Food Protection Trends - November 2008 - 817

released, preserving the fresh squeezed flavors in a continuous mode under non thermal process pressure. For commercialization, more work needs to be done on data collection for pathogens and spores, carbon footprint, high capital costs and market/consumer expectations. Dr. Christine M. Bruhn of University of California-Davis, wrapped up the session with some insight on “Consumer Acceptance of Alternative Technologies.” Her overall point was that “People buy foods, not technologies.” Many of these nonthermal processes can deliver a product that better fits in with consumer demands for foods that are convenient, novel, safe, healthy and environmentally friendly for which consumers are willing to pay a premium. The challenge for the future is to educate the consumer more on how the processes unfamiliar to them work. S15 – harmonization of Irrigation Water Practices Andrea Laycock, University of Delaware and Brita Ball, University of Guelph Dr. Michelle Smith, FDA-CFSAN, opened the session by presenting a regulatory review of US agricultural water quality standards. There are no regulations for agricultural water quality standards, although there is an EPA standard for reclaimed water (treated effluent) used for fresh produce. She outlined the importance of irrigation water quality because it dictates the potential for produce contamination, depending on crop characteristics and on when and how the water is used. Growers may have self-imposed or buyer-imposed quality criteria for irrigation water. Dr. Suresh Pillai, Texas A&M University, discussed microbial quality of irrigation water in the US. He said that 75% of irrigated acres are in the 17 western states and 92% of irrigation systems are sprinkler or furrow. The quality of irrigation water varies. Surface water is expected to have microbial contamination; ground water may be contaminated. Microorganisms found in irrigation canal water are not uniformly distributed and fecal indicators are of limited value. He said these factors make it difficult to tell growers when, how and what to sample. Dr. Norman Fogg presented non-microbial threats to irrigation water on behalf of Dr. Rita Schoeny, US EPA. Irrigation water may slip through the cracks between several regulations. Chemically contaminated water may contaminate crops; however, there is little data about chemicals in irrigation water. EPA’s risk assessments for exposure to contaminants indirectly deal with irrigation water by considering the consumption of contaminated food. The use of wastewater to irrigate crops is a potential food safety hazard due to various chemical contaminants. Next, Norman Fogg, FDA, discussed regional practices of irrigation water. He provided excellent pictures of irrigation systems throughout the United States focusing on water from outbreaks linked to tomatoes and leafy greens. In previous years, water has played a role in outbreaks involving tomatoes, cantaloupes, parsley, green onions, raspberries and lettuce. Several recent tomato outbreaks have been linked to irrigation ponds. He noted that surface water is more subject to contamination than well water, although surface water has the ability to move into ground water. He ended by discussing the variations in irrigation systems in the United States. Jeanette Thurston, USDA-ARS, gave an overview of how animal agriculture affects irrigation water quality. Manure management programs are in place currently to decrease and disseminate pathogens; however, these programs must be closely followed to accomplish that goal. She discussed the need for data regarding pathogens, rather than indicator organisms, sensitivity and viability studies. Collaboration from universities and government agencies is needed to encourage farmers to implement effective manure management programs. Barry Eisenburg, from River Ranch Fresh Foods, gave a growers perspective on irrigation water. He discussed the numerous changes growers and producers have been required to make recently and the additional costs for things from educating farm personnel to lifting irrigation pipes off the ground. What growers want most is to see the science to justify the requirements. Cooperation is needed from universities and private companies to do so. He mentioned that he was very pleased with the research presented at IAFP this year. S16 – Spores in the Dairy Industry — A Growing Concern — What Can You Do? Diego Paiva, Auburn University and Catie Simpson, Colorado State University The symposium focused on trends and recommendations related to the microbiological quality, safety and shelf life of fluid milk and other dairy products. Ray McCoy discussed current distribution trends, in which a declining number of processors must meet the fluid milk demand of increasingly distant consumers. As a result, these products spend a greater amount of time in transit and require a longer shelf life (14–22 days). Progressive processing technologies (i.e., 177°F pasteurization treatments) have the potential to increase shelf life and are being implemented at commercial processing facilities. The effect of such treatments on quality (e.g., increased oxidation) was also discussed. NOVEMBER 2008 | FOOD PROTECTION TRENDS 817

Food Protection Trends - November 2008

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Food Protection Trends - November 2008