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

USDA fails--miserably--to protect public from E. coli

PORKER

Well-known member
USDA fails--miserably--to protect public from E. coli
23.aug.06
Marler Clark LLP, PS
http://www.marlerclark.com
Marler Clark LLP, PS has seen an increase in business recently, and in light of the
current E. coli outbreak in Minnesota, I think that increase might be courtesy of the United States Department of Agriculture. This is the agency that is responsible for, among other things, testing ground beef to ensure that the consuming public has a product free from E. coli O157:H7. What the agency has done, however, is slowly but surely erode the very testing mechanisms and requirements that are our protection against this lethal foodborne bacterium.
The Minnesota Department of Health (MDOH), which was instrumental in detecting last fall's large-scale outbreak involving Dole lettuce, recently reported that at least seventeen Longville-area people have been confirmed to be suffering from E. coli infections in the last six weeks. The illnesses were caused by E. coli-contaminated ground beef. One woman died as a result, and the MDOH suspects that the number of victims is likely more than thirty. Additionally, meat companies from Georgia, Maryland, Tennessee, and Virginia have all recalled E. coli-contaminated ground beef in the last month. To its credit, USDA testing was responsible for three of these recalls.
But with a bug as dangerous as E. coli O157:H7, the USDA cannot be satisfied with the occasional recall. It has both the technology and capability to do much more to prevent E. coli from entering our meat supply.
What may come as a shock to many readers is that the recent Minnesota outbreak could have been prevented. A Minnesota Department of Agriculture investigation has revealed that, prior to final grinding into ground beef, USDA testing proved that certain constituent parts of the meat in question was contaminated with E. coli O157:H7.
Nonetheless, the USDA did not see fit to preclude the use of the contaminated meat in a ground beef product that it knew was destined for the human food supply.
"What we're looking at here is USDA's complete disregard for consumer well-being," said William Marler, an attorney who has represented hundreds of victims of E. coli O157:H7 outbreaks. "I'm left thinking, how could the USDA allow meat that it knows is contaminated with a lethal bacterium reach consumers' plates? I think I speak for the American public in saying that this is inexcusable."
"USDA has done a good job of wasting public resources by not stopping this outbreak before it started. We see again that USDA is basically an extension of the meat industry. Testing as performed and overseen by the USDA is a sham."
 

graybull

Well-known member
Will be interesting to see if this proves true or is just so much lawyer rhetoric.

"A Minnesota Department of Agriculture investigation has revealed that, prior to final grinding into ground beef, USDA testing proved that certain constituent parts of the meat in question was contaminated with E. coli O157:H7.
Nonetheless, the USDA did not see fit to preclude the use of the contaminated meat in a ground beef product that it knew was destined for the human food supply."

If anyone comes across additional information.......please post.
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
Not commenting on this particular case but what does the consumer do to protect them selves. proper food handling and cooking can eliminate most food borne diseases.
 

PORKER

Well-known member
Maybe we need to quit buying and importing New Zealand and Austrailian trim Meat.They put chicken in everything these days.
 

mrj

Well-known member
PORKER said:
Maybe we need to quit buying and importing New Zealand and Austrailian trim Meat.They put chicken in everything these days.

PORKER, are you guilty of ASSUMING that NZ and Aus. beef is the culprit in all, most, any, or this particular case(s) of e coli contamination of beef in the USA?

Does anyone else find it interesting that Marler Clark has garnered a LOT of money from the suffering of people from these illnesses?

Does anyone know the usual percentage the attorneys get in such cases?

If I added correctly, and I plead guilty to adding quickly, but the figures on their website indicate a total of $49.450million awarded either by settlement or jury award since '03. That is only the cases they bragged of on the site, and do not know if that is all of them, or how many they lost.

If they receive, as I have been told, but was unable to check it personally, 60%, that would be a very hefty $29.670million. If 40%, $19.780million.

Are the fees set, or are they negotiable? Before, or after the case is settled? I've had no experience with such attorney/client situations as this, so have no experience, nor first-hand knowledge of the practices

Is the amount the attorneys receive in addition to their expenses?

The story leaves me wondering if this isn't quite an 'ambulance chasing' law firm, and a very large, successful one at that!

One wants those truly harmed by such accidents compensated fairly, but do you all feel that this is the best means to do that?

I surely do have my doubts about it!

BMR, your post shows the last and best 'firewall' to prevent e coli poisoning, barring cold pasteurization. Thanks for mentioning it.

MRJ
 

PORKER

Well-known member
"I'm left thinking, how could the USDA allow meat that it knows is contaminated with a lethal bacterium reach consumers' plates? I think I speak for the American public in saying that this is inexcusable."
 

mrj

Well-known member
PORKER said:
"I'm left thinking, how could the USDA allow meat that it knows is contaminated with a lethal bacterium reach consumers' plates? I think I speak for the American public in saying that this is inexcusable."

Fine! and I agree completely.......IF it really happened as this story states.

Did you check other sources for verification of the story? Aren't you even the least bit suspicious of that particular source?

It simply makes no sense for either business owners or a government entity to do such a thing. They know the high risk to their business or career, due to the great probablilty of being found out if they do such a thing.

It would only make sense, in a counterproductive fashion, if there were some extenuating circumstances, or an ulterior motive or agenda on the part of someone involved in the situation, IMO.

MRJ
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Kind of reminds you of John Munsell's story with his Miles City plant - but USDA denied everything there too- even tho their inspectors backed up his story...
 

mrj

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Kind of reminds you of John Munsell's story with his Miles City plant - but USDA denied everything there too- even tho their inspectors backed up his story...


....And never mind that there have been Union Meat Inspectors who have tried every trick in the book to get rid of HACCP........., which is not saying that is definitely the case in your point, only that maybe it bears consideration......which you will never do!

MRJ
 
Top