Food Protection Trends - November 2010 - 698

analysis of foods. Sensitivity is still an issue (milk is one of the problems). There are significant issues with sample matrices, especially with solid samples. Dr. Bhunia discussed biochip/cell based sensors and light scattering sensors for measuring pathogens and toxins, especially Salmonella Enteritidis PT-1 in raw chicken and peanut butter and E. coli O157:H7. Detection of these organisms took 6—8 hours with laser light technology. He showed a video on how the laser light captures the colony from the petri dish and used laser light to show many pictures of different organisms. His future work will be on micro colony detection. Dr. Applegate talked mainly about molecular sensor technologies to detect different microorganisms in food products.

S25 — Human Noroviruses: Attribution, Transmission, and Control Jie Wei and Visvalingam Jeyachchandran
Dr. Judy Greig, from the Public Health Agency of Canada, the first speaker of this session, spoke on “Foodborne Attribution of Noroviruses.” Dr. Greig illustrated how noroviruses, a leading cause of non-bacterial foodborne illnesses, have a low infectious dose and can be transmitted through several routes. Furthermore, she demonstrated how different methodologies used for estimating norovirus outbreak infections can influence the results. Dr. Suresh D. Pillai from Texas A&M University replaced Nigel Cook of the CSL, UK, who was unable to attend the session, and delivered a talk on “Integrated Monitoring and Control of Foodborne Viruses in the US Food Supply Chain.” Dr. Pillai described the contribution of different routes of transmission on foodborne virus illness outbreaks in the USA. He emphasized the importance of genetic classification of foodborne viruses, molecular identification of noroviruses from different regions or states and their relevance in identification of the source of infection. The necessity of monitoring viral indicators and critical control points in the food supply chain were also outlined in this presentation. Dr. Cristobal Chaidez from the CIAD, Culiacan, Mexico, spoke about the “Transfer and Control of Enteric Viruses on the Farm.” His presentation focused on how farm activities in general could affect the enteric virus contamination of produce, especially bell pepper. He also demonstrated that good manufacturing/farming practices could reduce farm level contamination of produce. Dr. Alvin Lee, from the National Center for Food Safety and Technology, presented transfer data for murine norovirus (MNV) from surfaces commonly used in food preparation. It was shown that the transfer rate was 34.8% from contaminated spigot to hand and 0.61% from hand to spigot. Hand washing 5—20 s with only water rinse can reduce MNV by 0.81 log, while wash with liquid soap and with foam soap caused 0.95 and 0.81 log reductions, respectively. Future study will focus on transfer from hand to produce or produce to hand, and model development for critical control and application to a variety of environments such as cruiseships and houses.

Dr. Moshe Dreyfuss, from FSIS, that spoke on transmission of human norovirus. Person-to-person transmission may occur in hospitals, schools, day care centers, cruise ships, hotels, airplanes, restaurants and picnics, and the number 1 source is in households where dipper is changed. In his opinion, food is a less likely source of norovirus infections than is person-to-person transmission, and foodhandlers are not necessarily the source of infections or outbreaks. Dr. David Macinga, from Gojo, talked about the impact of sanitizers on infections, hand transmission and produce washing. Hands are important vectors in the spread of norovirus, and foodhandlers are more important for norovirus transfer than for transfer of bacteria. Norovirus can be transferred from fingers to food and to multiple surfaces. Different sanitizers such as Quats, hypochlorite, and organic acids have been used for surface disinfection. Human norovirus is more resistant to sanitizers such as bleach and quanternary ammonium than other, surrogate, viruses. Gloving is also an effective barrier to microorganisms.

S26 — Global Issues and Impact of Gluten Allergy and Celiac Disease Matthew Ranieri and Karleigh Huff
This session was aimed at addressing the impact of gluten allergy and celiac disease and issues that arise on a global scale. The first speaker, Suzanne Teuber of the Univesity of California-Davis School of Medicine, focused on a general understanding of celiac disease versus wheat allergy. Diagnosis of celiac disease is increasing, and it is estimated that nearly 1% of the population is afflicted. The best management for those suffering from celiac disease and wheat allergy is avoidance, and data is needed to determine an appropriate threshold for tolerable consumption. The analytical methods in use for measuring gluten in foods were discussed by Samuel Godefroy of Health Canada. Methodology available to assess gluten content of foods includes enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA), of which two methods are readily available. The Skerritt test and the R-5 test. Each uses a different antibody for the ELISA. Mass spectroscopy may be an alternative approach for detection of gluten in foods, but more research is needed before it should be implemented. Steve Taylor of the University of Nebraska-Lincoln discussed gluten detection and the assurance of glutenfree status. It was stressed that individuals with a gluten allergy must avoid foods that contain gluten, but there are a number of definitions for “gluten-free.” The definition proposed by the FDA states that foods containing gluten at < 20 ppm can be labeled “gluten-free.” Many limitations to gluten testing exist. It is important that all foods be analyzed for gluten before being labeled “gluten-free.” While the impact of gluten allergy and celiac disease was discussed in the first three talks, Rhonda Kane (Food Labeling and Standards, FDA) covered the progression of the FDA’s gluten-free food labeling rulemaking. Notably, in the near future, domestic food processors will be responsible for ensuring that “gluten-free foods” do not contain any prohibited grains (i.e., those containing gluten, such as wheat, barley, and rye) or more than

698 FOOD PROTECTION TRENDS | NOVEMBER 2010

Food Protection Trends - November 2010

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Food Protection Trends - November 2010