7 SIMPLE RULES FOR EATING SAFE SEAFOOD

The Safe Food Handbook has a chapter dedicated for Fish and Shellfish. Why? Because I believe seafood, and especially farmed seafood, is becoming increasingly dangerous to eat.

Mind you, any list like this tends to be a bit of an oversimplification, but here it is:

1. Raw is risky
2. Wild is usually safer than farmed
3. Small is usually safer than large
4. Domestic is usually safer than imported
5. Fish fat and fatty fish are best avoided
6. Dark parts of shellfish are more dangerous than light parts
7. Diversification is a good idea.

TSF

THE BIGGEST THREAT IN THE U.S. FOOD SUPPLY

I am just back from a neighborhood social event. One of the people there (a retired psychologist by the way) asked me what I thought was the biggest safety threat in the U.S. food supply. Trust a psychologist to ask a difficult question like that.

Really, I am not trying to evade the question, but the only answer I can give is "It depends." It depends on the specific food involved, on who you are (some kinds of people are more vulnerable to one kind of contaminant, some to another), and on whether we are talking about short term risks or longer term ones.

Mostly, what we hear about in the news, and what we tend to think about as food contaminants, are those microbes such as E.coli 0157:H7, Salmonella, Staphylococcus and Listeria monocytogenes which can give us a violent bout of illness (usually diarrhea, stomach cramps, vomiting, nausea, weakness). Very nasty, but in the majority of cases, this kind of "food poisoning" will be over in a few days. Unless, of course, you are unlucky enough to be among the 2% or so of people who end up with a chronic health condition as a result.

Then there are those hazards in food which can threaten our long-term health and happiness - increasing our chances of certain cancers, damage our body organs, or give us milder, but still irritating problems such as skin rashes or degenerative conditions.

So which are the biggest threats? It depends on your point of view. If you are a professional performer or an athlete, who needs to be at their peak tomorrow, or the next day, you will naturally be more concerned about bacteria and viruses. If you are thinking long-term health, you may want to think more about drug residues and chemicals in your food.

TSF

IS FUKUSHIMA FOOD CONTAMINATION OVER?

The Fukushima power plant disaster hasn't been as much in the news during the last few days, at least not in the U.S. Nor have we heard much about the dangers of nuclear waste in the food supply. Does that mean an "all clear" signal. Is it over? No more need to worry?

Unfortunately not. I have just finished listening to a video recording of a speech by the well-known Australian anti-nuclear activist, Dr. Helen Caldicott. Frankly, it was very frightening. She views Fukushima as being worse than Chernobyl. I hope that isn't true.

The good news is that Tokyo Electric Power Company has finally outlined an ambitious plan for bringing the damaged and leaking reactors to what is called " cold shutdown" (the repairs haven't worked). The bad news is that in the meantime, radioactive emissions from the plant will continue for at least three or more months while this is taking place (and hopefully, will work, but nothing is for sure). They will continue to enter the air, the ocean, lakes and rivers, and seep into the soil.

This is not good news for any food grown in areas where such radiation is spreading (and the experience of Chernobyl shows that it can spread over a very wide area as time goes by). This applies to leafy greens, root vegetables, rice, other grains, milk, meat, fish, shellfish - just about anything. Unfortunately, contaminants can become increasingly concentrated in water and soil - and in food. We will hear much more, as testing is done and results are released to the public.

TSF

UNHAPPY 25TH ANNIVERSARY, CHERNOBYL

Today is the 25th anniversary of the Chernobyl incident. On April 26, 1986, one of the reactors at the Chernobyl nuclear power facility (in what is now Ukraine) exploded. To remember, look at the photos on: http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2011/04/chernobyl_disaster_25th_annive.html. They are very, very, moving - beautiful as well as tragic.

The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that some 4,000 people have died from this accident (but others say this is a huge underestimation). The cost in terms of human suffering has been much higher.

In the wake of the more recent Fukushima disaster, a number of countries such as Germany, China and Switzerland, have re-assessed their nuclear power plans. Other nations are considering such moves. In the meantime, the leaks at Fukushima, continue to threaten the health of the population of Japan, not just through direct exposure, but through food and water.

TSF

A GOOD REACTION TO AN FDA WARNING

Further on the issue of the previous blog - the U.S. government warning to 4 companies manufacturing antiseptic products because of unproven claims about their power to protect against bacteria, including MRSA.

I looked up all of them to see how they were reacting to the government's warning. It was all over the place - ranging from cancelling the product's website, to facing the issue honestly.

I like the honest approach. In fact, one of my pet peeves is that when food or other dangerous products are recalled, usually the company makes no effort to inform consumers: no posts on their website, no recorded messages on their company line, no special advice to people who have bought their products. So I was particularly pleased with Tec Laboratories' reaction - and this wasn't even a recall (yet) - just a warning letter.

Mind you, the claims for their product - StaphAseptic® First Aid Antiseptic - were very exaggerated. This is straight from their website ad yesterday. No surprise - today it is blank: " Applied to minor cuts, scrapes and abrasions, StaphAseptic® can help prevent skin infections caused by bacteria such as MRSA, staph, and other germs...". On Amazon the claims for the product are (still) much less nuanced: "Prevents Skin Infections Caused by Antibiotic Resistant Staph (MRSA) and other Germs." Bad, bad, Amazon.

Tec Laboratories is making no attempt to hide their problems. On their home page, there is a letter from the company's president, mentioning the issue with the FDA, and that they are trying to resolve it. In searching their website further, I also found general instructions on how to prevent MRSA skin infections, which goes beyond their product use to provide good general public health information (They have today changed the title to read "6 Step Skin Infection Prevention Program" with no specific mention of MRSA.)

Overall - top marks to Tec Laboratories for a good reaction to bad news (and false advertising). This straightforward approach is not only good from a public health perspective, but from a marketing one.

TSF

NO MAGIC PROTECTION AGAINST MRSA BACTERIA

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has got tough on those over-the-counter hand sanitizer wipes and antiseptic gels, foaming soaps and lotions. And about time. Last week four U.S. companies were sent letters warning them not to make unproven claims. If they didn't stop exaggerating the magic power of their products in 15 days, they could be sued or have their products seized.

Many such products promise to wipe out 99% or even 99.9% of any germs sitting on your hands. In cases they even name bacteria we all know like Salmonella and E.coli, or, the flu virus. Some even claim to kill MRSA - Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus aureus, which is very, very resistant to just about all antibiotics, including all Penicillins, not just Methicillin (Methicillin used to be the drug of choice for treating S. aureus bacteria, but is longer used).

MRSA is the bacteria that we are all afraid of. It is a very infectious, very aggressive germ. From a small wound it can get into your bloodstream and even affect your heart. Close to 20,000 people are reported to die of MRSA each year in the U.S.

True, MRSA can be passed along on the skin of one person to another, on the tie or the lab coat of the doctor attending you in the hospital, and in many other ways. Food service workers with infected cuts on their hands have been known to pass such bacteria into food. I even read a study a couple of years ago (done in the UK) where vets were getting MRSA from pets they were treating.

Of course, we would all like to have a product that made us safer from this germ. But, as the FDA points out, the claims made by the manufacturers of many products on the market today are exaggerated. Quoting Deborah Autor, director of the Office of Compliance in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research: “MRSA is a serious public health threat. The FDA cannot allow companies to mislead consumers by making unproven prevention claims.”

Good. Personally, I don't want that cook or waiter in the kitchen at my favorite restaurant using one of these gels or lotions before he or she handles my food. I prefer thorough hand washing under running water, and wearing disposable gloves - particularly if that food-service worker has a cut on their hands. That is likely to work better.

By the way, here are the products that the FDA is clamping down on, but believe me, they are not the only ones out there:

• Tec Laboratories for Staphaseptic First Aid Antiseptic/Pain Relieving Gel;
• JD Nelson and Associates for Safe4Hours Hand Sanitizing Lotion and Safe4Hours First Aid Antiseptic Skin Protectant;
• Dr. G.H. Tichenor Antiseptic Co. for Dr. Tichenor’s Antiseptic Gel;
• Oh So Clean, Inc dba CleanWell Company for CleanWell All-Natural Foaming Hand Sanitizer, CleanWell All-Natural Hand Sanitizer, CleanWell All-Natural Hand Sanitizing Wipes, and CleanWell All-Natural Antibacterial Foaming Handsoap


TSF

THOSE OTHER BACTERIA IN YOUR MEAT AND POULTRY

On the whole, the meat-eating public in America seems to have taken the recent bad news rather well - that there is likely to be dangerous Staph bacteria in about half of the meat or poultry they buy. Although, I did notice more buyers at the fish than the meat counter today at my favorite store. Maybe just my imagination. (By the way, I bought fish for dinner - wild, not farmed and it was delicious).

But everyone seems to be forgetting all the other studies of bacteria in U.S. meat and poultry and acting as though this was the first time disease-causing bacteria - or, Staph, had been found. Such other research has usually concluded that the large majority of U.S. meat carries at least some disease-causing bacteria. And naturally, the industry has always questioned the findings - just as the American Meat Institute did this month.

For instance, take the study by Consumer Reports of bacteria in chicken in late 2006. The methodology used seems to be very similar to the most recently reported one: taking samples of raw poultry sold in stores. Except this study was larger and covered 23 states. It concluded that 83 percent of the 525 chickens it tested were infected with Salmonella enteritidis, Campylobacter jejeuni, Listeria monocytogenes - or, Staphylococcus aureus (the recent headliner) bacteria.

In other words, bacteria in your meat or poultry is nothing new. Some of these bacteria - or their toxins - are much more resistant to freezing and heat than others. To my mind, what was most frightening about the recent study's findings is not the percentage of meat found to contain Staph, but that such a high percentage of the Staph - which can produce toxins that aren't affected by cooking - are resistant to many antibiotics.

TSF

SYMPTOMS OF STAPH FOOD POISONING

With all this news about drug-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in U.S. meat, everyone has been asking me about the symptoms of staph food poisoning. Typically, they are: nausea, loss of appetite, vomiting, stomach cramps, diarrhea - in other words, the usual ones for bacterial food poisoning. The symptoms usually start pretty soon after eating the tainted food. Some people also have severe headaches and a mild fever and muscle cramps. In certain serious cases blood pressure and pulse rate can also be affected.

Most people who are ill will start to feel OK in a couple of days, though it can take a bit longer. If you are unlucky enough to get a hefty dose of the B type of Staph enterotoxin (the most vicious, but not very common) you have about a 50% chance of ending up in hospital. But death only occurs in rare cases. When it does, it almost always involves young children, or very unhealthy or elderly people.

TSF

WILL YOU GET SICK FROM THE STAPH IN YOUR MEAT?

So now we suspect that Staphyloccus aureus bacteria and their toxins could be hiding in half the beef, pork, chicken and turkey we eat in America (see earlier blogs). So why aren't meat eaters getting sick more often?

The U.S. federal authorities estimate that this bacteria is only responsible for about 3 percent of foodborne illness. The meat industry (represented by the American Meat Institute) naturally says it is even less - about 1 percent. (You can do a lot of creative stuff with statistics, and as always, you can find some study or other to back up your case).

In fact, at least a quarter of us walk around with Staph bacteria up our noses, in our mouth or on our skin. Mind you, it's more likely to be one of the less dangerous Staph like Staphylococcus albus, but Staphylococcus aureus is sometimes there too.

But what about this Staphylococcus aureus in meat and other foods you eat? Will it make you sick?

Whether you get sick or not, will depend on a number of factors, including: i) which type of toxins the Staph bacteria produce (see earlier post which explains that toxins are what make you ill - not the Staph bacteria themselves); ii) how much of these toxins you ingest; and iii) who you are.

First, not all Staph produce dangerous enterotoxins such as Staphylococcal enterotoxin Type A or B, and your body can cope with small amounts in your burger or fried chicken, if you don't eat too much (Yet another reason to cut back on the size of your meat portion!).

Finally, whether you get symptoms of food poisoning will depend on how susceptible you yourself are. As always, some people are more vulnerable than others - young children, older adults, people with serious illnesses. I also came across an interesting study of illnesses caused by Staph toxins which found that people under stress are more susceptible than normal.

So don't stress out too much about Staph in your meat. Often there won't be enough toxins to hurt you. Besides, any stress just could make you more susceptible!

TSF

STAPH IN MEAT IS OLD NEWS

The media is doing a good job in alerting us to the risks in food, but you can't take everything in news reports and the absolute truth. Often it's not quite misinformation - just a slight distortion of the facts.

For instance the impression given in many U.S. news reports over the last few days is that Staphylococcus aureus (the bacteria recently found in about half of U.S. retail meat) is something new, or at least, new in meat. It is not. In fact, it was discovered back in 1878. Already in 1894 staphylococcus food poisoning (although it was not called that at the time) was linked to eating beef. This role of Staphyloccocus aureus in food poisoning was confirmed in the early 1900's. It's been popping up as the cause of meat (and other food) recalls quite frequently in recent years.

Resistance of Staphylococcus aureus to antibiotics isn't new either. I remember decades back when I was working in a hospital bacteriology lab on nights and weekends (putting myself through graduate school) noticing how many of the Stapylococcus aureus bacteria I isolated from hospital patients were developing more and more resistance to the drugs in use at that time. A major cause was over-prescription of antibiotics by the medical profession. Now industrialized livestock practices are also daily adding to such dangerous resistance among Staphylococcus aureus and other bacteria that can make us ill.

This is a serious public health threat.

TSF

WILL COOKING MEAT PREVENT STAPH FOOD POISONING?

The American Meat Institute (AMI) obviously didn't like that study I mentioned in yesterday's post - the one that found that about half of America's meat was carrying Staphylococcus aureus bacteria, and about half of those bacteria in U.S. meat and poultry were resistant to several groups of antibiotics. Bad news all round for the industry, and not the kind that gets you more meat eaters, or increases profits of meat producers.

Naturally, the AMI immediately tried to both discredit the study and to reassure consumers. They said that the sample size used in the research study was too small. I agree, it was small, but even if the numbers of bacteria are a bit lower, they are still pretty unpleasant. To comfort its meat-eating public, the AMI said not to worry, because while the Staph bacteria that the study found were antibiotic-resistant, they were not heat-resistant, and could be killed by cooking your lunch or dinner to an appropriate temperature. Several other news releases on the topic have more or less said the same thing: "cook your meat well and you have nothing to worry about."

Not true. Let me explain why. Staphylococcus aureus can enter open wounds (even cuts so tiny that they are invisible) of people preparing the meat and cause dangerous infections - especially if the staph is one of the MRSA kind(the most antibiotic resistant, which two of my friends are struggling with).

As for staphylococcus food poisoning, some news for you people at AFI - and you should have known this: It is not the bacteria themselves that cause the illness. It is the enterotoxins they produce (including Staphylococcal enterotoxin A,B,C,D, and E). These toxins are fairly heat and freezing resistant. They can survive in your frozen burgers for as long as a year (if you keep them that long, which I wouldn't advise). As for being inactivated during cooking - the bacteria can be killed, but these toxins can survive and still make you ill after several minutes of cooking your meat at high temperatures.

So why isn't Staphylococcus aureus a more common cause of food poisoning?

Read the next post.

TSF

MRSA BACTERIA IN U.S. MEAT?

Recently published findings about drug resistant bacteria in U.S. meat is raising hairs - and blood pressure - among consumers. Disease-causing bacteria in our food are bad enough, but when they are also resistant to antibiotics, then its really scary. How can we be treated if we catch them?

A study published in the reputable journal of Clinical Infectious Diseases on April 15 is the cause of the furror. Testing on beef, chicken, pork and turkey for sale in U.S. stores in cities of Chicago, Los Angeles. Washington, D.C., Fort Lauderdale in Florida, and Flagstaff in Arizona, found that about 47 percent of the meat was contaminated with Staphylococcus aureus . And, it found that over half of these bacteria were resistant to at least 3 kinds of antibiotics. Some were resistant to more. Reportedly, at least one meat sample contained MRSA.

It seems that genetic testing argues that the bacteria came from the animals themselves - not from handling or packaging or some other source. If you have read The Safe Food Handbook, you won't be surprised. You also won't be surprised that the bacteria are antibiotic resistant, since the book explains why such bacteria are on the increase in meat and farmed seafood.

Industrialized food production is to blame. The popular practice in the United States is to give food animals small doses of antibiotics on a regular basis to keep them from getting sick, and fatten them up faster. No, it is not to treat illness - this is strictly preventive. And, it is profitable for the meat and the pharmaceutical industries.

The United States is behind the European and many other industrialized countries in banning this dangerous over-use and misappropriate use of drugs. Yes, it may help to keep our meat and poultry cheap - which is the argument of the industry. But is it worth creating a huge risk for public health?

TSF

IS EATING SEAWEED GOOD OR BAD?

Seaweed has been flying off the store shelves in recent weeks in China, Russia and many other countries - metaphorically speaking, of course. Why? Because people believe it can protect them against nuclear radiation - what everyone seems to be afraid of these days.

Yes, it is true - most types of seaweed such as nori, wakame, dulse, kombu, arame and other sea vegetables, contain large (though variable) quantities of iodine 127 - a trace element that our bodies need. This is the "good iodine" used in potassium iodine pills and in iodized salt, which have also sold out in many places. This good iodine helps protect our thyroid gland by giving it what it needs so that it won't take up the radioactive kind if we happen to be exposed. It's a bit like giving your puppy a tough rubber toy to chew on, so it won't eat your carpets (as mine did recently).

But then there is the other point of view. Can seaweed - especially seaweed harvested in the Pacific ocean near Japan, itself be absorbing the radiation that is being released into the sea from the Fukushima power plant? Such fears are making some people wary about eating seaweed. I have a friend who used to order seaweed salad every time we ate out, who has even started taking the nori wrap off her sushi. Several countries such as Australia and Indonesia, have halted or restricted seaweed imports from Japan in case it is contaminated with radioactive iodine.

True, seaweed can in theory absorb the dangerous iodine-131 from nuclear waste as well as all those good minerals and other substances that give it such a healthy reputation. Unfortunately, the seaweed can't tell the difference between the safe kind of iodine and the unsafe kind. But don't get too nervous. Remember, the ocean is a big place, not all seaweed comes from the ocean near Fukushima (even Japan imports seaweed from other countries as well), and many seaweed farms in the disaster area have (sadly) been wiped out by the tsunami. On top of all this, much of the iodine-131 in seaweed would usually have degraded before it reaches our plate.

What I am saying is that the risk of dangerous doses of radioactive iodine from your seaweed salad or miso soup or sushi are pretty small. But also, you shouldn't eat huge amounts of those wonderful sea vegetables thinking that they will protect you if nuclear radiation does come your way in air currents, water or food. This is not a case of "more is better." Too much "good" iodine can be toxic to your body.

TSF

RADIATION IN FOOD: THE FACTS ABOUT CESIUM-137

Since the Japan disaster, we have been hearing a lot about radiation exposure in the news, including about the isotope cesium-137 . Several recent posts on this blog have also mentioned it. But what is it? And, how does it affect us? I am not an expert on cesium-137, so I did some research using reliable websites, including those of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH). This is what I came up with.

Cesium 137 is a common radioactive form of the metal cesium (cesium 134 can be present in food, but is less common). It can be in a lot of other places as well. Cesium 137 is used in some industrial processes and in certain treatments for cancer. It can be found in hospital and research laboratory waste, which is usually safely disposed of. But, as we know, it is also released into the environment by nuclear reactor accidents. This happened at the Chernobyl disaster, and has also been occurring over the past month at the Fukushima power plant.

From the environment, cesium-137 can enter growing food. Leafy vegetables and grass tend to pick it up first from the air, helped by wind currents and rain. Cattle and other animals eat grass, and from there it gets into our milk and meat. Some is also absorbed by soil and water and enters root vegetables and fish. Unlike iodine-131, which can last as little as 8 days, cesium-137 has a half-life of about 30 years. Cleanup of soil or lakes or rivers is very difficult and costly. It also creates a high level of risk for the workers doing it.

The problem is that you cannot feel, smell or taste cesium in your food or water. Unless you use special equipment to check for it, you don't know if you are being exposed. If you do ingest it, this metal is apparently easily absorbed by the GI system. Some would be excreted through urine, but a portion would build up in your body, especially in the muscles. The cells lining the intestine and stomach are particularly vulnerable.

Exposure to enough cesium 137 can raise your lifetime risk of cancer fractionally, for example, from 20% to 24%. It can also cause genetic and developmental problems or result in other damage to organs. In the short term, sizeable exposure (unlikely with food or water) may give you headache, diarrhea, bleeding gums, nausea, vomiting and even fever. The size of the dose, and how regularly and how long you keep eating the contaminated food will determine how much you are affected overall.

As with almost all contaminants in food, health effects of radiation will partly depend on who you are: your age and general health, although case studies have documented mysterious exceptions to the rule. Again, as with many contaminants, if the doses are few and small, the cesium-137 will not affect your health. But if your consumption of cesium-contaminated food is "acute" or regular over a long enough period of time, especially if you are also getting radiation from other sources (such as the environment, X-rays, your occupation, international flights, or whatever), it can add to these other sources of cesium and damage your health.

Yes, there are several tests for cesium-137, that can measure levels of it in your urine, blood, bones, feces, hair or skin. But don't expect such tests to be widely available. Most medical laboratories don't do them. If diagnosed with dangerous levels of cesium-137 in your body, treatments are available.

TSF

CAN RICE BE CONTAMINATED?

We almost never hear of contaminated grains, including contaminated rice. But rice can be contaminated - like any other food. This can be a huge risk, since rice is the staple food for about half the world. Children, as well as adults, may eat large amounts of it regularly, particularly if they are poor and can afford little else. Or, you may be well off, but be more exposed to risks in rice if you go on one of the rice diets to lose weight, as a friend of mine did.

Many of the nastier things that have cropped up in rice have been absorbed into the rice from the soil they grow in. In Japan, it's now rice planting time, and the government has issued restrictions about planting in some areas affected by radiation from the Fukushima power plant, because of fears that the rice will pick up the radioisotope cesium-137 from the soil. It's sad for the rice farmers but good that care is being taken to keep the food supply safe.

But radiation is not the only hazard that rice can pick up. When I was doing the research for The Safe Food Handbook, one of the issues I became most absorbed in, and contacted top researchers world wide, was the risk of arsenic in rice. As we know, arsenic is one of the worst heavy metals. It can be present in soil, as when arsenic-based presitcides have been used on previous crops such as cotton, to control the boll weevel. Certain plants absorb arsenic, others do not. Rice is one that does.

Quite high levels of arsenic have indeed been found in rice from certain parts of south-central United States, and in some - not all - rice from countries such as Bangaldesh and India. Organic growing conditions will not guarantee that the rice will be low in arsenic, as it can stay there for very long periods of time.

These are just two possible contaminants in rice. And wouldn't it - brown rice, and especially rice bran, are likely to be more risky. Nutrition and food safety do not always agree.

TSF

ANOTHER RECALL OF BAGGED SPINACH BECAUSE OF SALMONELLA

Another recall of its bagged spinach has just been announced by Fresh Express. Testing turned up Salmonella bacteria in a sample. A deja-vu. This huge company has had so many recalls, and several have involved spinach. So much for clean and safe ready-to-eat greens.

I was in a large supermarket just two days ago, checking the produce aisle, when I overheard a conversation between one of the staff and a customer. The customer was asking whether she had to wash the bagged (yes, Fresh Express) spinach. "Oh no, said the young woman helping her. This is perfectly safe as it has been thoroughly washed. Washing will only make it soggy and be bad for you." I wonder if that was one of the contaminated bags.

But would washing it again help? Maybe, maybe not. The experts - including government ones - are divided in their opinions. Bacteria can get right inside. (So can radioisotopes from radiation, by the way, as found in Japan). But no, if you feel better giving the spinach another rinse or two or three, as long as the water you use is clean, it certainly won't contaminate the spinach.

Incidentally, I was asked at a recent book reading event for The Safe Food Handbook in San Francisco, if I ever bought bagged spinach. I had to confess that I sometimes did. But I added that I cooked it, which is true. (That will usually deal with any pesky Salmonella).

By the way, here are the details on the latest recall: Fresh Express 9 oz. Bag Spinach with Product Codes starting with H081 and H082, UPC Code of 7127913204 and Use-by Dates of April 6 and 7.

TSF

WHICH IS WORSE - RADIATION OR SALMONELLA IN YOUR FOOD?:

(photo by Micael Elins for TIME).
A lot of people around the world seem to be nervous about radiation in their food. Radiation detectors are the latest hot item. They are not just being bought in Japan. There is also an active market in the U.S. - and, elsewhere. I read an article in the Business section of the New York Times today (my favorite daily read) that was talking about high-end restaurants in Manhattan, New York, using geiger counters to check the fish they buy- and every other item that enters the restaurant (I wonder if they advertises "radiation-free food?).

Frankly, I think people are exaggerating the risks. Yes, as I predicted, both radioactive iodine and cesium have been found in higher than normal levels in fish caught between the Fukushima power plant site and Tokyo. And yes, these unhealthy substances have also turned up in fairly high levels in some leafy greens, and in milk. This is just as I predicted. And yes, I bet we'll soon get reports about radiation-contamination of root vegetables in Japan (as the rains drive the radiation down into the soil), and then, of eggs and of meat.

But let's look at this in context. You have to regularly eat these food items for your health to be affected (although pregnant women and children have to be extra careful). One meal or a few meals are not going to hurt you. And if you are nervous, there are ways of detecting the presence of such radioisotopes, although it may cost you over a thousand dollars to buy a reliable radiation detector. Besides, governments all over the world are busily testing for radiation in foods imported from Japan, so maybe you can just leave it to them and save your money.

Let's compare this to some of the bacteria contaminating our food supply these days. OK - take a look at my earlier post about food contaminants in California. One meal with a hefty dose of Clostridium botulinum, Salmonella, or Listeria monocytogenes can be enough to make you seriously ill - and, can even be deadly. Yes certainly, in countries food such as the U.S. and Canada (and many others) testing for such bacteria is done by both the company and government to make sure that they won't turn up in your lunch or dinner. But believe me, it's not that simple. They'll only catch some of them (see the book for details on this).

So, what I am saying, is " Don't stress out about radiation in your food." Life - and food - is full of risks, and all said and done, radiation may not be the worst of them.

TSF

MORE ON RADIATION IN FISH AND SHELLFISH

I blogged on March 27 about the likely risk of radiation contamination of fish and shellfish near the Fukushima power plant. That was over a week ago. It was also before we heard about the tons of radiation-contaminated water flowing into the sea near the Fukushima power plant. In fact, the latest numbers say about 7 tons of radiated water an hour is flowing into the sea from that crack in the pit at the damaged Reactor No. 2 (where ongoing efforts are now resorting to newspaper and sawdust to plug it). It was also before concerns about radiation in fish affected fresh fish sales in Tokyo, and before the media began to discuss it all over the world, including in the U.S.

And, it was before there were any reported findings of radiation in seafood near the Fukushima plant. The International Atomic Energy Agency has now reported that at the port of Choshi, in Chiba prefecture south of Fukushima, about 20% of the fish caught have been found to have elevated levels of caesium-137 (not high enough to be considered unsafe - yet).

Caesium-137? Isn't everyone talking about iodine-131? Well, yes. But most radioisotopes, including Iodine-131, have pretty short half lives (the time it takes for half the amount that initially enters the water to decay), measured in days or weeks. Testing may show elevated levels in surface seawater now (and I bet it's in lakes and rivers too) but it will get diluted, and soon just decay. In fact, the International Atomic Energy Agency said iodine-131 in seawater would “soon be of no concern.”

But other radioisotopes such as caseium-137 and stronium-90 can stick around for a long time - years, and even decades. I gather from the research on Chernobyl, that if it's in water bodies it's likely to sink down into the sediment and bioaccumulate (that is, build up) in the fish and shellfish in the area.

I wonder when we'll hear about the levels of caesium-137 found in seafood in rivers and lakes near Fukushima? I would guess, pretty soon.

By the way, I notice that my local store has stopped selling scallops imported from Japan.

TSF

RECENT FOOD RECALLS IN CALIFORNIA

California is a great place to live. It's not just the beauty and climate. It's also the food. California is the number one food and agricultural producer in the United States. More than half the nation's fruit, nuts, and vegetables come from here. In addition, it's the nation's number one dairy state. There are also a large number of food importers, distributors and processors based here. That can mean that our food travels less miles and arrives at our table in fresher condition than in many other parts of the U.S.

Unfortunately, all this does not mean that California has completely safe food. In fact, we come in for more than our fair share of recalls. Let's take those I have listed for the past few days. I am also noting how you can contact the company for more information (see also the alerts column and click on FDA or USDA links for additional details).

• Jennie-O Turkey Store frozen turkey burgers with possible Salmonella contamination were distributed in California as well as in Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Illinois, Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio, Washington and Wisconsin. For more information, see the special website the company has created for consumers at www.jennieo.com/recall(Congratulations on taking this unusual step!).

• Seafood Salads from Frankly Fresh with possible contamination by Listeria monocytogenes were distributed through retail supermarkets in California (as well as in Nevada). For more information contact the company at we-care@franklyfresh.com or its hot line at 1-800-826-3322 Monday through Friday from 9 a.m to 5 p.m. PT.

• Angelina brand smoked round scad (imported from the Philippines) which could be contaminated with Clostridium botulinum was distributed in California through retail stores, supermarkets and wholesale distributors (as well as in Nevada, Arizona, Utah, Washington, Colorado, Illinois, Iowa, Texas, Maryland, Virginia, Florida and the Virgin Islands). For more information - Contact the company at 323-257-1888 Monday to Friday noon to 9 p.m. EDT.

• Sprouts sold by Louie Foods International were apparently distributed only in California in the central valley and along the CA coast. For more information call Louie Foods, International at (559) 264-2745 PT.

By the way, three of the four recalls below (all except the turkey burgers) originated in California as well. All the bacteria involved in these incidents - Clostridium, Listeria and Salmonella - can cause serious and even fatal illnesses. You can not tell by looking at these foods that they may be contaminated.

Be careful my California friends.

TSF

FOOTNOTE: I notice that a lot of blog readers are pulling up this post during a ground turkey recall in August, which also affects California. The present post only covered a few days in April. The ground turkey recall is dealt with in three posts in August 3-4.