Oxytetracycline and Florfenicol Concentrations in Food-Additive Premixes Authorised for Broiler Chickens: Assessing Degree of Agreement with Manufacturers Labelling

Antimicrobials premixes are the presentation of choice to administer drugs simultaneously to groups of animals in intensive husbandry systems that require treatment for pathologies of bacterial origin. Among the premixes available for use in poultry, florfenicol and oxytetracycline are commonly administered via food or water. However, their actual concentration in premixes must meet on-label statements to ensure plasma concentrations reach effective therapeutic levels. Hence, this work was designed for the purpose of verifying whether the concentration of antimicrobial present in five premixes matched their on-label statement. Three oxytetracycline premixes, and two of florfenicol, were analysed using a Xevo TQ-S micro UPLC-MS/MS, and an ABSciex API4000 HPLC-MS/MS, respectively. Analytical methodologies were implemented and validated, showing an R2 ≥ 0.99 for the calibration curves. Oxytetracycline was detected in these premixes at concentrations exceeding on-label statements by 13.28%, 21.54%, and 29.68%, whereas florfenicol concentrations detected in premixes were 13.06% and 14.75% lower than expected. Consequently, this work shows that the concentration of active ingredients that are present in commercial formulations effectively differ from those stated on premix labels, and it also highlights how unpredictable their range of variability might be. This must be addressed through solid and updated laws that guarantee an effective pharmaceutical product.

Sesame seed labelling and health protection of allergic consumers

Purpose Sesame can cause food allergy and according to European legislation, its presence in food must be declared on the label. The purpose of this paper is to investigate the presence of sesame in food products carrying no mention of sesame on the ingredient label and in food products carrying the voluntary labelling statement “may contain traces of sesame”. Design/methodology/approach Packaged bakery and non-bakery food items were collected at retail. Sample size was calculated according to estimated prevalence of 2 per cent and precision of 5 per cent: in total 32 samples of packaged bakery and non-bakery food were collected for each food category. The RIDASCREEN®FAST Sesame test (R-Biopharm AG, Darmstadt, Germany) was used for the analysis: its limit of detection was fixed in the laboratory at 0.5 ppm. Findings Of the 32 food samples that did not mention sesame seed on the ingredient label, one (3.1 per cent) breadsticks sample tested positive at a concentration (326 ppm). Of the 32 food samples that carried the precautionary label statement “may contain traces of sesame”, one (3.1 per cent) breadcrumbs sample tested positive (305 ppm). Comparison between the allergen concentration and the published eliciting dose (ED5) for sesame proteins (1 mg) was performed. The calculated exposure was more than 2 the ED05 reported in the literature. Originality/value To date, few studies investigating compliance with food-allergen labelling requirements are available. This survey provides data for preliminary risk assessment for sesame allergenic consumers.

Label perception of frozen ready-to-eat products and frozen not-ready-to-eat product

Background: Frozen meals are popularized in recent years due to their ease of preparation. This convenience factor greatly benefits busy workers who simply lack the time to cook a full meal. However, the risk of misidentifying these frozen products as cooked when they are in fact, raw, can lead to devastating consequences. This is important especially when the products are improperly prepared and undercooked. Some significant examples in recent years includes the Salmonella cases associated with frozen raw breaded chicken. These cases are partly due to the inadequate cooking of the product, as a result of misidentifying them as cooked even though they are raw. The purpose of this project is to determine how well the public can determine if a frozen product is cooked or raw based on the front side of the packaging, which is the first visuals that will be presented to the consumers in store. Methods: An electronic survey was conducted for Canadian residents to determine whether they can accurately interpret if a product is cooked or raw based on the front packaging. The survey also determines if the respondent’s age, gender, average number of supermarket visits in a week, and level of education will affect the accuracy of their interpretations. The survey was created and hosted online with SurveyMonkey, and distributed out in Reddit. The results are analyzed using the statistical software, NCSS 12. Results: Chi-square tests indicated no significant difference between the demographics groups and the accuracy of the label interpretations by the respondents. Five different products; chicken pot pie, fish fillets, breaded chicken wings, poutine bites, and tourtiere pie, were chosen for identification, each with their own label statements, respectively; “cook thoroughly”, “uncooked”, “fully cooked”, “heat thoroughly” and one with no label statement. The fish fillets, poutine bites and the tourtiere pie had the most varied answers from the respondents. The poutine bites and tourtiere pie had the majority of the respondents selecting the wrong answer or being unsure. The fish fillets had the majority choosing the correct answer, but given the simplicity of the label “uncooked”, it was surprising that only 45% of the respondents chose “require additional cooking”. Additionally, a few of the open ended comments from respondents indicate some desire for labels clarity in regards to fonts and color on the packaging, as well as having clear, standardized statements that clearly identifies the products as cooked or raw. However, there are some comments that indicate the current labels are adequate, and some comments mentioning about labelling on the back of the box. Conclusion: Based on the results of the study, it would appear that the demographic groups selected have no effect on the accuracy of label identifications of frozen products. The study also indicates that there is preference from the public to favours clear and straightforward labelling statements. The study identifies potential problems with some ambiguity in the label statements (or lack of label statements), and some potential issues with the noticeability of the statements to the consumers.

A Limited Survey of Dark Chocolate Bars Obtained in the United States for Undeclared Milk and Peanut Allergens

ABSTRACT Undeclared allergens in chocolate products have been responsible for numerous allergen-related recalls in the United States. A survey was conducted to determine the prevalence of undeclared milk and peanut in 88 and 78 dark chocolate bars, respectively. Concentrations of milk (as nonfat dry milk) or peanut in three samples of each chocolate product were determined with two milk- or peanut-specific enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay kits. In 75% of the chocolate bar products with a milk advisory statement, milk concentrations were above the limit of quantitation (2.5 μg/g [ppm]), with the majority having concentrations >1,000 ppm. An additional 67% of chocolate bars with a “traces of milk” statement contained 3 to 6,700 ppm of milk. Fifteen percent of chocolates labeled dairy free or lactose free and 25% labeled vegan were positive for milk, all with concentrations >1,000 ppm. Even for chocolates with no reference to milk on the label, 33% of these products contained 60 to 3,400 ppm of milk. The survey of chocolate products for peanuts revealed that 8% of products with an advisory statement contained peanut, with the highest concentration of 550 ppm. All nine chocolates bearing the peanut-free or allergen-free statement were negative for peanut, but 17% of chocolates with no label statement for peanut were positive for peanut at concentrations of 9 to 170 ppm. Evaluation of multiple lots of four chocolate products revealed that milk was consistently present or absent for the products investigated, but mixed results were obtained when multiple lots were tested for peanut. This study indicates that a large proportion of dark chocolate bars contain undeclared milk. The type of advisory statement or the absence of a milk advisory statement on products did not predict the amount or absence of milk protein. In contrast, a lower proportion of chocolates containing undeclared peanut was found. Consumers with food allergies should be cautious when purchasing dark chocolate products, particularly those that have an advisory label statement.

Nutritional Value of Egg Beaters® Compared With "Farm Fresh Eggs"

The Council of Foods and Nutrition, in a statement entitled "Diet and Coronary Heart Disease," has recommended that "In ‘risk categories’ it is important to decrease substantially the intake of saturated fat and to lower cholesterol consumption." The food industry has attempted to provide high-quality protein food items and for this purpose a new product, "Egg Beaters," has been introduced as a cholesterol-free egg substitute. It contains according to the label statement on the carton "egg white, corn oil, nonfat dry milk, emulsifiers (vegetable lecithin, mono and diglycerides and propylene glycol monostearate), cellulose and xanthan gums, trisodium and triethyl citrate, artificial flavor, aluminum sulfate, iron phosphate, artificial color, thiamin, riboflavin and vitamin D."

Interpreting PPE Statements on Pesticide Labels

Many Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) statements on pesticide labels have been changed as a result of theWorker Protection Standard for Agricultural Pesticides (WPS). PPE statements on products that are labeled for use on farms, forests, nurseries and greenhouses, in particular, have been revised. These revised statements are more precise on the type of PPE that must be worn by pesticide handlers (mixers, loaders,and applicators). The terminology used to describe the required PPE is now more consistent from label to label. The chart in this document lists label statements used to describe the PPE required for use by mixers, loaders, and applicators. The accompanying column of acceptable PPE describes the options the pesticide handler has when the label statement lists a specific item of PPE. This document is PI-16, Horticultural Sciences Department, UF/IFAS, Florida Cooperative Extenstion Service. September 2003. https://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/cv285