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

Every Recall Hurts Perception

Mike

Well-known member
WASHINGTON, March 2, 2007 - Tyson Fresh Meats, a Wallula, Wash., firm, is voluntarily recalling approximately 16,743 pounds of ground beef that may be contaminated with E. coli O157:H7, the U.S. Department 4 of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service announced today.

The products subject to recall include:

* 60-pound boxes containing six 10-pound chubs of "ROUND, COARSE GROUND BEEF, 85/15." The box end also bears a label with the establishment number "Est. 9268" as well as a "BEST BEFORE OR FROZEN BY" date of "03/08/07" and packaging date "02/16/07."


The problem was discovered through routine FSIS microbiological sampling at another federally inspected establishment. FSIS has received no reports of illnesses associated with consumption of these products.

The ground beef was produced on Feb. 16, 2007 and was sent to distributors in Idaho, Oregon, Utah and Washington.
E. coli O157:H7 is a potentially deadly bacterium that can cause bloody diarrhea and dehydration. The very young, seniors and persons with compromised immune systems are the most susceptible to foodborne illness.

Consumers with questions about the recall should contact the company Consumer Hotline at (800) 233-6332, Monday through Friday from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., Central Standard Time. Media with questions about the recall should contact company Director of Media Relations Gary Mickelson at (479) 290-6111.

Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS virtual representative available 24 hours a day at http://www.fsis.usda.gov/ Food_Safety_Education/ Ask_Karen/. The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in English and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety messages are available 24 hours a day.

Preparing Ground Beef For Safe Consumption

USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHOTLINE or visit www.fsis.usda.gov

Although the product(s) being recalled should be returned to the point of purchase, consumers preparing other ground beef products should heed the following advice.

Consumers should only eat ground beef patties that have been cooked to a safe temperature of 160 °F. When a ground beef patty is cooked to 160 °F throughout, it can be safe and juicy, regardless of color.

The only way to be sure a ground beef patty is cooked to a high enough temperature to kill harmful bacteria is to use an accurate food thermometer.

Color is not a reliable indicator that ground beef patties have been cooked to a temperature high enough to kill harmful bacteria such as E. coli O157:H7.

Eating a pink or red ground beef patty without first verifying that the safe temperature of 160 °F has been reached is a significant risk factor for foodborne illness.

Thermometer use to ensure proper cooking temperature is especially important for those who cook or serve ground beef patties to people most at risk for foodborne illness because E. coli O157:H7 can lead to serious illness or even death. Those most at risk include young children, seniors, and those with compromised immune systems.
 

PORKER

Well-known member
Agency advises caution after Tyson beef recall




Published Sunday, March 4th, 2007

DORI O'NEAL HERALD STAFF WRITER

The recall of Tyson ground beef distributed throughout the Northwest shouldn't worry Tri-City area consumers as long as they take certain precautions, the director of the Benton Franklin Health Department said Saturday.

Tyson Fresh Meats on Friday voluntarily recalled 16,743 pounds of ground beef produced at its Wallula plant because it may be contaminated with E. coli 0157:H7 bacteria.

The ground beef is packaged in 10-pound chubs of ground beef labeled "round, coarse ground beef, 85/15," according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The department's Food Safety and Inspection Service reported it had received no reports of illness associated with consumption of contaminated beef.

The recalled product was distributed in 60-pound boxes containing six, 10-pound chubs, according to the USDA. The box end also has a label with the establishment number "Est. 9268" and "best before or frozen by" date of 03/08/07 and a packaging date of 2/16/07.




Though the meat was shipped to distributors in Washington, Oregon, Idaho and Utah, none of the major grocery store chains in the Tri-Cities contacted by the Herald on Saturday said they carried the Tyson brand of ground beef. The USDA said anyone who bought the recalled meat should return it to the place they bought it.

"There haven't been any reports of E. coli breakouts for several weeks," said Dr. Larry Jecha, director of the Benton Franklin Health Department.

But the best way to make sure your meat is safe to eat is to cook it thoroughly, Jecha said.

"As long as meat (even if it's infected with E. coli) is cooked properly, there shouldn't be a problem eating it because heat kills the bacteria,' he said. "However, good hygiene is also important."

If you're using a utensil or preparing raw meat with your hands on the kitchen counter, it's a good idea to wash your hands after handling it, Jecha said.

He also said consumers shouldn't prepare meat, then move directly to handling the lettuce for a salad without washing their hands and wiping the counter down with a disinfectant.

"It's simple a matter of common sense and good hygiene," Jecha said.

Ground beef should be cooked to 160 degrees before eating, according to the USDA.

The contamination of the Tyson ground meat was discovered during routine testing by the USDA, the agency said. The meat was produced Feb. 16.

Calls to representatives at the Wallula plant and Tyson's corporate headquarters in Arkansas were not returned Saturday.

Eating food contaminated with E. coli 0157:H7 can lead to serious illness or even death, according to the USDA. Seniors, young children and people with compromised immune systems are the most susceptible to foodborne illnesses.

Consumers who have questions about the recall can call Tyson's consumer hotline, available from 6 a.m. to 3 p.m. Monday through Friday, at 1-800-233-6332, according to the USDA.

The USDA meat and poultry hotline, at 1-888-674-6854, is available in English and Spanish from 7 a.m. to 1 p.m. Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety messages are available 24 hours a day.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
* 60-pound boxes containing six 10-pound chubs of "ROUND, COARSE GROUND BEEF, 85/15." The box end also bears a label with the establishment number "Est. 9268" as well as a "BEST BEFORE OR FROZEN BY" date of "03/08/07" and packaging date "02/16/07."

Again I wonder about FSIS...Why even do the testing if they are going to wait almost a month after it goes out to the public before they test and find this...Is this FSIS testing just another smokescreen of illusion of food safety?

This is something that should be being caught right in the plant before distribution...Doesn't do much good after its been all consumed except scare consumers and make FSIS look like they actually do something...
Makes statistics for the bureaucrats- and something folks like Maxine can tout about how well government is overseeing the Packer industry safety... :roll:
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
The problem was discovered through routine FSIS microbiological sampling at another federally inspected establishment.

Here is the key to finding this Ecoli...the tested sample at Tyson represented "approximately 16,743 pounds of ground beef" and didn't, by the luck of the draw, contain the Ecoli that was else where in the large batch. The other federally inspected establishment was more than likely dealing with a smaller batch. After Greely, it looks like small plants buying from the large packers are testing product BEFORE they use it!!!
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
RobertMac said:
The problem was discovered through routine FSIS microbiological sampling at another federally inspected establishment.

Here is the key to finding this Ecoli...the tested sample at Tyson represented "approximately 16,743 pounds of ground beef" and didn't, by the luck of the draw, contain the Ecoli that was else where in the large batch. The other federally inspected establishment was more than likely dealing with a smaller batch. After Greely, it looks like small plants buying from the large packers are testing product BEFORE they use it!!!

Good catch, RM. How can the USDA be serious about food safety when their system allows companies to ship tainted product?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
RobertMac said:
The problem was discovered through routine FSIS microbiological sampling at another federally inspected establishment.

Here is the key to finding this Ecoli...the tested sample at Tyson represented "approximately 16,743 pounds of ground beef" and didn't, by the luck of the draw, contain the Ecoli that was else where in the large batch. The other federally inspected establishment was more than likely dealing with a smaller batch. After Greely, it looks like small plants buying from the large packers are testing product BEFORE they use it!!!

Sounds like the John Munsell (Miles City) story all over again--except they wouldn't believe him when he said Greely was giving him bad beef...
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
RobertMac said:
The problem was discovered through routine FSIS microbiological sampling at another federally inspected establishment.

Here is the key to finding this Ecoli...the tested sample at Tyson represented "approximately 16,743 pounds of ground beef" and didn't, by the luck of the draw, contain the Ecoli that was else where in the large batch. The other federally inspected establishment was more than likely dealing with a smaller batch. After Greely, it looks like small plants buying from the large packers are testing product BEFORE they use it!!!

Good catch, RM. How can the USDA be serious about food safety when their system allows companies to ship tainted product?

The meat being shipped was probably the results of lag time between the test and the results getting back to the plant.(FSIS doesn't do the testing and, I don't think, they do the sampling...they are there to inspect and monitor the plants HACCP) After Greely, FSIS implemented a program to ramped up testing which brought my processor under the testing protocol. It is done as a plant monitoring process, which he has to do each quarter. I'm not sure, but I would suspect that is based on volume...the more volume, the more testing. Comparatively, I'm sure Tyson had to pull more sample on that batch, but the sheer size of the batch makes it more of a crap-shoot to catch. That is why I favor more inspectors on the kill floor and slower chain speeds so things are done more carefully. MRJ wants to ignore the elephant in the room which is the vast majority of contamination will occur on the kill floor. It is a simple choice of economics or quality control/safety.
 

mrj

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
* 60-pound boxes containing six 10-pound chubs of "ROUND, COARSE GROUND BEEF, 85/15." The box end also bears a label with the establishment number "Est. 9268" as well as a "BEST BEFORE OR FROZEN BY" date of "03/08/07" and packaging date "02/16/07."

Again I wonder about FSIS...Why even do the testing if they are going to wait almost a month after it goes out to the public before they test and find this...Is this FSIS testing just another smokescreen of illusion of food safety?

This is something that should be being caught right in the plant before distribution...Doesn't do much good after its been all consumed except scare consumers and make FSIS look like they actually do something...
Makes statistics for the bureaucrats- and something folks like Maxine can tout about how well government is overseeing the Packer industry safety... :roll:


OT, where do you get that it was "almost a month after it goes out to the public before they test...."?

Did I miss a critical date of the test, or was it not included? While we may not know the date the critter was killed,the story is dated March 4. Tyson recalled on the previous Friday, Mar. 2. The packaging date on the meat was Feb. 16. My calendar shows 14 days between Feb. 16 and Mar. 2, NOT "nearly a month after it goes out".

Apparently your zeal to attack overtakes any honesty or accuracy you might have considered in posting as you did.

Can anyone really believe that a business chooses to sell dangerous food?

Can anyone fail to understand that the best methods to assure safe and clean food can go to hell with the carelessness of one employee one time?

Would a plant make enough money cutting corners and selling 'tainted' beef to make up for what they lose in one incident like this? That simply defies common sense and even reality, IMO.

MRJ
 

PORKER

Well-known member
For individuals who have a weakened immune system or poor health from other conditions, salmonella poisoning can cause life-threatening infection(s).

The CDC's data indicates that salmonella poisoning causes about 40,000 humans to get sick each year, with the infection causing approximately 600 deaths annually. The symptoms of salmonella poisoning include fever, diarrhea and abdominal cramps.

The FDA is working closely with all entities to identify how the contamination occurred and to help prevent other similar food-borne outbreaks from happening again.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
MRJ said:
Oldtimer said:
* 60-pound boxes containing six 10-pound chubs of "ROUND, COARSE GROUND BEEF, 85/15." The box end also bears a label with the establishment number "Est. 9268" as well as a "BEST BEFORE OR FROZEN BY" date of "03/08/07" and packaging date "02/16/07."

Again I wonder about FSIS...Why even do the testing if they are going to wait almost a month after it goes out to the public before they test and find this...Is this FSIS testing just another smokescreen of illusion of food safety?

This is something that should be being caught right in the plant before distribution...Doesn't do much good after its been all consumed except scare consumers and make FSIS look like they actually do something...
Makes statistics for the bureaucrats- and something folks like Maxine can tout about how well government is overseeing the Packer industry safety... :roll:


OT, where do you get that it was "almost a month after it goes out to the public before they test...."?

Did I miss a critical date of the test, or was it not included? While we may not know the date the critter was killed,the story is dated March 4. Tyson recalled on the previous Friday, Mar. 2. The packaging date on the meat was Feb. 16. My calendar shows 14 days between Feb. 16 and Mar. 2, NOT "nearly a month after it goes out".

Apparently your zeal to attack overtakes any honesty or accuracy you might have considered in posting as you did.

Can anyone really believe that a business chooses to sell dangerous food?

Can anyone fail to understand that the best methods to assure safe and clean food can go to hell with the carelessness of one employee one time?

Would a plant make enough money cutting corners and selling 'tainted' beef to make up for what they lose in one incident like this? That simply defies common sense and even reality, IMO.

MRJ

MRJ, if the test results come out after the meat is sold, what good is the testing? They don't get it all back.

This is a system that allows packers to sell condemned meat and not pay the penalty of even the cost of the meat. Very little of that meat will be paid for by the packer.

As far as common sense, I don't think you can claim to be qualified for comment in that regard.
 

PORKER

Well-known member
Monday, March 5, 2007. Issue 3608. Page 6.
Tougher Rules Placed on EU Meat Imports
By Aleksandras Budrys
Reuters
Russia, after recalling its animal health inspectors from the European Union, threatened on Friday to suspend meat imports from some EU countries unless Brussels provides additional quality control guarantees.

The country's animal and plant health watchdog said in a statement that it had asked veterinary services from several EU countries to increase control over exports to prevent violations of Russian safety standards.

"Despite this, some shipments of products of animal origin imported to Russia from Europe in 2007 did not match Russian veterinary standards," the agency said.

The watchdog sent a letter to the European Commission requesting it present by March 31 plans for monitoring residues of dangerous and banned substances in live animals, products and feed. It also requested the results of monitoring last year.

"If the requested data are not provided by some EU countries, the watchdog will be forced to suspend shipments of products of animal origin from these countries," the agency said.

The agency's head, Sergei Dankvert, said Monday that Russia had recalled animal health inspectors from 12 EU countries after the EU had guaranteed safety of food exports.

He added that, after the return of the inspectors, Russia intended to toughen control over imported food at the country's borders and could impose wider bans on countries with outbreaks of animal disease.


Dankvert said Friday that Moscow also intended to recall inspectors from some Latin American countries and to apply more punitive measures to farms, factories and companies found shipping unhealthy food to Russia.

"We will be crossing the violators of our standards off the suppliers' list. We are a big importer and we will always be able to find substitutes," Dankvert said.

The agency said in the statement that some European suppliers last year supplied Russia with meat products unfit for human consumption as their storage period had expired or they were tainted with dangerous bacteria.

Meat and plant product safety has soured relations between Russia and the EU for several years since the bloc started adopting new members through which, Russia has said, products of doubtful origin could be shipped.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Two weeks-two months- two years-- doesn't matter Maxine... The ground beef was allowed to be sold and consumed before they did any testing...So why test, if it isn't done to check to make sure its safe BEFORE people eat it.....And like I predicted you're again sticking up for your NCBA buddies at Tyson etal...... :roll: :wink: :lol: :lol:
 

PORKER

Well-known member
WASHINGTON -- Last year's E. coli outbreaks, linked to fresh spinach from central California and Mexican produce used by Taco Bell, underscore the need for stricter food safety oversight, the head of a House panel said yesterday at what is expected to be the first in a series of hearings examining the overall federal food safety structure in the coming months.

Rep. Rosa DeLauro, chair of the House Agricultural Appropriations Subcommittee, presided over the hearing, and leaders from the United Fresh Produce Association (United Fresh), the American Meat Institute (AMI), and the Consumers Union were among those testifying.


The hearing began with testimony from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) on its latest report recommending comprehensive reform to food safety.

During the hearing, Tom Stenzel, president and c.e.o. of United Fresh, called food safety "our industry's top priority," noting that "it is a process, not a static achievement. We are on a continuum, constantly striving toward perfection, while understanding scientifically that perfection - or zero risk - is not possible."

Throughout his testimony, Stenzel emphatically reiterated the Washington, D.C.-based United Fresh's call for strong federal oversight of clear, consistent science-based standards which would be applicable to all produce grown domestically or imported.

Citing a study released this week from Rutgers University indicating consumer confidence in fresh produce continues to be negatively affected long past last fall's spinach outbreak, Stenzel said, "This kind of fear...actually harms the public's health [and] should be as unacceptable to government public health leaders as it is to us. No matter how hard our industry works to ensure food safety, public confidence ultimately depends upon government as the final authority to set proper food safety standards and ensure that they are being met."

Stenzel then laid out then four key principles United Fresh advocates for the nation's food safety regulatory framework: harmonized produce food safety standards, federal oversight, assured compliance, and a commodity-specific and scientific approach.

"Together, the four principles I have outlined above provide a direction for food safety regulatory policy that we believe would most help our industry enhance produce safety, concurrent with establishing the highest level of public trust in our industry and in our fresh produce offerings," Stenzel said. "It is our goal to support a U.S. regulatory framework for the fresh produce industry that incorporates these principles."

A cooperative approach to food safety and inspection between industry and government and the meat industry's vote to make food safety a non-competitive issue have yielded significant, measurable results, said Mark Dopp, AMI's s.v.p./regulatory affairs and general counsel, during his testimony.

Calling the 1990s a "pivotal period" for the meat industry - particularly the early part of the decade when E. coli O157:H7 moved into the food safety spotlight and became the No. 1 enemy in the meat industry, and later, Listeria monocytogenes, Dopp said: "It was a time of both crisis and progress and it was a period when we recognized publicly what we knew intuitively: that optimal food safety was good not just for our customers, it was good for our businesses."

Dopp said AMI petitioned USDA to mandate HACCP (Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point) plans in all federally inspected meat plants, and subsequently ran an intensive HACCP training program to prepare the industry for the coming mandate.

During that period, Dopp said AMI's board "recognized that our collective knowledge was more powerful than the knowledge companies possessed individually," and thus voted to make food safety a non-competitive issue. "What that means is that when it comes to information about food safety that AMI member companies have developed or discovered, they share it with each other without hesitation. Simply put, good ideas get better when they are adopted widely." THE CONSUMER?????????
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Con Agra Extends Peanut Butter Recall

Mar 11, 2007 6:05 AM (4 hrs ago)



WASHINGTON - ConAgra Foods Inc. has extended its recall of all peanut butter produced at a plant in Georgia by more than a year, back to October 2004, the Food and Drug Administration said Friday.


The recall covers all Peter Pan peanut butter and all Great Value peanut butter beginning with product code 2111, including peanut butter toppings.

Peanut butter has a long shelf life, and the FDA's announcement reflects the ongoing investigation, said ConAgra spokeswoman Stephanie Childs. Any peanut butter matching the recall, regardless of the date, can be returned to the place of purchase, or customers can send the lid to ConAgra for a refund.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 425 people have fallen ill from the outbreak of salmonella that has been traced back to the plant in Sylvester, Ga.

The FDA warned consumers who have purchased any of the products since October 2004 to discard them, and not to eat any Peter Pan or Great Value peanut butter with a product code beginning with 2111.

ConAgra on Feb. 14 recalled all Peter Pan and Great Value peanut butter made at the Georgia plant after federal health officials linked the product to an outbreak that began in August. At that time the recall applied to all peanut butter made since December 2005.

To obtain a refund, consumers can return the product to the store where they bought it or mail in lids with their names and addresses to ConAgra Foods, P.O. Box 3768, Omaha, NE 68103.

http://www.examiner.com/a-612677~ConAgra_Extends_Peanut_Butter_Recall.html
 

PORKER

Well-known member
That means all that peanutbutter I stored in my Bomb Shelter will have to be throwed out. Wouldn't have died from a nuke, just salmonilla.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
During that period, Dopp said AMI's board "recognized that our collective knowledge was more powerful than the knowledge companies possessed individually," and thus voted to make food safety a non-competitive issue. "What that means is that when it comes to information about food safety that AMI member companies have developed or discovered, they share it with each other without hesitation. Simply put, good ideas get better when they are adopted widely." THE CONSUMER?????????

The AMI clearly states that food safety was voted to not be a competitive issue. This goes back to the comparative advantage that I described before. When companies are able to take short cuts in food safety, they may have less costs and therefore be more competitive. The AMI clearly recognized this as a possibility and voted against it happening.

The Packers and Stockyards Act is meant to make sure that packers do not use cheating the producer a competitive issue. Today it is being used as a competitive issue. The process of getting justice is too much for individuals to bear and the 11th circuit is clearly against justice in this matter.
 

Ben Roberts

Well-known member
Econ101 said:
I wonder if we can tell if any of this meat contained lean beef trimmings from Australia?


Econ 101, I will find out tonight, if any Australian meat was blended with 50/50 trimmings, from native and Canadian fats that are slaughtered at this plant. Not to sure though, if I can find out the origin of the Canadian cattle, because alot of native cattle are fed in Canada, and then shipped back.

Ben Roberts
 

PORKER

Well-known member
Of Course it could be Chicken ; link
http://www.kfcmademesick.com/?OVRAW=Food%20poisoning&OVKEY=food%20poisoning&OVMTC=standard
 
Top