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

CDC: Tainted ground beef may be linked to 2 deaths

flounder

Well-known member
CLASS I RECALL Congressional and Public Affairs
HEALTH RISK: HIGH Atiya Khan (202) 720-9113
FSIS-RC-059-2009
NEW YORK FIRM RECALLS FRESH GROUND BEEF
PRODUCTS DUE TO POSSIBLE E. COLI O157:H7 CONTAMINATION
WASHINGTON, October 31, 2009 – Fairbank Farms, an Ashville,
NY, establishment, is recalling approximately 545,699 pounds of fresh ground
beef products that may be contaminated with E. coli O157:H7, the U.S.
Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS)
announced today.
FSIS became aware of the problem during the course of an
investigation of a cluster of E. coli O157:H7 illnesses. Working with the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and state health and
agriculture departments, FSIS determined that there is an association between
the fresh ground beef products subject to recall and illnesses in Connecticut,
Maine and Massachusetts. FSIS is continuing to work with the Massachusetts
Department of Public Health, the Connecticut Department of Public Health,
other state health and agriculture departments and the CDC on the
investigation. Anyone with signs or symptoms of foodborne illness should
consult a physician.
The following products are subject to recall:
Trader Joe’s
• 1-pound packages of “TRADER JOE’S BUTCHER SHOP FINE
QUALITY MEATS GROUND BEEF 85/15.”
• 1-pound packages of “TRADER JOE’S BUTCHER SHOP FINE
QUALITY MEATS GROUND BEEF 80/20.”
NOTE: The sell-by dates for the above two products may be October 6 or
7, 2009.
• 1-pound trays of “TRADER JOE’S BUTCHER SHOP FINE
QUALITY MEATS GROUND BEEF PATTIES 96/4 EXTRA
LEAN.”
• 1-pound trays of “TRADER JOE’S BUTCHER SHOP FINE
QUALITY MEATS GROUND BEEF PATTIES 85/15.”
Price Chopper
• 1- and 2.5-pound trays of “PRICE CHOPPER MEATLOAF &
MEATBALL MIX.”
• 1-pound trays of “PRICE CHOPPER EXTRA LEAN GROUND BEEF 96/4.”
• 1-pound trays of “PRICE CHOPPER FRESH GROUND BEEF CHUCK FOR CHILI 80% LEAN 20%
FAT.”
Lancaster and Wild Harvest
• 1-pound trays of “LANCASTER BRAND 96/4 EXTRA LEAN GROUND BEEF.”
• 1- and 2-pound trays of “LANCASTER BRAND 90/10 GROUND BEEF.”
• 1-pound trays of “WILD HARVEST NATURAL 85/15 ANGUS GROUND BEEF.”
Shaw’s
• 1- and 2-pound trays of “SHAW’S FRESH GROUND BEEF 93/7.”
• 1-, 2- and 3-pound trays of “SHAW’S FRESH GROUND BEEF 80/20.”
• 1- and 3-pound trays of “SHAW’S FRESH GROUND BEEF 75/25.”
• 1.3-pound trays of “SHAW’S FRESH GROUND SIRLOIN BEEF PATTIES 90/10.”
• 1.3-pound trays of “SHAW’S FRESH GROUND ROUND BEEF PATTIES 85/15.”
• 1.3-pound trays of “SHAW’S FRESH GROUND BEEF PATTIES 80/20.”
• 3-pound trays of “SHAW’S FRESH GROUND BEEF PATTIES FAMILY PACK 80/20.”
• 1-pound trays of “SHAW’S ANGUS GROUND BEEF 85/15.”
• 1-, 2- and 3-pound trays of “SHAW’S FRESH GROUND ROUND BEEF 85/15.”
• 1-pound trays of “SHAW’S 90% NATURAL GROUND BEEF.”
• 1-pound trays of “SHAW’S 85% NATURAL GROUND BEEF.”
• 1-, 2- and 3-pound trays of “SHAW’S FRESH GROUND SIRLOIN 90/10.”
• 1-pound trays of “MEATLOAF & MEATBALL MIX.”
BJ’s
• 5-pound trays of “FRESH GROUND BEEF, CONTAINS 15 % FAT” patties.
• 3- and 5-pound trays of “LEAN GROUND BEEF, CONTAINS 7% FAT.”
• 2.5-pound trays of “MEATLOAF & MEATBALL MIX.”
Ford Brothers
• 3-pound trays of “FRESH GROUND BEEF, CONTAINS 20% FAT” patties.
Giant
• 1-pound trays of “GIANT EXTRA LEAN GROUND BEEF 96/4.”
• 1-pound trays of “GIANT MEATLOAF & MEATBALL MIX.”
• 1-pound trays of “GIANT NATURE’S PROMISE GROUND BEEF.”
• 1-pound trays of “GIANT NATURE’S PROMISE GROUND BEEF PATTIES.”
Each package bears the establishment number “EST. 492” inside the USDA mark of inspection or on the
nutrition label. These products were packaged on September 15 and 16, 2009, and may have been labeled at the
retail stores with a sell-by date from September 19 through 28, 2009, unless otherwise noted above. Consumers
should ask at their point of purchase if the products they have are subject to recall. The products were sent to
distribution centers, intended for further distribution to retail establishments in Northeast and Mid-Atlantic
regions. When available, the retail distribution list(s) will be posted on FSIS’ Web site at
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/FSIS_Recalls/Open_Federal_Cases/index.asp.
Products for further processing:
• Cases of 10-pound “FAIRBANK FARMS FRESH GROUND BEEF CHUBS.”
Each case bears the establishment number “EST. 492” inside the USDA mark of inspection; has
package dates of “09.14.09,” “09.15.09,” or “09.16.09;” and sell-by dates of “10.3.09,” “10.4.09,” or “10.5.09.
These products were distributed to retail establishments in Maryland, Massachusetts, North Carolina, New
Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia for further processing. However, these products at retail will
likely not bear the package dates and sell-by dates listed above. Customers with concerns should contact their
point of purchase.
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. Individuals concerned about an illness should contact a physician.
FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify recalling firms notify their customers of the
recall and that steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer available to consumers.
FSIS advises all consumers to safely prepare their raw meat products, including fresh and frozen, and
only consume ground beef or ground beef patties that have been cooked to a temperature of 160° F. The only
way to be sure ground beef is cooked to a high enough temperature to kill harmful bacteria is to use a food
thermometer to measure the internal temperature.
Media questions regarding the recall should be directed the company’s Media Representative, Agnes
Schafer at (866) 460-8017. Consumer questions should be directed to the company’s Consumer Hotline at
(877) 546-0122.
Consumers with food safety questions can “Ask Karen,” the FSIS virtual representative available
24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov. The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-
6854) is available in English and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday
through Friday. Recorded food safety messages are available 24 hours a day.
#
NOTE: Access news releases and other information at FSIS’ Web site at http://www.fsis.usda.gov/Fsis_Recalls/
USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer and lender. To file a complaint of discrimination, write:
USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call
(800) 795-3272 (voice), or (202) 720-6382 (TDD).


http://www.fairbankfarms.com/059%20%20NY%20E%20%20coli%2010%2031%2009%20FINAL.pdf



CDC: Tainted ground beef may be linked to 2 deaths
By BEN DOBBIN (AP) – 19 hours ago



http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iMC6NXcYwx69vXhgNTnA9JVceahQD9BNKQ482



Report of the committee Evolutionary Trends of Salmonella enteritidis Linked to Subpopulation Biology and Virulence Attributes a Time Specific Paper was presented by Dr. J. Guard Bouldin, ARS-USDA. The complete text of the presentation is included in these proceedings at the end of this report. Dr. Bouldin reported that Salmonella enterica serovar enteritidis (S. Enteritidis) is currently the world’s leading cause of food borne salmonellosis. It is the only serotype out of over 1400 within Salmonella enterica I that contaminates the internal contents of the egg by vertical transmission from the reproductive tract of otherwise healthy hens. Epidemiological studies have shown that this exceptionally invasive pathogen with an unusual tissue tropism has a more clonal population structure than most other broad-host range Salmonella serotypes. Dr. Guard Bouldin presented research findings that showed how this egg tropism is likely to have occurred. FSIS Salmonella initiatives for meat, poultry, and processed egg products presentation was given by Daniel L. Engeljohn, Office of Policy, Program and Employee Development, FSIS. Dr. Engeljohn presented FSIS’s mission, its public health performance measures, policies on pathogen control including Salmonella. As the public health regulatory agency in USDA, FSIS is responsible for ensuring that the nation’s commercial supply of meat, poultry, and processed egg products are safe, wholesome, and correctly labeled and packaged www.fsis.usda.gov/about_fsis/index.asp. In FY07, FSIS had approximately 7,800 full-time inspectors that visited around 6,200 facilities. Processing establishments receive daily inspection, slaughter establishments receive daily inspection along with every animal afforded a critical inspection before slaughter.

FSIS inspected approximately 44 billion pounds of livestock, 57 billion pounds of poultry, 3.5 billion pounds of liquid egg product, 3.8 billion pounds of product reinspected at the border, and conducted about 8 million inspection procedures. A progress review was presented for the federal Healthy People 2010 program Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) April 11, 2008; 57(14):366-370

www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5714a.htm



He described preliminary surveillance data for 2007 and compared them with data for previous years. In 2007, the estimated incidence of infections caused by Campylobacter, Listeria, Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli O157 (STEC O157), Salmonella, Shigella, Vibrio, and Yersinia did not change significantly, and Cryptosporidium infections increased compared with 2004--2006. Progress toward the targets for Healthy People 2010 national health objectives and targets regarding the incidence of foodborne infections occurred before 2004; however, none of the targets were reached in 2007. Salmonella incidence was the furthest from its national health target, suggesting that reaching this target will require new approaches.

474

DISCUSSION


Serotyping results are presented for 18,267 Salmonella isolates. This year 44 percent of the isolates were from clinical cases and 56 percent were from monitor samples, compared to 38 percent and 62 percent last year, repectively.1

Of the clinical isolates, 35 percent were of bovine origin and 32 percent were isolated from swine. Thirty-nine percent of the monitor samples were isolated from chickens and 12 percent were recovered from turkeys. A total of 253 serotypes were identified from isolates recovered from animals, their environment, or feed in 40 states and the District of Columbia. The 10 most common serotypes (Table 1) accounted for 58 percent of the total isolates reported. Table 2 lists the 10 most common serotypes by clinical role: those from clinical cases and those from monitor samples. Salmonella Typhimurium, S. Heidelberg, S. Cerro, S. Senftenberg and S. Montevideo are found in both lists. Salmonella Typhimurium was again the most frequently identified serotype from all sources and clinical roles. (Table 1) It was the most common serotype from clinical cases and the third most common serotype from monitor samples (Table 2). Salmonella Typhimurium was among the five most frequently identified serotypes isolated from chickens, swine, horse and dog/cat (Tables 3, 6, 7 and . Fourteen percent of all isolates, 22 percent of isolates from clinical cases, and 8 percent of isolates from monitor samples were identified as S. Typhimurium, compared to 13 percent, 21 percent, and 9 percent, respectively, last year.1 Fifty-one percent of the S. Typhimurium isolates were identified as S. Typhimurium var. Copenhagen this year, compared to 53 percent last year.1 The majority of S. Typhimurium isolates recovered from swine were S. Typhimurium var. Copenhagen (73 percent); whereas 37 percent of isolates of chicken origin were S. Typhimurium var. Copenhagen, and 19 percent of equine origin were S. Typhimurium var. Copenhagen. An untypable serotype 4,5,12:i:- decreased to 164 this year from 262 last year1 and 43 7 in 20062. Sixty-seven of these were isolated from chickens, 20 from cattle, and 25 from horses. This serotype is believed to be S. Typhimurium that has lost the ability to express the phase 2 flagellar antigen. Salmonella Newport was the seventh most frequently identified serotype from all sources (Table 1) and third in clinical cases. (Table 2). It was the fourth most common serotype from clinical cases in cattle (Table 5) and accounted for 6 percent of the isolates of bovine origin. Salmonella salmonella 494 Report of the comite Newport was the second most common serotype from clinical cases in horses (Table 7) and accounted for 5 percent of the isolates of equine origin. Four percent of the total isolates from all sources and all clinical roles were S. Newport, compared with 4 percent last year1, 5 percent in 20062, and 9 percent in 2005.3 The number of Salmonella Enteritidis isolated decreased this year to 551 isolates compared to 774 isolates last year. Fifty-four percent of the isolates were of chicken origin and it was the most frequently identified serotype from chicken clinical cases and the third most common serotype from chicken monitor samples (Table 5). Eleven different phage types were identified among the 329 S. Enteritidis isolates that were phage typed. The most frequently identified phage types were type 8 (54 percent), type 13 (13 percent), and type 23 (11 percent). Two percent were untypable, and 2 percent reacted, but did not conform (RDNC.) Fifteen different phage types were identified among 150 S. Typhimurium isolates that were phage typed. The most common phage types were DT104 and variants (67 percent) and U302 (9 percent). Five percent were untypable and 5 percent reacted, but did not conform.

REFERENCES Morningstar, B.R, et al. 2007. Salmonella Serotypes From Animals and Related Sources Reported During July 2006-June 2007. Proc U.S. Animal Health Assoc.111:633 -635 Morningstar-Flugrad, B.R., et.al. 2006. Salmonella Serotypes From Animals and Related Sources Reported During July 2005-June 2006. Proc U.S. Animal Health Assoc. 110:564-570 Ferris, K.E., et.al. 2005. Salmonella Serotypes From Animals and Related Sources Reported During July 2004- June 2005. Proc U.S. Animal Health Assoc. 109:559-562 Ferris, K.E., et.al. 2004. Salmonella Serotypes From Animals and Related Sources Reported During July 2003- June 2004. Proc U.S. Animal Health Assoc. 108:501-502. Ferris, K.E., et.al. 2003. Salmonella Serotypes From Animals and Related Sources Reported During July 2002- June 2003. Proc U.S. Animal Health Assoc. 107:463-469.

http://www.usaha.org/meetings/2008/2008_USAHA_Proceedings.pdf





TSS
 

flounder

Well-known member
Foodborne Pathogens and Disease

The Effects of Transport and Lairage on Counts of Escherichia coli O157 in the Feces and on the Hides of Individual Cattle

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To cite this article: Narelle Fegan, Glen Higgs, Lesley L. Duffy, Robert S. Barlow. Foodborne Pathogens and Disease. November 2009, 6(9): 1113-1120. doi:10.1089/fpd.2009.0338.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Published in Volume: 6 Issue 9: November 4, 2009 Online Ahead of Print: July 24, 2009

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Full Text: • PDF for printing (4,681.3 KB) • PDF w/ links (155.8 KB)

Narelle Fegan,1 Glen Higgs,2 Lesley L. Duffy,2 and Robert S. Barlow2 1Food Science Australia, CSIRO, Werribee, Victoria, Australia. 2Food Science Australia, CSIRO, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. Address correspondence to:

Narelle Fegan, Ph.D.

Food Science Australia, CSIRO

671 Sneydes Road

Werribee, Victoria 3030

Australia E-mail: Abstract

Objectives: The main objective of this study was to determine the impact of transport and lairage on the isolation rate and the number of Escherichia coli O157 on cattle.

Materials: Ninety animals, divided into three groups (A, B, and C) of 30 animals each, were used in this study. Individual animals were tagged, and samples were collected from the hides and feces of each at a feedlot and again after slaughter. The carcass of each animal was also sampled. Samples were also collected from the feedlot pens, the sides and floors of the transport trucks, and abattoir holding pens. The isolation rate and the number of E. coli O157 were estimated using a combination of immunomagnetic separation and the Most Probable Number technique.

Results: Cattle hides were more likely to be contaminated with E. coli O157 at the feedlot (31%) than at the abattoir (4%). E. coli O157 was detected in 18% and 12% of cattle feces collected at the feedlot and after slaughter, respectively. E. coli O157 was isolated from truck floors (26%), truck sides (11%), abattoir pen rails (47%), and pen floors (42%). The mean count of E. coli O157 in positive feces was log10 1.17 and 2.37MPN/g at the feedlot and slaughter, respectively. A 3 log10 increase in the number of E. coli O157 was observed between the feedlot (2.66MPN/g) and slaughter (5.66MPN/g) in the feces of one animal in group B. E. coli O157 was isolated from the hide and carcass of this animal.

Conclusions: Transport and lairage did not lead to an increase in the number or isolation rate of E. coli O157 from cattle.

Applications: Intervention strategies for reducing E. coli O157 contamination of cattle carcasses should target mechanisms that limit the impact of animals shedding a high number throughout production and processing.


http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089/fpd.2009.0338?prevSearch=allfield%253A%2528e%2Bcoli%2529&searchHistoryKey=


TSS
 

PORKER

Well-known member
http://www.foodborneillness.org/CFIFinalReport.pdf is a link to different illnesses that come from the packing industry that affects animals and humans that eat foods or feeds that carry Campylobacter, E. coli O157:H7,  Listeria monocytogenes, Salmonella, and Toxoplasma gondii, germs.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Some more from Munsell

Q&A With 'Meatpacking Maverick' Munsell



by Helena Bottemiller | Nov 16, 2009

Food Safety News - Marler Clark LLP, PS.



John Munsell, dubbed the "meatpacking maverick" by Mother Jones, has spent much of his life on the front lines of food safety.



In 2002, Munsell told the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) that his small meat grinding operation had been receiving E. coli-positive beef from ConAgra's massive plant in Greeley, Colorado and that something needed to be done about it. Instead of launching an investigation into the Greeley plant, the USDA shut down Munsell's business for four months after an agency inspector collected a positive E. coli sample from ground beef produced in his plant.



A few months later, the Greeley plant recalled 19 million pounds of beef after an E. coli outbreak that sickened 45 people in 23 states was tied to its product. Over 80 percent of the recalled meat had already been consumed by the public by the time USDA announced the recall in the Summer of 2002.



Munsell operated his small-scale USDA-inspected meat plant in Montana for 34 years. The business had been in his family for almost six decades when he sold it in 2005 after becoming fed up with USDA politics and 'burdensome' federal regulations.



Food Safety News had a chance to chat with Munsell about the ConAgra outbreak, the current state of meat regulation, and what he thinks should be done to improve food safety.



Q: How did you become a meat regulation activist?



A: It boils down to this... in 2002 we were involved in a recall of about 270 pounds of ground beef that was contaminated with E. coli. That was a result of at test that was collected by the USDA inspector assigned to my plant.



The inspector and I both knew and we stated that the meat that was sampled was from an outside plant--it wasn't my meat. Our plant not only slaughtered animals, but we brought in a lot of meat from the outside. In this particular sample, the inspector and I both stated it was meat purchased from the outside.



At that time, whenever a plant did have a recall, the USDA had to follow it up with 15 subsequent consecutive days of additional sampling. In the midst of that there were three consecutive days in which the samples collected by the inspector turned up positive for E. coli. Both the inspector and we observed that [the meat that tested positive] all came from ConAgra.



Now the battle was on.



The USDA intentionally hung me out to dry. They ignored the fact the bad meat I had had come from an outside plant. So, I had to make some changes to my HACCP plan. I made about 14 changes and they kept turning them down. It was probably unprecedented in the history of American inspection--14 changes all denied.



Finally, what happened is that the ConAgra plant that sold me this meat announced a 19 million pound recall. Well then, all of the sudden, overnight, the USDA accepted my changes and allowed me to grind again--but for four months I was not allowed to grind.



I came to realize real quickly how disingenuous they were. And I realized that if they could pull this off at my plant, obviously they could do it at all small plants across America. Secondly, I came to realize--I had two young grandkids at that time--that the USDA could really care less about the health of my grandkids.



So, when I came to those conclusions, I decided to fight them every inch of the way and to expose problems within the USDA's meat inspection program. I continue working on that to this day.



Q: You called the recent E. coli beef outbreaks out of New England "embarrassing..."



A: I say it's embarassing, because it should be embarassing to the USDA that, in spite of their "science-based" meat inspection program we have all these ongoing outbreaks and recalls. It should also be embarrassing to our industry.



It's been 11 year since the biggest packers implemented the HACCP program. You'd think that by this point the program would be maturing and paying dividends, but in fact it's going the opposite direction.



We've got to finally realize that the consuming pubic are going to see through this--this façade. At times I wonder if the word "embarrassing" is not the right word. The overarching, more important concern is food safety and sick consumers and people who are dying.



People are dying. A lot of people are getting sick, this should be an embarrassment to this industry, and to the USDA.



Q: Have you been keeping up on the media attention on meat safety--in the New York Times, Larry King Live, Time, etc?



A: Yes, I keep up on all that. A great many people read [the New York Times article] and the big players in our industry shot it down.



Unfortunately, Michael Moss hit the nail on the head. We do have ongoing problems. The USDA is not the least bit concerned about going to the root of the problem, and getting the source to clean up their act.



USDA is much more willing to go down to your local Safeway store--which unwillingly inherits previously contaminated meat--the USDA is much more likely to throw its enforcement hammer against the destination of previously contaminated meat instead of going to the source, which is these big multinational packers.



Q: What is the root of the problem--do you think there is a tension at USDA between promoting the industry and protecting the consumer?



A: Have you heard of the term "agency capture"? That's the terminology used to describe the situation in which a government regulatory agency is captured by the very industry that it supposedly regulates. That is precisely what has happened here.



I contend that the agency has been captured by, is controlled by, big packer interests. The revolving door certainly is also detrimental to the cause of public health.



There is a direct conflict between promoting agricultural products and regulating the industry that creates those products.



If indeed a big packer produces some bad meat, the USDA is less likely to take aggressive steps against that big packer. And you know, let's just face it--the big packers get bigger all the time. Probably five years ago it was stated that 80 percent of the feedlot cattle in this country--feedlot fattened steers and heifers--80 percent were slaughtered by the top four companies. Now its 88 percent.



The big get bigger, the small get smaller, and go out of business.



Q: You've been very vocal about your belief that HACCP [Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points] systems employed by the meat industry are 'a hoax.' If you were writing the meat safety rules, what would they look like?



A: Number one, HACCP was advertised as being science-based, and it is not. HACCP was designed by Pillsbury 20-30 years ago. They were making fully-cooked, ready-to-eat food for the astronaut program and it had to be guaranteed safe. Well, those were highly-processed, fully-cooked ready-to-eat-foods--the pathogens would be cooked out--they all had a real "kill step."



Well, the USDA saw the HACCP program and thought, 'Gee, that sounds really good. Lets apply that meat inspection.' The problem is the vast majority of what we process in meat plants is not fully-cooked, ready-to-eat, it is raw.



The USDA shouldn't use the term HACCP unless the products they are working with are fully cooked.



Number two, when the agency required the industry to implement HACCP, the agency said that under the program the USDA's role would be hands-off. That is an absolute disaster.



The USDA cannot be hands-off.



Under the transition to HACCP, the USDA knowingly acquiesced its authority back to the industry. It's an absolute disaster waiting to happen.




The natural long-term consequences of the agency adopting a hands-off, non-involvement role is ongoing outbreaks and recurring recalls all the time now.



HACCP cannot work in the raw meat industry.



I really think that meat inspection should be moved from the USDA, and that a separate agency should be created to perform inspection of not only meat and poultry but also produce, which is currently assigned to the FDA.



Q: Lets talk about the point of contamination. Where in the supply chain should we be focused? If the downstream processors are punished for contaminated meat, how would you solve that problem?



A: We know that Salmonella and E. coli are enteric, which means it is being introduced into the food stream at the slaughterhouse.



I think it makes obvious sense for the USDA to increase their inspection of and sampling at the slaughter plants. And when they find problems there, they need to force the source plants to clean up their act. Unfortunately the agency's primary focus now is at the downstream plants.



They are so intentionally deceptive. The USDA says downstream plants should put pressure on source or slaughter providers to ship them consistently safer meat. Well, these downstream plants have no power. They cannot control the wholesomeness of the meat they receive from the big packers, nor can they put pressure on them.



It would be my suggestion that the USDA implement a horrendous increase in the amount of samples that the agency collects at the originating slaughter plants, and that the results of all those tests should be made available to the public. My contention is that, within two weeks, the whole world would know which slaughter plants are noncompliant and have a high percentage of positive tests.



Q: Since you are so familiar with meat processing, I really want to dig into this issue about how to prevent contamination--you sent me an email about CAFOs (Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations), and their right to exist. In a concentrated feedlot you're going to have animals covered in feces, that is just the reality, but isn't that part of the problem, that the animals are so filthy?



A: In our facility, we were very small, we would kill maybe 15 to 20 beef in one day is all. We were not automated. The big plants, the maximum speed they are allowed is 390 head per hour.



Q: Have you been to one of these big plants?



A: Mhmm. It's amazing how automated and how fast they are. I'm not criticizing them--I'm just saying, it's part of the American dream, you know to be highly automated. Because of the fact that the carcasses are going down the line so quickly, it appears to me that neither the USDA, nor the employees of the packing plant have an adequate amount of time to inspect those carcasses, and in fact that is part of the whole ideal of HACCP is that--you know, everyone admits that those big packers are leaving hair and fecal matter on carcasses--but at the big plants they have implemented certain interventions. For example, they will spray lactic acid on the carcasses, or steam vacuum them. The industry claims these are 100 percent safe and successful, well obviously it's not safe enough.



E. coli exists in cattle naturally--and maybe 20 percent have the bad kind of E. coli in their gut. So in the CAFOS, all those animals in there shed their manure and then roll around and sleep in each other's manure--in fact in the spring when the ice melts they really are living in a pathogen soup--they are sharing each other's pathogens.



For right now, we need to put a lot of emphasis on finding vaccines.



But lets just say a vaccine removes 90 percent of the bad E. coli, well what about the remaining 10 percent? Whose responsibility is it that the bad E. coli doesn't end up in raw meat? Well, that still then falls on the slaughterhouse. The slaughterhouses are not doing an adequate job of preventing cross-contamination.



It might mean that they have to slow down their chain speeds, and they have to put more people on the line, whatever is necessary.



Obviously the interventions they have now do not remove all the pathogens, so I say until they can come up with interventions that do, they need to slow down chain speeds.



The bottom line is they need to test more often and find out where those problems are and how to fix them.



foodsafetynews.com
 

Tex

Well-known member
Munsel is right and there are some in the USDA who should have to fall on their sword. Unfortunately they parade around with no embarrassment at all. There will be no change if the industry keeps controlling the USDA and a change of a few people at the top will not do it. There are too many career bureaucrats who have been involved in the government sell out to the big players in the meat industry. These people have to be ferreted out or it will just happen again with the next administration that thinks they can sell out their regulatory duties because some war or some other looming threat captures the media and politician's gaze while big money buys the politicians it needs.

We have a real problem with the government not working. It will be real hard to change that culture without changing those in the culture. I can think of some foreign assignments some of these people in government should be assigned helping Afghanistan get a viable agriculture base going. There should be a big sign over their building in Afghanistan that says "US Dept. of Agriculture" just so everyone knows where to find them.

Tex
 
Top