[compost_tea] Re: Perceived risk of food-related hazards

From: dkemnitz2000 <dkemnitz2000_at_yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 01:03:18 -0000
---Steve is this paper the reason CTTF wants to use  indicator
organisms(indicative of feces) to determine safety of ACT?  I don't
get it. E.coli, other coliforms and other possible pathogens in
manure can multiply or just exist in lots of places besides ACT,
compost and feces.  It takes 100,000/ml of them(E.coli) to be
considered a urinary tract problem per my micro book......  In other
words how did CTTF determine the spec .......Whatever it is CTTF set
it at? Did you look at historical data and standard
deviations,ect??????????????
     Additionally, there would be a hundred or more ways to
accidentally mess up a batch of ACT after the E.coli ND blessing is
received, I'm guessing. 
     What does CTTF recommend we do with ACT not meeting specs for
use on certified organic food crops while further testing is done or
if it's not done? I ask cause I  have only one brewing/aeration tank.
The product(ACT) is kind of perishable as well as valuable at this
point.......It will hold up production at this point beyond what is
practical. 
     Do you know of anyone producing ACT which meets these CTTF specs
for organic food crop production?  Like has the data?  If so their
recipe? As in are they using additives and compost which included
manure in the pile?  Enjoyed knowing someone reads IFT journals.  I
quit a long time ago cause I dropped IFT membership. Those people in
academia quite often lose touch with production, IMO.  I have that
trouble working in the lab and QC to some degree. And I guarantee you
I've been told that many, many times in more than one way by 
production workers.Dennis Kemnitz







In compost_tea_at_yahoogroups.com, "Steve Diver" <steved@n...> wrote:
> Here's a paper from the current (May 2004) issue
> of International Journal of Food Science & Technology
> on perceived risk of food-related hazards.
>
> It says right there in the conclusion:
>
> "consumers were more worried about those food hazards that
> were well known to them"
>
> and, consequently,
>
> "less worried about food hazards that were less known".
>
>




Taking a leap, you can surmise that a similar situation
> exists with "concerns" about pathogens in composts and
> compost teas in relation to organic farming. 
>
> Once the flavor of the day was pathogenic concerns with
> compost and compost teas ... instead of the benefits and
> beneficial organisms in compost and compost teas... organic
> farmers have had to back peddle to catch up and allay these
> "concerns."
>
> Anyways, here's the paper citation in case you're interested.
>
> Steve Diver
>
>
> ******************************************************
>
> The perception of risks associated with food-related hazards and
> the perceived reliability of sources of information
>
> International Journal of Food Science & Technology
> Volume 39 Issue 5 Page 491  - May 2004
>
> Simona Rosati & Anna Saba
>
> National Institute of Research in Food and Nutrition, Rome, Italy
>
> http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.2004.00808.x
>
> Summary excerpt
>
> This study aimed to explore, on the one hand, public perception of
> risks associated with different food-related hazards and, on the
other
> hand, perception of reliability of various sources
> providinginformation on food-related risks. Some differences were
> found when consumers compared six food-related hazards in terms of
> perceived personal risk and their knowledge of potential food risks.
> The concern about food risks was found to be statistically
> significantly dependent on the perception of risk to the
> individual....
>
> Content:
>
> The food hazards taken into account were:
>
> Genetically engineered food
> Food irradiation
> Residues of pesticides
> Bacterial contamination
> BSE
> Food additives
>
> Sources of informartion considered trustworthy:
>
> Government
> Environmental organizations
> Reporters
> European Commission
> Consumer associations
> Ministry of Health
> Ministry of Agriculture
> Research institutes
> Producer associations
>
>
> Conclusion excerpts
>
> The study showed that consumers were more worried about those food
> hazards that were well known to them and, consequently, less worried
> about food hazards that were less known. Moreover, the study
indicated
> that perceived personal risk and the individual's own knowledge of
> potential food risks were two distinct dimensions of food risk
> perception.
>
> It was found that the reliability of knowledge held by agencies
about
> risks associated with food-related hazards to human health and the
> trustworthiness of the sources of information were two important
> factors of consumer trust. 
>
> A perception of the amount of concern of agencies to protect the
> health of citizens from possible risks associated with foodrelated
> hazards and the perception of the knowledge held by these agencies
> about food risks were the most important determinants of trust.
>
> It means that an increase in trust could result from an equal
> increase in these two determinants, as well as a reduction in
> trust could result from an equal decrease in them.
>
> ******************************************************
>


******************************************************



Yahoo! Groups Links

Received on Wed Apr 28 2004 - 23:07:05 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue Feb 07 2012 - 14:15:13 EST