Food for Thought
With the global food network a ripe target for terrorists, a variety of smart, well-trained people—including many in Minnesota—are looking after your well-being. Will their efforts be enough to protect us?
BY MARY LAHR SCHIER
Settle in for a healthy dinner: Grilled shrimp harvested in the waters near China, a Greek salad made with tomatoes from Mexico and olives from Spain, a hunk of bread made with Canadian wheat, and a glass of red wine from Italy or maybe Australia. Top the dinner off with some Chilean grapes and a cup of Colombian coffee.
While it all sounds delicious, there’s an unsettling thought lurking within the meal’s international flavor. In short, terrorists have had numerous points of access to practically every food item on the menu.
“Terrorists have the food system on their radar,” says Shaun Kennedy, deputy director of the National Center for Food Protection and Defense, based at the University of Minnesota. And with good reason: The U.S. food and agriculture economy is vast, diffuse, and complex, employing about 15 percent of the population (in parts of Minnesota, it’s one-third to one-half of all employment) on 2 million farms, at 29,000 food manufacturers and processors, and in hundreds of thousands of food service establishments. “It’s a complicated system and the points of potential contamination go up dramatically when you look at the global system,” says Kennedy. Moreover, unlike other potential terrorist targets—airplanes, large sporting arenas—“you cannot take yourself out of the food system.”
The program Kennedy helps direct is one of six U.S. Department of Homeland Security Centers of Excellence charged with research, education, and outreach programs for terrorism prevention, response, and recovery. The U’s research focuses on three broad areas: characterizing and identifying potential food system targets and agents for food contamination; addressing ways the food system could prevent, detect and respond to contamination; and assessing the public health and economic impacts of potential food system attacks with the goal of reducing those consequences. The center hopes to encourage technological advances to “render the target unattractive,” says Kennedy. “It’s the psychological equivalent of putting concrete barriers around the food system.”
Minnesota companies are among those constructing the barriers, developing technologies to improve food safety from natural pathogens and to fortify the food system’s defense against potential terrorist attacks. The list of companies that have been involved in the University’s programs and research reads like a who’s who of Minnesota business: 3M, Ecolab, Cargill, Supervalu, Land O’Lakes, and Malt O’Meal, among others. The reason for the interest is not just a concern about the results of a single, successful attack on the food system—though that would be reason enough—but the undermining of confidence in every aspect of food production, processing, and distribution. Moreover, innovations that enhance food defense also have the potential to increase food safety, add value to food products, and improve the efficiency of the food system.
GLOW, LITTLE TOXIN,GLOW
Dr. Ted Labuza, a U of M professor of food science, is among dozens of Minnesota researchers developing systems to ensure food safety. Scientists have identified about 350 potential agents of contamination, says Labuza, but “the challenge is coming up with something that can test for multiple agents, rapidly.” There are testing methods available for pathogens that show up in food—salmonella, listeria, E. coli O157:H7— but most take 24 to 72 hours to show results, too long for a food processing facility, and these are pathogen-specific tests, so they would not recognize an unknown or unusual organism or chemical in food.
An alternative is fluorescence spectroscopy. Some organic and inorganic materials can be made to glow when exposed to various wavelengths of light. Under a two-year research grant from Waltham, Mass.-based Thermo Electron, Labuza and fellow researchers Dr. Lloyd Metzger and Dr. Ling Lin will develop an instrument that could be mounted on a tractor or in a processing plant. One of the contaminants Labuza expects could be identified with the spectroscope is aflatoxin, a fungus that can lead to disease in animals and humans. Thermo Electron’s Weighing and Inspection unit, based in Minneapolis, manufactures metal detectors, check weighers, and contaminant inspection systems for the food industry. “There exists a notable difference between laboratory sample-type instruments and industrially hardened at-line and on-line instruments,” Dr. Michael Jost, president of Thermo Weighing and Inspection, noted in a recent press release. “This research effort with the university is designed to facilitate the transition of lab technology into production environments. Creating diagnostic devices that work fast enough for food processors and are cost efficient is one of the challenges of food defense.”
FOOD SAFETY = FOOD DEFENSE
Creating a food supply that is safer from naturally occurring pathogens and toxins should also improve food defense, rendering those agents less effective as weapons and more easily noticed. Minnesota companies are among those developing technologies for detecting or reducing pathogens such as E.coli and listeria. About 10 years ago, Cargill Meat Solutions Inc., the beef-processing arm of the Minnetonka-based food giant, began surface pasteurization of beef as it moved through processing plants. Cargill discovered that a shot of steam aimed at the meat would reduce bacteria without cooking or damaging the meat. More recently, Cargill has introduced a hide-on carcass wash, sometimes called the cattle car wash, at its five plants that process beef from feedlots.
An average of 75 percent of cattle arriving for processing at meat plants have E.coli present, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, most of it on their hides. To reduce the amount of E.coli that makes it into the processing plant, Cargill runs its cattle through the carcass wash. After the cattle are killed, but before their hides are removed, the carcasses are moved through a stainless steel chamber and subjected to a three-stage process that involves first spraying the carcass with a soap solution, then with a sanitizer, and finally with clear water. The process kills off a significant amount of bacteria after the hides are removed.
The carcass wash is among several procedures that Cargill has added to its beef-processing facilities to reduce bacteria. “Over the past 10 years, we’ve spent about $1 billion on renovating our plants to add safety features and make other improvements,” says Mark Klein, director of communication for Cargill Meat Solutions.
This summer, 3M introduced the Temperature Logger TL20, a credit-card sized electronic monitor, just over 1 centimeter thick, that can be programmed to recognize when temperatures get outside of a predetermined acceptable range.
While refrigerated trucks and warehouses have temperature monitors, the only way to have a complete record of what temperatures the product has experienced is to ride with the perishable item, which is what the Temperature Logger does, says Aric Getty, 3M’s marketing manager for the product. When the food reaches its destination, workers push the check button. If the food has remained within temperature parameters, a light on the logger turns green. If not, it shows red. If it is in the red zone, the data can be downloaded using 3M software to determine how far outside of temperature parameters the perishable was, and for how long. Its value in measuring potential spoilage in food may be an important use, especially considering the amount of food coming into the United States from overseas. A Temperature Logger can be reused and can be continuously used for up to 360 days.
Similar products exist; however, they are bulkier and more expensive. Its small size and relatively low cost—$19—will make the Temperature Logger more practical for a variety of food shippers to monitor temperature, says Getty, and thus will encourage more monitoring of food. “This is a tool to provide greater data around the shelf life and safety of a product. We feel that, in the right hands, it could be very useful,” he adds.
THE RIGHT DEFENSE
Many food defense techniques are relatively simple. “Often it comes down to common sense,” says Dr. Heidi Kassenborg, disease investigation and emergency response director at the Minnesota Department of Agriculture. “Keep things locked up.”
However, technology may be the defense that will make the food system a less attractive target. Innovation in the following areas could tighten defenses around the food system.
How unusual contaminants will react in food
“We are nowhere near as far along as we would like to be in understanding how select agents will react in food,” says Kennedy. For example, processing or cooking might destroy some contaminants—or make others more dangerous by fostering a false sense of security.
Diagnostics
Finding ways to detect when something unusual is present in a food is a ripe area for research and innovation. Diagnostics do not necessarily need to identify what is there—just that it doesn’t belong. “There is a critical need for early detection of agents of bioterror on raw ingredients going into processing plants,” says Labuza, who adds that ensuring that the products coming out of the plants are also free of bioterror agents is also a critical need.
Public health response
Training physicians and other front-line medical providers to identify when a set of symptoms is outside of normal illness patterns is important, as is developing information systems so public health officials will be aware early of an outbreak of food-borne illness—and could get correct information to the public quickly.
International supply chain
With so much food coming in from around the world, monitoring for contaminants is a huge challenge. While food safety and defense initiatives may be expensive, they are essential to protecting what has been a point of pride for Americans for many years. Says Kennedy: “We’ve invested a lot of time and effort in the United States to create a safe, abundant and affordable food system.” No attack should be able to destroy that.