Marler Blog - Providing commentary on food poisoning outbreaks & litigation

I am off to China to the International Food Safety & Quality Conference and Expo in a few weeks.  I am proud to be the lead sponsor of the event and am glad that I was able to convince our former Governor, Gary Locke, to attend as well.  China will become over the coming decades an even greater trading partner in food.  Coming up with strategies to help create an environment and culture where safe food is important is important to me.

Food safety is a worldwide issue that can benefit greatly from collaboration, standardized approaches, and common solutions. In many countries, food safety awareness is at an all-time high. New and emerging threats to the food supply are constantly being discovered, and our food supply is becoming increasingly global. Achieving food safety success in this changing environment requires novel prevention strategies, greater harmonization and more collaboration at the international level than ever before. As a responsible partner in the international food safety community, the General Administration for Quality Supervision Inspection & Quarantine (AQSIQ) is once again hosting the China International Food Safety & Quality Conference + Expo in 2008.

Several people have commented that switching from grain to grass feeding could be one of the solutions to the problem with foodborne pathogens in cattle and other livestock. Quotes like these are becoming more common on the Internet and in recent media reports:

“Products from grass-fed animals are safer than food from conventionally-raised animals.”  Eatwild, 2008

“Research has shown that the strains of E. coli most devastating to humans are the product of feedlots, not cows. This is due to the animals being forced to eat an unnatural diet, and not their natural choice, grass.”  Grass-Fed Beef: Safer and Healthier, Animal Welfare Approved, June 15, 2008

If true, changing the cow’s diet would be such a simple and cheap management practice to implement. Have we found the Holy Grail for food safety? Below is some research I did on the topic.

OVERVIEW

• Identification of on-farm management practices that would reduce or eliminate foodborne pathogens in cattle and other livestock (including diet changes) is an active area of research, but many study results are inconclusive. E. coli O157:H7, Campylobacter, Salmonella, and other dangerous pathogens have been repeatedly isolated from both grass and grain fed livestock, and the studies show conflicting results regarding whether the levels of pathogens are higher, lower, or the same when animals are fed grass- or grain-based diets.

• There is no clear and consistent definition in the literature of “grass-fed,” but the majority of papers describe animals that are on pasture or confined, but receiving only hay-based diets. Last year, the USDA Agricultural Marketing Service issued a standard for grass (forage) fed marketing claims. More research on this topic is needed that compares rates of foodborne pathogens among grain and grass fed animals using a specific definition such as the USDA standard or other accepted definition.

• The original study by Diez-Gonzalez published in Science in 1998, and since cited numerous times in the literature and media, suggested that cattle could be fed hay for a brief period before slaughter to significantly reduce the risk of foodborne E. coli infection. They based this conclusion on a hypothesis that grain feeding increases acid resistance of E. coli in cattle. Although they showed increased acid resistance in E. coli from grain-fed cattle, but the sample size was small, and they used “generic” E. coli stains, not E. coli O157:H7.

• Studies by other researchers worldwide have since found little difference in acid resistant E. coli O157:H7 among grain- verses grass-fed cattle, and some even found more E. coli O157:H7 shed by grass-fed animals.

• It has been discovered that E. coli O157:H7 and Salmonella can rapidly switch from being “acid sensitive” to “acid resistant” within minutes after entering an acidic environment (such as the human stomach). Thus, even if the grass-fed/E. coli acid-resistance hypothesis were true, manipulating the diet may not have any effect since pathogens can adapt quickly to new environments like the human stomach.

• Outbreaks have traced back to grass-fed and pastured animals, as well as animals in feedlots. Notably, the E. coli O157:H7 spinach outbreak strain in 2006 was isolated from grass-fed cattle. Another outbreak of E. coli O157:H7 was linked recently to raw milk and colostrum from cattle raised organically on grass.

• In summary, the scientific evidence at this time does not support a broad conclusion that grass feeding significantly and consistently reduces the risk of E. coli O157:H7 or other dangerous foodborne pathogens entering the food chain. However, more research is needed into the influence of food animal diets. For example, preliminary experimental data shows a possible association between feeding dried distiller’s grains and shedding of E. coli O157:H7 in cattle feces.

INTRODUCTION

A systematic approach is necessary to combat the emerging challenges in food safety such as the unexplained “uptick” of E. coli O157:H7 outbreaks and recalls linked to beef products. Interventions to protect the food supply should ideally occur across the continuum from “farm to fork.” The “Holy Grail” of pre-harvest (farm-level) food safety would be to find an effective, affordable, and practical means to prevent or reduce food animals from shedding foodborne pathogens in the first place so the dangerous bacteria never enter the human food chain. Since cattle or other livestock may be located near drinking water sources or vegetable crops, a farm-level intervention could also help to protect nearby water and crops from contamination by manure via runoff, transport by wildlife/insects, or other mechanisms.

Oliver et al (2008) published a comprehensive review of developments and future outlooks for pre-harvest food safety this month. Examples of potential farm-level management practices that have been studied for E. coli O157:H7 and other foodborne pathogens in livestock include:

• Antibiotics
• Bacteriophages (viruses of bacteria)
• Dietary changes
• Immunization
• Probiotics or prebiotics in animal rations
• Sanitation/hygiene (feed, water, environment)
• Wildlife and insect control

Unfortunately, the best approaches for on-farm control of foodborne pathogens in livestock remain elusive. No single management practice, or even a combination of methods, has proven to be very effective or reliable in preventing foodborne pathogen colonization in livestock. Clearly, sanitation including clean feed/water sources and insect control are important, but difficult to maintain in a farm environment. Livestock immunizations are not available for most foodborne pathogens with the exception of an E. coli O157:H7 vaccine under development (and some ask “who would pay for such a program?” since cattle do not become ill from E. coli O157). Use of antibiotics is problematic because it can lead to resistance.

GRASS VERSUS GRAIN FEEDING

Definition of “Grass-Fed”

The majority of cattle are fed grass or other forage at some time during their lives. For the purpose of marketing, the USDA Agricultural Marketing Service issued a voluntary standard for grass (forage) fed marketing claims last year that states: “grass fed standard states that grass and/or forage shall be the feed source consumed for the lifetime of the ruminant animal, with the exception of milk consumed prior to weaning. The diet shall be derived solely from forage and animals cannot be fed grain or grain by-products and must have continuous access to pasture during the growing season.”

Note that most papers in the literature do not specifically define grass-fed using this new standard or any other specific definition, but differentiate, in general, between animals on forage (grass) only verses diets containing grain.

The Study that Started the Controversy

The original study that launched the controversy over grain feeding was published in Science in 1998 by researchers from Cornell (Diez-Gonzalez et al). They described potential dietary effects on the acid resistance of E. coli in cattle fed grain- versus hay-based diets. This study has since been cited numerous times in the literature and media, but later studies have not been able to reproduce the findings. This may be due, in part, to several limitations in the original study design including: 1) small sample size and 2) “Generic” E. coli levels were measured, not E. coli O157:H7.

In 2006, Hancock and Besser wrote a summary of the evidence surrounding the hypothesis that feeding hay instead of grain would reduce the problem with E. coli O157:H7, purportedly because the stomachs of grain-fed cattle are more acidic. They concluded: “while one cannot rule out a role of cattle diet on affecting exposure and infectivity of E. coli O157:H7 to humans, the data available at present demonstrate that cattle on a wide variety of diets (including 100% forage diets) are regularly and similarly colonized with this pathogen.”

Another interesting study from a research group in The Netherlands discovered that E. coli O157:H7 and Salmonella can rapidly switch from being “acid sensitive” to “acid resistant” within minutes after entering an environment with reduced pH (such as the human stomach). Thus, even if the grass-fed hypothesis were true, manipulating the diet may not have any effect since E. coli O157:H7 can adapt quickly to new environments like the human stomach.

Recent Findings in the Literature

In searching through the literature since Hancock and Besser’s review, several new papers relevant to the discussion were found.

1. Nutritional aspects of grass-fed beef.

Leheska, J. M., L. D. Thompson, J. C. Howe, E. Hentges, J. Boyce, J. C. Brooks, B. Shriver, L. Hoover, and M. F. Miller. 2008. Effects of conventional and grass feeding systems on the nutrient composition of beef. J Anim Sci.

• This paper explores the question about whether there are differences in nutrient composition of grass-fed beef compared with conventional (grain)-fed beef. Researchers have previously found higher omega-3 fatty acids and CLA (conjugated linoleic acid) in forage-fed beef, and lower fat content overall. Some consumers prefer eating grass-fed meat because they believe it is “healthier,” and/or tastes better than conventional beef.

• The authors of this study enrolled only producers that were marketing grass-fed beef and confirmed that “100% of the diets were made up of native grasses, forages, or cut grasses or forages.”

• Fatty acid composition of grass-fed and conventional-fed beef was found to be different, but the authors conclude “the effects of the lipid differences between grass-fed and conventional raised beef, on human health, remains to be investigated.”

2. Papers continue to be published about possible effects of diet on E. coli O157:H7 prevalence and concentration.

For example, a research team from Kansas State University reported that feeding distillers grains, a co-product of ethanol production, to feedlot cattle may have a positive association with fecal shedding of E. coli O157. The mechanism is unknown, but they hypothesize that the grains change the ecology of the hindgut where E. coli O157 is most likely to colonize cattle. The authors report that larger studies are underway to investigate this possible link.

CONCLUSIONS

In summary, the scientific evidence at this time does not support a broad conclusion that grass feeding significantly reduces the risk of E. coli O157:H7 or other dangerous foodborne pathogens from entering the food chain. However, more research is needed to better understand the influence of diet, especially the use of different types of grains in animal feed.

REFERENCES BELOW

On July 16th, 2008 the Connecticut Department of Agriculture began an investigation of a possible link between several reported illnesses and the consumption of Retail Raw Milk (unpasteurized milk).  Recently we concluded that investigation. The investigation was prompted when the Department was notified by Connecticut Department of Public Health (DPH) Epidemiologists of 2 reported illnesses in which both patients had consumed Retail Raw Milk from a dairy licensed to produce Retail Raw Milk and pasteurized milk and milk products. The patients were aged 2 and 7, one was on dialysis. After notifying the dairy of the investigation, the dairy voluntarily stopped sale of all milk. Soon after the initial 2 reported illnesses, DPH reported 2 additional cases linked to the dairy. By the time we concluded our investigation a total of 7 known individuals were sickened from consuming Retail Raw Milk and several were hospitalized. The Retail Raw Milk implicated in this incident was purchased from 2 separate national, natural food, chain store locations and directly from the farm. None of the reported illnesses were linked to pasteurized milk and milk products produced at this dairy.

The individuals sickened had acquired a condition known as Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome (HUS) and one case of Thrombotic Thrombocytopenic Purpura (TTP). HUS is a disorder that occurs when an infection in the digestive system produces toxic substances that destroy red blood cells. It often effects the kidneys. This disorder is most common in children. It often occurs after a gastrointestinal (enteric) infection, often caused by a type of Escherichia coli (E. coli) bacteria, O157:H7.  Unpasteurized (Raw) milk has been associated with several outbreaks of E. coli O157:H7 infections in the U.S. Other outbreaks of E. coli O157:H7 have been associated with undercooked or raw hamburger (ground beef), unpasteurized fruit juices, alfalfa sprouts, dry-cured salami, lettuce, game meats and from transmission from animals to humans from contact with infected animals. HUS also can be caused by other enteric infections, including Shigella and Salmonella, and some non-enteric infections. Patients with TTP have clinical and pathologic features similar to patients with HUS.

In addition to Department of Agriculture staff, the investigation involved the Connecticut Department of Public Health and local health departments. After extensive testing of milk, milk contact surfaces, water sources, the environment in and around the farm and processing plant and, analysis of feces from each milking aged animal, the department obtained a genetic fingerprint match between E. coli O157:H7 recovered from the feces of 1 cow and E. coli O157:H7 isolated from 3 patients.

Approximately 170 separate samples and specimens of milk, water, feces and swabs of milk contact surfaces were analyzed by the DPH Public Health Laboratory in a 3 week period. A review of scientific literature reveals that E. coli O157:H7 as well as other food borne pathogens most likely are introduced into milk by contamination from animals shedding the organism in their feces. Direct introduction of pathogens into the milk from the bloodstream is unlikely but can not be ruled out. The department has concluded that the most likely cause of this food borne illness outbreak was the consumption of Retail Raw Milk contaminated with E. coli O157:H7. While good sanitation and management practices can lower the incidence of pathogens in raw milk we believe and studies support the position that pasteurization is the only proven way to eliminate pathogens from raw milk.

The Connecticut Department of Public Health and the Food and Drug Administration, and other public health authorities such as the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the National Conference on Interstate Milk Shipments, the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture, the Association of Food and Drug Officials, and National Association of State Public Health Veterinarians all oppose the consumption of unpasteurized milk because of the health risks.

According to Kim Archer of the Tulsa World, Oklahoma state health officials have determined that a relatively rare and virulent form of E. coli infected dozens of patrons of Country Cottage, killing one and sickening more than 73 people.  More than 50 of those who fell ill were hospitalized.  Five children remain in the pediatric intensive care unit at Children's Hospital at St. Francis.  Four are on dialysis.  Two other children were sent to OU Children's Hospital.  Ms. Archer quoted State epidemiologist Dr. Kristy Bradley as saying the E. coli strain is not the commonly known E. coli O157:H7.  Non-O157 strains are more common in South America and parts of Europe, according to the Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal.

I could not agree more. Shiga toxin is one of the most potent toxins known to man, so much so that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) lists it as a potential bioterrorist agent (CDC, n.d.). It seems likely that DNA from Shiga toxin-producing Shigella bacteria was transferred by a bacteriophage (a virus that infects bacteria) to otherwise harmless E. coli bacteria, thereby providing them with the genetic material to produce Shiga toxin.

Although E. coli O157:H7 is responsible for the majority of human illnesses attributed to E. coli, there are additional Stx-producing E. coli (e.g., E. coli O121:H19) that can also cause hemorrhagic colitis and post-diarrheal hemolytic uremic syndrome (D+HUS). HUS is a syndrome that is defined by the trilogy of hemolytic anemia (destruction of red blood cells), thrombocytopenia (low platelet count), and acute kidney failure.

Stx-producing E. coli organisms have several characteristics that make them so dangerous. They are hardy organisms that can survive several weeks on surfaces such as counter tops, and up to a year in some materials like compost. They have a very low infectious dose meaning that only a relatively small number of bacteria (< 50) are needed “to set-up housekeeping” in a victim’s intestinal tract and cause infection.

I represented three Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome victims in an outbreak of E. coli O21:H19 linked to a Utah Wendys in 2006. Non-O157:H7 was also likely responsible for some of the illnesses in the Dole Spinach outbreak of 2006.

I also recently gave a speech in front of the USDA/FSIS on making all Shiga-toxin producing E. coli’s adulterants under the US Meat Inspection Act. Here is that text:

Another issue facing, not only the meat industry, but all of us, is the extent to which non-O157 E. coli may be present in food products – FSIS regulated or not. It is clear that Non-O157 Shiga toxin producing E. coli have emerged as a public health issue. Some non-O157 possess the same range of virulence factors as E. coli O157:H7 and are capable of causing serious illnesses, or death. Numerous serotypes, including O26, O103, O111 and O145 have been identified as agents of food borne disease.

I have seen their nasty work in the Dole spinach outbreak and an outbreak in Utah involving Wendy’s. Since 1990, 13 outbreaks of non-O157 E. coli have been reported in the US. While E. coli O157 is the principal strain isolated from implicated food and clinical isolates in the US, non-O157 predominate in other countries, including several of our beef trading partners like Australia, Brazil and Canada.

I will leave this to scientists and public health officials to sort all out. However, perhaps one needs to look no further than the FEDERAL MEAT INSPECTION Act and look at the term ''adulterated" for and answer. A product is adulterated: (1) if it bears or contains any poisonous or deleterious substance which may render it injurious to health." If non-O157 E. coli fits the bill, then to me that answers the question. However, what do we then do about salmonella, listeria, campylobacter, and shigella – especially those with particular virulence or antibiotic resistance?

One thing to remember, whether a product is considered to be an adulterant under the FMI or not, if a food product contains a bacteria or virus that sickens or kills, civil liability can, and often will attach. My vote is to simply get pathogens out of your product.

Outbreak of Severe Diarrheal Illness in Northeastern Oklahoma

The Oklahoma State Department of Health (OSDH) has narrowed the focus of its investigation into a severe diarrheal outbreak in northeastern Oklahoma to the Country Cottage restaurant in Locust Grove, OK. The OSDH is trying to determine how food served at the restaurant might have become contaminated. The restaurant continues to remain closed while the outbreak investigation continues.

Yesterday the OSDH confirmed that an unusual type of E. coli is probably responsible for the severe illness experienced by at least 73 persons sickened by the outbreak, although disease investigators say that number could increase as they interview others who may have become ill as a result of the outbreak. The OSDH public health laboratory is collecting and analyzing specimens from patients and has sent some specimens to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for further analysis.

At least 50 persons have been hospitalized and one person has died.

Health officials warn that the strain of E. coli associated with this outbreak can be easily spread among family household members or close contacts, providing the potential for additional persons to become ill.

“We strongly recommend to the public that they wash their hands frequently, particularly after using the bathroom, changing diapers, and preparing food. Persons who are sick with diarrhea should not be involved in food preparation,” said State Epidemiologist Dr. Kristy Bradley.

As the investigation continues in the search for the source of the outbreak, health officials warn that the upcoming holiday weekend as well as tailgate parties and other recreational activities provide the opportunity for foodborne disease transmission. “Take the time to clean hands and food preparation surfaces frequently, keep raw meats separate from ready-to-eat foods, cook foods to proper temperatures, and refrigerate leftover foods quickly,” Bradley advised.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says the salmonella outbreak that's sickened more than 1,440 people appears to be over.  A joint probe by the CDC and the Food and Drug Administration has found strong evidence that jalapeno peppers were a major carrier of the bacteria, and that serrano peppers were also a carrier. The strain that caused the outbreak has been traced back to a produce distribution center in Texas, and to a Mexican farm that grew peppers.  The investigation hasn't found any contaminated tomatoes. But investigators say they can't rule out that tomatoes might have been a carrier, particularly early on.
 

Oklahoma State health officials say at least 17 people have been hospitalized and 40 or more cases are being investigated after a severe illness outbreak in northeast Oklahoma.

At least one person -- 26-year-old Pryor bank employee Chad Ingle -- has died as a result of the illness.

Oklahoma State Department of Health officials are trying to identify it's source and whether it's related to E. coli bacteria. They have confirmed that many ate at the Country Cottage restaurant in Locust Grove but say it's too early to pinpoint the eatery as the source.

Questions that need answers:

1.  Do the Pulsed field gel electrophoresis patterns (PFGE patterns), or genetic fingerprints, of the E. coli O157:H7 bacteria in the victims stools match? If they match it means that there is likely a “point-source” outbreak – meaning, that it is a particular restaurant and/or food item that made these folks ill.

2.  Does the PFGE pattern match any patterns on PulseNet at the CDC?

3.  Does the PFGE pattern match any patterns on recalled food products?

4.  What are the common places where all of these people were? Restaurants, swimming pools, day cares, county fairs?

5.  Was there a common food item that these people shared?

6.  What are the common places where all of these people were during the week leading up to their illness?
 
7.  Is active surveillance (notifying hospitals, laboratories, and clinics to watch for and report suspect cases) being conducted to determine if there are more illnesses in these towns and elsewhere?
 
8.  Have any of the restaurant employees been ill with the same symptoms?

9.  Where is the cow poop?

A food borne illness outbreak in northeastern Oklahoma has sickened as many as 30 and taken one life. Although lab results are not in, signs point to the highly toxic E. coli O157:H7 bacteria as the culprit. Many of the ill have eaten at the same restaurants, and leads are being followed to determine the source. In the last two years, more than 40 million pounds of meat have been recalled due to contamination with E. coli O157:H7, and outbreaks have also been traced to leafy greens.

“This has been a terrible year for E. coli outbreaks,” said food safety advocate and attorney William Marler. “Boy Scouts at camp were sickened by contaminated hamburger, and families who ate at a barbeque restaurant have spent months in ICU. We expect our food to be free of deadly pathogens—that’s the job of the regulations put into place by government.”

E. coli is often contracted by consuming food or beverage that has been contaminated by animal (especially cattle) manure. The majority of food borne E. coli outbreaks has been traced to contaminated ground beef; however leafy vegetables that have been contaminated in fields or during processing have been increasingly identified as the source of outbreaks, as have unpasteurized milk and cheese, unpasteurized apple juice and cider, alfalfa and radish sprouts, orange juice, and even water. There have also been outbreaks associated with petting zoos and agricultural fairs.

The first symptom of E. coli infection is the onset of abdominal pain and severe cramps, followed within 24 hours by bloody diarrhea. This is hemorrhagic colitis, and it typically occurs within 2 to 5 days of ingestion of E. coli; however the incubation period—the time between the ingestion of E. coli bacteria and the onset of illness—may be as broad as 1 to 10 days.

Marler Clark has represented thousands of victims of food borne illness outbreaks since 1993. The firm’s attorneys have litigated high-profile food poisoning cases against such companies as ConAgra, Wendy’s, Chili’s, Chi-Chi’s, and Jack in the Box. Marler Clark currently represents thousands of victims of outbreaks traced to ground beef, peppers, pot pies, spinach, and tomatoes, as well as other foods.

A spokesperson with St. Francis Hospital in Tulsa says doctors are treating 12 patients suspected of E. coli poisoning.  The health department says between 10-20 people have been treated and released from other hosptitals in northeastern Oklahoma.

The Health Department has not released the source of the illnesses, but readers of the Tulsa World and KJRH websites have named Country Cottage in Locust Grove as the likely source of the outbreak - see comments below.  Given the number of E. coli outbreaks linked to tainted meat in the last several months, it will be interesting to see what the common food source is between all those who became ill.  See link to recalls due to E. coli O157:H7 here.

onya - 9:30 AM

what date did this occur? We ate at the country cottage in Locust Grove and have some minor diarrea and stomach cramping.

Blumr - 6:24 AM

My niece is one of the patients and is in ICU. She's had to have dialysis, respirator and has been in very serious condition from this. She also ate at the Country Cottage in Locust Grove, as did the other patients.

dmlbcombs, Claremore (8/25/2008 8:38:56 AM)

The restaurant in question is Country Cottage. Sad deal.

RockBoston, (8/25/2008 10:00:21 AM)

The person that died is a colleague of mine. Very sad how this stuff happens. I did not personally know the guy, but this is a big company so. The whole idea that eating at your favorite restaurant could kill you is mind numbing.

olamom - 10:21 AM

we ate at the country cottage or as some people call it the blue house in locust grove..on saturday and my little girl has bad stomach cramping and diarrea..

An ambitious and well-meaning attempt to make California’s dairy products safer arrives this week in the California Assembly in the form of State Bill 201—but the country’s top food safety advocates are calling on California legislators to vote against it. The bill places regulations on producers of raw milk dairy products and lays groundwork intended to stem the tide of deadly food borne illnesses tied to the raw milk industry. It sounds good, and may have enough support to reach the Governor’s desk, where the same advocates encourage a veto. What’s the problem?

“It’s difficult to work so hard against a bill that has such good intentions,” said William Marler, food safety advocate and attorney. “But SB 201 actually creates a detour around the regulation of raw milk, and must be re-written before the bill is ready. There are children on life support because of raw milk tainted with E. coli and other toxic bacteria, and there will be more of them in California—and nationwide—unless changes are made to this legislation.”

Rather than detailing the levels of fecal contaminates acceptable in a regulated raw milk product, the bill proposes that raw milk be regulated by a HACCP protocol. HACCP—Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point—is a food safety and self-inspection system that describes procedures for producing potentially dangerous foods. There are national HACCP protocols in place for juice, meat, poultry, and seafood processing, but none for raw milk. Developing a HACCP protocol can take years, and if SB201 is signed as written, California raw milk will enter a black hole of regulation. Companies will be free to produce raw milk essentially unregulated until a HACCP plan is ready.

“Raw milk—given that it is outside the pasteurization process—has inherent risks,” continued Marler. “Illnesses from raw milk and raw colostrum—E. coli, campylobacter, and listeria—are on the rise, and we’ve seen first-hand a growing number of consumers whose lives will never be the same because of this product:

• Dee Creek Farm – E. Coli O157:H7 – 11 ill, 4 with Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome, or HUS
• Grace Harbor Farms – E. Coli O157:H7 – 2 children ill, one with HUS
• Organic Pastures – E. Coli O157:H7 - 6 ill, 2 children with HUS
• Herb Depot – E. Coli O157:H7 - Two children ill
• Town Farm Dairy – E. Coli O157:H7 - 5 ill, 2 with HUS
• Alexandre Family EcoDairy Farms – Campylobacter – 15 illnesses, one on a ventilator.”

Raw milk is at the center of a nationwide controversy over its potential value as a nutritional food versus the severe illnesses that can result from contaminated product. Pasteurization was developed to rid dairy products of pathogens like toxic E. coli as well as to assure a longer, safer shelf life. Proponents of raw milk believe that pasteurization also eliminates healthful benefits of the dairy product. (Peer-reviewed literature on the raw milk controversy can be found by clicking here for pro and here for con.)  And, click here for a Legal History of Raw Milk.

“It’s the large producers of raw milk products that SB 201 aims to regulate,” said Marler. “Because of the HACCP loophole, a huge amount of contaminated product could reach the public. This bill is intended to stop them, but instead will give them a free ride for years to come. California Legislators and Governor Schwarzenegger, please send SB 201 back!”

What if the great 2008 Tomato, right Pepper, Salmonella Outbreak actually happened this way?

At 10:00 PM last May 30th, on the same day New Mexico asked for help from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) with a growing outbreak of Salmonella Saintpaul, a foreign Network begin airing a video taken inside a fresh produce distribution center showing workers treating peppers with an unknown liquid. There is a claim that this is a terrorist act.

In the next 15 minutes, every network news operation is playing the video. The broadcast networks break into regular programming to air it, and the cable news stations go nonstop with the video while talking heads dissect it.

Coming on a Friday afternoon on the East Coast, the food terrorism story catches the mainstream Media completely off guard. Other than to say the video is being analyzed by CIA experts, and is presumed to be authentic, there isn’t much coming out of the government.

Far-fetched? Don’t count on it. I have been saying for years that a foodborne illness outbreak will look just like the terrorist act described above, but without the video on FOX News. Far-fetched?

Tell that to the 751 people in Wasco County, Oregon—including 45 who required hospital stays---who in 1984 ate at any one of ten salad bars in town and were poisoned with Salmonella by followers of Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh. The goal was to make people who were not followers of the cult too sick to vote in county elections.

Tell that to Chile, where in 1989, a shipment of grapes bound for the United States was found laced with cyanide, bringing trade suspension that cost the South American country $200 million. It was very much like a 1970s plot by Palestinian terrorists to inject Israel’s Jaffa oranges with mercury.

Tell that to the 111 people, including 40 children, sickened in May 2003 when a Michigan supermarket employee intentionally tainted 200 pounds of ground beef with an insecticide containing nicotine.

Tell that to Mr. Litvenenko, the Russian spy poisoned in the UK with polonium-laced food.

Tell that to Stanford University researchers who modeled a nightmare scenario where a mere 4 grams of botulinum toxin dropped into a milk production facility could cause serious illness and even death to 400,000 people in the United States.

The reason I bring this up is not only because we are about to mark the seventh anniversary of 9/11, but because I wonder if food terrorism really had been the cause of this year’s Salmonella Saintpaul outbreak, would it have made any difference in our government’s ability to figure out there was an outbreak, to figure out the cause, and to stop it before it sickened so many.

Would the fact of terrorists operating from inside a fresh produce distribution center somewhere inside the United States or Mexico brought more or effective resources to the search for the source of the Salmonella Saintpaul? If credit-taking terrorists were putting poison on our peppers, could we be certain Uncle Sam’s response would have been more robust or effective then if it was just a “regular” food illness outbreak?

After 9/11, Health & Human Services Secretary Tommy G. Thompson said: “Public health is a national security issue. It must be treated as such. Therefore, we must not only make sure we can respond to a crisis, but we must make sure that we are secure in defending our stockpiles, our institutions and our products.”

Before Thompson’s early exit from the Bush Administration, he did get published the “Risk Assessment for Food Terrorism and Other Food Safety Concerns.” That document, now 5-years old, let the American public know that there is a “high likelihood” of food terrorism. It said the “possible agents for food terrorism” are:

• Biological and chemical agents
• Naturally occurring, antibiotic-resistant, and genetically engineered substances
• Deadly agents and those tending to cause gastrointestinal discomfort
• Highly infectious agents and those that are not communicable
• Substances readily available to any individual and those more difficult to acquire, and
• Agents that must be weaponized and those accessible in a use able form.

After 9/11, Secretary Thompson said more inspectors and more traceability are keys to our food defense and safety. To date, we’ve made no movement to ensure this.

So would the fact of a terrorist group operating from a produce distribution center inside the United States or Mexico have brought more or effective resources to the search for the source of Salmonella Saintpaul? If credit-taking terrorists were putting poison on our peppers, could we be certain that Uncle Sam’s response would be more robust, more effective than if it was just a “regular” food illness outbreak?

Absolutely not! The CDC publicly admits that it manages to count and track only one of every forty foodborne illness victims, and that its inspectors miss key evidence as outbreaks begin. The FDA is on record as referring to themselves as overburdened, underfunded, understaffed, and in possession of no real power to make a difference during recalls, because even Class 1 recalls are “voluntary.” If you are a food manufacturer, packer, or distributor, you are more likely to be hit by lightening than be inspected by the FDA. You are perfectly free to continue to sell and distribute your poisoned product, whether it has been poisoned accidentally or intentionally.

The reality is that the Salmonella Saintpaul outbreak is a brutal object lesson in the significant gaps in our ability to track and protect our food supply. We are ill prepared for a crisis, regardless of who poisons us.

Somewhere between the farm and your table, our Uncle Sam got lost.

Blog Release:

A victim of the June 2008 lettuce E. coli outbreak in Thurston and Pierce counties filed suit today in the Superior Court of Washington, King County.  Heather Whybrew of Federal Way, Washington was a student at Pacific Lutheran University in Parkland when she was infected with E. coli O157:H7.  The lawsuit was filed against Northwest Fruit and Produce Inc and “John Does,” Growers, Shippers and Suppliers by attorney William Marler and Marler Clark,  a Seattle law firm dedicated to representing victims of foodborne illness.

Ten people were sickened in the outbreak, which was traced to bagged, commercial romaine lettuce manufactured and distributed by Northwest Produce to food service locations including Pacific Lutheran University (PLU).  Ms. Whybrew fell ill on May 16, after taking all of her meals at PLU.  She experienced cramping, nausea, and diarrhea, which became bloody the next day.  In extreme pain, she went to the school health center, and was told to go to the emergency room.  She was admitted to the hospital in Federal Way, Washington where she tested positive for E. coli O157:H7.  Ms. Whybrew battled the E. coli infection over the next week, developing pneumonia as well as blood clots in her extremities and IV insertion sites, for which she required Heparin, a blood thinner.  When kidney irregularities emerged, she was transferred to Children’s Hospital in Seattle, where she remained until June 6.  She was hospitalized for 20 days.  She continues to recover from the infection and its complications—she must give herself two Heparin shots daily in the abdomen to keep blood clots at bay.

“Leafy greens from California are the sleeping giant,” said Whybrew’s attorney William Marler.  Once E. coli O157:H7 gets on—or into—the product, it is almost impossible to wash off.  A tiny number of bacteria can sicken or even kill.  Positive changes were made after the terrible spinach E coli O157:H7 outbreak in 2006, but this outbreak and others indicate that there are still problems in the system.  Salinas, California is again suspected as being the source of the lettuce that sickened Heather and nine others, and that is where regulation is the tightest.  There’s clearly a great deal of work still to do.”

“I have a very high tolerance for pain,” said Ms. Whybrew in a statement.  “I have experienced sports injuries, undergone reconstructive surgery, and have had a crainiotomy to remove a brain tumor.  I have had chemo and a difficult rehab from partial paralysis—but I have never experienced anything like the pain from E. coli O157:H7 infection.”

E. coli O157:H7 is often contracted by consuming food or beverage that has been contaminated by animal (especially cattle) manure.  The majority of food borne E. coli O157:H7 outbreaks has been traced to contaminated ground beef; however leafy vegetables that have been contaminated in fields or during processing have been increasingly identified as the source of outbreaks.

Guest Blog by Denis W. Stearns:

On October 3, 2002 I submitted a petition to the USDA in which I asked the agency to explicitly clarify whether a USDA policy that appeared to allow the deadly pathogen E. coli O157:H7 on so-called “intact meat” applied to meat sold to retail outlets like grocery stores and restaurants. Even now it is a near-universal practice for retail outlets to use this meat—commonly called “boxed beef” because the cuts of meat are individually shrink-wrapped and then boxed—to make ground beef. Sometimes the meat is directly used to make ground beef, and sometimes only trimmings are used—that is, the pieces left over after roasts and steak are cut and trimmed. Either way, there has never been any doubt that tens of thousands of grocery stores and restaurants use tons of intact meat every day to make ground beef. To my mind it makes absolutely no sense that the USDA would allow meat companies to sell intact meat contaminated with E. coli O157:H7. Why allow a loophole so large that it essentially moots USDA policy on this deadly pathogen?

Interestingly, the USDA responded to my petition with a letter from Philip Derfler, Deputy Administrator of the Food Safety and Inspection Service. In the letter, Mr. Derfler acknowledged that USDA policy was unclear, and stated that my petition would be treated as a public comment and referred to the Regulations and Directives Development Staff. That was six years ago, and USDA policy is less clear today than it was back then, and just as indefensible.

We are now in the midst of yet another outbreak of heartbreaking illnesses and likely deaths caused by contaminated meat that the beef industry claims the USDA authorizes it to sell. This claim is hardly new either. In 2004, the American Meat Institute and other meat industry trade groups fought all the way to the United States Supreme Court trying to overturn a Wisconsin Court of Appeals decision. The decision held that USDA policy on intact meat did not immunize meat companies from lawsuits based on allegations that E. coli-contaminated meat was unreasonably dangerous as a matter of state law. In other words, the meat industry was fighting for the right to sell E. coli-contaminated meat, claiming that USDA policy said that it could. It lost, but that did not prompt the USDA to change or clarify its policy.

Putting legal arguments aside, common sense alone clearly demonstrates why an exception for intact meat makes no sense. While the meat industry can cleverly argue that its intact meat is not intended for ground beef, and that cooking always makes it safe, neither statement is true. As the recent Nebraska Beef outbreaks make tragically clear, most intact meat does not reach consumers still intact. Furthermore, if each shrink-wrapped cut of meat had “DO NOT USE FOR GROUND BEEF; E. COLI O157:H7 PRESENT” printed in bold letters on it, there is not a grocery store in the country that would buy it. Indeed, commenting on the current outbreak, a representative of Whole Foods explained that it was using intact meat to make its own ground beef “in an attempt to assure quality and safety.” I guess the joke was on them then.

The current USDA policy on E. coli and intact meat is indefensible because it protects the interests of the meat industry instead of the public health. A policy that is based on the demonstrably false assumption that intact meat is not being used to make ground beef at a retail level is a policy that has no basis in fact or reason. It also entirely ignores the incredible risk of cross-contamination, which is what caused the 2000 outbreak at a Milwaukee-area Sizzler restaurant that killed one child and sickened scores of others. The Sizzler outbreak also recently resulted in a $7.1 million verdict against the same meat company that fought to the Supreme Court (with industry trade groups) for the right to sell the deadly stuff. Meanwhile, all these years later, the USDA says it is continuing to consider its options. Well, I have a suggestion: How about putting the interests of the public first for a change and sticking to a real zero-tolerance policy for this deadly pathogen?

The salmonella outbreak seems to be finally winding down, but the FDA still can not yet say how the few tainted Mexican peppers they have found could explain such widespread illness.

The outbreak is not considered over yet, Food and Drug Administration food safety chief Dr. David Acheson cautioned on Friday.  The outbreak strain has been confirmed in 1,423 patients, with the latest known illness beginning July 24 according to the CDC.

The FDA is focusing its probe on farms in Mexico where a handful of jalapeno and serrano peppers, and some irrigation water, tainted with the outbreak strain of salmonella were traced.  At least one of the farms also grew tomatoes — the initial suspect — as well as peppers.  And two of them sent produce to a common packing facility.
 

A bit of art from my young friend Fredrick the Artist:

I think this drawing/painting has something to do with the "End Time" - not to be confused with Bankruptcy.  So, from Frederick's Mom's blog:

... Frederick was incensed that not only would pathogens find its way into beef and deprive me of burgers, but that the company providing the beef would actually blame others for resulting illnesses. Back in June, Nebraska Beef sued members of the Salem Lutheran Church for not preparing their meatballs properly for a church dinner. Had those ladies used better food safety measures, the pathogen that was illegally present in the food in the first place would have made no one sick.

The dinnertime discussion was made more interesting by Frederick's recent fascination with Old Testament stories. Could God be punishing Nebraska Beef for its behavior earlier this summer with even more recalls? Would locusts swarm Omaha? Would the Missouri River turn to blood? Probably not, but perhaps some figurative lightning was striking the Omaha area nonetheless...

A friend just sent me a link to Omaha Action 3 News – “Recall Ridden Beef Plant Stays Open: Why?”
Good question and I love the first line – “Another day, another recall from one specific South Omaha meat packing plant.”

Here is the fun part:

An Action 3 News investigation has found ties between the South Omaha plant and Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson. According to federal election records, two years ago, Senator Nelson's re-election campaign received contributions from two top officials of Nebraska Beef.  In 2006 William Lamson, the lawyer for the company, gave Nelson 2 thousand dollars. Lamson is also Nelson's former law partner. The President of Nebraska Beef has also contributed to Nelson. In 2006 William Hughes wrote Nelson three checks. The first was for $2,000. The second: $2,100. The third: $10,300 thousand.  A grand total of $14,400.

One other note, according to the Washington Post, in 1998 when Nelson was Governor, the State of Nebraska gave Nebraska Beef seven and a half million dollars in tax credits. Nelson was a member of the three man board that okayed those tax breaks.

As I always say, “money talks and E. coli walks.”  Or, is it 'eat E. coli and die?" Or simply just "eat E. coli!" Or, in Nebraska Beef's case, they are "in a lot of E. coli."  They should really "get their E. coli together."  Why, because, "they should give an E. coli."

I find it amazing how many people in and out of the beef industry have been helpful - sending me tips and documents - especially inspection reports on Nebraska Beef Ltd.  I also got a few emails today that you can find below:

I am sure glad FSIS made this clear:

Clarification: This recall affects only certain products produced at the Nebraska Beef Ltd. company, located in Omaha. It does not relate, implicate, or otherwise affect beef in the State of Nebraska. Please note this important distinction.

Here is the real problem:

Recall Release CLASS I RECALL
FSIS-RC-029-2008 HEALTH RISK: HIGH

Nebraska Beef, Ltd., an Omaha, Neb., establishment, is clarifying information from and expanding its recall announced on Aug. 8 of primal cuts, subprimal cuts and boxed beef to include such products bearing the company name "Nebraska Beef Ltd" that may be contaminated with E. coli O157:H7, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service announced today.

The total amount of product subject to recall is approximately 1.36 million pounds. The expansion of approximately 160,000 pounds and the clarifying information include:

* Primal cuts, subprimal cuts and boxed beef produced on June 24, whose shipping containers and labels bear the establishment number "EST. 19336" inside the USDA mark of inspection and the company name "Nebraska Beef Ltd" The products may or may not bear a green sticker.
* Primal cuts, subprimal cuts and boxed beef produced on July 8, whose shipping containers and labels bear the establishment number "EST. 19336" inside the USDA mark of inspection, the company name "Nebraska Beef Ltd." as well as a 2-inch plain, circular green sticker on one side of the shipping box.

Poundage of products bearing the green sticker were included in the 1.2 million pounds originally recalled, but were not identified in the product description with the company name "Nebraska Beef Ltd." in the Aug. 8 announcement.

FSIS has concluded that the production practices employed by Nebraska Beef, Ltd., on June 24 were insufficient to effectively control E. coli O157:H7. The products subject to the expansion may have been produced under insanitary conditions. The expansion was not prompted by foodborne illness investigations.

These products were sent to establishments and retail stores nationwide for further processing and will likely not bear the establishment number "EST. 19336" on products available for direct consumer purchase.

The problem prompting the recall announced on Aug. 8 was discovered through a joint investigation with state departments of health and agriculture, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and FSIS. As of Aug. 11, there were 26 culture-confirmed cases in 10 states and 1 culture-confirmed case in Canada identified as part of this outbreak. This count is based on continuing testing, analysis and investigation.
 

OK, Topps Meat recalled 21,000,000 pounds of meat and sickened 40; Nebraska Beef has recalled only 6,500,000 pounds and sickened nearly 80.  Topps was only a grinding operation (received primals from slaughter houses from all over the world).  Nebraska Beef was a slaughter house that shipped primals and other intact cuts of meats to various further processors and grocery stores - organic and not.  Topps Meat had 87 employees.  Nebraska Beef nearly 1,000 employees.  Hmmm, not much in common?

It took Topps Meat from the first recall of September 27, 2007 until Bankruptcy on November 23, 2007 (57 days).  Nebraska Beef's first recall was June 30, 2008 - well, we are now at day 42. 

Question, Nebraska Beef's recall was smaller than Topps, but number of employees and ill larger, will Bankruptcy filing be sooner or later?

Here we go again - Blog Release

Lawsuits Build Against Nebraska Beef as New Recall is Announced

A second Georgia lawsuit arising from E. coli tainted meat sourced from Nebraska Beef Ltd. was filed Friday, just as the beef processing company recalled another 1.2 million pounds of contaminated meat, bringing the total recalled in the last thirty days to over 6 million pounds. The complaint was filed against Nebraska Beef Ltd. in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, Valdosta Division on behalf of Lillie Ruth and Theron Richter of Colquitt County, Georgia.

A cluster of E. coli illnesses appeared in Colquitt County in late June, and was traced to the Barbeque Pit in Moultrie, Georgia. The restaurant closed voluntarily on July 3, and recently re-opened after almost a month of decontamination. As many as twelve customers of the Barbeque Pit developed E. coli, and four of the victims have developed Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome, or HUS. Mrs. Richter ate at the Barbeque Pit in Moultrie, GA twice in late June, and by July 1, required hospitalization. She tested positive for E. coli O157:H7 and remained in the hospital for a week.

“The first priority is to help these families with their medical bills, lost employment, and long-term care,” said William Marler, the Richter’s attorney. “However Nebraska Beef and other meat processors need to realize that the customers they poison will not sit by and wait for the next recall. It is clear that the beef industry has dropped the reins on its food safety protocols—lately there has been a new E. coli outbreak every week somewhere in the US, and that means more families grappling with these life-threatening and life-altering illnesses. It has to stop.”

The Georgia cases have been genetically matched to a multi-state outbreak, which includes Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky, New York, Utah, and Indiana. The illnesses have been traced to E. coli tainted meat from Nebraska Beef Ltd. of Omaha, NE, which was a supplier to the Barbeque Pit in Moultrie. At least 50 have fallen ill in the seven confirmed states. The new recall is responsible for up to 30 additional sicknesses in California, Colorado, Connecticut, Idaho, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Canada.  Recalls have also been announced by Whole Foods, Fred Meyer, City Market and King Soopers.

If I poisoned 85 people, my guess is that I would be facing serious jail time (I can see the Raw Milk and Big Beef folks dancing now).  However, if you’re a company, like Nebraska Beef, that slaughters about 2,000 head of cattle a day, employs about 800 people in Omaha and has successfully sued the USDA, rules just do not seem to apply.

As I posted last night, Nebraska Beef, "EST 19336," late Friday night recalled an additional 1.2 million pounds of beef products that have sickened more than 30 people.  This is in addition to the 5.3 million pounds of meat that has been linked to at least other 49 cases of E. coli O157:H7 in seven states.

As I also posted last night, some of Nebraska Beef's products were sold by Whole Foods Market (supplied buy Coleman Natural Meats), which also announced a recall Friday.  Whole Foods is recalling fresh ground beef sold between June 2 to August 6.

Now, do not forget that Dorothy Lane Market of Ohio also recalled (earlier this month) E. coli O157: H7-tainted meat after two children, and four other, were sickened with E. coli O157:H7 traced to ground beef produced by supplier Coleman Natural Meats.  Coleman Natural Meats supplier – you guessed it - Nebraska Beef.  So, does that mean the number of ill is 85?

So, USDA/FSIS is a bit frightened of Nebraska Beef?  Tell that to the 79 - 85 people sickened – some still in ICU’s across this country.  Personally, I think it is time for the USDA/FSIS to get some “bolas” – or at least give Nebraska Beef a “time out.”  Me, I am going to do what I do – sue them on behalf of people they poisoned – hoping first to fairly compensate my clients and afterwards teach Nebraska Beef a lesson – Nebraska Beef, can you say, Bankruptcy?

I also think it is time for companies that use Nebraska Beef products, like Dorothy Lane, Kroger, Whole Foods and Coleman Natural Meats, to step up and ask if you should be doing business with such a company?  You know, just like “ignorance of the law is no excuse,” ignorance of your suppliers puts you in my legal cross hairs.

According to Human Rights Watch:

In 1995, investors purchased an abandoned, decaying, half-century-old meatpacking plant, one of many that dot the mixed-use neighborhood of South Omaha.  The renovated plant became the home of Nebraska Beef Ltd., the seventh-largest beef packing company in the United States.  Today, the smell of thousands of live cattle awaiting slaughter, and the stench of blood and offal from dead cattle, permeates the low-rise apartment buildings, modest homes, and small commercial shops in the area.

Nebraska Beef Ltd. is a privately-held firm which does not file annual reports with the U.S. federal Securities and Exchange Commission.  Nebraska Beef was founded in 1995 by a group of investors led by company president William Hughes in alliance with Day Lee Inc., the U.S. arm of Nippon Ham of Japan. Eighteen investment groups and individuals invested more than $12 million in the new enterprise.  Hughes had earlier been executive vice president of another Omaha beef processing plant called BeefAmerica, which was closed in October 1993, eliminating nine hundred jobs.  When it opened, Nebraska Beef got $7.5 million in state tax credits under Nebraska’s “Quality Jobs” initiative granting such credits to firms that create new jobs.  Nebraska Beef has annual sales of more than $800 million and capacity for slaughtering three thousand head of beef per day.

USDA – FSIS Recall Release
FSIS-RC-029-2008

CLASS I RECALL
HEALTH RISK: HIGH

WASHINGTON, Aug. 8, 2008 – Nebraska Beef, Ltd., an Omaha, Neb., establishment is recalling approximately 1.2 million pounds of primal cuts, subprimal cuts and boxed beef that may be contaminated with E. coli O157:H7, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service announced today.

These beef products were produced on June 17, June 24 and July 8, 2008. The shipping containers and product labels bear the establishment number “EST. 19336” inside the USDA mark of inspection as well as the brand “Coleman Natural.” However, these products were sent to establishments and retail stores nationwide for further processing and will likely not bear the establishment number “EST. 19336” on products available for direct consumer purchase.

The problem was discovered through a joint investigation with state departments of health and agriculture, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and FSIS. To date, 31 cases in 12 states and Canada have been identified in the investigation.

FSIS is continuing its investigation into any products that may be contaminated with E. coli O157:H7 or that are associated with illnesses and will take appropriate action when necessary.

For those not familiar with Nebraska Beef - click - HERE

"Ubberblogger" at Efoodalert traces the E. coli trail from Nebraska Beef to Whole Foods - Whole Foods had the following to say in its announcement of the meat recall:

Whole Foods Market is informed that the beef in question apparently came from Coleman Natural Beef whose Nebraska Beef processing plant was previously subject to a nationwide recall for E. coli O157:H7 contamination. At the time of the previous recall, Whole Foods Market received assurances from Coleman Natural Beef that no product delivered to Whole Foods Market was linked to the recall. Those assurances are now in question and Whole Foods Market is actively investigating the issue. At this time, no Coleman Natural Beef fresh ground beef products from the Nebraska Beef processing facility are available in any Whole Foods Market stores.

She also correctly points out that Coleman Natural Beef was also implicated in the Ohio Dorothy Lane Market E. coli outbreak last month - which was also linked to Nebraska Beef - a month ago.  Two questions arise from this:

1)  Why did FSIS not recall the Nebraska Beef after the Coleman link was established?

2)  Why did Whole Foods keep selling Coleman product?

Lisa Crutchfield of the Times-Dispatch reported this morning that about 84 people who attended the camp at the reservation between July 20 and Aug. 2 have shown symptoms of the E. coli O157:H7 infection.  Twenty-five children in Northern Virginia have been lab-confirmed with the E. coli O157H7 infection and eight Virginia Scouts have required hospitalization, said Virginia health officials.  In addition, five cases of E. coli O157:H7 have been confirmed among those who returned from Goshen to Maryland.

S&S Foods of Azusa, California recalled about 153,630 pounds of frozen ground beef linked to E. coli O157:H7 infections at Goshen Scout Reservation in Rockbridge County.  Health officials matched samples of beef removed from the Scout reservation to bacteria found in stool samples of some of the affected campers.

According to the CTI website, "CTI Foods is a privately held company owned by a group of foodservice industry veterans.  The Company was established in July 2003 through the acquisition and merger of SSI Food Services, Inc. and S&S Foods, LLC.  Since then, the Company has expanded its operations into Texas by opening two additional processing facilities.  Production operations have been in place since 1986 in Idaho, 1998 in California, and 2004 in Texas."

As I said to the LA Times yesterday:

Since spring 2007, more than 19,500 tons of E. coli-tainted beef have been recalled in more than 30 separate incidents, according to Seattle attorney and food safety expert William D. Marler.

The Massachusetts Department of Public Health announced Monday that it was investigating six cases of E. coli that might be linked to a multi-state outbreak involving tainted meat from Nebraska Beef of Omaha. So far, at least 50 people have been sickened.

"Nobody I've talked to has any idea why we're seeing an increase, though everybody has a different theory," Marler said. "The meat industry basically has no answers. It's pretty frustrating -- there'll be some hand-wringing, a bunch of lawsuits and nothing will be done until three months later, when it all happens again."

Since the spring of 2007, the following E. coli O157:H7, Class I Recalls have been announced - amounting to over 39,000,000 pounds – 19,500 tons - of E. coli-tainted meat being recalled. Hundreds have been sickened, many seriously.  The latest recall by S&S Meats of 153,630 pounds has been linked to as many as 70 Boy Scouts’ illnesses. The list of recalls:

Tyson Fresh Meats 3/2/07 16,743 FSIS Recall - E coli
Richwood Meat Company 4/20/07 107,943 FSIS Recall - E coli
HFX, Inc 4/20/07 259,230 FSIS Recall - E coli
PM Beef Holdings 5/10/07 117,500 FSIS Recall - E coli
Davis Creek Meats 5/11/07 129,000 FSIS Recall - E coli
Tyson Fresh Meats 6/8/07 40,440 FSIS Recall - E coli
United Food Group 6/3-6/9/07 5,700,000 FSIS Recall - E coli
Abbott's Meat Inc 7/21/07 26,669 FSIS Recall - E coli
Custom Pack 7/25/07 5,920 FSIS Recall - E coli
Interstate Meat 8/30/07 41,305 FSIS Public Health Alert - E. Coli
Fairbank Farms 9/5/07 884 FSIS Recall - E coli
Impero Foods 9/29/07 65 FSIS Recall - E coli
Topps Meat Company 10/6/07 21,700,000 FSIS Recall - E coli
Cargill 10/6/07 845,000 FSIS Recall - E coli
J&B Meats 10/13/07 173,554 FSIS Recall - E coli
Arko Veal Co 10/13/07 1,900 FSIS Recall - E coli
Blue Ribbon Meats 10/24/07 8,200 FSIS Recall - E coli
Del Mar Provision Company 10/27/07 50 FSIS Recall - E coli
Totinos/General Mills 11/1/07 3,300,000 FSIS Recall - E coli
Cargill 11/3/07 1,084,384 FSIS Recall - E coli
American Foods Group 11/24/07 95,927 FSIS Recall - E coli
Snapps Ferry 12/17/07 102 FSIS Recall - E coli
Fresh Brands 12/27/07 14,800 FSIS Public Health Alert - E. Coli
Mark's Quality Meats 1/5/08 13,150 FSIS Recall - E coli
Rochester Meats 1/12/08 188,000 FSIS Recall - E coli
Palama Holdings 5/8/08 68,670 FSIS Recall - E coli
Fairbank Reconstruction Co 5/12/08 22,481 FSIS Recall - E coli
JSM Meat Holdings 5/16/08 undetermined FSIS Recall - E coli
Dutch's Meats 6/8/08 13,275 FSIS Recall - E coli
Kroger 6/25,7/3 2008 undetermined FSIS Recall - E coli - current
Nebraska Beef 6/30, 7/3 2008 5,300,000 FSIS Recall - E coli - current
S&S Meats 8/6/08 153,630 FSIS Recall - E coli – current

What will it take to get someone to do something to fix a food safety system in the beef industry that is clearly broken?  More illnesses and deaths?  Grandma's in ICU's in Georgia and sick Boy Scouts not enough?  What will it take?  One thing for certain, the only person to benefit from this is me!  We have never had more E. coli cases linked to contaminated beef in our office since the Jack in the Box outbreak of 1993.  And, I thought the meat industry did not like me.

The Washington Post reports this evening that “E. coli [O157:H7] found in ground beef at a Boy Scout camp in Goshen, Va., matches bacteria found in [stool] samples taken from some sick campers, lab tests have confirmed, and a state health official called beef the "prime suspect" in the outbreak that shut down the camp this week.”

“At least 27 confirmed E. coli infections have been connected to the camp, mostly among Northern Virginia residents in attendance from July 20 to 26, health officials said. Two campers who attended last week were also infected, a health official confirmed. More than 70 people have exhibited symptoms. Yesterday, one camper remained in a hospital, having been diagnosed with hemolytic uremic syndrome.”

Poisoning 70 Boy Scouts within a few hours drive of our nation's capitol?  Well, if politicians have not paid attention to 40,000,000 pounds of E. coli-tainted meat recalled in the last year, leaving hundreds sickened, some severely so, I am not sure they will pay attention now.

We have had an E. coli case or two against Sodexo over the years.  More interesting will be if the entire supply chain of the tainted meat can be traced from slaughterhouse to the campers.  I have received a few emails today from sources suggesting that the contaminated hamburger served to the Scouts came from a West Coast grinding operation.  We shall see what FSIS does in the next day.

The wheels have come off the hamburger industry.  Since the Spring of 2007 it has sickened hundreds - the young, the old - grandma's and boy scouts.  Here are the recalls:

Natural State Meat Company 1/29/07 4,240 FSIS Recall - E coli
Tyson Fresh Meats 3/2/07 16,743 FSIS Recall - E coli
Richwood Meat Company 4/20/07 107,943 FSIS Recall - E coli
HFX, Inc 4/20/07 259,230 FSIS Recall - E coli
PM Beef Holdings 5/10/07 117,500 FSIS Recall - E coli
Davis Creek Meats 5/11/07 129,000 FSIS Recall - E coli
Tyson Fresh Meats 6/8/07 40,440 FSIS Recall - E coli
United Food Group 6/3-6/9/07 5,700,000 FSIS Recall - E coli
Washington Beef 7/15/07 82,286 FSIS recall - insanitary conditions
Abbott's Meat Inc 7/21/07 26,669 FSIS Recall - E coli
Custom Pack 7/25/07 5,920 FSIS Recall - E coli
Interstate Meat 8/30/07 41,305 FSIS Public Health Alert - E. Coli
Fairbank Farms 9/5/07 884 FSIS Recall - E coli
Impero Foods 9/29/07 65 FSIS Recall - E coli
Topps Meat Company 10/6/07 21,700,000 FSIS Recall - E coli
Cargill 10/6/07 845,000 FSIS Recall - E coli
J&B Meats 10/13/07 173,554 FSIS Recall - E coli
Arko Veal Co 10/13/07 1,900 FSIS Recall - E coli
Blue Ribbon Meats 10/24/07 8,200 FSIS Recall - E coli
Del Mar Provision Company 10/27/07 50 FSIS Recall - E coli
Totinos/General Mills 11/1/07 3,300,000 FSIS Recall - E coli
Cargill 11/3/07 1,084,384 FSIS Recall - E coli
American Foods Group 11/24/07 95,927 FSIS Recall - E coli
Snapps Ferry 12/17/07 102 FSIS Recall - E coli
Fresh Brands 12/27/07 14,800 FSIS Public Health Alert - E. Coli

Total amount recalled in 2007 33,756,142 pounds

Mark's Quality Meats 1/5/08 13,150 FSIS Recall - E coli
Rochester Meats 1/12/08 188,000 FSIS Recall - E coli
Palama Holdings 5/8/08 68,670 FSIS Recall - E coli
Fairbank Reconstruction Co 5/12/08 22,481 FSIS Recall - E coli
JSM Meat Holdings 5/16/08 undetermined FSIS Recall - E coli
Dutch's Meats 6/8/08 13,275 FSIS Recall - E coli
Kroger 6/25,7/3 2008 undetermined FSIS Recall - E coli - current
Nebraska Beef 6/30, 7/3 2008 5,300,000 FSIS Recall - E coli - current

Total amount recalled so far in 2008 5,605,576 pounds

Total amount recalled in 2007 and 2008 to date 39,361,718 pounds

New addition - S&S Meats 8/6/08 153,630 FSIS Recall - E coli - current

I love this quote:

"Herndon resident Michael Monaco said his 14-year-old son, who started experiencing symptoms Friday, has had his case of E. coli confirmed by a hospital.

"It's very unfortunate, and I'd like to know how the beef got contaminated," Monaco said. "If it's traceable to contaminated beef, I'm mad at the person that provided the beef. There's no way for the Scouts to have known they had bad beef."

One would think that it is a really bad idea to poison boy scouts a few hours outside of Washington DC with E. coli-tainted hamburger, but apparently not.  As I said in a press release today:

“Recalls of beef contaminated with E. coli O157:H7 have jumped by a factor of two hundred in just a year and a half,” said food safety advocate and attorney William Marler. “Families who sent their kids to camp will now spend the rest of the summer with them in ICUs. Something is terribly, terribly wrong with the American meat supply system, and immediate action must be taken by our leaders.”

According to press reports, Virginia Health officials confirmed today that beef taken from the Boy Scout camp in Goshen tested positive for the E. coli O157:H7 bacteria. However, Alan Lambert, the Scout Executive for the National Capital Area Scout council says the Virginia Department of Health says it may not be the only culprit in the outbreak there. He held a press conference in Bethesda, MD Monday morning. Lambert says the USDA is continuing with its investigation.

Health department officials have confirmed at least 14 boys and one adult were infected with E. coli while attending a Boy Scout camp in Rockbridge County. As many as 60 people who attended the Goshen Scout Reservation last week reported becoming ill, and the number of E. coli cases could increase as test results are analyzed, according to the Virginia Department of Health. All 14 boys were from Northern Virginia, and nine were hospitalized.  There are other illnesses in Maryland that have yet to be reported in the press.

Water does not seem to be the source of the infection, said Dr. Douglas Larsen, director for Central Shenandoah Health District. The camp is part of Larsen's district. All six water wells at the camp tested negative on June 21, just prior to the outbreak, Larsen said.

Health department officials have confirmed at least 14 boys and one adult were infected with E. coli while attending a Boy Scout camp in Rockbridge County. As many as 60 people who attended the Goshen Scout Reservation last week reported becoming ill, and the number of E. coli cases could increase as test results are analyzed, according to the Virginia Department of Health. All 14 boys were from Northern Virginia, and nine were hospitalized.

Health officials in Northern Virginia are in the process of talking to those with confirmed cases about what food they ate. That could lead to some more clues, Larsen said.

Also, according to a Boy Scout press release, the Goshen Scout Reservation has been closed and will remain so until further notice. Earlier today, the National Capital Area Council (NCAC), BSA was made aware of three additional Scouts showing symptomatic signs of E. coli bacteria infection. The affected Scouts were at Goshen Scout Reservation during week 5 (July 28 - August 2).

It is time for retailers – the “Big Boxes” – to step up and make sure their products are not the cheapest or the most profitable - that they have not squeezed the last penny out of the farmers and middlemen -  but the safest. As I said today:

"Hopefully, this lawsuit will send Wal-Mart a bit of a message that they are just as responsible as the farmer in Mexico for providing healthful food," attorney William Marler said.

Our client, Brian Grubbs' wife purchased the peppers at a Wal-Mart store in Cortez, Colo., on June 26, according to the lawsuit. Grubbs eats them raw on sandwiches and said in the suit that within a few days he began experiencing diarrhea, vomiting and nausea, among other symptoms. He also claimed that he was severely dehydrated and could not walk without assistance. The same strain of salmonella has infected more than 1,300 people over the past three months. Tests of his stool and the peppers were positive for Salmonella saintpaul, according to the lawsuit. Federal health officials on Wednesday identified jalapeño and serrano peppers from a Mexican farm as the source of the outbreak, which initially was linked to tomatoes.

The Connecticut Department of Public Health (DPH) and Connecticut Department of Agriculture (DOA) are investigating an outbreak of Escherichia coli O157 associated with consumption of unpasteurized milk produced at a dairy farm in Simsbury, CT.  A total of four cases have been identified; one is laboratory-confirmed as E. coli O157 at the DPH State Laboratory and two are presumptively positive for E. coli O157 at clinical laboratories.  All four patients were diagnosed with hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS) or thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura (TTP); three required hospitalization.  Three patients are children, aged 2 to 7 years.  Onset of symptoms occurred during June 28 - July 15, 2008.

Unpasteurized milk was sold on site at the dairy farm and also distributed to four food markets in the greater Hartford area.  The farm had voluntarily suspended all raw milk production on July 9 as a result of elevated coliform counts found on routine testing that was done as part of the production process.  Based on patient interviews, raw milk consumed by the cases had known sell-by dates of June 24, July 4, and July 13.  The sell-by date is generally one week from the production date. 

The Town Farm Dairy was profiled in the New York Times earlier this year - "Making Their Case for Raw Milk"

E. coli O157:H7 ruins nearly everything – lettuce, spinach, swimming and hamburger cookouts. So, I suppose the following announcement should come as no surprise this fine summer morning:

The Virginia Department of Health is investigating an outbreak of E. coli O157:H7 at a Boy Scout camp in the Rockbridge County community of Goshen.


Eleven cases of E. coli O157 infection have been confirmed and about 20 other people have reported illness since attending the camp from July 20 to July 26, the department said. Most of those affected live in Northern Virginia or other areas around Washington.

It will be interesting to see once the Pulsed field gel electrophoresis (PFGE) genetic patterns are uploaded to PulseNet if the E. coli O157:H7 in the Boy Scouts matches any of the recent hamburger and red meat recalls.