A critical review: Why isn't "cold pasteurization" being used widespread as a method to prevent food-related illnesses as a result of the consumption of ready-to-eat, fresh fruits, and vegetables

The Centers for Disease Control estimates that foodborne diseases cause approximately 76 million illnesses, 325,000 hospitalizations, and 5,000 deaths in the United States each year. The American public is becoming more health conscious and there has been an increase in the dietary intake of fresh fruits and vegetables. Affluence and demand for convenience has allowed consumers to opt for pre-processed packaged fresh fruits and vegetables. These pre-processed foods are considered Ready-to-Eat. They have many of the advantages of fresh produce without the inconvenience of processing at home. After seeing a decline in food-related illnesses between 1996 and 2004, due to an improvement in meat and poultry safety, tainted produce has tilted the numbers back. This has resulted in none of the Healthy People 2010 targets for food-related illness reduction being reached. Irradiation has been shown to be effective in eliminating many of the foodborne pathogens. The application of irradiation as a food safety treatment has been widely endorsed by many of the major associations involved with food safety and public health. Despite these endorsements there has been very little use of this technology to date for reducing the disease burden associated with the consumption of these products. A review of the available literature since the passage of the 1996 Food Quality Protection Act was conducted on the barriers to implementing irradiation as a food safety process for fresh fruits and vegetables. The impediments to adopting widespread utilization of irradiation food processing as a food safety measure involve a complex array of legislative, regulatory, industry, and consumer issues. The FDA’s approval process limits the expansion of the list of foods approved for the application of irradiation as a food safety process. There is also a lack of capacity within the industry to meet the needs of a geographically dispersed industry.^

AN ATTEMPT TO MEASURE FOOD SAFETY STATUS

The main objective of this study was to attempt to develop some indicators for measuring the food safety status of a country. A conceptual model was put forth by the investigator. The assumption was that food safety status was multifactorily influenced by medico-health levels, food-nutrition programs, and consumer protection activities. However, all these in turn depended upon socio-economic status of the country.^ Twenty-six indicators were reviewed and examined. Seventeen were first screened and three were finally selected, by the stepwise multiple regression analysis, to reflect the food safety status. Sixty-one countries/areas were included in this study.^ The three indicators were life expectancy at birth with multiple correlation coefficient (R2 = 34.62%), adult literacy rate (R2 = 29.66%), and child mortality rate for ages 1-4 (R2 = 9.99%). They showed a cumulative R2 of 57.79%. ^

Costs and quality of medication reconciliation practice in primary care clinics

Medication reconciliation, with the aim to resolve medication discrepancy, is one of the Joint Commission patient safety goals. Medication errors and adverse drug events that could result from medication discrepancy affect a large population. At least 1.5 million adverse drug events and $3.5 billion of financial burden yearly associated with medication errors could be prevented by interventions such as medication reconciliation. This research was conducted to answer the following research questions: (1a) What are the frequency range and type of measures used to report outpatient medication discrepancy? (1b) Which effective and efficient strategies for medication reconciliation in the outpatient setting have been reported? (2) What are the costs associated with medication reconciliation practice in primary care clinics? (3) What is the quality of medication reconciliation practice in primary care clinics? (4) Is medication reconciliation practice in primary care clinics cost-effective from the clinic perspective? Study designs used to answer these questions included a systematic review, cost analysis, quality assessments, and cost-effectiveness analysis. Data sources were published articles in the medical literature and data from a prospective workflow study, which included 150 patients and 1,238 medications. The systematic review confirmed that the prevalence of medication discrepancy was high in ambulatory care and higher in primary care settings. Effective strategies for medication reconciliation included the use of pharmacists, letters, a standardized practice approach, and partnership between providers and patients. Our cost analysis showed that costs associated with medication reconciliation practice were not substantially different between primary care clinics using or not using electronic medical records (EMR) ($0.95 per patient per medication in EMR clinics vs. $0.96 per patient per medication in non-EMR clinics, p=0.78). Even though medication reconciliation was frequently practiced (97-98%), the quality of such practice was poor (0-33% of process completeness measured by concordance of medication numbers and 29-33% of accuracy measured by concordance of medication names) and negatively (though not significantly) associated with medication regimen complexity. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for concordance of medication number per patient per medication and concordance of medication names per patient per medication were both 0.08, favoring EMR. Future studies including potential cost-savings from medication features of the EMR and potential benefits to minimize severity of harm to patients from medication discrepancy are warranted. ^