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

E-Coli Not Traced to Packer--Need More Info.

Econ101

Well-known member
Stop & Shop faces food-poisoning lawsuit



Boston Business Journal

July 10, 2006



A New Hampshire couple has filed a personal injury lawsuit against supermarket chain Stop & Shop, alleging that their 8-year-old son was poisoned by E. coli after eating ground beef purchased at a store in Manchester, N.H.



No one from Stop & Shop, a division of Royal Ahold, was immediately available for comment.



The lawsuit against the Quincy, Mass.-based chain was filed July 6 in federal court in Concord, N.H. The parents, John and Christina Tsirovakas of Epsom, are being represented by Seattle law firm Marler Clark.



According to Marler Clark, the Tsirovakases' son Eric was stricken by E. coli and hospitalized in September 2005. The family accumulated medical bills of over $100,000, Marler Clark said.





bizjournals.com

What if it was you or your child?

Should meat plant inspections be carried out and should the results be posted just as Health Inspections on resturaunts are? In our area the news even posts these health inspection scores on the newscast occasionally. Should we trust the HACCP test yourself method with no results of independent government oversight?

What if it was your child?

The possiblility exists that this particular strain of ecoli did not come from the packer but came from the local store or from anyone in the food chain that did not follow proper food handling procedures. How will we know it did not come from the packer if we do not do independent testing? Should we have the don't ask, don't tell policy by the USDA food safety regulators?

How many food recalls were not recalled completely?
 

Mike

Well-known member
How many food recalls were not recalled completely?

The Hudson foods E-Coli recall was certainly recalled completely. Tyson saw to it so they could buy them at a bargain basement price. :shock:


http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=14324
 

mrj

Well-known member
E Coli can also come from the parents or anyone handling the food in the home. It can come from child to child contact in playgrounds, and other person to person contact. Not eveyone who carries the germ gets ill from it.

E Coli can also come from vegetables.

E Coli is a fact of nature. Proper handwashing, and separation of utensils, equipment, etc. used before cooking and after cooking, proper cooking temperatures will eliminate the problem.

Econ, you need to check the FACTS on HACCP, without your usual twist of mind to the conspiracy side. FACT: the incidences of e coli and other foodborne illnesses have dropped dramatically since HASCCP and other INDUSTRY (meaning packers, retailers, and producers) partnering to make beef safer.

How many people reading this would rather rely on the old "Look, See, Smell" system of inspection than the HACCP with it's science backed testing and other protocols in the plant WITH INSPECTORS ON SITE?

MRJ
 

Econ101

Well-known member
MRJ said:
E Coli can also come from the parents or anyone handling the food in the home. It can come from child to child contact in playgrounds, and other person to person contact. Not eveyone who carries the germ gets ill from it.

E Coli can also come from vegetables.

E Coli is a fact of nature. Proper handwashing, and separation of utensils, equipment, etc. used before cooking and after cooking, proper cooking temperatures will eliminate the problem.

Econ, you need to check the FACTS on HACCP, without your usual twist of mind to the conspiracy side. FACT: the incidences of e coli and other foodborne illnesses have dropped dramatically since HASCCP and other INDUSTRY (meaning packers, retailers, and producers) partnering to make beef safer.

How many people reading this would rather rely on the old "Look, See, Smell" system of inspection than the HACCP with it's science backed testing and other protocols in the plant WITH INSPECTORS ON SITE?

MRJ

MRJ, I posted FACTS on the industry's inability to regulate themselves.

The meat industry is trying to reduce the ability of anyone tracing ecoli and salmonella to them to reduce their potential liability.

I know ecoli and salmonella are on my and your skin right now. The danger is not in those "bugs" for food poisoning because it takes time for them to do their "dirty work" on food. When food comes from the meat packer, this is not the case. The food distribution process may provide the opportunity for growth if it comes from the processor because of time and conditions.

Go read the article I posted on "Processors Put Consumers at Risk With Self Regulation".

I applaud the beef industry's job on ecoli. It can be a minimized risk but there needs to be some accountability. HACCP has to have the accountability or its success can not be properly measured.

Please do a little research before you critisize my comments. You might see they have some validity.
 

ranch hand

Well-known member
Why resistance to COOL



John W. Munsell

Manager, Foundation for Accountability in Regulatory Enforcement

Opinion

July 12, 2006

Miles City, Montana

US



I agree with Tom Buis' statements in his article entitled "USDA needs to keep pressure on Japan" in the 7-11-06 Livestock Brief. He referred to Country of Origin Labeling, to which I'd like to refer.



USDA spokesman Ed Loyd recently stated "South Korea does not want to receive Canadian beef mixed in with U.S. imports, which he described as a "pretty minor" issue that can be easily remedied" [BNA -- Delay in U.S. Beef Exports to South Korea Will Be Resolved 'Within Weeks,' USDA Says -- By Derrick Cain]. Mr. Loyd merely stated a fact well known by the USDA and packers, and that is that product separation and distinction between Canadian meat and American meat can be easily remedied. Admittedly, packer production costs would be minimally increased, which will automatically be passed on to the consumer, with no deleterious impact on packer profits. So, why does USDA downplay COOL and claim that billions will be required to implement it, and why do the major packers and their associations oppose COOL?



The answer is directly tied to Secretary Johanns' mandate last week that our foreign trading partners must agree to an "All or Nothing" trade agreement, which prevents our global customers from delisting individual noncompliant American plants. The ultimate goal is to create a global, seamless production/marketing meat scheme in which any meat plant in any country which has implemented HACCP will be allowed to export meat globally, with no fear of being delisted in spite of recurring noncompliance’s with OIE "science based" trade protocol.



Are consumers safe in assuming that all plants on this globe (or even in America?) will permanently comply with safe food production practices? Even FSIS admits that plants don't always comply with their HACCP plans. In an article authored by Bernard Shire in Meat & Poultry on June 1, 2006, Dr. Daniel Engeljohn, FSIS deputy assistant administrator for policy analysis and formulation made some startling (and true) statements. The article states..."Last year, for the first time, Salmonella rates rose in the beef and pork side of the industry. The agency doesn't really know why it has increased, according to Engeljohn". Dr. Engeljohn is quoted as saying "We suspect that the HACCP plans being used both in the meat and poultry industries are designed to deal with Salmonella, but that some plants, for whatever reasons, aren't doing it". The article also stated "Plans are being carried out with carelessness, he (Engeljohn) adds. Just because there's something in the [HACCP] plan doesn't mean it always happens".



Why doesn't FSIS aggressively implement enforcement actions against American plants which the agency knows are not doing what their HACCP plans require? Frankly, because the agency doesn't know about these noncompliance’s. Why? Because the agency's stance under the HACCP environment (by its own admission) is "Hands Off", while the agency from its remote position blithely instructs the plants to police themselves. 100 years ago the Federal Meat Inspection Act was written because plants were NOT policing themselves. In less than 100 years, USDA turned about face and now trusts plants to police themselves, while Dr. Engeljohn's statements constitute an official agency admission that self-policing is not working as theoretically envisioned.



Our trading partners know that this conundrum exists in America, which is one reason why they impose purchase specifications which are greater than OIE's trade protocol.



The large multinational meat conglomerates understandably prefer an indistinct, amorphous, global soup of non-distinguishable meat which cannot be traced to its origin. If one country experiences a shortage of livestock, and livestock prices increase, a multinational corporation merely increases production at one of its other plants across the globe to fill the supply void with cheaper livestock. In the absence of COOL, consumers everywhere have no idea where their meat originated.



Congress has passed COOL, but now refuses to fund the law, having buckled under pressure from the large packers and a recalcitrant USDA. If Congress had provided necessary funding, and if USDA had allowed enterprising packers such as Creekstone Farms and Gateway Beef Cooperative to perform voluntary 100% BSE testing (although it's not scientifically justified), American producers and packers would have been shipping beef products to the Pacific Rim for years.



For the sake of producers, consumers and our balance of trade, it's time for USDA to heartily endorse COOL, 100% BSE testing and other customer requirements. Packer profits will not suffer, because all costs will be automatically passed on to consumers, which is how it must be.



Countries have the sovereign right to establish their own purchase requirements, even though they may exceed the minimum standards (and definitions of "science") established by OIE and WTO. If we desire to sell beef to Japan, South Korea et al, all we must do is simply meet their requirements, which our flexible free enterprise system has always been able to accomplish, previously. Artificial constraints imposed by USDA have removed the flexibility America needs to fulfill foreign demands.



Tom Buis' concluding sentence is right on the money when he stated "I truly hope the USDA does everything possible to meet with Japanese demands, as U.S. producers are ready to export our high-quality product to them". Producers are not only capable, but also willing to segregate their livestock, provide animal ID, even produce natural, hormone free or certified grass fed animals in order to meet a wide variety of non-standardized consumer desires. The OIE and WTO cannot dictate which consumer demands are science-based, because consumers base their purchases on personal preferences, oftentimes totally disassociated from scientific underpinnings. You prefer a Ford, I prefer a Dodge. You demand one color, I another. You prefer a steak cut 3/4", I prefer 1 1/4". You prefer Angus or Hereford, I prefer Piedmontese.



The sale of organic meats surged 55% last year, in spite of its higher cost. Wal-Mart recently announced its intention to market organic foods, in spite of its higher cost. Japanese have expressed their willingness to pay a higher price for beef which has undergone 100% BSE testing. When domestic and foreign consumers are willing to pay a premium price for products they PERCEIVE to be superior, USDA has no business imposing artificial restraints to trade and hide behind OIE's scientific skirt.



Producers are willing to provide products in demand, and consumers are willing to pay the going price. The only components dragging their feet are the USDA and the multinational packers. Markets can only be opened when seller and buyer come to an agreement, which is currently forbidden by biased USDA policies. Time for a change!





Source: John W. Munsell, Manager, Foundation for Accountability in Regulatory Enforcement
 
Top