- ISIL creates all-female brigade to terrorize women into following Sharia law
- ISTOOK: Obama wants to be impeached
- Obama to Latin leaders: Help with border
- Military bans troops from Baptist church event honoring ‘God’s Rescue Squad’
- ‘Pocket drones’: U.S. Army developing tiny surveillance tools for the next big war
- Belgian cafe posts sign: Dogs allowed, but Jews stay out
- Gen. Dempsey: Pentagon studying Russian readiness plans not viewed ‘for 20 years’
- John McCain: Botched, two-hour execution of murderer is ‘torture’
- House GOP ready to move border bill
- Bomb squad called after live WWII artillery washes on Cape Cod beach
New tests could hamper food outbreak detection
Question of the Day
WASHINGTON (AP) - New tests that promise to speed up diagnosis of food poisoning pose an unexpected problem: They could make it more difficult to identify dangerous outbreaks like the one that sickened people who ate a variety of Trader Joe’s peanut butter this fall.
The new tests could reach medical laboratories as early as next year, an exciting development for patients. They could shave a few days off the time needed to tell whether E. coli, salmonella or other foodborne bacteria caused a patient’s illness, allowing faster treatment of sometimes deadly diseases.
The problem: These new tests can’t detect crucial differences between different subtypes of bacteria, as today’s tests can. And that fingerprint is what states and the federal government use to match sick people to a contaminated food.
“It’s like a forensics lab. If somebody says a shot was fired, without the bullet you don’t know where it came from,” explained E. coli expert Dr. Phillip Tarr of Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis.
The federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention expects private labs to rapidly adopt these next-generation tests _ and warns that what is progress for individual patients could hamper the nation’s efforts to keep food safe. Already, 1 in 6 Americans gets sick from foodborne illness each year, and 3,000 die.
So even before these tests hit the market, the agency is searching for solutions. Unless one is found, the CDC’s Dr. John Besser said the tests’ unintended consequence could be that ultimately, more people become sick.
“In the past 20 years, there’s been a fantastic ability to fingerprint bugs: Is this an organism that’s causing multiple infections and we can interdict it? Or is this a once-only event?” added Tarr, the E. coli specialist. “Without that organism in hand, the state can’t do it. The government can’t do it. You lose the ability to get the evidence.”
It all comes down to what’s called a bacterial culture _ whether labs grow a sample of a patient’s bacteria in an old-fashioned petri dish, or skip that step because the new tests don’t require it.
Here’s the way it works now: Someone with serious diarrhea visits the doctor, who gets a stool sample and sends it to a private testing laboratory. The lab cultures the sample, growing larger batches of any lurking bacteria to identify what’s there. If disease-causing germs such as E. coli O157 or salmonella are found, they may be sent on to a public health laboratory for more sophisticated analysis to uncover their unique DNA patterns _ their fingerprints.
Those fingerprints are posted to a national database, called PulseNet, that the CDC and state health officials use to look for food poisoning trends.
There are lots of garden-variety cases of salmonella every year, from runny eggs to a picnic lunch that sat out too long. But if a few people in, say, Baltimore have salmonella with the same molecular signature as some sick people in Cleveland, it’s time to investigate, because scientists might be able narrow the outbreak to a particular food or company.
But culture-based testing takes time _ as long as two to four days after the sample reaches the lab, which makes for a long wait if you’re a sick patient.
What’s in the pipeline? Tests that could detect many kinds of germs simultaneously instead of hunting one at a time _ and within hours of reaching the lab. Those tests essentially work by searching for an identifying piece of a germ’s DNA without first having to grow a culture.
This isn’t just a science debate, said Shari Shea, food safety director at the Association of Public Health Laboratories.
If you were the patient, “you’d want to know how you got sick,” she said.
TWT Video Picks
By Mark Davis
The nation founders, the Lone Star State thrives
- Rahm Emanuel: Send illegal immigrant shelter kids to Chicago
- 'Pocket drones': U.S. Army developing tiny spies for the next big war
- Tactical advantage: Russian military shows off impressive new gear
- CURL: Obama, staffers not even pretending any more
- Family of Marine killed in Afghanistan pushes back against cover-up
- Pentagon running out of time to find mass of missing weapons in Afghanistan
- Washington Times strikes content and marketing partnership with Redskins
- ISTOOK: Obama wants to be impeached
- Obama family set to buy $4.25M desert home in California: report
- ORTEL: Note to Janet Yellen: The American bubble is popping
Obama's biggest White House 'fails'
Celebrities turned politicians
Athletes turned actors
20 gadgets that changed the world
Fighting in Iraq