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

Letter To FSIS

Mike

Well-known member
October 17, 2007

Dr. Richard Raymond
Under Secretary
Food Safety Inspection Service
U.S. Department of Agriculture
1400 Independence Ave., SW
Washington, DC 20250

Dear Dr. Raymond:

I am writing in response to the recent string of recalls of ground beef contaminated with E. coli 0157:H7 bacteria. The safety of our nation’s food is dependent on the commitment and diligence of food manufacturers, combined with the insistent oversight of food safety inspectors. Any lapses must be swiftly addressed. We must not accept the status quo when it comes to foodborne illnesses.

It is alarming that, following several years of reductions in the number of cases of E. coli infections, we are now witnessing a sharp rise in both the number of incidents requiring a recall and the number people infected by this harmful bacteria. In 2007 alone, there have been 16 separate and independent recalls of ground beef due to E. coli, resulting in dozens of cases of significant foodborne illnesses and more than 28 million pounds of product being removed from the stream of commerce. This spike warrants additional attention.

My concerns with these recent developments are manifold. In the case of the Topps beef recall, it appears that an entire year’s worth of supply was contaminated, yet the USDA FSIS inspectors assigned to serve at that facility on a daily basis failed to detect the E. coli adulterant. In addition, once USDA FSIS became aware of cases of foodborne illnesses, it took more than 10 days for the agency to announce a recall. The PFGE gel test alone, conducted by labs to detect the presence of E. coli, took seven days.

I believe that these recalls require immediate attention, and I appreciate hearing that you have already directed the agency to study these instances with the goal of taking action to correct deficiencies. In addition, I ask that you address the following questions:

Please provide a detailed timeline of the Topps recall, including but not limited to consumer complaints, inspector actions, product testing, and effectiveness checks.

2) Please provide all reports, follow-up inspections and correspondence with Topps officials from 2000 to the present.

3) When did Topps discover that there was a possible E. coli illness linked to its products? Once it realized the link, what actions did it take?

4) How and when did the CDC establish that the first reported case in the Topps outbreak began on July 5?

5) Did Topps seek advice or guidance related to a recall from USDA FSIS at any point between August 31, 2007, when an illness was first reported and September 7, 2007, when USDA first reported out a positive test?

6) Did USDA FSIS ever suggest to Topps that a recall wasn’t necessary? If so, why?

7) Why did in-plant inspectors fail to recognize the E. coli hazard in Topps’ ground beef production? Did Topps have a HACCP plan in place that addressed the risks associated with E. coli?

8) What was the date of the last full USDA inspection report on the Topps plant and what did it find?

9) How many tests for E. coli were conducted by USDA inspectors at the Topps plant over the past five years and what were the results of these tests?

10) Did Topps co-mingle multiple days of ground beef production? If so, how did USDA FSIS become aware of this practice? Were inspectors aware of this practice prior to the recall? Do any current USDA FSIS regulations prohibit this practice?

11) Approximately how much time each day was an inspector present at the Topps facility? Over the past 12 months, did inspectors pursue enforcement actions or file reports about problems with Topps’ production? Did inspectors follow up on any recommendations that were made?

12) How long had the USDA inspectors assigned to the Topps facility been inspecting that facility at the time of the recall? How long had they been working as USDA inspectors?

13) How many follow-up effectiveness checks have been performed by USDA FSIS employees during this recall? What was the success rate of the effectiveness checks? What was the recall rate?

14) What follow-up actions have been performed by USDA employees with Topps’ suppliers to ensure that the source of the adulteration is not continuing to enter into the stream of commerce? What are USDA FSIS’ policies with regard to post-recall actions to check suppliers?

15) How many inspectors are employed by USDA FSIS? How many establishments have daily inspection? How many posts are currently vacant? What is USDA FSIS’s annual budget? Please provide this data for the current year as well as each of the previous ten years.

16) When is the last time that USDA FSIS updated its E. coli performance criteria and testing standards?

Thank you for your attention to this matter. I ask that you provide a response within 20 days. If you have any questions, please contact David Lazarus of my staff at (202) 224-2152.

Sincerely,

Richard J. Durbin
United States Senator
 

PORKER

Well-known member
14) What follow-up actions have been performed by USDA employees with Topps’ suppliers to ensure that the source of the adulteration is not continuing to enter into the stream of commerce? What are USDA FSIS’ policies with regard to post-recall actions to check suppliers?

They will stubble on this ONE!!!!!!!!!!!
 

PORKER

Well-known member
Note of interest.

USDA inspectors visit about 6,000 food-production facilities, but some are so large that they require several inspectors. From April to June of this year, inspectors examined 34 million livestock carcasses and condemned 54,546 of them, according to FSIS records. For poultry, the numbers jump to an 2.3 billion carcasses inspected and 11 million condemned animals.

Must be a reason why millions condemned animals are brought to slaughter?
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
PORKER said:
14) What follow-up actions have been performed by USDA employees with Topps’ suppliers to ensure that the source of the adulteration is not continuing to enter into the stream of commerce? What are USDA FSIS’ policies with regard to post-recall actions to check suppliers?

They will stubble on this ONE!!!!!!!!!!!

This is the only question that really matters...that will lead to the truth! Durbin shows his ignorance with some of the questions(or should I say his staff's ignorance).
 

Tex

Well-known member
RobertMac said:
PORKER said:
14) What follow-up actions have been performed by USDA employees with Topps’ suppliers to ensure that the source of the adulteration is not continuing to enter into the stream of commerce? What are USDA FSIS’ policies with regard to post-recall actions to check suppliers?

They will stubble on this ONE!!!!!!!!!!!

This is the only question that really matters...that will lead to the truth! Durbin shows his ignorance with some of the questions(or should I say his staff's ignorance).


I think you are totally right on this, RM.

This was the question I looked to in all the questions posed above that had the most relevance. It is interesting that you, RM, and porker pointed to the same question. If three little guys out in the hayfields can see this, why can't our leaders?

This question should be expanded upon. Within that expansion should be the question which I know the three of us know: Who was involved in setting up the system in this manner (allowing it) so that food safety was not accomplished in the end.

We already know in the Monson (sp?) case that the USDA did not allow companies that get their material from the big packers from testing that product. This prevented the traceback and the accountability.

We need to know who in the USDA is either incompetent or carrying water for the packers. We need to know who is behind this lack of tracablity to the source of the problem within the USDA. We need to know their names and Congressional oversight needs to hold them accountable.

REAL questions by an investigatory panel need to be asked. Traceback to the ecoli source is important. Traceback to the system in the USDA that prevented this from occurring is paramount if we are ever going to change the USDA from being nothing more than a captive agency for the industry, and in particular, for a few billionaires who want to control our food industry.
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
Tex, it was clear to me from the start that Topps doesn't slaughter cattle to get their trim to grind...therefore, they had no way to introduce the E.coli pathogen except through the trim they bought. I wish there was a grind plant that had the gonads to test every batch of trim they bought!!! If I owned a grind plant, I sure as he!! would and would dare FSIS to sue me to stop it! :mad:

Creekstone should do the same...start BSE testing and dare FSIS to sue them to stop it!!!

It should be clear to all producers that our industry leadership...NCBA, USDA, AMI...aren't going to do anything to protect the integrity of our product! :mad: :mad:
 

PPRM

Well-known member
RobertMac said:
Tex, it was clear to me from the start that Topps doesn't slaughter cattle to get their trim to grind...therefore, they had no way to introduce the E.coli pathogen except through the trim they bought. I wish there was a grind plant that had the gonads to test every batch of trim they bought!!! If I owned a grind plant, I sure as he!! would and would dare FSIS to sue me to stop it! :mad:

Creekstone should do the same...start BSE testing and dare FSIS to sue them to stop it!!!

It should be clear to all producers that our industry leadership...NCBA, USDA, AMI...aren't going to do anything to protect the integrity of our product! :mad: :mad:

Hmmmmm..Since the USDA can't shut you down or slow your process down....That might work,

;-}

PPRM
 

Tex

Well-known member
As I understand it, the USDA was willing to go after Creekstone in their efforts.

No matter what you may think, the USDA has enormous government power.


Their selective use of their power is what is problematic.

Take a look at Hudson, and now Topps. The USDA has prevented these companies from even testing products coming in from their favored packers from being tested for ecoli.

The goal now, I would suspect, would be to reduce the amount of information coming from these companies as to the possible source so the traceback will not happen to find the source.

This is the way government helps its friends.

It doesn't help solve problems and it doesn't help consumers.

If we don't stop this corruption and insist on higher standards than the good old boy standards (the rule of law for instance), we turn our democracy over to those in power and their friends. They have their own interests which are not the same as the interests of the country.

That is the way I see it.
 

PORKER

Well-known member
Meanwhile, the USDA on Tuesday announced more steps it was taking to protect the public from E. coli infections from beef. Recent outbreaks have reversed a steady decline that began in 2000.

The new effort should probably reduce E. coli contamination, said William D. Marler, a Seattle lawyer who represents victims of food-borne illness, including several who have sued Topps.

However, Marler added, "I'm still perplexed as to why, after all these years, they weren't doing this."


After the USDA/FSIS phone conference today, FSIS announced:

"FSIS Takes Aggressive Actions To Combat E. Coli O157:H7"

Key initiatives targeted to federally inspected plants that produce raw beef products include:


Testing and analysis of trim. Based on preliminary data from the agency's beef trim baseline and scientific literature indicating that contamination of trim is related to contamination of ground beef, FSIS began trim testing in March 2007, not waiting for final analysis of the baseline. By testing earlier in the production chain to identify contaminated beef trim intended for ground beef, FSIS prevents this source from contaminating the ground beef available to consumers. This also gives the agency more data to analyze in determining and implementing the most appropriate actions to reverse upward trends.
Verifying control of E. coli O157:H7. FSIS notified the beef industry that, as of November, all beef plants will be expected to verify that they are effectively controlling E. coli O157:H7 during slaughter and processing. The agency also provided the industry specific examples of minimum controls that would meet the minimum criteria for a "well-controlled" process. Identifying which establishments achieve the minimums, and which establishments do not, will provide FSIS the critical information on establishments with vulnerabilities.
New checklist for verifying control. FSIS inspection program personnel will review both suppliers and processors based on a new checklist, once they complete specialized training beginning the week of Oct. 29. Data from the checklists will be completed in November and will be updated quarterly to help the agency more quickly identify significant changes in plants' production controls and ensure the company takes corrective action. FSIS will analyze the checklist data and use it to adjust programs or policies as needed.
Testing more domestic and imported ground beef components. FSIS will begin testing materials that are used as components in raw ground beef, in addition to the beef trim already tested, which is the primary component. FSIS is also requiring countries whose beef is imported to the U.S. to conduct the same sampling or an equivalent measure.
More rapid recalls. FSIS now takes into account a broader, more complete range of evidence when evaluating whether to seek a recall or take regulatory action. This gives the agency a credible approach to more rapidly taking action when certain types of evidence are available. In two recent cases, FSIS acted upon epidemiological evidence that linked illness to opened, FSIS-inspected product found in consumers freezers.
Targeting routine testing. In January 2008, FSIS will begin routine targeted sampling for E. coli O157:H7 at slaughter and grinding facilities. Currently, all plants have an equal chance of being tested. Under this new verification testing program, FSIS will test larger volume operations more frequently than in the past. Data from the checklists will be used to determine testing frequency for establishments.
Ensuring safety of imported beef products. FSIS notified countries that export raw beef product to the U.S. of new policies and programs and is working with them to ensure they implement the same or equivalent measures to protect the public from E. coli O157:H7 risks. Although the above programs are good, one wonders why USDA/FSIS had not implemented these years ago or at least six months ago when the E. coli spike happened. The Consumer Man, Herb Weisbaum and I spoke today about the USDA taking new steps to curb E. coli contamination:

As for reaction to the USDA proposal, Seattle attorney Bill Marler, who handles the bulk of the E. coli cases in the country and who has been one of the USDA's chief critic, calls this "a positive step that could make a significant difference." But he adds, "this should have been in place a long time ago." If the USDA's new meat safety program is going to work, Marler says there needs to be serious enforcement: "I hope USDA has the willpower and manpower to do that."
 
Top