> pasteurization does not kill Mycobacterium paratuberculosis.
Haven't fully read the post yet - but pasteurization is SUPPOSED to kill it
because mycobateria ARE the most difficult disease organism (bacteria at
least) to kill and are prevelent in cattle (often as mycobacterium bovis - cow
tb), transmissable in milk, very hard to eliminate once the disease is
established and can often prove deadly if untreated - TB kills more people
worldwide than any other infection.. They therefore set the standard for what
pasteurization is supposed to accomplish.
In other words, if the bacteria aren't dying as they should, either the
pasteurization isn't being done properly - the humans involved aren't
cooperating, or the bacteria aren't cooperating - are getting more resistent
to heat and the fast chill that's supposed to follow it.
In any case, pasteurization when obligatory (in the U.S this means always,
unless not for human consumption or done in any of the 32 states (last time I
looked) that permit sales of CERTIFIED raw milk. Certified raw milk and the
cows that produce it are subject to constant inspections by governmental
inspectors (daily, vs much less frequently in dairies that pasteurize).
Pasteurization where mandated by legal disposition must be carried out
according to the terms contained in that disposition. It's a public health
problem and either the data is incorrect so the law must be strengthened, or
enforced more rigorously.
My 10th (old) edition of Tabor's Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary says of
pasteurization: "In milk, pathogenic bacteria are destroyed at 167° F. in 10
minutes, 158° F. in 15 minutes and at 155° F. in 30 minutes. It decreases the
content of vitimin C and vitimin B."
The best tasting and most nutritious milk is unpasteurized, from healthy
cows. But you'd better be sure.
TB can take years to develope if the subject's defenses are strong and so it's
hard to know where it came from, when at last the patient is so ill he or she
must be diagnosed and treated. (It can also be very hard to diagnose,
particularly when it's milk derived. i.e. mycobacterium bovis).
In the U.S. most transmission comes from human to human, lung to lung, through
airborne matter. Therefore, in the U.S. most TB is pulmonary. However, where
transmission is common through consumption of un or poorly pateurized milk or
its derivitives from infected cows, MANY more cases of tb in humans will be
EXTRApulmonary. (I say infected cows because this is an internal disease and
unlike with salmonella and many other infection causing bacteria that are more
prevelent in the environment, the cows normally must be infected - raw milk
from healthy cows will not normally tranmit TB - although an infected handler
COULD conceivably cough into the milk, if for some reason it's not all being
done by machines - from milking on).
These data are familiar to me due to my labors as consultant on Zoonosis for
the 30 country health district here in southern jalisco, as well as the
municipal govt. Of course you DO tend to get more personally involved after
contracting the disease yourself, first. In fact, a little relevent,
practical subjectivity can do wonders for one's objectivity, because NO one
knows much when on the outside looking in. Good science like good anything
else, takes a little (and often a lot) of getting personally and passionately
involved - i.e. committed. While popular theory has it that this may color
one's perception, it simply tempers one's discipline. And only tempered steel
will hold it's edge.
Annecdote: I haven't drank milk or eaten any dairy products for years.
On reading on, it appears the bacteria discussed is not TB then - it's PARAtb
- but still a mycobacterium. In any case, the data given for "normal
pasteurization" is way off. It doesn't jive with well know standards - 72° C.
is 161.6 F, and if this particular pathogen requires more, it will have to be
mandated accordingly, by law; in order to correct the situation in practice.
As more accurate data is produced, lawmakers must be under constant
surveillence and pressure from consumer and public interest groups, in order
to offset the economic and therefore political influence coming from vested
interests.
Michele Gale-Sinex/CIAS, UW-Madison wrote:
> Howdy, all--
>
> Thought this might interest those of you with dairy connections. From
> ProMED. It's a review of and response to the Anti-Dairy Coalition's
> claim that pasteurization does not kill Mycobacterium
> paratuberculosis.
> I believe it's a pretty good case study of how
> complicated is the relationship between research and people's
> understanding of that when basing their food consumption decisions
> on the best available research. And how easy it is both to
> misunderstand and be misunderstood that relationship.
>
> peace
> misha
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
> MYCOBACTERIUM PARATUBERCULOSIS, MILK SURVEY - UK (02)
> *****************************************************
> A ProMED-mail post
>
> Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 13:14:31 GMT
> From: J Ralph Blanchfield
>
> What may have sparked off the current investigation, requested by
> ACMSF, was the following press release in USA in July.
>
> ANTI-MILK GROUP EXPOSES CLAIM THAT NORMAL PASTEURIZATION KILLS
> DANGEROUS BACTERIUM IN MILK July 14/98
>
> NEW YORK -- The Anti-Dairy Coalition has denounced a claim, based on a
> recent U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) study, that normal
> pasteurization practiced by dairy producers nationwide inactivates a
> dangerous bacterium routinely found in raw milk.
If and when infected cattle are producing that milk.
> In his weekly Anti-Dairy Coalition Newsletter column on the Internet,
> Coalition executive director Robert Cohen says the USDA study, which
> was reported in the May 10, 1998 issue of Hoard's Dairyman, a trade
> publication, has been completely misrepresented by the agency and by
> the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in claiming that normal
> pasteurization (72 degrees centigrade for 15 seconds) destroys
> _Mycobacterium paratuberculosis_, the bacterium linked to Johne's
> disease in cows and Crohn's disease in humans that produces persistent
> and severe diarrhea.
It appears this is not TB then - it's PARAtb - but still a mycobacterium.
The data given for "normal pasteurization is way off. It doesn't jive with
well know standards 72° C. is 161.6 F.
> Cohen, author of "Milk - the Deadly Poison," says that the USDA study
> actually revealed that the dangerous bacteria were not totally
> inactivated until after 15 minutes of pasteurization at 72 degrees
> centigrade. That's "very bad news for all milk drinkers," says Cohen.
> "Normal pasteurization at this temperature calls for only 15-second
> treatment, not 15 minutes. We believe the government and Hoard's
> Dairyman are misleading the public into thinking pasteurized milk is
> safe from _Mycobacterium paratuberculosis_ when the USDA's own
> scientist is saying that pasteurization inactivates the bacterium only
> when the process maintains at least 72 degrees centigrade for at least
> 15 minutes. That's 14 minutes and 45 seconds longer than the normal
> commercial pasteurization of milk in the United States."
>
> The USDA study is entitled "Heat Inactivation of _Mycobacterium
> paratuberculosis_ in Raw Milk: Are Current Pasteurization Conditions
> Effective?" Based on this study, Hoard's Dairyman told its
> 100,000-plus milk producer subscribers, "Heat treatment
> (pasteurization) destroys this dangerous disease."
>
> Cohen says the FDA supports the same conclusion. He refers to a letter
> addressed to government officials from Joseph Smucker, team leader of
> the Milk and Safety Team at the Center for Food Safety and Applied
> Nutrition, a branch of the FDA. The letter says: "After a review of
> the available literature on the subject, it is the position of FDA
> that the latest research shows conclusively that commercial
> pasteurization does indeed eliminate this hazard."
>
> Cohen says every assertion about pasteurization's effectiveness is
> refuted in the abstract of the USDA study, which states: "Currently,
> it is not known whether commercial pasteurization effectively kills
> _Mycobacterium paratuberculosis_ in contaminated raw milk." "This
> sentence," Cohen says, "contradicts every conclusion made from this
> very same paper!"
>
> The senior author of the abstract is Judy Stabel, Ph.D. On the second
> page of Dr. Stabel's paper (published in the December 1997 issue of
> Applied and Environmental Microbiology), she reveals: "Bacteria were
> not totally inactivated until after 15 minutes of incubation
> (pasteurization) at 72 degrees centigrade." In her paper, Dr. Stabel
> also writes: "There is no definitive evidence to date that viable M.
> paratuberculosis is present in retail pasteurized dairy products."
>
> When she was asked why there was no evidence and if milk samples had
> ever been tested at retail sites, Cohen says her response was "No."
> When asked "Why not?" she replied, "I don't know." However, Cohen
> contends that British scientists have taken milk samples at the point
> of retail purchase and have cultured live tuberculosis [presumably she
> means _M. paratuberculosis_ - MHJ] bacteria from these samples.
>
> Cohen concludes that the FDA and USDA have misinterpreted Dr. Stabel's
> paper, and scientific evidence suggests that this dangerous bacterium
> survives pasteurization. "This is just another example of how
> Americans are being betrayed by regulatory agencies like FDA and
> USDA," Cohen warns.
>
> Formed in June 1998, the Anti-Dairy Coalition includes some of the
> country's top physicians and health educators: Dr. Julian Whitaker,
> author and editor of the monthly newsletter, Health & Healing; Dr.
> Charles Attwood, often called heir apparent to Dr. Benjamin Spock; Dr.
> Vicki Griffin; Dr. Daniel Twogood; Dr. Richard DeAndrea and Dr.
> Richard Schwartz.
>
> *********
>
> However, the following information was subsequently provided by IFT to
> its Science Communicators by e-mail, and I received a copy as part of
> the mutual exchange of food safety information between IFST and IFT --
> :
>
> It appears that the Anti-Dairy Coalition ignored results from the
> second half of Stabel et al. (1997). The researchers examined the
> effectiveness of two methods of heat inactivation to inactivate
> _Mycobacterium paratuberculosis_ in raw milk:
>
> (1) the holder test tube method, often used in previous studies but
> not used commercially, in which the milk is held still during
> treatment; and
>
> (2) the lab-scale pasteurizer method, which simulates
> high-temperature, short-time (HTST) conditions in commercial
> pasteurization and in which the milk flows through the pasteurization
> unit.
>
> Stabel et al. concluded that the flow of milk during commercial
> pasteurization is essential for effective killing of the _M.
> paratuberculosis_. Effective pasteurization via the non-commercial
> holder test tube method did, indeed, require 15 minutes at 72degC. The
> researchers stated: "Bacteria were not totally inactivated until after
> 15 min of incubation [via the holder tube method of pasteurization] at
> 72degC." These are the results reported, perhaps not in sufficient
> detail, by the Anti-Dairy Coalition.
>
> The latter commercial method, however, did effectively kill the
> bacteria within 15 seconds. The researchers state: "Results from _M.
> paratuberculosis_ heat inactivation experiments when the lab-scale
> pasteurizer method was used indicated that both strains of _M.
> paratuberculosis_ tested, 19698 and Ben, at a concentration of either
> 10^4 or 10^6 CFU/ml were effectively inactivated after treatment at
> 72degC for 15 s (data not shown)."
>
> The authors write:
>
> "Studies conducted in our laboratory with the lab-scale industrial
> pasteurizer unit have demonstrated that turbulent flow of milk during
> pasteurization is essential for complete killing of contaminating _M.
> paratuberculosis_."
>
> Also of interest is a Letter to the Editor, charging that Stabel et
> al. dismissed previous work which concluded that HTST pasteurization
> may not effectively kill the bacteria. The letter also questioned the
> use of frozen and _sonicated M. paratuberculosis_.
>
> In a rebuttal, Stabel wrote: "In our opinion, the laboratory-scale
> pasteurizer unit utilized in our laboratory simulates commercial
> pasteurizer units more closely than any other methodology employed to
> date. Results from our studies with the laboratory-scale pasteurizer
> indicate that HTST pasteurization effectively kills all _M.
> paratuberculosis_ cells experimentally inoculated into raw milk."
>
>
> - ------------------------------
>
> Stabel, J.R., E.M. Steadham, and C.A. Bolin. 1997. Heat inactivation
> of Mycobacterium paratuberculosis in raw milk: Are current
> pasteurization conditions effective? Applied and Environmental Micro.
> 63(12): 4,975-77.
>
> Grant, I.R. 1997. Letter to the Editor. And author's reply. Applied
> and Environmental Micro. 64(7): 2,760-61.
>
> *********
>
> The UK requirement of 71.7 degrees C for 15 seconds or any equivalent
> combination [UK Dairy Products (Hygiene) Regulations 1995 (Schedule 4,
> Part II, 2(a)] are only very slightly less than the US requirement of
> 72 degrees C for 15 seconds.
>
> Can that marginal difference account for the preliminary finding of a
> few commercial samples in N Ireland containing _M. paratuberculosis_?
> Or do the results suggest either that not all plants there are
> effectively complying all the time with the process required by the UK
> Regulations, or that in those instances post-pasteurisation
> contamination has occurred?
>
> It seems to me that important immediate requirements must be to trace
> the positive samples back to the plant(s) whence they came and to
> investigate the equipment, the processing records and the plant
> hygiene.
>
> - --
> J Ralph Blanchfield, MBE
> Food Science, Food Technology & Food Law Consultant
> Chair, IFST External Affairs
> Web Editor, Institute of Food Science & Technology
>
> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
> Michele Gale-Sinex, communications manager
> Center for Integrated Ag Systems
> UW-Madison College of Ag and Life Sciences
> Voice: (608) 262-8018 FAX: (608) 265-3020
> http://www.wisc.edu/cias/
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> Dennis: Anarcho-syndicalism is a way of *preserving* freedom!
> His Wife: Oh, Dennis, *forget* about freedom! We 'aven't got enough mud!
>
> To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg".
> To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
> "subscribe sanet-mg-digest".
--Douglas M. Hinds Centro para el Desarrollo Comunitario y Rural A.C. (CeDeCoR) (Center for Community and Rural Development) - (non profit) Cd. Guzman, Jalisco 49000 MEXICO e-mail: dmhinds@acnet.net, dhinds@ucol.mx, cedecor@acnet.net, cedecor@ipnet.com.mx
--------------736FBD20C2E353AD8A142888 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> pasteurization does not kill Mycobacterium paratuberculosis.
Haven't fully read the post yet - but pasteurization is SUPPOSED to kill it because mycobateria ARE the most difficult disease organism (bacteria at least) to kill and are prevelent in cattle (often as mycobacterium bovis - cow tb), transmissable in milk, very hard to eliminate once the disease is established and can often prove deadly if untreated - TB kills more people worldwide than any other infection.. They therefore set the standard for what pasteurization is supposed to accomplish.
In other words, if the bacteria aren't dying as they should, either the pasteurization isn't being done properly - the humans involved aren't cooperating, or the bacteria aren't cooperating - are getting more resistent to heat and the fast chill that's supposed to follow it.
In any case, pasteurization when obligatory (in the U.S this means always, unless not for human consumption or done in any of the 32 states (last time I looked) that permit sales of CERTIFIED raw milk. Certified raw milk and the cows that produce it are subject to constant inspections by governmental inspectors (daily, vs much less frequently in dairies that pasteurize). Pasteurization where mandated by legal disposition must be carried out according to the terms contained in that disposition. It's a public health problem and either the data is incorrect so the law must be strengthened, or enforced more rigorously.
My 10th (old) edition of Tabor's Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary says of pasteurization: "In milk, pathogenic bacteria are destroyed at 167° F. in 10 minutes, 158° F. in 15 minutes and at 155° F. in 30 minutes. It decreases the content of vitimin C and vitimin B."
The best tasting and most nutritious milk is unpasteurized, from healthy cows. But you'd better be sure.
TB can take years to develope if the subject's defenses are strong and so it's hard to know where it came from, when at last the patient is so ill he or she must be diagnosed and treated. (It can also be very hard to diagnose, particularly when it's milk derived. i.e. mycobacterium bovis).
In the U.S. most transmission comes from human to human, lung to lung, through airborne matter. Therefore, in the U.S. most TB is pulmonary. However, where transmission is common through consumption of un or poorly pateurized milk or its derivitives from infected cows, MANY more cases of tb in humans will be EXTRApulmonary. (I say infected cows because this is an internal disease and unlike with salmonella and many other infection causing bacteria that are more prevelent in the environment, the cows normally must be infected - raw milk from healthy cows will not normally tranmit TB - although an infected handler COULD conceivably cough into the milk, if for some reason it's not all being done by machines - from milking on).
These data are familiar to me due to my labors as consultant on Zoonosis for the 30 country health district here in southern jalisco, as well as the municipal govt. Of course you DO tend to get more personally involved after contracting the disease yourself, first. In fact, a little relevent, practical subjectivity can do wonders for one's objectivity, because NO one knows much when on the outside looking in. Good science like good anything else, takes a little (and often a lot) of getting personally and passionately involved - i.e. committed. While popular theory has it that this may color one's perception, it simply tempers one's discipline. And only tempered steel will hold it's edge.
Annecdote: I haven't drank milk or eaten any dairy products for years.
On reading on, it appears the bacteria discussed is not TB then - it's PARAtb - but still a mycobacterium. In any case, the data given for "normal pasteurization" is way off. It doesn't jive with well know standards - 72° C. is 161.6 F, and if this particular pathogen requires more, it will have to be mandated accordingly, by law; in order to correct the situation in practice.
As more accurate data is produced, lawmakers must be under constant surveillence and pressure from consumer and public interest groups, in order to offset the economic and therefore political influence coming from vested interests.
Michele Gale-Sinex/CIAS, UW-Madison wrote:
Howdy, all--Thought this might interest those of you with dairy connections. From
ProMED. It's a review of and response to the Anti-Dairy Coalition's
claim that pasteurization does not kill Mycobacterium
paratuberculosis.I believe it's a pretty good case study of howIf and when infected cattle are producing that milk.
complicated is the relationship between research and people's
understanding of that when basing their food consumption decisions
on the best available research. And how easy it is both to
misunderstand and be misunderstood that relationship.peace
misha>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
MYCOBACTERIUM PARATUBERCULOSIS, MILK SURVEY - UK (02)
*****************************************************
A ProMED-mail postDate: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 13:14:31 GMT
From: J Ralph BlanchfieldWhat may have sparked off the current investigation, requested by
ACMSF, was the following press release in USA in July.ANTI-MILK GROUP EXPOSES CLAIM THAT NORMAL PASTEURIZATION KILLS
DANGEROUS BACTERIUM IN MILK July 14/98NEW YORK -- The Anti-Dairy Coalition has denounced a claim, based on a
recent U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) study, that normal
pasteurization practiced by dairy producers nationwide inactivates a
dangerous bacterium routinely found in raw milk.In his weekly Anti-Dairy Coalition Newsletter column on the Internet,It appears this is not TB then - it's PARAtb - but still a mycobacterium. The data given for "normal pasteurization is way off. It doesn't jive with well know standards 72° C. is 161.6 F.
Coalition executive director Robert Cohen says the USDA study, which
was reported in the May 10, 1998 issue of Hoard's Dairyman, a trade
publication, has been completely misrepresented by the agency and by
the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in claiming that normal
pasteurization (72 degrees centigrade for 15 seconds) destroys
_Mycobacterium paratuberculosis_, the bacterium linked to Johne's
disease in cows and Crohn's disease in humans that produces persistent
and severe diarrhea.Cohen, author of "Milk - the Deadly Poison," says that the USDA study
actually revealed that the dangerous bacteria were not totally
inactivated until after 15 minutes of pasteurization at 72 degrees
centigrade. That's "very bad news for all milk drinkers," says Cohen.
"Normal pasteurization at this temperature calls for only 15-second
treatment, not 15 minutes. We believe the government and Hoard's
Dairyman are misleading the public into thinking pasteurized milk is
safe from _Mycobacterium paratuberculosis_ when the USDA's own
scientist is saying that pasteurization inactivates the bacterium only
when the process maintains at least 72 degrees centigrade for at least
15 minutes. That's 14 minutes and 45 seconds longer than the normal
commercial pasteurization of milk in the United States."The USDA study is entitled "Heat Inactivation of _Mycobacterium
paratuberculosis_ in Raw Milk: Are Current Pasteurization Conditions
Effective?" Based on this study, Hoard's Dairyman told its
100,000-plus milk producer subscribers, "Heat treatment
(pasteurization) destroys this dangerous disease."Cohen says the FDA supports the same conclusion. He refers to a letter
addressed to government officials from Joseph Smucker, team leader of
the Milk and Safety Team at the Center for Food Safety and Applied
Nutrition, a branch of the FDA. The letter says: "After a review of
the available literature on the subject, it is the position of FDA
that the latest research shows conclusively that commercial
pasteurization does indeed eliminate this hazard."Cohen says every assertion about pasteurization's effectiveness is
refuted in the abstract of the USDA study, which states: "Currently,
it is not known whether commercial pasteurization effectively kills
_Mycobacterium paratuberculosis_ in contaminated raw milk." "This
sentence," Cohen says, "contradicts every conclusion made from this
very same paper!"The senior author of the abstract is Judy Stabel, Ph.D. On the second
page of Dr. Stabel's paper (published in the December 1997 issue of
Applied and Environmental Microbiology), she reveals: "Bacteria were
not totally inactivated until after 15 minutes of incubation
(pasteurization) at 72 degrees centigrade." In her paper, Dr. Stabel
also writes: "There is no definitive evidence to date that viable M.
paratuberculosis is present in retail pasteurized dairy products."When she was asked why there was no evidence and if milk samples had
ever been tested at retail sites, Cohen says her response was "No."
When asked "Why not?" she replied, "I don't know." However, Cohen
contends that British scientists have taken milk samples at the point
of retail purchase and have cultured live tuberculosis [presumably she
means _M. paratuberculosis_ - MHJ] bacteria from these samples.Cohen concludes that the FDA and USDA have misinterpreted Dr. Stabel's
paper, and scientific evidence suggests that this dangerous bacterium
survives pasteurization. "This is just another example of how
Americans are being betrayed by regulatory agencies like FDA and
USDA," Cohen warns.Formed in June 1998, the Anti-Dairy Coalition includes some of the
country's top physicians and health educators: Dr. Julian Whitaker,
author and editor of the monthly newsletter, Health & Healing; Dr.
Charles Attwood, often called heir apparent to Dr. Benjamin Spock; Dr.
Vicki Griffin; Dr. Daniel Twogood; Dr. Richard DeAndrea and Dr.
Richard Schwartz.*********
However, the following information was subsequently provided by IFT to
its Science Communicators by e-mail, and I received a copy as part of
the mutual exchange of food safety information between IFST and IFT --
:It appears that the Anti-Dairy Coalition ignored results from the
second half of Stabel et al. (1997). The researchers examined the
effectiveness of two methods of heat inactivation to inactivate
_Mycobacterium paratuberculosis_ in raw milk:(1) the holder test tube method, often used in previous studies but
not used commercially, in which the milk is held still during
treatment; and(2) the lab-scale pasteurizer method, which simulates
high-temperature, short-time (HTST) conditions in commercial
pasteurization and in which the milk flows through the pasteurization
unit.Stabel et al. concluded that the flow of milk during commercial
pasteurization is essential for effective killing of the _M.
paratuberculosis_. Effective pasteurization via the non-commercial
holder test tube method did, indeed, require 15 minutes at 72degC. The
researchers stated: "Bacteria were not totally inactivated until after
15 min of incubation [via the holder tube method of pasteurization] at
72degC." These are the results reported, perhaps not in sufficient
detail, by the Anti-Dairy Coalition.The latter commercial method, however, did effectively kill the
bacteria within 15 seconds. The researchers state: "Results from _M.
paratuberculosis_ heat inactivation experiments when the lab-scale
pasteurizer method was used indicated that both strains of _M.
paratuberculosis_ tested, 19698 and Ben, at a concentration of either
10^4 or 10^6 CFU/ml were effectively inactivated after treatment at
72degC for 15 s (data not shown)."The authors write:
"Studies conducted in our laboratory with the lab-scale industrial
pasteurizer unit have demonstrated that turbulent flow of milk during
pasteurization is essential for complete killing of contaminating _M.
paratuberculosis_."Also of interest is a Letter to the Editor, charging that Stabel et
al. dismissed previous work which concluded that HTST pasteurization
may not effectively kill the bacteria. The letter also questioned the
use of frozen and _sonicated M. paratuberculosis_.In a rebuttal, Stabel wrote: "In our opinion, the laboratory-scale
pasteurizer unit utilized in our laboratory simulates commercial
pasteurizer units more closely than any other methodology employed to
date. Results from our studies with the laboratory-scale pasteurizer
indicate that HTST pasteurization effectively kills all _M.
paratuberculosis_ cells experimentally inoculated into raw milk."
- ------------------------------
Stabel, J.R., E.M. Steadham, and C.A. Bolin. 1997. Heat inactivation
of Mycobacterium paratuberculosis in raw milk: Are current
pasteurization conditions effective? Applied and Environmental Micro.
63(12): 4,975-77.Grant, I.R. 1997. Letter to the Editor. And author's reply. Applied
and Environmental Micro. 64(7): 2,760-61.*********
The UK requirement of 71.7 degrees C for 15 seconds or any equivalent
combination [UK Dairy Products (Hygiene) Regulations 1995 (Schedule 4,
Part II, 2(a)] are only very slightly less than the US requirement of
72 degrees C for 15 seconds.Can that marginal difference account for the preliminary finding of a
few commercial samples in N Ireland containing _M. paratuberculosis_?
Or do the results suggest either that not all plants there are
effectively complying all the time with the process required by the UK
Regulations, or that in those instances post-pasteurisation
contamination has occurred?It seems to me that important immediate requirements must be to trace
the positive samples back to the plant(s) whence they came and to
investigate the equipment, the processing records and the plant
hygiene.- --
J Ralph Blanchfield, MBE
Food Science, Food Technology & Food Law Consultant
Chair, IFST External Affairs
Web Editor, Institute of Food Science & Technology<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Michele Gale-Sinex, communications manager
Center for Integrated Ag Systems
UW-Madison College of Ag and Life Sciences
Voice: (608) 262-8018 FAX: (608) 265-3020
http://www.wisc.edu/cias/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Dennis: Anarcho-syndicalism is a way of *preserving* freedom!
His Wife: Oh, Dennis, *forget* about freedom! We 'aven't got enough mud!To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".--
Douglas M. Hinds
Centro para el Desarrollo Comunitario y Rural A.C. (CeDeCoR)
(Center for Community and Rural Development) - (non profit)
Cd. Guzman, Jalisco 49000 MEXICO
e-mail: dmhinds@acnet.net, dhinds@ucol.mx,
cedecor@acnet.net, cedecor@ipnet.com.mx
--------------736FBD20C2E353AD8A142888-- To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest".