Pasteurization redefined by USDA committee Note from Editor: The whole article is here, but the relevant part is in red below. Food Chemical News September 6, 2004 Sec. No. 30, Vol. 46; Pg. 21 by Carole Sugarman Late last month, the National Advisory Committee on Microbiological Criteria for Foods completed a difficult semantic and scientific task: redefining the term "pasteurization," and setting parameters for judging whether a process is its equal. The sometimes tedious exercise was a ramification of the 2002 Farm Bill, which in rather circuitous language, mandated that the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act be amended to include a definition of pasteurization. The committee's scientific advice will be used by FDA to help draft a regulation proposing such a definition, Bob Brackett, director of the agency's Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, told Food Chemical News. As you may recall, the small section that slipped into the bill quickly became controversial, as it was seen by many as a fig leaf for allowing irradiation to be called pasteurization. The irradiation industry and some of its proponents have long wanted to give the process a more euphemistic name in the hopes of garnering better acceptance of such foods. And indeed, under specified conditions, the new definition would allow irradiated foods to be labeled as "pasteurized" (although the word "irradiation" would also still have to appear, at least according to current FDA regulations). But in its 67-page report finalized at last month's meeting, the NACMCF also set parameters for calling food treated with a whole range of new (and old) technologies "pasteurized." Those technologies include pulsed electric fields, ohmic heating, high pressure processing and even just plain "cooking." As such, the committee's redefinition is far broader than the familiar meaning of pasteurization. But as Jenny Scott, subcommittee member and senior director of food safety programs at the National Food Processors Association, put it, "I don't think that anyone [on the subcommittee] disagreed that 'pasteurization' could be broader," adding that most scientists have long used the term to describe processes that kill microorganisms. Here's the new definition of "pasteurization" the committee came up with: "Any process, treatment, or combination thereof, that is applied to food to reduce the most resistant microorganism(s) of public health significance to a level that is not likely to present a public health risk under normal conditions of distribution and storage." Language barrier One of the biggest challenges facing the group, according to FDA's John Kvenberg, chairman of the Redefining Pasteurization Subcommittee, was the fact that new science was emerging as the subcommittee was deliberating. Another major factor was that the subcommittee struggled with the language and intent of the farm bill, he told FCN. Indeed, the subcommittee's report elaborately fleshes out every phrase of the definition. But sometimes the phrases are slightly different than the farm bill language--an illustration of how lawmaking and science don't always mesh. For example, the farm bill referred to a food being pasteurized if it had been subjected to a process that is "reasonably certain to achieve destruction or elimination in the food of the most resistant microorganisms... "But the microbiologists on the subcommittee knew, as they wrote in the report, that "total destruction or elimination cannot be achieved because there is a statistical probability that an organism will survive in a fraction of products (e.g. 1 in 1 million packages)." That's why, in their above definition, they defined it as a process that would "reduce" the most resistant microorganism. The farm bill also used the term "when stored under normal and moderate abuse conditions," while the committee's definition omitted the term "moderate abuse." Not that there wasn't ample discussion about it. But the subcommittee couldn't reach a consensus on what the term means, since it's so individualized, depending on the product, time and temperature. In addition, the members determined that "normal conditions" of distribution and storage implied some abuse, making it unnecessary to include the term "moderate." Despite the changes, "the intent of what's in the farm bill is captured in the definition," said subcommittee member Scott. When the subcommittee sat down and began to argue the nuances, it realized some wording had to be tweaked, she told FCN. "But we certainly weren't intending to go around Congress." After clarifying the phrases in the definition, the report answers the five questions posed to the subcommittee by FDA and USDA (see story, Page 23). Thus, the first 13 pages of the lengthy document are the most crucial. The remaining section is a detailed look at more than a dozen processes and technologies, and answers to the five questions as they relate to each. Fresher under pressure While Scott said that she certainly believes that the original congressional action to redefine pasteurization stemmed from the wishes of irradiation proponents, other industries may be looking at using the term as well. Scott said that some manufacturers that use ultraviolet light (to treat cider, for example) would like to use it. And at least one food industry attorney was sitting in the audience at last month's meeting to take notes for interested clients. Makers of high pressure processing (HPP) equipment and those who use it have also been closely monitoring the pasteurization issue. Terry Anstine, director of marketing for Avure Technologies Inc., told FCN that use of the word "pasteurized" on HPP products would be a marketing benefit since people understand it. But Anstine said it will be very important to differentiate HPP from traditional thermal pasteurization, by providing a further explanation such as "pasteurized with the use of high pressure." Avure is the leading maker of HPP equipment, which uses extremely high water pressure to destroy pathogens without heat or chemicals. A number of food companies--including big ones--are already using Avure's technology, which it calls Fresher Under Pressure. Those products include refrigerated fruits and vegetables (guacamole, chopped onions, salsa), ready-to-eat meat and poultry (Perdue's Short Cuts, Hormel proscuitto-style hams) and shellfish and seafood (oysters, clams, mussels, etc.). Anstine said the process has been especially attractive to RTE meat and poultry manufacturers since the Listeria rule went into effect, and is used by the world's leading marketer of avocado products. The company has installed nearly 100 pressure vessels to companies around the world, and has other sales in the works. What will consumers think? The last paragraph of the report's conclusion, which starts with "Finally, NACMCF concludes that consumer research is needed to understand how consumers interpret and respond to labeling statements about pasteurization and related terms," was in and out of the report. The paragraph was eventually retained, but the second sentence, which dealt with irradiation, was nixed. That said, "Consumer research indicated a lack of acceptance of the term 'pasteurization' for irradiated foods as it was perceived to be misleading (ORC, Marco, 2002)." Subcommittee chair Kvenberg brought up the idea to delete it, questioning whether it was appropriate or outside the charge and scope of the committee. Commerce Department liaison E. Spencer Garrett said it was inappropriate to single out a particular "hot button technology" and asked whether there were comparable consumer responses to other technologies. But regardless, the subcommittee realized that there will need to be consumer research and education should future labels bear the term "pasteurized." "We know consumers know what 'pasteurized' milk means," said Scott. "But what does it mean if they see it on package of hot dogs?" Tony Corbo of the anti-irradiation group Public Citizen said he's worried that people may not know how to handle familiar products labeled as pasteurized for the first time. "I'm still concerned about seeing 'pasteurized' on [uncooked] meat or poultry," he said, adding that people may think it's okay to eat raw, without further preparation (i.e. steak tartare). Kudos from Corbo Corbo, whose main interest in the subcommittee's deliberations were to monitor its handling of irradiation, was highly complimentary of its work, saying the members were extremely dedicated and poured over a lot of substantive issues. Corbo said the final paper is "the best they could have done under the circumstances." Then again, maybe the kudos should be for Corbo. The jovial consumer activist became a familiar fixture at the subcommittee's meetings, attending every single one. He said in his final public remarks to the full committee last month that he felt like the sidecar of a motorcycle, and joked that he liked to see grass grow, paint dry and microbiologists fashion something out of congressional intent. After Corbo made his comments, Merle Pierson, chairman of NACMCF and USDA's deputy under secretary for food safety, joked that maybe he should be given an honorary award.