E-coli From Slaughterhouse--Brand Names

[Econ101]

State officials say E. coli outbreak from beef has ended



The Examiner

Apr 24, 2007 12:52 PM (8 hrs ago)

Associated P ress



MERCED, Calif. (Map, News) - An E. coli outbreak believed to have sickened at least three children who ate year-old hamburger patties has apparently ended, state health officials said.



Officials have not pinpointed the source of the E. coli bacteria discovered in patties distributed by Richwood Meat Co. Inc. of Merced, but with no new cases reported, the outbreak is now considered over, said Patti Roberts, a spokeswoman for the California Department of Health Services.



Three Little League baseball players became ill after eating concession-stand hamburgers in Napa County, public health officials said.



Richwood issued a voluntary recall Friday of more than 100,000 pounds of frozen and bulk ground beef sold throughout the West under the brands Fireriver, Chef's Pride, Ritz Food, Blackwood Farms, California Pacific Associates, C&C Distributing, Golbon and Richwood.



The company blamed the contamination on the slaughterhouse that processed the meat in April 2006. Richwood receives raw, boneless meat from suppliers and turns it into hamburger patties and other products.



Tests on the children and meat taken from the concession stand will be completed Wednesday, said Mike Bowman, spokesman for the Department of Health Services.



E. coli infection causes abdominal cramps and diarrhea, and typically resolves itself in five to 10 days. Complications can arise in young children, the elderly and people with weak immune systems.



---



Information from: Merced Sun-Star, http://www.mercedsun-star.com



examiner.com

 

[Econ101]

I think this article points to several problems in our country's quest to provide safe food to consumers.

The first thing that comes to mind is that the meat recalled included 100,000 lbs. That is a lot of meat. We continuous process way too much meat in this country. Although it is cheap to process this way, it takes the contamination on one carcass and has the chance to magnify it to much larger volumes.

The second thing that comes to mind is that this ground beef, which was obtained in ground form from the slaughterhouse, was put into quite a few different brand names. There are so many brand names out there for the same product, that brand names really have no safety significance. There are endless names to be used. This was apparent in the widening melamine issue. If there really is no difference in the brand names, there is a false sense of quality that can be sold to customers fraudulently. The same ingredients are being bought and sold to premium to discount products. Packer propaganda that espouses different brands controlling quality instead of regulations that make the truth come out are just legal frauds to consumers.

The third thing that comes to mind is that the ground beef, which came from the slaughter house (although it can not be tested after leaving the slaughter house) does not get traced back to the slaughter house where the contamination occurred. This article mentions the brand names, which can be changed easily, but does not mention the slaughter house which is alleged to be the original source of contamination. That hides the problem. Changing brand names is much easier than changing production methods or having accountability in the slaughterhouse. Slaughter houses should not be protected in this manner because they can't be held accountable.

The fourth thing that comes to mind is the absence of the ecoli eradication plan that MRJ says the NCBA has pushed to help the industry. Why should checkoff dollars be spent on helping packers do their job especially when the industry works very hard to make sure there is no accountability to the source of contamination? Producers should not subsidize the packers with their checkoff money--especially when it isn't even working.

 

[PORKER]

There are endless names to be used. This was apparent in the widening melamine issue. If there really is no difference in the brand names, there is a false sense of quality that can be sold to customers fraudulently.

When a name doesn,t sell ,Name another ! Got a problem ,Name another !

 

[Radar]

What I find confounding, is that there was only 1 site where contamination was detected. I may be wrong on that, but that is only what I have seen from reports

Mulitple sites and mutliple sickness would suggest that the pathogen was present and proliferated somewhere in the fabrication and distribution process.

Having detected O157 at this one site would suggest that the party(s) responsible for preparation of the product may have been more responsible for disemination of O157 as opposed to the product already containing the pathogen.

 

[Econ101]

What I find confounding, is that there was only 1 site where contamination was detected. I may be wrong on that, but that is only what I have seen from reports

Mulitple sites and mutliple sickness would suggest that the pathogen was present and proliferated somewhere in the fabrication and distribution process.

Having detected O157 at this one site would suggest that the party(s) responsible for preparation of the product may have been more responsible for disemination of O157 as opposed to the product already containing the pathogen.

Good point, Radar. I don't really know the details of the traceback but there might not have been enough samples taken on the raw meat. If I am not mistaken, ecoli can be cooked and rendered unharmful.

FDA Consumer: January/February 1994

How to Outsmart Dangerous E. Coli Strain

by Judith E. Foulke


Scientists have recently identified a rare but dangerous type of
the Escherichia coli bacterium. Most E. coli are harmless
inhabitants of the intestinal tract, but this variant, called E.
coli O157:H7, produces toxins in the human gut that are capable
of deadly damage.

On Jan. 13, 1993, a physician in Washington state reported a
cluster of children with hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS), the
major cause of acute kidney failure in children in this country.
There was also an increase in emergency room visits for bloody
diarrhea in people of all ages.

Laboratory tests from the stools of infected patients showed E.
coli O157:H7. Most infected people had eaten hamburgers from
local restaurants of Jack-in-the-Box, a nationwide fast food
chain.

Health officials investigated the illness reports and traced the
meat in the hamburger patties to one processing plant but were
not able to determine the source of the meat. Investigators also
discovered that the patties had been undercooked at the
restaurant. Thorough cooking would have killed the bacteria, but
live, they were free to do their damage.

Reports of illness continued to mount and by the end of February,
three children in Washington state and one other in California
had died of HUS complications. More than 500 people from
Washington, Idaho, California, and Nevada had laboratory-confirmed
E. coli O157:H7 infections. Of those, more than 50 people had been
infected by person-to-person contact with someone who had eaten the
contaminated hamburgers.

To find out if ecoli was in the uncooked meat, it would have had to be tested before being cooked, not found out after someone gets sick.

Ecoli could have come from the meat (in this case they thought it did) or from unsanitary workers anywhere along the food chain. I would think they knew it came from the meat to call for a recall. Unfortunately there is not enough information to come up with your conclusion, although if more information was obtained, it might be more valid. The data is just not there in the article.

The re-processors can not re test meat from the packers and therefore can not put the blame on the packers when they could be the source. They can not refuse the meat purchase based on information from testing for the quality. This is as much a legal strategy so the packer can not be held accountable as anything. This is what needs to change.