Category Archives: Microbiological Risk Assessment

Research – New details behind how the Shigella pathogen delivers bacterial proteins into our cells

Science Daily

Shigella - kswfoodworld

Image CDC

Shigella, a bacterial pathogen that causes dysentery and is the leading cause of childhood diarrheal diseases, inserts a pore called a translocon into an infected person’s intestinal cells and then injects bacterial proteins into the cells. There, the proteins hijack the cells’ machinery to help Shigella multiply. In a study published in mBio, a team at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) has uncovered important details about Shigella‘s translocon, which may help researchers develop an effective strategy to block this critical component of infection.

Shigella infects our gut by manipulating our intestinal cells and tricking them into letting the Shigella inside. In fact, there are many bacterial pathogens that use this same, or similar, mechanism to infect us,” says lead author Poyin Chen, PhD, a postdoctoral fellow at MGH. “This translocon pore is essentially the gateway through which bacterial proteins get pumped into our cells. We know that this structure is made of two proteins — IpaB and IpaC — but what we don’t know is how these proteins fit together to make this pore.”

When the investigators used protein mapping techniques to look closely at translocons when they were embedded in cell membranes, they were able to see which of the two proteins — specifically IpaB — makes up the inner ring of the pore. “If you think of the translocon pore as a donut, this would be the walls of the donut hole. This finding is important because this is the part of the translocon pore that directly interacts with bacterial proteins as they are injected into our cells,” explains Chen. “With the findings from this study, we can begin to understand if this pore acts as a slippery tube that bacterial proteins travel through or if the translocon pore can control the flow of bacterial proteins into our cells.”

Such details may help investigators target the translocon and block the entry of Shigella proteins into cells. “For something that is so essential to establishing infection, we know terribly little of how it’s made and how it works,” says Chen. “As we gain a better understanding of its parts, we will be able to approach the structure as a whole and maybe even find ways to neutralize the function of this structure to prevent infection before it can begin.”

Co-authors include Brian C. Russo, Jeffrey K. Duncan-Lowey, Natasha Bitar, Keith Egger and Marcia B. Goldberg.

This work has been supported by the National Institutes of Health, the Massachusetts General Hospital Executive Committee on Research Tosteson Award, and the Charles A. King Trust Postdoctoral Research Fellowship Program.

Research – Editorial: Vibrio Species in the Food Processing Chain

Frontiers in Microbiology

Food Illness

Editorial on the Research Topic
Vibrio Species in the Food Processing Chain

Rising concern about the foodborne illnesses caused by pathogenic Vibrio species (mainly V. parahaemolyticus, V. cholera, and V. vulnificus) has led to a strengthening of research on the characterization of the presence of the genus in food matrices, virulence genes, pandemic markers, and the correlation between clinical and environmental isolates from different ecosystems. The emergence of antimicrobial resistance strains (AMR) in Vibrio spp. may produce a decrease in the effectiveness of commonly used antibiotics, thus posing a threat to public health. Progress in genomic studies has identified motile elements implied in gene transfer that may give birth to developing surveillance strategies for risk mitigation. The development of new infection models that can predict the pathogenesis of Vibrio spp. and the use of high-throughput sequencing techniques for serogroup genes may be useful tools for understanding molecular pathways and the infectivity of Vibrio spp. food isolates. In this Research Topic, different approaches, aiming at characterizing Vibrio spp. from aquaculture, marine, and vegetable ecosystems, together with the evaluation of microbial behavior and the development of new infection and serogroup models, are shown.

A mini-review by Dutta et al. discusses the role and antimicrobial resistance of pathogenic Vibrio spp. They present potential sources of antibiotic resistance genes for Vibrio spp., including the horizontal gene transmission from other pathogens as the main route. This has shown the genetic basis of the emergence of multidrug and extensively multidrug resistant Vibrio spp. through different types of highly mobile elements that can be extensively propagated among bacteria. The use of phage or probiotic therapies as alternative treatments for the inactivation of antibiotic resistant species of Vibrio may be helped by the maintenance of good hygiene practices and processing technologies to protect public health.

Antibiotic resistance genes can also originate from the environment, such as wastewater effluents or sediments in marine or aquaculture habitats. In this regard, Siddique et al. studied the characterization of pathogenic V. parahaemolyticus in a fish farm ecosystem (tilapia, rui, and shrimp). Among the 216 samples, 60.2% were positive for the pathogen, including 323 isolates of which 17 harboured the trh virulence gene gene. They confirm the presence of resistant strains to amoxicillin, ampicillin, and penicillin. Pathogenicity was further confirmed by the fluid accumulation in the ileal loop of rabbits being O8: KUT, the most predominant pathogenic serotype.

The presence and characterization of V. parahaemolyticus and V. vulnificus in marine and estuarine environments was studied by da Silva et al. They found 150 isolates of V. parahaemolyticus, including 52 positives for trh gene, and 129 of V. vulnificus from water and blue crab samples. PFGE and agglutination tests were used for molecular subtyping and determination of antibiotic resistance. The study showed the high presence of the O5 pathogenic serotype, together with the multidrug resistant isolates (41%) and the high genetic diversity of both Vibrio species, as no correlations were found among the sampling sites, antimicrobial resistance profiles, and pathogenicity.

The associated presence of Vibrio spp. in water ecosystems may underestimate their origin from other environmental and food sources. Ready-To-Eat vegetables can harbor pathogenic Vibrio spp. if poor manufacturing, hygiene, and storage practices are followed. Igbinosa et al. evaluated the presence of V. parahaemolyticus in minimally processed vegetables. Among the 63 isolates, they found microbial counts from 1.5 to 1,000 MPN/g and drug resistant isolates to ampicillin and cefotaxime mainly (>60%). They studied the biofilm formation finding that 23.8% of the isolates were strong biofilm producers. Regarding the presence of virulence genes, 100, 14.3, and 31.8% of the isolates harbored the toxR gene, trh, and tdh determinants, respectively.

The microbial behavior of Vibrio spp. can be quantified with predictive models. Posada-Izquierdo et al. investigated the fate of a Vibrio spp. cocktail inoculated in lye-treated table olives for 22 days. A predictive growth model was developed as a function of salt concentration (2–12%) and pH (4–9) using a synthetic medium and table olive brines. They found a higher effect of salt concentration than of pH for the growth inhibition of Vibrio spp. However, they were not able to proliferate in the table olives during fermentation, highlighting that phenolics compounds could exert a clear antimicrobial effect.

The disposal of reliable models to predict the pathogenesis of Vibrio spp. are increasingly needed since the use of virulence markers could not fully elucidate the presence of long-standing virulence indicators. This was demonstrated by Santos et al. using clinical and environmental V. parahaemolyticus isolates in two systemic infection models, namely mice and Galleria mellonella larvae. Interestingly, non-pathogenic environmental isolates produced lethal infections regardless of their source, serotype, and genotype (tdh, orf8, toxRSnew, and vpadF). A high correlation was found in the assayed models, supporting that G. mellonella larvae can be used as an alternative model to study the pathogenesis of V. parahaemolyticus.

Recently, the use of high-throughput sequencing technologies has aided researchers in deciphering the genome of different species. This was essential to provide complete knowledge of the molecular and metabolic pathways of microorganisms and the identification of virulence gene clusters. Bian et al. have developed VPsero, a rapid serotyping tool for V. parahaemolyticus using serogroup specific genes obtained from whole-genome sequencing data. The algorithm, based on the comparison of lipopolysaccharide and capsular polysaccharide gene clusters covered 43 K and 12 O serogroups. The authors showed the high sensitivity and specificity of the tool (>0.91), though limitations could be faced in future studies, such as the addition of new serogroups, the verification of the quality of assembled genomes and the availability of short reads.

This Research Topic presents a collection of manuscripts highlighting relevant findings in the pathogenesis of Vibrio spp. in the food chain and suggests future directions for research, enabling progress in the development of novel analytical methods and surveillance actions to mitigate the emerging risk posed by these human pathogens.

RASFF Alerts – Animal Feed – Enterobacteriaceae – Dog Chews

RASFF

High content of Enterobacteriaceae in dog chews from China in Spain

RASFF

Enterobacteriaceae in dog chews from India in Spain

RASFF Alerts – Animal Feed -Salmonella – Yeast – Rapeseed Meal

RASFF

Salmonella Tennessee in rapeseed meal from Czech Republic in Germany

RASFF

Salmonella in yeast from Poland in Austria

Research – Inactivation of Salmonella spp., Escherichia coli O157:H7 and Listeria monocytogenes in Tahini by Microwave Heating

MDPI

Tahini (sesame paste) is a traditional food. Numerous foodborne outbreaks have been associated with it. This study aimed to (i) explore the efficiency of 2450 MHz microwave heating at 220, 330, 440, 550, and 660 W on the inactivation of Salmonella spp, Escherichia coli O157:H7, and Listeria monocytogenes in tahini; (ii) determine the impact of desiccation and starvation stresses on pathogen survival; (iii) assess the impact of microwave heating on the physicochemical characteristics of tahini. The inoculated microorganisms in tahini were reduced with higher microwave power levels (p < 0.05) and longer exposure times. The D-values of unstressed Salmonella spp., Escherichia coli O157:H7, and L. monocytogenes ranged from 6.18 to 0.50 min, 6.08 to 0.50 min, and 4.69 to 0.48 min, respectively, at power levels of 220 to 660 W, with z-values of 410, 440, and 460 W, respectively. Generally, desiccation and starvation stress levels prior to heating increased microbial resistance to heat treatment. Microwave heating did not affect acid, peroxide, p-anisidine, or color values of tahini up to 90 °C. These findings reveal microwave heating as a potential method for lowering the risk of Salmonella spp., E. coli O157:H7 and L. monocytogenes in tahini with no compromise on quality. View Full-Text

Research – Uses of Bacteriophages as Bacterial Control Tools and Environmental Safety Indicators

Frontiers in Microbiology

Bacteriophages are bacterial-specific viruses and the most abundant biological form on Earth. Each bacterial species possesses one or multiple bacteriophages and the specificity of infection makes them a promising alternative for bacterial control and environmental safety, as a biotechnological tool against pathogenic bacteria, including those resistant to antibiotics. This application can be either directly into foods and food-related environments as biocontrol agents of biofilm formation. In addition, bacteriophages are used for microbial source-tracking and as fecal indicators. The present review will focus on the uses of bacteriophages like bacterial control tools, environmental safety indicators as well as on their contribution to bacterial control in human, animal, and environmental health.

Introduction

Bacteriophages, also known as phages, are prokaryotes viruses, being the most abundant life form, present in all environments and the predominant entities in the sea (Boehme, 1993Suttle, 2005). Several studies have demonstrated a 1:5 relative abundance between bacteria and bacteriophage (Fuhrman, 1999Balter, 2000Rohwer, 2003). They were discovered independently by Twort (1915), who isolated them from Staphylococcus spp., and from patients with dysentery. D’Herelle (1926) described bacteriophage as a virus that has the capability to parasitize bacteria (Twort, 1915Delbruck, 1942). Bacteriophages vary greatly in morphology and replicative characteristics, containing either RNA or DNA, being these parameters currently used by the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV) for bacteriophage classification (King et al., 2012Table 1). However, the identification of bacteriophages is difficult since there are no universally conserved markers, unlike e.g., the bacterial 16S rRNA gene (Paul et al., 2002), with only minor parts of bacteriophage genomes being used to determine family specific makers, such as the viral capsid g20 of T4 (Fuller et al., 1998Marston and Sallee, 2003Sullivan et al., 2008).

USA – Core Table Update

FDA

A new Salmonella Javiana outbreak has been listed on the FDA’s Core Outbreak Investigation Table.  The product linked to the illnesses has not been identified.

USA – FDA Warning Letter – Maribel’s Sweets, Inc.

FDA

WARNING LETTER
CMS 616288

October 25, 2021

Ms. Gracia Borjas, Production Manager

Dear Ms. Leiberman and Ms. Borjas:

The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) inspected your food manufacturing facility located at 38 Dobbin Street, Brooklyn, NY 11222, where you manufacture Ready-to-Eat (RTE) chocolate products (including chocolate bars, ganache, hot chocolate, and cookies), and you repack chocolate products (including hot chocolate, brownies, and caramel bonbons), from June 1 through June 17, 2021. During our inspection, FDA investigators found serious violations of the Current Good Manufacturing Practice, Hazard Analysis, and Risk-Based Preventive Controls for Human Food regulation (CGMP & PC rule), Title 21, Code of Federal Regulations, part 117 (21 CFR part 117). At the conclusion of the inspection, FDA issued an FDA Form 483, Inspectional Observations, listing the deviations found at your facility.

Based on FDA’s inspectional findings, we have determined that the RTE chocolate products manufactured in your facility are adulterated within the meaning of section 402(a)(4) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act) [21 U.S.C. § 342(a)(4)] in that they were prepared, packed, or held under insanitary conditions whereby they may have become contaminated with filth or rendered injurious to health. In addition, failure of the owner, operator, or agent in charge of a covered facility to comply with the preventive controls provisions of the CGMP & PC rule (located in subparts A, C, D, E, F, and G of part 117) is prohibited by Section 301(uu) of the Act [21 USC 331(uu)]. You may find the Act and FDA’s regulations through links in FDA’s home page at http://www.fda.gov/.

We received your response, sent via email on July 6, 2021, which included a summary of corrective actions you have taken or plan to take. After reviewing the inspectional findings and your response to the observations listed in the FDA Form 483, we are issuing this letter to advise you of FDA’s concerns and provide detailed information describing the findings at your facility. We address your response below.

Hazard Analysis and Risk-Based Preventive Controls (Subpart C):

1. You did not prepare, or have prepared, and implement a food safety plan as required by 21 CFR § 117.126(a)(1). The food safety plan must be prepared, or its preparation overseen, by a preventive controls qualified individual and must include the following:

1) The written hazard analysis, as required by 21 CFR § 117.130(a)(2);
2) The written preventive controls, as required by 21 CFR § 117.135(b);
3) The written supply-chain program, as required by Subpart G;
4) The written recall plan, as required by 21 CFR § 117.139(a);
5) The written procedures for monitoring the implementation of the preventive controls, as required by 21 CFR § 117.145(a);
6) The written corrective action procedures, as required by 21 CFR § 117.150(a)(1); and
7) The written verification procedures, as required by 21 CFR § 117.165(b).

2. You did not conduct a hazard analysis to identify and evaluate known or reasonably foreseeable hazards for each type of food manufactured, processed, packed, or held at your facility to determine whether there are any hazards requiring a preventive control, as required by 21 CFR § 117.130(a). Specifically,

a. You did not identify and evaluate allergens as a known or reasonably foreseeable hazard to determine whether allergens are a hazard that requires a preventive control. Your facility receives, stores, and manufactures products that contain allergens such as wheat, milk, tree nuts (e.g., hazelnuts, almonds, and pistachios), and soy. Foods containing allergens can cause serious adverse health consequences or death to allergic individuals if they consume a food to which they are allergic. A knowledgeable person manufacturing/processing food in your circumstances would identify allergens as hazards requiring a preventive control.

b. You did not identify and evaluate bacterial pathogens, such as Salmonella, as a known or reasonably foreseeable hazard to determine whether they require a preventive control. Your facility manufactures food with tree nuts (e.g., hazelnuts, almonds, and pistachios) and various chocolates. These ingredients have been associated with pathogens such as Salmonella.

c. You did not identify and evaluate mycotoxins as a known or reasonably foreseeable hazard to determine whether they require a preventive control. Your facility manufactures/processes food with tree nuts (e.g., hazelnuts, almonds, and pistachios). These ingredients have been associated with mycotoxins such as aflatoxin.

d. You did not identify and evaluate contamination with environmental pathogens, such as Salmonella, as a known or reasonably foreseeable hazard to determine whether they require a preventive control as required by 21 CFR § 117.130(c)(1)(ii). Your facility manufactures RTE food which is exposed to the environment prior to packaging. The packaged food does not receive a lethal treatment or otherwise include a control measure (such as a formulation lethal to the pathogen) that would significantly minimize the pathogen. Note that environmental monitoring is required if contamination of an RTE food with an environmental pathogen is a hazard requiring a preventive control (see 21 CFR § 117.165(a)(3)).

3. You did not identify and implement preventive controls for any of your products to provide assurance that any hazards requiring a preventive control will be significantly minimized or prevented and the food manufactured, processed, packed, or held by your facility will not be adulterated under section 402 of the Act or misbranded under section 403(w) of the Act, as required by 21 CFR § 117.135(a)(1). Preventive controls include, as appropriate to the facility and the food, process controls, food allergen controls, sanitation controls, supply-chain controls, and a recall plan (see 21 CFR § 117.135). Preventive controls are subject to preventive control management components as appropriate to ensure the effectiveness of the preventive controls, taking into account the nature of the preventive control and its role in the facility’s food safety system (see 21 CFR § 117.140).

For example, food allergen controls include procedures, practices, and processes employed for labeling to ensure that all food allergens are included on the label and that food is protected against allergen cross-contact (see 21 CFR 117.135(c)(2)). You do not have controls in place to adequately control the hazard of undeclared allergens due to incorrect labeling, as evidenced by the following. On December 1, 2020, your facility recalled Cacao Market Cylinder Dark Chocolate Pearls due to undeclared milk on the product label. The recall was initiated after an inspection by the New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets revealed that the Cacao Market Cylinder Dark Chocolate Pearls that were repacked at your facility contained a milk ingredient but did not declare milk on the finished product label. During our inspection, you explained that you had previously produced the product at your facility without milk; however, when you began outsourcing the product from one of your suppliers and repacking the product at your facility, the outsourced product contained milk. You explained that you continued using the same label that did not declare milk. During our inspection, you stated that you hired an employee to ensure that labels are updated when needed to reflect ingredient changes; however, you have no procedures in place to ensure that any needed revisions are implemented.

Further, your facility manufactures multiple products with different allergen profiles, including products that contain tree nuts (e.g., hazelnuts) and that do not contain tree nuts on the same day and on shared equipment, which can result in allergen cross-contact without appropriate controls. You do not have controls in place to adequately control the hazard of allergen cross-contact.

Your response states that you are “developing a Food Safety Plan, including all required preventative controls” and including “a flow diagram of our process, hazard analysis for all raw materials, ingredients, processing aids, and packaging materials, hazard analysis for our production process, and the identification of any process preventative controls.” Further, you state that you are developing procedures “that outline the monitoring, record keeping, corrective action, verification, and validation of all process preventative controls.” In addition, you state that you are “reevaluating our sanitation procedures and processing schedule to allow us to better control our risk of allergen cross contamination. This will include items such as scheduling allergens to be run at the end of the production schedule and fully defined procedures on when and how to break equipment down for proper cleaning.” You state that “This will include a facility wide environmental monitoring program to verify the effectiveness of our sanitation program.” Your response does not include a timeline as to when you will have these corrective actions completed or supporting information or evidence that your facility is currently conducting these corrective actions.

Current Good Manufacturing Practice (Subpart B):

1. You did not keep buildings, fixtures, and other physical facilities in a clean and sanitary condition and in repair adequate to prevent food from becoming adulterated, as required by 21 CFR § 117.35(a). Specifically,

• The skylight, located above the tempering machine inside the processing room, had apparent loose paint hanging from its metal bars. The tempering machine contained melted dark chocolate and was kept uncovered during the entire inspection.

• The floor inside your processing room exhibited cracked, peeling surfaces.

Your response states that “Loose paint was removed from the metal bars of the skylight,” and “We are evaluating our floor and putting together a plan to repair the areas that need it the most.” However, you did not provide evidence that you have removed the loose paint from the metal bars of the skylight. Additionally, your response does not include a timeline as to when you will have the floor repaired or supporting information to demonstrate that your facility is currently working on conducting corrective actions.

2. You did not clean food contact surfaces as frequently as necessary to protect against allergen cross-contact and against contamination of food, as required by 21 CFR § 117.35(d). Specifically,

• On June 1, 2021, employees were observed transferring ganache coming out of the cooling tunnel onto previously used disposable plastic trays. These trays were not clean, as food residue was observed on the trays.
• On June 2, 2021, after cleaning was performed on the metal grid, chocolate residue was observed adhered to the metal grid extension which was reattached to the cooling tunnel that was ready for the next shift’s production.

3. You did not take adequate precautions to ensure that production procedures do not contribute to allergen cross-contact and to contamination from any source, as required by 21 CFR § 117.80(a)(4). Specifically,

• On June 1, 2021, you filled, repacked, and labeled two types of hot chocolate, one of which contains the allergen hazelnut. These two products were processed simultaneously, side by side, on the same processing table.

• On June 1, 2021, while a fan was used to cool dark chocolate-filled molds, apparent chocolate dust was observed on many surfaces inside the processing room caused by the fan blowing on the dark chocolate. These surfaces included the pipes running across the ceiling and plastic covering unused equipment. You manufacture different types of chocolate products that may contain different allergens in the same room using the same method to cool the chocolate.

• Your typical practice is to store clean chocolate bar molds on a rack protected by plastic wrap. On June 1, 2021, molds that had chocolate residue within their ridges were observed being stored on the clean mold storage rack. An employee explained that these molds were used to make milk chocolate bars and were placed on the clean rack in error. The employee added that the facility has designated molds for milk and dark chocolate bars; however, these molds are identical. The facility does not have a system in place to monitor cleaning and to differentiate between the two molds.

4. You did not take reasonable measures and precautions to ensure that all persons working in direct contact with food wash hands thoroughly (and sanitize if necessary to protect against contamination with undesirable microorganisms) before starting work, after each absence from the work station, and at any other time when the hands may have become soiled or contaminated, as required by 21 CFR § 117.10(b)(3). Specifically, on June 1, 2021, two employees were observed returning to the processing room after taking their break, and they proceeded with processing ganache without washing and sanitizing their hands.

The violations cited in this letter are not intended to be an all-inclusive list of violations that exist at your facility or in connection with your products. You are responsible for investigating and determining the causes of the violations identified above and for preventing their recurrence or the occurrence of other violations. It is your responsibility to ensure your facility complies with all requirements of federal law, including FDA regulations. You should take prompt action to correct or implement corrections to the violations cited in this letter. Failure to do so may result in legal action without further notice, including, without limitation, seizure, injunction, or administrative action for suspension of food facility registration if criteria and conditions warrant.

Please notify FDA in writing, within 15 working days of the receipt of this letter, of the specific steps you have taken to address these violations. Include an explanation of each step being taken to prevent the recurrence of violations, as well as copies of related documentation. If you believe that your products are not in violation of the Act, include your reasoning and any supporting information for our consideration. If you cannot complete addressing these violations within 15 working days, state the reason for the delay and the timeframe within which you will do so.

Section 743 of the FDCA (21 U.S.C. 379j-31) authorizes FDA to assess and collect fees to cover FDA’s costs for certain activities, including re-inspection-related costs. A re-inspection is one or more inspections conducted subsequent to an inspection that identified noncompliance materially related to a food safety requirement of the Act, specifically to determine whether compliance has been achieved. Re-inspection-related costs means all expenses, including administrative expenses, incurred in connection with FDA’s arranging, conducting, and evaluating the results of the re-inspection, assessing and collecting the re-inspection fees [21 U.S.C. 379j-31(a)(2)(B)]. For a domestic facility, FDA will assess and collect fees for re-inspection-related costs from the responsible party for the domestic facility. The inspection noted in this letter identified noncompliance materially related to a food safety requirement of the Act. Accordingly, FDA may assess fees to cover any reinspection-related costs.

Please send your reply to the Food and Drug Administration, Attention: W. Martin Rennells, Compliance Officer, One Winner’s Circle, Suite 140, Albany, NY 12205. If you have questions regarding any issues in this letter, please contact Mr. Rennells at 518-453-2314 x1038 or willliam.rennells@fda.hhs.gov.

Sincerely,
/S/

Ronald M. Pace
Program Division Director
Office of Human and Animal Food Operations –
East Division 1

India – 4 more norovirus cases in Thrissur

The Hindu

Norovirus Food Safety kswfoodworld

Four more cases of norovirus were reported from a college in Thrissur on Tuesday. The infection was reported in four day scholars of the college.

Though 57 cases have been reported from the college earlier, they were in college hostels. The Health Department has asked the college authorities to make the classes online.

According to preliminary investigation, the infection spread from the drinking water distributed in the hostel.

Germany – E. coli in lamb and flour prompts warning in Germany

Food Safety News

Findings of E. coli in lamb and flour has triggered a warning from German authorities.

Basic rules of kitchen hygiene, such as using different cutting boards for raw meat and vegetables, should be followed. Proper cooking is one of the best ways to avoid food poisoning from E. coli.

As part of zoonosis monitoring in Germany in 2020, Shiga toxin-producing E. coli (STEC) were detected in 50 of 380 samples of fresh lamb.

Lamb from Germany was significantly more often STEC-positive than that from other countries with 36 of 190 samples positive compared to 12 of 177.

Consumers, especially small children, the elderly, the immunocompromised and pregnant women, should only consume lamb that has been well cooked, advised the Federal Office for Consumer Protection and Food Safety (BVL).

“An infection with STEC should not be underestimated. In children in particular, it can lead to the development of hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS), which is often associated with acute kidney failure,” said Friedel Cramer, BVL president.

STEC was detected in 22 of 242 samples of wheat flour from milling operations. Consumers can minimize this risk by not eating raw dough, cake batter or other foods containing raw flour. E. coli was also found in six of 318 samples of raw milk soft cheese sold at retail, from wholesale and at import points.

In total, 94 isolates belonged to 28 different O serogroups with O146 as the most common while O157 was not detected.