• 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 Path Shows Flaws in Beef Inspection

Texan

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
3,233
Location
Texas
This is a little bit long, but an interesting read from the Sunday New York Times. It won't come as any surprise to most of us here.

=======================================


October 4, 2009
E. Coli Path Shows Flaws in Beef Inspection
By MICHAEL MOSS

Stephanie Smith, a children's dance instructor, thought she had a stomach virus. The aches and cramping were tolerable that first day, and she finished her classes.

Then her diarrhea turned bloody. Her kidneys shut down. Seizures knocked her unconscious. The convulsions grew so relentless that doctors had to put her in a coma for nine weeks. When she emerged, she could no longer walk. The affliction had ravaged her nervous system and left her paralyzed.

Ms. Smith, 22, was found to have a severe form of food-borne illness caused by E. coli, which Minnesota officials traced to the hamburger that her mother had grilled for their Sunday dinner in early fall 2007.

"I ask myself every day, 'Why me?' and 'Why from a hamburger?' "Ms. Smith said. In the simplest terms, she ran out of luck in a food-safety game of chance whose rules and risks are not widely known.

Meat companies and grocers have been barred from selling ground beef tainted by the virulent strain of E. coli known as O157:H7 since 1994, after an outbreak at Jack in the Box restaurants left four children dead. Yet tens of thousands of people are still sickened annually by this pathogen, federal health officials estimate, with hamburger being the biggest culprit. Ground beef has been blamed for 16 outbreaks in the last three years alone, including the one that left Ms. Smith paralyzed from the waist down. This summer, contamination led to the recall of beef from nearly 3,000 grocers in 41 states.

Ms. Smith's reaction to the virulent strain of E. coli was extreme, but tracing the story of her burger, through interviews and government and corporate records obtained by The New York Times, shows why eating ground beef is still a gamble. Neither the system meant to make the meat safe, nor the meat itself, is what consumers have been led to believe.

Ground beef is usually not simply a chunk of meat run through a grinder. Instead, records and interviews show, a single portion of hamburger meat is often an amalgam of various grades of meat from different parts of cows and even from different slaughterhouses. These cuts of meat are particularly vulnerable to E. coli contamination, food experts and officials say. Despite this, there is no federal requirement for grinders to test their ingredients for the pathogen.

The frozen hamburgers that the Smiths ate, which were made by the food giant Cargill, were labeled "American Chef's Selection Angus Beef Patties." Yet confidential grinding logs and other Cargill records show that the hamburgers were made from a mix of slaughterhouse trimmings and a mash-like product derived from scraps that were ground together at a plant in Wisconsin. The ingredients came from slaughterhouses in Nebraska, Texas and Uruguay, and from a South Dakota company that processes fatty trimmings and treats them with ammonia to kill bacteria.

Using a combination of sources — a practice followed by most large producers of fresh and packaged hamburger — allowed Cargill to spend about 25 percent less than it would have for cuts of whole meat.

Those low-grade ingredients are cut from areas of the cow that are more likely to have had contact with feces, which carries E. coli, industry research shows. Yet Cargill, like most meat companies, relies on its suppliers to check for the bacteria and does its own testing only after the ingredients are ground together. The United States Department of Agriculture, which allows grinders to devise their own safety plans, has encouraged them to test ingredients first as a way of increasing the chance of finding contamination.

Unwritten agreements between some companies appear to stand in the way of ingredient testing. Many big slaughterhouses will sell only to grinders who agree not to test their shipments for E. coli, according to officials at two large grinding companies. Slaughterhouses fear that one grinder's discovery of E. coli will set off a recall of ingredients they sold to others.

"Ground beef is not a completely safe product," said Dr. Jeffrey Bender, a food safety expert at the University of Minnesota who helped develop systems for tracing E. coli contamination. He said that while outbreaks had been on the decline, "unfortunately it looks like we are going a bit in the opposite direction."

Food scientists have registered increasing concern about the virulence of this pathogen since only a few stray cells can make someone sick, and they warn that federal guidance to cook meat thoroughly and to wash up afterward is not sufficient. A test by The Times found that the safe handling instructions are not enough to prevent the bacteria from spreading in the kitchen.

Cargill, whose $116.6 billion in revenues last year made it the country's largest private company, declined requests to interview company officials or visit its facilities. "Cargill is not in a position to answer your specific questions, other than to state that we are committed to continuous improvement in the area of food safety," the company said, citing continuing litigation.

The meat industry treats much of its practices and the ingredients in ground beef as trade secrets. While the Department of Agriculture has inspectors posted in plants and has access to production records, it also guards those secrets. Federal records released by the department through the Freedom of Information Act blacked out details of Cargill's grinding operation that could be learned only through copies of the documents obtained from other sources. Those documents illustrate the restrained approach to enforcement by a department whose missions include ensuring meat safety and promoting agriculture markets.

Within weeks of the Cargill outbreak in 2007, U.S.D.A. officials swept across the country, conducting spot checks at 224 meat plants to assess their efforts to combat E. coli. Although inspectors had been monitoring these plants all along, officials found serious problems at 55 that were failing to follow their own safety plans.

"Every time we look, we find out that things are not what we hoped they would be," said Loren D. Lange, an executive associate in the Agriculture Department's food safety division.

In the weeks before Ms. Smith's patty was made, federal inspectors had repeatedly found that Cargill was violating its own safety procedures in handling ground beef, but they imposed no fines or sanctions, records show. After the outbreak, the department threatened to withhold the seal of approval that declares "U.S. Inspected and Passed by the Department of Agriculture."

In the end, though, the agency accepted Cargill's proposal to increase its scrutiny of suppliers. That agreement came early last year after contentious negotiations, records show. When Cargill defended its safety system and initially resisted making some changes, an agency official wrote back: "How is food safety not the ultimate issue?"

The Risk

On Aug. 16, 2007, the day Ms. Smith's hamburger was made, the No.3 grinder at the Cargill plant in Butler, Wis., started up at 6:50 a.m. The largest ingredient was beef trimmings known as "50/50" — half fat, half meat — that cost about 60 cents a pound, making them the cheapest component.

Cargill bought these trimmings — fatty edges sliced from better cuts of meat — from Greater Omaha Packing, where some 2,600 cattle are slaughtered daily and processed in a plant the size of four football fields.

As with other slaughterhouses, the potential for contamination is present every step of the way, according to workers and federal inspectors. The cattle often arrive with smears of feedlot feces that harbor the E. coli pathogen, and the hide must be removed carefully to keep it off the meat. This is especially critical for trimmings sliced from the outer surface of the carcass.

Federal inspectors based at the plant are supposed to monitor the hide removal, but much can go wrong. Workers slicing away the hide can inadvertently spread feces to the meat, and large clamps that hold the hide during processing sometimes slip and smear the meat with feces, the workers and inspectors say.

Greater Omaha vacuums and washes carcasses with hot water and lactic acid before sending them to the cutting floor. But these safeguards are not foolproof.

"As the trimmings are going down the processing line into combos or boxes, no one is inspecting every single piece," said one federal inspector who monitored Greater Omaha and requested anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly.

The E. coli risk is also present at the gutting station, where intestines are removed, the inspector said

Every five seconds or so, half of a carcass moves into the meat-cutting side of the slaughterhouse, where trimmers said they could keep up with the flow unless they spot any remaining feces.

"We would step in and stop the line, and do whatever you do to take it off," said Esley Adams, a former supervisor who said he was fired this summer after 16 years following a dispute over sick leave. "But that doesn't mean everything was caught."

Two current employees said the flow of carcasses keeps up its torrid pace even when trimmers get reassigned, which increases pressure on workers. To protest one such episode, the employees said, dozens of workers walked off the job for a few hours earlier this year. Last year, workers sued Greater Omaha, alleging that they were not paid for the time they need to clean contaminants off their knives and other gear before and after their shifts. The company is contesting the lawsuit.

Greater Omaha did not respond to repeated requests to interview company officials. In a statement, a company official said Greater Omaha had a "reputation for embracing new food safety technology and utilizing science to make the safest product possible."

The Trimmings

In making hamburger meat, grinders aim for a specific fat content — 26.6 percent in the lot that Ms. Smith's patty came from, company records show. To offset Greater Omaha's 50/50 trimmings, Cargill added leaner material from three other suppliers.

Records show that some came from a Texas slaughterhouse, Lone Star Beef Processors, which specializes in dairy cows and bulls too old to be fattened in feedlots. In a form letter dated two days before Ms. Smith's patty was made, Lone Star recounted for Cargill its various safety measures but warned "to this date there is no guarantee for pathogen-free raw material and we would like to stress the importance of proper handling of all raw products."

Ms. Smith's burger also contained trimmings from a slaughterhouse in Uruguay, where government officials insist that they have never found E. coli O157:H7 in meat. Yet audits of Uruguay's meat operations conducted by the U.S.D.A. have found sanitation problems, including improper testing for the pathogen. Dr. Hector J. Lazaneo, a meat safety official in Uruguay, said the problems were corrected immediately. "Everything is fine, finally," he said. "That is the reason we are exporting."

Cargill's final source was a supplier that turns fatty trimmings into what it calls "fine lean textured beef." The company, Beef Products Inc., said it bought meat that averages between 50 percent and 70 percent fat, including "any small pieces of fat derived from the normal breakdown of the beef carcass." It warms the trimmings, removes the fat in a centrifuge and treats the remaining product with ammonia to kill E. coli.

With seven million pounds produced each week, the company's product is widely used in hamburger meat sold by grocers and fast-food restaurants and served in the federal school lunch program. Ten percent of Ms. Smith's burger came from Beef Products, which charged Cargill about $1.20 per pound, or 20 cents less than the lean trimmings in the burger, billing records show.

An Iowa State University study financed by Beef Products found that ammonia reduces E. coli to levels that cannot be detected. The Department of Agriculture accepted the research as proof that the treatment was effective and safe. And Cargill told the agency after the outbreak that it had ruled out Beef Products as the possible source of contamination.

But federal school lunch officials found E. coli in Beef Products material in 2006 and 2008 and again in August, and stopped it from going to schools, according to Agriculture Department records and interviews. A Beef Products official, Richard Jochum, said that last year's contamination stemmed from a "minor change in our process," which the company adjusted. The company did not respond to questions about the latest finding.

In combining the ingredients, Cargill was following a common industry practice of mixing trim from various suppliers to hit the desired fat content for the least money, industry officials said.

In all, the ingredients for Ms. Smith's burger cost Cargill about $1 a pound, company records show, or about 30 cents less than industry experts say it would cost for ground beef made from whole cuts of meat.

Ground beef sold by most grocers is made from a blend of ingredients, industry officials said. Agriculture Department regulations also allow hamburger meat labeled ground chuck or sirloin to contain trimmings from those parts of the cow. At a chain like Publix Super Markets, customers who want hamburger made from whole cuts of meat have to buy a steak and have it specially ground, said a Publix spokeswoman, Maria Brous, or buy a product like Bubba Burgers, which boasts on its labeling, "100% whole muscle means no trimmings."

To finish off the Smiths' ground beef, Cargill added bread crumbs and spices, fashioned it into patties, froze them and packed them 18 to a carton.

The listed ingredients revealed little of how the meat was made. There was just one meat product listed: "Beef."

Tension Over Testing

As it fed ingredients into its grinders, Cargill watched for some unwanted elements. Using metal detectors, workers snagged stray nails and metal hooks that could damage the grinders, then warned suppliers to make sure it did not happen again.

But when it came to E. coli O157:H7, Cargill did not screen the ingredients and only tested once the grinding was done. The potential pitfall of this practice surfaced just weeks before Ms. Smith's patty was made. A company spot check in May 2007 found E. coli in finished hamburger, which Cargill disclosed to investigators in the wake of the October outbreak. But Cargill told them it could not determine which supplier had shipped the tainted meat since the ingredients had already been mixed together.

"Our finished ground products typically contain raw materials from numerous suppliers," Dr. Angela Siemens, the technical services vice president for Cargill's meat division, wrote to the U.S.D.A. "Consequently, it is not possible to implicate a specific supplier without first observing a pattern of potential contamination."

Testing has been a point of contention since the 1994 ban on selling ground beef contaminated with E. coli O157:H7 was imposed. The department moved to require some bacterial testing of ground beef, but the industry argued that the cost would unfairly burden small producers, industry officials said. The Agriculture Department opted to carry out its own tests for E. coli, but it acknowledges that its 15,000 spot checks a year at thousands of meat plants and groceries nationwide is not meant to be comprehensive. Many slaughterhouses and processors have voluntarily adopted testing regimes, yet they vary greatly in scope from plant to plant.

The retail giant Costco is one of the few big producers that tests trimmings for E. coli before grinding, a practice it adopted after a New York woman was sickened in 1998 by its hamburger meat, prompting a recall.

Craig Wilson, Costco's food safety director, said the company decided it could not rely on its suppliers alone. "It's incumbent upon us," he said. "If you say, 'Craig, this is what we've done,' I should be able to go, 'Cool, I believe you.' But I'm going to check."

Costco said it had found E. coli in foreign and domestic beef trimmings and pressured suppliers to fix the problem. But even Costco, with its huge buying power, said it had met resistance from some big slaughterhouses. "Tyson will not supply us," Mr. Wilson said. "They don't want us to test."

A Tyson spokesman, Gary Mickelson, would not respond to Costco's accusation, but said, "We do not and cannot" prohibit grinders from testing ingredients. He added that since Tyson tests samples of its trimmings, "we don't believe secondary testing by grinders is a necessity."

The food safety officer at American Foodservice, which grinds 365 million pounds of hamburger a year, said it stopped testing trimmings a decade ago because of resistance from slaughterhouses. "They would not sell to us," said Timothy P. Biela, the officer. "If I test and it's positive, I put them in a regulatory situation. One, I have to tell the government, and two, the government will trace it back to them. So we don't do that."

The surge in outbreaks since 2007 has led to finger-pointing within the industry.

Dennis R. Johnson, a lobbyist for the largest meat processors, has said that not all slaughterhouses are looking hard enough for contamination. He told U.S.D.A. officials last fall that those with aggressive testing programs typically find E. coli in as much as 1 percent to 2 percent of their trimmings, yet some slaughterhouses implicated in outbreaks had failed to find any.

At the same time, the meat processing industry has resisted taking the onus on itself. An Agriculture Department survey of more than 2,000 plants taken after the Cargill outbreak showed that half of the grinders did not test their finished ground beef for E. coli; only 6 percent said they tested incoming ingredients at least four times a year.

In October 2007, the agency issued a notice recommending that processors conduct at least a few tests a year to verify the testing done by slaughterhouses. But after resistance from the industry, the department allowed suppliers to run the verification checks on their own operations.

In August 2008, the U.S.D.A. issued a draft guideline again urging, but not ordering, processors to test ingredients before grinding. "Optimally, every production lot should be sampled and tested before leaving the supplier and again before use at the receiver," the draft guideline said.

But the department received critical comments on the guideline, which has not been made official. Industry officials said that the cost of testing could unfairly burden small processors and that slaughterhouses already test. In an October 2008 letter to the department, the American Association of Meat Processors said the proposed guideline departed from U.S.D.A.'s strategy of allowing companies to devise their own safety programs, "thus returning to more of the agency's 'command and control' mind-set."

Dr. Kenneth Petersen, an assistant administrator with the department's Food Safety and Inspection Service, said that the department could mandate testing, but that it needed to consider the impact on companies as well as consumers. "I have to look at the entire industry, not just what is best for public health," Dr. Petersen said.

Tracing the Illness

The Smiths were slow to suspect the hamburger. Ms. Smith ate a mostly vegetarian diet, and when she grew increasingly ill, her mother, Sharon, thought the cause might be spinach, which had been tied to a recent E. coli outbreak.

Five days after the family's Sunday dinner, Ms. Smith was admitted to St. Cloud Hospital in excruciating pain. "I've had women tell me that E. coli is more painful than childbirth," said Dr. Phillip I. Tarr, a pathogen expert at Washington University in St. Louis.

The vast majority of E. coli illnesses resolve themselves without complications, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Five percent to 10 percent develop into a condition called hemolytic uremic syndrome, which can affect kidney function. While most patients recover, in the worst cases, like Ms. Smith's, the toxin in E. coli O157:H7 penetrates the colon wall, damaging blood vessels and causing clots that can lead to seizures.

To control Ms. Smith's seizures, doctors put her in a coma and flew her to the Mayo Clinic, where doctors worked to save her.

"They didn't even think her brain would work because of the seizuring," her mother said. "Thanksgiving Day, I was sitting there holding her hand when a group of doctors came in, and one looked at me and just walked away, with nothing good to say. And I said, 'Oh my God, maybe this is my last Thanksgiving with her,' and I stayed and prayed."

Ms. Smith's illness was linked to the hamburger only by chance. Her aunt still had some of the frozen patties, and state health officials found that they were contaminated with a powerful strain of E. coli that was genetically identical to the pathogen that had sickened other Minnesotans.

Dr. Kirk Smith, who runs the state's food-borne illness outbreak group and is not related to Ms. Smith, was quick to finger the source. A 4-year-old had fallen ill three weeks earlier, followed by her year-old brother and two more children, state records show. Like Ms. Smith, the others had eaten Cargill patties bought at Sam's Club, a division of Wal-Mart.

Moreover, the state officials discovered that the hamburgers were made on the same day, Aug. 16, 2007, shortly before noon. The time stamp on the Smiths' box of patties was 11:58.

On Friday, Oct. 5, 2007, a Minnesota Health Department warning led local news broadcasts. "We didn't want people grilling these things over the weekend," Dr. Smith said. "I'm positive we prevented illnesses. People sent us dozens of cartons with patties left. It was pretty contaminated stuff."

Eventually, health officials tied 11 cases of illness in Minnesota to the Cargill outbreak, and altogether, federal health officials estimate that the outbreak sickened 940 people. Four of the 11 Minnesota victims developed hemolytic uremic syndrome — an usually high rate of serious complications.

In the wake of the outbreak, the U.S.D.A. reminded consumers on its Web site that hamburgers had to be cooked to 160 degrees to be sure any E. coli is killed and urged them to use a thermometer to check the temperature. This reinforced Sharon Smith's concern that she had sickened her daughter by not cooking the hamburger thoroughly.

But the pathogen is so powerful that her illness could have started with just a few cells left on a counter. "In a warm kitchen, E. coli cells will double every 45 minutes," said Dr. Mansour Samadpour, a microbiologist who runs IEH Laboratories in Seattle, one of the meat industry's largest testing firms.

With help from his laboratories, The Times prepared three pounds of ground beef dosed with a strain of E. coli that is nonharmful but acts in many ways like O157:H7. Although the safety instructions on the package were followed, E. coli remained on the cutting board even after it was washed with soap. A towel picked up large amounts of bacteria from the meat.

Dr. James Marsden, a meat safety expert at Kansas State University and senior science adviser for the North American Meat Processors Association, said the Department of Agriculture needed to issue better guidance on avoiding cross-contamination, like urging people to use bleach to sterilize cutting boards. "Even if you are a scientist, much less a housewife with a child, it's very difficult," Dr. Marsden said.

Told of The Times's test, Jerold R. Mande, the deputy under secretary for food safety at the U.S.D.A., said he planned to "look very carefully at the labels that we oversee."

"They need to provide the right information to people," Mr. Mande said, "in a way that is readable and actionable."

Dead Ends

With Ms. Smith lying comatose in the hospital and others ill around the country, Cargill announced on Oct. 6, 2007, that it was recalling 844,812 pounds of patties. The mix of ingredients in the burgers made it almost impossible for either federal officials or Cargill to trace the contamination to a specific slaughterhouse. Yet after the outbreak, Cargill had new incentives to find out which supplier had sent the tainted meat.

Cargill got hit by multimillion-dollar claims from people who got sick.

Shawn K. Stevens, a lawyer in Milwaukee working for Cargill, began investigating. Sifting through state health department records from around the nation, Mr. Stevens found the case of a young girl in Hawaii stricken with the same E. coli found in the Cargill patties. But instead of a Cargill burger, she had eaten raw minced beef at a Japanese restaurant that Mr. Stevens said he traced through a distributor to Greater Omaha.

"Potentially, it could let Cargill shift all the responsibility," Mr. Stevens said. In March, he sent his findings to William Marler, a lawyer in Seattle who specializes in food-borne disease cases and is handling the claims against Cargill.

"Most of the time, in these outbreaks, it's not unusual when I point the finger at somebody, they try to point the finger at somebody else," Mr. Marler said. But he said Mr. Stevens's finding "doesn't rise to the level of proof that I need" to sue Greater Omaha.

It is unclear whether Cargill presented the Hawaii findings to Greater Omaha, since neither company would comment on the matter. In December 2007, in a move that Greater Omaha said was unrelated to the outbreak, the slaughterhouse informed Cargill that it had taken 16 "corrective actions" to better protect consumers from E. coli "as we strive to live up to the performance standards required in the continuation of supplier relationship with Cargill."

Those changes included better monitoring of the production line, more robust testing for E. coli, intensified plant sanitation and added employee training.

The U.S.D.A. efforts to find the ultimate source of the contamination went nowhere. Officials examined production records of Cargill's three domestic suppliers, but they yielded no clues. The Agriculture Department contacted Uruguayan officials, who said they found nothing amiss in the slaughterhouse there.

In examining Cargill, investigators discovered that their own inspectors had lodged complaints about unsanitary conditions at the plant in the weeks before the outbreak, but that they had failed to set off any alarms within the department. Inspectors had found "large amounts of patties on the floor," grinders that were gnarly with old bits of meat, and a worker who routinely dumped inedible meat on the floor close to a production line, records show.

Although none were likely to have caused the contamination, federal officials said the conditions could have exacerbated the spread of bacteria. Cargill vowed to correct the problems. Dr. Petersen, the federal food safety official, said the department was working to make sure violations are tracked so they can be used "in real time to take action."

The U.S.D.A. found that Cargill had not followed its own safety program for controlling E. coli. For example, Cargill was supposed to obtain a certificate from each supplier showing that their tests had found no E. coli. But Cargill did not have a certificate for the Uruguayan trimmings used on the day it made the burgers that sickened Ms. Smith and others.

After four months of negotiations, Cargill agreed to increase its scrutiny of suppliers and their testing, including audits and periodic checks to determine the accuracy of their laboratories.

A recent industry test in which spiked samples of meat were sent to independent laboratories used by food companies found that some missed the E. coli in as many as 80 percent of the samples.

Cargill also said it would notify suppliers whenever it found E. coli in finished ground beef, so they could check their facilities. It also agreed to increase testing of finished ground beef, according to a U.S.D.A. official familiar with the company's operations, but would not test incoming ingredients.

Looking to the Future

The spate of outbreaks in the last three years has increased pressure on the Agriculture Department and the industry.

James H. Hodges, executive vice president of the American Meat Institute, a trade association, said that while the outbreaks were disconcerting, they followed several years during which there were fewer incidents. "Are we perfect?" he said. "No. But what we have done is to show some continual improvement."

Dr. Petersen, the U.S.D.A. official, said the department had adopted additional procedures, including enhanced testing at slaughterhouses implicated in outbreaks and better training for investigators.

"We are not standing still when it comes to E. coli," Dr. Petersen said.

The department has held a series of meetings since the recent outbreaks, soliciting ideas from all quarters. Dr. Samadpour, the laboratory owner, has said that "we can make hamburger safe," but that in addition to enhanced testing, it will take an aggressive use of measures like meat rinses and safety audits by qualified experts.

At these sessions, Felicia Nestor, a senior policy analyst with the consumer group Food and Water Watch, has urged the government to redouble its effort to track outbreaks back to slaughterhouses. "They are the source of the problem," Ms. Nestor said.

For Ms. Smith, the road ahead is challenging. She is living at her mother's home in Cold Spring, Minn. She spends a lot of her time in physical therapy, which is being paid for by Cargill in anticipation of a legal claim, according to Mr. Marler. Her kidneys are at high risk of failure. She is struggling to regain some basic life skills and deal with the anger that sometimes envelops her. Despite her determination, doctors say, she will most likely never walk again.



http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/04/health/04meat.html?em
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/04/health/04meat.html?_r=1&hp

Just what does These Packers Think ? Oh Its just one person that got sick or IS IT the luck of the draw !!!

The frozen hamburgers that the Smiths ate, which were made by the food giant Cargill, were labeled "American Chef's Selection Angus Beef Patties." Yet confidential grinding logs and other Cargill records show that the hamburgers were made from a mix of slaughterhouse trimmings and a mash-like product derived from scraps that were ground together at a plant in Wisconsin. The ingredients came from slaughterhouses in Nebraska, Texas and Uruguay, and from a South Dakota company that processes fatty trimmings and treats them with ammonia to kill bacteria.

Using a combination of sources — a practice followed by most large producers of fresh and packaged hamburger — allowed Cargill to spend about 25 percent less than it would have for cuts of whole meat.
 
From: "USDA News" <[email protected]>
Date: October 5, 2009 6:28:15 PM MDT
To: [email protected]
Subject: USDA Statement: Statement by Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack Regarding Recent E. Coli Story
Reply-To: "USDA News" <[email protected]>


link: http://www.usda.gov/2009/10/0491.xml

Release No. 0491.09
Contact:
Office of Communications (202) 720-4623



Statement by Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack Regarding ABOVE Recent E. Coli Story


October 05, 2009


"The story we learned about over the weekend is unacceptable and tragic. We all know we can and should do more to protect the safety of the American people and the story in this weekend's paper will continue to spur our efforts to reduce the incidence of E. coli O157:H7. Over the last eight months since President Obama took office, USDA has been aggressive in its efforts to improve food safety, and has been an active partner in establishing and contributing to President Obama's Food Safety Working Group.

"Protecting public health is the sole mission of the USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service. FSIS has continued to make improvements to reduce the presence of E. coli O157:H7 and the agency is committed to working to reduce the incidence of foodborne illnesses caused by this pathogen.

"Shortly after coming into office, the Administration created a high-level Food Safety Working Group to coordinate food safety policies, focus greater resources on prevention, and improve response to outbreaks. Since doing so, we have taken the following actions:

* Launched an initiative to cut down E. Coli contamination (including in particular contamination from E. Coli O157:H7) and as part of that initiative, stepped-up meat facility inspections involving greater use of sampling to monitor the products going into ground beef.
* Appointed a chief medical officer within USDA's Food Safety Inspection Service to reaffirm its role as a public health agency.
* Issued draft guidelines for industry to further reduce the risk of O157 contamination.
* Started testing additional components of ground beef, including bench trim, and issuing new instructions to our employees asking that they verify that plants follow sanitary practices in processing beef carcasses.
* Designed the Public Health Information System (PHIS) in response to lessons learned in past outbreaks.

"USDA is also looking at ways to enhance traceback methods and will initiate a rulemaking in the near future to require all grinders, including establishments and retail stores, to keep accurate records of the sources of each lot of ground beef.

"No priority is greater to me than food safety and I am firmly committed to taking the steps necessary to reduce the incidence of foodborne illness and protect the American people from preventable illnesses. We will continue to make improvements to reduce the presence of E. coli 0157:H7."

###
USDA News
[email protected].
202 720-4623
 
U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Eastern District of Pennsylvania 615 Chestnut Street Suite 1250 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106-4476 (215) 861-8200

September 30, 2009

VEAL COMPANY CHARGED IN CASE OF TAINTED FEED

PHILADELPHIA - United States Attorney Michael L. Levy today announced the filing of an Information1 against Select Veal Feeds, Inc., and its owner Wayne A. Marcho, charging the defendants with one count of misbranding, in violation of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. The charge arises from the shipment of formaldehyde and potassium permanganate, between 1998 through 2005, which the defendants directed their contract farmers to use as part of the veal calves' feeding routine. Defendant Select Veal Feeds, Inc. is also charged with one count of obstructing an agency proceeding based on false statements to inspectors from the Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") in January 2004.

The veal business run by Wayne Marcho owned, raised, and slaughtered veal calves for human consumption. The veal business bought newborn veal calves, and contracted with farmers to raise the calves. According to the information, from 1998 through no later than May 2005, the defendants were directing the contract farmers to use feeding protocols that included the routine addition of formaldehyde and potassium permanganate to the veal calves' feed. These are "drugs" within the meaning of the FDCA, and they are not approved for use in veal calves. According to the information, Select Veal Feeds was shipping these drugs to the farmers without FDA-approved directions. This caused the drugs to be misbranded which is a violation of the FDCA. In January 2004, during the course of an inspection at Select Veal Feeds by the FDA, it is alleged that the veal business intentionally made false and misleading statements, intending to convince the inspectors that the formaldehyde was not being fed to the veal calves.

Because the veal business stopped requiring the routine use of formaldehyde and potassium permanganate by May 2005, at the latest, the government is not alleging any present danger to consumers or public health.

Indictment or Information is an accusation. A defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.

1

September 30, 2009 Page 2 2

Also filed today in this matter is a memorandum from the government for entry of plea and sentencing, which gives further details about the case, and sets forth the terms of the defendants' plea agreements. The government is requesting that the Court set a date for the defendants to enter their pleas and impose sentence in accordance with the terms of these agreements.

INFORMATION REGARDING THE DEFENDANTS NAME ADDRESS YEAR OF BIRTH

Wayne A. Marcho Franconia, PA 1949 Select Veal Feeds, Inc. Franconia, PA

If convicted, defendant Wayne A. Marcho faces a maximum possible sentence of a one-year term of imprisonment; a fine of $100,000, or twice the gross gain or gross loss, whichever is greater; a special assessment of $25; restitution as ordered by the Court; and a one-year term of supervised release; in addition, forfeiture may be ordered. If convicted, defendant Select Veal Feeds, Inc. faces a maximum possible sentence of a fine of $700,000, or twice the gross gain or gross loss, whichever is greater; a special assessment of $525; a five-year term of Court supervision; restitution and forfeiture.

The case was investigated by the Office of Criminal Investigations of the Food and Drug Administration and the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Agriculture. It is being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney Catherine Votaw.



UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE Contact: PATTY HARTMAN EASTERN DISTRICT, PENNSYLVANIA Media Contact Suite 1250, 615 Chestnut Street 215-861-8525 Philadelphia, PA 19106

COPIES OF NEWS MEMOS AND RELATED DOCUMENTS CAN ALSO BE FOUND AT


http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/pae


http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/pae/News/Pr/2009/sep/marchorelease.pdf


Office of Inspector General Semiannual Report to Congress FY 2007 - 2nd Half

Two Texas Companies Sentenced and Fined for Misbranding Meat Products In April 2007, two closely held and related Texas companies pled guilty in Federal court and were sentenced to 12 months of probation and ordered to pay $10,250 in fines for misbranding meat products. One of the companies sold adulterated meat products to a retail store in New Mexico. Additionally, portions of the invoices failed to properly and consistently identify the meat products as being from cattle more than 30 months old at time of slaughter. This information is required to be disclosed because of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE, or "mad cow disease") concerns. No adulterated meat reached consumers.

http://www.usda.gov/oig/webdocs/sarc071212.pdf

Saturday, August 29, 2009

FOIA REQUEST FEED RECALL 2009 Product may have contained prohibited materials Bulk Whole Barley, Recall # V-256-2009

http://madcowfeed.blogspot.com/2009/08/foia-request-feed-recall-2009-product.html

Friday, September 4, 2009

FOIA REQUEST ON FEED RECALL PRODUCT 429,128 lbs. feed for ruminant animals may have been contaminated with prohibited material Recall # V-258-2009

http://madcowfeed.blogspot.com/2009/09/foia-request-on-feed-recall-product.html

2009 UPDATE ON ALABAMA AND TEXAS MAD COWS 2005 and 2006

http://bse-atypical.blogspot.com/2006/08/bse-atypical-texas-and-alabama-update.html

http://creutzfeldt-jakob-disease.blogspot.com/2009/08/characteristics-of-established-and.html

Docket APHIS-2006-0041 Docket Title Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy; Minimal-Risk Regions; Importation of Live Bovines and Products Derived from Bovines Commodities Docket Type Rulemaking Document APHIS-2006-0041-0001 Document Title Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy; Minimal-Risk Regions; Importation of Live Bovines and Products Derived From Bovines Public Submission APHIS-2006-0041-0006 Public Submission Title Comment from Terry S Singletary Sr Views Add Comments How To Comment

snip...

MY personal belief, since you ask, is that not only the Canadian border, but the USA border, and the Mexican border should be sealed up tighter than a drum for exporting there TSE tainted products, until a validated, 100% sensitive test is available, and all animals for human and animal consumption are tested. all we are doing is the exact same thing the UK did with there mad cow poisoning when they exported it all over the globe, all the while knowing what they were doing. this BSE MRR policy is nothing more than a legal tool to do just exactly what the UK did, thanks to the OIE and GW, it's legal now. and they executed Saddam for poisoning ???

go figure....

Terry S. Singeltary Sr. P.O. Box 42 Bacliff, Texas USA 77518

http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocumentDetail&d=APHIS-2006-0041-0006

Docket APHIS-2007-0033 Docket Title Agricultural Bioterrorism Protection Act of 2002; Biennial Review and Republication of the Select Agent and Toxin List Docket Type Rulemaking Document APHIS-2007-0033-0001 Document Title Agricultural Bioterrorism Protection Act of 2002; Biennial Review and Republication of the Select Agent and Toxin List Public Submission APHIS-2007-0033-0002.1 Public Submission Title Attachment to Singeltary comment

http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocumentDetail&o=090000648027c28e

Manuscript Draft Manuscript Number: Title: HUMAN and ANIMAL TSE Classifications i.e. mad cow disease and the UKBSEnvCJD only theory Article Type: Personal View Corresponding Author: Mr. Terry S. Singeltary, Corresponding Author's Institution: na First Author: Terry S Singeltary, none Order of Authors: Terry S Singeltary, none; Terry S. Singeltary Abstract: TSEs have been rampant in the USA for decades in many species, and they all have been rendered and fed back to animals for human/animal consumption. I propose that the current diagnostic criteria for human TSEs only enhances and helps the spreading of human TSE from the continued belief of the UKBSEnvCJD only theory in 2007.

http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/ContentViewer?objectId=090000648027c28e&disposition=attachment&contentType=pdf

Docket APHIS-2006-0026 Docket Title Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy; Animal Identification and Importation of Commodities Docket Type Rulemaking Document APHIS-2006-0026-0001 Document Title Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy; Minimal-Risk Regions, Identification of Ruminants and Processing and Importation of Commodities Public Submission APHIS-2006-0026-0012 Public Submission Title Comment from Terry S Singletary

http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocumentDetail&o=09000064801e47e1

Docket APHIS-2006-0041 Docket Title Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy; Minimal-Risk Regions; Importation of Live Bovines and Products Derived from Bovines Commodities Docket Type Rulemaking Document APHIS-2006-0041-0001 Document Title Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy; Minimal-Risk Regions; Importation of Live Bovines and Products Derived From Bovines Public Submission APHIS-2006-0041-0028 Public Submission Title Comment from Terry S Singletary

Comment 2006-2007 USA AND OIE POISONING GLOBE WITH BSE MRR POLICY

THE USA is in a most unique situation, one of unknown circumstances with human and animal TSE. THE USA has the most documented TSE in different species to date, with substrains growing in those species (BSE/BASE in cattle and CWD in deer and elk, there is evidence here with different strains), and we know that sheep scrapie has over 20 strains of the typical scrapie with atypical scrapie documented and also BSE is very likely to have passed to sheep. all of which have been rendered and fed back to animals for human and animal consumption, a frightening scenario. WE do not know the outcome, and to play with human life around the globe with the very likely TSE tainted products from the USA, in my opinion is like playing Russian roulette, of long duration, with potential long and enduring consequences, of which once done, cannot be undone. These are the facts as I have come to know through daily and extensive research of TSE over 9 years, since 12/14/97. I do not pretend to have all the answers, but i do know to continue to believe in the ukbsenvcjd only theory of transmission to humans of only this one strain from only this one TSE from only this one part of the globe, will only lead to further failures, and needless exposure to humans from all strains of TSE, and possibly many more needless deaths from TSE via a multitude of proven routes and sources via many studies with primates and rodents and other species.

MY personal belief, since you ask, is that not only the Canadian border, but the USA border, and the Mexican border should be sealed up tighter than a drum for exporting there TSE tainted products, until a validated, 100% sensitive test is available, and all animals for human and animal consumption are tested. all we are doing is the exact same thing the UK did with there mad cow poisoning when they exported it all over the globe, all the while knowing what they were doing. this BSE MRR policy is nothing more than a legal tool to do just exactly what the UK did, thanks to the OIE and GW, it's legal now. and they executed Saddam for poisoning ???

go figure. ...

http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocumentDetail&o=09000064801f8151

Docket APHIS-2006-0041 Docket Title Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy; Minimal-Risk Regions; Importation of Live Bovines and Products Derived from Bovines Commodities Docket Type Rulemaking Document APHIS-2006-0041-0001 Document Title Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy; Minimal-Risk Regions; Importation of Live Bovines and Products Derived From Bovines Public Submission APHIS-2006-0041-0028.1 Public Submission Title Attachment to Singletary comment

January 28, 2007

Greetings APHIS,

I would kindly like to submit the following to ;

BSE; MRR; IMPORTATION OF LIVE BOVINES AND PRODUCTS DERIVED FROM BOVINES [Docket No. APHIS-2006-0041] RIN 0579-AC01

http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/ContentViewer?objectId=09000064801f8152&disposition=attachment&contentType=msw8

SCRAPIE DETECTED IN ANOTHER GOAT USA UPDATE MARCH 2009

SEE MARCH 2009 SCRAPIE UPDATE PPS ;

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/animal_diseases/scrapie/downloads/monthly_scrapie_rpt.pps

NOR-98 ATYPICAL SCRAPIE 5 cases documented in USA in 5 different states USA 2007

http://nor-98.blogspot.com/2008/04/seac-spongiform-encephalopathy-advisory.html

Tuesday, June 3, 2008 SCRAPIE USA UPDATE JUNE 2008 NOR-98 REPORTED PA

http://nor-98.blogspot.com/2008/06/scrapie-usa-update-june-2008-nor-98.html

http://nor-98.blogspot.com/

Wednesday, July 1, 2009

Nor98 scrapie identified in the United States J Vet Diagn Invest 21:454-463 (2009)

http://nor-98.blogspot.com/2009/07/nor98-scrapie-identified-in-united.html

Monday, September 1, 2008

RE-FOIA OF DECLARATION OF EXTRAORDINARY EMERGENCY BECAUSE OF AN ATYPICAL T.S.E. (PRION DISEASE) OF FOREIGN ORIGIN IN THE UNITED STATES [No. 00-072-1] September 1, 2008

http://foiamadsheepmadrivervalley.blogspot.com/2008/09/re-foia-of-declaration-of-extraordinary.html

Sunday, October 04, 2009

CWD NEW MEXICO SPREADING SOUTH TO TEXAS 2009

http://chronic-wasting-disease.blogspot.com/2009/10/cwd-new-mexico-spreading-south-to-texas.html

Tuesday, July 21, 2009 Transmissible mink encephalopathy - review of the etiology

http://transmissible-mink-encephalopathy.blogspot.com/

TSS
 
Public Health Service Food and Drug Administration Cincinnati District Office Central Region 6751 Steger Drive Cincinnati, OH 45237-3097 Telephone: (513) 679-2700 FAX: (513) 679-2761

September 11, 2009

WARNING LETTER CIN-09-68103-17

VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS

Kurt A. Schlegel, Owner Schlegel Dairy Farms, Inc. 10720 Township Road 526 Shreve, Ohio 44676-9415

Dear Mr. Schlegel:

On May 7, 2009, and June 3, 2009, the U.S Food and Drug Administration (FDA) conducted an investigation of your dairy operation located at 10720 Township Road 526, Shreve, Ohio. This letter notifies you of the violations of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act) that we found during our investigation of your operation. You can find the Act and its associated regulations on the internet through links on FDA's web page at www.fda.gov.

We found that you offered for sale an animal for slaughter that was adulterated. Under section 402(a)(2)(C)(ii) of the Act, 21 U.S.C. 342(a)(2)(C)(ii), a food is deemed to be adulterated if it bears or contains a new animal drug that is unsafe under section 512 of the Act, 21 U.S.C. 360b.

Specifically, our investigation revealed that on or about October 15, 2008, you sold a Holstein bull veal calf for slaughter as food through (b)(4), where the Holstein bull veal calf was identified with back tag # (b)(4). On or about October 16, 2008, (b)(4) slaughtered this animal. United States Department of Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection Service (USDA/FSIS) analysis of tissue samples collected on October 16,2008 from this bull veal calf with back tag (b)(4) identified the presence of 0.66 parts per million (ppm) sulfamethoxazole in the liver and 0.70 ppm sulfamethoxazole in the muscle of this animal. The FDA has not established a tolerance for residue associated with use of sulfamethoxazole in the edible tissue of veal calves as codified in Title 21, Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.), Part 556 (21 C.F.R. Part 556). The presence of this drug in the edible tissue of this bull veal calf in these amounts causes the food to be adulterated within the meaning of section 402(a)(2)(C)(ii) of the Act, 21 U.S.C. 342(a)(2)(C)(ii).

We also found that you violated section 501(a)(5) of the Act, 21 U.S.C. 351(a)(5), when your employees administered Sulfamethoxazole and Trimethoprim Tablets, 800 milligrams (mg)/160 mg, Double Strength (NDC 61971-120-05) to the bull veal calf. Specifically, our investigation revealed that sulfamethoxazole and trimethoprim tablets were used in an extralabel manner by a layperson on your farm outside the orders, instructions, or supervision of a licensed veterinarian in violation of 21 C.F.R. 530.1 I (a), and the use of these tablets resulted in sulfamethoxazole residue which may present a risk to public health, in violation of 21 C.F.R. 530.11(c).

The extralabel use of approved animal or human drugs in animals is allowed under the Act only if the extralabel use complies with sections 512 (a)(4) and (5) of the Act, 21 U.S.C. 360b(a)(4) and (5), and 21 C.F.R. Part 530, including that the use must be by or on the lawful order of a licensed veterinarian within the context of a valid veterinarian/client/patient relationship.

Because the use of the sulfamethoxazole and trimethoprim tablets did not comply with 21 C.F.R. Part 530, you caused the drug to be unsafe under section 512(a) of the Act, 21 U.S.C. 360b(a), and thus adulterated within the meaning of section 501 (a)(5) of the Act, 21 U.S.C. 351(a)(5).

The above is not intended to be an all-inclusive list of violations. As a producer of animals offered for use as food, you are responsible for ensuring that your overall operation and the food you distribute is in compliance with the law.

You should take prompt action to correct the violations described in this letter and to establish procedures to ensure these violations do not recur. Failure to do so may result in regulatory action without further notice such as seizure and/or injunction.

You should notify this office in writing of the steps you have taken to bring your firm into compliance with the law within fifteen (15) working days of receiving this letter. Your response should include an update for each step that has been taken or will be taken to correct the violations and prevent their recurrence. If corrective action cannot be completed within fifteen (15) working days of receiving this letter, state the reason for the delay and the time frame within which the corrections will be completed. Please include copies of any available documentation demonstrating that corrections have been made.

Your written response should be sent to Stephen J. Rabe, Compliance Officer, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 6751 Steger Drive, Cincinnati, Ohio 45237. If you have any questions about this letter, please contact Compliance Officer Rabe at 513-679-2700, ext. 163 or [email protected]..

Sincerely, /s/

Teresa C. Thompson District Director Cincinnati District

http://www.fda.gov/ICECI/EnforcementActions/WarningLetters/ucm183614.htm

Public Health Service Food and Drug Administration Cincinnati District Office Central Region 6751 Steger Drive Cincinnati, OH 45237-3097 Telephone: (513) 679-2700 FAX: (513) 679-2771

July 14, 2009

WARNING LETTER CIN-09-67403-12

VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS

Sybrand T.C. Van Raaj, Owner and Manager Van Raay Dairy Farm 12471 Thomas Road South Charleston, OH 45368

Dear Mr. Van Raaj:

On April 23, 24, and 27, May 7 and 19, and June 18,2009, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) conducted an investigation of your dairy operation located at 12471 Thomas Road, South Charleston, Ohio 45368. This letter notifies you of the violations of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act) that we found during our investigation of your operation. You can find the Act and its associated regulations on the Internet through links on FDA's web page at www.fda.gov.

We found that you offered for sale an animal for slaughter as food that was adulterated. Under section 402(a)(2)(C)(ii) of the Act, 21 U.S.C. § 342(a)(2)(C)(ii), a food is deemed to be adulterated if it bears or contains a new animal drug that is unsafe under section 512 of the Act, 21 U.S.C. § 360b. Further, under section 402(a)(4) of the Act, 21 U.S.C. § 342(a)(4), a food is deemed to be adulterated if it has been held under insanitary conditions whereby it may have been rendered injurious to health.

Specifically, our investigation revealed that on or about June 30, 2008, you sold ten calves, one of which was a bull calf that was given back tag (b)(4) by the hauler and sold for slaughter as food. On or about July 1, 2008, (b)(4) of (b)(4) slaughtered this animal. The United States Department of Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection Service (USDAJFSIS) analysis of tissue samples collected from this animal identified the presence of 10.95 ppm neomycin in the kidney. FDA has established a tolerance of 7.2 ppm of neomycin in the kidney of cattle as codified in Title 21, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 556.430 (21 C.F.R. 556.430). The presence of this drug in the edible tissue from this animal in this amount causes the food to be adulterated within the meaning of section 402(a)(2)(C)(ii) of the Act, 21 U.S.C. § 342(a)(2)(C)(ii).

Our investigation also found that you hold animals under conditions that are so inadequate that medicated animals bearing potentially harmful drug residues are likely to enter the food supply. For example, you failed to maintain complete treatment records and failed to identify treated animals. Food from animals held under such conditions is adulterated within the meaning of section 402(a)(4) of the Act, 21 U.S.C. § 342(a)(4).

The above is not intended to be an all-inclusive list of violations. As a producer of animals offered for use as food, you are responsible for ensuring that your overall operation and the food you distribute is in compliance with the law.

You should take prompt action to correct the violations described in this letter and to establish procedures to ensure that these violations do not recur. Failure to do so may result in regulatory action without further notice such as seizure and/or injunction.

You should notify this office in writing of the steps you have taken to bring your film into compliance with the law within fifteen (15) working days of receiving this letter. Your response should include each step that has been taken or will be taken to correct the violations and prevent their recurrence. If corrective action cannot be completed within fifteen (15) working days of receiving this letter, state the reason for the delay and the time frame within which the corrections will be completed. Please include copies of any available documentation demonstrating that corrections have been made.

Your written response should be sent to Gina M. Brackett, Compliance Officer, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 6751 Steger Drive, Cincinnati, Ohio 45237. If you have any questions about this letter, please contact Compliance Officer Gina Brackett at (513) 679-2700 Ext. 167.

Sincerely yours,

/s/

Teresa C. Thompson District Director Cincinnati District

http://www.fda.gov/ICECI/EnforcementActions/WarningLetters/ucm183498.htm
 
The study, of the 10 riskiest foods regulated by the Food and Drug Administration, provides fresh ammunition to a Portland policeman who is in Washington, D.C., this week, pushing Oregon's senators to back a food safety bill that would bolster the FDA.

"We're coming really close to having some good legislation that will improve the safety of our food supply," said Officer Peter Hurley of Wilsonville, whose son Jacob -- then 3 -- was sick for 11 days in January after eating salmonella-tainted peanut butter crackers.

Although peanuts did not make the top 10, other consumer favorites did.

No. 1 on the list are leafy greens, followed by eggs, tuna, oysters, potatoes, cheese, ice cream, tomatoes, sprouts and berries in descending order.
Notice THAT BEEF was not on THE LIST!!!
 
A.M.I. responds to N.Y. Times food safety story

(MEATPOULTRY.com, October 07, 2009)
by Bryan Salvage


WASHINGTON — Since 2000, the U.S. meat industry has greatly improved the safety of its products, with the incidence of E. coli O157:H7 declining 45% since that year to a rate of less than one-half of 1%. So wrote J. Patrick Boyle, president and chief executive officer of the American Meat Institute, in a letter to the editor published on Oct. 7 in the New York Times.

The Times received Mr. Boyle's letter in response to what A.M.I. described as "a lengthy one-sided article on ground-beef safety" by investigative reporter Michael Moss published on Oct. 4 ("Woman's Shattered Life Shows Ground Beef Inspection Flaws"). The trade group said that despite a 90 minute, face-to- face interview between Mr. Moss and A.M.I. officials in June and exchanging more than 15 e-mails and phone calls to respond to follow-up questions, the 5,000 word story "excluded all meaningful government data provided regarding the industry's food-safety accomplishments over the last 10 years."( Their Mad Now )

A.M.I. and member companies have worked aggressively to develop new technologies and processes to enhance meat and poultry safety, Mr. Boyle stressed. "Using them requires prior approval by the Department of Agriculture," he added. "For example, A.M.I. submitted a petition five years ago to use carcass irradiation — a process to reduce or eliminate pathogens like E. coli — but we are still waiting for the department to initiate a rulemaking on its efficacy," he wrote.

The meat industry has a simple stance when it comes to E. coli O157:H7 — it wants to eliminate it, Mr. Boyle said. "But like other facts of nature — from floods to the flu — even when there is a will, there may not always be a way to do it 100% of the time. Be assured that the industry will not stop trying," he concluded.
 
http://delauro.house.gov/release.cfm?id=2664

October 5, 2009 Contact: Adriana Surfas
202-225-3661



DeLauro Calls for USDA Investigation into Tainted Beef
Demands Greater Accountability From Large Slaughterhouses

Washington, DC – Congresswoman Rosa L. DeLauro (D-CT) today sent a letter to Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack calling on the Department to investigate allegations revealed in a Sunday New York Times article about failures in the beef inspection process and the distribution of adulterated products into the market. She emphasized the need to hold large beef slaughterhouses accountable for distributing adulterated products and reinforced the paramount importance of protecting the public health as part of the USDA mission.

The full text of the letter is as follows:

The Honorable Tom Vilsack

Secretary

United States Department of Agriculture

Room 200-A, Jamie L. Whitten Building

12th Street & Jefferson Drive, SW

Washington, DC 20250-0002

Dear Mr. Secretary:

I am writing to strongly urge the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) to investigate the disturbing allegations that were revealed in Sunday's New York Times article about the beef inspection process and to examine the necessary steps to hold accountable large slaughterhouse facilities for distributing adulterated products into the market. I am certain you are equally alarmed by the articles' allegations regarding the current flaws in the beef inspection system that allows low-grade ingredients from being grounded into beef sold in stores without any testing for food-borne pathogens. According to the article, grinding logs and other records showed that hamburgers made from low-grade trimmings and mash-like products from a mix of slaughterhouses in Wisconsin, Nebraska, Texas and Uruguay, were labeled 'Angus Beef Patties.' While meat companies rely on their suppliers to check for bacteria, unwritten arrangements between some companies prevents ingredients from being tested more frequently.

Perhaps the most disturbing allegations outlined in the article relates to actions and statements by USDA officials. Although USDA inspectors found serious problems at 55 meat plants that were failing to follow their own safety plans during the investigation into the Cargill outbreak in 2007, no fines or sanctions were imposed. Also, Dr. Kenneth Peterson, FSIS assistant administrator, noted that USDA would have to consider the impact on companies before mandating any testing for ingredients that are sent to processors. However, he is quoted in the article as stating, "I have to look at the entire industry, not just what is best for public health." This is a very disturbing quote from a USDA official whose primary objective should be to protect the public health.

Given the claims and allegations in the article, please provide responses to the following questions:

·Beef from Uruguay was able to get past the port-of-entry inspection without proper food safety certificates and ended up in ground beef products in the U.S. How was this able to occur? Meat shipments that enter a U.S. port-of-entry without the proper food safety certificates should be rejected and the foreign plant from where it came should be delisted immediately.

·Why did USDA refrain from imposing any sanctions during the investigation into the Cargill outbreak in 2007, despite finding serious problems at dozens of plants?

·Has FSIS considered any proposals that would hold large slaughterhouse facilities accountable for sending adulterated meat into the marketplace while minimizing the burden on processing facilities?

·As you know, very small processing facilities often suffer economic harm due to adulterated products sent from large slaughterhouses. In an attempt to resolve this issue, FSIS discussed a proposal in 2006 that would improve food safety infrastructure capacity of very small processors. What is the status of those discussions?

·Sec. 11017 of the 2008 farm bill requires all meat plants to have reporting requirements and mandates recall procedures. Had this provision been in effect, what would have been Cargill's obligations during the 2007 recall referenced in the article? What is the status of the implementation of this provision?

The primary objective of USDA's meat and poultry inspection responsibilities should be to protect the public health. Any suggestion that industry considerations should minimize the department's ability to protect consumers from deadly food-borne pathogens should be rejected immediately.

I would appreciate responses to these questions as quickly as possible. Thank you very much for your attention to this matter and I look forward to working with you on this issue.

Sincerely,

ROSA L. DeLAURO

Chairwoman

House Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies
 
If the USDA would have listened to John Munsell 5-6 years ago they could have taken care of much of the problem-- rather than the way they did of blaming him for everything while they crawled in bed with the major packers and beef importers.....

It is of note- that he has now been called several times to testify in front of Congress- and they are beginning to see the light of where he was right all along...

But as happens so often when government agencies don't proact- or react in time-- things are allowed to get so bad that Congress often overreacts....That is how we end up with more and more laws and regulation....
 
E. coli from Retail Meats • CID 2009:49 (15 July) • 195

M A J O R A R T I C L E

Molecular Analysis of Escherichia coli from Retail Meats (2002–2004) from the United States National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System

James R. Johnson,1,3 James S. McCabe,1,3 David G. White,4 Brian Johnston,1,3 Michael A. Kuskowski,2,3 and Patrick McDermott4

Departments of 1Medicine and 2Psychiatry, University of Minnesota, and 3Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota; and the 4Center for Veterinary Medicine, United States Food and Drug Administration, Laurel, Maryland (See the editorial commentary by Collignon on pages 202–4)

Background. The origins and virulence potential of meat product–associated Escherichia coli are undefined. Methods. Two hundred eighty-seven E. coli isolates (145 resistant and 142 susceptible to trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, nalidixic acid, and/or ceftiofur), recovered by the United States National Antimicrobial Monitoring System from retail beef, pork, chicken, and turkey products (from Oregon, Tennessee, Georgia, and Maryland, 2002–2004) underwent polymerase chain reaction testing for phylogenetic groupings and 59 virulence-associated genes.

Results. However analyzed, resistant and susceptible isolates differed minimally according to the assessed characteristics. In contrast, the 4 meat types differed greatly for multiple individual traits and aggregate virulence scores. Poultry isolates exhibited virulence genes associated with avian pathogenic E. coli; beef isolates exhibited traits associated with E. coli from diseased cattle. Overall, 20% of isolates qualified as extraintestinal pathogenic E. coli, with poultry isolates exhibiting significantly higher virulence scores than beef and pork isolates (P < .001).

Conclusions. Within this systematically collected, geographically distributed sample of recent retail meat isolates, the carriage of extraintestinal pathogenic E. coli virulence genes in antimicrobial-resistant and antimicrobialsusceptible E. coli appeared similar, whereas isolates from different types of meat differed, consistent with on-farm acquisition of resistance within host species–specific E. coli populations. A substantial minority of meat-source E. coli (whether susceptible or resistant) may represent potential human pathogens.

snip...

In summary, we found that among 287 recent E. coli isolates from retail meats from across the United States, resistant and susceptible isolates differed minimally according to phylogenetic group distribution and virulence gene content (however assessed). In contrast, isolates from different meat types differed considerably according to these same traits. These findings are consistent with the hypothesis that antimicrobial-resistant E. coli in retail meats derive primarily from a host species–specific, food animal–associated microflora within which resistance emerges either as a direct effect of selection pressure from onfarm antimicrobial use or as part of the adaptation of the organisms to their respective hosts. Regardless, these data support efforts during production and distribution to reduce (1) the prevalence, density, and antimicrobial resistance capability of E. coli in food animals and (2) the contamination of the resulting retail meat products.


http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdf/10.1086/599830?cookieSet=1




Press Release
27 March 2009
EFSA evaluates risk of MRSA in food and animals
The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has published an opinion on the public health significance of meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in animals and foods. EFSA's Panel on Biological Hazards (BIOHAZ) found that while food may be contaminated by MRSA, there is currently no evidence that eating or handling contaminated food may lead to an increased risk of humans becoming healthy carriers or infected with this bacterium. The Panel also concluded that where MRSA prevalence in food-producing animals is high, people in contact with live animals, especially farmers, veterinarians and their families, are at greater risk than the general population.

In the case of food-producing animals, a specific type of MRSA, called CC398, has emerged and is most often carried without symptoms by intensively reared animals. The Panel noted that this strain represents a small proportion of the overall cases of MRSA in the European Union. Various types of MRSA, including CC398, can be found in slaughterhouses and on raw meat, but the Panel stated that, based on current data, the risk of infection for slaughterhouse workers and persons handling meat appears to be low.

Professor Dan Collins, chair of the BIOHAZ Panel, said: "There's no evidence to date that humans can become infected with the CC398 strain of MRSA from eating contaminated food. Neither is there evidence that this strain has caused food poisoning."

The Panel further noted that the occurrence of CC398 varies widely throughout Europe. A risk for people in contact with live food-producing animals has been identified and veterinarians and farmers, as well as their families, are at greater risk of becoming carriers or infected than the general population. In affected countries, the CC398 strain is mostly detected in pigs, veal calves, and broiler chickens.

Animal pets can also become infected with MRSA, but almost in all cases the bacteria is passed from humans to pets and then back to humans. The Panel noted that there are no specific studies available which examined the relative risk of different small animals and horses as sources of infection in humans.

Regarding control options, the Panel said that animal movement and contact between animals are each likely to be an important factor for the transmission of CC398. The Panel said that since the most important routes of transmission to humans are through direct contact with live animals and their environments, the most effective control measures are likely to be at farm level.

The BIOHAZ Panel also said that systematic monitoring of MRSA should be carried out to evaluate trends in the development of MRSA in food-producing animals in all Member States. Further work should be performed on harmonising methods for sampling, detecting and quantifying MRSA in humans and animals, and for detecting MRSA as a contaminant in food, and in the environment. The Panel also recommended that guidelines for screening of patients admitted to hospitals should be expanded to include professional categories exposed to intensively reared livestock.

The Scientific Opinion of EFSA's BIOHAZ Panel, to which the European Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (ECDC) also contributed, was carried out in parallel with the work of the European Medicines Agency (EMEA) on other aspects of MRSA. EMEA has published a reflection paper on the use of antimicrobials in livestock and companion animals in relation to the risk of MRSA infection in animals. (EMEA reflection paper). A summary paper bringing together the findings on the topic of MRSA by the three EU agencies is scheduled to be published later in the year.

See the full opinion: Assessment of the Public Health significance of meticillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in animals and foods

________________________________________
Notes to the editors

The Staphylococcus aureus is a bacterium that can be persistently or intermittently carried by healthy humans and it is a very common cause of minor skin infections that usually do not require treatment. In patients in hospitals, Staphylococcus aureus is a common cause of hospital-acquired infections. Its variant, meticillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) first emerged in the 1970s, and is now often found in hospitals in many European Member States. In recent years, clones of MRSA have evolved outside the hospitals, causing infections among people who have no connection with hospitals.

For media enquiries, please contact:
Ian Palombi, Press Officer or
Steve Pagani, Head of Press Office
Tel: + 39 0521 036 149
E-mail: [email protected]





http://www.efsa.europa.eu/EFSA/efsa_locale-1178620753812_1211902408758.htm


http://www.efsa.europa.eu/EFSA/Scientific_Opinion/biohaz_op_993_mrsa_summary_en,0.pdf?ssbinary=true


http://www.efsa.europa.eu/EFSA/Scientific_Opinion/biohaz_op_993_mrsa_en,0.pdf?ssbinary=true




Wednesday, July 23, 2008

WARNING LETTER An inspection of your licensed medicated feed mill, Cargill, Inc. 1000% higher than the levels indicated on the product's label. ... Public Health Service Food and Drug Administration


http://staphmrsa.blogspot.com/2008/07/warning-letter-inspection-of-your.html



http://staphmrsa.blogspot.com/



TSS
 
October 8, New York Times – (National) Companies strike deal on testing for E. Coli.

In an expanding effort by the meat industry to make its hamburger safe, officials at the retail giant Costco said Wednesday that they had struck a new accord on testing for the pathogen E. coli.

Costco's food safety director said the company would begin buying beef trimmings for making hamburger from Tyson, one of the largest beef producers, after an agreement reached with Tyson this week that allows Costco to test the trimmings before they are mixed with those from other suppliers.

The United States Department of Agriculture has encouraged such testing as a way to make hamburger safer, but some of the largest slaughterhouses have resisted the added scrutiny for fear that one grinder's discovery of E. coli will lead to expanded recalls of beef sent to other grinders, The New York Times reported Sunday.

Costco is one of the few large grinders to test ingredients for the pathogen as they arrive at its plant. Source: http://www.gainesville.com/article/20091008/ZNYT04/910083008/1109/sports?Title=Companies-Strike-Deal-on-Testing-for-E-Coli
 
Five Minutes With Bill Marler, Richard Raymond & The New Food Safety
Posted on October 10, 2009 by Bill Marler


Comments : Chuck Jolley asked loaded questions for the Cattle Packer industry and he got responses of (WHAT are YOU THINKING ) answers.

Chuck Jolley is a free lance writer, based in Kansas City, who covers a wide range of ag industry topics for Cattlenetwork.com and Agnetwork.com.

On September 29 Richard Raymond used his Meatingplace blog to talk about an important but unnoticed anniversary. It had been one year since he retired from his post as the USDA's undersecretary for Food Safety, a position that has been curiously unfilled since the day he walked away.

In the week following his blog, the New York Times savaged the ground beef business with a front page bombshell of a story powered by some truths, a few dozen half truths and a laundry list of misconceptions. Right behind that punch to the gut came a cold slap to the face of most of the rest of the food processing industry; the Center for Science in the Public Interest's list of the 10 most dangerous foods.

The list, published by major broadcast news services, dozens of national and regional print publications and an uncountable list of internet-based outlets, included leafy greens, dairy products and seafood. Ground beef got nary a mention. Every effected trade association screamed in agony, pointing out the often large holes in the NY Times and CSPI studies. If the reports are to be believed, ground beef, most of our favorite vegetables, some seafood and all dairy products are highly suspect. Take all those things off the table and our national weight problem is solved overnight as we enjoy a starvation diet of all that seems left: purified water and plain oatmeal.

But it brings a serious issue to America's dinner table. Who and what do we trust? Has the American Food supply become so tainted that we can't put anything in the oven without worry? Has the amalgam of local, state and federal agencies charged with insuring a safe supply of food become so toothless that there is no 'bite' left in their oversight? Why is Raymond's old post still standing empty even after the Obama called improvements in food safety one of the primary goals of his administration and backed up his claim by creating an all star laden Food Safety Working Group?

Talking about the group, USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack said, "Shortly after coming into office, the Administration created a high-level Food Safety Working Group to coordinate food safety policies, focus greater resources on prevention, and improve response to outbreaks."

FSWG is just a few months old but it has already launched an initiative to cut down E. coli contamination, issued draft guidelines for industry to further reduce the risk of O157 contamination, appointed a chief medical officer within USDA's Food Safety Inspection Service to reaffirm its role as a public health agency, started testing additional components of ground beef, including bench trim, issued new instructions to USDA employees asking that they verify that plants follow sanitary practices in processing beef carcasses and designed the Public Health Information System (PHIS) in response to lessons learned in past outbreaks."

For most federal groups, that's a decade's worth of work but it was done in just a few short months. It indicates a seriousness of concern unappreciated and virtually unnoticed by the public or the press.

But still, there's the little problem of a key post, the undersecretary of food safety, unfilled by two administrations. It certainly isn't for want of qualified candidates.

Our colleges and universities can offer up dozens of experts with stunning credentials. Industry can match them man for man, woman for woman.

We're at a watershed moment when it comes to food safety issues. The public, perhaps over-stimulated by broadcast and print exposes of questionable scientific validity, is starting to demand changes in the system that are prohibitively expensive or technically impossible. As the nation moves generationally farther from the farm and understands less and less about basic food care and preparation – the microwave is the kitchen tool of choice for an astonishing number of households – there is less room for error in food processing.

I wanted to look into the food safety issue and Washington's role in it from both sides of the table so I asked Richard Raymond and Bill Marler, two of the most formidable men in the business, to answer the same set of questions – point/counterpoint. Raymond has worked within the government and with many others in the food processing business. Marler has successfully sued many of those processors who failed to meet their obligations and stands ready to do it again-and-again until the industry "puts him out of business."

Raymond answered from his experiences gained from long years of service to the industry. Marler answered from the experiences gained from too many years of taking miscreants to the financial wood shed.

Although they disagreed on a few points, I was surprised at how many of their answers were similar. Here is Five Minutes with Bill Marler and Five Minutes with Richard Raymond, ten minutes of fascinating answers to important questions.

Q. It's been just over a year since Mr. Raymond retired from his post as undersecretary for food safety. The position has remained unfilled. Has the lack of direct oversight harmed the effort to improve food safety?

Marler: "The position of undersecretary for food safety plainly exists for a reason, but if the failure to fill the position indicates that the Obama administration no longer thinks that the position has a role to play, then it should be abolished. I would, however, disagree with its abolition. In the absence of creating a replacement agency that has as its SOLE mission food safety, then the undersecretary for food safety should and needs to be the responsible person within the FSIS on this important issue, advocating and making decisions solely on behalf of public health."

Raymond: "Career employees are very good at what they do, but they are not going to push the envelope and antagonize either the consumers or the industry with major regulatory changes. Dr Petersen's quote in the NYT article Sunday summarized that attitude. the Under secretary must be one who can put public health and food safety first and foremost, and take the heat from all sides when it comes, as it will. Plus there is that lack of visibility with Congress, the media and others without a Senate confirmed political appointee."

(Editors note: Raymond is referring to a statement attributed to Dr. Kenneth Petersen, an assistant administrator with the Food Safety and Inspection Service who said the department could mandate testing, but that it needed to consider the impact on companies as well as consumers. "I have to look at the entire industry, not just what is best for public health," he said.)

Q. Why didn't/haven't the Bush and Obama administrations moved more quickly to fill the post?

Marler: "Because there is no reason for this position to exist unless it has a singular mission on behalf of food safety, which is to say, solely on behalf of the public health, the failure to fill this position can only be seen as a refusal, so far at least, to put the interests of public health before other competing, commercial interest.

Unfortunately, this conflict of interest is inherent (systemically and practically) in the USDA. FSIS has FOOD SAFETY as the main part of its name, and, to me, this mean that safety should be its sole mission, with the undersecretary for food safety as the keeper of this mission. Arguably, however, if the FSIS truly took to hearts its mission on behalf of food safety, then the FSIS administrator would be the keeper of the mission, making it unnecessary to have an undersecretary doing so."

"But the bottom-line, I think, is that the theoretical desire to fill this position with someone would do nothing but put the safety of the public first is being undercut by the political and practical reality that appointing someone like this would be fiercely opposed by industry."

Raymond: "Who knows the answer to this question? The President has said "our food safety system is a threat to the public's health. Yet the number one position in the US government for food safety goes unfilled"

Q. Would you both agree on two points made in Raymond's blog - the odds of getting a food borne illness from beef is extremely slim, but if it's your child "who becomes ill with O157 from eating beef, it is 100 percent for him or her, and you should be demanding even better odds?" Taking it to the next step, demanding better odds are a noble pursuit but not very effective. More importantly, the demand should be followed with action steps. What should be done to improve those odds?

Marler: "The odds of getting a foodborne illness from beef are NOT extremely slim, and it is silly to so suggest. Instead, the odds of an OUTBREAK of illnesses being linked to the consumption of beef are slim. As we have known for a long time, foodborne illness is hugely prevalent in the United States, it's just that most is never linked to any particular food product."

"Claims about the odds of foodborne illness simply cannot be seriously made without there being increased surveillance and testing. Indeed, right now, we barely have an inkling about the prevalence of pathogens in the meat supply given the paucity of testing over the years. So, sure the 100% odds for a child with a confirmed E. coli O157:H7 infection linked to a recalled meat product makes for a tragic story, but that shouldn't be allowed to be a diversion from the reality of how much illness, injury, and death might be attributable to meat products that we simply do not know about."

Raymond: "Make non-0157 STECs an adulterant. Make whole beef cuts contaminated with E coli adulterated. Make whole carcass low dose irradiation a processing aid, not an additive. Make all further processors test incoming product before fabrication and/or blending---then the big packers cannot black ball them as they do now, or no one would buy their products. Spend money on educating the consumer similar to that spent educating America on going digital for TV. Trace back to the source--the new bench trim policy is an example of fluff with absolutely no teeth in it because of the stance by the big packers. Sounds nice, but it could do a whole lot more without any more testing."

Q. Most people who are in the business of supplying food to the public are conscientious about their responsibilities; a few have proven themselves to be less so.

First, how should we deal with those businesses that knowingly take shortcuts and put the public in danger?

Marler: "Most businesses are neither overly conscientious nor knowingly careless. Instead, businesses seek profits, and profits come first. To the extent that improved safety and quality are consistent with being profitable, companies will invest in the improvements. But to analyze food safety in terms of levels of conscientiousness versus levels of recklessness and malice is to create an either-or that does not really exist."

"Businesses do not have consciences; they have bottom-lines. And the real utility of companies like Peanut Corporation of America, which was truly an example of a company that knowingly took shortcuts, is that the existence of PCA allows all the other businesses to more convincingly argue that they are different. The differences are, however, differences of degree, not kind."

Raymond: "When found, they need to be heavily fined, maybe sentenced to jail time, and put out of business. If I knowingly endanger the public by drinking and driving, I pay a steep penalty. If a producer knowingly puts contaminated product out for sale, is s/he not equally endangering the public? And to find more of these bad apples, we need risk-based inspection but Congress said we could not do it. And the associations need to stop protecting these bottom feeders."

Q. Other businesses, despite their best efforts and the use of HACCP programs that are as up-to-date as the state-of-the-art allows, have had their products recalled. What is their responsibility? And is there a point when the consumer has to take some responsibility for illnesses caused by poor handling in the home?

Marler: I don't even know what "despite their best efforts" might mean if used in a way that wasn't sophistry. Similarly, what does it mean to say that "the consumer has to take some responsibility" when we are talking about meat contaminated with E. coli O157:H7? A consumer "takes some responsibility" when they get sick, end up in the hospital or die. So, if we are asking here whether we should deny some of these consumers a legal remedy, or full compensation—well, the answer is:

We already do.

Raymond: HACCP will not detect contaminated boxed beef and testing every three months will not, either. They need to test before blending and hold the product until negative results are in. Testing ground beef and still moving it out the door before results are back is ridiculous.

I do not know how to respond to the second question, except that parents are responsible for child car restraints, helmet wear when biking, teaching kids to look both ways when crossing a street, wearing a life jacket in a boat, having smoke and carbon monoxide detectors, etc., etc. Why it is not their responsibility to safely handle and cook meat I just do not understand. We can do better, but we cannot at this time and place, absolutely guarantee that raw meat and poultry do not contain pathogens."

Q. It's often been said "America has the safest food supply in the world." Do you agree? Are there other nations you can point to with outstanding food safety programs?

Marler: Saying that "America has the safest food supply in the world" is meaningless happy-talk. Safest compared to what? Now, if you want to compare particular kinds of food, then things start to be more meaningful. So, how about Denmark? Over a decade ago it eliminated Salmonella from ALL chickens and eggs. Are America's chickens safer than that? I think not. And the list could go on.

Raymond: Absolutely and it is getting better all the time. But there are many things that can be done to make it even safer. New Zealand, Japan and Australia come to mind when looking at nations with good food safety programs."
 

Latest posts

Back
Top