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: The purpose of the ABC Defendants' actions was to grow the so-called "grassroots" movement against LFTB [lean finely textured beef] that they created themselves. The ABC Defendants knew that consumer pressure would force many of the chains to decide to stop selling ground beef with LFTB. Indeed, the "grassroots" movement created by the Defendants' disinformation campaign was successful. The major grocery store chains had little choice but to respond to the consumer backlash, and they did so by cancelling or suspending future orders of ground beef made with LFTB. 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: Carl S. Custer, a former U.S.D.A. microbiologist, said he and other scientists were concerned that the department had approved the treated beef for sale without obtaining independent validation of the potential safety risk. Another department microbiologist, Gerald Zirnstein, called the processed beef "pink slime" in a 2002 e-mail message to colleagues and said, "I do not consider the stuff to be ground beef, and I consider allowing it in ground beef to be a form of fraudulent labeling. 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: While most SLAPPs lose in court, they "succeed" in the public arena. This is because defending a SLAPP, even when the legal defense is strong, requires a substantial investment of money, time, and resources. The resulting effect is a "chill" on public participation in, and open debate on, important public issues. 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: Unfortunately for BPI, no litigation can return us to the time when Americans were unaware that LFTB was in the nation's ground beef supply. Now that they understand the nature of the product, many consumers have made it abundantly clear that they don't want it to eat it. You can't un-ring the bell. 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 »

FDA Issues Roundup of Mango Recalls Linked to Salmonella Outbreak

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration today issued a roundup of all recalled mangoes from the Mexican company whose fruits have been linked to a nationwide Salmonella outbreak. Many have been listed individually in prior recalls, but this announcement lists the four U.S. distributors who imported the recalled mangoes and all of the companies who have filed secondary recall announcements with FDA.  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: Pacific Coast Fruit Company FreshLine/Caito Foods Service Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A.   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 »