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.^

Human Trafficking: What is the Role of the Health Care Provider?

The article will address the global and local issue of human trafficking. An estimated 20,000 people are trafficked within the U.S. each year. Trafficked people are forced, defrauded and coerced into labor and sexual service for profit of others. Traffickers use individual vulnerabilities and immigration status, language ability and poor understanding of U.S. laws to identify future victims. One case in 2005 in Texas resulted in 100 victims being identified, none of whom revealed themselves to health care professionals. Health care professionals need contemporary and updated information and resources about health risks, screening methods, and identification of trafficked persons. Readers will learn about common medical problems experienced by individuals who are leaving trafficking situations. Legal and health care intersections will be explored. Implementation of a response protocol to assist those who may currently be enslaved will be introduced. Real case examples from trafficking survivors will be presented and discussed. Participants will learn how to reach out, look beneath the surface, provide assistance, and access resources to help victims, and gain a better understanding of the health challenges faced by trafficked victims.

Federally regulated institutional review boards: The aspects of a "model" IRB---Is the current system in need of a tune up or complete overhaul?

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) are the primary gatekeepers for the protection of ethical standards of federally regulated research on human subjects in this country. This paper focuses on what general, broad measures that may be instituted or enhanced to exemplify a "model IRB". This is done by examining the current regulatory standards of federally regulated IRBs, not private or commercial boards, and how many of those standards have been found either inadequate or not generally understood or followed. The analysis includes suggestions on how to bring about changes in order to make the IRB process more efficient, less subject to litigation, and create standardized educational protocols for members. The paper also considers how to include better oversight for multi-center research, increased centralization of IRBs, utilization of Data Safety Monitoring Boards when necessary, payment for research protocol review, voluntary accreditation, and the institution of evaluation/quality assurance programs. ^ This is a policy study utilizing secondary analysis of publicly available data. Therefore, the research for this paper focuses on scholarly medical/legal journals, web information from the Department of Health and Human Services, Federal Drug Administration, and the Office of the Inspector General, Accreditation Programs, law review articles, and current regulations applicable to the relevant portions of the paper. ^ Two issues are found to be consistently cited by the literature as major concerns. One is a need for basic, standardized educational requirements across all IRBs and its members, and secondly, much stricter and more informed management of continuing research. There is no federally regulated formal education system currently in place for IRB members, except for certain NIH-based trials. Also, IRBs are not keeping up with research once a study has begun, and although regulated to do so, it does not appear to be a great priority. This is the area most in danger of increased litigation. Other issues such as voluntary accreditation and outcomes evaluation are slowing gaining steam as the processes are becoming more available and more sought after, such as JCAHO accrediting of hospitals. ^ Adopting the principles discussed in this paper should promote better use of a local IRBs time, money, and expertise for protecting the vulnerable population in their care. Without further improvements to the system, there is concern that private and commercial IRBs will attempt to create a monopoly on much of the clinical research in the future as they are not as heavily regulated and can therefore offer companies quicker and more convenient reviews. IRBs need to consider the advantages of charging for their unique and important services as a cost of doing business. More importantly, there must be a minimum standard of education for all IRB members in the area of the ethical standards of human research and a greater emphasis placed on the follow-up of ongoing research as this is the most critical time for study participants and may soon lead to the largest area for litigation. Additionally, there should be a centralized IRB for multi-site trials or a study website with important information affecting the trial in real time. There needs to be development of standards and metrics to assess the performance of the IRBs for quality assurance and outcome evaluations. The boards should not be content to run the business of human subjects' research without determining how well that function is actually being carried out. It is important that federally regulated IRBs provide excellence in human research and promote those values most important to the public at large.^

Occupational respiratory disease in the services industry

Objective. To describe the spectrum and occurrence of occupational exposures of relevance to the respiratory system and their subsequent adverse effects within the service industries and occupations, as outlined by the U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2007. ^ Design. Systematic review of the literature from an Ovid search including years 1950 to 2008. Initially, occupational respiratory disease categories were searched, and then combined with each of the different occupations for a comprehensive review of the literature. ^ Results. Ten groups within the U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2007 were identified as having exposures leading to occupational respiratory disease. These include janitors/cleaners, dental personnel, cosmetology professionals, traffic police, veterinary personnel, firefighters, healthcare workers, bakers, and bar/restaurant workers. The most common respiratory disorder affecting this population was occupational asthma caused by many different exposures in each occupation. The biggest limitation was the absence of a uniform reporting method for occupational respiratory diseases. ^ Conclusion. There is evidence that there are risks for occupational respiratory disease in the services industry. ^ Key Words: occupational and respiratory disease and service industries ^

Occupational respiratory disease in the services industry

Objective. To describe the spectrum and occurrence of occupational exposures of relevance to the respiratory system and their subsequent adverse effects within the service industries and occupations, as outlined by the U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2007. ^ Design. Systematic review of the literature from an Ovid search including years 1950 to 2008. Initially, occupational respiratory disease categories were searched, and then combined with each of the different occupations for a comprehensive review of the literature. ^ Results. Ten groups within the U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2007 were identified as having exposures leading to occupational respiratory disease. These include janitors/cleaners, dental personnel, cosmetology professionals, traffic police, veterinary personnel, firefighters, healthcare workers, bakers, and bar/restaurant workers. The most common respiratory disorder affecting this population was occupational asthma caused by many different exposures in each occupation. The biggest limitation was the absence of a uniform reporting method for occupational respiratory diseases. ^ Conclusion. There is evidence that there are risks for occupational respiratory disease in the services industry. ^ Key Words. occupational and respiratory disease and service industries ^

Legal regulation of the food industry as a public health measure

Background. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is an agency of the federal government that is responsible for monitoring and maintaining public health through the regulation of many industries, including food safety. Through the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990, the FDA was granted authority over the implementation and regulation of nutrition labeling on packaged foods. Many nutrients are printed on nutrition labels as well as their percent Daily Values. Research has been undertaken to examine the evidentiary basis the FDA relied upon in making its determinations regarding which nutrients to include on nutrition labels as well as their Daily Values. ^ Methods. Relevant legal policies, scientific studies, and other published literature (either in print or electronic form) were used to collect data. ^ Results. Results demonstrated that the FDA did not employ one single method in its determination of which nutrients to select for inclusion on food labels. The agency relied upon current public heath studies of that time as well as recommendations from the U.S. Surgeon General.^