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

Topps cuts testing once to often.

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
Oct. 22, 2007, 11:36PM
Safeguards not working in some meat plants
Regulators look to sharpen scrutiny after sudden increase in E.coli cases


By CHRISTOPHER DREW and ANDREW MARTIN
New York Times
ELIZABETH, N.J. — Over the summer, as Americans fired up their grills, the Topps Meat factory here scrambled to produce thousands of frozen hamburger patties for Wal-Mart and other customers, putting intense pressure on workers.

As output rose, federal regulators said in interviews, the company was neglecting critical safeguards meant to protect consumers. Three big batches of hamburger contaminated with a potentially deadly germ emerged from the plant, making at least 40 people sick and prompting the second-largest beef recall in history.

Topps is now out of business, but the case points up broader problems in the nation's system for protecting consumers from food-borne illness.

Five years ago, the government demanded more stringent safeguards against contamination because of a deadly form of the germ E. coli. But federal regulators now acknowledge that the controls are not working in some meat plants. They are trying to figure out what went wrong and how to overcome the dangers.

In the case of Topps, the government has determined that the company reduced its testing of ground beef and neglected other safety measures in the months before the recall.

The Topps case is the most serious of 16 recalls this year involving E. coli contamination of beef. That is a sharp increase from 2005 and 2006, and the resurgence of the pathogen raises questions about whether the Agriculture Department has given the meat industry too much leeway to police itself.

"We're beginning to feel that the 2002 guidelines have not been enacted to the maximum," Dr. Richard Raymond, the Agriculture Department's undersecretary for food safety, said in an interview in Washington.

While noting that the amount of harmful E. coli in beef may be increasing as part of a natural cycle or for other reasons outside the control of the meat industry, Raymond said that "some of the plants that may have had less-than-stellar systems in place are getting caught."

Two years ago, after an 8-year-old girl in Albany County, N.Y., was sickened by Topps ground beef, the Agriculture Department scrutinized the Elizabeth plant and found relatively few problems.

But since then, the department said, Topps cut its microbial testing on finished ground beef from once a month to three times a year, a level the de- partment considers inade- quate.

Federal investigators said they had recently learned that the company failed to require adequate testing on the raw beef it bought from its domestic suppliers, and it sometimes mixed tested and untested meat in its grinding machines.

The Agriculture Department acknowledged that its safety inspectors, who were in the Topps plant for an hour or two each day, never cited the company for these problems.

Additionally, Topps, like many other beef processors, had bought an increasing amount of meat from overseas. Some types of meat from foreign countries — where E. coli has not been prevalent — are not required to be tested for contamination. But the Agriculture Department said the Topps case had prompted it to consider requiring such checks.

In response to the problems, the Agriculture Department directed its inspectors on Oct. 12 to conduct a nationwide survey of what meat plants are doing to fight E. coli, and it plans to send special assessment teams into any plants that seem to be lagging to urge them to adopt more stringent measures.

"When someone says we are a toothless tiger and we are not doing anything, this is an example of something we are doing that I believe is making the food supply safer," Raymond said.

While the government has long allowed meat plants to establish their own safety plans, Raymond added that "we haven't shut the door" on setting mandatory standards for E. coli testing and prevention.

The owner of Topps, Strategic Investments & Holdings of Buffalo, N.Y., declined to be interviewed for this report, nor would the firm respond in detail to written questions.

"Topps Meat Co. prided itself on providing quality and safety, which is one reason the company was in business for 67 years," the company said in a statement.
 

Tex

Well-known member
Topps was servicing retailers who believe that price suppression of suppliers is what their business is all about.

The USDA decided not to require mandatory testing protocals thus allowing companies like Topps to cut their safety measures to continue being the supplier (Walmart).

The "lowest price" strategy is taking away needed resources away from suppliers with this result. Topps is not the first supplier to have the same fate.

Suppression of suppliers by retailers has had this result. Walmart, Sams, others have a responsibility to sell SAFE products and ignoring their part in this problem will be a mistake and should be held liable by the lawyers for the families involved. If you squeeze a turnip too much, you just might get blood---but it usually comes from your own hands.


We have to get away from the idea that the lowest price is the best value. In the Topps case, it could have been deadly for you or your family.
 

Tex

Well-known member
Topps was servicing retailers who believe that price suppression of suppliers is what their business is all about.

The USDA decided not to require mandatory testing protocals thus allowing companies like Topps to cut their safety measures to continue being the supplier (Walmart).

The "lowest price" strategy is taking away needed resources away from suppliers with this result. Topps is not the first supplier to have the same fate.

Suppression of suppliers by retailers has had this result. Walmart, Sams, others have a responsibility to sell SAFE products and ignoring their part in this problem will be a mistake and should be held liable by the lawyers for the families involved. If you squeeze a turnip too much, you just might get blood---but it usually comes from your own hands.


We have to get away from the idea that the lowest price is the best value. In the Topps case, it could have been deadly for you or your family.

For the AMI to say that the industry will not compete on safety issues is just a LIE. They can not regulate themselves, no one can. It is against human nature. If a company like Topps decides to cut corners to stay in business and provide a safe product, then economics of survival mean they will cut corners---in this case it was food safety.

Topps tried to compete by cutting corners, probably for their own survival, and the USDA FAILED by letting them!!!!
 

Mike

Well-known member
What about testing by the trim suppliers?

Don't they have an obligation to play a part in safety?

It's my understanding that this particular strain of E Coli cannot just manifest itself in a batch of meat, it must be brought into the mix from somewhere.

Is Topps just the scapegoat here?
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
Mike said:
What about testing by the trim suppliers?

Don't they have an obligation to play a part in safety?

It's my understanding that this particular strain of E Coli cannot just manifest itself in a batch of meat, it must be brought into the mix from somewhere.

Is Topps just the scapegoat here?

Exactly, Mike, by law, the trim Topps used had to have a USDA Inspected label . The break down in the system, more than likely, occurred before Topps grinding vat!!! Testing of bought trim should be part of a HACCP plan!!! Oh wait :eek: ...that would implicate the supplier!!!!!! :mad: :mad:

But since then, the department said, Topps cut its microbial testing on finished ground beef from once a month to three times a year, a level the department considers inadequate.

E.coli testing should be based on volume, not time!!!
 

Tex

Well-known member
Mike said:
What about testing by the trim suppliers?

Don't they have an obligation to play a part in safety?

It's my understanding that this particular strain of E Coli cannot just manifest itself in a batch of meat, it must be brought into the mix from somewhere.

Is Topps just the scapegoat here?



YES! They are absolutely the scapegoat. The USDA, by not doing their job in food safety and being honest about their findings are hiding the people who should be held accountable.

The USDA should IMPOSE food safety measures on all participants in the process to protect the food supply. By not having recall authority, even if Topps found bad meat sent to them, they might not be able to get compensation in an economic manner. In other words, they would probably have to "eat" the bad product. The costs should be born by those shipping that meat to them but they are being protected by the USDA who won't do their job! Recall authority cuts through the expense of going through an inefficient and lengthy judicial system---a judicial system that does not even compute the costs of litigation or enforcement which can be way higher than the actual damage. ANY member of a class action lawsuit knows this. They will never be compensated for the damages they suffer---they have to pay too much to the lawyers.
 

Ben Roberts

Well-known member
HAY MAKER said:
The Agriculture Department acknowledged that its safety inspectors, who were in the Topps plant for an hour or two each day, never cited the company for these problems.

"Topps Meat Co. prided itself on providing quality and safety, which is one reason the company was in business for 67 years," the company said in a statement.



The pride of this company followed the founders out the door, when they sold out to, Strategic Investments & Holdings.


Best Regards
Ben Roberts
 

Tex

Well-known member
Ben Roberts said:
HAY MAKER said:
The Agriculture Department acknowledged that its safety inspectors, who were in the Topps plant for an hour or two each day, never cited the company for these problems.

"Topps Meat Co. prided itself on providing quality and safety, which is one reason the company was in business for 67 years," the company said in a statement.



The pride of this company followed the founders out the door, when they sold out to, Strategic Investments & Holdings.


Best Regards
Ben Roberts


Thanks for the info, Ben. This might be the reason. It still doesn't negate the need for better oversight by the USDA.
 

PORKER

Well-known member
Topps, a New Jersey processor, out of business, revealed three distinct DNA patterns in the E. coli recovered from people who consumed the Topps product – and neither FSIS nor CDC had any of these patterns in their US. databases.


Then It was OVERSEAS BEEF ,and the ECOLI isn't in the US. Thus NO DNA PATTERNS, SOOO which country has those DNA patterns ?????
 

PORKER

Well-known member
Additionally, Topps, like many other beef processors, had bought an increasing amount of meat from overseas. Some types of meat from foreign countries — where E. coli has not been prevalent — are not required to be tested for contamination. But the Agriculture Department said the Topps case had prompted it to consider requiring such checks.

Problem is TOPPS was using OVERSEAS BEEF with NO traceback Records !
 

PORKER

Well-known member
In the case of Topps, the government has determined that the company reduced its testing of ground beef and neglected other safety measures in the months before the recall.

Two years ago, after an 8-year-old girl in Albany County, N.Y., was sickened by Topps ground beef, the Agriculture Department scrutinized the Elizabeth plant and found relatively few problems [we sued on this kid’s behalf and thought Topps got the message]. But since then, the department said, Topps cut its microbial testing on finished ground beef from once a month to three times a year, a level the department considers inadequate.

Federal investigators said they had recently learned that the company failed to require adequate testing on the raw beef it bought from its domestic suppliers, and it sometimes mixed tested and untested meat in its grinding machines.

Why would Topps risk poisoning customers by cutting back on testing and using product that was not tested at all? Mixing product so you could not tell where the meat came from? Where was the cost/benefit? Perhaps the pressure to fulfill orders for Wal-Mart, et al was more important than safety? Perhaps the drive by Wal-Mart for the lowest prices gave Topps no financial room to risk testing (and rejecting) contaminated meat? Testing and rejecting would have required Wal-Mart to be an understanding customer – Right!

In August 2006 I warned in my blog about the current of the increase in hamburger recalls and illnesses that became a wave in June 2007.
 

Latest posts

Top