Is Raw Seafood Safe To Eat?

Jackie Newgent wrote . . . . . . . . .

People have been eating raw seafood from the beginning of time. But does that mean we should be doing so now?

To reduce the risk of foodborne illness, it is recommended that foods be cooked to their appropriate internal temperature. For most healthy people who choose to eat raw or undercooked seafood, it may only pose a small health risk but for others the risk can be severe. Foodborne illness can result in severe vomiting, diarrhea and abdominal pain, among other symptoms.

Major types of food poisoning that can result from eating raw or undercooked fish and shellfish include Salmonella and Vibrio vulnificus. For raw shellfish connoisseurs, especially raw oyster lovers, you specifically need to know about the risk for Vibrio infections. Vibrio vulnificus is a bacterium that lives in warm seawater. While not as common as some other foodborne illnesses, 1,252 people were infected with Vibrio in 2014, according to a report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

To reduce your risk of any type of food poisoning, know that neither hot sauce nor alcohol kills bacteria, despite popular myth. The best rule of thumb is to follow good food safety practices and properly cook all seafood. Prepare fin fish until it reaches 145°F — or until the flesh is opaque and separates easily with a fork; prepare shellfish until the flesh is opaque; or, for clams, oysters, and mussels, until the shells open.

One other safety tip of interest: If you do decide to eat raw fish, choose fish that has been previously frozen. That’s because freezing will kill any potential parasites present. Unfortunately, freezing doesn’t kill every harmful organism.

High-Risk Individuals

For people at higher risk for foodborne illness, severe and life-threatening illness may result from consuming raw or undercooked fish and shellfish. These individuals include those with compromised immune systems, as well as pregnant women, infants, young children and older adults. Raw fish and shellfish consumption is never advised for high-risk individuals. If you’re in this category, thoroughly cook fish and shellfish. If you’re unsure if you are at risk, consult with your physician or registered dietitian nutritionist.

Keeping it Safe from Market to Mealtime

Follow these key tips when buying, storing and preparing fresh, raw seafood.

At the market:

• Be sure fresh seafood is properly refrigerated below 40°F or well-packed with ice.
• Look for fish with shiny, firm flesh and no overly “fishy” odor.

In your fridge:

• Keep fresh fish well wrapped or in air-tight containers for no more than two days on the bottom shelf.
• Store fresh or smoked seafood below 40°F; store live clams, crabs, crayfish, lobsters, mussels and oysters in well ventilated containers.

During preparation:

• Keep raw and cooked seafood separate, including using separate cutting boards and utensils.
• Wash hands, cutting boards, plates and utensils thoroughly between handling raw seafood and any ready-to-eat food.

Dining Out Advice

There are a plethora of well-liked raw and undercooked fish and shellfish items on menus today. For healthy individuals who choose to consume these foods, make sure they’re from reputable restaurants or markets that use fresh, high-quality ingredients and follow proper food safety practices. But be aware of these menu items, especially if you’re in the high-risk category, since they contain raw or undercooked seafood: sushi, sashimi, raw oysters or clams on the half shell, ceviche, crudo, gravlax, poke, tuna tartare and tuna carpaccio.

The Bottom Line

Properly cooked fish and shellfish offer a variety of nutrients that benefit our health. However, there’s an increased risk with raw fish and shellfish. Be aware of food safety considerations when eating it. And if you’re a high-risk individual, simply do not eat raw seafood.

Source: Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics

Study: Antibiotics Found in Some of the World’s Rivers Exceed ‘Safe’ Levels

Concentrations of antibiotics found in some of the world’s rivers exceed ‘safe’ levels by up to 300 times, the first ever global study has discovered.

Researchers looked for 14 commonly used antibiotics in rivers in 72 countries across six continents and found antibiotics at 65% of the sites monitored.

Metronidazole, which is used to treat bacterial infections including skin and mouth infections, exceeded safe levels by the biggest margin, with concentrations at one site in Bangladesh 300 times greater than the ‘safe’ level.

In the River Thames and one of its tributaries in London, the researchers detected a maximum total antibiotic concentration of 233 nanograms per litre (ng/l), whereas in Bangladesh the concentration was 170 times higher.

Trimethoprim

The most prevalent antibiotic was trimethoprim, which was detected at 307 of the 711 sites tested and is primarily used to treat urinary tract infections.

The research team compared the monitoring data with ‘safe’ levels recently established by the AMR Industry Alliance which, depending on the antibiotic, range from 20-32,000 ng/l.

Ciproflaxacin, which is used to treat a number of bacterial infections, was the compound that most frequently exceeded safe levels, surpassing the safety threshold in 51 places.

Global problem

The team said that the ‘safe’ limits were most frequently exceeded in Asia and Africa, but sites in Europe, North America and South America also had levels of concern showing that antibiotic contamination was a “global problem.”

Sites where antibiotics exceeded ‘safe’ levels by the greatest degree were in Bangladesh, Kenya, Ghana, Pakistan and Nigeria, while a site in Austria was ranked the highest of the European sites monitored.

The study revealed that high-risk sites were typically adjacent to wastewater treatment systems, waste or sewage dumps and in some areas of political turmoil, including the Israeli and Palestinian border.

Monitoring

The project, which was led by the University of York, was a huge logistical challenge – with 92 sampling kits flown out to partners across the world who were asked to take samples from locations along their local river system.

Samples were then frozen and couriered back to the University of York for testing. Some of the world’s most iconic rivers were sampled, including the Chao Phraya, Danube, Mekong, Seine, Thames, Tiber and Tigris.

Dr John Wilkinson, from the Department of Environment and Geography, who co-ordinated the monitoring work said no other study had been done on this scale. He said: “Until now, the majority of environmental monitoring work for antibiotics has been done in Europe, N. America and China. Often on only a handful of antibiotics. We know very little about the scale of problem globally.

“Our study helps to fill this key knowledge gap with data being generated for countries that had never been monitored before.”

Antimicrobial resistance

Professor Alistair Boxall, Theme Leader of the York Environmental Sustainability Institute, said: “The results are quite eye opening and worrying, demonstrating the widespread contamination of river systems around the world with antibiotic compounds.

“Many scientists and policy makers now recognise the role of the natural environment in the antimicrobial resistance problem. Our data show that antibiotic contamination of rivers could be an important contributor.”

“Solving the problem is going to be a mammoth challenge and will need investment in infrastructure for waste and wastewater treatment, tighter regulation and the cleaning up of already contaminated sites.”

Source: University of York

Among Older Women, 10,000 Steps Per Day Not Needed for Lower Mortality

In the world of step goals and activity trackers, the number 10,000 can sound like a magic one. Many wearable devices that track the number of steps a person takes each day come pre-programmed with a daily goal of 10,000 steps. But while a large body of evidence shows that physical activity is good for a person’s health and longevity, few studies have examined how many steps a day are associated with good health, particularly long-term health outcomes. A new study led by investigators from Brigham and Women’s Hospital sought to address this knowledge gap by examining outcomes over an average of more than four years for older women in the Women’s Health Study who had measured their steps for a full week. The team reports that, among older women, taking as few as 4,400 steps per day was significantly associated with lower risk of death compared to taking 2,700 steps per day. Risk of death continued to decrease with more steps taken but leveled off at around 7,500 steps per day — less than the 10,000 steps default goal in many wearables. The team’s results are presented today at the American College of Sports Medicine Annual Meeting and published simultaneously in JAMA Internal Medicine.

“Taking 10,000 steps a day can sound daunting. But we find that even a modest increase in steps taken is tied to significantly lower mortality in older women,” said I-Min Lee, MBBS, ScD, an epidemiologist in the Division of Preventive Medicine at the Brigham. “Our study adds to a growing understanding of the importance of physical activity for health, clarifies the number of steps related to lower mortality and amplifies the message: Step more — even a little more is helpful.”

According to previous studies, the average number of steps taken by people in the U.S. is between 4,000 and 5,000 per day. The origin of the 10,000-step goal is unclear but may trace back to 1965, when a Japanese company began marketing a pedometer called Manpo-kei, which translates to “10,000 steps meter” in Japanese.

To conduct their study, Lee and colleagues included participants from the Women’s Health Study, a randomized trial originally conducted to evaluate risk of cardiovascular disease and cancer among women taking low-dose aspirin and vitamin E. When the original trial ended, participants were invited to participate in a long-term observational study. For the present study of steps and health, almost 18,000 women were asked to wear an ActiGraph GT3X+ accelerometer device — a research grade wearable — on their hips for seven consecutive days during all waking hours. The team analyzed 16,741 of the women who were compliant with wearing the device; their average age was 72.

Participants were followed for an average of more than four years, during which time 504 women died. Participants in the bottom 25 percent of steps walked (average of 2,700 steps per day) were at greatest risk of death, with 275 women dying. Those who walked modestly more (average of 4,400 per day) were at 41 percent lower risk of death. Risk of death continued to decrease with more steps walked, up to 7,500 steps per day, after which risk leveled off. The team also found that for women who walked the same number of steps per day, the intensity — how fast or slow they walked — was not associated with risk of death.

Due to the observational nature of the study, the authors cannot definitively separate cause from correlation (that is, to differentiate between “do more steps lower mortality?” or “do women in better health step more?”). However, the team did take several measures to try to ensure that the association observed was more likely causal than not, such as excluding women with heart disease, cancer, diabetes and less than excellent or good self-rated health and excluding the first year of follow-up data. The findings also are supported by previous experiments showing physical activity causes beneficial changes in short-term markers of health e.g., blood pressure, insulin/glucose levels, lipid profile, inflammation, and more.

The Women’s Health Study included primarily older, white women, and further studies will be needed in younger and diverse populations to determine if the findings are applicable to other groups, especially those who may, on average, take more steps. Other outcomes — such as quality of life and risk of specific diseases — were not assessed, but will be addressed in future studies.

“Of course, no single study stands alone. But our work continues to make the case for the importance of physical activity,” said Lee. “Clearly, even a modest number of steps was related to lower mortality rate among these older women. We hope these findings provide encouragement for individuals for whom 10,000 steps a day may seem unattainable.”

Source: Science Daily

---

Read also at Reuters:

Daily strides may mean longer life for older women . . . . .

---

Today’s Comic

In Pictures: Indian Desserts

Bebinca

Aamras puri

Gajar halwa

Shrikhand

Mishti doi

Motichoor ladoo

Rhubarb Raspberry Crisp

Ingredients

1-1/2 pounds rhubarb, cut into 1-inch pieces (about 4 cups)
2/3 cup granulated sugar
zest and juice of 1 orange
1 cup all-purpose flour
1/2 cup dark brown sugar
1/2 teaspoon cinnamon
8 tablespoons ( 1 stick) cold unsalted butter, cut into small pieces
1/2 cup rolled oats
1/4 cup hazelnuts, skinned, toasted, and chopped (optional)
1/2 pint fresh raspberries

Method

1. Heat oven to 350°F.
2. Combine rhubarb, granulated sugar, and orange zest and juice in a large bowl. Stir to combine.
3. In another bowl, combine flour, brown sugar, and cinnamon. Rub butter into flour mixture with your fingers until it is well incorporated and large crumbs form.
4. Add oats and nuts and combine.
5. Turn rhubarb into a 1-1/2-quart baking dish, scatter raspberries evenly over surface, and cover with crumb topping. Bake until topping is brown and crisp and juices are bubbling, about 45 minutes.
6. Let cool slightly before serving.

Makes 4 servings.

Source: Martha Stewart Living