Pending Pasteurization Policy Could Alter Eggs Forever
Kim Severson, Chronicle Staff Writer
Wednesday, April 19, 2000
)2000 San Francisco Chronicle

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2000/04/19/FD50008.DTL

[Fair Use: For Educational/Research Purposes Only]

When you crack your next egg, consider that beneath the shell lurks a pool of politics that could eventually lead to the wholesale pasteurization of the nation's egg supply.

In an effort to stop the spread of a relatively new bacteria called Salmonella enteritidis, or SE, the federal government is in the process of writing a series of new egg laws (See story on page A1).

The first part of the law, expected to be in place next year, would force farmers who find any hint of SE in their farms to destroy millions of eggs or send them to be pasteurized or irradiated. The effort is an attempt to reduce the 230,000 cases of SE poisoning that afflicts Americans every year.

Although the technology is still far from perfect and compulsory pasteurization laws have yet to be considered, one company has already put in-shell pasteurized eggs on store shelves on the East Coast. Those eggs should be in Northern California markets by late fall, says John Davidson, president of the New Hampshire egg-pasteurization company whose product bears his name and the slogan, ``the safe egg.''

Although another brand of in- shell pasteurized eggs is available in limited markets in Minnesota, Davidson's brand is the first aimed at nationwide distribution. The eggs should cost about 35 cents more per dozen than most conventional eggs, Davidson says.

PASTEURIZATION PROCESS

To pasteurize the eggs, Davidson's company uses a machine that sends eggs through a series of warm water baths. That process raises the egg's internal temperature to bacteria-killing levels but leaves the egg in its liquid state. It changes the nature of the egg in the same way that pasteurizing milk eliminated the cream line and altered the flavor and nature of traditional raw milk.

Egg producers don't think people will buy irradiated eggs, but they do think safety-minded buyers will opt for a pasteurized one. Although it is likely a long way off, Davidson and some consumer groups and public health officials see a day when pasteurized eggs will replace traditional eggs.

Whether or not pasteurization becomes compulsory, pasteurized eggs may be a good option for people who want to use recipes calling for raw or undercooked eggs but want to avoid any possible health risk.

To find out just how well these pasteurized eggs perform, The Chronicle's Food department put them through a series of head-to- head tests with regular eggs. The results were surprising and left us believers in the beauty and performance of the unadulterated egg.

--Availability: In-shell pasteurized eggs aren't available in West Coast markets yet, so Davidson, who flew in from his New Hampshire home to attend a recent hearing on the new federal egg policy in Sacramento, hand-delivered three dozen of his freshest pasteurized eggs. The same week, we received three dozen fresh eggs from Petaluma Farms. Both sets were kept refrigerated from the time we received them to the time of the tests.

--Appearance: Both sets were clean, white, extra large, grade AA eggs. Because pasteurizing kills some of the protective qualities of the egg's shell, Davidson's shells are coated with food-grade wax. Davidson's package bears a USDA stamp certifying the eggs meet federal standards for pasteurization.

Once the eggs were cracked, we noticed significant differences. The pasteurized whites were noticeably cloudy. The yolks were pale but slightly plumper than the regular yolks

-- a result of the pasteurization process, Davidson says. Because the white-to-yolk ratio is different in his eggs, an extra egg white might need to be added to some recipes. When beaten, the pasteurized eggs appeared more watery. The regular eggs were more viscous.

--Beating the whites: We whipped two whites from each type of egg, using the highest speed on a KitchenAid mixer until they formed stiff peaks.

When whipped, the volume achieved from each batch was about the same, two cups. The big difference, however, was in whipping time. Traditional eggs reached stiff peaks in three minutes; it took nine minutes for the pasteurized whites to reach that stage -- which actually put a strain on the mixer.

--Hard-cooked eggs: We brought the eggs to a boil and cooked them for eight minutes, then cooled and peeled them.

Both types of eggs had firm whites. But the traditional egg yolk was creamier and had more flavor; The pasteurized egg was bland. Some tasters detected a slight metallic flavor.

--Scrambled eggs: Each type of egg was beaten with 1 1/2 teaspoons of half-and-half, a pinch of salt and a pinch of pepper, then cooked in butter over medium-high heat.

The traditional egg blended easily with the cream. The pasteurized egg did not blend well and appeared watery. When cooked, the traditional egg had a deeper yellow color, a softer texture and tasted better. The pasteurized egg was pale, bland and rubbery.

--Chocolate cake: We baked two flourless chocolate cakes using a recipe that required beating the eggs with sugar before folding them into the batter. Both types of eggs were beaten for the same amount of time and were the only leavening agent.

The cakes were markedly different.

The one made with traditional eggs rose slightly higher than the one made with pasteurized eggs. But what really struck us was the difference in texture. The pasteurized egg cake was firm and compact, with a slightly hardened crust. The cake made with traditional eggs had an even crumb and a spongy texture that bounced back slightly when touched. The pasteurized egg cake had a slight chemical taste; the traditional egg cake had a cleaner chocolate flavor.

--Pot de creme: Only the yolks are used in this baked custard recipe.

The volume of both custards was the same, but the pot de creme made with traditional eggs had a soft, silky texture and a more pronounced egg flavor. The pasteurized egg custard was lighter in color, with a firmer texture and slightly dull flavor.

Chronicle Food interns Noel Advincula and Margarita Camacho and Chronicle staff writer Tara Duggan performed the tests. The Chronicle Food staff rated the results.

)2000 San Francisco Chronicle

-- Anonymous, April 30, 2000

Answers

U.S. Scrambles to Ensure Egg Safety
But critics say plan to eradicate Salmonella strain is an overreaction
Kim Severson, Chronicle Staff Writer
Wednesday, April 19, 2000
)2000 San Francisco Chronicle

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi- bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2000/04/19/MN76372.DTL&type= food

[Fair Use: For Educational/Research Purposes Only]

The egg, a kitchen workhorse delivered in one of nature's most ingenious packages, is getting beaten up again.

Having survived the cholesterol scare of the '90s, the egg is facing perhaps a tougher foe: President Clinton's Egg Safety Action Plan.

The idea is to eradicate Salmonella enteritidis, a relatively new strain of the bacteria that first showed up in eggs on the East Coast during the 1980s and has made hundreds of thousands of people sick.

The plan, details of which are still being finalized, could possibly lead to wholesale pasteurization of the nation's egg supply -- a change as radical as the campaign to pasteurize milk 80 years ago.

As part of the effort, the government plans to teach America to rethink how it cooks the 68 billion eggs eaten annually. That means no more eggs over easy, and changes in recipes for everything from ice cream and meringue to hollandaise sauce and Caesar salads.

But critics of the president's egg policy say the government is caught up in a shell game that pits egg farmers against consumer activists. The fight against Salmonella enteritidis is about five years too late, they say. The rate of illness from this bacteria has already dropped and is continuing to do so. Rapidly.

At a federal hearing in Sacramento earlier this month, government officials said that from 1996 to 1998, the number of Salmonella enteritidis-related illnesses cases fell by 44 percent, to about 230,000 a year. In the past 15 years, 79 deaths have been attributed to Salmonella enteritidis

By its own estimates, the government believes that only 1 in 20,000 eggs contains Salmonella enteritidis, which can be killed simply by cooking eggs so they are no longer runny. Opponents like to point out that at a rate of five deaths a year, fewer people die from eating Salmonella enteritidis-tainted eggs than from lightning strikes.

Ralph Ernst, a poultry specialist in the animal sciences department of the University of California at Davis, said: ``If you drive to the store to get eggs, you're taking a much greater risk than eating those eggs raw. So how much time do you want to spend worrying about eggs?''

The president's policy and the rush to pasteurize eggs are really about the politics of food safety, said Hans Reimann, a recently retired UC Davis professor and one of the nation's top authorities on egg-related safety and epidemiology.

``What's going on here is sort of a media scare, and regulatory agencies feel compelled to do something.''

Poultry researchers and farmers say the government is mounting a major attack on Salmonella enteritidis because it is a manageable battle that can be won -- despite questions about the actual threat of salmonella. ``The president said he was going to do it, so it will be done,'' Ernst said.

But to Laurie Girand, a Saratoga food activist whose daughter fell ill in 1996 when she drank unpasteurized Odwalla juice infected with E coli, arguments like that are industry doublespeak.

``I think of this as a power struggle between business wanting to go on as usual and the consumers saying you can't make us sick anymore,'' said Girand, who is part of a panel advising the government on its new egg law. ``The truth of the matter is they're bringing biohazards into the home in the form of an egg.''

Those are fighting words to Petaluma Farms egg man Steve Mahrt. He said he already goes to great lengths to keep his flock free from Salmonella enteritidis. And if he is forced to pasteurize all of his eggs in the shell, he'll be out of business. In- shell pasteurizing machines just coming on the market cost as much as $1.5 million, a price he can not afford.

``If they require pasteurization,'' he said, ``it would be the end of family egg farms.''

Mahrt and others say the real issue is a society that increasingly demands the impossible: 100 percent risk-free food.

``We can cook it all to 170 degrees and not touch it, and everything will taste like an old TV dinner,'' he said. ``The point is, getting up in the morning is hazardous.''

CLINTON'S PLAN OF ATTACK

Clinton's egg plan calls for reducing the estimated 230,000 cases of Salmonella enteritidis poisoning by half by 2005 and eliminate them entirely by 2010.

To do that, the Department of Agriculture, the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention plan to test egg farms for the bacteria. If it's found in chickens or just in their hen houses, millions of eggs would either be destroyed or sent for mass pasteurization.

These are expensive propositions that involve either breaking the eggs and pasteurizing them as a liquid for large-scale food-service use or using a new and largely unproven technology that would pasteurize them in the shell.

No matter what, all egg cartons will soon bear cigarette-style warning labels that read, in part, ``Eggs may contain harmful bacteria known to cause serious illness.'' And consumers are already being advised to cook all eggs until firm.

If these efforts do not reduce illnesses caused by Salmonella enteritidis-tainted eggs, the day may come when every egg in America is either irradiated, pasteurized or produced by a vaccinated chicken. It would mark a wholesale change, reminiscent of time when pasteurizing milk became the law of the land early in the century. The process eliminated the cream line and changed the taste of whole milk.

But eggs and milk are quite different. The shell is a safe protective package, those opposed to mass pasteurization say, and existing technology to pasteurize eggs changes their nature. Tests in The Chronicle's kitchen substantiated those claims and showed the pasteurized eggs did not perform as well as traditional eggs. (See story in today's Food section.)

Although no one can say why the rates of Salmonella enteritidis -related infections are dropping, Emilio Esteban, CDC assistant director for public health, credits two things.

One is that farmers and packers have started voluntary programs to improve egg-handling practices. Second, health departments orchestrated a public-education campaign designed to teach restaurant workers and home cooks how to handle eggs properly to avoid under cooking or contaminating other food with bacteria.

NEW GERM ON THE BLOCK

Salmonella enteritidis is a relative newcomer in the world of food- borne pathogens, showing up inside eggs in the Northeast in the early 1980s, then spreading to California -- particularly Southern California -- in the mid-1990s.

Unlike the other estimated 2,000 commonly occurring strains of salmonella, some of which live on the shells of eggs and are controlled through egg washing, Salmonella enteritidis has a peculiar trait: It lives inside, rather than outside, the egg shell. No one knows why it cropped up or can make sense of its infection patterns. In general, deaths attributed to Salmonella enteritidis are rare.

Since 1985, when the Salmonella enteritidis epidemic began, 79 deaths have been linked to it -- 17 in California. Most cases have been among the elderly or immune-compromised people in nursing homes or hospitals who are more susceptible to the effects of salmonella. By comparison, the Clinton administration estimates that about 9,000 deaths a year are attributed to all types of food poisoning.

The problem with all the estimates is that the numbers get softer the harder one looks. In fact, no one is sure how many people get sick from Salmonella enteritidis, in large part because many cases are not severe enough to get counted.

Most healthy adults who eat a tainted egg probably will not get sick. If they do, they probably will experience a case of diarrhea or other flu-like symptoms.

The president's egg plan still has a few more miles to travel before it becomes law. Based on information gathered at the public hearings and sent to the USDA, the rules will be polished, cost estimates will be finalized and a draft will be issued by the end of the year. Final rules should be in place by 2001.

In the meantime, the government effort to educate cooks about handling eggs will continue, and state and federal health officials hope the Salmonella enteritidis rates will keep declining.

But until either all eggs are pasteurized -- the nation's first mass- market brand is due to hit Northern California groceries later this year -- or farmers figure out how to keep Salmonella enteritidis out of their product, consumers will have to decide just how much of a risk under- cooked eggs are.

Find President Clinton's egg safety action plan at http://www.foodsafety.com.

-- Anonymous, April 30, 2000