| That's the mantra chanted by FDA whenever they are asked to provide retail distribution information for recalled products. It's the mantra offered by some State Departments of Health - and, on occasion, by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention - when asked for details on outbreak cases in their states. And it's the mantra offered by USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) to justify NOT announcing or publicizing product recalls associated with the Canadian beef in which the agency found E. coli O157:H7. OK. Let me be fair. When FDA refuses to release retail distribution information, they say that this is proprietary information and can only be released by the company that initiated the "voluntary" recall. When a State Department of Health declines to release information on outbreak cases, it's usually because "CDC is taking the lead in this investigation" or to protect patient privacy. When CDC declines to release information, it's because State "X" is "taking the lead" in the investigation. And, in the case of FSIS, their justification is:
It still boils down to "It's Not Our Job!" This rationalization flies in the face of logic, and of what should be the primary role of FSIS - to protect public health. It also is completely at a variance with recent FSIS actions in other recall situations involving "secondary" recalls. A scan of the Active Recall list on the FSIS web site yielded the following examples:
And let's not forget this example from the Recall Archives: So how does FSIS justify its utter lack of leadership in publicizing the product recalls initiated by companies such as Interstate Meat Distributors, Morasch Meat, Wolverine Packing Co. and other US establishments? Meat processing companies, distributors, food service operators, retailers, AND CONSUMERS deserve - and should demand - the active support of FSIS in this recall. We should not have to rely on retailers' web pages and on food service companies such as US Foods to provide us with a list of recalled products. We should not have to rely on good luck to avoid purchasing and consuming contaminated food. If the people at FSIS can't do their jobs, then they should stand aside and let a more competent crew take over. "It's Not Our Job!" doesn't cut it any more. This article originally appeared on eFoodAlert September 27, 2012. © Food Safety News More Headlines from Opinion & Contributed Articles » |
9.30.2012
"It's Not Our Job!"
XL Foods E. coli Beef Recall Expands Again
| The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) over the weekend again expanded its recall of beef products from XL Foods for E. coli O157:H7 contamination. The Canadian recall, which has now been expanded 12 times, has affected 30 U.S. states and multiple American retailers, including Walmart, Sam's Club, and Kroger. The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service last updated its list of retailers that sold the recalled products on Friday. The website eFoodAlert also maintains an updated list of exactly which beef products were recalled from which retailer. Haggen, Fred Meyer, Albertson's, Safeway, QFC, Ralph's, and others sold recalled products. The CFIA has posted a full list of the hundreds of products recalled in Canada. FSIS has issued a public health alert to warn the public about all beef and beef products from XL Foods produced on August 24, 27, 28, 29 and September 5 -- consumers are urged to check their beef products. According to the agency, products subject to the recall include, but are not limited to, steaks, roasts, mechanically tenderized steaks and roasts, and ground beef. There are no known U.S. illnesses connected to the recall, but Canadian officials are investigating whether at least four E. coli infections in Alberta might be linked to steaks from XL Foods. E. coli O157:H7 is a potentially deadly bacterium that can cause bloody diarrhea, dehydration and in the most severe cases, kidney failure and death. The very young, the elderly and individuals with weak immune systems are the most susceptible. Recalled products should be discarded. In general, ground beef products should be cooked to an internal temperature of 160 degrees to kill bacteria. Those concerned about a serious foodborne illness should contact their health care provider. © Food Safety News More Headlines from World » |
Food Testing Program Helps Other Countries Build Trade Capacity
| After one year in operation, the International Food Safety Training Lab is doing exactly what it was founded to do: train foreign scientists in leading food testing methods. But, like all fledgling programs, IFSTL has also adapted with experience, opening up its classrooms to trade policymakers and industry professionals, all as part of its goal to improve the safety of food traded to the U.S. and abroad. The lab - which opened its doors in September of 2011 - is operated by the University of Maryland in cooperation with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. FDA's Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition is located next door to the 4,600-sqare foot IFSTL facility in College Park, Maryland. This allows FDA scientists to participate in teaching at the lab, explaining government standards and testing methods to students.  Past topics have included screening for Cronobacter in infant formula, aflatoxin in crops and pesticide residues on fresh produce. Representatives from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which regulates meat safety, and the Environmental Protection Agency, which sets pesticide residue limits for food, also come to the school to explain why they set the standards they do, and what kinds of test results they accept. "(Students) feel so lucky to be getting one-on-one interactions with FDA specialists and USDA specialists and EPA because they come in to explain how and why they set the residues for pesticides or other standards, and that interaction is incredible," said Jane Dubois, Director of IFSTL in an interview with Food Safety News. By understanding how the U.S. sets its contamination controls, foreign exporters can better understand how to meet them. And by learning to use internationally recognized testing methods, students are able to verify whether a product meets a country's standard, even if those standards vary from market to market, because the method is sound, explains Dubois. "The method they learn, they could use for any other country," she says. We always teach methods that are "fit for purpose." They're published, they've been validated by recognized groups. These methods have credibility and therefore are acceptable in trade. The beauty of it is now these results can be looked at with confidence." Students use the skills they learn at IFSTL for different purposes depending on their backgrounds. Some are scientists who will go on to train others in their country in these testing methods. Many of this past years' participants have been from Indonesia and Guatemala, says Dubois. Others are policymakers who want to be more informed about food safety policy when in trade discussions. "That was a surprise for us," says Dubois. At its outset, IFSTL didn't intend to take on anyone who wasn't a food scientist, since the courses are so lab-intensive. "What we're realizing is people in trade do have scientific backgrounds, so they are fully capable of taking a course in laboratory work, and yet the way they want to use it in their job is much more of the policy component," she says. As an example, Dubois mentions a man from Chile involved in trade discussions with the U.S. "His interest was to learn and understand why the U.S. has certain regulations and requirements for pesticide residues, how these levels are established, how governmental organizations establish them and enforce them in ag and food and what these tolerances mean." After taking the course he was "able to understand what was achievable and what was not." Dubois says courses are designed based on the needs of upcoming participants. Right now, the program is focusing on microbial contamination, including Salmonella and E. coli. Today marks the first day of a weeklong course on detecting E. coli in fresh produce and meat. For the first half of the week, participants will learn about E. coli O157:H7 on fresh produce. An FDA scientist will explain how the agency tests for the bacteria on fruits and vegetables. Then experts from the U.S. Department of Agriculture will come in during the second half of the week to discuss protocol for testing for the "Big Six" E. coli strains, which were declared illegal if found in meat trim by the agency last year. Screening for those pathogens began in June of 2012. In November, a course on microscopic identification of plants will teach students how to determine whether or not the ingredient is what's listed on the label. This coming March a training will focus on identifying drug residues in meat and poultry. A second IFSTL lab will be opening this month near York, England. The UK lab will be run by the federal Food and Environment Research Agency (Fera). Both labs were founded in partnership with Waters Corporation, a U.S.-based manufacturer of scientific equipment. © Food Safety News More Headlines from Food Safety Leaders » |
Products Containing Sunland's Peanut Butter Continue to be Recalled
| The Sept. 24 peanut butter recall by Sunland Inc. of Portales, NM continues to have ramifications. Sunland took the action after the Creamy Salted Valencia Peanut Butter it made for the Trader Joe's retail chain became associated with a rare strain of Salmonella called Bredeney. As of Sept. 25, that strain was responsible for at least 30 illnesses in 19 states, and four of those stricken were under hospital care.  Sunland's recall of about 100 brands of peanut and other nut butters has led to "secondary" recalls by food companies that use these products as ingredients. Food Safety News has already reported on several of these individually. Beginning today, however, we will begin more periodic approach and report on these secondary recalls several at a time. We will continue this approach as long as it is useful to readers. Food companies recalling products because they contain the suspect peanut butter as an ingredient include: -Alden's Peanut Butter 'n Chip (48 oz.) and Cascade Glacier Chocolate Peanut Butter (3 gal) made by Oregon Ice Cream Co. A list of the recalled production lots is identified in this table.. The Alden's product is packaged in a 48 oz container with prominent label identification. The five-digit production code date is either printed or stamped onto the bottom of the container. The Cascade Glacier product is packaged in a 3-gallon tub container with a blue sticker label identifying the flavor, UPC, and the five-digit production code date. -Fairytale Brownies has recalled its peanut butter brownies and cookies with these lot codes. The products were distributed primarily through our mail-order channel as well as some retail outlets. Fairytale Brownies purchased all-natural peanut butter from Sunland, Inc. and used the product for a short period of time from August 15, 2012 through the date of the recall. -Late July Organic Snacks, organic mini peanut butter sandwich crackers, are recalled for possible salmonella contamination in peanut butter. The following products, with sell by dates of May 19, 2013 through July 11, 2013, are included in this recall: Late July Organic Snacks Mini Peanut Butter Sandwich Crackers, UPC 89044400070, 5 oz., UPC 89044400071, 1.125 oz., and UPC 89044400072, 9 oz. Jer's™ Chocolates recalled some of its Gourmet Peanut Butter Bars and Gourmet Jer's Squares produced from July 9, 2012 to September 24, 2012. The voluntary recall was initiated upon learning that SUNLAND, Inc., the supplier of the peanut butter used in the production of Jer's™ Chocolates, has recalled all peanut butter product from May 1, 2012 - September 24, 2012 because of potential contamination with Salmonella. - Whole Foods Market recalled Peanut Butter Power Chews and Treasure Trove Mix, both sold as bulk items, in seven stores in Florida and one store in southern California due to possible Salmonella contamination. See list. © Food Safety News More Headlines from Food Recalls » |
Del Monte Recalls Fruit Packages With Daniella Mangoes
| Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A. recalled some of its fresh-cut fruit packages containing mangoes from Mexico's Agricola Daniella because they may be contaminated with Salmonella.  Dell Monte said its recalled was associated with Coast Distributors Inc., one of four importers supplying the Mexican grown Agricola Daniella brand mangoes to customers in the U.S. Del Monte in turn distributed the recalled mangoes to retailers in Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee. The recalled fresh cut fruit packages are in clear plastic bowls. Product details can be found here. Splendid Products of Burlingame, CA first recalled Daniella brand mangoes in the U.S. because they were associated with 25 Salmonella Braenderup illnesses in 25 states. Three other distributors have now joined the recall. © Food Safety News More Headlines from Food Recalls » |
Better Process Control School
Better Process Control School
Could your canned food products be vulnerable to contamination? By attending our Better Process Control School, you will learn how you can reduce your susceptibility and minimize your liability. According to FDA regulations, each processor of low-acid and acidified low-acid canned foods, including pet foods, must operate with a trained supervisor on hand at all times. Similar USDA/FSIS regulations and training requirements are in place for thermally processed meat and poultry products. These regulations are designed to prevent public health problems in these types of foods. Our BPCS teaches the practical applications of the principles underlying these regulations. |
9.29.2012
Popcorn Recalled Over Listeria Concerns
| Dale and Thomas Popcorn is voluntarily recalling a limited number of ready-to-eat bags of select flavors of Popcorn, Indiana-brand popcorn products because of possible contamination by Listeria monocytogenes. The recalled products were distributed to various retailers, vendors, distribution centers, and consumers through the Internet on or after August 8th, 2012 with Best By dates of February 4th, 2013 through March 12th, 2013. All recalled products were packaged in red bags of various sizes. Consumers can identify if they have purchased an impacted product by looking at the Best By date located in the front, top right corner of the package and the Bag UPC (Code) located in the nutritional panel found on the back, bottom left corner of the package - see a photo here. The potential for contamination was noted after testing by the company revealed the presence of Listeria monocytogenes in some ready-to-eat bags of Popcorn, Indiana-brand products. Listeria monocytogenes is an organism which can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems. Although healthy individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms such as high fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and diarrhea, Listeria infection can cause miscarriages and stillbirths among pregnant women. Anyone who is concerned about a possible health problem or illness should contact a healthcare provider immediately. © Food Safety News More Headlines from Food Recalls » |
Letter From The Editor: Forward
| It's now official. Food Safety News has celebrated its third birthday and officially moved into its fourth year of publication.  When we began this venture back in 2009, we thought it might be a good idea to keep a communications channel open to our dear readers. We knew there were at least a couple of them out there. That's why we came up with this weekly "Letter from the Editor." And while there has been an occasional technical issue we needed to address or our desire to douse the occasional flame war among our readers commenting on stories, your humble editor has had little to do but to share his experiences and opinions with you. Today, however, I must return to our original purpose and talk shop. As we've grown from a handful to millions of readers around the globe, we've been running up against some growth limits. I do not wish to bore everyone with too many of the technical details, but we've outgrown our publishing platform. We've been using something called Moveable Type. It was working fine until, a few months back, the timing system became unreliable. That meant we had to do everything with the equivalent of a hand crank. Each time new words and pictures showed up on the site someone was doing it manually. It was all just a sign of how much content we were piling up. We asked our techies if they could get the MT machine to work right again, and like Scotty on Star Trek, they basically came back and said if they pushed it any harder the whole thing would blow. It actually might not have been that dramatic, but that's the way I shall remember it. Our move to another publishing platform called Wordpress, said to have more bells and whistles and the capacity to handle this big boy. Since Sept. 11, we been using both MT and WP. It's a little bit like rolling two logs at once, something that takes a lot of fancy footwork. We expect this week we've pull the switch and go live on WP. What does this mean for you, the loyal reader? We hope there won't be anything you will notice. You can help us, however, in a couple of ways: 1) There may be a few glitches in the first couple of weeks. We'll try to address them as quickly as possible. Readers should feel free to point them out. My email is dflynn@foodsafetynews.com 2) The Food Safety News iPhone app will be updated along with the Website. Anyone experiencing issues after the site is moved to the new platform should download the most current version of the app from iTunes. We have not exactly picked a slow moment to make this change, so we are all hoping it goes quickly and smoothly. We want to get 100 percent of our focus back on just practicing quality journalism and being served by a publishing platform that can keep up with us. © Food Safety News More Headlines from Opinion & Contributed Articles » |
9.28.2012
15,000 Pounds of Wraps Recalled for Possible Listeria
| Reichel Foods in Minnesota is recalling approximately 15,880 pounds of ready-to-eat meat and poultry products due to possible contamination with Listeria monocytogenes, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced today. The products subject to recall include: [View Labels] -5.6 oz. packages of "Armour Active Packs Turkey & Cheese Wrap" Package Code 1026090112 or Case Code 27815-17994 -5.6 oz. packages of "Armour Active Packs Ham & Cheese Wrap" Package Code 1026090112 or Case Code 27815-17995 According to FSIS, "The problem was discovered by the establishment, through microbiological testing by a third party. FSIS and the company have not received reports of illnesses due to consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about an illness should contact a healthcare provider." The agency is conducting recall effectiveness checks to make sure product is pulled from commerce. Consumers who have recalled product should contact their retailers for a refund. © Food Safety News More Headlines from Food Recalls » |
Publisher's Platform: All You Never Want to Know About Listeria
| This is yet another part in our series where we have been updating our "About-Bug" sites. Here it is on Listeria. Listeria (pronounced liss-STEER-ē-uh) is a gram-positive rod-shaped bacterium that can grow under either anaerobic (without oxygen) or aerobic (with oxygen) conditions. Of the six species of Listeria, only L. monocytogenes (pronounced maw-NO-site-aw-JUH-neez) causes disease in humans. These bacteria multiply best at 86-98.6 degrees F (30-37 degrees C), but also multiply better than all other bacteria at refrigerator temperatures, something that allows temperature to be used as a means of differentiating Listeria from other contaminating bacteria. Called an "opportunistic pathogen," Listeria is noted to cause an estimated 2,600 cases per year of severe invasive illness. Perhaps not surprisingly then, "foodborne illness caused by Listeria monocytogenes has raised significant public health concern in the United States, Europe, and other areas of the world." As one noted expert observed, summarizing the history of these bacteria and their significance for public health: Although L. monocytogenes was recognized as an animal pathogen over 80 years ago, the first outbreak confirming an indirect transmission from animals to humans was reported only in 1983, in Canada's Maritime provinces. In that outbreak, cabbages, stored in the cold over the winter, were contaminated with Listeria through exposure to infected sheep manure. A subsequent outbreak in California in 1985 confirmed the role of food in disseminating listeriosis. Since then Listeria has been implicated in many outbreaks of food-borne illness, most commonly from exposure to contaminated dairy products and prepared meat products, including turkey and deli meats, pâté, hot dogs and seafood and fish. All About Listeria -An Introduction to Listeria Bacteria Again, as always, if you have any comments, please pass them along. © Food Safety News More Headlines from Opinion & Contributed Articles » |
More Victims Counted in Listeria Outbreak Linked to Ricotta
|
Forever Cheese of Long Island City, NY has recalled all lots of its Ricotta Salata Frescolina cheese over the course of the past month after the product was linked to a multistate outbreak of Listeria monocytogenes. The cheese, which was distributed to wholesalers and retailers, who then sold it in AL, CA, CO, CT, D.C., FL, GA, IL, IN, KS, KY, LA, MA, MD, ME, MN, MT, NC, NE, NJ, NM, NV, NY, OH, OR, PA, TX, UT, VA and WA has now been linked to 18 illnesses in 12 states and the District of Columbia. Three victims have died. Two of the newly reported illnesses were in New Jersey and one was in Pennsylvania, according to the update published Friday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The updated number of cases by state is as follows: California (1), Colorado (1), District of Columbia (1), Maryland (3), Minnesota (1), Nebraska (1), New Jersey (3), New Mexico (1), New York (1), Ohio (1), Pennsylvania (2), Virginia (1), and Washington (1). Symptoms of Listeria infection include fever, chills, severe headache, vomiting, stomach cramps, diarrhea and muscle aches. Those at a higher risk of severe illness include the elderly, individuals with a compromised immune system and pregnant women, who risk miscarriage or stillbirth.
© Food Safety News More Headlines from Foodborne Illness Outbreaks » |
Harry & David Peanut Butter Caught Up in Sunland Recall
| Sunland Inc. was apparently also making peanut butter products for the popular mail order food company known as Harry and David, LLC. It joined the peanut butter recall that has been under way since Sept 22 when Trader Joe's recalled its brand made by Portales,NM-based Sunland. Recalled Harry and David peanut butter brands include 1 these 2 oz. jars all with "Best Buy" dates of 01MAY13 through 24SEPT13:  -Harry & David® Crunchy Almond and Peanut Butter, -Harry & David® Creamy Banana Peanut Spread, -Harry & David® Creamy Raspberry Peanut Spread, Also recalled are these multi-component food items containing peanut butter: -Harry & David® Apple Snack Box, -Wolferman's® Bee Sweet Gift Basket, -Wolferman's® Hearty Snack Gift Basket, -Wolferman's® All-Day Assortment Gift Basket, -and Wolferman's® Father's Day Basket. On its own, Sunland has recalled about 100 of its own brands of peanut and other nut butters for possible Salmonella contamination. All were manufactured between May 1, 2012 and Sept. 24, 2012. They've been associated with a rare strain of Salmonella that has sickened at least 30 people in 19 states. Anyone who thinks they may be suffering from Salmonella symptoms, including fever, diarrhea, nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain should seek medical attention immediately. Products subject to this recall were sold nationwide through Harry & David and Wolferman's catalogs and websites, as well as through Harry & David stores, between May 1, 2012 and September 25, 2012. The "Best By" date is located on the upper part of the peanut butter product jar near the lid. Individual jars of the recalled peanut butter products sold through Harry & David stores have UPC numbers of 8099473871, 8099473872, or 8099473873 printed on the Bar Code. The recalled multi-component food items have lot code numbers of 1212M through 2372M, 1212H through 2372H, or 1212C through 2372C. © Food Safety News More Headlines from Food Recalls » |
Publix Supermarkets Recalls Romaine Hearts Sold in South
| Ten-ounce plastic bags of chopped hearts of romaine supplied to Publix Supermarkets by Ready Pac and sold under the Publix Hearts of Romaine brand are being recalled for possible Listeria contamination. A sample of the product tested by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) was positive for Listeria, a sometimes-deadly pathogen that also can cause miscarriages and stillbirths among pregnant women. The recalled romaine was distributed from Sept. 8 to Sept. 20, 2012 with the Uniform Produce Code (UPC) 41415 03886 in the right hand corner on the back of the package. It was sold in Georgia, South Carolina, Alabama, Tennessee and several Florida counties including: Alachua, Baldwin, Bay, Beaufort, Bryan, Camden, Chatham, Clay, Coffee, Columbia, Dougherty, Duval, Escambia, Flagler, Glynn, Houston, Jasper, Lee, Leon, Lowndes, Marion, Nassau, Okaloosa, Putnam, Santa Rosa, St. Johns, Suwannee, Thomas, Tift, Volusia and Walton. "While the product is no longer available on store shelves we have issued a voluntary recall because of out commitment to food safety and to advise our customers who may still have this product at home," said Maria Borus, Publix media and community relations director. No illnesses have been reported up to date in connection with the hearts of romaine recall. Publix shoppers who purchased the recalled romaine are eligible for a full refund. © Food Safety News More Headlines from Food Recalls » |
USDA Gives Consumers an Electronic Way to Register Complaints Around the Clock
| Consumers now have an electronic system for reporting problems with meat, poultry and egg products from USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS).  "Consumers are an important source of the information that FSIS needs to ensure that America's supply of meat, poultry and egg products is safe," said Under Secretary for Food Safety Dr. Elisabeth Hagen Thursday. "This new tool empowers consumers to report problems directly to FSIS, enhancing our current surveillance of the food supply and our ability to prevent foodborne illness." Hagen announced that an electronic consumer complaint form can now be accessed on the FSIS Consumer Complaint Monitoring System (CCMS) to report illnesses, allergic reactions, injuries, improper labeling and issues with foreign objects. In its announcement of the electronic reporting system for consumers, FSIS said the system will give the agency the ability to see if others are reporting similar issues and allow inspectors to identify establishments causing the issue. On a case-by-case basis, consumers can expect follow-up especially for widespread problems or those involving severe public hazards. Opening up CCMS to consumers filing electronic complaints is new, but the underlying system was creating 2001. It has tied FSIS to state and local health agencies. CCMS facilitates the detection of public health threats in the nation's food supply and enables FSIS to respond rapidly to mitigate those threats. Cases have primarily been reported to FSIS district offices, through state and local health departments or through calls to the USDA's Meat and Poultry Hotline (1-888-MPHotline), which is open on weekdays from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. EST. The new online form, available at https://ccms.fsis.usda.gov, makes it possible for consumers to enter complaints after business hours and on weekends, and the predefined fields ensure that each incident report is thorough, accurate and in a format consistent with other entries. © Food Safety News More Headlines from Government Agencies » |
E. coli Beef Recall Expands Again; U.S. Retailers Nationwide Added
| More than three weeks after the U.S. Department of Agriculture found E. coli O157:H7 in Canadian beef produced by XL Foods, Inc, and nearly two weeks after the Canadians first announced a recall, critical information continues to trickle out about the huge E. coli recall centered in Alberta. On Thursday, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency expanded its recall for eighth time to include more products, as well as an expanded list of known retail locations that sold recalled products in the United States. Dozens of Walmart and Sam's Club stores nationwide were added to the USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service's public retail list. Canadian officials also reported that there are four E. coli O157:H7 illnesses now linked to mechanically tenderized steaks sourced from XL Foods in Alberta. According to the USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Agency, the XL Foods recall includes some 890,000 pounds of beef manufacturing trim and a yet-to-be-determined amount of boxed beef that was sent to 12 U.S. processors and further distributed. For the most up-to-date list of retailers involved in the recall -- including Safeway, Costco, Albertson's, Fred Meyer, Kroger, and others -- check eFoodAlert. The agency said Wednesday that officials have not yet determined, in total, how much potentially contaminated beef was imported into the U.S. from XL Foods before FSIS started halting product at the border after finding E. coli O157:H7 in a routine microbiological sample pulled on Aug. 30. The timeline of the large recall, which has unfolded haphazardly over several days, has consumer advocates and media questioning whether regulators moved expeditiously to protect public health. According to FSIS, U.S. officials confirmed the positive E. coli O157:H7 test late Sept. 3 and notified the Canadian Food Inspection Agency of the issue Sept. 4. The positive test sparked intensive follow up testing by FSIS officials. Three more E. coli O157:H7 positives were reported back to CFIA between Sept. 4 and Sept. 12., which indicates the slaughter plant likely lost control of its process to prevent contamination for some time, known in the industry as a "high event period." CBC News reported Wednesday that CFIA did not begin its in-plant investigation of XL Foods until Sept. 13, nearly 10 days after the contamination was first reported. CFIA first issued a recall Sept. 16, but as the investigation has continued, the agency has continued to expand the scope of the recall, posting expansions Sept 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 25. A CFIA spokesman has not gotten back to Food Safety News regarding questions about the agency's timeline. In the U.S., FSIS issued a public health alert on Sept. 20, but the agency is not issuing a recall "because the goal of such an action is to have the establishment most directly associated with producing adulterated product remove the product from commerce." In this case, that establishment is XL Foods in Canada so, FSIS says, it's CFIA"s responsibility to oversee the effectiveness of the recall in Canada, while FSIS monitors the recall stateside. E. coli O157:H7 is a potentially deadly bacterium that can cause bloody diarrhea, dehydration, and in the most severe cases, kidney failure. The very young, seniors and persons with weak immune systems are the most susceptible to foodborne illness. Recalled products should be discarded. In general, ground beef products should be cooked to an internal temperature of 160 degrees to kill bacteria. Those concerned about a serious foodborne illness should contact his or their health care provider. © Food Safety News More Headlines from World » |
"Pink Slime" Lawsuit May Be Frivolous, But Could Chill Speech
|
To no one's surprise, Beef Products Inc. (BPI) - maker of the ground beef product that took on the moniker of "pink slime" - filed a defamation lawsuit earlier this month against ABC News and several individuals. As I wrote in March at the height of the media uproar and consumer backlash, the entire pink slime affair should be viewed as a huge wake-up call to the harsh realities of our industrialized meat supply. To recap: News that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) planned to use the ground beef filler in school meals prompted a popular online petition, along with several news broadcasts by ABC News, exposing how "lean finely textured beef" (industry's preferred euphemism) was manufactured. ABC News relied on interviews with several experts, including the USDA scientist Gerald Zirnstein who coined the product "pink slime." Consumers were outraged to learn their beloved hamburgers contained what some claimed was previously used as dog food. As a result of the massive backlash, several large grocery chains stopped using the product, and eventually, (so the company claims) BPI was forced to shut down several facilities and lay off hundreds of workers. The gallant (and appalling) display of political muscle that included three governors, a website to get out "the facts" (beefisbeef.com) and even a "Dude, It's Beef!" t-shirt just weren't enough to stem the tidal wave of angry consumers who didn't want the product in their burgers. But isn't this how the market is supposed to work? When consumers decide they don't like your product, maybe your company should reconsider its business model to conform to the marketplace? Funny how when the market responds in the way capitalism intends, and in this case, without any pesky government regulation, industry's response is to sue somebody, aka shoot the messenger. The arguments contained in the 257-page ridiculously redundant and tedious legal complaint come down to this: The defendants deliberately disparaged the beef product numerous times and in various ways, despite the meat industry's repeated attempts to set the record straight. The alleged price tag for doing so: $1.2 billion. The most amusing part is BPI's argument that ABC News conspired to prompt the consumer backlash:
But the complaint offers no motivation that ABC News would have to "grow" such an anti-LFTB movement. And if the grocery stores had no choice but to respond to consumers, how is that the defendant's fault exactly? While they're at it, why not sue the consumers for "interfering" with BPI's contracts (another silly claim in the complaint)? Despite the issue being reported by numerous media outlets at the time, the target of this lawsuit is clearly ABC News. In addition to the company, the suit names World News Tonight anchor Diane Sawyer, Senior National Correspondent Jim Avila (who bravely stayed with the story) and correspondent Dave Kerley. Also named are two former USDA scientists, Zirnstein and Carl Custer, along with ex-BPI employee turned whistleblower Kit Foshee. (I wrote about Foshee's dramatic presentation at a food safety conference last year while BPI executives kept a close watch in the audience). All three of these defendants, made relevant comments elsewhere, but are cited mainly for the statements they made on ABC News broadcasts. The suit also claims that ABC should have known these three were not reliable experts. One problem. The lawsuit ignores how the issue had already been made public at least several years earlier in one of a series of New York Times articles by Michael Moss. In his 2009 story, "Safety of Beef Processing Method is Questioned," Moss quotes both Zirnstein and Custer, and even refers to "pink slime", possibly the first time the phrase was used publicly. Moss wrote:
Pretty damning stuff. So why didn't BPI sue the New York Times in 2009? Reporter Michael Moss cited the same (supposedly unreliable) experts ABC did. But, of course, the Times story didn't cause a massive consumer backlash. Considering how the ABC reports were hardly even news, combined with the broad free speech protections the media enjoys, BPI's lawsuit seems pretty weak, as others have noted. Drake University Agricultural Law Professor Neil Hamilton told a South Dakota news outlet (the case was filed in BPI's home state) that it will be a tough case to win, given that defamation cases are always difficult and, "... [p]articularly in a situation like this, where you are arguing food product disparagement..." ABC News will argue First Amendment protection. The case is based in part on South Dakota's "food disparagement" law, passed in 1994. If this all sounds vaguely familiar, it should. You may recall how Oprah Winfrey was sued in 1996, along with ex-cattle rancher Howard Lyman, by the beef industry for talking about the risks of Mad Cow Disease. The basis for that lawsuit was the Texas food disparagement law. Such statutes passed in the 1990s and dubbed "veggie-libel laws" are still on the books in numerous states. As I wrote back in 1998, these laws were (and are) "an effort by big business to chill the free speech efforts by those seeking to raise legitimate questions about the safety of our nation's food supply." At the end of the day, this is what the BPI case is really about. Even if found to be without merit and thrown out of court, the intended message will be sent: scare the media and others out of speaking out against the meat industry. This is known as a SLAPP suit, which stands for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. According to the First Amendment Project, most SLAPP cases are unsuccessful. However, they still can have their intended effect:
Even the strong media force Oprah Winfrey felt the sting of being SLAPP'd, despite her winning the lawsuit. According to this recent analysis, Winfrey declined to speak publicly about the case and even refused to distribute the offending episode to journalists or anyone else who requested it. Bettina Siegel, the blogger who started the original petition to stop USDA from allowing the filler in the beef that the agency supplies to schools, doesn't think the current case will change anyone's mind, at least about pink slime:
This article was originally published by the Center for Food Safety on September 27, 2012. © Food Safety News More Headlines from Opinion & Contributed Articles » |
After 30 Days, FDA Has Not Inspected Mexican Mango Facilities
| Just 30 days ago, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) was depicted as the tip of the spear in the "fast-moving "outbreak investigation of a Salmonella Braenderup outbreak associated with Mexican mangoes.  Within 24 hours, one distributor of Mexican mangoes -- Splendid Products of California -- did initiate a recall from the mango grower known as Agricola Daniella with multiple farms and a single packing house located in Sinaloa, Mexico. Two weeks into the recall, the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in Atlanta said the Salmonella Braenderup outbreak had grown to include 121 people from 15 states with 25 requiring hospitalization. But the "fast-moving" FDA investigation did not seem to be gaining much traction. The Mexican government went so far as to say that neither the U.S. nor Canada has conclusively linked the Salmonella contamination with their mangoes. FDA responded to that with an import alert for Daniella brand mangoes, but the investigation did not seem to be going anywhere. One reason for that is that no FDA investigative team has yet ventured south of the border for the usual site inspections that follow outbreaks. "FDA personnel have not visited the Agricola Daniella mango production facilities," an agency spokesman told Food Safety News. "FDA continues to collaborate with and share information with Mexican and Canadian health and agricultural officials regarding this investigation." Time and time again, it's been the quick inspections immediately after outbreaks that discover contaminated product and environmental samples. For its part, FDA marked the one-month anniversary of the first recall by making its clear there were three other U.S. distributors of Agricola Daniella in addition to Splendid Products of Burlingame, CA. They are: Coast Citrus Distributors Inc. of San Diego, Food Source Inc. of Edinburg, TX and GM Produce Sales of Hidalgo, TX. Otherwise, it was a sort of roundup of all Daniella brand recall activity north of the border. "As a result of the recalls, a number of firms supplied by these distributors have initiated recalls for mangoes and products containing mangoes, " FDA said. But only mangoes from Agricola Daniella are included the recall by the distributors. FDA, which in the past has often followed outbreak sources into Mexico, is for some reason not venturing there now at a time when U.S. imports of agricultural products from its southern neighbor have never been greater. U.S. imports of agricultural products from Mexico totaled $15.8 billion in 2011, including more than $4 billion in fresh vegetables and $2.4 billion in fresh fruit excluding bananas. © Food Safety News More Headlines from Foodborne Illness Investigations » |
9.27.2012
FDA Issues Roundup of Mango Recalls Linked to Salmonella Outbreak
|
These four U.S. distributors - two in California and two in Texas - imported mangoes from Agricola Daniella, a Sinaloa, Mexico-based company that owns several farms and one packing house there. Mangoes from the company have now been named as the likely source of a Salmonella Braenderup outbreak that has sickened 121 people in the U.S. and 21 people in Canada to date. The distributors named in this latest mango update -- issued Thursday -- include Coast Citrus Distributors, Inc. of San Diego, CA, Food Source Inc. of Edinburg, TX, GM Produce Sales of Hidalgo, TX and Splendid Products of Burlingame, CA, which issued its own recall of mangoes from Agricola Daniella on August 29. In its mango recall roundup, FDA lists the companies that have issued their own recalls of mangoes purchased from these distributors and sold them in retail locations. These firms include: Click on the names of retailers above for a description of their recalled products. Some of the recalled mangoes may bear a sticker with codes 4051, 4959, 4311, 4584 or 3114. Consumers who purchased any of the products listed in the above recalls are urged to throw them out. If people are unsure whether the mangoes they have are subject to this recall, they should contact their retailer or discard the fruit in question. Do not try to wash the affected mangoes in order to remove the harmful bacteria, advises the agency. "Contamination may be both on the inside and outside of the fruit," says FDA. "Cutting, slicing and dicing may also transfer harmful bacteria from the fruit's surface to the fruit's flesh." © Food Safety News More Headlines from Food Recalls » |
General Mills Recalls Granola Bars For Mislabeling Peanuts
|
General Mills is voluntarily recalling a single day's production of Almond Nature Valley Sweet & Salty Nut Granola Bars because of a labeling issue. Product produced on this date may have been packaged incorrectly, and may contain allergens not listed on the box's ingredient label, specifically peanuts. A production error resulted in a limited number of properly labeled, individually wrapped Peanut Nature Valley Sweet & Salty Nut Granola Bar packages being inserted into 6-count boxes labeled as Almond Nature Valley Sweet & Salty Nut Granola Bars. The Almond Nature Valley Sweet & Salty Nut Granola Bars carton does contain an allergen statement indicating the product "may contain peanuts." There have been no reports of allergic reactions or illnesses associated with this product. This voluntary recall includes only 6-count boxes of Almond Nature Valley Sweet & Salty Nut Granola Bars with one Better if Used By date printed on the top of the box: 26FEB2013 © Food Safety News More Headlines from Food Recalls » |
Whole Foods Recalls PB Cookies in Four States
| Whole Foods Market has recalled 3oz peanut butter cookies and 3oz peanut butter chocolate chunk cookies sold in its self-serve pastry case, and mini peanut butter cookies sold in 12-pack paper bags due to possible Salmonella contamination in the peanut butter used as an ingredient. The recalled cookies were sold before Sept. 29, 2012 in all Whole Foods Market stores in Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma and Texas. No illnesses have been reported related to the cookies. This cookie recall is in response to a recall by Sunland, Inc., whose recalled peanut butter has been connected to 30 illnesses in 19 states in a rare outbreak of Salmonella Bredeney. Two of the recalled items are sold in the self-serve pastry case (3oz Peanut Butter Cookie, 3oz Peanut Butter Chocolate Chunk), under the cookie PLU (47963). The packaged cookies (Mini Peanut Butter Cookie 12pk) are sold in small, plain brown bags featuring a cellophane window on the front, an oval Whole Foods Market sticker that says "mini peanut butter cookies" and has the PLU (22096100000). The recall includes all of these cookies sold before Sept. 29, 2012. Signage is posted in Whole Foods Market stores to notify customers of this recall. Consumers who have purchased 3oz Peanut Butter Cookie, 3oz Peanut Butter Chocolate Chunk or Mini Peanut Butter Cookie 12pk in these four states should discard them. The Austin-based grocery chain is offering refunds for purchase receipts. Gretchen's Shoebox Express in Seattle is also initiating a recall of Evolution Fresh Brand Cinnamon Apple & Almond Butter Sandwiches and Almond Butter that contain Almond Butter named in the with the Sunland, Inc., recall. © Food Safety News More Headlines from Food Recalls » |
Recall of Ricotta Linked to Listeria Outbreak Expands
|
The cheese subject to this now-expanded recall was sold to distributors who then sold the product to retailers and restaurants in AL, CA, CO, CT, D.C., FL, GA, IL, IN, KS, KY, LA, MA, MD, ME, MN, MT, NC, NE, NJ, NM, NV, NY, OH, OR, PA, TX, UT, VA and WA between September 1, 2011 and August 31, 2012. Products were sold by Forever Cheese to supermarkets, restaurants and wholesale distributors. The affected cheese was imported from Italy. The expanded recall includes all lots and all production codes. The following lots/production codes may be found on the original wheel: T5086/440220, T5520/440315, T6048/440417, T6528/440519, T7012/440703, T7452/440601, T7939/440822, T8419/441003, T8899/441020, T9425/441202, T9962/441227, U1392/450126. The company warns that the cheese may have been cut or repacked before being sold and may not have been relabeled. If the product was relabeled, consumers may not be able to identify it. Because of this, "Each and every distributor and retailer are being contacted in an effort to recall any and all remaining product in the marketplace," says the company in its recall announcement. Those who have purchased any of the recalled cheese are urged to contact their distributor or retailer for a full refund. Anyone with questions can call Jeff DiMeo at Forever Cheese at 888-930-8693 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Monday through Friday EST and mention "recall." |
County in Florida Panhandle Sees Spike in Shigella Cases
| Health officials in Okaloosa County, Florida have noticed an unusual trend this year. Instead of the average three Shigella infections the county sees each year, a full 73 cases have been reported since the beginning of 2012. The Okaloosa County Health Department issued its initial warning to the public in early August, at which time an alarming 49 Shigella infections had been reported since the beginning of the year. That number has risen significantly over the past two months. "We've had a total of 73 reported shigella cases this year, through today, but we were not able to determine a source of the outbreak," a spokesperson for OCDH told Food Safety News Wednesday.  The health department is asking residents to help prevent the spread of infection and to report any illnesses. The agency has posted a notification on its website urging people to see a healthcare provider if they experience symptoms of shigellosis which include diarrhea, abdominal pain, fever, nausea, or vomiting. Illness generally begins within one to three days of infection. Most people recover completely within four to seven days. OCHD is also providing advice to prevent the spread of infection. "People with diarrhea should stay home from work or school for at least one full calendar day after symptoms stop," says the agency. "People who have diarrhea should not prepare food or drinks for others." Other recommendations from the health department include: - Clean hands often. Wash kitchen utensils, plates, cutting boards, and counter surfaces during and after food preparation - Cook meat and eggs thoroughly. - Wash raw fruits and vegetables. - Chill (refrigerate) promptly. - Separate; don't cross-contaminate foods - Drink only from safe water supplies. Boil water, if in doubt. Image from Okaloosa County Health Department © Food Safety News More Headlines from Foodborne Illness Investigations » |
9.26.2012
Costco Strip Loin Steaks From XL Foods Added To Recall
| Kirkland brand Strip Loin Grilling Steaks sold at Costco in Edmonton, Alberta -- which apparently originated at the city's XL Foods Inc. -- were recalled Wednesday after the beef products were specifically linked to four E. coli cases.  The beef steak recall was limited to the Costco located at 13650 50 Street in Edmonton. The steaks were sold between Sept 4 and Sept. 7, 2012. The four E. coli illnesses traced back to the Strip Loins sold at that location were by the Alberta Health Services. For the past ten days, ground beef from Edmonton's XL Foods has been recalled in ever larger amounts in both the U.S. and Canada. These events are now followed by the highly unusual report of steaks contaminated with E. coli. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) has been struggling to grasp what is going on at XL Foods since Sept. 3, when an E. coli test conducted by the U.S. came back positive. One focus of the Costco investigation is the meat tenderizing process, which might have driven the pathogen further into the meat. "It turns out some time late in August, there was an unusually high number of animals or an unusually high number of E. coli in animals, that went into the plant that were decontaminated in usual process, but it didn't knock it down enough," said Dr. Richard Arsenault, director of meat programs for CFIA. "It's not about more products coming out of the facility after the initial recall, it's about discovering more product in the distribution chain that's already been sent to retail that was made on original day we were looking at." XL Foods Inc, the largest Canadian owned and operated beef processor, issued its own statement after the Costco recall outlining some of the ways it is addressing CFIA inspection findings and promising to cooperate with all the investigating agencies. XL did say there is yet no definitive link between its products and the ill Canadians. All beef steaks including the Strip Loin Grilling Steak prepared and sold in variable weight packages from Costco Wholesale store #156, located at 13650, 50th street, Edmonton, Alberta are affected by the CFIA alert. These steaks were sold during the period September 4 through 7, 2012 and bear one of the following Packed On dates: 12 / SE / 04 12 / SE / 05 12 / SE / 06 12 / SE / 07 Food contaminated with the dangerous and often deadly E. coli O157:H7 may not look or smell spoiled, according to CFIA. © Food Safety News More Headlines from Food Recalls » |
XL Foods E. coli Recall Includes 890,000 Pounds of Beef Shipped to U.S.
|
The agency said Wednesday that officials have not yet determined, in total, how much potentially contaminated beef was imported into the U.S. from XL Foods before FSIS started halting product at the border after finding E. coli O157:H7 in a routine microbiological sample pulled on Aug. 30. The timeline of the large recall, which has unfolded haphazardly over several days, has consumer advocates and media questioning whether regulators moved expeditiously to protect public health. According to FSIS, U.S. officials confirmed the positive E. coli O157:H7 test late Sept. 3 and notified the Canadian Food Inspection Agency of the issue Sept. 4. The positive test sparked intensive follow up testing by FSIS officials. Three more E. coli O157:H7 positives were reported back to CFIA between Sept. 4 and Sept. 12., which indicates the slaughter plant likely lost control of its process to prevent contamination for some time, known in the industry as a "high event period." CBC News reported Wednesday that CFIA did not begin their in-plant investigation of XL Foods, which is one of the largest processors in Canada, until Sept. 13, nearly ten days after the contamination was first reported. The same day, the plant was de-listed, or temporarily barred from exporting product to the United States. CFIA first issued a recall Sept. 16, but as the investigation has continued, the agency has continued to expand the scope of the recall, posting expansions Sept 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 25. A CFIA spokesman did not get back to Food Safety News regarding questions about the agency's timeline. In the U.S., FSIS issued a public health alert on Sept. 20, but the agency is not issuing a recall "because the goal of such an action is to have the establishment most directly associated with producing adulterated product remove the product from commerce." In this case, that establishment is XL Foods in Canada so, FSIS says, it's CFIA's responsibility to oversee the effectiveness of the recall in Canada, while FSIS monitors the recall stateside. Recall guru Phyllis Entis has been very critical of the agency's decision to not formally announce a recall, which she believes garners more attention than a public health alert. Entis, who runs eFoodAlert, a website that posts comprehensive food recall information daily, said Wednesday that she disagrees with the decision to not post a U.S.-based recall since multiple U.S. companies received the recalled product. FSIS is posting the names of retail locations that sold the recalled beef products, but Entis says the agency is missing several retail chains who have recalled XL Foods product. So far, FSIS lists Albertsons (all locations in Oregon and Washington state, as well as three locations in Idaho), and Food4Less, Jay C, Kroger and Safeway (for each chain, locations in the greater Cincinnati Area, Northern Kentucky, Dayton Ohio, Southeastern Indiana, Indiana -except Evansville - Illinois and Eastern Missouri). According to eFoodAlert, which rapidly gleans recall information directly from retailers across the U.S. and Canada, FoodsCo (California locations), Haggen Northwest Fresh (Washington and Oregon) and Safeway (Washington and Oregon) and TOP Food & Drug (Washington and Oregon) should all be on FSIS' retail distribution list as well. For a full list of recalled beef products, including all of the information for Canada, see eFoodAlert. Washington, DC-based advocacy group Food & Water Watch has also criticized FSIS for they say was a too slow response to the problem in Canada. "After knowing for 17 days that they had a potential public health crisis on their hands, the management of USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) finally issued a 'Public Health Alert' at 9:00 p.m. on September 20, 2012 regarding tainted beef that had crossed the border from Canada," explained Wenonah Hauter, executive director of FWW, in a release sent out Friday titled: "Where's the Recall?" FSIS maintains that it took swift action in response to finding E. coil O157:H7 at the border. The agency has worked with all 12 plants that received the potentially contaminated beef to help track down and remove it from commerce. There are no known U.S. illnesses connected to the recall, but Canadian officials are investigating whether four E. coli infections in Alberta might be linked to steaks from XL Foods. E. coli O157:H7 is a potentially deadly bacterium that can cause bloody diarrhea, dehydration and in the most severe cases, kidney failure and death. The very young, the elderly and individuals with weak immune systems are the most susceptible. Recalled products should be discarded. In general, ground beef products should be cooked to an internal temperature of 160 degrees to kill bacteria. Those concerned about a serious foodborne illness should contact their health care provider. © Food Safety News More Headlines from Government Agencies » |
The massive Canadian XL Foods E. coli recall -- which has now been expanded seven times -- includes some 890,000 pounds of beef manufacturing trim and an unknown amount of boxed beef that was sent to 12 U.S. processors, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service.The Other Side of Antimicrobial Resistance
|
An editorial was recently published by Food Safety News entitled "Letter from the Editor: Antibiotic Resistance" (1). For the most part, I agree with this article. However, there are a few points that I think need clarification. I will use a "point-counterpoint" approach, although not all of these counterpoints are arguments. Point: "Antibiotics are integral in the treatment of many foodborne diseases, making this an important issue for the food safety community." Counterpoint: Yes, antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a big deal. Antimicrobials are used in treating infections. However, they are not the first line of defense for treating foodborne illness, even in cases requiring hospitalization. Instead, the primary course of treatment is fluid therapy (2). Therefore, even if we could erase AMR in foodborne pathogens, it is unlikely that there will be a significant improvement in the outcome of foodborne illness cases. Point: Drug-resistant infections take a staggering toll in the United States and across the globe. Just one organism, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), kills more Americans every year than emphysema, HIV/AIDS, Parkinson's disease and homicide combined. Nearly 2 million Americans per year develop hospital-acquired infections (HAIs), resulting in 99,000 deaths - the vast majority of which are due to antibacterial-resistant pathogens. Two common HAIs alone (sepsis and pneumonia) killed nearly 50,000 Americans and cost the U.S. health care system more than $8 billion in 2006. Counterpoint: The impact of AMR is staggering. Resistant infections have been a problem since the discovery of penicillin, which is the reason for the invention of multiple types of antibiotics (3). It is also important to realize that very few of the bacteria listed in the above paragraph are related to livestock and food. In addition, several other medically important bacteria, such as Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Streptococcus pneumoniae, and Mycobacterium tuberculosis, have resistance patterns that cannot be explained from livestock antimicrobial usage (4). Point: "Antibiotics are becoming less and less effective, in part due to over-prescription and inappropriate use." Counterpoint: I don't really disagree with this point, but I would like to "fine tune" it a bit. As soon as an antibiotic is first used, resistance begins to develop. Bacteria evolve under the selection pressure of antibiotic exposure. It is how they survive. Inappropriate or unnecessary use means extra pressure on the bacterial population, thus increasing the speed of evolution. To the extent that agriculture is guilty for antimicrobial resistance, we repent. It is important to note that many producer groups are making major efforts to become more prudent in antimicrobial use, just like what is being done in human medicine. Point: "If I am reading scientists correctly, there are multiple theories for antibiotic resistance and agreement that some occurs naturally in the environment. Some of these theories involve antibiotic uses by both humans and animals." Counterpoint: Both points are correct. The ability to resist antibiotics has been around since the first microbe. Many types of antimicrobial resistance were recently discovered in four million-year-old dirt that had never been touched by man or beast (5). Subsequently, any antimicrobial usage, even if appropriate, allows the resistant strains to become more prominent. Point: "Yet, is it just me, or is antibiotics used in animal agriculture the only thing we hear about when antibiotic resistance comes up? Am I wrong to look at antibiotic resistance as a big circle with animal issues maybe involving a 25 percent slice with lots of other unknowns out there?" Counterpoint: No counter argument here. You are correct! Agriculture is taking way too much of the heat for its contribution to antibiotic resistance, and all published risk assessments show this contribution to be negligible. I would venture to say the percentage is much less that 25 percent. One paper I published shows the average American is more likely to die from a bee sting (one in six million) than to get a few extra days of diarrhea due to macrolide (a common animal antibiotic) use in livestock (6,7). Point: "I just have this feeling that allowing animal diseases to go untreated would not contribute to food safety." Counterpoint: Again, I agree. Failure to treat or prevent illness leads to needless animal suffering. Additionally, some new research is showing that healthy animals that have recovered from a respiratory or infectious illness are more likely to be contaminated with foodborne pathogens such a Salmonella or Campylobacter (8,9). Point: "Antibiotic resistance is complex issue. Help direct our coverage by suggesting people we should talk to and places we should go. Where's the cutting edge research being done? This is not just some problem on the farm we haven't solved. It's bigger, broader and more complex. Now, please submit your answers." Counterpoint: Amen brother. There many questions that have not been addressed. If society was not so busy pushing draconian and meaningless solutions such as the PAMTA (Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act) or collecting usage data without good data on resistance, then resources would be available to answer many of your thoughtful questions. References (1) Flynn, D. 2012. Letter from the Editor: Antibiotic Resistance. http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/08/letter-from-the-editor-antibiotic-resistance/#.UFeIPbKPU-I (2) Food Poisoning Center, Sanford, FL. 2011. What is the treatment for food poisoning? http://www.medicinenet.com/food_poisoning/page6.htm#what_is_the_treatment_for_food_poisoning (3) D'Costa, V. et al. 2011. Antibiotic Resistance is ancient. Nature 477:457-461 http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v477/n7365/full/nature10388.html (4) Bywater, R.J., Casewell, M.W. 2000. An Assessment of the impact of antibiotic resistance in different bacterial species and of the contribution of animal sources to resistance in human infections. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 46(4):643-645. http://jac.oxfordjournals.org/content/46/4/643.full.pdf+html (5) Bhullar, K. et al. 2012. Antibiotic Resistance is Prevalent in an Isolated Cave Microbiome. PLoS One 7(4): 1-11. (6) Ropeik D. et al. (2002). RISK! A Practical Guide for Deciding What's Really Safe and What's Really Dangerous in the World Around You. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, 2002. (7) Hurd, H. S., et al. (2003). The Public Health Consequences of Macrolide Use in Food Animals: A Deterministic Risk Assessment. Journal of Food Protection, 67:5, 980-992. (8) Hurd, HS, Yaegar MJ, Brudvig, JM, Taylor, DT, Wang, B. 2012. Lesion severity at processing as a predictor of Salmonella contamination of swine carcasses. American Journal of Veterinary Research 73(1):91-97. (9) Hurd, HS, Brudvig, J, Dickson, J, Mirceta, J, Polovinski, M, Matthews, N, Griffith, R. 2008. Swine Health Impact on Carcass Contamination and Human Foodborne Risk. Public Health Reports. 123:343-351. © Food Safety News More Headlines from Opinion & Contributed Articles » |
USDA to Host Food Safety Chat on Twitter
| Today the U.S. Department of Agriculture will be going live at 3 p.m. EST to answer questions about food safety on Twitter. Anyone is invited to attend these "virtual office hours," hosted by Dr. Elizabeth Hagen, USDA's Under Secretary for Food Safety in honor of National Food Safety Education Month. USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service provided a list of topics consumers are urged to ask about in a press release Thursday. Some possible questions include:  - How can I keep my family safe from foodborne illness? - What is USDA doing to bring down rates of E. coli and Salmonella illnesses? - If I discover a problem with my food, where can I report it? - What should I do if I have a recalled product? Those wishing to ask these or other food safety questions can participate by following @USDA on Twitter and using the #askUSDA hashtag. © Food Safety News More Headlines from Food Safety Leaders » |
Sunland's Expanded Recall List Includes About 100 Products
| The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) says its inspectors are continuing their investigation at the Sunland Inc. production facility in Portales, NM. That facility, with the capacity to produce six tons of peanut butter per hour, is associated with the current multistate outbreak of Salmonella Bredeney. Sunland expanded its recall to include about 100 brands, including peanut butter and other products made with nuts and seeds. Sunland announced and expanded its recall on Sept. 24 after meetings with personnel from both FDA and the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). A complete Sunland recall list is available here, including the brand it makes for Trader Joe's that was originally recalled Sept. 22. The rare serotype of Salmonella has been found in 30 people across 19 states. Salmonella Bredeney is a serious threat to children, the elderly and those with serious infections. Four of the confirmed cases are known to have required hospitalization. No deaths have been reported. © Food Safety News More Headlines from Food Recalls » |
FSIS: Canadian Beef Recalled for E. coli Was Used for U.S. Raw Ground Beef
|
The agency said it made the discovery while conducting standard recall effectiveness checks of all U.S. establishments that received the recalled beef from XL Foods, Inc. (also known as Canadian Establishment 38). "FSIS has reason to believe, based on information provided by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA), that beef from cattle slaughtered during the period associated with the recall was produced under insanitary conditions that resulted in a high event period (a period when the trim from carcasses exhibited an unusually high frequency of positive findings for the possible presence of E. coli O157:H7)," said the agency, in a release sent out early Wednesday morning. "Therefore, all products that are non-intact, such as trim and ground beef subject to the recall, as well as all cuts of beef that will be processed into non-intact product, are considered adulterated." FSIS has still not posted a recall on its website, but has instead chosen to use public health alerts to warn the public, a decision that has frustrated some consumer advocates. Here's the basic timeline of the recall, according to FSIS: "FSIS testing of raw boneless beef trim product from Canadian Establishment 038, XL Foods, Inc., confirmed positive for E. coli O157:H7 on September 3, 2012. After alerting the CFIA of the positive results, the agencies launched an investigation including additional testing, and CFIA announced a recall by XL Foods, Inc. of a variety of ground beef products on Sept. 16. FSIS also issued a Public Health Alert (PHA) on September 20, 2012, provided updated information on September 21, 2012, conducted effectiveness checks this week, and notified the public once more through today's PHA. The CFIA has expanded the scope of the recall to now include the production dates of Aug. 24, Aug. 27, Aug. 28 and Aug. 29, 2012 and FSIS has determined that a slaughter date of August 23, 2012 is common to all four production dates." And an explanation of why there has been no recall: "FSIS issues Public Health Alerts to make the public aware of a public health hazard. FSIS is not announcing a recall at this time because the goal of such an action is to have the establishment most directly associated with producing adulterated product remove the product from commerce. In this case, the establishment was XL Foods, Inc., a Canadian firm, and that recall has been initiated in Canada. CFIA is overseeing the effectiveness of the recall in Canada and FSIS is overseeing the effectiveness in the United States. FSIS continues to verify U.S. establishments' use of primal and non-primal cuts associated with the XL Foods recall and will take appropriate action if prohibited activity is found." Retail locations: "While the investigation continues, FSIS will provide information as it becomes available. The products subject to the Canadian recall were distributed to U.S. establishments in the following states: California, Michigan, Nebraska, Oregon, Texas, Utah, Washington and Wisconsin." FSIS will continue to update the retail distribution list posted on FSIS' website here. E. coli O157:H7 is a potentially deadly bacterium that can cause bloody diarrhea, dehydration, and in the most severe cases, kidney failure. The very young, seniors and persons with weak immune systems are the most susceptible to foodborne illness." © Food Safety News More Headlines from Government Agencies » |
The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service is alerting the public that whole muscle cuts related to a large, ongoing Canadian E. coli O157:H7 beef recall were used to produce raw ground beef products.
9.25.2012
Add to Recalls: SunRidge Farms Nuggets, Chews and Mix
| Energy Nuggets, Peanut Butter Power Chews and Treasure Trove Mix in 10- and 20-pound cases are being recalled by SunrRidge Farms of Royal Oaks, CA because they may contain contaminated peanut butter as an ingredient. Portales, NM-based Sunland Inc. supplied peanut butter contained in the recalled bulk items. After Trader Joe's recalled peanut butter on Sept. 22 supplied by Sunland because health officials linked it to a multistate outbreak of a rare Salmonella strain, Sunland followed with a recall of a long list of its own peanut butter brands. Now companies like SunRidge that used Sunland peanut or almond butters manufactured between May 1, 2012 and Sept. 24, 2012 are doing their own recalls. The SunRidge Farms recall is for 852 ten-pound cases of Energy Nuggets, 1,846 ten-pound cases of peanut butter power chews and 50 cases of 20-pound Treasure Trove Mix. For a complete list of the product codes, item descriptions and other specifics, see the recall announcement. SunRidge Farms is associated with the Falcon Trading Company. © Food Safety News More Headlines from Food Recalls » |