• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

5.7 MILLION POUNDS RECALLED!!!

Mike

Well-known member
Beef Recall Expands to 5.7 Million Pounds on E. Coli
Saturday , June 09, 2007



ADVERTISEMENT

SPRINGDALE, Ark. —

A California meat supplier once again expanded a beef recall Saturday to include a total of 5.7 million pounds of both fresh and frozen products because they may be contaminated with E. coli, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service announced.

United Food Group, LLC, already had announced two recalls, on June 3 and June 6. But a recent positive test for E. coli in a patient in Arizona pushed the company to expand the recall.

Click here for a list of the recalled products.

The tained meat has sicked 14 people across the country — six in Arizona, three in California, two in Colorado, and one each in Idaho, Utah and Wyoming. All have recovered.

The products recalled were produced in the two-week period of April 6 to April 20 and were shipped to stores in Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington and Wyoming.

Meanwhile, Tyson Fresh Meats Inc. on Friday recalled more than 40,000 pounds of ground beef shipped to Wal-Mart stores in 12 states after samples tested at a Sherman, Texas, plant showed signs of E. coli contamination.

No illnesses had been reported. Springdale-based Tyson Foods Inc. said the recall is not related to contaminated ground beef distributed by California-based United Food Group LLC.

The recalled products were sent to Wal-Mart stores in Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Texas, Tyson said.

Wal-Mart has removed the products from its meat cases and is destroying the recalled ground beef still in its possession, officials said.

Tyson recalled 40,440 pounds of ground beef, all of which had sell-by dates of June 13. The ground beef was sold in prepackaged trays that were placed directly into the meat case.
 

PORKER

Well-known member
Yup , that Beef TRIM will get you every time . Wonder if their traceability system will tell them which cow had all of the Ecoli in its TRIM. Oh , how about the Country of Orgin on that TRIM ? “AMI first claimed that a country-of-origin labeling regime would not impact food safety or the integrity of food products,” Surely can't Be CHINA eh?
 

PORKER

Well-known member
Another good letter written to FSIS by John Munsell. He writes so well, and is an expert on the subject:

Dr’s Raymond, Goldman, Petersen and William Smith:

I am writing this to you folks who are the top meat inspection officials at FSIS, appealing to you once again to consider mid-stream changes to the agency’s meat inspection policies. This is an eleventh hour appeal, realizing the volume of recent and sizeable E.coli recalls. The fact that we’ve already had the same number of e.coli recalls as of June 8th this year as occurred in all of 2006 is not only disconcerting, but embarrassing. Consumers, and the livestock industry, deserve better.

We all know that E.coli is an enteric bacteria, meaning that it emanates from within animals’ intestinal tracts. Downline, further processing non-slaughter facilities have no intestines on their premises, nor manure-covered hides. In ALL likelihood, e.coli contamination occurs at slaughter establishments, not at the downstream further processing plants. I’ve unsuccessfully encouraged FSIS for several years now to change its microbiological testing protocol, including the need for real time documentation of the true origin of meat being sampled, to enable (in fact “mandate”) expedited tracebacks to the true origin of contamination. You folks have told me that such documentation takes too much time, and “is not that important”. Try selling that to the hundreds of families whose members have been hospitalized, experienced kidney failure, and died.
What are the logical consequences of FSIS’ recurring resistance to aggressively trace back to the true origin of contaminations? I’ll give you a few contemporary examples.

The recalls suffered by Bylerly’s and Lunds retail stores in Minneapolis were traced back to PM Beef Holdings in Windom, MN. Please note that the recall press release stated that the successful investigation was performed by Minnesota health officials, not USDA personnel. Last year, another recall was experienced by Fadlers in Tulsa, OK, a plant which does not slaughter. After the recall, a Fadlers official told me that FSIS had shown no interest in performing a traceback to the slaughter plant origin of contamination, and also told me that their supplier had been PM Beef Holdings in Windom, MN. The question here is whether FSIS implemented enforcement actions against the slaughter plant which supplied meat to Fadlers last year. If not, then this year’s recalls at Bylerly’s and Lunds are fully understandable.

On April 20 this year, recall # 020-2007 was announced at another non-slaughter processing plant, Richwood Meat Co. in Merced, CA. Ominously, Richwood had previously experienced another recall on February 24, 2004. At first blush, one would perceive that Richwood is a filthy plant, and should be the target of substantial FSIS enforcement actions. Now, the rest of the story. Subsequent to the 2004 recall, a Richwood representative told me that FSIS had zero interest in tracing back to the slaughter origin of contamination. We have to presume that a traceback did not occur, the noncompliant slaughter plant was not forced to implement corrective action but was allowed by FSIS to maintain slaughter operations as is. I certainly did not read about a recall at the guilty slaughter plant. Therefore, we must acknowledge that customers of that slaughter plant will continue to purchase previously contaminated meat, outbreaks will persist, and recall notices will continue to spew out of Washington DC. Richwood Meat is living proof.

On June 3, yet another California processing plant became a victim of purchasing previously contaminated meat! The implicated non-slaughter plant this time is United Food Group in Vernon, CA. Furthermore, FSIS has since issued two updated recalls, the most recent of which was today, June 9, covering a total of 5.7 million pounds of meat. Did United Food Group INTRODUCE e.coli bacteria to the recalled meat? No. Did the source slaughter plant supplier to United Food Group introduce the pathogen? Yes. Has FSIS identified the noncompliant slaughter source plant yet? If so, the media has yet to be informed.

I just watched the nightly news, which impaled United Food Group, and urged consumers to destroy all ground beef emanating from United Food Group. We are watching history being made: another innocent domestic business which may very well close its doors because it unwittingly and legally purchased and further processed meat which had been previously contaminated with invisible bacteria. It is ironic that the previously contaminated meat arrived at United Food Group’s dock in containers bearing the official USDA Mark of Inspection which states “USDA Inspected and Passed”. This plant may close its doors for legally processing meat which had previously been inspected and passed by USDA/FSIS. We dare to call this system “science based”?

Has the agency considered the possibility that the two California plants, Richwood Meat and United Food Group, may share a common slaughter house supplier? If the agency has connected the dots yet, what picture was drawn? The agency’s public image should improve if it would release the details.

To further muddy the waters, the agency today issued yet another e.coli recall release. The newest recall affects the Tyson plant in Sherman, Texas with a paltry 40,400 lbs of meat. Interestingly, on March 2nd this year another Tyson plant in Walulla, WA also experienced an e.coli recall. Both Tyson plants are slaughter plants. I’d like to be a mouse in a corner and compare the severity of agency enforcement actions against Tyson for its ongoing e.coli problems compared to agency actions against United Food Group’s non-slaughter facility.

The Bioterrorism Act of 2002 mandates that all domestic manufacturers, distributors and retailers of products be able to trace their products back two steps, and trace forward one step. FSIS actions bely the agency’s perception that it is immune to the Bioterrorism Act.

Incidentally, the recall at United Food Group was due to investigations performed by health authorities in California and Colorado, not by USDA personnel.

I am no prophet, but the hand writing is on the wall that FSIS will eventually be required to perform copious documentation of all microbial test procedures in which it is involved, and unilaterally and proactively engage in tracebacks to the ORIGIN of contamination. Admittedly, the relatively small downline further processing plants which are the DESTINATION of previously contaminated meat are a much easier enforcement prey for the agency. We have to admit that if the agency successfully closes all downline, non-slaughter further processing plants without forcing the guilty slaughter plants to implement corrective actions, public health will still be endangered because the source of contamination still persists.

This dilemma is not going away. We hope you decide that protection of consumers and public health take a higher priority than insulating the slaughter plants from accountability.

Furthermore, the Byerly’s, Lunds, and United Food Groups of America deserve ethical treatment. And, their employees have the right to maintain their jobs.

John W. Munsell
Manager, Foundation for Accountability in Regulatory Enforcement (FARE)
Miles City, MT
June 9, 2007
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
John Munsell knows the situation better than any-- and that is the farce of the mandatory ID that USDA/NCBA tried to mandatorily shove down our throats- and are now BOTH still trying to shovel down our throats threw the back door-- that the ID would only exist until the head came off-- the BIG PACKERS wanted/want no mandatory tracing of the product thru their slaughter procedure or beyond-- which would show the true reasons of many of these problems......
 

PORKER

Well-known member
Packers want no mandatory tracing of the product thru their slaughter procedure or beyond--REASON, COOL
I got to visit a medium size plant that runs SSI-EID on every peice, even the trim is batched ID to x number of animals and the 300 cuts of beef.Each cleaned head and tongue and hide can be traced back to the original animal. Quite the technology.

ScoringAg would have known the animal or animals that carried the ecoli.
 

Ben Roberts

Well-known member
PORKER said:
Packers want no mandatory tracing of the product thru their slaughter procedure or beyond--REASON, COOL
I got to visit a medium size plant that runs SSI-EID on every peice, even the trim is batched ID to x number of animals and the 300 cuts of beef.Each cleaned head and tongue and hide can be traced back to the original animal. Quite the technology.

ScoringAg would have known the animal or animals that carried the ecoli.

I'm not ScoringAg, and I can tell you the cattle that carry ecoli! They all do. So what good would it do, to identify, each animal/animals that carry ecoli. The problem is not with the cattle, it's with the sanitation and quality control, of the processing facility.

Best Regards
Ben Roberts
 

PORKER

Well-known member
The problem is not with the cattle, it's with the sanitation and quality control, of the processing facility. You are right Ben.

But in order to get the product off the market and know which cattle,which line, and which workers failed at sanitation ,along with who was running quality control and their HACCP records you need a traceback system that gives you the information within seconds.
Of Course it could be imported beef.
 

Ben Roberts

Well-known member
We should not be having re-calls for beef, it's not good for the industry. The cattlemen's organizatons should stand up and be heard,until, no contamnated product is put on the market ie. no need for re-calls.

It makes no difference, which cattle, which line, which workers or if it's imported or domestic, why should we implement a costly trace-back system, because the packers are allowed to not be responsible.

Again, I tell you we need to take back the control of our industry. No one else is going to do it for us.

Best Regards
Ben Roberts
 

PORKER

Well-known member
We should not be having re-calls for beef, it's not good for the industry. The cattlemen's organizatons should stand up and be heard,until, no contamnated product is put on the market ie. no need for re-calls.

I think that's a good statement if it could be enforced Ben. All animals are marketed or buried. If an animal was contamnated ,at least it could be traced back to its origin and then the information could be to help solve the problem.Same in a packing plant,maybe somebody needs extra training or the HACCP crew was lax at their sanitation jobs inside the plant.

Why should we implement a costly trace-back system, because the packers are allowed to not be responsible?

Food and Feed safety affects us all, and yes the packers have to be responsible too, for that matter everyone in the food chain is . You or I could loose our lives because someone cut corners on producing a wholesome product.
 

Ben Roberts

Well-known member
PORKER said:
We should not be having re-calls for beef, it's not good for the industry. The cattlemen's organizatons should stand up and be heard,until, no contamnated product is put on the market ie. no need for re-calls.

I think that's a good statement if it could be enforced Ben. All animals are marketed or buried. If an animal was contamnated ,at least it could be traced back to its origin and then the information could be to help solve the problem.Same in a packing plant,maybe somebody needs extra training or the HACCP crew was lax at their sanitation jobs inside the plant.

Why should we implement a costly trace-back system, because the packers are allowed to not be responsible?

Food and Feed safety affects us all, and yes the packers have to be responsible too, for that matter everyone in the food chain is . You or I could loose our lives because someone cut corners on producing a wholesome product.

You or I could loose our lives, with a trace-back system, if they wait until the contaminated product is in the food chain. Multi-national corporations are not held accountable for food safety or health issues anyway, so what good is a trace-back system.

Best Regards
Ben Roberts
 

PORKER

Well-known member
If they wait until the contaminated product is in the food chain, Just who would you call (THEY ),Ben ?

Multi-national corporations are not held accountable for food safety,
Yes they are unless you know different, Please Explain accountable for food safety in your words,Ben. Is it equalivient food safety ?

What good is a trace-back system. First of all Ben ,lets make sure we are talking Apples,not Oranges .We have had lot number's for ever ,which is traceability. I'am talking traceback which is the point-to point movement and data knowledge at each handlers site as ScoringAg is known for around the world for. So which is it,Ben ?
 

Ben Roberts

Well-known member
Porker, you are correct in saying that we have had, lot numbers on food products forever, for plant identification etc.. If that lot number is used (traceability) for a re-call, it is only after the product, has already entered the food chain and a problem existed from that product.

When I say (they) I am talking about the multi-national corporations.

Multi-national corporations are not now, or in the past, been held accountable for their negligence with food safety issues. I will give you just a few examples.(1) During the Spanish American War In 1898, more American soldiers died from eating deadly "embalmed beef" than from wounds from Spanish guns. Yet the packers somehow avoided prosecution. (2)In 1997 Hudson Foods, had to file for bankruptcy after they lost their largest account, Burger King, because of e-coli contaminated trimmings they purchased from IBP, then IBP bought out Hudson Foods and entered a partneship, that created the largest Hispanic owned corporation in Nebraska. That partnership still exist today with Tyson. (3) In 2002, a new ruling was passed that forbid the USDA from closing down meat plants that failed USDA inspections. Previously, the USDA could close down packing plants seriously infected with contaminants such as salmonella and e-coli. Those plants could not re-open until they had cleaned up the contamination to ensure a safe food supply to the American public. Unfortunately, most agree that it is economically unfeasible to test for salmonella at the food processing level. As a result, the consumer needs to take the (responsibility) for protecting themselves from salmonella. This is only three examples through time, that show the packers have never been held accountable for food safety.

Would a trace-back system, hold the packers accountable for food safety, I don't think so!

Best Regards
Ben Roberts
 

PORKER

Well-known member
COOL maybe the Straw that breaks the camel's back. Alot of traceback records will move thru the Multi-national corporation packers.
 

Ben Roberts

Well-known member
PORKER said:
COOL maybe the Straw that breaks the camel's back. Alot of traceback records will move thru the Multi-national corporation packers.

M-COOL, will be implemented soon, but it will be a 180 from what it was intended for. I'm starting to wonder if anyone on this board, really understands, the power that the packers have.

Best Regards
Ben Roberts
 

PORKER

Well-known member
Say Ben, If thats the case , then the only thing left is the new Food Agency that the house and senate want to start. They want all inspections of food or feed to be done by this new Food Agency which will take control over FSIS, USDA ,Aphis,FDA,GSPA,NOAA FISH,and etc. ,this sure would change the good ole boys network. Your Comments.
 

rkaiser

Well-known member
Some of us understand Ben. And understand that if we are to do anything about it it will have to be done ourselves. The conventional beef industry is corrupted by money and greed and a lack of caring for the individual eating our product. Conventional agriculture in general could be put in the same picture frame.

Like most everything else in Western society, we are looking for blame when we see a problem, and then looking for a quick fix. No big problem with identification of the contaminated carcass Porker, but what is it you plan to do when you identify it. Cut off shipments from the country of origin? My goodness, sounds like another BSEconomic issue to me.

What is causing Ecoli contamination. Like Ben says, it is in all beef animals, just like the potential for BSE is wide spread. So we identify the bad one, (slip the domestic ones through a corrupt system) and show that it was someone else's problem. COME ON.

Another alternative may be to actually admit that it is the conventional "money hungry" system that is causing the problem. Ecoli levels are not near as high in grass fed cattle, or cattle who's diets have been altered near the end of their lives. But hey - studying this may actually solve the problem with no monetary gain, and possible loss to someone which will inevitably be passed down to the lowly primary producer. Same O same O. So the primary producer keeps his mouth shut, and the uncaring up the chain continue to find new ways to make more money from these things called cattle.

I tried to think what others think and that got me in doo doo. Think for yourself and DO. It is up to us to make the changes needed folks.
 

Ben Roberts

Well-known member
PORKER said:
Say Ben, If thats the case , then the only thing left is the new Food Agency that the house and senate want to start. They want all inspections of food or feed to be done by this new Food Agency which will take control over FSIS, USDA ,Aphis,FDA,GSPA,NOAA FISH,and etc. ,this sure would change the good ole boys network. Your Comments.

Porker, why do you say, the only thing left is the new food agency? Why do you look to our government to change the good-ole-boys network?

We, the cattle producers, don't need is another government (super agency) in control of meat inspections! What we need to do as cattle producers, is organize.

Before there can be unity of thought in any group there must be organization. One and a half million cattlemen, un-organized, have about that many opinions on any given subject. Organized, these cattlemen can meet and discuss the problems. Public officials care little about opinions of individuals, but they do respect and give great consideration to combined opinion of organized indivduals.

The cattlemen of this country, and Canada, need to take back the control of our industry. With this control, we could also control, food safety from pasture to retail.


Best Regards
Ben Roberts
 
Top