Manufacturing News

Preslaughter interventions could reduce E. coli in cattle

April 5, 2012
/ Print / Reprints /
ShareMore
/ Text Size+

In any manufacturing operation, attempting to adjust the process to correct for a defective component or ingredient can be nothing but frustrating when the supplier hasn’t done its job to provide a defect-free product. But suppliers (in this case, beef cattle growers) have had their hands tied when it comes to trying new methods to decrease E. coli counts in cattle before they enter the slaughtering plant.2

manufacturing news
This colorized scanning electron micrograph (SEM) depicts a number of Escherichia coli bacteria of the strain O157:H7. Source: CDC.

According to a study from the US Government Accountability Office (GAO), USDA and university researchers have identified several treatments administered before cattle are slaughtered that could reduce Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli (STEC) in cattle. But these treatments have not been consistently applied. These preslaughter interventions include bacteriophages, prebiotics, probiotics, colicins, natural product extracts, vaccines and sodium chlorate (a chemical that kills the STEC O157:H7 strain).

However, few manufacturers have submitted applications for preslaughter intervention products to target STEC, according to officials from USDA and FDA. One exception, says the GAO report, is for vaccines to reduce STEC 0157:H7.

For preslaughter interventions, USDA exercises responsibilities for licensing and regulating STEC vaccines. However, USDA’s approval requirements for these vaccines are unclear, according to some industry representatives. Specifically, USDA’s general guidance does not address some of the unique challenges faced by manufacturers of animal health products seeking STEC vaccine approval, says the GAO report. For example, the guidance doesn’t explain that, if studies conducted in the lab are insufficient to demonstrate efficacy, the manufacturer would also need to demonstrate the vaccine is effective in a field setting such as a feedlot. In contrast, the Canadian Centre for Veterinary Biologics provides more specific guidance about when it requires the use of lab or field studies to demonstrate efficacy for vaccine license applications. Without guidance that provides clear and more specific information on what vaccine manufacturers need to submit, the approval process for STEC vaccines could face potential delays, says the GAO study.

In addition to STEC O157:H7, which USDA stated in 1994 was an adulterant, USDA in September 2011 determined six other STEC strains are adulterants in raw ground beef and trim. USDA has tests for these six strains and plans to use them in slaughter plants starting in June 2012. But according to GAO, it may be difficult and time-consuming to confirm positive test results because certain test components are either not commercially available for all strains or do not always provide clear results. USDA is working to improve the tests and find a commercial supplier for one key test component. (Beef Products Inc., anticipating the new ruling, already began testing for six other STECs last year; see “Beef processor steps up E. coli testing to serotypes,” FE Online.)

Some foreign governments already have practices that could be relevant to US efforts to reduce STEC in cattle, says the report. For example, the European Parliament and EU require verification of cleanliness by an inspector to ensure cattle are clean before going to slaughter. In contrast, USDA assesses the health of cattle, but not cleanliness. At least 12 EU member countries collected and reported data on STEC in live cattle in 2009. USDA has conducted STEC testing in live cattle, but has not tested since 1999. When a person becomes ill from E. coli in Sweden, government officials try to determine the specific farm that sold the contaminated cattle so that other carcasses from the farm can be tested for STEC. USDA, however, does not trace the STEC source back to the farm.

The GAO made two recommendations for the Secretary of Agriculture to take to resolve the delays in reducing E. coli counts. First, the secretary should direct the administrator of APHIS (Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service) to provide more specific public guidance on the license approval requirements for STEC vaccines to improve clarity and reduce delays. Second, the secretary should explore practices employed by other countries, which are not currently used in the US, and identify what practices may help alleviate problems here.

For more information on the GAO study, E. coli Contamination in Beef, visit www.gao.gov and search for “GAO-12-257.”

 

Did you enjoy this article? Click here to subscribe to Food Engineering Magazine.

You must login or register in order to post a comment.

Multimedia

Videos

Image Galleries

Fabulous Food Plant: Paramount Citrus

Learn more about this fabulous food plant in Food Engineering's article, found here.

Podcasts

Burns & McDonnell project manager RJ Hope and senior project engineer Justin Hamilton discuss the distinctions between Food Safety and Food Defense as well as the implications for food manufacturers of the Food Safety Modernization Act.
More Podcasts

THE MAGAZINE

Food Engineering Magazine

Food engineering magazine 2014 april cover

2014 April

Catch a preview of the Powder and Bulk Show in this April 2014 edition of Food Engineering. Also, be sure to check out a coffee stick making a real stir and a major advancement in the the pet food industry.
Table Of Contents Subscribe

THE FOOD ENGINEERING STORE

Food-Authentication-Flyer-(.gif
Food Authentication Using Bioorganic Molecules

This text provides critical tools and data needed to augment routine food analysis and enhance food safety by aiding in the detection of counterfeit, and potentially deleterious, foods.

More Products

Clear Seas Research

Clear Seas ResearchWith access to over one million professionals and more than 60 industry-specific publications,Clear Seas Research offers relevant insights from those who know your industry best. Let us customize a market research solution that exceeds your marketing goals.

Food Master

Food Master Cover 2014Food Master 2014 is now available!

 

Where the buying process begins in the food and beverage manufacturing market. 

Visit www.foodmaster.com to learn more.

STAY CONNECTED

FE recent tweets

facebook_40.pngtwitter_40px.pngyoutube_40px.pnglinkedin_40px.png