Even weak Ames tests are not to be discounted when the there is a large amount
of the treated effluent. The trade off is between the health of workers and
consumers, and that of broader environmental exposure, including humans.
Unfortunately the most effective sanitizers are free radical initiators. This
also makes them potential mutagens. The halogenated ones pose the most risk for
mutagenesis, or immune suppression. As Paracelus has been paraphrased as saying
all are poisons it is just a matter of degree. There are virtually no
situations when the risk is truly zero. It is more a matter of understanding
and communicating the risks; and taking action to minimize the adverse effects.
John French
PEGASUS ENTERPRISES
howgate wrote:
> Dear John
>
> I welcome your assurance that you do not consider use of chlorine in fish
> processing as a sanitiser and in wash water poses no significant risk to
> the consumer. Given the widespread advice by regulatory bodies to use
> chlorine in these ways in fish processing, I believe it is necessary to
> reassure processors there is no risk, or at least there is no evidence or
> expectation of a risk to health. Chlorine is used in the poultry industries
> at very high levels, around 150 ppm, and the water, recirculated, will be
> in contact with the chlorine for many hours. Under there conditions tests
> have shown a weak mutagenicity of the water in the Ames test, but the
> chicken are not exposed for hours and it is unlikely there is any
> significant concentration of the mutagens in the chicken flesh. The
> recommended concentration of chlorine in wash water used in fish processing
> is typically less than 2 ppm, contact times are in the order of minutes,
> and the water is not recirculated so it is unlikely the water contains any
> mutagens. About a year ago, I searched the literature for any studies of
> risks of using chlorine in fish processing and did not come across any
> studies.
>
> Peter Howgate
>
> ----------
> > From: John French <frenchpe@concentric.net>
> > To: phowgate@rsc.co.uk
> > Cc: michaelg@ij.co.za; 'seafood@ucdavis.edu'
> > Subject: Re: Using Ozone for Sanitation
> > Date: 03 February 2000 02:49
> >
> > Peter;
> > Used to sanitize processing areas and as wash water for whole product, eg
> fish,
> > I do not believe chlorine poses any significant risk to the consumer, and
> > handled properly chlorine related systems can be operated safely for
> plant
> > personnel, as can ozone systems. One problem with ozone systems is the
> > difficulty controlling levels and the nature of many generating systems.
> Both
> > ozone and chlorine gas are highly toxic to humans.
> >
> > Regarding the by-products, when high concentrations of suspended
> biological or
> > food processing wastes are treated with higher levels of chlorine a
> variety of
> > chlorinated by-products are formed. Some of these by-products are quite
> similar
> > to known toxins, many have not had their structures elucidated. These
> compounds
> > do not appear to present an acute toxicity problem for humans at any
> where
> > close to the levels found in municipal waste processing, which is higher
> and of
> > greater volume than a food processing plant. Since we do not know the
> actual
> > structures of many of these compounds, nor the dose-response information,
> and
> > we do know that many halogenated aromatics represent a serious chronic
> toxicity
> > risk, I view these compounds as questionable. If I thought there was hard
> > evidence of a problem, I would have said so.
> >
> > Sorry for the toxicological bobbing and weaving.
> >
> > John French, Ph.D.
> > PEGASUS ENTERPRISES
> >
> > howgate wrote:
> >
> > > John
> > >
> > > What evidence do you have that chlorine, as used in a fish processing
> plant
> > > in the concentrations likely to be used in a fish processing plant,
> > > produces 'questionable by-products'? Would the risks to consumers from
> > > these questionable products be more than the risks to health of the
> factory
> > > personnel of using ozone in the plants?
> > >
> > > Peter Howgate
> > >
> > > ----------
> > > > From: John French <frenchpe@concentric.net>
> > > > To: michaelg@ij.co.za
> > > > Cc: 'seafood@ucdavis.edu'
> > > > Subject: Re: Using Ozone for Sanitation
> > > > Date: 02 February 2000 08:17
> > > >
> > > > Michael:
> > > > Ozone is an excellent sanitizer which has a higher oxidizing
> potential
> > > than chlorine, and produces fewer questionable by-products upon
> reacting
> > > with suspended organic materials. The problem, if you want to call it
> that,
> > > is that it has a shorter half life and
> > > > what little residual there is is more difficult to test for than
> > > chlorine. In other words, most food technologists in the United States
> > > recognize ozone's positive attributes but the necessary regulations
> have
> > > been slow to develop.
> > > > John French
> > > > PEGASUS ENTERPRISES
> > > >
> > > > Michael Graz wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Dear Seafoods Listers
> > > > >
> > > > > There is a trend in South Africa for meat and chicken processors to
> use
> > > ozone in their water and their chill rooms. Has this ever been done in
> the
> > > fishing industry? Will ozone have a positive effect on fish quality?
> May
> > > ozone be used in the fishing industry?
> > > > >
> > > > > Your comments will be gladly appreciated.
> > > > >
> > > > > Sincerely
> > > > >
> > > > > Michael Graz
> > > > >
> > > > > Michael Graz Ph.D. Pr.Sci.Nat.
> > > > > Divisional Quality Assurance Manager
> > > > > I&J Seafoods
> > > > > Cape Town
> > > > > Tel: +27 21 440 7955
> > > > > Fax: +27 21 447 4883
> > > > > Mobile: +27 82 652 2079
> > > > >
> > > > > This message is sent in confidence for the attention of the
> addressee
> > > only. Unauthorised recipients are requested to preserve this
> > > confidentiality and are requested to delete the message forthwith.
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Feb 06 2000 - 23:25:52 PST