Epidemiology plays an important role in the safety of our food supply. The policies that dictate how our food is produced and regulated are dependent upon epidemiological data. A recent study in the journal of Clinical Infectious Diseases highlights the need for stronger regulation in regards to food production. The study investigated the prevalence of Staphylococcus aureus bacteria in meat products. Disturbingly, researchers found 47% of the samples to be contaminated with these drug-resistant bacteria. While the study sample size was small, data was collected from 5 cities across the country; encompassing meats produced under 80 brand names and from 26 grocery stores[1]. Though we can’t make the generalization that 47% of meat in grocery stores around the country is contaminated with S. aureus, these findings warrant the need for further research. Critics of this study would say that it is possible the results were found by chance alone, but I would contend that these findings are likely indicative of typical contamination rates. To be noted, we don’t yet know the human health implications of consuming drug-resistant meat. Such implications may take years to manifest, and may not even be discernable by way of longitudinal study. Can we expect that lawmakers or government agencies will implement and enforce regulation when there is no concrete data or information to support such regulation?
Another article of interest involves an E. coli outbreak. In this case, health officials used a traditional epidemiological approach where interviews were conducted with infected persons and analysis of this information revealed hazelnuts were to blame for the outbreak[2]. What makes this particular case newsworthy is that a hazelnut packer possibly connected to the outbreak refused to cooperate with the investigation on the basis there was no solid proof that the hazelnuts were contaminated. Though this case was solved, it brings about an interesting debate. I am usually not one to agree with food manufacturers who have possibly contaminated consumers with deadly bacteria, but I do understand the business side of the argument. Without conclusive, biological evidence, is it fair to hold manufacturers responsible? In a court of law, we would have a hard time convicting a criminal of a crime for which there is no DNA evidence. The field of epidemiology is changing and is increasingly incorporating technology. Technology was able find a genetic link between the infected people and the suspected food source in the aforementioned case. Our society has become dependent upon large-scale food suppliers, which means outbreaks are no longer contained to a particular geographic region. Is investigation of these nationwide outbreaks by traditional means too time consuming and costly? Should we develop more technological methods of conducting disease investigations that don’t rely on victim accounts? How do we ensure epidemiology keeps up with the changing landscape of food production?
[1] Waters, E., Contente-Cuomo, T., Buchhagen, J., Lui, C.M., Watson, L., Pearce, K., Foster, J.T., Bowers, J., Driebe, E.M., Engelthaler, D.M., Keim, P.S., & Price, L.B. Multidrug-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in US meat and poultry. (2011). Clinical Infectious Diseases, 52(10), 1-4. doi:10.1093/cid/cir181. Retrieved from: http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2011/04/14/cid.cir181.full#sec-11
[2] Anderson, R. (2011). Making the case through epidemiology. Food Safety News. Retrieved from:http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2011/04/making-the-case-through-epidemiology/
No comments:
Post a Comment