USDA Requirement to Test Beef for Non-0157 Strains of E. coli Faces Challenges

Earthbound still uses the same “test and hold” approach it adopted six years ago. “All raw material, as it comes into our facility, is placed on hold, and we segregate production units from the field into four pallets,” Daniels explained “We take a representation from each of four pallets to make a test sample.” The testing process has three components: In addition to raw materials, finished products are also tested for pathogens, including non-O157 STECs; “input testing” is also performed for materials on the farm.

“Water, seeds, soil amendments, transplants, even water—anything we’re putting into the field is tested for the presence of pathogens,” said Daniels. “We require a certificate of analysis for fertilizer, and water is screened throughout the growing cycle. Our aim is to identify these issues as far upstream as possible.”

Daniels said Earthbound’s testing results at IEH jibe with the CDC’s recent findings: Collectively, non-O157 STECs outnumber O157 (as well as any other foodborne pathogen) within Earthbound’s crops.

“Others in the produce industry will say, ‘Well, with the amount of product you’re finding positives in, why aren’t we seeing recalls every other day?’ I think the beef industry has the same level of skepticism with regard to the Big Six,” Daniels said. “But I would argue that there’s ample evidence showing that people are getting sick from the Big Six. There’s no question that we need more data on prevalence and risk, but they are out there, and we need to be concerned about them. I would much rather be ahead of the problem on this one than trying to clean up the mess.”

Dr. Samadpour conceded that testing for the Big Six will add time to the process: “Will it inconvenience industry when the number of presumptive positives goes up and you have to add that further four hours of confirmatory testing? Yes, but the good news is that the same things that control O157 will control the non-O157s. So feedback to production can control these pathogens effectively, if you have that information.”

Other companies have also rolled out non-O157 STEC tests within the past year, including Aegis Food Testing, Food Safety Net Services, and BioControl.

But at least one leading food safety expert thinks the meat industry isn’t unreasonable in asking for a delay on implementing Big Six testing. “It’s a pity that FSIS has gone in this direction so quickly, because it’s not practical to implement the changes this soon,” says Michael Doyle, PhD, Regents Professor of Food Microbiology and director of the Center for Food Safety at the University of Georgia in Griffin. “Current testing protocols still involve a high percentage of false positives—as much as 10%. That’s not practical for the industry to implement right now.”

Dr. Doyle predicted that at least one new protocol for non-O157 STEC identification will be on the market within the year and that it will dramatically minimize false positives. But at this point, he said, “The agency’s ahead of itself.”

Earthbound’s Daniels praised the FSIS for implementing the ban on the Big Six in beef. “I understand that people are concerned about methodology from labs and making sure that they’re targeting the Big Six and not a broader category,” he acknowledged. “There’s still trepidation about what it means to industry and how much they’re going to have to divert. But I think it will be a positive step.”