- Boy Scout, 12, killed by rolling tree during troop outing at Washington park
- South Korean president: Ferry crew actions ‘murderous’
- President Obama poised to grant clemency to nonviolent drug offenders: report
- Teen OK after riding in wheel well of Hawaii jet
- Kraft recalls 96K pounds of Oscar Mayer hot dogs over cheese error
- Boy Scouts boots church as host after gay leadership dispute
- Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s new book raises 2016 presidential speculation
- America is an oligarchy, not a democracy or republic, university study finds
- Rep. Marsha Blackburn: Hillary Clinton won’t be first female president
- French president accuses Syria’s Assad of gassing his own citizens
New tests could hamper food outbreak detection
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
Women losing coverage under Obamacare, too
- Tactical advantage: Russian military shows off impressive new gear
- Former Ranger breaks silence on Pat Tillman death: I may have killed him
- Scalia to students on high taxes: At a certain point, 'perhaps you should revolt'
- Special Forces' suicide rates hit record levels casualties of 'hard combat'
- USAID documents cite Hillary Clinton in chaos of Afghan aid
- CURL: Shelly O first lady Michelle Obama comes in last
- Feds approve powdered alcohol; 'Palcohol' available later this year
- Twitter blocks accounts critical of Turkish government
- Inside China: Marine's comment on islands draws sharp Chinese response
- Building a D.C. memorial for an endless war bumps into regulations
Top 10 handguns in the U.S.