The Government Attitude on Micro-Organisms
What are the objections of the pure food authorities to the presence of large numbers of micro-organisms in tomato products, and how do they substantiate their objections? We know that all of these germs that grow in tomato products are harmless. Even if an occasional harmful germ should enter it would not be discovered by the method of analysis employed, and unless it was in the spore form and of extremely high resistance it would be killed by the boiling.
We know that buttermilk and sauerkraut are full of bacteria, and that the latter is also full of yeasts, and that these two foods are recommended by physicians as being particularly healthful because of the lactic acid they contain, which is produced by the lactic acid bacteria—the same kind that are condemned in tomato products.
In sauerkraut we know that these lactic acid bacteria and yeasts are killed by the cooking, just as they are in tomato products, which seems to make the two cases analogous. In buttermilk and cottage cheese, however, they are alive and growing, and these products are considered healthful. Roquefort cheese is full of a green mold which gives it its characteristic flavor and color, and it is considered healthful. Then why object to molds in tomato products?
The difference is that in one case we have a controlled and regulated fermentation, which is confined to one or more species, which in combination with the characteristic elements of that particular food produce a healthful by-product or desirable flavor. In the other case we have an unregulated and uncontrolled fermentation, produced by a variety of species of micro-organisms. In tomatoes we have a number of species of molds; we have a great many different species of wild yeasts, many of which produce by-products of a disagreeable character; and we have a number of species of bacteria, chief among which are the lactic acid and acetic acid types, which change the tomato pulp from a sweet product, as it should be, to a sour one.
The objections of the government are therefore more confined to the by-products which are produced by the growth of these germs than to the germs themselves. It is the contention that the by-products produced in tomato products by many of these germs are such as to be classed as a filthy, putrid, decomposed vegetable substance. Just how many of these germs a product may contain before it is sufficiently decomposed to be classed as filthy and putrid is a question. The government tries to play safe in the matter, and give the packer a fair deal. When they condemn a tomato product as unfit for food it isn’t because it contains only an average quantity of micro-organisms, but because the number of germs present, and the decomposition produced, is such as to indicate extreme laxness in sanitation and lack of care in the manufacturing processes, or the admittance of quite a large percentage of rotten material. The spoilage may be either primary or secondary, that is, it may be due to the use of a lot of partly rotten, moldy tomatoes at the start, which were not carefully sorted, or it may be due to fermentation which takes place in the factory, caused by extreme delay or by unsanitary equipment. In primary spoilage the mold is usually very high and the yeasts and bacteria may be low, while in secondary spoilage either the yeasts or bacteria, or both, will be high, and the molds may be low. This will be explained further later in this chapter.
Government Regulations
When the government regulations on tomato products were first published it was stated that for catsup the microscopical counts should not run above the following:
Molds in 25% of the microscopic fields.
Yeasts and spores—25 in 1/60th cubic millimeter.