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

Sad E-Coli Story

Mike

Well-known member
Sickened by E. Coli Tainted Burger, Woman Out of Coma After 9 Weeks
Date Published: Wednesday, January 2nd, 2008
An E. coli victim is finally out of a medically induced coma. Sharon Smith remains hospitalized after eating a tainted Sam’s Club hamburger in September and becoming ill with E. coli poisoning. Smith has been at Saint Mary’s Hospital in Rochester and, around Thanksgiving, doctors told Smith’s family they could do no more for her. Five days after falling ill, Stephanie was hospitalized with hemolytic uremic syndrome—a severe, life-threatening complication of E. coli that occurs when E. coli toxins enter the bloodstream—and was placed in medically induced coma when she began having seizures.

Nine weeks after being placed in a coma, just before the holidays, Smith regained consciousness, although doctors report that Stephanie remains critical. Smith is moving her fingers and able to wink, but because she has been unconscious for so long, doctors are unsure if she’ll make a full recovery. Attempts to lower the coma-inducing drugs have resulted in more seizures and she requires a respirator to breathe, therefore, she is unable to speak because of the breathing tube on which she relies. It remains unknown as to when the tube can be removed. Stephanie’s kidneys have begun functioning and she no longer requires dialysis; however, her tongue has swelled and doctors have to prop her mouth open and have placed an oxygen mask on her.


E. coli 0157:H7—Escherichia coli 0157:H7—is one of hundreds of E. coli strains, the vast majority of which are harmless. Strain 0157:H7 is quite virulent and produces a powerful toxin that can cause severe illness and even death and is the leading cause of food and waterborne illness in the U.S. Routinely found on cattle farms and in the intestines of healthy livestock, E. coli outbreaks occur when meat becomes tainted during slaughter, organisms contaminate the grounding process, and tainted meat is released and consumed by the public. According to Center of Disease Control (CDC) estimates, there are over 70,000 cases of infection yearly with 2,100 hospitalized and 61 fatalities as a direct result of E. coli infections and its complications. A recent study estimated the annual cost of E. coli O157:H7 illnesses to be $405 million (in 2003 dollars), including $370 million for premature deaths, $30 million for medical care, and $5 million for lost productivity. It has been estimated that for every laboratory-confirmed E. coli O157:H7 infection, another four-to-eight symptomatic cases are missed.

In 2007, meat producers were forced to recall over 33.3 million pounds of beef products, including the 21.7 million pound recall that propelled New Jersey-based Topps Foods into bankruptcy. In June, United Food Group was forced to recall 5.7 million pounds of E. coli-laced ground beef. E. coli also forced the recall of 3.3 million pounds of Totino’s and Jeno’s frozen meat pizza and, in two separate recalls, Cargill had to recall over 1.9 million pounds of contaminated beef. Most of the big recalls of 2007 remain on the active case list of the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
I question why there wouldn't be a lawsuit from getting sick on beef that came from a package with a "USDA Inspected" stamp on it. Today, that stamp doesn't mean a damn thing. :mad:
 

Bill

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
I question why there wouldn't be a lawsuit from getting sick on beef that came from a package with a "USDA Inspected" stamp on it. Today, that stamp doesn't mean a damn thing. :mad:

A tragic story but why is it always USDA's fault? Let's sue USDA because it has a USDA sticker on it and here's a thought lets include the PRODUCER as well. :roll: Is that what you want Sadhusker? After all cattle routinely carry it so if USDA is responsible for this then so should the producer. Is there any grey area regarding handling by the company after it's labeled OR BY THE PERSON WHO COOKED IT? Aren't most e-coli problems associated with hamburger avoidable by PROPERLY COOKING the meat?
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Bill said:
Sandhusker said:
I question why there wouldn't be a lawsuit from getting sick on beef that came from a package with a "USDA Inspected" stamp on it. Today, that stamp doesn't mean a damn thing. :mad:

A tragic story but why is it always USDA's fault? Let's sue USDA because it has a USDA sticker on it and here's a thought lets include the PRODUCER as well. :roll: Is that what you want Sadhusker? After all cattle routinely carry it so if USDA is responsible for this then so should the producer. Is there any grey area regarding handling by the company after it's labeled OR BY THE PERSON WHO COOKED IT? Aren't most e-coli problems associated with hamburger avoidable by PROPERLY COOKING the meat?

You don't think the "USDA Inspected" stamp should count for anything?
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
Bill said:
Sandhusker said:
I question why there wouldn't be a lawsuit from getting sick on beef that came from a package with a "USDA Inspected" stamp on it. Today, that stamp doesn't mean a damn thing. :mad:

A tragic story but why is it always USDA's fault? Let's sue USDA because it has a USDA sticker on it and here's a thought lets include the PRODUCER as well. :roll: Is that what you want Sadhusker? After all cattle routinely carry it so if USDA is responsible for this then so should the producer. Is there any grey area regarding handling by the company after it's labeled OR BY THE PERSON WHO COOKED IT? Aren't most e-coli problems associated with hamburger avoidable by PROPERLY COOKING the meat?

You don't think the "USDA Inspected" stamp should count for anything?

Sit back and take a reality check, Bill. You seem to be disagreeable just to disagree with Sandhusker.

Meat is not contaminated when it leaves the ranch...meat is not contaminated when it leaves the feeder...meat is not even contaminated when it enters the packers door. The most likely place of contamination is on the kill floor from feces on the hide or digestive tract.
Whose job is it to prevent that? The packer's
Whose job is it to make sure the packer does his job? The inspector's

Every recall degrades the integrity of the stamp and hurts consumer confidence in beef being a safe product. And, yes, there are plenty of veggie and anti-meat types in the media that are waiting to blow these recalls out of proportion from the big picture...as big as a recall seems, they are less than 1% of total beef produced. But even that is preventable if everyone does their job. Slow the chain speed! Inspect and test meat imports and all meat going into grind plants! Remember, it is all PRODUCERS are ultimately harmed!
 

PORKER

Well-known member
I question why there wouldn't be a lawsuit from getting sick on beef that came from a package with a "USDA Inspected" stamp on it. Today, that stamp doesn't mean a damn thing.

Meat is not contaminated when it leaves the ranch...meat is not contaminated when it leaves the feeder...meat is not even contaminated when it enters the packers door. The most likely place of contamination is on the kill floor from feces on the hide or digestive tract.
Whose job is it to prevent that?[/color] The packer's
Whose job is it to make sure the packer does his job? The inspector's

Thats why traceback to the operator on the kill floor and deboning is Important. Who knows ,the same person could be making the same mistake time and again. ScoringAg knows everyone on the kill floor and the route the meat takes from cutter to cutter.
 

Tex

Well-known member
PORKER said:
I question why there wouldn't be a lawsuit from getting sick on beef that came from a package with a "USDA Inspected" stamp on it. Today, that stamp doesn't mean a damn thing.

Meat is not contaminated when it leaves the ranch...meat is not contaminated when it leaves the feeder...meat is not even contaminated when it enters the packers door. The most likely place of contamination is on the kill floor from feces on the hide or digestive tract.
Whose job is it to prevent that?[/color] The packer's
Whose job is it to make sure the packer does his job? The inspector's

Thats why traceback to the operator on the kill floor and deboning is Important. Who knows ,the same person could be making the same mistake time and again. ScoringAg knows everyone on the kill floor and the route the meat takes from cutter to cutter.


Who says the packers are not competing on food safety? We see it all the time. Unfortunately the USDA is helping them do it.

The USDA is a captive agency, captive to the packers and their interests, not the public interest.
 

Kathy

Well-known member
statement incorrect about e. coli :
all cattle routinely carry it

Animals on grass can exist without having E.coli.

I was reading an article from Acres USA about a dairy man in the US who was decended upon every time there was an ecoli problem. This is because his organic dairy is able to sell "unpasturized" milk. (I'll try to get the article later)....

The inspectors culture all his cattle feces for ecoli. The dairyman stated in the article that "none of his animals were every positive for ecoli".

At his farm, the cows stay in the pasture, and the milking parlour goes to them out in the field. (a portable unit).

Animals fed high grain rations, and brewers mash have a higher incidence of E. coli in their guts because the pH is altered and excess sulfur destroys the good bacteria, leaving conditions for the e. coli to flourish.

Perhaps the feedlots should consider sending their fats to pasture for a month just prior to slaughter (where available).. or switching to a grass diet for an acceptable time. Less grain more grass.

Cargil has a private in-house testing procedure for e. coli in its Alberta plant. When they tried to get the government to force this safety procedure upon all the rest of the packers, mainly Tyson/Lakeside.... they (the government) wouldn't go for it.

I am concerned that people will actually accept the curveball thrown out by Will Verboven (a writer for ag. magazines).... ? who has a propensity to support big pharma and the big packers.

He suggested that all meat be irradiated. Then he casually drops the line.... "and the government should make it MANDATORY".

Of course, if it were mandatory, the consumer couldn't choose to buy "non-irradiated" meat from a butcher or plant that does not use an "irradiator"....

I can only say how I truly feel about this subject..... piss off Will... Eating irradiated dead e. coli proteins can cause their own problems.... We need to fix the basic cause, not throw a blanket over it, and pretend it's not there.

I would like to know how other people feel about eating irradiated meat.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Bill, "Is that what you want Sadhusker?"

What I want is for everything that carries a "USDA Inspected" stamp to actually be USDA inspected. Is that too much to ask? I think that might fall under "truth in labeling".

I also expect them to follow their Congressional mandate and do all they reasonably can to keep our food safe. That means tracking problems down, dealing with them at their source, and accountability by all those involved.

Bill, "Aren't most e-coli problems associated with hamburger avoidable by PROPERLY COOKING the meat?"

They're also avoidable by keeping the **** off the meat. But, you would rather treat the symptoms than the sickness. That's the MRJ-NCBA way of dealing with it. When you consider the pounds of burger that is cooked at fast food joints by the stereotypical "burger flippers", high school kids, what not.... you're putting them in a very important position to effect the very existance of your industry. Are those the people who's actions you choose to depend on to deliver a safe product and keep you in business? Why not fix the problem so that you don't have to rely on kids and stoners to follow directions.
 

Tex

Well-known member
Kathy said:
statement incorrect about e. coli :
all cattle routinely carry it

Animals on grass can exist without having E.coli.

I was reading an article from Acres USA about a dairy man in the US who was decended upon every time there was an ecoli problem. This is because his organic dairy is able to sell "unpasturized" milk. (I'll try to get the article later)....

The inspectors culture all his cattle feces for ecoli. The dairyman stated in the article that "none of his animals were every positive for ecoli".

At his farm, the cows stay in the pasture, and the milking parlour goes to them out in the field. (a portable unit).

Animals fed high grain rations, and brewers mash have a higher incidence of E. coli in their guts because the pH is altered and excess sulfur destroys the good bacteria, leaving conditions for the e. coli to flourish.

Perhaps the feedlots should consider sending their fats to pasture for a month just prior to slaughter (where available).. or switching to a grass diet for an acceptable time. Less grain more grass.

Cargil has a private in-house testing procedure for e. coli in its Alberta plant. When they tried to get the government to force this safety procedure upon all the rest of the packers, mainly Tyson/Lakeside.... they (the government) wouldn't go for it.

I am concerned that people will actually accept the curveball thrown out by Will Verboven (a writer for ag. magazines).... ? who has a propensity to support big pharma and the big packers.

He suggested that all meat be irradiated. Then he casually drops the line.... "and the government should make it MANDATORY".

Of course, if it were mandatory, the consumer couldn't choose to buy "non-irradiated" meat from a butcher or plant that does not use an "irradiator"....

I can only say how I truly feel about this subject..... p*** off Will... Eating irradiated dead e. coli proteins can cause their own problems.... We need to fix the basic cause, not throw a blanket over it, and pretend it's not there.

I would like to know how other people feel about eating irradiated meat.

If you have to irradiate it for it to be edible, I wouldn't want to by it nor would I want it fed to my children or other people's children to eat it.

Packers who can't keep sheeet out of the meat they process should give up in that business-- they don't belong in it. The USDA should make them slow their lines down until they can handle meat in a safe and sanitary way. They should not allow them to put profits over safety.
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
Tex said:
Kathy said:
statement incorrect about e. coli :
all cattle routinely carry it

Animals on grass can exist without having E.coli.

I was reading an article from Acres USA about a dairy man in the US who was decended upon every time there was an ecoli problem. This is because his organic dairy is able to sell "unpasturized" milk. (I'll try to get the article later)....

The inspectors culture all his cattle feces for ecoli. The dairyman stated in the article that "none of his animals were every positive for ecoli".

At his farm, the cows stay in the pasture, and the milking parlour goes to them out in the field. (a portable unit).

Animals fed high grain rations, and brewers mash have a higher incidence of E. coli in their guts because the pH is altered and excess sulfur destroys the good bacteria, leaving conditions for the e. coli to flourish.

Perhaps the feedlots should consider sending their fats to pasture for a month just prior to slaughter (where available).. or switching to a grass diet for an acceptable time. Less grain more grass.

Cargil has a private in-house testing procedure for e. coli in its Alberta plant. When they tried to get the government to force this safety procedure upon all the rest of the packers, mainly Tyson/Lakeside.... they (the government) wouldn't go for it.

I am concerned that people will actually accept the curveball thrown out by Will Verboven (a writer for ag. magazines).... ? who has a propensity to support big pharma and the big packers.

He suggested that all meat be irradiated. Then he casually drops the line.... "and the government should make it MANDATORY".

Of course, if it were mandatory, the consumer couldn't choose to buy "non-irradiated" meat from a butcher or plant that does not use an "irradiator"....

I can only say how I truly feel about this subject..... p*** off Will... Eating irradiated dead e. coli proteins can cause their own problems.... We need to fix the basic cause, not throw a blanket over it, and pretend it's not there.

I would like to know how other people feel about eating irradiated meat.

If you have to irradiate it for it to be edible, I wouldn't want to by it nor would I want it fed to my children or other people's children to eat it.

Packers who can't keep sheeet out of the meat they process should give up in that business-- they don't belong in it. The USDA should make them slow their lines down until they can handle meat in a safe and sanitary way. They should not allow them to put profits over safety.

The nature of a commodity business...the one with the highest volume and the lowest price wins!!!
 

cedardell

Well-known member
Thanks to modern technology it is now possable to ID pathogenic organisms in seconds with genetic decoders or gene readers. USDA spent a lot of money purchasing this equipment. Now the cost has come down and there are hand held units. This makes it possible so sell raw milk, so I think it would be easy to ID one strain of bacteria. I think packers will jump on this because it has the possability to eliminate all those expensive recalls.
 

cedardell

Well-known member
Thank You Kathy for keeping us posted on the facts. I also agree with you 100% on irradiation. Industry will use it as a crutch to sell substandard product. I do have a question though. I seems like it would be a fairly simple matter and benefit cattle feeders to readjust the ph in the gut of their cattle to compensate for the change caused by high grain feeding. This would be a good topic for this forum.
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
Kathy and cedardell, some years ago Cornell University did a study feeding hay for a few days to finished cattle...the results was a GREATLY REDUCED bacteria count in the feces (and digestive tract). Although none of the animals tested had the 0157:H7 strain of E.coli, it could be assumed these would be reduced as well.
 
Top