| October 2009 OurFood - NEWS Here food related news are posted. Use the archives to search past food reports | Navigation Do not miss to visit the Database: OurFood.com Climate change endangers food crops: Desert Energy Project |
In a statement the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR) refined edible fats used in products like margarine and in infant formula, may pose a health risk. During the refining of vegetable oil, such as palm oil, the ester-bound glycidol is formed. . The BfR says that glycidol may be released during digestion. Glycidol is carcinogenic. The BfR adopts the hypothetical assumption that one kilogram of edible fat contains one milligram glycidol.
The Institute says that infants who are fed exclusively industrially prepared infant milk formula would take in harmful levels of glycidol. As there is no alternative to infant milk formula with refined fats for infants who are not exclusively breastfed, the manufacturers of these products must do everything they can to reduce the levels of glycidol fatty acid esters as far as possible.
The German association Stiftung Warentest analysed a vegetable fat creme which is labelled as a butter substitute. The association found palm oil glycidol-esters which may release the carcinogenic glycidol during digestion. [2]
[1] Initial evaluation of the assessment of levels of glycidol fatty acid esters de-tected in refined vegetable fats. BfR Opinion No. 007/2009, 10 March 2009
http://www.bfr.bund.de/cm/245/initial_evaluation_of_the_assessment_of_levels_of_glycidol_fatty_acid_esters.pdf
[2] Pflanzencreme Flair:Duerfte nicht verkauft werden. Stiftung Warentest. Test 8, 2009.
http://www.test.de/themen/essen-trinken/schnelltest/-Pflanzencreme-Flair/1794115/1794115/
27.10.2009: The H1N1 horror campaign by President Obama and the European Union delights pharma giants [1]
President Barack Obama has declared the swine flu outbreak a national emergency. According to ABC television's "This Week" Sen. McConnell said that Congress would be willing to provide any additional resources needed on a bipartisan basis. A bipartisan cooperation in health affairs is a novelty in the Congress.
The EU-Heath Commissionaire Androulla Vassiliou in an article of the German Newspaper “Die Welt” says that it is possible that 30 percent of the European population may become infected with the influenza virus H1N1. She says that economy may then be hit hard because of sick. More to this, the commissionaire paints a a scenario where countries might dispute for vaccines, and how questionable will the reaction of the European Union be. [2]
Vaccinating against a ghost
These horror campaigns try to counter a unwillingness to get vaccinated. Only 12 percent of the German population are willing to get the vaccine. The swine flu has proved to be less annoying then the normal influenza which nobody fears. The horror campaign also says that worldwide 5 000 death were caused by swine flu. It does not mention that yearly 50 000 death are caused by the normal influenza which nobody fears. The swine flu is nothing to be scared of. Ideed, its is a wonderful business for the pharmaceutical giants, a good opportunity for the government to divert public attention from financial misery and for the public media which is keen to have good headlines.
Deadly virus LBv is not being cared about by authorities
Vaccination is needed against the Lehman Brothers virus (LBv) which is still spreading around from USA with all its might. It is harming the global economy. Some H1N1 coughing employees should not worry the EU commissionaire Vassiliou, it is the LBv virus which may bring the European economy to a standstill.
[1] Obama declares swine flu national emergency. Order could speed treatment in emergency rooms as epidemic spreads. Msnbc. October 25, 2009.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33459423/ns/health-cold_and_flu
[2] Warnung der EU: Jedem 3. Euroäer droht Schweinegrippe-Infektion. Die Welt Online 27.10.2009
http://www.welt.de/wissenschaft/schweinegrippe/article4988855/Jedem-3-Europaeer-droht-Schweinegrippe-Infektion.html
25.10.2009: The Spotted Wing Drosophila fruit fly emerging fruit pest [1]
According to Amy Dreves, Vaughn Walton of the Oregon State University, the Spotted Wing Drosophila fruit fly Drosophila suzukii produced heavy damage in Oregon fruits in late 2009. Drosophila suzukii harms ripening fruit, while other Drosophila species do not harm the crop, because they infest overripe and fallen fruit. The insect is associated with raspberries. blueberries, peaches, raspberries, strawberries, plums and grapes.
Losses of one third of the cherry crop, 80 percent of peaches and 20 percent os raspberries are being reported in California. Pears and wine grapes are targeted by D. suzukii.
The Spotted Wing Drosophila is a close relative of the vinegar fly (Drosophila melanogaster), feeding on overripe bananas. spoiled and rotting fruit. The spotted wing Drosophila fly, in contrast, infests fresh fruit. The wild Himalayan blackberries could offer a refuge for overwintering populations of flies.
The researchers recommend to immediately remove and dispose infested fruit. And monitor for the presence of adult flies before they lay eggs.
The D.suzukii male flies have a pale black spot at the leading edge of the wing. Infestation starts with a small puncture wound on hanging fruit, which softens starting at the puncture scar, with subsequent decay, and mall pale maggots in intact fruit on the plant. [2]
[1] A new pest attacking healthy ripening fruit in Oregon:
Spotted Wing Drosophila, Drosophila suzukii (Matsumura). Regional Pest Alert (Submitted as OSU Extension Publication) 09-09-09ajd.
http://www.nwsmallfruits.org/alerts/2009-09-09_Regional_Pest_Alert-Spotted_Wing_Drosophila.pdf
[2] Further details on identification.
http://cemariposa.ucdavis.edu/files/67726.pdf
23.10.2009: Biofuel may increase greenhouse gases as a result of a flaw of the climate accounting [1]
Searchinger and colleagues 2009 stress that the climate accounting treats all bioenergy as carbon neutral. This flaw was also included climate regulations 2003/87 of the EU [2] and the The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 [3]. The authors point to the fact that these regulations count biofuel as 100% reduction, and do not count CO2 emitted from tailpipes and smokestacks when bioenergy is being used, and also does not consider the CO2 emission from land use, burning of wood and energy crops. This flaw favours deforestation
The authors say that counting bioenergy from any biomass as carbon neutral, so as handled by the climate accounting, large-scale land conversion for bioenergy is favoured regardless of the actual net emissions. This will lead to further increase of greenhouse gases. The area covered by fuel crops will be higher that the area used for food crops by the end of this century, say the authors.
Increase of biofuel crop can only take place by deforestation, with the loss of tress which are important carbon sinks. On the other fuel crops may use the area of food crops, increasing the use of fertiliser ammonium nitrate which decomposes in the soil releasing nitrous oxide N2O which is a stronger greenhouse gas as CO2. To avoid such undesirable development, the authors suggest global rules to protect forests and to avoid overfertilisation. Should this not be introduced all over the globe the climate will breakdown, say the authors.
Biofuel will cause food and water scarcety [4]
Bio fuel, such as ethanol and biodiesel compete with food crops resulting in rising prices of food staples. Robert Service points to an additional problem of biofuel crops which may pinch water supplies and worsen water pollution. The already serious shortage of water will even be worsened by a wide shift from crude oil to biofuel.
[1] Searchinger, Thimothy D. et al: Climate Change: Fixing a Critical Climate Accounting Error. Science 23 October 2009: Vol. 326. no. 5952, pp. 527-528. Doi: 10.1126/science.1178797
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/326/5952/527
[2] European Commission, Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003, Official Journal of the European Union L 275, 25.10.2003
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2003:275:0032:0046:EN:PDF
[3] The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, H.R. 2454, 111th Cong., 1st Sess. (as passed by U.S. House of Representatives July 2009).
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h2454pcs.txt.pdf
[4] Service, Robert F.: Green Energy: Another Biofuels Drawback: The Demand for. Irrigation. Science 23 October 2009: Vol. 326. no. 5952, pp. 516 – 517. Doi: 10.1126/science.326_516
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/sci;326/5952/516
22.10.2009: The German Environment Ministry warns of nanotechnology [1]
The German Ministry released a press statement on the 22.10.2009 calling on the population to avoid products containing nanotechnology. The statement cites a new report from Becker and Dubbert 2009 [2] which says that it is unknown how many products there are on the market that contain nano-particles. Consumers can't avoid them because the products are not labeled. Nanoparticles are increasingly entering into the environmental media, including the soil, water and air. The lungs are at highest risk because the particles can pass the cell walls and alter the DNA.
Lung injuries caused by Nanoparticles [3]
Chengyu Jiang, a molecular biologist at the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences in Beijing, together with colleagues in 2009 reported concerns about the toxicity of nanomaterials. Studies found lung injuries caused by nanoparticle exposure. The authors looked at the toxicity of a class of nanomaterials Starburst ployamidoamine dendrimers (PAMAMs) widely used in clinical applications. The authors found that PAMAMs can cause acute lung injuries, triggering autophagic cell death by deregulating the Akt-TSC2-mTOR signaling pathway.
jiang looking for a protection of workers and consumers from toxic effects of nanoparticles, found that the autophagy inhibitor 3-methyladenine reduced lung injury in mice. Our data provide a molecular explanation for nanoparticle-induced lung injury, and suggest potential remedies to address the growing concerns of nanotechnology safety.
Use of nanoparticles in medicine [4]
Liu, Zhang and Slutsky 2009 comment the article of Chengyu Jiang 2009 related to PAMAs. The authors write that the use of nanoparticles in medicine should not be discouraged by these risks , but these findings should be seen as a warning that care has to be taken.
Call for laws and policies o0n nanomaterials [5]
Buzea, Pachoco and Robbie 2007 calls on the awareness of the public, scientists and manufacturers, in relation to nanomaterials toxicity. The authors stress that nanoparticles from natural sources such as dust and particles of exhaust fumes were already present in the environment before industrial production increased the exposure. The authors cite the lung diseases associated with nanoparticles. Other diseases are included, such as Parkinson`s and Alzheimer`s diseases, Crohn`s disease, colon cancer increase the risk of arteriosclerosis, and blood clots, arrhythmia, heart diseases, and cardiac death.
The authors call for laws and policies for safely manufacturing, industrial and commercial use, and recycling of nanomaterial.
Common nanoparticles cause DNA damage [6]
According to Sara Pacheco the aqueous colloidal silica and C60 fullerene, most common used nanoparticle, induces dose-dependent and time-dependent increases in DNA damage. This may increase the risk of cancer. The researchers are clearing whether the nanoparticles are entering the cell and causing DNA damage directly or if they are acting on the membrane and inducing a cascade of events resulting in DNA damage.
The authors stress that nanoparticles are widely used such as in food, cosmetics, paintings. They are so tiny that it is impossible to remove them from the environment using conventional filtering techniques.
Nanoparticles are toxic to adult insects of Drosophila melanogaster [7]
Food containing high amounts of fullerene C60, carbon black, or single-walled or multiwalled nanotubes had no detectable effect on egg and larval survival of Drosophila melanogaster. However, these nanocarbons adhered extensively to fly surfaces impairing locomotor function and died. Different nanomaterial superstructure, or aggregation state may cause that some types of nanoparticles may be transported by insects.
Nano silver particles kills beneficial bacteria in wastewater treatment [8]
Zhiqiang Hu and colleagues 2008 of the University of Missouri are concerned with the increasing use of silver nanoparticles in consumer products- The researchers fear that this material, which is extremely toxic, will be released into sewage lines, wastewater treatment facilities, and, eventually, to rivers, streams and lakes where it destroys benign species of bacteria such as those used for wastewater treatment.
According to the authors silver nanoparticles generate more highly reactive oxygen species, than do larger forms of silver, inhibiting bacterial growth. The sludge from wastewater treatment could be affected and soils could be harmed if they are fertilised with sludge high in silver particles.
More knowledge about genotoxicity of nanomaterials are needed [9]
Singh and colleagues 2009 write that nanomaterals, such as metal nanoparticles, metal-oxide nanoparticles, quantum dots, fullerenes, and fibrous nanomaterials, damage or interact with DNA, such as chromosomal fragmentation, DNA strand breakages, point mutations, oxidative DNA adducts and alterations in gene expression profiles. However, the actual literature is inconclusive on physico-chemical features of nanomaterials that cause the genotoxicity. More studies in this fiel are recommended by the authors.
Preventive measures needed to protect workers and general population from nanomaterials [10]
Anduja and colleagues 2990 are concerned with the toxicity, long-term side effects, and the biodegradability of nanomaterials. They highlight the nanoparticles penetration in lung, the deposition, translocation and elimination. Also of concern are the effects on the lungs caused by metallic nanoparticles, titanium dioxide nanoparticles in particular, and carbon nanotubes.
According to the authors nanoparticles generate oxidative stress, pro-inflammatory and pro-thrombotic effects and the possible development of fibrosis and pulmonary emphysema or DNA damage. The authors stress the need of preventive measures in the workplace and/or in the general population to avoid the risks imposed by nanomaterials.
Risk and safety decision framework needed for nanomaterial industry [11]
Helland and colleagues 2008 assessed the voluntary industrial risk assessment initiatives related to engineered nanomaterial surveying 40 companies working with nanomaterials in Germany and Switzerland. In this survey 65% did not perform any risk assessment, and 32,5% performed risk assessments sometimes or always. Use and disposal and unintentional release of nanomaterials were not controlled. The authors call for risk and safety decision frameworks for the industry engaged in nanotechnology .
[1] Health Risk Debate Is Nanotechnology Dangerous? Spiegel Online 22.10.2009
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,656482,00.html
[2] Becker, Heidi; Dubbert, Wolfgang; Schwirn, Kathrin; Völker, Doris:Nanotechnik für Mensch und Umwelt. Chancen fördern und Risiken Mindern. Umweltbundesamt, Oktober 2009.
http://www.umweltdaten.de/publikationen/fpdf-l/3765.pdf
[3] Li C, Liu H, Sun Y, Wang H, Guo F, Rao S, Deng J, Zhang Y, Miao Y, Guo C, Meng J, Chen X, Li L, Li D, Xu H, Wang H, Li B, Jiang C: PAMAM nanoparticles promote acute lung injury by inducing autophagic cell death through the Akt-TSC2-mTOR signalling pathway. J Mol Cell Biol. 2009 Oct;1(1):37-45. Epub 2009 Jun 10. Doi: 10.1093/jmcb/mjp002
http://jmcb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/1/1/37
[4] M. Liu, H. Zhang, and A. S. Slutsky: Acute Lung Injury: A Yellow Card for Engineered Nanoparticles? J Mol Cell Biol, October 1, 2009; 1(1): 6 - 7.
http://jmcb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/1/1/6
[5] Cristina Buzea, Ivan I. Pacheco, Kevin Robbie: Nanomaterials and nanoparticles: Sources and toxicity. Published in Biointerphases Vol. 2, issue 4 (2007) pages MR17 – MR71.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.3280
[6] Nanoparticles can damage DNA, increase cancer risk . April 17, 2007 Nanowerk.
http://www.nanowerk.com/news/newsid=1789.php
[7] Liu X, Vinson D, Abt D, Hurt RH, Rand DM: Differential toxicity of carbon nanomaterials in Drosophila: larval dietary uptake is benign, but adult exposure causes locomotor impairment and mortality. Environ Sci Technol. 2009 Aug 15;43(16):6357-63.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19746737
[8] Too Much Technology May Be Killing Beneficial Bacteria. Missouri University engineer concerned about environmental impact of silver nanoparticles in wastewater treatment
http://munews.missouri.edu/news-releases/2008/0429-hu-silver-nanoparticles.php
[9] Singh N, Manshian B, Jenkins GJ, Griffiths SM, Williams PM, Maffeis TG, Wright CJ, Doak SH: NanoGenotoxicology: the DNA damaging potential of engineered nanomaterials.
Biomaterials. 2009 Aug;30(23-24):3891-914. Epub 2009 May 8.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19427031
[10] Andujar P, Lanone S, Brochard P, Boczkowski J: Respiratory effects of manufactured nanoparticles. Rev Mal Respir. 2009 Jun;26(6):625-37.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19623107
[11] Helland A, Scheringer M, Siegrist M, Kastenholz HG, Wiek A, Scholz RW: Risk assessment of engineered nanomaterials: a survey of industrial approaches. Environ Sci Technol. 2008 Jan 15;42(2):640-6.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18284176
21.10.2009: Federal Judges allow deforestation and cattle breeding in Amazonian nature reserve [1]
The Federal judges José Airton Portela e Francisco Garcês Castro Júnior, of the Santarém Court ruled that cattle breeders may continue to use illegal the region of the National Forest of Jamanxim, The department IBAMA, which protects the rainforest region, had ordered them to leave the region. The cattle breeder, launched a complaint against IBAMA referring to the principles of free initiative. They won the case and may continue to breed cattle, paying no fees and no taxes. Jamaxim, is a region of the Pará state. It has the highest deforestation rate of the Amazon region.
The Environment Minister Carlos Minc hopes to get the question settled wit a higher adjudgement.
[1] Juiz autoriza criação de gado dentro de reserva no Pará. 21.10.2009
http://tinyurl.com/yl7ppjm
20.10.2009: Researche and education centre, a dream comes true [1]
In three years the dream of King Abdullah came true to diversify the Saudi economy, moving it from an oil-based to a knowledge inspired economy. King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST) is now perhaps the most-watched and most important higher education place anywhere in the world. It is believed that $20 billion were invested, making the scientific outfit of its laboratories one of the most advanced places.
Some highlights are one of the most powerful super computer in the world. The nanotechnology research is supported by ten advanced nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectrometers and facilities for scanning, transmission, confocal, and Raman microscopy, magnetic and thermal measurements. Oceanographic studies will be performed by the Coastal and Marine Resources Lab.
Biosciences and bioengineering include genomic and proteomic labs essential to the study of cellular molecules for DNA sequencing and genetic analysis, as well as the investigation of cellular processes. The genomics facility is equipped with robots and laboratory automation. [2]
[1] Mervis, Jeffrey: The big gamble in the Saudi desert, Science 16 October 2009: Vol. 326. no. 5951, pp. 354 – 357. Doi: 10.1126/science.326_354
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/326/5951/354
[2] King Addullah University of Science and Technology. Research.
http://www.kaust.edu.sa/research/research.html
19.10.2009: The money makers of the avian and swine flu hysteria [1]
The big deal is already going on for a long time. It is dominated by international pharmaceutical giants. Interests of American politicians are behind the selling power which made the German to buy 60 million vaccines for 600 million Euro, vaccines which German physicians advice not to use.
The multinational pharmaceutical giant Roche sold several millions packages of Tamiflu at a price of $ 50.00 each for Asian countries. The German government bought 14 Million of packages as a precaution for a pandemic which Roche and Relenza.
The US company Gilead Sciences is the holder of the Tamiflu patent and the highest shareholder is Donald Rumsfeld, responsible for the unfortunate Irak war under Gerorge W. Bush. [2]
Back to history
The Mexican paper “La Jornada” says that the strange professional “jumps” from the Pentagon to pharmaceutical companies is linked to animal influenza ranging back to 29 years ago when a serviceman died of swine flue in New Jersey in 1976. Following express demand of Rumsfeld, who was then the youngest secretary of defence of the US history, President Ford urged the production and distribution of vaccines. Unfortunately some of the charges were contaminated causing the death of 52 persons and sickened 500. Immediate stop of the vaccination was ordered and no more swine flu death were reported.
Will history be revived with the same actors on charge, managing swine flu 1976, avian flu 2003, and back again to swine flu in 2009? It seems that the German government got ripped of by these corporations.
Germany builds on second-class vaccination [3]
According to Spiegel Online There is a controversy centered on the an additive included in the vaccine manufactured by pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline. The additive an increase the risk of side effects from the flu vaccine such as fevers and headaches.
An Interior Ministry spokesman told SPIEGEL that a vaccine without the harmful additive has been ordered from Baxter for Chancellor Merkel, all ministries and other agencies as well as for the employees of the Paul Ehrlich Institute, the authority responsible for approving vaccines. The Glaxo vaccine with the questionable additive and named “Pandemrix” will be given to the population.
The Virologist Alexander Kekulé Hall of the University Hospital called it a scandal that different vaccines are used for government and for the population.
One Billion Euro are spent which are needed elswhere [4]
According to Matthias Gruhl, who oversees health policy in Bremen nobody wants to be accused of doing nothing, but costs are higher than billion Euro, which could be spent elsewhere in the health-care system.
Panic and profit: According to Spiegel Online Swiss banking giant UBS estimates that the sale of an extra set of vaccines will bump Novartis' revenues by €1.1 billion and GSK's by €1.5 billion. The cost of the vaccine in Switzerland will be €16 and in Germany €28/ person.
[1] Bajo la Lupa: Alfredo Jalife-Rahme: Rumsfeld, atrapado en el negocio de la gripe aviar! La Jornada. 2 de noviembre de 2005.
http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2005/11/02/022o1pol.php
[2] Gilead Sciences: Donald H. Rumsfeld Named Chairman of Gilead Sciences. Foster City, CA -- January 3, 1997.
http://www.gilead.com/pr_933190157
[3] Second-Class Medicine Germans Unhappy with Alternative Swine Flu Vaccine for Politicians. Spiegel Online. 19.10.2009
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,656028,00.html
[4] The Swine Flu Business. Should Germany Gamble Millions on More Vaccine? Spiegel Online 09.09.2009.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,647666,00.html
18.10.2009: Adhesion and internalization of pathogens in fresh produces reduce efficacy of sanitizers [1]
Lynch, Tauxe and Hedberg 2009 explain that widespread food borne outbreaks have their cause in the increasing consumption of fresh produce, changes in production and distribution. Adhesion of pathogens to surfaces and internalization of pathogens reduce the efficiency of conventional processing and chemical sanitizing methods. At the surface of fruits pathogens can build biofilms which protects them from sanitizers, or they invade the interior of the plants where they cannot be harmed.
To reduce these risks the authors suggest to improve the prevention of the contamination on the farm, during packing or processing. A terminal such as irradiation may improve safety of fresh produce. The authors call for more investigations on the causes of outbreaks to develop improved prevention strategies. Noah 2009, commenting this article stresses that the worldwide transport of fruits and vegetables may distribute pathogens over large areas. [2]
Irradiation of fruits and Vegetables [3]
Arvanitoyannis and colleagues 2009 emphasizes that central processing of fresh fruits and vegetables turns irradiation technology interesting. The authors stress that gamma irradiation restrain potato sprouting, kills pests in grain, extends shelf life of fruit and vegetable shelf life.
To avoid high irradiation doses the "hurdle technology" may be useful. This strategy applies more than one technology to improve quality and shelf life. Furthermore, various methods for detection of irradiated foods, such as EPR, TL and Comet assay are discusses.
The impact and effectiveness of irradiation dose on the shelf life and microflora and sensory and physical properties of fish, shellfish, molluscs, and crustaceans were assessed by Arvanitoyannis and colleagues. The authors looked also at the synergistic effect of irradiation in conjunction with other techniques such as salting, smoking, freezing, and vacuum packaging. Again, methods to detect irradiation of fish and seafood are assessed. [4]
Irradiated foods are free of risks, but consumer is still insecure [5]
No scientific study demonstrating that consumption of irradiated food might pose a risk to consumers were found by Rossi and colleagues 2009. All studies conclude that food irradiation at the appropriate dose required to reduce contamination is safe and does not affect its nutritional value, however the technology is not accepted by a broad part of the consumers.
In an effort to demonstrate the potential benefits, the authors compared food irradiation with the risk of infection with E. coli 0157: H7, and concluded that up to date no risk of irradiated foods are known, but death cases from bacterial pathogens are known.
Escherichia coli internalized on lettuce leaves [6]
Gomes and colleagues 2009 assessed the efficacy of irradiation of leaves of iceberg, Boston, green leaf, and red leaf lettuces contaminated with a cocktail mixture of two isolates of Escherichia coli, and subjected to a vacuum perfusion process locate the bacteria on crevices and into the stomata
Gamma irradiation was applied, using (Lanthanum-140, 0.16kGy/h) at 0.25-1.0-kGy (surface dose values), with increments of 0.25kGy at 15 degrees C. Calculated D(10)-values varied between 48 and 62% based on the dose distribution from the entrance dose. No significant difference was noted between the lettuce varieties. Irradiation up to 1.0-kGy resulted in 3-4-log reduction of internalized E. coli on the lettuce leaves.
The authors concluded that ionizing irradiation may be used to reduce the risk of food disease outbreaks by reducing internalized pathogens. The effect is dose-dependent,
Irradiation compared with chlorination for elimination of Escherichia coli O157:H7 [7]
Niemira 2008 comparing the effect of irradiation with that of chlorination found that pathogenic bacteria penetrate the leaf tissues and are protected against chlorination. In rhis study E. coli inoculated leaves of boston, green leaf, and red leaf lettuce were treated with a 3-min wash with sodium hypochlorite solution (0, 300, or 600 ppm) or various doses of ionizing radiation (0.25 to 1.5 kGy).
The reduction obtained with chlorine solutions was less than 1 log, while irradiation reduced pathogenic E. coli 5 logs on iceberg lettuce treated with 1.5 kGy. The variety of lettuce influences the specific results. The author concluded that irradiation is able to effectively reduce viable E. coli O157:H7 cells internalized in lettuce.
Irradiation of food, an emerging technology [8]
In a review in 1998 Farkas suggests the irradiation of food ranging from 2 to 7 kGy, depending on the variety of food, to eliminate potentially pathogenic. The author recommends irradiation of poultry and red meat, egg products, and fishery products, irradiation can be performed in frozen state. According to the author fumigation of herbs and enzyme preparations may be replaced irradiation using doses of 3-10 kGy. Radiation treatment at doses of 0.15-0.7 kGy are being suggested for the control of foodborn parasites. The author stresses that microorganisms surviving radiation treatment are more sensitive subsequent food processing treatments than not irradiated bacteria. The author concluded that irradiation of food is an emerging technology with increasing number of clearances on radiation decontaminated foods.
Improved safety and quality of poultry and other irradiated meat [9]
O'Bryan and colleagues 2009 emphasize that currently permitted levels of irradiation are insufficient to control pathogenic viruses, while gram-negative spoilage organisms are very sensitive to irradiation. The reduction of spoilage bacteria increased the shelf life and, on the other hand, did not provide a competitive growth advantage for other food pathogens, weakened by irradiation.
The authors stress that most of the antimicrobials and antioxidants produce an increased lethality of irradiation. Thus, the combinations of dosage, temperature, dietary and direct additives, storage temperature and packaging atmosphere can improve quality of meat.
Irradiation as food preservation method [10]
Andrews and colleagues 2008 stresses the use of irradiation in fruits and vegetables as an insect control as an alternative to less effective methods. For grains such as rice and wheat, irradiation has been used to control infestation by fumigation resistant insects. For spices irradiation doses of 10 kGy were recommended to extend shelf life. Safety of meat may be improve with irradiation, so as it is happening with seafood products such as shrimps for the Asian and European markets
Electron spin resonance (ESR) detection of irradiated food [11]
Electron spin resonance (ESR) may detect the radiation-induced radicals which persist, even after most of the radicals have decayed within days or weeks. Dodd 1995 calls it the most specific for the detection of irradiated food. Later, in 2008, Yu and Cheng provided a review of the use of this method used in nutraceutical and food research, microstructure change, phase transition and viscosity related properties during food formulation, processing, and storage. [12]
Electron paramagnetic resonance EPR method to detect irradiation of soybean [13]
The gamma radiation dose in the 0.25 to 1.0 kGy range irradiation is permitted to control insect infestation of food. Sanyal and Sharma 2009 developed an electron paramagnetic resonance (EPR) spectrum method. The authors detected cellulose and phenoxyl radicals in the skin part of irradiated soybean. The authors suggest that that progressive saturation and thermal characteristics of induced radicals may be used to distinguish low doses irradiated soybean from thermally treated one. This method is applicable also in case of long storage, say the authors.
Relaxation behaviour of the radicals may be used to detect irradiation of cashew nuts [14]
In 2008 Sanyal and Sajilata assessed the electron paramagnetic resonance (EPR) spectrum of free radicals formed during irradiation and compared it with those caused by conventional thermal treatment of cashew nuts. These signals found at irradiated cashew nuts were related to cellulose and CO 2 (-) radicals. An increase of the intensity of the central line (g = 2.0045) was found to be similar to that of thermal treated cashew nuts. The authors report, however, that irradiation of cashew nuts could be demonstrated by measuring the different relaxation and thermal behaviours of the free radicals, compared with those of roasted cashew nuts.
[1] Lynch, M. F.; Tauxe, R. V.; Hedberg, C. W.: The growing burden of foodborne outbreaks due to contaminated fresh produce: risks and opportunities. Epidemiology and Infection, 2009; 137 (3): 307-315 Doi: 10.1017/S0950268808001969
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=3650384
[2] Noah, Norman: Food poisoning from raw fruit and vegetables. Epidemiology and Infection, 137 , pp 305-306. (2009). Doi:10.1017/S0950268808001957
[3] Arvanitoyannis IS, Stratakos ACh, Tsarouhas P: Irradiation applications in vegetables and fruits: a review. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2009 May;49(5):427-62.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19399670
[4] Arvanitoyannis IS, Stratakos A, Mente E: Impact of irradiation on fish and seafood shelf life: a comprehensive review of applications and irradiation detection. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2009 Jan;49(1):68-112.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18949599
[5] Rossi L, Watson D, Escandarani S, Miranda A, Troncoso A: Radiation on the dining table. Rev Chilena Infectol. 2009 Aug;26(4):318-30. Epub 2009 Sep 23.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19802398
[6] Gomes C, Da Silva P, Moreira RG, Castell-Perez E, Ellis EA, Pendleton M: Understanding E. coli internalization in lettuce leaves for optimization of irradiation treatment. Int J Food Microbiol. 2009 Nov 15;135(3):238-47. Epub 2009 Aug 27.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19733930
[7] Niemira BA: Irradiation compared with chlorination for elimination of Escherichia coli O157:H7 internalized in lettuce leaves: influence of lettuce variety. J Food Sci. 2008 Jun;73(5):M208-13.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18577002
[8] Farkas J: Irradiation as a method for decontaminating food. A review. Int J Food Microbiol. 1998 Nov 10;44(3):189-204
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9851599
[9] O'Bryan CA, Crandall PG, Ricke SC, Olson DG : Impact of irradiation on the safety and quality of poultry and meat products: a review. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2008 May;48(5):442-57.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18464033
[10] Andrews LS, Ahmedna M, Grodner RM, Liuzzo JA, Murano PS, Murano EA, Rao RM, Shane S, Wilson PW: Food preservation using ionizing radiation. Rev Environ Contam Toxicol. 1998;154:1-53
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9414630
[11] Dodd NJ: Free radicals and food irradiation. Biochem Soc Symp. 1995;61:247-58.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8660399
[12] Yu LL, Cheng Z: Application of electron spin resonance (ESR) spectrometry in nutraceutical and food research. Mol Nutr Food Res. 2008 Jan;52(1):62-78.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18080243
[13] Sanyal B, Sharma A: A new electron paramagnetic resonance method to identify irradiated soybean. J Food Sci. 2009 Oct;74(8):N57-64.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19799676
[14] Sanyal B, Sajilata MG, Chatterjee S, Singhal RS, Variyar PS, Kamat MY, Sharma A: Identification of irradiated cashew nut by electron paramagnetic resonance spectroscopy. J Agric Food Chem. 2008 Oct 8;56(19):8987-91. Epub 2008 Sep 4.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18767862
17.10.2009: German physician association advises not to vaccinate against swine influenza [1]
According to Spiegel Chancelor Angela Merkel her ministers and the head of the Army will be vaccinate with a special vaccine Celvapan of the producer Baxter which is free of undesirable side effects. Christoph Hübner, spoksman of the ministry of internal affairs confirmed that 200 thousand Celvapan vaccine were bought for a special group of persons.
The vaccine for the German population is the GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) contains boosters which permits the vaccine to be produced with low levels of the atenuated virus. From the GSK vaccine 50 million units were bought on the advice of the Paul-Ehrlich-Institute. These boosters intensifie the reaction of the immune system and are used to compensate to low dosage of the vaccine. However, the boosters, which are called “adjuvants”, may produce side effects such as headaches, fiber and other serious inconveniences. The booster is based on mercury which should definitly kept away from pregnant women and children. Mercury is a poisonous metal which accumulate in the body during lifetime.
The chairman of the drug kommission of the German physicians Wolf-Dieter Ludwig calls the situation a scandal which will be hard to be explained to the population. He said his organisation is distressed about this vaccination campaign because of various problems and uncertain benefits, and health authorities felt into a trap of the farmaceutical companies which were looking for profits.
According to the article in Spiegel Online th general practitioners and paediatricians insurge against the swine flu vaccine. Michael Kochen, president of the German Society of General Practitioners and Family Medicine advices family physicians not to vaccinate, because risks prevail the benefits. Wolgang Hartman says that children aged three years and less may overreact to the adjuvants.
[1] Spiegel Online: Schutz vor Schweinegrippe
Kanzlerin und Minister sollen speziellen Impfstoff erhalten. 17.10.2009
http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/medizin/0,1518,druck-655764,00.html