Marler Blog - Providing commentary on food poisoning outbreaks & litigation

In 1998 when I started Marler Clark, Al Gore had only recently invented the internet (only kidding).  Search Engines were new and Google was probably being run out of someone's basement.   Because I was in the middle of many of the earliest food poisoning battles, like Jack in the Box and Odwalla, I had a lot of research collected on most of the nasty bugs that plague our food supply and the illnesses caused by contracting them.  I decided to put the research up on the internet as a way of sharing the information.  Over the years we have kept them up to date with the latest research and have now completely redesigned the look, and hopefully their usefulness.  I would love any comments.  Feel free to ad them as a link on your site.

* Campylobacter

* E. coli

* Hepatitis A

* Listeria

* Norovirus

* Salmonella

* Shigella

* Foodborne Illness

* Guillain-Barre Syndrome

* Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome

* Reiter's Syndrome


Other "bugs" of interest:

Cryptosporidium, Cyclospora, Mad Cow, Botulism and Enterobacter Sakazkii

From our Press Release:

“We have heard time and again how valuable the information provided on these sites is to parents whose children are in the hospital. When your kid is sick, you arm yourself with as much information as you can, and these sites provide a comprehensive look at these ‘bugs’ and the illnesses they cause,” commented William Marler, managing partner of Marler Clark.

The sites also provide information related to high-profile food poisoning outbreaks that have occurred in the last 15 years. “Since Marler Clark has represented victims of nearly every major foodborne illness outbreak in the last fifteen years, we felt it was important to share the details of these outbreaks with anyone doing research on a particular pathogen,” Marler continued.

Marler Clark has represented thousands of victims of foodborne illness outbreaks since the 1993 Jack in the Box E. coli outbreak. The firm has resolved $300 million worth of cases on behalf of food poisoning victims, bringing claims against such food-companies as AFG, BJ’s Wholesale Club, Blimpie’s, the Brook-Lea Country Club, Byerly’s, Cargill, Carl’s Jr., Carneco, Carrabba’s Italian Grill, Chi-Chi’s, Chili’s, China Buffet, ConAgra, Cub Foods, Dole, Emmpak, Excel, Filiberto’s, Finley School District, Friendly’s, Gate Gourmet, Gold Coast Produce, Golden Corral, Habanero’s, Harmony Farms, KFC, King Garden Restaurant, Lund’s, Malt-O-Meal, McDonalds, Natalie’s Orchid Island Juice Co., Natural Selections Foods, Odwalla, Olive Garden, Paramount Farms, Pat & Oscar’s, PM Beef Holdings, Quality Inn, Quizno’s, Regent Beverly Wilshire Hotel, Robert’s American Gourmet (Veggie Booty), Sam’s Club, San Antonio Taco, Senor Felix, Sheetz, Silver Grill Location Catering, Sizzler, Sodexho, Spokane Produce, Subway, Sun Orchard Juice Co., Supervalu, Sushi King, Susie Cantaloupe, Taco Bell, Taco John’s, Topps, United Food Group (UFG), Viva Cantaloupe, Wal-Mart, and Wendy’s.

So, first some facts:  the CDC reports that Escherichia coli O157:H7 is a leading cause of foodborne illness.  Based on a 1999 estimate, 73,000 cases of infection and 61 deaths occur in the United States each year.   The CDC found also that from 1996-2004, the incidence of E. coli O157:H7 infections decreased 42 percent.  However, 2007 started an ominous "Uptick." 

As I blogged about last year - “E. coli’s comeback: What’s with that?” - in some 21 recalls, ground beef companies have recalled more than 33 million pounds of E. coli O157:H7-contaminated meat.  2008 has also seen recalls and we are not even a month into the year.  In the last year hundreds have been sickened, including dozens of children who have undergone kidney dialysis as a result, some have died. 

Why the increase in 2007 and 2008 in E. coli illnesses and recalls after years of decreases?

There are as many theories as there are authorities, researchers, and meat packers.  Some of my thoughts from December 2007 surfaced again in Phil Brasher’s article, “Scientists study possible link between ethanol byproduct and E. coli.”  A nationwide surge in beef recalls has pointed the finger at an unlikely culprit - the nation's fuel ethanol industry.  Studies at two universities suggest that feeding cattle a byproduct of ethanol production known as distillers grains may increase levels of a deadly form of E. coli bacteria. 

It seems to be about saving or making a buck. According to the Iowa Cattlemen's Association, cattlemen pay $35 a ton for distillers grains, the equivalent of $2.85 a bushel for corn.  In Iowa corn has been selling for more than $4 a bushel.  It takes about 33 bushels to make a ton.  It takes the equivalent of 70 bushels of corn to fatten a steer.  So if I did my math correct, if you feed a steer corn, it costs about $132 to fatten it; if distillers grain is used, $75. Hmmmm, I wonder if that has anything to do with it.  It will be interesting to see the cattlemen explain that to a jury in an E. coli case.

I found some interesting quotes about the price of steers and how the costs of inputs like, corn vs distillers grain, might drive risky decisions - “In The Cattle Markets” - A weekly newsletter jointly produced by Kansas State University, University of Nebraska and Utah State University.

“Feedlots seem to be signaling that they would prefer to place feeders at heavier weights and avoid feeding that high priced corn. Fed cattle weights have also been declining since November of last year and are now below the 5-year average. That decline may also reflect a dislike for feeding high priced corn…. Packer margins have likely improved in the last few weeks but feedlots are probably losing over $100 per head on most sale lots…. Lower returns and increased risk is the current state of the industry.”

Mr. Brasher also reported that “there are other theories for the surge in recalls.  One is that the bacteria spread from steer to steer more easily last year because feedlots were muddier than usual.  Another possibility is that bacteria have evolved in a way that makes them harder to detect.  Yet another theory is that immigration raids have robbed slaughterhouses of experienced workers.”  Sound familiar?  Here were some of my thoughts on the "Uptick" from December 2007:

• Complacency:  After five years of progress with the E. coli problem, one wonders if meat processors have consciously or unconsciously slacked off, relaxing their testing procedures so that they are less likely to detect tainted meat.
• Better Reporting:  One of my associates believes that more doctors are more likely to recognize the symptoms of E. coli poisoning, thereby increasing the chances that an outbreak will be detected, leading to a recall.
• Global Warming:  Too dry? One theory has it that drought through much of the southeast and southwest has led to more fecal dust wafting in the breezes through beef-slaughtering plants, creating new avenues for beef to become tainted. How’s that make you feel about that ground sirloin? Too wet? This theory focuses on excessive rainfall in other regions, which leads to muddy pens that serve as an ideal vehicle for E. coli at meat-processing plants.
• High oil prices:  They get blamed for everything else, so why not food-poisoning? The theory is that $3 gas has fueled the growth of ethanol plants. Those plants tend to be built next to feedlots, because the plants produce a byproduct called distiller’s grains, which serves as an excellent feed for livestock. Problem is, according to research at Kansas State University, the distillers grain also increases the incidence of E. coli in the hindguts of cattle.
• Illegal Immigration:  Wait, perhaps not. The New York Times reported that immigration officials began a crackdown at slaughterhouses across the country last fall. Some now are hiring men from homeless missions and providing free transportation to many of them. Hmmm, a influx of unskilled, but US workers, with no experience and high turnover.
• The Darwinian explanation:  Another theory has it that previous interventions – from Jack in the Box to Odwalla and ConAgra – have forced the E. coli microbes to adapt, selecting pathogens that are more resistant to detection or intervention.

Josh Funk, from ground zero of the E. coli wars, AP Omaha, wrote yesterday, “Government scientists working to unlock secrets of E. Coli.” I loved the quote from Mohammad Koohmaraie, director of the U.S. Meat Animal Reseach Center: "Our purpose is to save little kids' lives."  I could not agree more.  As Mr. Brasher also reported:

A Seattle law firm wants to find out if ground beef is being contaminated with harmful strains of E. coli bacteria that federal inspectors don't look for. The firm of Marler and Clark, which specializes in litigating cases involving food-borne illnesses, recently announced plans to test 5,000 beef samples over the course of a year. Samples that test positive will be turned over to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the firm said. The government and beef industry have focused their testing on a single strain of E. coli known as O157:H7. Richard Raymond, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's undersecretary for food safety, said he supported the law firm's testing plan. He said the department could not afford to do its own testing for alternative E. coli strains.

My insomnia got the better of me this morning.  So, as I cruised the Internet for tidbits on food poisoning I found a few interesting morsels.  Lately I have been obsessing about how the safety of raw milk has become so tied up with anti-big Ag, save the family farm and the un-verified health benefits. I found an article about Schlittler Farm (hmm, odd name for a raw milk seller) on the pages of farmers-friend.com:

Currently the only documented producers of raw milk in Northeastern Pennsylvania, the Schlittlers are tapping into a continually growing anti-pasteurization subculture. Some raw milk enthusiasts drink it because they believe it's healthier than processed milk, capable of improving one's immune and digestive systems. Some can't get enough of the taste, which tends to be sweeter and creamier than pasteurized. Others see it as a benefit to small farms and the environment.

With this mindset comes some risk, as raw milk has the potential to carry harmful bacteria that pasteurization destroys, including E. coli, listeria and salmonella. (Proponents of raw milk claim pasteurization also kill beneficial bacteria, proteins and enzymes.) Under state law, farms like the Schlittlers' must submit themselves to quarterly inspections by the Department of Agriculture, and, on an annual basis, have their milk tested for four pathogens (salmonella, E. coli 0157:H7, Listeria and campylobacter) and their cows checked for tuberculosis and brucellosis.

In addition, the Schlittlers pay a laboratory to test their milk for bacteria twice a month. They're also required to keep a sign posted in their barn that advises customers on the possible perils of drinking raw milk, stressing pregnant women, children, the elderly and people with weak immune systems are the most susceptible.

Finishing up the article on how to save the Schlittler family farm by selling raw milk (beside changing the name), I then stumbled upon another odd name tied to a food product, “Company recalls yellow croaker products” due to possible botulism contamination. Ok, how many of you knew that a croaker was not something that happened AFTER you ate something with possible botulism contamination? Seriously though:

Seoul Shik Poom Inc. of Hillside, is recalling the products because they have the potential to be contaminated with Clostridium botulinum, a bacterium that can cause life-threatening illness or death.  The yellow croaker products were distributed in New Jersey, New York and Maryland through retail stores. This product comes in a clear plastic bag and is individually tied.

BG1103 Salted Yellow Croaker (bag) 2.2 lbs
BG1121B Dried Yellow Croaker (bag) 4.5 lbs
BG1121 Dried Yellow Croaker (bag) 2.2 lbs
BG1122B Dried Yellow Croaker (bag) 4.5 lbs
BG1124 Yellow Croaker (bulk box) 29.73 lbs
BG1124A Yellow Croaker (bulk box) 31.6 lbs
BG1123 Yellow Croaker (bulk box) 30.83 lbs

From the pages of "Barfblog:"

Fifteen years ago this week, Seattle lawyer Bill Marler and Kansas State University professor Douglas Powell were drawn into the food safety arena when the Washington Department of Health announced that Jack in the Box restaurants were the source of a multi-state outbreak of E. coli O157:H7 infections. Now, the two are teaming up to further promote awareness of food safety.

Marler, who has represented thousands of victims of E. coli and other foodborne illness outbreaks since representing more than 100 victims of the Jack in the Box outbreak, has pledged to donate $25,000 to Powell's group, the International Food Safety Network -- iFSN -- at Kansas State University. The group, which was formed in 1993 when Powell began researching the impact and influence of food safety information on farmers, processors, retailers, consumers and regulators, produces several electronic mailing lists to disseminate food safety information across the globe. In addition, Marler has pledged to match all other donations made to iFSN in 2008, up to $25,000.

In thanking Marler for the donation, Powell said, "All money donated to iFSN will be used to fund students in developing and carrying out a variety of projects. These will focus on the use of new media and new messages to compel individuals from farm-to-fork to take steps to reduce the incidence of foodborne illness.

"Bill Marler is an outstanding advocate for food safety and understands that microbiologically safe food just doesn't happen," said Powell. "Any lawyer can talk the talk. Bill walks the talk."

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that 76 million Americans get sick and 5,000 die each and every year after consuming contaminated food and water. The Jack in the Box outbreak in the Pacific Northwest, which killed four and sickened over 600, was the tipping point for American public awareness of the risks posed by dangerous microorganisms in food.

I actually did it for the t-shirts.

2007 was a record year for hamburger-related food safety recalls - over 20 individual recalls involving over 33 million pounds of meat. Because of the failure of the beef industry and government to protect the public, the law firm of Marler and Clark has approved a project to commission a baseline study to determine the prevalence of non-O157:H7 pathogenic shiga toxin producing E. coli (STEC) in retail ground beef.

Non-O157 STEC are capable of causing the same debilitating triad of diseases as E. coli O157:H7, including hemorrhagic colitis, hemolytic uremic syndrome, and thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura. Infection with the non-O157 STEC can result in death in children, the elderly and the immunocompromised. According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the number of reported cases of illnesses caused by this group of pathogenic E. coli has been steadily increasing over the past several years. Despite this, Non-O157:H7 STEC is not considered an adulterant under current law in the U.S.

Non-O157:H7 STEC are also known to occur in imported beef from several trading partners, yet the U.S. Department of Agriculture Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) has not required that imported beef be free of these pathogens. The Agency has also failed to devise steps to measure and control the presence of these pathogens in domestic beef production and the ground beef supply, at the slaughterhouse or the grocery store.

The law firm of Marler and Clark will take the unprecedented step of commissioning a baseline study to determine the prevalence of these organisms in the United States ground beef supply. During the one-year course of the study a total of 5,000 samples will be analyzed for the presence of these organisms. Positive samples will be archived and the genetic fingerprints of the isolates will be provided to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, along with the relevant sample information including the type of ground beef, place of purchase and date of purchase.

Since the 1993 E. coli O157:H7 outbreak tied to the Jack-in-the-Box restaurant chain, the Attorneys at Marler Clark have been at the forefront of foodborne illness litigation in the Untied States. In addition to representing victims of foodborne illness, several times a month the attorneys at Marler Clark, through the not for profit www.outbreakinc.com, speak to industry and government throughout the United States, Canada, China, England and Australia on why it is important to prevent foodborne illnesses. They are also frequent commentators on food litigation and food safety on www.marlerblog.com and they also sponsors several websites related to E. coli, including www.about-ecoli.com, www.about-hus.com, www.ecoliblog.com and www.ecolilitigation.com.  For further contact: Bill Marler, bmarler@marlerclark.com, 1-206-346-1890.

According to the Kern Faculty Medical Group, they expect to have enough hepatitis A vaccine shots after supplies temporarily ran out Saturday. The medical group had given about 90 vaccine shots Saturday morning before supplies ran out, said Dr. Mansukh Ghadiya with the clinic.  Public health officials made arrangements with Kern Faculty Medical Group for people who needed the vaccine or other treatment after news a worker at Chuy's Mesquite Broiler (not to be confused with the Chuy’s in Austin Texas which was famous for serving alcohol to one of the under-age Bush girls) was diagnosed with hepatitis A was released last week.  I bet Chuy's wished they required Hepatitis A vaccines of all employees.

In that last several years we have represented health departments who pay for these shots, the people who stand in line waiting to get them and those unfortunate enough to not get the shots in time. Restaurants have included, Houlihan's, Carl's Jr., Chi-Chi's, D'Angelo's, Friendly's, Maple Lawn Dairy, McDonald's, Quizno's, Silver Grill Location Catering, Subway and Taco Bell.

Hepatitis A is one of five human hepatitis viruses (hepatitis A, B, C, D, and E) that primarily infect the liver and cause illness. An estimated 80,000 cases occur each year in the U.S., although much higher estimates have been proposed based on mathematical modeling of the past incidence of infection. Each year, an estimated 100 persons die as a result of acute liver failure in the U.S. due to hepatitis A, but the rate of infection has dramatically decreased since the hepatitis A vaccine was licensed and became available in the U.S. in 1995.

Hepatitis A is a communicable (or contagious) disease that spreads from person-to-person. It is spread almost exclusively through fecal-oral contact, generally from person-to-person, or via contaminated food or water. Food contaminated with the virus is the most common vehicle transmitting hepatitis A. The food preparer or cook is the individual most often contaminating the food, although he or she is generally not ill at the time of food preparation. The peak time of infectivity, when the most virus is present in the stool of an infectious individual, is during the two weeks before illness begins. Although only a small percentage of hepatitis A infections are associated with foodborne transmission, foodborne outbreaks have been increasingly implicated as a significant source of hepatitis A infection.

I missed out on the Legislative Hearing in California on Raw Milk bacterial limits.  However, one of my crack lawyers was there and the hearing is all of tape for later use (from the video it reminds me of a Grateful Dead concert).  The bottom line seems to be that the lawmakers felt the Department of Agriculture had not adequately informed them of possible opposition, and that the two major producers of raw milk would be put out of business because they could not meet the new standards.  There also was some discussion about the pros and cons of drinking raw milk - health benefits vs health risks.  That debate will go on.

Dennis Pollock of the Fresno Bee seems to be one of the only reporters brave enough to join in the Hearing frenzy - "Lawmakers backtrack, push repeal of raw milk limits"

Dairies hit by a new law two weeks ago say the bacteria regulations will force them to shut, and a state agency draws heat.  Just two weeks after new restrictions on raw milk took effect, the Assembly Agriculture Committee voted unanimously this week to repeal them after the state's two raw milk producers said they would go out of business if they had to comply.  The measure, Assembly Bill 1604, would stop enforcement of limits for raw milk of 10 coliform bacteria or less per milliliter until June 30. Effective July 1, it would fix the limit at 50 coliform bacteria or fewer per milliliter.


Some of raw milk's appeal is that it contains "essential probiotic good bacteria," said Mark McAfee, founder and an owner of Organic Pastures.

On the other coast lawmakers also passed legislation to bolster dairy income.  WCAX reported, "Bill Would Let Farmers Sell More Raw Milk."

A new bill in the Vermont legislature would allow farmers to sell unlimited amounts of raw milk directly to consumers.  Supporters say it will provide extra income for farmers.  A gallon of raw milk that's unpasteurized sells for about 6 dollars. Currently there are limits to how much raw milk farmers can sell because of health concerns. The bill would set up new health standards, including regular testing of the milk and labeling requirements. Raw milk could not be sold at retail shops or farm markets-- only direct to consumers. Farmers would also have to keep a list of who buys it.

With the political debate season in full swing, it would be interesting to have the heavy-weights in the Raw Milk debate square off.  So, if we could organize such a debate, who would be the best representative on either side?

New Era Canning Company of New Era, Michigan is recalling all cans of green beans and garbanzo beans in #10 cans (large cans containing between 6 and 7 pounds) because they may have been processed under conditions which could have led to contamination by Clostridium botulinum bacterium spores, which can cause life-threatening illness or death. The codes on the affected product begin with the numbers “00249,” or the letters “GREEN” or “GARB”. This recall does not include Italian Green Beans because that is a different product.  The two earlier recalls:

• New Era Canning Company Announces New Recall of Certain Lots of Mexican-style Chili Beans, Green Beans and Dark Red Kidney Beans Because of Possible Health Risk

• New Era Canning Company Recalls Canned GFS Fancy Blue Lake Cut Green Beans Because of Possible Health Risk

It is interesting that this new recall notice comes out at 6:00 PM on a Friday night -- hmmm, bet they did not think the "Merry Flawger" would be paying attention.  I clearly need to find something to do on Friday nights.


The following product labels are affected:

I think it is great to have new folks (other than my mom) reading my blog.  A hearty welcome to:

Both have logged on multiple times over the last few days.  They appear to be some of my more frequent visitors - some of which include, ConAgra, Cargill and Topps.  Again, welcome.

Not to be confused with the problems with the Dallas quarterback. 

On Sunday came the announcement that Rochester Meat was recalling 188,000 pounds of hamburger meat. Also, on Sunday I noted that this was at least the third recall of hamburger in the last several years from this company. Yesterday I posted that “Public health officials in Washington DC, California and Wisconsin are playing a dangerous game with American consumers by refusing to reveal the specific stores or restaurants that may have served meat contaminated by toxic E. coli.” Today, the San Diego Tribune reported that a “17-year-old San Diego County girl became ill in December before a national recall of the beef was announced.” CattleNetworks.com also reported that “the problem was discovered through an investigation initiated by the Wisconsin Department of Health and Family Services and the California Department of Public Health into five illnesses in Wisconsin.”

I have received a few phone calls and emails from concerned people about the complete failure of our national and state health authorities to tell the public where the E. coli-tainted meat from Rochester Meat landed on the publics’ plate. One consistently mentioned name of the recipient of the E. coli-tainted meat is the national restaurant chain, Tony Roma’s. (This was confirmed this morning after speaking to the father of the 17 year old).

Wisconsin restaurant locations:  Fitchburg, Green Bay, Mosinee Wausau

California restaurant locations:  Alhambra, Anaheim, Arcadia, Carson, City Walk, Encino, Fresno, Fullerton, Glendale, Modesto, Montclair, Oakland Jack London Square, Ontario, Palm Desert, San Diego Pacific Beach, San Francisco, San Jose, San Marcos, Temecula, Union City

Four deaths from mis-pasteurized milk or post-pasteurized contamination of milk on the East Coast and a raw milk campylobacter outbreak just up the road, makes me appreciate the benefits of single malt scotch.  As I posted a few days ago, the Raw Milk Hearings are set for Wednesday, January 16, at 1:30 p.m. in Room 4202 of the California State Capitol Building in Sacramento. And, despite the circus-like atmosphere that is everything politics – especially California – I am not sure I will be able to make it in person (parent/teacher conference conflict). Although not to disappoint the paranoid, I will have a lawyer in my office there listening to the testimony.  I hope he brings back a few buttons, t-shirts and protest signs.

Now talk about timing - In other raw milk news, Mary Gallagher of the Bellingham Herald reported this morning on “5 sickened by raw milk.”

Five people were sickened by the bacteria found in raw milk that was recalled last month from a local dairy, the Whatcom County Health Department announced Monday. Four Whatcom County residents and one Skagit County resident tested positive for the same campylobacter jejuni strain that was found in a routine sample of raw milk from Pleasant Valley Dairy. The dairy pulled that batch of milk from the shelves and has resumed its distribution of raw milk. The dairy has changed its testing procedures to reduce the risk of releasing contaminated milk, the health department said.

In an article I missed from a week ago (I admit I was focused once again on Big Beef poisoning us), Barbara LaBoe wrote on: “Dairy pays fine to settle tainted milk case.”

The owners of Woodland's Dee Creek Farm have paid their state fine, finally ending the 2005 E. coli outbreak case.??The dairy, owned by Anita and Mike Puckett, sickened 18 people when E. coli contaminated their raw, or unpasteurized, milk in December 2005. Five children were hospitalized, two in critical condition. While investigating the outbreak the state found several violations, such as not having a dairy license and not properly testing animals for diseases. The dairy was fined $8,000 for violations.

My bet is that the California State Legislature amends or repeals the law setting new standards for the sale of raw milk.  I guess I need to practice my frivolous lawsuits and tune up the ambulance to chase down those damn milk farmers - raw and pasteurized.

SEATTLE, Wa ----- Public health officials in Washington DC, California and Wisconsin are playing a dangerous game with American consumers by refusing to reveal the specific stores or restaurants that may have served meat contaminated by toxic E. coli, says the Seattle lawyer who represents victims of food-borne illness.

'The public needs to know who may have poisoned their kids,' said Bill Marler, managing partner of the Marler Clark law firm in Seattle.

Marler spoke up Sunday after health officials revealed that 188,000 pounds of ground beef was being recalled by the Rochester Meat Company, a Minnesota firm, because it has been contaminated with E. coli O157:H7.  This appears to be the first major recall of 2008.  2007 set a recent record for recalls - topping twenty recalls of over 33 million pounds of meat.

While announcing the nationwide recall, officials have refused to reveal the name of the restaurant or other outlets believed to have served the meat to consumers.  That, Marler says, means that consumers who may be at risk of contracting potentially fatal food-poisoning have no way of knowing – until they get sick.

He called on Dr. Richard A. Raymond, head of Federal Food Safety & Inspection Service (FSIS), Kevin R. Hayden, secretary of the Wisconsin Department of Health and Family Services, and Dr. Mark Horton, director of the California Department of Public Health, to immediately disclose the names and locations of retail outlets that have been associated with the contaminated meat.

The Federal Food Safety & Inspection Service (FSIS) persuaded Rochester Meat Company to issue the recall after investigations revealed that at least six people have been sickened in Wisconsin and California.

'We are hearing from the environmental health community that a national chain restaurant, or restaurants are connected with this recall,' Marler said. 'If so, these public officials are playing a very dangerous game. They are betting that nobody else gets sick because they had no way of knowing they were at risk.'

Marler said there are indications that state officials know of one or more restaurants where contaminated meat has been served and where consumers already have been sickened.  'The public has a right to know the name of that establishment and its involved locations, ' said Marler. ' If more than one is involved, the public has a right to know that too.'

E. coli O157:H7 is a toxic bacteria that shows up in the intestines of cows, where it can infect ground beef or many other food products. In recent years, outbreaks of E. coli have sickened thousands of people in virtually every state, and killed dozens.  Young children and elderly with compromised immune systems are particularly at risk.

The recalled ground beef was produced on October 30, 2007 and November 6, 2007 for sale to restaurants and food service institutions.  The restaurants have been serving ground beef supplied by a company with a history of E. coli problems, Marler said. This is the third recall of ground beef by the Minnesota firm since 1996. Its previous recalls were for 152,000 pounds and 30,000 pounds, according to FSIS records. Only a fraction of the contaminated beef was recovered in those recalls.

Lightning strikes again and again.  I was able to find that on two occasions in 1996 and 2000, Rochester Meats recalled 152,000 and 30,000 pounds of E. coli-contaminated ground beef. Details from the FSIS website are here - note the amount of the recall and the amount actually recovered:

Case Number: 017-96 Recall Notification Report: N
Date Opened: 08/05/1996 Date Closed: 12/02/1996
Recall Class: 1 Press Release (Y/N): N
Domestic Est. Number: 08999 M Name: ROCHESTER MEATS
Imported Product (Y/N): N Foreign Estab. Number: N/A
City: ROCHESTER State: MN Country: USA
Product: GROUND BEEF PATTIES, FROZEN
Problem: BACTERIA Description: E. COLI O157:H7
Total Pounds Recalled: 152,000 Pounds Recovered: 5,862

Case Number: 061-2000 Recall Notification Report: RNR061-2000
Date Opened: 09/06/2000 Date Closed: 02/27/2001
Recall Class: 1 Press Release (Y/N): Y
Domestic Est. Number: 08999 M Name: Rochester Meats Co
Imported Product (Y/N): Foreign Estab. Number: N/A
City: Rochester State: MN Country: USA
Product: Ground Beef Patties
Problem: BACTERIA Description: E. COLI O157:H7
Total Pounds Recalled: 30,000 Pounds Recovered: 10,064

FSIS announced tonight the first E. coli O157:H7 recall of 2008.  In 2007 there were at least 21 recalls, totaling over 33,00,000 pounds of meat.  Now Rochester Meat Company, a Rochester, Minnesota firm, is voluntarily recalling approximately 188,000 pounds of ground beef products because the meat resulted in five illnesses in Wisconsin and one illness in California due to contaminated with E. coli O157:H7, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service announced today.  We believe that a National Restaurant Chain may be involved.

The ground beef products subject to recall were produced on Oct. 30, 2007, and Nov. 6, 2007. The products subject to recall were shipped to distributors nationwide for further distribution to restaurants and food service institutions. These products were not available for purchase by consumers in retail establishments.

Each box bears the establishment number “Est. 8999” inside the USDA mark of inspection. The following products are subject to recall:

* 10-pound boxes of “SEASONED BEEF BULK” bearing a product number of “09068,” as well as an eight-digit lot number beginning with “730314.”

* 10-pound boxes of “100% PURE BEEF PATTIES” bearing a product number of “09071,” as well as an eight-digit a lot number beginning with “731013.”

* 15-pound boxes of “CHEYENNE SEASONED BEEF PATTIES” bearing a product number of “12017” or “12018,” as well as an eight-digit lot number beginning with “730314.”

* 10-, 15- and 20-pound boxes of “100% PURE GROUND BEEF PATTIES” bearing a product number of “1340,” “127533,” “135724,” “158843” or “158852,” as well as an eight-digit lot number beginning with “731013” or “731014.”
* 10-pound boxes of “100% PURE GROUND CHUCK BEEF PATTIES” bearing a product number of “158898,” as well as an eight-digit lot number beginning with “731014.”

* 10-, 15- and 25-pound boxes of “100% PURE GROUND BEEF CHUCK PATTIES” bearing a product number of “85227,” “227806,” “407823,” “407830,” “407840,” “417841” or “437531,” as well as an eight-digit lot number beginning with “730314,” “731013,” or “731014.”

* 10-pound boxes of “OUR HOMESTYLE 100% PURE GROUND BEEF PATTIES” bearing a product number of “208033,” as well as an eight-digit lot number beginning with “731014.”

* 15-pound boxes of “SEASONED BEEF PATTIES” bearing a product number of “357835,” as well as an eight-digit lot number beginning with “730314.”

* 15- and 15.3-pound boxes of “USDA CHOICE OR HIGHER 100% PURE GROUND BEEF PATTIES” bearing a product number of “437507” or “437521,” as well as an eight-digit lot number beginning with “730314,” “731013,” or “731014.”

* 15-pound boxes of “USDA CHOICE OR HIGHER GROUND BEEF CHUCK PATTIES” bearing a product number of “437822,” as well as an eight-digit lot number beginning with “731014.”

It has been a busy week juggling poisoned spinach, peanut butter, pot pies and a rash of contaminated hamburger and milk – and dealing with emails from raw milk advocates, but I am still surprised that no one from Texas every took me up on my $10,000 offer for the return of the missing meat.

Rececca Lopez of WFAA TV in Dallas continues to cover the whereabouts of the American Fresh Foods “mystery meat.” According the Ms. Lopez, “Dallas officers have traveled door-to-door to dozens of restaurants in the area searching for the meat. During their search, officers discovered that the Chicken Shack did buy some of the meat. The Chicken Shack owner said they bought only one box of the meat for $20.”

Nearly a month ago approximately 14,800 pounds of ground beef products stolen, along with the unlocked truck, from the parking lot of American Fresh Foods. According to Land Line Magazine reporter, Clarissa Kell-Holland, “as of Friday, January 11, more than 80 percent of the meat still hadn’t been recovered. Health investigators working on the case confirmed to Land Line that some Dallas residents and area restaurants have been approached by an individual attempting to sell the stolen ground beef products door-to-door.”

As I posted last week, there are still many unanswered questions for American Fresh Foods that "poop" into mind, such as:

1. What were you doing with E. coli-tainted hamburger sitting in your parking lot?

2. What were you going to do with it? Was it going to be destroyed? Were you going to sell it as cooked product?

3. Given that E. coli-tainted hamburger is a danger, how was someone able to back a big rig up to the trailer and drive it off your property?

4. Because you knew the hamburger was adulterated by testing, I can assume that you have done genetic fingerprinting (PFGE) on the offending bug? This will be helpful if people start showing up in ER's with bloody stool. If their stool is tested, and found to have E. coli, and if a PFGE is done, perhaps you can figure out who stole the truck by figuring out who sold the poisoned meat?

I love a late night food quiz when I'm on the road and can not sleep.  Thanks to the folks at the Cleaner Plate Club Blog.  It was sad that I was able to answer most of the questions correctly.  Click on the photo below from the Cleaner Plate Blog to try it yourself:

I especially liked the questions about Topps and Nebraska Beef.  More on those in 2008.

I am in Reno (no, I’m not gambling) attending a food safety conference sponsored by the Institute of Food Technologists and the Food Safety Research and Response Network. My talk in the morning is “Minimizing Your Liability Risk and Foodborne Illness Lawsuits.” The PowerPoint is below. Also, for some additional information about how we approach the investigation of an outbreak, please see an earlier paper I wrote “Separating the Chaff from the Wheat : How to determine the strength of a foodborne illness claim.”  You can find it at www.billmarler.com.

I have been following this tragic tale since right after Christmas in a series of three posts (1, 2, 3). I was somewhat surprised when Linda Bock of the Worcester Telegram wrote in yesterdays paper that Whittier Farms “voluntarily” stopped production of milk after it had learned that two men over 70 had died, one 87 year old man was still hospitalized and one young woman lost her baby. One wonders how “voluntary” the recall really was? Listeria monocytogenes is a very nasty bug in milk - it clearly can be deadly.

Cornell University, speaking specifically about milk, reported that Listeria monocytogenes can be found in soil and water and has been isolated from a large number of environmental sources. Listeria monocytogenes is destroyed by pasteurization, but if food products are contaminated after pasteurization, Listeria monocytogenes, can grow at refrigerator temperatures.

According to the FDA, Listeria typically causes illness in pregnant adults, newborns, the elderly, and patients with compromised immune systems, but healthy adults and children may also become infected. Symptoms of Listeriosis include flu-like symptoms, fever, muscle aches, stiff neck, headache, septicemia, meningitis, miscarriage, stillbirth, premature delivery, abortion, or death. The CDC reports that in the United States, an estimated 2,500 persons become seriously ill with listeriosis each year. Of these, 500 die. Unfortunatley, is doubtful that fetal deaths are counted in that number.

In June of 2006 researchers at the University of California at Berkeley published disturbing data on “Listeriosis's path to miscarriage traced to placental infection.” Their research showed that the bacteria may invade the placenta, where - protected from the body's immune system - they proliferate rapidly before pouring out to infect organs such as the liver and spleen. The illness they cause often results in miscarriage or infection of the fetus.

Listeria infections in the elderly are also common and can be deadly as well. Not surprisingly, inflammation and atrophy of the gastric mucosa escalates with age. Because stomach acids play an important role in limiting the number of bacteria that enter the small intestine, the low gastric acidity common in the elderly, especially those with gastric ulcer disease, increases the likelihood of infection when bacteria is ingested in food or drink. In addition, underlying (co-morbid) conditions contribute to the morbidity and mortality of infection in the elderly. These conditions make the elderly susceptible to certain complications of an infectious diarrheal illness like electrolyte imbalance, dehydration, and shock. And, finally, as people age the immune system is compromised. It leads to an inappropriate, inefficient, and sometimes detrimental immune response, and its effect on health often manifests most apparently during intense stress (e.g., surgery, sepsis, multiple organ failure, malnutrition, dehydration).

I posted a few days ago that Claravale Farm of Paicines and Organic Pastures of Fresno have sued the State of California for setting standards for the quality of raw milk.  Here is the Complaint.

I was curious what the “beef” was really all about. According to the State of California, “the new standard sets a maximum amount of coliform bacteria at no more than 10 bacteria per milliliter (mL) in milk sold raw to the consumer, the same limit required for pasteurized milk. This level is consistent with both national and international public health and food safety requirements as reflected in standards set for pasteurized dairy products by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Canadian Food Inspection Service, and the European Economic Community (EEC). It is also the same standard currently used for raw milk sold for direct consumption in several western states, including Nevada, Arizona, Utah, Idaho, and Washington.”

The State also suggested the following for reducing the risk of bacteria being in the raw milk:

• Properly managing manure, bedding, housing and pastures to prevent cows from arriving overly dirty at the milking parlor.

• Washing the udders and teats of cows, and ensuring they are clean and dry prior to milking.

• Ensuring the hands of milkers are clean and dry

• Use of an appropriate commercially available pre-milking teat sanitizer to further reduce the amount of bacteria contacting milking equipment.

• Milking any cows with infected udders last, and ensuring such milk is properly excluded from milk intended for consumption.

• Ensuring all equipment throughout the entire milking system is properly cleaned and sanitized after each milking.

• Ensuring detergents and sanitizers are used at effective concentrations, and that adequate amounts and temperatures of hot water are utilized.

• Establishing and adhering to a maintenance schedule for milking equipment to ensure proper operation and to replace worn out inflations, hoses, gaskets and other parts that can harbor coliform bacteria.

• Providing sufficient refrigeration to ensure milk is properly cooled and stored at 45 degrees or below.

• Ensuring the milk products plant where the raw milk is handled and finally packaged for the consumer is also properly constructed, clean and sanitary. Bottles of raw market milk must be mechanically capped to avoid contamination from workers’ hands.

So, the rules seem to work in other states and other parts of the world?  I certainly hope the State of California does not cave to pressure from the raw milk folks, who seem to spend as much time or more on the internet blogging and making Youtube videos as they do milking. Perhaps Arnold, “The Governator,” will call and ask me to come in to assist in the defense of the State? On the other hand, perhaps I should just stay out of the fight, let the raw milk people win and continue to provide me with work? I’ve always wanted to own land in Fresno and Paicines.  Perhaps I can give up my "Batman" title for "Bill the Barbarian?"

We are continuing to investigate the raw milk and raw milk product E. coli O157:H7 outbreak from the Fall of 2006 that the State of California linked to Organic Pastures.  What we have learned from Health Department records was that there were a total of 6 cases (5 culture confirmed, PFGE patterns indistinguishable) consisting of 4 boys and 2 girls.  The median age was 8 years (range 6 - 18 years).  All had bloody diarrhea - 3 were hospitalized, 2 with HUS.  5 had a history of consuming Organic Pastures raw milk products (one was raw chocolate colostrum).  No E. coli O157:H7 was detected in the product, but high fecal coliform counts were found in the colostrum and chocolate colostrum (at least 1 sample from each product had high standard plate counts).  199 Organic Pastures cows' feces were tested, 3 were positive for E. coli O157:H7 but were different from the outbreak strain by PFGE.

I had posted earlier on "The Legal History of Raw Milk."  I was recently sent a very great PowerPoint from a presentation given at The Association of Food and Drug Officials by Joyce WeinIliya, Assistant Attorney General State of Texas in June of 2007.  The PowerPoint PDF is here.

MISSING MEAT

Clarissa Kell-Holland of Land Line Magazine and I spoke today about the finding of the E. coli-tainted truck.  As she reported, the refrigerated trailer reported stolen from the American Fresh Foods parking lot in Fort Worth, Texas, has been found in Dallas.  However, more than 80 percent of the trailer’s 14,800 pounds of ground meat products – including some that tested positive for E. coli bacteria – are still missing.  The focus now is on protecting consumers who may have been “persuaded to buy beef products under questionable circumstances” like roadside stands or in parking lots, according to Agi Schafer, spokeswoman for American Fresh Foods.  I guess no one wanted the $10,000 reward.

So, I guess the questions for American Fresh Foods are several, but the ones that "poop" into mind are:

1.  What were you doing with E. coli-tainted hamburger sitting in your parking lot?

2.  What were you going to do with it?  Was it going to be destroyed?  Were you going to sell it as cooked product?

3.  Given that E. coli-tainted hamburger is a danger, how was someone able to back a big rig up to the trailer and drive it off your property?

4.  Because you knew the hamburger was adulterated by testing, I can assume that you have done genetic fingerprinting (PFGE) on the offending bug?  This will be helpful if people start showing up in ER's with bloody stool.  If their stool is tested, and found to have E. coli, and if a PFGE is done, perhaps you can figure out who stole the truck by figuring out who sold the poisoned meat?  (CSI Dallas)

According to Stephen Smith of the Boston Globe Staff in his article, “State test points to dairy as germ source:”

Coffee-flavored milk taken from a cooler at a central Massachusetts dairy carried germs identical to bacteria that killed two elderly men and made two other people sick….

Genetic fingerprinting conducted at the state laboratory has indicated that a milk sample collected at Whittier Farms dairy two weeks ago, a sample taken in November from a bottle in a victim's refrigerator, and blood drawn from the four patients all harbored exactly the same type of listeria.

Clearly, there was a failure in the pasteurization process or the contamination was introduced post-pasteurization.  Recent reports suggest the later.  Although outbreaks associated with mis-pasteurized milk have occurred, in nearly every instance it was a failure of the pasteurization process or post-pasteurization contamination that lead to illnesses. See by prior blog post, “More News on Massachusetts listeria Deaths Related to Whittier Farms Pasteurized Milk.”

So, before you go out and start buying raw milk because you are now worrying about mis-pasteurization, please take a hard look at the list of raw milk outbreaks put together by Barfblog and the below PowerPoint from the FDA:

Here is some interesting information on Raw Milk Production:  "Raw Milk Legal Status in Top 10 Milk Production States:"

1. California – 2903 million pounds in 2003 – Raw milk sales are legal in retail stores.

2. Wisconsin – 1852 million pounds in 2003 – In January, 2005, a raw milk bill was submitted to the Wisconsin legislature

3. New York – 1015 million pounds in 2003 – Raw milk sales are permitted on the farm.

4. Pennsylvania – 855 million pounds in 2003 – Raw milk sales are legal both on the farm and retail

5. Minnesota – 691 million pounds in 2003 – State Constitution stated in Article XIII, Section 7: Any person may sell or peddle the products of the farm or garden occupied and cultivated by him without obtaining a license therefor.

6. Idaho – 734 million pounds in 2003 – Raw milk sales are legal with a license

7. New Mexico – 565 million pounds in 2003 – Raw milk and raw milk products sales are legal both on the farm and in retail stores

8. Michigan – 511 million pounds in 2003 – Raw milk sales are illegal but the state condones cow sharing programs

9. Washington – 467 million pounds in 2003 – Grade A dairies may sell raw milk

10. Texas – 471 million pounds in 2003 – Raw milk sales are permitted