Feds concerned new bacteria-killing chemicals could mask presence of salmonella on chickens
By The Washington Post
Published: Friday, Aug. 2, 2013, 6:39 p.m.
The Agriculture Department is reviewing research that shows new bacteria-killing chemicals used in chicken slaughterhouses may be masking the presence of salmonella and other pathogens that remain on the birds that consumers buy, according to records and interviews.
Academic researchers agree that the chemicals could be overwhelming an antiquated testing process. Several of the scientists have been enlisted by the USDA's food safety experts to help resolve the matter.
The issue was brought to the department's attention this spring after chemical companies pointed to academic research that shows there could be a problem and told the USDA that further study was needed.
“This is a valid concern,” said Catherine N. Cutter, chairwoman of Penn State University's Food Safety Impact Group, whose scientific work was referenced in materials chemical companies provided to the USDA.
The controversy erupts as the number and strength of chemicals used on poultry-processing lines is increasing as plants scramble to meet new USDA demands to slash pathogens.
Some experts say the rising tide of chemicals may be causing unanticipated side effects. Some USDA inspectors said they believe such chemicals can contribute to a host of medical problems, including respiratory ailments and persistent skin rashes, The Washington Post reported in April. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration is conducting a follow-up investigation into a New York poultry plant where one inspector died after his lungs bled out in 2011.
The latest allegations — that the stronger chemicals are undermining testing — are spurring finger-pointing among rival companies competing to sell their products to chicken processors. The companies say their competitors are the ones tripping up the tests.
At issue in the latest allegations is the testing procedure the USDA requires. As the chicken moves down the processing line, the bird is sprayed and bathed in an average of three to four chemicals. To check that most bacteria have been killed, occasional test birds are pulled off the line and tossed into plastic bags filled with a solution that collects any remaining pathogens. That solution is sent to a lab for testing, which occurs about 24 hours later. Meanwhile, the bird goes back on the line and packaged, shipped and sold.
Scientists say for tests to be accurate, it is critical that the pathogen-killing chemicals are quickly neutralized by the solution — something that routinely occurred with the older, weaker antibacterial chemicals. If the chemicals continue to kill bacteria, the testing indicates that the birds are safer to eat than they are.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Deal reached in Ukraine crisis talks, but U.S. remains wary of Russia’s end game
- Imam’s influence detailed as NYC terror trial begins
- Court upholds EPA emissions restrictions
- Husband accused in slaying ate pot candy, police say
- Clinton donor pleads guilty in illegal campaign contributions
- Scientists achieve cloning advance for use in treating diseases
- National Portrait Gallery features abstract expressionism of familiar faces
- Reid calls Nevada rancher’s supporters ‘terrorists’ over armed confrontation
- Another arrest made in abduction of N.C. prosecutor’s father
- GAO finds just 1 percent of large partnerships audited by IRS
- Obama’s budget plan wildly off, CBO says