number of multi-state outbreaks that have made Americans wary of the food-industrial complex.
According to an FDA press release, the deputy commissioner will:
• Help the agency plan and implement a “prevention-based strategy for food safety.”
• Implement new food safety legislation being crafted in Congress that will almost certainly expand FDA oversight authority.
• Ensure accurate nutritional information on food labels.
The first person to hold this post, Michael Taylor, has received mixed reviews from the blogosphere owing his industrial ties. Taylor has been in and out of government service, mixing work at the FDA and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) with a “public policy” (a.k.a. lobbying) position at Monsanto, a position at a law firm representing Monsanto, a stint at a think tank (Resources for the Future) and a research and teaching position at the George Washington University (GWU) School of Public Health and Health Services.
The Washington Post reports that Taylor was responsible for unpopular federal safety regulations impacting producers of seafood, juices, meat and poultry. But during his FDA tenure, the agency approved Monsanto’s bovine growth hormone, declared that milk producers have no requirement to disclose BGH use, and issued a policy stating that genetically-engineered plant varieties (such as those produced by Monsanto) require no special agency oversight.
Most recently, as a senior FDA advisor, Taylor tried to ban the sale of warm-water oysters harvested between April and October, unless treated to kill Vibrio vulnificus. Faced with opposition from Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) and others, the agency has agreed to postpone a ban and study the issue further.
Noted nutritionist Marion Nestle, a professor at New York University, considers Taylor a good choice. She points out that as head of the USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service, he required science-based hazard analysis and critical control point (HACCP) systems in every meat and poultry plant—a move that took “real courage.”
Nestle also applauds “Stronger Partnerships for Safer Food: An Agenda for Strengthening State and Local Roles in the Nation’s Food Safety System,” a report Taylor co-authored while at GWU in collaboration with the Association of Food and Drug Officials, the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials and the National Association of County and City Health Officials.
The report endorses many APHL food safety priorities, including implementation of guidelines produced by the Council to Improve Foodborne Outbreak Response (CIFOR), of which APHL is a member.
Among other things, the report calls for more uniform laboratory methods for food safety testing, increased funding for FoodNet, greater multi-disciplinary collaboration in food safety investigations and greater federal investment—specifically in the form of a food safety block grant and federal matching grant program—to build the capacity of state and local food safety programs and “foster improvement and innovation beyond base capacity building.”
APHL wishes the new commissioner the best of luck and looks forward to working with him to advance many of these goals.
Monday, November 23, 2009
PulseNet International: Detecting Global Foodborne Outbreaks
by Kristy Kubota, MPH, senior specialist for PulseNet Program, and Kara Watarida, temporary PulseNet program coordinator
Imagine an international outbreak of E. coli O157:H7. With the changes of the nation’s eating habits, the dynamics of the US population, increased international travel and the globalization of the food supply, global foodborne outbreaks do occur and may increase due to these factors. Thanks to PulseNet International there is a way to determine if an outbreak happening in your town is linked to an outbreak in Europe.
On November 12-13, CDC, APHL, WHO and PulseNet regional coordinators from around the world met in Buenos Aires, Argentina, for the 2nd PulseNet international Steering Planning meeting. This meeting brought together PulseNet coordinators from the United States, Europe, Canada, Pacific Asia, Latin America and Middle East to discuss issues related to protocols/next generation subtyping methods, regional updates and development of a strategic plan for the coming year.
One of the more interesting aspects of this meeting was learning about international outbreaks and how molecular subtyping has been applied for foodborne investigations worldwide. With all nations using the same standardized PulseNet protocols, DNA fingerprints are generated and can be “matched” across country borders. For example, in 2009 PulseNet Pacific Asia conducted an E. coli O157:H7 outbreak investigation associated with a steakhouse restaurant with possible links to U.S. imported beef. The link was dismissed upon sharing the subtyping information between the US and Japan.
The PulseNet network has come a long way since its inception in 1996, as a collaborative “project” between CDC, APHL and a few US states. It has now grown to PulseNet International -- United States, Europe, Canada, Asia Pacific, Latin America, Middle East and soon Africa. APHL will continue to support these partners in working towards a sustainable international foodborne diseases surveillance network.
Imagine an international outbreak of E. coli O157:H7. With the changes of the nation’s eating habits, the dynamics of the US population, increased international travel and the globalization of the food supply, global foodborne outbreaks do occur and may increase due to these factors. Thanks to PulseNet International there is a way to determine if an outbreak happening in your town is linked to an outbreak in Europe.
On November 12-13, CDC, APHL, WHO and PulseNet regional coordinators from around the world met in Buenos Aires, Argentina, for the 2nd PulseNet international Steering Planning meeting. This meeting brought together PulseNet coordinators from the United States, Europe, Canada, Pacific Asia, Latin America and Middle East to discuss issues related to protocols/next generation subtyping methods, regional updates and development of a strategic plan for the coming year.
One of the more interesting aspects of this meeting was learning about international outbreaks and how molecular subtyping has been applied for foodborne investigations worldwide. With all nations using the same standardized PulseNet protocols, DNA fingerprints are generated and can be “matched” across country borders. For example, in 2009 PulseNet Pacific Asia conducted an E. coli O157:H7 outbreak investigation associated with a steakhouse restaurant with possible links to U.S. imported beef. The link was dismissed upon sharing the subtyping information between the US and Japan.
The PulseNet network has come a long way since its inception in 1996, as a collaborative “project” between CDC, APHL and a few US states. It has now grown to PulseNet International -- United States, Europe, Canada, Asia Pacific, Latin America, Middle East and soon Africa. APHL will continue to support these partners in working towards a sustainable international foodborne diseases surveillance network.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Who Will Help Build Food Safety Partnerships?
by Mike Smith, specialist, food safety program
APHL is holding the 13th Annual PulseNet Update Meeting in Utah this week. In the spirit of partnership, this year’s meeting is being held in conjunction with the 5th Annual OutbreakNet Meeting. Holding these meetings together is allowing professionals in the fields of epidemiology and laboratory science to exchange ideas and information as we improve a U.S. food safety system that some believe is faltering.
Michael Taylor, the new senior advisor to the commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, presented the keynote address. In his speech, Taylor emphasized the need to “construct a whole new level of partnership to prevent foodborne illness.” He went on to state that “it must be a partnership that empowers the full range of people working on food safety at federal, state and local levels to succeed in their common cause of preventing foodborne illness.” Taylor stressed that these partnerships will be key if the prevention-focused vision for food safety in the U.S. set forth by FDA and Congress is to be successful. It’s going to take adequately-funded public health professionals across a range of disciplines at the federal, state and local levels working in harmony to effectively implement and execute FDA’s public health prevention vision. Now that there seems to be a real opportunity for change, let’s hope that our lawmakers provide more than just lip service to support this ambitious endeavor.
To highlight the theme of partnerships that Taylor so eloquently spoke about in his speech, I would like to close with the following analogy. The current U.S. food safety system is a very complex machine much like the engine of a car. And like the engine of a car, the U.S. food safety system consists of many pieces working in unison. If even one piece of the food safety engine malfunctions, the whole machine breaks down. In the past, when these pieces have broken, the lawmakers and leaders of this country have been too eager to replace the needed precision components with discount parts. Worse yet, it seems they neglected the maintenance of the machine altogether. As evidenced by foodborne illness outbreaks over the past 15 years, we can’t afford to let this machine falter any longer. It’s time that we start investing in the whole machine, maintaining it so that we don’t continue to experience these costly, and far too often deadly, outbreaks. The opportunity for change is now. Are the lawmakers ready to take this issue seriously? For the sake of this country’s well-being, let’s hope so.
APHL is holding the 13th Annual PulseNet Update Meeting in Utah this week. In the spirit of partnership, this year’s meeting is being held in conjunction with the 5th Annual OutbreakNet Meeting. Holding these meetings together is allowing professionals in the fields of epidemiology and laboratory science to exchange ideas and information as we improve a U.S. food safety system that some believe is faltering.
Michael Taylor, the new senior advisor to the commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, presented the keynote address. In his speech, Taylor emphasized the need to “construct a whole new level of partnership to prevent foodborne illness.” He went on to state that “it must be a partnership that empowers the full range of people working on food safety at federal, state and local levels to succeed in their common cause of preventing foodborne illness.” Taylor stressed that these partnerships will be key if the prevention-focused vision for food safety in the U.S. set forth by FDA and Congress is to be successful. It’s going to take adequately-funded public health professionals across a range of disciplines at the federal, state and local levels working in harmony to effectively implement and execute FDA’s public health prevention vision. Now that there seems to be a real opportunity for change, let’s hope that our lawmakers provide more than just lip service to support this ambitious endeavor.
To highlight the theme of partnerships that Taylor so eloquently spoke about in his speech, I would like to close with the following analogy. The current U.S. food safety system is a very complex machine much like the engine of a car. And like the engine of a car, the U.S. food safety system consists of many pieces working in unison. If even one piece of the food safety engine malfunctions, the whole machine breaks down. In the past, when these pieces have broken, the lawmakers and leaders of this country have been too eager to replace the needed precision components with discount parts. Worse yet, it seems they neglected the maintenance of the machine altogether. As evidenced by foodborne illness outbreaks over the past 15 years, we can’t afford to let this machine falter any longer. It’s time that we start investing in the whole machine, maintaining it so that we don’t continue to experience these costly, and far too often deadly, outbreaks. The opportunity for change is now. Are the lawmakers ready to take this issue seriously? For the sake of this country’s well-being, let’s hope so.
Monday, August 24, 2009
APHL Staff Explore Emerging Technologies
by Sikha Singh, specialist, Laboratory Response Network
Recently, APHL staff met with a bioMérieux representative to gather more information on an advanced microbial genotyping system. This emerging technology, called Diversilab, is geared toward rapidly tracking the spread and source of microbial infection, contamination and foodborne outbreaks. In some aspects, the Diversilab system may be comparable to Pulsed Field Gel Electrophoresis (PFGE), a DNA "fingerprinting" method that is the gold standard for subtyping bacteria. This type of technology may be used in the future to analyze and monitor foodborne disease outbreaks. APHL staff continue to monitor emerging technologies that could benefit our member laboratories in their efforts to quickly detect pathogens and improve public health response. BioMérieux is an APHL Silver Level Sustaining Member.
Recently, APHL staff met with a bioMérieux representative to gather more information on an advanced microbial genotyping system. This emerging technology, called Diversilab, is geared toward rapidly tracking the spread and source of microbial infection, contamination and foodborne outbreaks. In some aspects, the Diversilab system may be comparable to Pulsed Field Gel Electrophoresis (PFGE), a DNA "fingerprinting" method that is the gold standard for subtyping bacteria. This type of technology may be used in the future to analyze and monitor foodborne disease outbreaks. APHL staff continue to monitor emerging technologies that could benefit our member laboratories in their efforts to quickly detect pathogens and improve public health response. BioMérieux is an APHL Silver Level Sustaining Member.
Monday, July 20, 2009
Experts Cite Lack of Resources for Public Health Laboratories as Impediment to Response in Foodborne Outbreaks
A lack of resources at state and local public health laboratories slows response to foodborne outbreaks, according to experts at a national meeting of food safety professionals. Participants in a panel at the International Association for Food Protection identified adequate laboratory staffing and provision of testing materials as critical to rapid response in a hypothetical multi-state outbreak of E. coli O111.
This statement will come as no revelation to those in public health. Disease control measures are based on a definitive laboratory-confirmed diagnosis. If you don’t have the test results, you can’t track down the pathogen that’s contaminated the food in your community. It’s that simple.
But this simple message seems to be lost on the funders of the governmental laboratories that conduct testing for E. coli O111 and other foodborne diseases. Laboratories continue to reel from cuts in state and local budgets. Yes, dedicated staff will work long hours during a crisis—as they did during the Salmonella outbreak in peanut products and the novel Influenza A/H1N1 outbreak—but this only goes so far. In a prolonged outbreak, staff has to be rotated or the quality of test results will be compromised. You just can’t make two people out of one, no matter how hard you try.
The same principle applies to lab instrumentation and supplies. Too often the assumption seems to be that lab testing is like cooking: if you have more specimens, you just put more pots on the stove. Unfortunately it doesn’t work that way. Laboratory “through-put”—the number of specimens that a laboratory can test in a day—depends upon the capacity of its instrumentation: If a lab has bigger and faster equipment, it can test more specimens faster. If it doesn’t, then laboratory diagnosis, and response time, will lag. And, of course, no testing can be conducted without test kits, reagents and other essential supplies. But with recent budget cuts, inventories are low, and resources to purchase additional supplies limited.
One wonders what will happen in the event of a sustained, foodborne disease outbreak – or the next wave of novel H1N1.
This statement will come as no revelation to those in public health. Disease control measures are based on a definitive laboratory-confirmed diagnosis. If you don’t have the test results, you can’t track down the pathogen that’s contaminated the food in your community. It’s that simple.
But this simple message seems to be lost on the funders of the governmental laboratories that conduct testing for E. coli O111 and other foodborne diseases. Laboratories continue to reel from cuts in state and local budgets. Yes, dedicated staff will work long hours during a crisis—as they did during the Salmonella outbreak in peanut products and the novel Influenza A/H1N1 outbreak—but this only goes so far. In a prolonged outbreak, staff has to be rotated or the quality of test results will be compromised. You just can’t make two people out of one, no matter how hard you try.
The same principle applies to lab instrumentation and supplies. Too often the assumption seems to be that lab testing is like cooking: if you have more specimens, you just put more pots on the stove. Unfortunately it doesn’t work that way. Laboratory “through-put”—the number of specimens that a laboratory can test in a day—depends upon the capacity of its instrumentation: If a lab has bigger and faster equipment, it can test more specimens faster. If it doesn’t, then laboratory diagnosis, and response time, will lag. And, of course, no testing can be conducted without test kits, reagents and other essential supplies. But with recent budget cuts, inventories are low, and resources to purchase additional supplies limited.
One wonders what will happen in the event of a sustained, foodborne disease outbreak – or the next wave of novel H1N1.
Monday, July 13, 2009
APHL at White House: Obama's Food Safety Working Group Adopts Public Health Approach
by Scott Becker, APHL Executive Director
On July 7, 2009, I had the pleasure to attend a White House event for President Obama’s Food Safety Working Group. The event was hosted by Vice President Biden. He, along with Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack, announced the key findings of the Working Group, which are partially based on information gathered at a White House listening session at which APHL was ably represented by John Besser, Peter Kyriacopoulos, and Michael Smith. These recommendations take a public health-focused approach to food safety and emphasize three core ideas: prioritizing prevention; strengthening surveillance and enforcement; and improving response and recovery. To advance these key concepts, the working group announced specific actions including: developing tougher safety standards for eggs and poultry products to reduce Salmonella contamination; strengthening enforcement in beef facilities and improving protections for produce to reduce E.coli contamination; implementing new traceback and response systems when outbreaks do occur; providing improved safety alerts to consumers; creating new positions within the key food safety agencies; and allowing for a continued oversight role for the Food Safety Working Group. I’m looking forward to greater collaboration with FDA, given the terrific new leadership in place. Read more.
On July 7, 2009, I had the pleasure to attend a White House event for President Obama’s Food Safety Working Group. The event was hosted by Vice President Biden. He, along with Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack, announced the key findings of the Working Group, which are partially based on information gathered at a White House listening session at which APHL was ably represented by John Besser, Peter Kyriacopoulos, and Michael Smith. These recommendations take a public health-focused approach to food safety and emphasize three core ideas: prioritizing prevention; strengthening surveillance and enforcement; and improving response and recovery. To advance these key concepts, the working group announced specific actions including: developing tougher safety standards for eggs and poultry products to reduce Salmonella contamination; strengthening enforcement in beef facilities and improving protections for produce to reduce E.coli contamination; implementing new traceback and response systems when outbreaks do occur; providing improved safety alerts to consumers; creating new positions within the key food safety agencies; and allowing for a continued oversight role for the Food Safety Working Group. I’m looking forward to greater collaboration with FDA, given the terrific new leadership in place. Read more.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
FERN Microbiological Cooperative Agreement Program Grant
FDA's Food Emergency Response Network (FERN) has recently announced that it will be using its Microbiological Cooperative Agreement Program Grant mechanism (U18) to solicit applications from institutions/organizations that would like to become part of the Microbiology Cooperative Agreement Program (CAP).
The Microbiology CAP is intended to select state and local FERN laboratories to provide surge capacity testing in the event of a large-scale foodborne illness outbreak or other food emergency situations. The CAP will also be used to implement standardized analysis results through the use of standardized methods, equipment platforms and reporting.
For full Program Announcement (PAR-09-215) and details, please visit here. Applications must be submitted electronically through grants.gov. The deadline(s) for submitting grant applications is 5:00 pm local time on July 29, 2009, July 29, 2010, July 29, 2011.
The Microbiology CAP is intended to select state and local FERN laboratories to provide surge capacity testing in the event of a large-scale foodborne illness outbreak or other food emergency situations. The CAP will also be used to implement standardized analysis results through the use of standardized methods, equipment platforms and reporting.
For full Program Announcement (PAR-09-215) and details, please visit here. Applications must be submitted electronically through grants.gov. The deadline(s) for submitting grant applications is 5:00 pm local time on July 29, 2009, July 29, 2010, July 29, 2011.
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
CIFOR guidelines released
Within the next couple of weeks, expect to see a copy of the recently completed Guidelines for Foodborne Disease Outbreak Response, a comprehensive best-practices document, published by the Council to Improve Foodborne Outbreak Response (CIFOR). The report focuses on improving detection and response to foodborne outbreaks, and is a comprehensive resource for federal, state and local agencies involved in investigating foodborne outbreaks.
The Guidelines are the product of a three-year collaboration between public health and food safety partners from all levels of government, and technical experts from a variety of associations and academic institutions. The Guidelines map out and discuss all of the steps involved in foodborne disease outbreak response, including preparation, detection, investigation, control and follow-up.
The Guidelines also discuss the roles that key organizations play during outbreak response, describe strategies for improving inter-agency communication and coordination during multi-state outbreaks, and identify benchmarks organizations can use to compare and critique their performance during response activities.
While the Guidelines are indeed a comprehensive source of information, they’re not a replacement for existing procedure manuals. Rather, they serve both as a complimentary resource to improve and update already established procedures and as a training tool for staff.
As mentioned earlier, the Guidelines are the product of many hours of collaboration among a large number of partners including APHL. We’re proud to have been involved with this project from its inception, and we have provided both technical expertise during the development phase, as well as assistance with marketing and distributing the final document.
However, the Guidelines are just the first step. It’s now up to everyone with a role in foodborne disease response to use the Guidelines correctly. With proper implementation, the number of people affected by foodborne illnesses each year can be greatly reduced.
The Guidelines are the product of a three-year collaboration between public health and food safety partners from all levels of government, and technical experts from a variety of associations and academic institutions. The Guidelines map out and discuss all of the steps involved in foodborne disease outbreak response, including preparation, detection, investigation, control and follow-up.
The Guidelines also discuss the roles that key organizations play during outbreak response, describe strategies for improving inter-agency communication and coordination during multi-state outbreaks, and identify benchmarks organizations can use to compare and critique their performance during response activities.
While the Guidelines are indeed a comprehensive source of information, they’re not a replacement for existing procedure manuals. Rather, they serve both as a complimentary resource to improve and update already established procedures and as a training tool for staff.
As mentioned earlier, the Guidelines are the product of many hours of collaboration among a large number of partners including APHL. We’re proud to have been involved with this project from its inception, and we have provided both technical expertise during the development phase, as well as assistance with marketing and distributing the final document.
However, the Guidelines are just the first step. It’s now up to everyone with a role in foodborne disease response to use the Guidelines correctly. With proper implementation, the number of people affected by foodborne illnesses each year can be greatly reduced.
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
2010 Proposed Federal Budget
President Obama recently unveiled his proposed 2010 federal budget. Unfortunately, it was disappointing to see that the budget generally maintained, but did not increase, the levels of funding for most governmental public health priority programs. The budget for CDC was approximately $6.6 billion, a 0.4% increase from 2009’s budget of approximately $6.3 billion.
A few key laboratory areas did, however, receive greater funding:
A few key laboratory areas did, however, receive greater funding:
▪ FDA funding for food safety was increased. However, there was no sizable increase for CDC activities, most notably PulseNet. To ensure America’s food supply is protected, it’s important that all elements of the food safety infrastructure are adequately funded.For more information about the budget, please browse the online document.
▪ There was a $51 million increase in HIV/AIDS funding, most of which was primarily for point-of-care programs and not for laboratory testing.
▪ It was the third year running that newborne screening activities received dedicated funding.
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Despite Outbreak, Work Continues
The recent outbreak of novel Influenza A H1N1 and the subsequent laboratory response have shed light on the work of state and local public health laboratories. But while this rapid response has been grabbing headlines, laboratorians continue work behind the scenes to address a wide range of public health threats.
Through active surveillance, public health laboratories can often detect infections before they become widespread outbreaks. While the media was transfixed by H1N1, the PulseNet system detected a spike in Salmonella serotype Saintpaul infections. Subsequent investigation and testing rapidly identified contaminated alfalfa sprouts as the culprit. Aided by advanced laboratory techniques and improved surveillance, public health laboratories continue to monitor for diseases like E. coli and Salmonella to ensure the safety of our nation’s food.
Public health laboratories are also responsible for screening 97% of newborns in the United States—in the past week alone, government labs have screened close to 80,000 babies for as many as 55 separate conditions. Newborn screening lets clinicians rapidly identify genetic and metabolic disorders, which without prompt treatment may lead to lifelong disability or even death. While many focus on the roll-out of the new influenza assay to states this week, thousands of newborns continue to be tested in the public health laboratory system.
The nation’s public health laboratories provide a diverse range of services to protect the public’s health. Disease diagnosis and surveillance, drug susceptibility testing, newborn screening, chemical exposure and environmental monitoring continue, even while laboratories operate at surge capacity to address the ongoing flu outbreak.
Through active surveillance, public health laboratories can often detect infections before they become widespread outbreaks. While the media was transfixed by H1N1, the PulseNet system detected a spike in Salmonella serotype Saintpaul infections. Subsequent investigation and testing rapidly identified contaminated alfalfa sprouts as the culprit. Aided by advanced laboratory techniques and improved surveillance, public health laboratories continue to monitor for diseases like E. coli and Salmonella to ensure the safety of our nation’s food.
Public health laboratories are also responsible for screening 97% of newborns in the United States—in the past week alone, government labs have screened close to 80,000 babies for as many as 55 separate conditions. Newborn screening lets clinicians rapidly identify genetic and metabolic disorders, which without prompt treatment may lead to lifelong disability or even death. While many focus on the roll-out of the new influenza assay to states this week, thousands of newborns continue to be tested in the public health laboratory system.
The nation’s public health laboratories provide a diverse range of services to protect the public’s health. Disease diagnosis and surveillance, drug susceptibility testing, newborn screening, chemical exposure and environmental monitoring continue, even while laboratories operate at surge capacity to address the ongoing flu outbreak.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
