We have had very warm and dry weather over the last six weeks and the garden has exploded! We have already eaten lettuce, peas, carrots, beet greens, basil and radishes. The corn is well over knee high well before the 4th of July. We will soon be overwhelmed by tomatoes of every color and type.
.jpg)
.png)
I got the heads-up that Jim had been interviewed by Law 360 and actually said something nice about me. Thinking that it could not be so – since I once suggested that his skills as a defense lawyer reminded me of the kids that looked so closely at the details that “they burned the wings off of small insects with a magnifying glass." Now, I feel both bad and a bit humbled. Here is part of his interview:
Q: Outside your own firm, name one lawyer who's impressed you and tell us why.
A: I can think of two from whom I’ve learned a great deal.
Leo Knowles supervises litigation as a senior vice president for ConAgra Foods Inc. I have never seen him do anything short of the right thing for his client and its customers.
He’s also taught me how much a lawyer can say without opening his mouth. As a group, lawyers talk far too much and listen far too little. Leo is different than the rest of us in that regard. I have promised myself to be more like him in that sense.
Bill Marler of Marler Clark in Seattle is perhaps the nation’s best known attorney representing food borne illness claimants. While he and I have often disagreed, he has a tremendous amount of integrity, and has never, ever failed to put his clients’ interests first.
He also understands and respects the science involved in a case and is intellectually honest enough to let the scientific facts define a particular outbreak, even when that definition may seem unfavorable to him personally.
If I needed an attorney to represent a family member in a food borne illness case, Bill is the first person I would call.
Well, I certainly agree with him about Mr. Knowles.
On August 18, 2008 after years of hand wringing, the FSIS finally put public health before “proprietary” business interests when it made the following rule:
9 C.F.R. § 390.10 Availability of Lists of Retail Consignees during Meat or Poultry Product Recalls
The Administrator of the Food Safety and Inspection Service will make publicly available the names and locations of retail consignees of recalled meat or poultry products that the Agency compiles in connection with a recall where there is a reasonable probability that the use of the product could cause serious adverse health consequences or death.
The full rule can be reviewed at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/rdad/FRPubs/2005-0028F.pdf
The Bottom Line:
The FSIS is now supposed to make available to the public names and locations of retail consignees (grocery stores, etc.) of meat and poultry products recalled by a federally-inspected meat or poultry establishment if the recalled product has been distributed to the retail level.
The rule will only apply to Class I recalls (like the JBS Swift ones). The information is supposed to be posted on the FSIS website, generally within three (3) to ten (10) working days, following the announcement of the recall.
So, FSIS, where in the hell is it?
By the way, posts like these will keep me in the private sector.
We were proud to support the research on this important topic. Click below to download.
.png)
A dear friend, and former campaign staffer (I had one) sent me the below flyer (only did one) when I ran and was elected to the Pullman City Council in 1977 by 63 votes! I was 19 years old. I have not changed much at all.
.png)
Of course, I do know it is not effect, but affect.
What if the cookie dough E. coli outbreak actually happened this way?
At 10:00 PM last night between yet another story about Michael Jackson’s death, a foreign Network begin airing a video taken inside a manufacturing facility showing someone treating a batch of cookie dough 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. Michael Jackson fades into the distance.
Coming on a Friday evening 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 to mark another anniversary of 9/11, not because I actually think that food terrorism really is the cause of this week’s E. coli cookie dough outbreak, but I wonder if it would 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.
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 little movement to ensure this.
Would the fact of terrorists operating from inside a manufacturing facility somewhere inside the United States bring more or effective resources to the search for the source of the E. coli? If credit-taking terrorists were putting poison on our cookies, 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?
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 cookie dough E. coli 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.
.jpg)
“It was not the failure of the cookie dough manufacturer for not keeping cattle feces (E. coli) out of cookie dough that sickened the child, it is the fault of the parent who allowed the child to eat the dough.”
I have received several calls and emails like the above over the last few days as the country has been ensnared once again in a nationwide recall – this time cookie dough – that has sickened at least 69 in 30 States – mostly people (girls) under the age of 18.
At first I calmly tried to respond that a company that makes a profit off of selling a product that it knows is eaten raw can not blame the consumer if the product actually contains a pathogen that can severely sicken or kill a child. The reality is that cookie manufacturers know that they sell a product that is eaten raw.
From the Minneapolis Star-Tribune – “Long known to satisfy a certain longing of the brokenhearted and the children-at-heart, the dough is nearly as popular raw as it is baked. There are more than 40 cookie dough groups on Facebook -- one with more than 1.3 million members -- complete with photos and postings that read like love notes.”
From the Washington Post – “Nestle’s cookie dough is packaged with labels warning consumers not to eat it raw. But people tend to disregard the warning -- 39 percent of consumers eat raw cookie dough, according to Consumer Reports. It has become such a popular snack that many ice cream makers have developed a cookie dough flavor.”
So, the reply to my calm response has been, “the consumer should know that cookie dough may contain bacteria and they are told to cook it.”
My calmness has now faded. Think about the little labels on cookie dough that you buy in the store – the ones that tell you “cook before eating” – wink, wink. However, the labels do not say:
“THE FDA INSPECTION MEANS NOTHING. THIS PRODUCT MAY CONTAIN A PATHOGENIC BACTERIA THAT CAN SEVERELY SICKEN OR KILL YOU AND/OR YOUR CHILD. HANDLE THIS PRODUCT WITH EXTREME CARE.”
I wonder why the Cookie Industry would not want a label like that on your tub of dough. It knows that the label is truthful. Do you think it might be concerned that Moms and Dads would stop buying it? The day the Cookie Industry puts a similar label on the label is the day that I will go work for them. The reality is that the Cookie Industry and the FDA has not yet been able to assure the public that the dough we buy is not contaminated. So, instead of finding a way to get cattle feces out of our cookie dough, they blame parents when children get sick.
Consumers can always do better. However, study after study shows that, despite the CDC estimated 76 million people getting sick every year from food borne illnesses, the American public still has misconceptions and overconfidence in our Nation’s food supply.
According to a study by the Partnership for Food Safety Education, fewer than half of the respondents knew that fresh vegetables and fruits could contain harmful bacteria, and only 25% thought that eggs and dairy products could be contaminated. Most consumers believe that food safety hazards can be seen or smelled. Only 25% of consumers surveyed knew that cooking temperatures were critical to food safety, and even fewer knew that foods should be refrigerated promptly after cooking. Consumers do not expect that things that you cannot see in your food can kill you.
Consumers are being blamed, but most lack the knowledge or tools to properly protect themselves and their children. The FDA has stated, “unlike other pathogens, E. coli O157:H7 has no margin for error. It takes only a microscopic amount to cause serious illness or even death.”
Many consumers wrongly believe the Government is protecting the food supply. How many times have we heard our Government officials spout, “The US food supply is the safest in the world.”
Where is the multi-million dollar ad campaign to convince us of the dangers of uncooked cookie dough, like we do for tobacco? Most consumers learn about food safety from TV and family members – If your TV viewing habits and family are like mine, these are highly suspect sources of good information.
The industry that makes a lot of dough off of selling dough must step up and clean up their mess. They can, and someday will, if I have anything to say about it. That day will come much faster if they start working on it now, and stop blaming the victims.
Dear Food Safety Community,
Legislation that would help FDA manage its food safety responsibilities is headed to the floor of the House. The bill has a HACCP-type system as its center piece. However, a small group, led by the Weston A. Price Foundation and other advocates of raw milk, are leading a very effective internet campaign to oppose the legislation.
So -- is it time to tell Congress what you know about HACCP and food safety? To make yourself heard? I know there are lots of issues around modernizing food safety. CSPI has had to give up the hope for a unified food safety agency in the near future in order to support this legislation. But you have to ask -- is it worth the wait for a perfect bill, or do we need these controls in place now?
Anyway, we wanted to bring this issue and the campaign against the legislation to the attention of the listserve. As food safety professionals, it IS time to weigh in now.
An easy way to do this is to access CSPI's website at http://www.cspinet.org/takeaction/index.html, and send a message to your member of Congress. If you don't like our version, you can even rewrite the letter!
But please weigh in. It is how democracy works. If they only hear from Western Price . . . it will be no surprise what happens.
Happy and safe 4th of July!
CSPI's food safety team
The CDC has confirmed that 69 people, ages 2 to 67, are linked to an E. coli O157:H7 outbreak linked to the consumption of refrigerated Nestle Toll House Cookie Dough. The links are both the food histories as well as the discovery of the outbreak strain of the E. coli O157:H7 bacteria. Nestle has recalled the product and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) continue to investigate both illnesses and the cause of the contamination. It is presumed that environmental samples are being tested from the Nestle manufacturing facility as well as recalled cookie dough. To date no non-human samples have tested positive for E. coli O157:H7. However, in most outbreaks (excluding some recent successes in the Dole 2006 E. coli O157:H7 outbreak and the Peanut Corporation of America Salmonella outbreak) the likely offending product (even left-over’s) and the plant that made it, do not produce positive samples.
In addition to interviewing sickened individuals about potential exposures to E. coli O157:H7, the CDC has conducted further scientific tests to determine the link between all sick individuals and the consumption of Nestle Toll House Cookie Dough.
Pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE), also referred to as “genetic fingerprinting,” is a process used in molecular microbiology to compare E. coli O157:H7 isolates to determine if the strains are distinguishable. In 1993 public health investigators successfully used PFGE analysis to distinguish patients who acquired E. coli O157:H7 after eating contaminated hamburgers from persons infected with E. coli O157:H7 from other sources. The CDC has established PFGE as the molecular test of choice used by public health laboratories for genetic typing of E. coli O157:H7 and other pathogenic bacteria. To date, the 69 sickened individuals share the same “genetic fingerprint” of the E. coli O157:H7 bacteria found in their stool cultures.
Perhaps because cookie dough is a product that has not been linked to E. coli O157:H7 in the past, and because the “genetic fingerprint” found in this outbreak has been seen since 2005, the CDC employed additional scientific testing to assure consumers and Nestle of the actual link between the product and the illnesses.
Other genetic testing methods have been developed, including Multiple-Locus Variable-Number Tandem Repeat Analysis (MLVA). This test has proven to be highly reproducible and portable, features especially important in outbreak investigations. MLVA is a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) based technique used to target tandem repeats, which are areas of the bacterial genome that evolve rapidly. Thus far the CDC has linked 46 of the 69 people by MLVA as well as PFGE. These results, along with the common ingestion of Nestle Toll House Cookie Dough accounted for the recall of the product. Studies have shown that PFGE and MLVA results are well correlated. Evaluating MLVA results in tandem with PFGE results in an outbreak situation allows investigators to further delineate outbreak related illnesses to non-outbreak cases. This has proven to be valuable when the outbreak strain is one that is detected frequently and assumed to have many sources.
So, where does all this science leave us? We know that we have at least 69 individuals who share both the consumption of Nestle Toll House Cookie Dough and the E. coli O157:H7 recovered from their stool match by PFGE. We also know that at least 46 tested by the more sensitive test, MLVA, also match. This is very significant and gives the CDC, FDA, Nestle and its consumers, proof that a link has been found between the product and the illnesses. What we do not yet have are environmental (product and/or plant) sample data, which may or may not have results. However, even without those results the work done by the CDC and FDA (along with state and local health departments) is compelling proof of the link between the illnesses and the Nestle product.
I know I sound a bit like a broken record asking yet another company to step up and admit they have a problem, pay the victims’ medical bills and lost wages, and then focus on how the problem happened and how to prevent it from ever happening again. True, it will not completely prevent then from being sued to both uncover why the outbreak happened and to deal with the suffering of the victims and the need for possible future medical expenses that might well include life time monitoring, kidney dialysis and transplant, but it certainly will not hurt.
E. coli O157:H7 is a nasty, nasty bug. It sickens 75,000 in the U.S. annually, hospitalizing thousands and killing nearly 100 – each and every year. Medical bills can run from a few hundred to millions, yes millions of dollars. Parents can spend weeks away from work and some loose their jobs. These customers did what they were supposed to do. They bought the company’s product, consumed it and now are left with medical bills and lost wages for eating something as simple as cookie dough.
Nestle, you did the right thing by recalling product the moment the FDA and CDC linked your product to illnesses. Doing it likely saved others from suffering what now some 70 people in 30 states have experienced first hand. But, the right thing is still not complete.
I admit most companies ignore my PR advice forged by 16 years of being involved in every major foodborne illness outbreak from Jack-in-the-Box (JITB) to Nestle. However, some companies have done it (JITB in 1993, Odwalla in 1996, Conagra in 2002 and Natural Selection Foods (NSF) in 2006) and frankly, for the most part they were praised by the media for “doing the right thing.” The companies also (some took a bit longer than others) became leaders in trying to prevent the next outbreak. JITB (Dave Theno) became famous for putting food safety above all, Odwalla championed juice pasteurization, NSF is recognized as a leader in testing product for pathogens and Conagra invited me to speak to its Food Safety Council.
I sued Nestle on Monday in California, Tuesday in Colorado and Wednesday in Washington. I could sue them every day for the next three weeks. However, perhaps I could stop for a moment to give Nestle an opportunity to consider my sage advice. The reality is that Nestle will eventually pay for all the damages caused to those linked by health officials to its cookie dough (Nestle certainly should not pay for unrelated illnesses). The real questions are will Nestle do it now, continue its work on the recall and its cooperation with FDA and CDC, and work to prevent the next outbreak? Time will tell.
Just when America thought it was safe to go back into the grocery store, another food outbreak wakes us up to the fact that there is something seriously wrong with our food safety system. This time it’s Nestle Toll House cookie dough with E. coli, a treat that nearly every kid in America reaches for a few times a month during the summer. This is yet another reminder why it’s important to get the new food safety legislation, currently winding its way through Congress, right.
Last week a new food safety bill passed unanimously out of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and opinions of it vary widely. Known as H.R. 2749, the Food Safety Enhancement Act of 2009, the bill is being hailed as everything from as “the most sweeping reform of the food safety system in nearly 50 years” or the “totalitarian control of the food supply” depending on what you read.
Civil Eats reported on the intricacies of the legislation and its supporters.
As the debate rages on about how the U.S. will create a new food safety system, with all of the attention focused on FDA’s failure to assure the safety of the food it regulates, a very quiet controversy is brewing at the USDA over the fact that the agency has yet to name an Under Secretary for the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS).
So far, the two leading candidates for the job, both with close ties to the food industry, have been knocked off track due to the efforts of a small collection of food safety advocates and a few advocacy groups who believe that food safety is not something that you should create a “Team of Rivals” around.
After watching the new administration’s efforts to select political appointees that conform to the plot-line of a popular nonfiction book, it’s time to remind them why they won the election. Last year when Americans went to the polls in record numbers, they voted for change and the hope of reform.
What is becoming more evident every day is that while Republicans reward their base, Democrats kick theirs to the curb.
As one food safety expert who has been leading the charge for food safety reform in Washington for over twenty years said recently, “It’s funny. When Republicans win the election I have to fight the meat industry and when Democrats win I have to fight the meat industry. When is somebody going to stand up for the American consumer?”
We couldn't agree more.
If the Obama Administration is Serious About Food Safety – We Need a Reformer
Every year in the U.S. an estimated 76 million people get sick with foodborne illnesses and 5,000 die, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. One person who knows this fact better than almost anybody else in this country, is food safety lawyer Bill Marler.
Marler recently came to the public’s attention with his generous offer to pay for author Michael Pollan’s visit to Washington State University, after his book had been removed from the freshmen reading program. What many may not know is that he’s been known as a leading advocate for food safety for nearly two decades.
Marler first leaped to national prominence as the lead attorney in the famous 1993 Jack in the Box E. coli outbreak. Since that time, Marler has led the charge in protecting the rights of consumers against unsafe practices of major corporations. While dedicated to a high standard of food safety protocols, Marler is also pragmatic about the real economic need for food safety.
Poor food safety practices also have a major negative impact on the bottom line of business, costing U.S. companies more than $6.9 billion each year, which Marler believes could be better spent to keep America’s food supply truly safe.
Despite the food industry’s long contempt for personal injury attorneys, Marler could end up being their dream pick for the FSIS spot if they were willing to allow the motivated attorney to oversee the much needed change in food safety policies at the USDA.
Known as a fair but fierce opponent, Marler draws as much criticism from the industrial meat crowd as he does from proponents of local agriculture, with strong stances on the need for inspection and a concern on the growing interest in raw milk.
Why select Marler as the head of the FSIS? Because he’s a champion of citizen’s rights to safe food and he knows the system better than anyone. He’s also willing to balance the concerns of the meat industry and local foods at the same time.
If the Obama Administration is serious about reforming America’s food safety system, there really is only one choice – Bill Marler for FSIS. Now’s the time.
David Murphy is the founder and director of Food Democracy Now!, a sixth generation Iowan, and a writer and advocate for sustainable agriculture.
I have been asked that questions several dozen times in the last 48 hours as this outbreak has mushroomed to nearly 70 in some 28 states with at least 25 hospitalized and 7 with HUS. So, how did this nasty bug get into such an "All-American" product? Here is the list of ingredients:
.png)
E. coli O157:H7 bacteria are believed to mostly live in the intestines of cattle but have also been found in the intestines of chickens, deer, sheep, goats, and pigs. E. coli O157:H7 does not make the animals that carry it ill; the animals are merely the reservoir for the bacteria. It is hard to figure how one of these animals slipped into the Danville, Virginia plant and leave enough feces to sicken people in two dozen states.
Certainly milk has been linked to E. coli outbreaks. But is seems unlikely that Nestles was using raw milk in it's cookie dough. Eggs, well, you might expect Salmonella, but not E. coli O157:H7. Same with chocolate - there have been Salmonella cases in the past with some of the major players in the industry. Perhaps an ill worker who did not wash his or her hands? Seems unlikely given the size of the outbreak.
Bio-terrorism? Hopefully not. What about vermin (rats, mice, birds, etc) either contaminating raw ingredients in the Danville facility or the facilities of other ingredient manufacturer? Although there is no evidence that any of the plants had these problems, my hunch would be to look hard here, but always be aware that somewhere in the background likely lurks a cow.
By way of background, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimated in 1999 that 73,000 cases of E. coli O157:H7 occur each year in the United States. Approximately 2,000 people are hospitalized, and 60 people die as a direct result of E. coli O157:H7 infections and complications. The majority of infections are thought to be foodborne-related, although E. coli O157:H7 accounts for less than 1% of all foodborne illness.
However, E. coli O157:H7 does cause illness in humans – at times severe. An E. coli O157:H7 infection is characterized by the sudden onset of abdominal pain and severe cramps, followed within 24 hours by diarrhea. As the disease progresses, the diarrhea becomes watery and then may become grossly bloody - bloody to naked eye. Vomiting can also occur, but there is usually no fever. The incubation period for the disease (the period from ingestion of the bacteria to the start of symptoms) is typically 3 to 9 days, although shorter and longer periods are not that unusual. An incubation period of less than 24 hours would be unusual, however. In most infected individuals, the intestinal illness lasts about a week and resolves without any long-term problems.
Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome (HUS) is a severe, life-threatening complication of an E. coli O157:H7 bacterial infection. Although most people recover from an E. coli O157:H7 infection, about 5-10% of infected individuals goes on to develop HUS. E. coli O157:H7 is responsible for over 90% of the cases of HUS that develop in North America. Some organs appear more susceptible than others to the damage caused by these toxins, possibly due to the presence of increased numbers of toxin-receptors. These organs include the kidney, pancreas, and brain.
An outbreak of E. coli O157:H7 that has sickened 66 people in 28 states points to the need for better funding for health surveillance, said food safety advocate and foodborne illness litigator William Marler. News of the E. coli outbreak was issued by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE), which said in its release that the link to Nestle Toll House raw cookie dough was strong enough to warrant a warning.
“The fact that this outbreak was not detected until more than sixty people were ill in 28 states is precisely why we urgently need increased funding for the agencies responsible for public health,” said Marler. “From the CDC to state and local health agencies, many dedicated people are working hard to protect consumers from tainted food, but they just don’t have enough resources to do the job we ask of them. There are many demands on our national ‘safety net’, but this is one we cannot afford to skimp on – the human cost is just too high.”
Escherichia coli (E. coli) are members of a large group of bacteria which inhabit the intestinal tracts of humans and other mammals. Many strains (or serotypes) are harmless or even beneficial, but certain Shiga-toxin (Stx) producing serotypes can cause human illness and even death. The most common of these is E. coli O157:H7. The CDC estimates that 70,000 Americans are infected with E. coli every year.
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 are also responsible for many outbreaks. Unpasteurized dairy products and juices can be contaminated with E. coli, as can sprouts and even water.
“Identifying an outbreak and tracking it to a source is labor-intensive work,” continued Marler. “Victims are interviewed about what they ate and came into contact with, family members are interviewed, as are people in the affected communities who escaped infection. Labs test suspected products. The math is simple: the more people doing this work and more resources they have available to them, the faster an outbreak can be detected and sourced – and that means fewer illnesses.”
.png)
I have been invited back to Bejing for the China International Food Safety and Quality Conference.
Valley Meats LLC, a Coal Valley, Illinois grinding plant recalled approximately 95,898 pounds of ground beef that might have been contaminated with E. coli O157:H7, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced in late May.
(2).jpg)
However, the problem was discovered through an epidemiological investigation of illnesses, NOT before the meat made it between hamburger buns. On May 13, 2009, FSIS was informed by the Ohio Department of Health of a cluster of E. coli O157:H7 infections. Illnesses have now been reported in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Illinois. About a dozen people were sickened and one young girl in Ohio died.
So, where was Valley Meats “Test and Hold” food safety program? Shouldn’t the objective be to mitigate consumer risks associated with the presence of E. coli O157:H7 and other Shiga-toxin E. coli? Shouldn’t every USDA inspected slaughter facility, grinding operation and grocer utilize a “Test and Hold” program using science-based, robust serial sampling of finished ground beef products? Shouldn’t the testing include PCR/DNA genetic testing to identify a specific DNA strand unique to E. coli O157:H7 so if people do become ill, they can be linked to the source?
True, you cannot “Test and Hold” your way to complete food safety. You cannot test all hamburgers before it hits a consumer’s kitchen. However, we can test more – perhaps in part to validate a plant’s HACCP program – perhaps in part to try and save the life of one young girl.
Oldest daughter was taking the SAT's, middle daughter we dropped at softball practice, so the youngest one and I went to the Farmer's Market - a big deal on the Island on a Saturday. We picked up some fresh strawberries (ours at home are not ripe), a couple more pepper plants and a bag of fresh spinach (I just planted some). I then asked the cheese lady if the milk used was pasteurized (was given a polite glare and a no). I really need to take a day off. By the way, that is daughter Sydney below - she attended a Congressional Hearing in Washington DC on food safety on her 8th birthday.
.jpg)
.png)
Art with Heart is a charitable 501c3 nonprofit organization that has helped over 41,000 children through the healing power of creativity. Our books and programs support the mental health of fragile populations at times of crisis, such as after a diagnosis of cancer, a natural disaster, or the tragedy of a school shooting. The need for Art with Heart’s therapy-based books and programs is driven by the approximately 17 million children in the U.S. alone that are experiencing special health care needs or mental health disorders. Art with Heart reaches high-risk children, who have little or no control over their life circumstances and have the least access to mental health support.
Marler Clark will be a proud sponsor of its September fund raising breakfast. Readers, step up and go to Art With Heart and donate.
Sometimes when you do well, it is good to lend a hand.
.png)
The U.S. Department of State's Office of Weapons Removal & Abatement has approved matching grants totaling $177,000 for Clear Path International's humanitarian mine action programs in Vietnam and Cambodia.
The largest grant of $127,000 will be used to fund efforts that assist survivors of accidents with landmines and unexploded ordnance (UXO) in central Vietnam. The second grant of $50,000 will be used for CPI's rice mill enterprise for landmine survivors in Battambang, Cambodia, where its beneficiaries receive training, microcredit and crop processing services.
The two grants are matched by financial contributions from the private sector, including the McKnight Foundation of Minneapolis, the Johnson & Widdifield Charitable Trust, the Seattle-based law firm Marler Clark and the Dutch charity Stichting Mensenkinderen.
"At a time when it's challenging to raise money from private-sector sponsors, the government's steady and ongoing support of our work helps sustain vital survivor assistance programs," says Imbert Matthee, CPI's executive director. "It also inspires private charities to keep giving despite the economic downturn."
At least 1,000 landmine accident survivors, their family members and disadvantaged members of their communities will benefit from the two grants in the remainder of 2009 and the first part of 2010, Matthee says.
In Vietnam, aid to survivors comes in the form of emergency medical care, prosthetics, physical rehabilitation, income-generating assistance, animal husbandry programs, scholarships and sports activities.
In Cambodia, CPI and its local partner, Cambodian Volunteers for Community Development, will expand the cooperative of amputee farmers, boost micro-credit lending, offer training, mill and sell their rice.
I spoke with Jerry Large of the last newspaper in Seattle still standing a few days ago (before the flight attendant pried my iphone out of my hand) for his column, “Appetite lost for "The Omnivore's Dilemma" at WSU,” about the continued interest in my bailing out the WSU “Common Reading Program” after it bought 4,000 of Michael Pollan’s book, "The Omnivore's Dilemma,” and then canceled his campus trip due to costs. As I said to Mr. Large:
He [me] said he didn't think WSU was reacting to outside pressure: "I said this isn't something they would do, Floyd and the board. I was on the board for 10 years." WSU said it was a matter of money, so "I said, let me just cover the cost and let's move forward," Marler said.
With the thought of airplane food in mind we had a chat about my thoughts of food policy gathered over 16 years of suing nearly every major food producer in the world – at least once.
"We have to rethink how we produce food," he said. That's why he wanted to support a discussion of Pollan's book, which deals with issues of safety, environmental impact, sustainability.
"In 16 years of doing this, I can count on one hand how many times (food-poisoning cases) have been linked to foreign products and I can count on the other hand how many times it's been linked to locally produced food," Marler said.
The bottom line:
"Most of the cases are from mass-produced food shipped across state lines."
Anyway, back to thinking about writing a book.
I have the honor to speak before the American College of Trial Lawyers next week on "How I do what I do." Click below to see my PowerPoint. I will also present my paper, Separating the Chaff from the Wheat: How to Determine the Strength of a Foodborne Illness Claim. I guess I am spilling all of my "secret recipes."
.png)
As readers of this Food Poison Blog know, a number of new authors have recently joined our contributor list. With all the new posts, Food Poison Blog began to look less like a blog, and more like a journal of news and notes on Food Poisoning. With that in mind, we have changed the title to Food Poison Journal.
.jpg)
Readers will be able to access the Journal by the new URL (www.foodpoisonjournal.com) or by the old URL (www.foodpoisonblog.com). Subscribers will continue to receive updates by email or RSS, and do not need to take any steps to re-subscribe.
Thanks for your interest!
I was asked to post some of my thoughts on food safety (or lack thereof) on the PBS NOW Series site.
By William D. Marler, Esq.
After a brief lull a few years ago, we're seeing a sweeping increase in outbreaks of Salmonella, E. coli and other foodborne contaminates. There are many reasons for this ugly trend - businesses more focused on sales than safety, fragmented government agencies, inadequate inspection of foods, poorly educated food handlers and lack of consumer awareness, to name a few. The reality is that we now live in a global food supply and we need to come up with global solutions that leverage our scientific and technological capabilities to prevent human illness and death.
These outbreaks should be good news to a lawyer like me, since I specialize in representing people sickened by tainted food. But it isn't, because it means I'll be seeing more four and five-year-old kids hooked up to kidney dialysis machines, their lives hanging by a thread because they ate a tainted burger or a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. I often say: Put me out of business, please! And I mean it.
Here are my Top Ten ideas to combat this recurring epidemic:
1. Improve surveillance of bacterial and viral diseases. First responders—ER physicians and local doctors—need to be encouraged to test for pathogens and report findings directly to local and state health departments and the CDC promptly.
2. Federal, state, and local governmental departments need to learn to "play well together." That means resources need to be provided and coordination encouraged so illnesses can be promptly stopped and the offending producer—not an entire industry—are brought to heel.
3. Require real training and certification of food handlers at restaurants and grocery stores. There also should be incentives for sick employees to stay home when ill.
4. Stiffen license requirements for large farm, retail and wholesale food outlets, so that nobody gets a license until they and their employees have shown they understand the hazards and how to avoid them.
5. Increase food inspections. While domestic production has continued to be a problem, imports pose an increasing risk. Points of export and entry are a logical place to step up monitoring. More funding and inspectors are needed.
6. Reform federal, state, and local agencies to make them more proactive, and less reactive. We need to modernize food safety statutes by replacing the existing collection of often conflicting laws and regulation with one uniform food safety law of the highest standard.
7. There are too few legal consequences for sickening or killing customers by selling contaminated food in the US. We should impose stiff fines and even prison sentences for violators, and consider stiffer penalties for repeat violators.
8. We need to use our technology to make food more traceable so that when an outbreak occurs authorities can quickly identify the source and limit the spread of the contamination.
9. Promote university research to develop better technologies to make food safe and for testing foods for contamination. Provide tax breaks for companies that push food safety research and employee training.
10. Improve consumer understanding of the risks of food-borne illness.
This may seem like a lot for a busy administration to chew on, but according to the CDC, every year nearly a quarter of our population is sickened, 350,000 hospitalized and 5,000 die, because of what they ate. People who eat and get sick also vote. Our politicians should do the math.
William Marler is the managing partner of Marler Clark L.L.P., P.S. and a national expert in foodborne illness litigation. Mr. Marler lives in Seattle, where he is a trial lawyer, husband, and father of three daughters. He writes about food safety, food policy, and foodborne illness on his award-winning blog, www.marlerblog.com.
I am here at the Institute of Food Technologists’ (IFT's) Annual Meeting in California to talk about Leafy Greens and Food Irradiation – Pros and Cons. In addition to the below PowerPoint, I will be handing out my DRAFT Publication “Pros and Cons of Commercial Irradiation of Fresh Iceberg Lettuce and Fresh Spinach: A Literature Review” as well as my Law Partner, Denis Stearn’s book chapter “A Future Uncertain – Food Irradiation from a Legal Perspective.”
.png)
You can download the PowerPoint by clicking on above image. The link to the embedded video can be seen here - LINK.
I know, I know, I can hear - "you are just zappin' the crap" and "I don not want to eat food that glows." I hear you - I much prefer local, sustainable, safe leafy greens. This year we are growing our own. But, if we are going to sell "ready to eat" bagged greens (organic or not) shipped thousands of miles, irradiation may well be the only way to make it safe. Thoughts?
Kate Ackley of Roll Call reports that "[t]he meat industry has a beef with food safety legislation that is making its way through the House Energy and Commerce Committee."
The 'beef" seems to break down to industry costs:
“Right now, this is a bill we just don’t support,” said Colin Woodall, executive director of legislative affairs for the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association. “We are very much in support of food safety, but this bill would have a lot of unintended consequences and would add more costly regulations and won’t actually translate into safer food.”
The "beef" seems that the industry likes being overseen by the USDA:
Woodall said meat producers are also concerned about the precedent this bill could set in giving the Food and Drug Administration regulatory authority over the industry, which is currently watched over by the Department of Agriculture. The cattlemen’s group also takes issue with mandatory recalls and says voluntary recalls work better. The industry worries that the bill would require government inspectors on farms, Woodall said.
The "beef" seems to be - we don't need no damn inspectors - and its the consumers responsibility anyway:
“There is no need to have FDA inspectors come on farms or cattle operations,” Woodall said. “There are too many other processes and steps between the time it leaves the farm and gets to the consumer, including the way the consumer handles the product when they get it home. It would give a false sense of security to the consumer.”
The "beef" seems to be that FDA does not have the funds that we do not support anyway:
Dave Warner, a spokesman for the National Pork Producers Council, said his group has a number of concerns about the legislation, with on-farm inspections being among the top. “FDA doesn’t not have the personnel, and it doesn’t have the expertise,” he said.
Another book to read sitting on my office desk. This one, "Why of Food System is Broken and What We Can Do to Fix it," is another in a series of books taking a critical look at the safety and sustainability of our food supply. Jill Richardson (La Vida Locavore) has asked me to look it over before it goes final. Last time I did that (for Eric Schlosser - "Fast Food Nation") - it became a best seller and a movie. I need to write a book.
.jpg)
This movie will make you think twice (at least) about what we are eating.
I am proud of Barb Kowalcyk (friend and former client) for both telling her family's story and fighting for justice.
It is testament to the notoriety of toxin producing E. coli that it’s the only bacteria that commands an international conference every three years at spots around the world. That’s what happened recently in Buenos Aires when the world’s leading researchers, medical doctors, and epidemiologists with an interest in toxigenic E. coli gathered to share information and brainstorm about the rogue members of the E. coli family that remain a significant public health problem across much of the globe. Buenos Aires was a apt place for the conference as Argentina, perhaps due to all those cattle the gauchos herd around, has one of the highest rates of the hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS) caused by the very bacteria the scientists spend their lives trying to understand.
It is almost impossible to describe the breadth of the topics discussed at the conference. It ranged from the incidence of E. coli infections in particular countries, the severity and manifestations of the infections E. coli causes, the genes within the bacteria responsible for the injury causing qualities of the bacteria, the evolutionary course of the various E. coli bacteria than now infect humans, the reservoirs for the bacteria and how to reduce E. coli shedding in cattle. Of course, a lot of the presentations are hard science way beyond what the average curious consumer might grasp, but what impresses is how many different areas of research and interest are tied to this one type of bacteria. In turn, the research on toxin producing E. coli has produced results that have value across the scientific spectrum, even as everyone involved cites the terrible consequences of toxigenic E. coli infections in humans, especially children, as a source of motivation.
One of the many invigorating aspects of this conference is the realization of how a far flung network of scientists have worked to create a culture of mutual interest, sharing, and building on one another’s work. The results are impressive, even though toxin producing E. coli remains a major public health enemy. It is also a reminder of how important the current administration’s support for basic science will be in advancing the ball on public health issues, including foodborne pathogens.
And it turns out that this brainy group of public service oriented professionals also knows how to have fun as evidenced by the dance floor action at Tango night, one of the diversions the conference offered to attendees. As for Buenos Aires itself, it’s a wondrous mix of the new world and old, humming with energy, music, good wine, and yes, good beef.
Bruce Clark and Patti Waller
So, I am adjusting to my new role as "protector of academic freedom and the First Amendment." I am also relishing my role as Michael Pollan's unwanted PR guy. Just boarded the plane to NYC and could not find my kindle (needed to read a weeks of unread New York Times), so I picked up Mr. Pollan's new book. I am sure it will give me a different perspective on airplane food.
.jpg)
I had a quick meeting in my office this morning and got a signed book by author, Robyn O'Brien. I am heading to New York and Atlanta, so will have some time in the air to read it. Her book, according to several glowing reviews lays out the "alarming food scare has been building for years, rarely reported and often dismissed as too "radical" to be true: Is there a link between the dramatic rise in childhood allergies and our increasingly "engineered" approach to food production?" I look forward to the read.
.jpg)
Sometimes we want our politicians to be so perfect when we are not, and we fail to see the mistake of making perfect the enemy of good. I have my differences with Senate Majority Leader Dean Florez (D-Shafter) on raw milk, but on most issues (probably 90%) I bet we see eye to eye.
A particular "Shout-out": to the Senator on:
A measure (SB 416) to phase out the use of non-therapeutic antibiotics in animals meant for human consumption. Antibiotic resistant infections are on the rise nationwide, and many believe the use of antibiotics as a feed additive given daily to healthy animals is contributing to the trend. Concerned that the effect may be particularly harmful to the bodies of small children, Florez made school meal programs the initial target of Senate Bill 416. Under SB 416, schools could not serve meat or poultry treated with non-therapeutic antibiotics after January 1, 2012. By 2015, the ban on non-therapeutic antibiotics would apply to any animal raised for human consumption in the state.
Another bill (SB 173) to bolster the state's food safety system by requiring food growers and processors to promptly report a positive test for any food-borne illness to the California Department of Public Health and maintain records of all testing for two years. The bill would also give CDPH the power of mandatory recall. Under SB 173, any processor who does not test and later has a recall will face an automatic shutdown for six months and must cover all of the state's costs related to the outbreak.
Perhaps mass-produced agriculture is here to stay given the ever increasing world population. But, more and more people (who can afford to) are giving up on that system to one that they control. Government policy makers and Industry CEO's should pay attention. When people "vote with their pocketbook," it will impact the larger marketplace.
Above, Brother Don's Pig Farm - Holiday Ham on order.
South View - Eagle Harbor with tomatoes, peas, beans, lettuce, spinach, carrots, beets, strawberries, peppers and corn.
.jpg)
North View
This is our second year with this garden. I grew up with a big garden and cows, horses, pigs, sheep, chickens, turkeys, rabbits and a few too many cats and dogs. Now, a small garden and a lazy dog and a crabbie cat.
There has been much in the way of worry by farmers, especially the small, sustainable, organic, locavores about the new food safety legislation. I have read the latest version of the draft H.R. 759 and here are some thoughts on its impact on small farmer/producer/manufacturers, as well as some other thoughts.
$1000 fee for all “food facilities.”
This specifically exempts farms, but we get back to the problems of who a food “manufacturer” is that we deal with in our cases. For example, is a seller at a farmer’s market who washes and bags of cherries that they grew a “manufacturer”?
Traceability.
The industry standard traceability software section could be troublesome, however, Section 107(c)(4) provides and exemption from the requirements for food that is sold directly from farmers to consumers
Imports.
Will the fact that the bill allows the FDA to require food to be certified as meeting safety standards by foreign governments make food safer? What about China, for example? Should we rely on their governmental inspection abilities after the powdered milk crisis?
Also, guidelines for imported foods - importers meeting the guidelines will receive expedited processing if they meet the guidelines. Section 805 is a bit vague about the impact of this. Provisions like this typically favor those producers with more resources that are easily able to get certified - favoring big agriculture? Why is the foreign inspectorate corps funded and staffed at the Secretary’s whim, but the local food safety FDA program is funded by the $1000 mandatory fees?
What about past problems?
As an aside, Section 105(4)(B) states that a company such as PCA would have been a Category 2 “low risk” facility, requiring random inspections as little as every three years. Would that have prevented the outbreak and deaths?
I'm going to read this again. Bottom line, it is time for us all to engage on this and the various other bills percolating in the Halls of Congress.
“As evidenced by the recent widespread contamination's in our food supply, including E. coli in spinach, Salmonella in peppers, and the most recent outbreak of Salmonella in peanut butter, it is clear that we must act now.”
These were the words used by Representative Frank Pallone, Jr., Chair of the Health Subcommittee, in a press release regarding the Food Safety Enhancement Act of 2009. The proposed bill (still in draft form) is the latest in a string of food safety proposals currently in Congress. The Food Safety Enhancement Act is largely based on H.R. 759, the Food and Drug Administration Globalization Act of 2009. As stated, the aim of the bill is, “To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to improve the safety of food in the global market, and for other purposes.” (Hmm… I wonder what these mysterious ‘other purposes’ are…)
The Food Safety Enhancement Act is divided into two titles: Food Safety and Miscellaneous. The ‘Food Safety’ title includes four subsections: Prevention, Intervention, Response, and Miscellaneous. The highlights of the bill are as follows:
• Requires all facilities operating within the U.S. or importing food to the U.S. to register with the FDA annually.
• Requires registered facilities to pay an annual registration fee of $1,000 in order to generate revenue for food safety activities at the FDA; requires registered facilities to pay for FDA’s costs associated with re-inspections and food recalls; allows FDA to charge a fee to domestic firms requesting export certificates for exported food.
• Sets a minimum inspection frequency for all registered facilities. High-risk facilities would be inspected at least once every 6 to 18 months; low risk facilities would be inspected at least once every 18 months to three years; and warehouses that store food would be inspected at least once every three to four years. Refusing, impeding, or delaying an inspection is prohibited.
• The FDA would be required to issue regulations that require food producers, manufacturers, processors, transporters, or holders to maintain the full pedigree of the origin and previous distribution history of the food and to link that history with the subsequent distribution history of the food; and to establish an interoperable record to ensure fast and efficient trace-back (current law permits facilities to hold a record in any format—paper or electronic—making efficient tracing of foods difficult for FDA).
• Regarding imported food, the bill allows the FDA to require food to be certified as meeting all U.S. food safety requirements by the government of the country from which the article originated or by certain qualified third parties. Third party certifying entities must meet strict requirements to protect against conflicts of interest with the firm seeking certification.
• Strengthens criminal penalties and establishes civil monetary penalties that FDA may impose on food facilities that fail to comply with safety requirements.
• Grants FDA “quarantine” authority under which the agency may restrict or prohibit the movement of unsafe food products from a particular geographic area.
• Requires FDA to establish and maintain a corps of inspectors to monitor foreign facilities producing food, drugs, devices, and cosmetics for American consumers.
Whether the Food Safety Enhancement Act, if enacted, will actually reduce food-borne illness outbreaks remains to be seen. Even if it does, one has to wonder what toll will it take on the small farm movement whose resources may be limited. At least on the surface, the sponsors of the bill appear to have good intentions. As Representative Betty Sutton stated, “Americans need to know that the food on their family’s table and in their children’s lunchboxes will be safe.” Let’s hope this isn’t just political lip service.
All things turn out OK sometimes:
New York Times - For Personal-Injury Lawyer, Michael Pollan’s Book Is Worth Fighting For
The Chronicle of Higher Education - Washington State U. Reinstates 'The Omnivore's Dilemma' as Common-Reading Choice
The Daily Evergreen - The Donation revives Common Reading
Seattle Business Journal - E. coli lawyer solves WSU ‘Dilemma’
Tri-City Herald - WSU reinstates book critical of agribusiness
Andrew Schneider over at www.andrewschneiderinvestigates.com allowed me to co-post this great story.
Scientists worry that the “new,” “completely safe” butter flavoring used on popcorn and in other foods may be as dangerous as the lung-destroying chemical, called diacetyl, that it replaced.
Diacetyl-linked jury verdicts of tens of millions of dollars for injured flavoring workers and the diagnoses of lung damage in at least three popcorn-loving consumers forced popcorn packers and other food processors to stop using the chemical butter-flavoring two years ago.
Orville Redenbacher rose from the grave to proudly announce in a TV ad that the company’s popcorn was now diacetyl-free. And other manufacturers plastered that message in large type on the side of their packages.
When asked in the last two years how they were getting the buttery flavor consumers want without diacetyl, the largest popcorn makers answered with a “no comment,” saying the secret flavoring was safe, but proprietary.
Fortunately, a group of government health investigators at the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health have begun lifting the veil of corporate secrecy.
“Two possible substitutes are starter distillate and diacetyl trimmer,” NIOSH Drs. Kathleen Kreiss and Nancy Sahakian just wrote in a newly released book, “Advances in Food and Nutrition Research.
“The distillate is a diacetyl-containing product of a fermentation process. The trimmer is a molecule containing three diacetyl molecules,” they wrote. “The inclusion of these alternative substances neither eliminate diacetyl nor assure safety for workers.’’
Kreiss, chief of NIOSH’s Field Studies Branch, also talked about the popcorn advertisements in informal remarks prepared for the American Thoracic Society conference earlier this month in San Diego.
“The wording here (no added diacetyl) is telling,” said Kreiss, whose team of worker health and safety investigators were the first to respond to the reports of disease at Midwest popcorn plants.
In the presentation to the specialists in respiratory disease, Kreiss discussed the flavoring to which many food producers had switched.
“The easiest substitute for the chemical diacetyl is starter distillate, a fermentation product of milk which contains up to 4 percent diacetyl. The chemical may not be added, but diacetyl is still in butter-flavored popcorn,” she explained.
She said some of the substitutes are better able to penetrate to the deepest parts of the lung and are unlikely to be safer to inhale than the original diacetyl.
Physicians, scientists and industrial hygienists at NIOSH’s Division of Respiratory Disease Studies are working hard on multiple efforts to investigate the possible toxicity of butter flavoring chemicals being used as a substitute for the diacetyl.
“We’re trying to identify the mechanism of diacetyl-induced injury. And if that happens, it will help us identify other potentially hazardous compounds workers may be exposed to in the flavoring industry,” said Dr. Ann Hubbs, a veterinary pathologist in NIOSH’s Health Effects Laboratory Division.
Hubbs told me last week, “We are trying hard to answer the question of why diacetyl — and potentially the related substances — are so very toxic,”
Kreiss and her team have responded to plants using flavorings throughout the country. They have watched patiently as OSHA first ignored and then moved haltingly to comply with congressional orders and union pleas to develop diacetyl exposure standards that would protect workers.
But even though President Obama’s new team at the Labor Department promised speedy action on diacetyl standards, many public health and occupational medicine experts worry that it may be too little, coming too late.
“As regulatory action develops, the flavor industry has introduced diacetyl substitutes, which might not be regulated by a diacetyl standard now on the drawing board,” Kreiss said in notes accompanying her slide presentation to the chest doctors.
Dr. Celeste Monforton and her colleagues at George Washington University’s Department of Environmental and Occupational Health have been following the diacetyl issue for years.
She echoes NIOSH and says that OSHA and the Food and Drug Administration must pay attention to the substitutes in its rulemaking if workers and consumers are to be protected.
“We know far too little about the the substitutes to diacetyl or reformulated diacetyl-compounds that food manufacturers are now using, or planning to use,” she told me this week.
As a part of its rule making, OSHA must insist that the manufacturers provide information on the chemical composition and toxicity testing of their substitutes, she said.
“We are dealing with the safety of workers and consumers and secrecy cannot be justified,” Monforton said.
“This potential danger goes well beyond just popcorn.”
So, what are adequate consumer warnings on bottles of Raw Milk? What if you contrast it to blog posts and videos by the manufacturer touting the miraculous benefits of Raw Milk? What about the endorsements by Weston Price (goodness - exposure to liability there)? Raw Milk, like any food product - If a manufacturer wants to hide from liability with a defense of adequate warning or the consumer should have known better, the manufacturer (and organizations like Weston Price) better watch what they write or say. Thoughts?
.jpg)
I knew it was the economic pressures that public education is facing and not any political pressure that caused the change in the reading of Omnivore's Dilemma and Michael Pollan's visit to Pullman. The WSU I graduated from and served, would not bend to that kind of small mindlessness. As I said to a reporter:
“I certainly understand the financial problems that WSU and other colleges and universities are facing,” said Marler, an attorney from Bainbridge Island. “However, I also thought it would be important for the public to understand that Washington State University views freedom of speech and academic expression as something that is truly fundamental to its mission. I am pleased I could help in this regard.”
It was just posted on the Chronicle of Higher Education blog a few moments ago that WSU is having Michael Pollan to campus and 4,000 of his books, Omnivore's Dilemma, will be distributed.
Food-Safety Advocate Offers to Pay Michael Pollan's Speaking Fee at Washington State University
In the recent case of Washington State University’s dropping Michael Pollan’s The Omnivore’s Dilemma as its “common reading” selection for the year, two rationales emerged: University officials said the reasons had to do with the institution’s dire budget outlook — there was just no money to bring in a big-name author like Mr. Pollan, they said. Meanwhile, some faculty members and others said the book was dropped because it attacks one of the university’s bases, Big Agriculture.Well, Bill Marler, a Seattle-based personal-injury lawyer who specializes in food-poisoning cases and who has become something of a food-safety advocate, is throwing down the gauntlet. “Hey, Michael Pollan, I’ll pay your way to Pullman,” Mr. Marler, a Washington State alumnus, writes on his blog. “I have my checkbook ready.”“So, was it political or was it financial?” he writes of the controversy. “I have an idea! To show that it was not political, I will pay to get Mr. Pollan to Pullman and find a place for him to speak — I’ll even introduce him. My hope is that it was not political.”Debra Townsend, a spokeswoman for the university, says that Elson S. Floyd, the university’s president, talked to Mr. Marler over the phone this afternoon and has decided to accept his offer.
GO GOUGS!
Let me put this in context. I am a “Coug” - through and through. I went to Washington State University, getting degrees in Political Science, Economics and English in 1982. I served four years on the Pullman City Council (first student, and at 19, the youngest ever). I received an “outstanding alumni award” in 1996 and served eight years on the University Board of Regents, one as its President. I was even profiled in Washington State University Magazine – “Food Fight.” Although I married a University of Washington Husky, it was only after paying her way through school.
So when I read Kevin Graman’s article in the Spokesman Review – “Regent balks at WSU book choice - Selected book eyed impact of agribusiness,” shock and sadness where my first emotions. Now, I just feel embarrassed - but hopeful - Washington State University - say it isn’t so. Let's figure out how to get Michael Pollan back on campus.
So, here is what happened according to Mr. Graman:
A book chosen by a Washington State University committee as appropriate food for thought for all incoming freshmen will not be distributed at summer orientation after a member of the board of regents raised concerns about the work’s focus on problems associated with agribusiness.
4,000 books had already been purchased by WSU. However, now according to the WSU Website:
Instead of distributing the current selection, [Michael Pollan’s book] ‘The Omnivore’s Dilemma,’ at the Alive! summer orientation sessions as was previously done, program staff will contact faculty to ascertain whether they wish to use the book in their classes, and then will arrange for distribution.
According to Mr. Graman, “[t]he decision not to distribute the book at orientation was made by WSU President Elson Floyd and Provost Warwick Bayly…. We just simply decided to streamline the distribution process,” Floyd said Wednesday. We encourage faculty to use it as part of curriculum.”
However, another reason for pulling the book and the invitation is to be found at A Livable Future Blog:
President Floyd and Provost Bayly also cited the cost of bringing Mr. Pollan to Pullman and the WSU campus: This is just one of scores of hard decisions that have been made in recent weeks to address the $54 million cut in our biennial state appropriation. As you well know, this austerity has forced us to reduce or eliminate a number of programs and positions. Reducing the scope of this program — including not bringing the author to campus and avoiding speaker’s fees and travel, facilities, and event costs — will save an estimated $40,000.
In a slightly different spin on the reasons for not having Mr. Pollan come to campus, Scott Carlson of the Chronicle of Higher Education, cited “Mary F. Wack, vice provost for undergraduate education, [as saying]that the university has taken a $57-million budget cut from the state, which is a reason for a reduction of scope of the common-reading program. She also said that the changes were requested by students, who asked to have the common-reading books integrated with courses.”
However, was there another reason? According to Mr. Graman of the Spokesman Review, the real answer might be political more than financial:
That political pressure apparently was brought to bear by a member of the board of regents, Harold Cochran, who disapproved of the author’s characterization of agribusiness. Cochran owns and operates a 5,500-acre farm near Walla Walla, is a founding stockholder in the Bank of the West in Walla Walla and is a member of the Washington Association of Wheat Growers. Cochran did not return phone calls seeking comment Wednesday. But fellow regent Francois X. Forgette said Cochran had read the book and raised concerns, though the topic was never formally discussed at board meetings.
Scott Carlson of the Chronicle seems to support that politics trumped lack of finances:
In an e-mail message to The Chronicle, Patricia Freitag Ericsson, an assistant professor of rhetoric and professional writing who also sits on the implementation committee, said that in a meeting on May 4, an administrator told panel members that the common-reading program would be canceled, in large part because of political pressure arising from this year's book choice. Members of the committee were upset. She says the committee was also told that potential books for next year's common-reading program would be sent to the provost, who would make the selection.
So, was it political or was it financial?
I have an idea! To show that it was not political, I will pay to get Mr. Pollan to Pullman and find a place for him to speak – I’ll even introduce him. My hope is that it was not political, because the following quote is what Washington State University – in being a “Coug” – is all about:
“It strikes me that the real value of the university is basically the way it serves the public, researches without fear and favor and being a place where issues can be aired, which are by nature controversial,” said Richard Law, the outgoing director of general education at WSU and a founding member of the common reading committee.
I have my checkbook ready.
Over the last several years, other members of the firm and I spend nearly as much time speaking out on safe food as we do litigating food poisoning cases. Here is a partial list of places I have been in the last several months. In part we try and explain how and why we do what we do and to convince companies why it is a bad idea to poison your customers.
British House of Lords and Royal Institute of Public Health - 05.13.2009
Bill Marler travels back to the UK to present at the Royal Institute of Public Health E. coli Conference.
Conference of the Candian Institute of Public Health Inspectors (CIPHI) - 05.06.2009
Bill Marler will present a keynote address at the 75th Annual conference of CIPHI, being held in Kananaskis, Alberta.
GMA Food Claims & Litigation Conference - 02.25.2009
Bill Marler travels to Rancho Mirage to the conference, which is focused on Emerging Issues in Food-Related Litigation
National Meat Association (NMA) Meatxpo - 02.22.2009
Bill Marler travels to Las Vegas to take part in a roundtable discussion on the FSIS.
International Association for Food Protection’s Raw Milk Symposium - 02.05.2009
Bill Marler will take part in a panel discussion following the film Denied? The Fight for Corporate Accountability. The event is taking place here in Seattle.
Super Lawyers CLE - 12.10.2008
Bill Marler will present to the Super Lawyers CLE in Seattle.
ACI Food-borne Illness and Contamination Litigation - 12.04.2008
Bill Marler will travel to Phoenix to present to the ACI Food Borne Illness & Contamination Litigation Conference.
Louisiana State Bar Association (LSBA) Mass Tort Symposium – 10.17.2008
Bill Marler will travel to New Orleans to present to the LSBA Class Action/Mass Tort Symposium
Third International Conference for Food Safety and Quality - 10.08.2008
Bill Marler will present the keynote address at the Third International Conference for Food Safety and Quality in San Francisco, CA.
China International Food Safety and Quality Conference (CIFSQ) - 09.24.2008
Bill Marler will be in Beijing, China to present a keynote address to the International Food Safety and Quality Conference.
Food Safety Council Meeting - 07.09.2008
Bill Marler travels to Omaha, Nebraska to speak at the Food Safety Council Meeting
Food Network Wales - 06.18.2008
Bill Marler will be in Cardiff, Wales presenting to the Food Network Wales Conference.
British Food Journal (BFJ) Inaugural Lecture - 06.17.2008
Bill Marler travels to London to take part in the Inaugural Lecture series of the British Food Journal (BFJ) at the Royal Institute of Public Health.
Food Safety: Farm to Table - 05.28.2008
Bill Marler will give the keynote address, in Moscow, ID presenting an Update on Outbreak Trends 2006-2008.
Food: Safety, Risk, and Technology - 05.06.2008
Bill Marler will speak at the University of Minnesota College of Agriculture, Food, and Environmental Sciences on Food Safety and Litigation.
California's budget is a mess - what a minus $20B or so? And, Senator Florez has time to write a letter to beat up on public servants who are doing their job trying to protect the public?
.png)
(click on above) - Perhaps Senator Florez should do his job and protect the public from the sale of raw milk?
I’m heading to the Institute of Food Technologists’ Annual Meeting in California in a few weeks to talk about Leafy Greens and Food Irradiation – Pros and Cons. In addition to the below PowerPoint, I will be handing out my DRAFT Publication “Pros and Cons of Commercial Irradiation of Fresh Iceberg Lettuce and Fresh Spinach: A Literature Review” as well as my Law Partner, Denis Stearn’s book chapter “A Future Uncertain – Food Irradiation from a Legal Perspective.”
.png)
I am off to New York in the next few weeks to meet the the Excess/Surplus Lines Claims Association and Federation of Defense & Corporate Counsel to sit on a panel of folks discussing insurance issues and how they relate in food poisoning claims. I am going to open with a few slides on an overview of strict product liability law. Others will then follow with their perspectives. Should be fun.
(1).png)
Overview of Medical Impacts of E. coli O157:H7
After a susceptible individual ingests a sufficient quantity of E. coli O157:H7, the bacteria attach to the inside surface of the large intestine and initiate an inflammatory reaction. This reaction is believed to be due to chemicals secreted by the bacteria, and results in the bloody diarrhea and abdominal cramps characteristic of the intestinal illness. The incubation period is usually about 3 to 8 days, but slightly more or less is common. A wide spectrum of disease is possible from mild diarrhea without blood, to life-threatening and severe bloody diarrhea with excruciating abdominal pain. In most infected individuals the intestinal illness lasts about a week and resolves without any long-term sequelae. Antibiotics do not improve the illness and some believe these medications might even increase the risk of complications. Apart from good supportive care, which should include close attention to hydration and nutrition, there is no specific therapy. About 5 to 10% of individuals go on to develop hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS), a severe life-threatening complication of the intestinal illness.
HUS was first described in 1955 and is recognized as the most common cause of kidney failure in childhood. E. coli O157:H7 is responsible for over 90% of the cases of HUS that develop in North America. When HUS follows a diarrhea illness the correct terminology is diarrhea-associated HUS (D+HUS) to distinguish the disease from a less common variety of HUS that occurs as a familial, recurrent, or isolated form associated with other clinical situations.
D+HUS is believed to develop when the E. coli O157:H7 enters into the circulation through the inflamed bowel wall and releases a specific chemical known as shiga-like toxin (SLT). SLT, and most likely other chemical mediators, attach to receptors on the inside surface of blood vessel cells (endothelial cells) and initiate an inflammatory reaction that damages the organs supplied by these tiny arteries. Some organs seem more susceptible, perhaps due to the presence of increased numbers of receptors (kidney, pancreas, and brain). Red blood cells and platelets are also damaged, either directly by the SLT or secondarily due to the clotting process in damaged blood vessels. By definition, when fully expressed, D+ HUS presents with the triad of hemolytic anemia (red blood cells break down), thrombocytopenia (low platelet count), and acute renal failure (loss of the filter function of the kidney).
There is no known therapy to halt the progression of D+HUS. The active stage of the disease usually lasts one to two weeks during which a variety of complications are possible. D+HUS is a frightening illness that even in the best American centers has a mortality rate of about 5%. By comparison, the mortality rate in the developing world is over 75%. About 50% of patients require dialysis due to kidney failure, 25% develop pancreatitis, 25% experience seizures, and 5% suffer from diabetes mellitus. The majority requires transfusion of blood products and develops complications common to the critically ill. The illness is a living nightmare for the patients and families, and leaves a painful memory that lingers long after the acute illness.
Among survivors, about 5% will eventually develop end stage kidney disease with the resultant need for dialysis or transplantation, and another 5 to 10% will develop neurological or pancreatic problems which significantly impair quality of life. Since the longest available follow-up studies of D+HUS are about 20 years, an accurate lifetime prognosis is not available, and as such, lifetime medical follow-up is indicated for even the mildest affected.
Prognosis Features
1. Tonshoff B., Sammet A., Sanden I., Mehls O., Waldherr R., Scharer K., Outcome and prognostic determinants in the hemolytic uremic syndrome of children.
“The rate of recovery correlated with the degree of oligoanuria…. The proportion of patients who recovered was lower in the presence of severe hypertension during the acute phase…. The degree of CNS involvement was a strong predictor of [bad] outcome.”
2. De Jong M., Monnens L. Haemolytic-uremic syndrome: A 10 year follow-up study of 73 patients.
“All six patients belonging to the third group (oliguria for more than 14 days or anuria for more than 7 days) had late sequelae: two started dialysis more than 10 years after the initial phase; three had decreased GFR and concentrating capacity.”
3. Gagnadoux MF., Habib R. Long-term prognosis of childhood HUS.
“after follow up of 15 to 20 years, about 25% of patients affected with typical HUS in their childhood present with some degree of renal impairment. 10% being in advanced renal failure.”
4. Kelles A., VanDyck M., Proesman W. Childhood HUS: long-term outcome and prognostic features.
“severe hypertension, anuria lasting more than 7 days and central nervous system involvment have all been said to be associated with poor outcome that means early death and end-stage renal failure.”
5. Tonshoff B., Sammet A., et al. Outcome and prognostic determinats in the HUS of Children.
“The degree of CNS involvement was a strong predictor of [bad] outcome…. The most important difference in the rate of recovery of our patients was the degree of oligoanuria.”
6. Siegler R., Pavia A., et al. At 20 year population based study of post-diarrheal HUS in Utah.
“severe disease was significantly associated with… prodromal anuria and white blood cell count greater than 20,000…. Seizures or other neurological findings during the acute illness were also strongly associated with bad outcome.”
7. Gianantonio CA., Vitacco M., et al. The hemolytic uremic syndrome.
“One peculiar feature of the HUS is the striking association of severe renal damage and erthrocyte destruction with notable neurologic abnormalities…. Anuria of more than 4 days duration is also a sign of poor prognosis.”
8. Rowe PC. Epidemiology of HUS in Canadian children from 1986 to 1988.
“all patients with oliguria exceeding 15 days or anuria persisting for more than 8 days were left with chronic disease…. None of our patients with oliguria that lasted more than approximately 2 weeks or anuria that persisted more than approximately 1 week escaped chronic disease.”
9. Sprizzirri, Francisco D, Rahman, Ricardo C., Bibiloni, Norma, Ruscasso, Javier D., Amoreo, Oscar R. Childhood hemolytic uremic syndrome in Argentina: long-term follow-up and prognostic features.
“the severity of acute renal failure – as determined by the days of anuria – and the presence of proteinuria one year after the acute phase, were the most useful prognostic indicators [of bad outcome].”
10. Caletti, Maria G., Gallo, Guillermo, and Gianantonio, Carlos. Development of focal segmental sclerosis and hyalinosis in hemolytic uremic syndrome.
“These observations also confirm that prolonged oligoanuria during the acute stage of HUS frequently results in an unfavorable long-term prognosis…. The severe form was defined as anuria more than 7 days…. Proteinuria appeared after a proteinuria-free interval…
11. Schlieper, A., et al. Sequelae of haemolytic uraemic syndrome.
“HUS patients had numerically lower cognitive and achievement scores and higher behavioural problems ratings than their controls on every measure…. The results of this investigation provides preliminary indications of a post-HUS deficit in verbal intelligence and in the verbally based skills of reading comprehension and vocabulary use, as well as behaviour.”
12. Orme, S., Clark, E., Siegler, R.L., Neuropsychological sequele of post-diarrheal hemolytic uremic syndrome encephalopathy.
“HUS subjects consistently scored lower than controls on verbal intelligence, reading comprehension and vocabulary and behavior…. the data suggests that children who suffer from encephalopathy during HUS may have persistent cognitive problems…. The present data show a pattern of relative weakness in problem solving, visual-spatial reasoning, motor speed, memory, mathematical reasoning and spelling.”
13. Robson, Wm. Lane M. M.D., F.R.C.P., Leung, Alexander K.C. M.D., F.R.C.P. Kaplan, Bernard, S. M.B., B.Ch. Hemolytic-Uremic Syndrome.
“The following factors are reported to be associated with a poor prognosis in D+ HUS: Elevated WBC count, Prolonged anuria, Severe prodromal illness, Severe hemorrahagic colitis, Severe multisystem involvement…. The longer the duration of anuria, the less the recovery in GFR that can be expected.”
14. Thomson, Peter D. HUS in Johannesburg, South Africa: Epidemiology and Long-term Follow-up.
“We recommend that all severely affected cases of HUS should be followed for up to 20 years.”
15. Lopez, Eduardo L., Gianantonio, Carlos A., Cleary, Thomas G. The Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome in Argentina.
“A poor prognosis has been associated with oliguria of more than 3 weeks duration and/or anuria of more that 4 days duration.”
Adolescents and young adults with chronic kidney disease face a number of complications from their chronic kidney disease failure including alterations in calcium and phosphate balance and renal osteodystrophy (softening of the bones, weak bones and bone pain), anemia (low blood count and lack of energy), hypertension (high blood pressure) as well as other complications.
Renal osteodystrophy (softening of the bones) is an important complication of chronic renal failure. Bone disease is nearly universal in patients with chronic renal failure; in some children symptoms are minor to absent while others may develop bone pain, skeletal deformities and slipped epiphyses (abnormal shaped bones and abnormal hip bones) and have a propensity for fractures with minor trauma. Treatment of the bone disease associated with chronic renal failure includes control of serum phosphorus and calcium levels with restriction of phosphorus in the diet, supplementation of calcium, the need to take phosphorus binders and the need to take medications for bone disease.
Anemia (low blood cell count that leads to a lack of energy) is a very common complication of chronic renal failure. The kidneys make a hormone that tells the bone marrow to make red blood cells and this hormone is not produced in sufficient amounts in children with chronic renal failure. Thus, children with chronic renal failure gradually become anemic while their chronic renal failure is slowly progressing. The anemia of chronic renal failure is treated with human recombinant erythropoietin (a shot given under the skin one to three times a week or once every few weeks with a longer acting human recombinant erythropoietin).
Following transplantation, the patient will need to take immunosuppressive medications for the remainder of his life to prevent rejection of the transplanted kidney. Medications used to prevent rejection have considerable side effects. Corticosteroids are commonly used following transplantation. The side effects of corticosteroids are Cushingnoid features (fat deposition around the cheeks and abdomen and back), weight gain, emotional liability, cataracts, decreased growth, osteomalacia and osteonecrosis (softening of the bones and bone pain), hypertension, acne and difficulty in controlling glucose levels. The steroid side affects particularly the effects on appearance are difficult for children particularly teenagers and non compliance do the side effects of medications is risk in children particularly teenagers.
Cyclosporine and/or tacrolimus are also commonly used as immunosuppressive medications following transplantation. Side effects of these drugs include hirsutism (increased hair growth), gum hypertrophy, interstitial fibrosis in the kidney (damage to the kidney), as well as other complications. Meclophenalate is also commonly used after transplantation (sometimes imuran is used); each of these drugs can cause a low white blood cell count and increased susceptibility to infection. Many other immunosuppressive medications and other medications (anti-hypertensive agents, anti-acids, etc) are prescribed in the post operative period.
Life long immunosuppression, as used in patients with kidney transplants is associated with several complications including an increased susceptibility to infection, accelerated atherosclerosis (hardening of the arteries), increased incidence of malignancy (cancer) and chronic rejection of the kidney.
The patient may need more than one kidney transplant during her life. United States Renal Data Systems (USRDS) report that the half-life (time at which 50% of the kidneys are still functioning and 50% have stopped functioning) is 10.5 years for a deceased transplant in children age 0-17 years and 15.5 years for a living related transplant in children 0-17 years. Similar data for a transplant at age 18 to 44 years is 10.1 years and 16.0 years for a deceased donor and a living related donor, respectively. Thus, depending upon his age when the patient receives her first transplant (and updated information at that time) she may need 1-2 transplants.
If the patient does not have a living related donor for his first kidney transplant and if/when she needs a second kidney transplant after loss of his first transplant, she will need dialysis until a subsequent transplant can be performed. She can be on peritoneal dialysis or on hemodialysis. Peritoneal dialysis has been a major modality of therapy for chronic renal failure for several years. Continuous Ambulatory Peritoneal Dialysis (CAPD) and automated peritoneal dialysis also called Continuous Cycling Peritoneal Dialysis (CCPD) are the most common form of dialysis therapy used in children with chronic renal failure. In this form of dialysis, a catheter is placed in the peritoneal cavity (area around the stomach); dialysate (fluid to clean the blood) is placed into the abdomen and changed 4 to 6 times a day. Parents and adolescents are able to perform CAPD/CCPD at home. Peritonitis (infection of the fluid) is major complication of peritoneal dialysis.
Hemodialysis has also been used for several years for the treatment of chronic renal failure during childhood. During hemodialysis, blood is taken out of the body by a catheter or fistula and circulated in an artificial kidney to clean the blood. Hemodialysis is usually performed three times a week for 3-4 hours each time in a dialysis unit.
I had dinner tonight with Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior and a dozen others, including my 14 year old daughter Olivia, in one of the House of Lords dining chambers. The whole place reminded me a bit of Hogwarts out of Harry Potter. The food below was adequate, not fancy, but likely safe, as most of the ministers and professors had something to do with food safety. Gave my talk tonight about food safety, or the lack thereof in the US. Spoke for 20 minutes and had about 40 minutes of questions. It is amazing how so many people in the world look to us for leadership. We actually should give them some. Anyway, on dinner:
Dover Sole, Spinach and Potatoes for Dinner
Cheesecake and Coffee for Desert with House of Lords Chocolates
.jpg)
Over the years we have heard of too many food "gross-out" stories to recall them all. Honestly, we have taken on none of them as clients. I posted several of my favorites over at www.foodpoisonblog.com. However, this one is by far my favorite (click below to download):
.png)
Off to London Sunday and plan to revisit the site of what many consider to be the birth of Epidemiology – SOHO, the Broad Street Pump and the works of Dr. John Snow, who in 1854 determined that the cholera outbreak sweeping the area was related to the water coming from the Broad Street Pump. The handle was removed, and the rest is history. Last year I gained membership in the John Snow Society. Founded in 1993, the John Snow Society aims to promote the life and works of Dr John Snow as anesthetist and pioneer of epidemiological methods. In 2001, the Society became part of the Royal Institute of Public Health, London.
.png)
Hopefully, we in the States will honor Dr. Snow's work by actually funding Local, State and Federal food and water borne disease surveillance.
The recall of Salmonella-tainted peanuts and peanut products processed and produced by the Peanut Corporation of America has caused one of the largest food recalls in US history; almost 4000 products made by hundreds of companies have been withdrawn, and the number is still growing. The 700 culture-confirmed cases of Salmonella indicate a much higher number of unreported illnesses – the actual number is probably close to 25,000. At least nine lost their lives. Beyond this terrible human toll, the financial toll on businesses and the American food supply has been staggering.
How did it happen? How did a single peanut processor in rural Georgia cost the American economy over a billion dollars? The two factories run by PCA only processed 2.5% of the annual US peanut crop, but their actions had huge repercussions. The investigations into the actions of the Peanut Corporation of America have revealed that PCA repeatedly retested product until a clean sample was obtained, shipped product that they knew was contaminated, and did not act on recommendations from the FDA to clean up their act.
It’s too easy to point to the company as a “bad actor” - an isolated case. There was a similar widespread outbreak of Salmonella in peanut butter two years earlier, centered not 75 miles from the Georgia plant. Unbelievably, this did not appear to affect how PCA ran its business, or how they were inspected or regulated so it can - and may - happen again.
Let’s start with the human toll, which is what I know best. My firm represents over 100 people who were sickened by the Salmonella and two families who lost a family member to it. One of our clients, Clifford Tousignant, won three purple hearts in the Korean War, but lost his life to peanut butter. Another family’s three-year-old son got sicker and sicker as his pediatrician allowed him his favorite food during his illness - the peanut butter crackers that later turned out to be the source of his infection. Hundreds of families spent time and money in emergency rooms and Intensive care units as their family members struggled with their illnesses. Although no one can put a price tag on human suffering and loss, these claims will probably settle in the range of 30-35 million dollars. That’s serious money, but most of it will be covered by insurance. Those settlements will be, well, peanuts, compared to the other costs surrounding the nationwide recall.
Recalling tainted food is the right thing to do – for legal and ethical reasons as well as basic public relations. But recalls come with astounding costs. One of my good friends in the food-processing industry estimates that the peanut recall will cost well over $500 million. It’s impossible to assign precise numbers, but you can start with the costs of tracking down, retrieving and transporting millions of items, most of which have already found their way onto retail shelves and kitchen cabinets. Kellogg, just one of the companies that recalled products recently, has estimated those costs at $75 million – for just one company.
Then there are the lost sales – not just of the tainted products themselves, but also of related peanut products that may be completely safe. The tomato-Salmonella recall last year resulted in $100 million in lost tomato sales – even though the real culprit proved to be peppers. In 2006, E. coli-tainted spinach cost that industry over $175 million - even though the outbreak was linked to just one fifty-acre farm in California. Peanut sales already have plummeted by more than 25 percent. Demand is down and peanut fields are lying fallow. The peanut industry estimates the loss is over one billion dollars in lost production and sales.
Let’s not forget the costs of advertising and public relations aimed at restoring consumer confidence. We have already seen expensive newspaper ads from peanut butter-makers, reassuring readers that their product is safe. What about the cost of restoring tainted brands?
Those in the chain of distribution are feeling the effects as well. Suppliers may or may not have to reimburse retail stores for lost sales. Large retailers like Wal-Mart include such reimbursement in their contracts; small businesses probably don’t do that, but suppliers may reimburse them anyway. And, then there are the losses to stock prices. One major food processor lost $1 billion in stock value following an E. coli outbreak. Imagine what’s happening to peanut stocks these days.
The Big Guys – the Kelloggs and ConAgras and Jack-in-the-Boxes – can sustain those losses. Not so the smaller retailers. My heart goes out to mom-and-pop businesses like Betsy Sanders of Santa Clara, California whose small business supplies cookies for local Parent Teacher Association and marching band fundraisers, and who now has to reimburse her customers for recalled products that contained peanut butter from PCA.
Is anyone keeping track of the math? Let’s call it $1.5 billion - just because of the actions of one small player in the peanut industry. The likely costs of compensating their sickened customers are a tiny part of that number; virtually none of the rest of that $1.5 billion will be covered by insurance. In an economy already battered by failing banks, lost jobs and scarce credit, people will be driven out of business. And, it was preventable.
As I was preparing this speech, the Food and Drug Administration announced that President Obama’s 2010 proposed budget included an increase of almost 20% for the FDA, including almost $260 million for better food safety. That sounds like big money, but if it can prevent a single billion-dollar recall and prevent citizens from being sickened, it’s a step in the right direction. However, there are a few other things that I would suggest.
First, be honest with the American Public. With 76,000,000 foodborne illness cases yearly, 325,000 hospitalizations and 5,000 deaths, our food supply might be safer than some – but it is not safe enough.
Second, put food safety on the “front burner” and turn up the heat. It is time that we commit to the American Public to get animal feces out of our food. How to do it - Here are my “top ten” ideas to combat this recurring epidemic:
- Improve surveillance of bacterial and viral diseases. First responders - ER physicians and local doctors - need to be encouraged to test for pathogens and report findings directly to local and state health departments and the CDC promptly.
- These same governmental departments, whether local, state or federal, need to learn to “play well together.” Turf battles need to take a back seat to stopping an outbreak and tracking it to its source. That means resources need to be provided and coordination encouraged so illnesses can be promptly stopped and the offending producer - not an entire industry - are brought to heal.
- Require real training and certification of food handlers at restaurants and grocery stores. There also should be incentives for ill employees not to come to work when ill.
- Stiffen license requirements for large farm, retail and wholesale food outlets, so that nobody gets a license until they and their employees have shown they understand the hazards and how to avoid them.
- Increase food inspections. While domestic production has continued to be a problem, imports pose an increasing risk, especially if terrorists were to get into the act. Points of export and entry are a logical place to step up monitoring. We need more inspectors - domestically and abroad - and we need to require that they receive the training in how to identify and control hazards.
- We need to reform federal, state and local agencies to make them more proactive, and less reactive. This too requires financial resources and accountability. We also need to modernize food safety statutes by replacing the existing collection of often conflicting laws and regulation with one uniform food safety law of the highest standard.
- There are too few legal consequences for sickening or killing customers by selling contaminated food in the US. We don’t need to impose the death penalty, as China did recently. But, we should impose stiff fines, and even prison sentences, for violators, and even stiffer penalties for repeat violators.
- We need to use our technology to make food more traceable so that when an outbreak occurs authorities can quickly identify the source and limit the spread of the contamination and stop the disruption to the economy.
- We need to promote university research to develop better technologies to make food safe and for testing foods for contamination.
- We need to provide tax breaks for companies that push food safety research and employee training.
- And, we need to improve consumer understanding of the risks of foodborne illness.
Last year I testified before the US Congress and laid out the above 11 points. I told them the time has come to act and not continue simply to react. Consumers, Farmers, Suppliers, Manufacturers, Retailers, Regulators and Politicians need to work together to make our food supply safe, profitable and sustainable. When a quarter of our population is sickened yearly by contaminated food, when thousands die, we do not have the “safest food supply in the world.” We should, must, and can do better.
I am heading to London Sunday for a series of lectures on food safety and just in time the EU put out its report on foodborne diseases for 2007. Full report - Here.
In total, 5,609 food-borne outbreaks were reported by MSs in 2007 that is a slight decrease of 2.2% compared to 2006. Together 36.1% of the reported outbreaks were classified as verified. The verified outbreaks affected 39,727 people resulting in 3,291 hospitalizations and causing 19 deaths. In addition, the two non-MSs reported 93 food-borne outbreaks, of which 38.7% were verified and 1,475 people were affected, resulting in 55 hospitalizations and causing five deaths. France and Spain reported most (73.0%) of the verified outbreaks in the EU. There was a great variation between MSs in the numbers and proportions of verified outbreaks reported, which may reflect differences in the sensitivity and efficiency of the national systems for investigating and reporting outbreaks in place.
Salmonella was, as in previous years, the most commonly reported cause of food-borne outbreaks in the EU. Twenty-two MSs reported 2,201 Salmonella outbreaks of which 26.8% were verified. The 590 verified Salmonella outbreaks affected 8,922 people, resulted in 1,773 hospitalizations and caused ten deaths.
Food-borne viruses, mainly calicivirus (including norovirus), were reported as the second most common known cause of food-borne outbreaks, and 18 MSs reported a total of 668 outbreaks of which 16.6% were verified. The 111 verified virus outbreaks affected 3,784 people and resulted in 131 hospitalizations.
Campylobacter also remained a common cause of food-borne outbreaks in the EU and 17 MSs reported 461 outbreaks where only 6.5% were verified. The 29 (excluding the large waterborne outbreak) verified Campylobacter outbreaks affected 244 people and resulted in 19 hospitalizations.
Fourteen MSs reported 65 outbreaks caused by pathogenic E. coli, of which 44.6% were verified. The 29 verified E. coli outbreaks affected 541 people and resulted in 24 hospitalizations.
Bacterial toxins produced by Bacillus spp., Clostridium spp. or Staphylococcus spp. were reported by 18 MSs as the cause of 458 outbreaks, of which 93.2% were verified. The 427 verified outbreaks caused by bacterial toxins affected 6,277 people, resulted in 345 hospitalizations and caused four deaths.
Few outbreaks caused by other bacterial agents like Yersinia, Listeria, Shigella, Enterobacter and Citrobacter were reported. In addition, a number of outbreaks caused by parasites were recorded and most of them were Trichinella outbreaks related to consumption of uninspected pig and wild boar meat.
So, what is the big deal? President Obama ordered a medium-well burger for himself and the VP, and ordered medium burgers for the press – in a restaurant with a spotty food safety record that does not use, or may not even have, a thermometer. Forgoing the phrase “teachable moment” for a bit, I would like to get right to the “meat” of the matter. What Obama did was foolish - in the view of many food safety experts - but it is something that many consumers do every day; they order a burger from their favorite restaurant or cook it themselves on the backyard grill.
Food safety professionals inside and outside government will tell you that medium or medium-well means nothing in the food safety world – temperature is the key. Pink or brown color is not a good indicator of “doneness.” Temperature on the inside of the burger (at several places) of 155 to 160 degrees (rules vary a bit state to state) is the only way to assure that the burger is safe. Yet less that 2% of consumers use or own a thermometer. Restaurants are required to have thermometers, but not necessarily use them. So, why do consumers - including the President - ignore the advice of experts who are trying to protect them from the bacteria and viruses lurking in their cheeseburgers that can sicken or kill them or their children?
What consumers believe, including the President apparently, is what they hear every day from Government officials and the Beef Industry – “Our Food Supply Is The Safest In the World”. Compared to China? Great! Clearly, any food safety message is missed, because of lack of honesty (hamburger really may contain animal feces that can sicken or kill you!) and lack of education (why don’t we teach kids how to cook safely in addition to teaching them to wear seatbelts and shun smoking?)
So, what is a President to do - avoid hamburgers? Well, I do (and so does my family) ever since the Jack in the Box E. coli O157:H7 Outbreak of 1993 that sickened nearly 600, caused acute kidney failure in 50 and killed four children - but that is just me.
Full disclosure, I am a trial lawyer who represents victims of foodborne illness. I have seen too much misery, and yes, death, caused by failures in food production at every stage of the food supply. If you do not think our food supply is dangerous, then just open a newspaper, turn on the radio or TV or surf the Internet. Foodborne illness outbreaks linked to all types of food (including hamburger) are nearly a daily occurrence. However, the Government and Industry keep telling us its safe and we seem to believe it.
So, what is a President to do?
First call the head of Food Safety Inspection Services (actually, a spot yet to be filled) and ask him why there is cow feces in hamburger meat in the first place. Also, while you have him on the phone, ask about Salmonella, Listeria, MRSA and all the other bugs that may have been in the hamburger you ate the other day.
Next, be honest with the American Public. With 76,000,000 foodborne illnesses cases yearly, 325, 000 hospitalizations and 5,000 deaths, our food supply might be safer than China’s – but it is not safe enough.
Third, put food safety on the “front burner” and turn up the heat. It is time that we commit to the American Public to get animal feces out of our food. How to do it:
A. Revise food regulations to criminalize manufacturers who sell food that poisons consumers. I am not suggesting the “China Method,” but it is time to impose stiff fines, and jail sentences for businesses that kill kids;
B. Give tax credits and other incentives to businesses that invest in safe food methods and technology. Remind me, how many billions have we given the banks? Perhaps it is time to invest in those who will actually invest in us;
C. Increase the surveillance of foodborne diseases. Right now, for every one person counted in an outbreak, we miss another 20 to 40. This causes delays in determining what food product is sickening our neighbors allowing hundreds of others to become sick before we figure out what product to pull;
D. Fully fund Local, State and Federal Health and Food Inspectors and give them the legislative and financial tools to get the job done.
The “teachable moment” is simply that the hamburger that the President ordered on Monday should not put him at risk for getting sick on Thursday. That is true for all of us and all the food that we eat. The “teachable moment” has passed, the real question is, “did we learn anything?’
OK, I promise to stop blogging about the "obamaburger heard around the world." So, why did Obama order his and Joe's burgers medium well (arguably cooked) and ordered the press's medium (clearly undercooked)? Also, can anyone find a thermometer?
Being that I can nearly see Alaska from my Hotel Room here in Canada, a loud “shout out” to Stephen Leary and the folks at Barf Blog for checking into the food safety record of Ray's Hell Burger, a.k.a. Butcher Burger, 1713 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA – AFTER the President ate there. Ya really have to love the internet.
I posted yesterday about my concerns about the President ordering his hamburger medium-well. But, perhaps the bigger concern is what the hell was the Secret Service thinking – Or, Not. Here is the best of what is on-line at the Arlington Health Department:
Violations: A summary of the violations found during the inspection are listed below.
Code / Observation / Corrective Action
3-301.11 Corrected During Inspection Critical An employee was observed contacting ready-to-eat (RTE) food [hamburger roll and lettuce] with their bare hands.
Except when washing fruits and vegetables as specified under 3-302.15 or as specified in paragraph (D) of this section, food employees may not contact exposed, RTE food with their bare hands and shall use suitable utensils such as deli tissue, spatulas, tongs, single-use gloves, or dispensing equipment.
3-603.11 Critical The food establishment serves hamburgers [cooked-to-order] undercooked without informing consumers of the significantly increased risk consuming such food by way of a disclosure and reminder using brochures, deli case or menu advisories, label statements, table tents, placards, or other effective written means.
Except food establishments that serve a highly susceptible population or have received a variance from our department, if an animal food such as beef, eggs, fish, lamb, milk, pork, poultry, or shellfish is served or sold raw, undercooked, or without otherwise being processed to eliminate pathogens, either in ready-to-eat form or as an ingredient in another ready-to-eat food, the permit holder shall inform consumers of the significantly increased risk of consuming such foods by way of a disclosure and reminder, as specified in paragraphs (B) and (C) of this section using brochures, deli case or menu advisories, label statements, table tents, placards, or other effective written means. (B) Disclosure shall include: (1) A description of the animal-derived foods, such as "oysters on the half shell (raw oysters)," "raw-egg Caesar salad," and "hamburgers (can be cooked to order);" or (2) Identification of the animal-derived foods by asterisking them to a footnote that states that the items are served raw or undercooked, or contain (or may contain) raw or undercooked ingredients. (C) Reminder shall include asterisking the animal-derived foods requiring disclosure to a footnote that states: (1) Regarding the safety of these items, written information is available upon request; (2) Consuming raw or undercooked meats, poultry, seafood, shellfish, or eggs may increase your risk of foodborne illness; or (3) Consuming raw or undercooked meats, poultry, seafood, shellfish, or eggs may increase your risk of foodborne illness, especially if you have certain medical conditions. At issue is the role of government agencies, the regulated industry, and others in providing notice to consumers that animal-derived foods that are not subjected to adequate heat treatment pose a risk because they may contain biological agents that cause foodborne disease.
6-501.111 Insect, rodent, and/or other pest harborage conditions exist on the premises [mouse droppings were observed on the floor of the storage room].
The presence of insects, rodents, and other pests shall be controlled to minimize their presence on the premises by eliminating harborage conditions. Insects and other pests are capable of transmitting disease to man by contaminating food and food-contact surfaces. Effective measures must be taken to control their presence in food establishments.
Not quite the publicity that Ray's Hell Burger or Butcher Burger was hoping for I imagine. Or, perhaps like when Acting CDC director Richard Besser called Biden's bungled comments about not flying in an airplane because of the risk of H1N1 "a teachable moment," we can learn something here about safe food? Heck, I had time to change my deck before my speech this morning:
.png)
I am working on revising my keynote address to the 75th annual gathering of the Canadian Institute of Public Health Inspectors in the morning. Below is the PowerPoint. The embedded videos (and others) can be found HERE
.png)
People ask me why I do these speeches (for free) to governments in the US, Canada, China, Australia and England. Well, the answer is I keep hoping a warmer Island Nation asks me next. The real answer is that in 16 years of litigating nearly every major foodborne illness outbreak in the US, I have learned too much about the horrors of these diseases and the impacts on families. Giving of my time is nothing if you compare that to what my clients have gone through. Preventing the next illness, the next outbreak, should be each of our goals.
I made it to Canada today on a planeload of tourists wearing masks (not clear whom they are protecting) to give the Keynote Address to the 75th annual gathering of the Canadian Institute of Public Health Inspectors Wednesday morning. Checking in at the Lodge at Kananaskis (where it is snowing), a nice inspector (aren’t all Canadians nice?) came up to me and introduced himself. After talking hockey for a bit, he asked if I "had heard that President Obama had eaten a rare hamburger today.” I smiled and said I would check into it right away. Although I tend on this blog not to focus on what the Obama’s eat (I leave that to the brilliant lady at www.obamafoodorama.com), I must admit I was at a loss as to why our president would engage in such risky behavior.

So, I went to the pages of the Washington Post and found the President’s quote actually ordering the bad burger (potentially so):
Obama, customer No. 42, opted for something more simple: "Your basic cheddar cheeseburger, medium well."
No ketchup, the president said, but lettuce and tomato. And: "Have you got a spicy mustard or somethin' like that? A Dijon mustard?"
So, what is medium well? Is it sufficient to kill the deadly E. coli O157:H7 bacteria? Given that in 2006 USDA/FSIS recalled less that 200,000 pounds of E. coli-tainted hamburger and over 44,000,000 pounds have been recalled since the Spring of 2007, was the President taking a risk just over 100 days after taking office? Heck, even without an appointed head of FSIS, more E. coli O157:H7 meat was recalled on Monday.
I guess the answer is – it depends? What did Medium Well mean to the Commander in Chief? What did it mean to the Chef? Did the Chef have a thermometer? Did the Chef take the internal temperature of the burger to the required 160F? Poking around the internet I found a handy chat that indicated Medium Well is 150-165F. So, if the Chef today was in the upper range our President is safe. However, what if the Chef did not have a thermometer? What if he did not use it? What if the Chef went on color to determine "doneness?"
.png)
Bottom Line – the incubation period (time between ingestion and first signs of illness) for an E. coli O157:H7 infection is 3-4 days – so, time will tell. Interestingly, the President also ordered hamburgers for the press - he ordered them only cooked medium.
Bill, I loved being a part of the Lobby Day for food safety. Thanks for passing my name along to be a part of it. I’ve written a few thoughts if you want to post it. I’m looking forward to continue to fight.
April 29, 2009 was a significant day for President Obama as it marked his 100th day in office. For my mother-in-law, Mora Lou Marshall, it was the 849th day since she had fallen victim to Salmonella Tennessee from Peter Pan peanut butter. Those two milestones aside, it was also an important day for me to be in Washington lobbying for food safety and to meet other families who have forever been changed because of foodborne illness.
It has been two years since I testified before the Congressional hearing on food safety. I was hopeful some progress would have been made since that testimony, but every time I hear news of another food illness outbreak I realize there is still so much more work to be done. So that is why I was honored to be a part of the Lobby Day last week.
I was able to meet with the staff members of Congressman John Fleming, Senator Mary Landrieu and Senator David Vitter. Whether by accident or design, I was explained how key elements of proposed food safety legislation could have made a difference in my mother-in-law’s illness. One requirement would give the FDA the authority for mandatory recall of suspected problem foods. Mora Lou’s initial confirmed contamination was January 2, 2007, and she continued to eat the peanut butter even in the hospital for another 5½ weeks until the voluntary recall on February 14, 2007. What a difference a few weeks would have made for our family.
So now I am back in Louisiana fired up and ready to continue the fight for food safety. Thanks to everyone who made the event possible. I never imagined in my wildest dreams I would ever be lobbying in Washington, but I’m ready to go back and knock on some more doors. What a great experience for me to play a small part in trying to change our food safety laws.
Regards, Terri
On May 7, Denis Stearns will be making a presentation in New Orleans at the GMA Foodborne Illness Litigation Conference. The title of his presentation is Lessons Learned Recent Outbreaks and Recalls, with a subtitle of 2007-2008, The Salmonella Years & The Lessons We Learned. In the presentation, Denis will discuss how the recent Salmonella mega-outbreaks involving contaminated Veggie Booty snacks, frozen pot pies, and peanut butter have revealed how outbreak have demographics just like products do. Moreover, understanding these demographics is crucial to the effective representation of the victims, including decisions about how best to communicate with clients, and to manage expectations about the legal process and likely outcomes. The presentation will also look at the unsuccessful attempts by some plaintiff attorneys to use class actions to handle the injury claims arising from these mega-outbreaks.
.png)
Bill,
Lindsey will be sending you her perspective also. Click Here.
What an experience! The energy, spirit and determination of all of these people that united for one common cause was evident the minute we walked into the hotel. Victims, lobbyists, consumer advocacy groups, all with one mission…help make our food safe. I was immediately humbled when I heard stories of 2 year old Kyle who did from a spinach smoothie, or 12 year old Haley who has permanent disabilities from Salmonella poisoning. I have no idea how Kyle’s Mom had the strength and courage to share her story in the press conference in the manner that she did. It was truly heartbreaking and inspiring at the same time.
The sorrow you feel quickly turns to frustration and anger when I learned that 5,000 people die annually from these illnesses. It’s clear that the laws and regulations are useless and in need of a complete overhaul. I have no doubt that there are far better quality control systems in place for the toaster in my kitchen versus the food we eat. Then we saw the passion from people like Congresswoman DeLauro, and it provides hope that something will be done. She and Congressman Henry Waxman, both key sponsors of the bill, participated in the press conference.
Lindsey and I met with the staffs of Michigan Congressmen John Dingell, Bart Stupak, Mike Rogers and Senator Debbie Stabenow. They were interested and engaged. We also had the opportunity to speak to the Acting Director of the FDA, Josh Sharfstein, MD.
With the help of the PR Agency, Lindsey has received several calls from local media and one story has already appeared - here.
I have been sharing this story with everyone I know and inviting them to join Lindsey and I and thousands of others in the effort to make our food safe, by going to www.makeourfoodsafe.org.
I have attached photographs from the event. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to participate in such a meaningful endeavor. It will be something that I will remember forever.
Mike
It is sunny and nearly 70 here in Seattle - Shhh, don't tell anyone. I was heading to the ferry to go home and decided to finish up some emails. Here is one I just got from someone that I kindly declined to help:
I have in my posession a plastic bag of salt that i purchased here in walnut creek that made me extremly ill. The salt is emitting some kind of gas that causes the bag elastic to balloon up until i release the gas. I have been poisoned on numerous occasions from restaurant food here and was almost killed by a pizza delivered to my person by dominoes. Ive made numerous complaints to the e.p.a. concerning these issues how ever Im seeking damages. Ive found out that my very own parents poisoned me when I was very youn and that numerous time have been poisoned by mother and sister. Its some kind of magic potion. Any way is ther any thing that you could do to helpo me over the poisoned bag of salt. Ive been the victim of a really scary scam here that has cost me a lot of money and much of my life. Im at the bottom of the barrell here and could use some help to recover damages. I was set up the day I was born to be a slave laborer and then to be robbed of all my work and money. the use of poison and magic potions kept me in a state of semi conciousness for numerous years. Now, due to health detoxification, my mind and health has recovered to where I can see and understand what has been happening. Im a great guy, who works hard, and hasent wronged any one. Why is all of thgis accuring to me that I should suffer such losses? can you be of assistance. I havent been able to find any help here in this area. Ive physiucally have been able to recover from poisoning, how ever the fourty years that it has taken needs to be compensated for. can you advise me.
Now I am stuck for an hour looking out from the 66th floor. I think I should go outside.
.jpg)
Ruby would have liked to have been there too. Her daughter, son-in-law and grandchildren stood up for Ruby by suing the companies whose E. coli O157:H7 product took her life long before her time. This is yet another video of another victim of the "safest food supply in the world."
NEHA is having its Annual Education Conference in Atlanta June 21 through 24. Click below for brochure:
.png)
I will be speaking at some point, so making your way to Atlanta is worth it. A bit about NEHA:
NEHA’s Origin
The National Environmental Health Association (NEHA) had its origins in the state of California where it was incorporated in 1937. The original impetus behind the creation of a national professional society for environmental health practitioners was the desire by professionals of that day to establish a standard of excellence for this developing profession. This standard, which has come to be known as the Registered Environmental Health Specialist or Registered Sanitarian credential, signifies that an environmental health professional has mastered a body of knowledge (which is verified through the passing of an examination), and has acquired sufficient experience, to satisfactorily perform work responsibilities in the environmental health field. The pioneers of the association believed that such a credential was necessary if the environmental health field was to grow and take shape as a legitimate and widely respected profession.
NEHA’s Mission
Drawing on the original effort that led to the creation of NEHA, the association today stands as a strong professional society with over 4,500 members across the nation. Clearly NEHA’s mission, “to advance the environmental health and protection professional for the purpose of providing a healthful environment for all” is as relevant today as it was when the organization was founded.
Advancement has been defined by NEHA in terms of both education and motivation. The basis for the association’s activities is the belief that the professional who is educated and motivated is the professional who will make the greatest contribution to the healthful environmental goals which we all seek. Accordingly, great emphasis is placed on providing, through each of NEHA’s programs, both an educational as well as a motivational opportunity. At NEHA’s conferences, for example, tremendous attention is paid to developing a quality educational program that not only imparts knowledge to the attendee but, also, through the very quality of the presentations, inspires the attendee to do more upon returning to his or her job.
For those who have forgotten, after Stewart Parnell, former President of the Peanut Corporation of America, was booted as a Board member of the Peanut Standards Board, a vacancy arose. My suggestion for a replacement - ME! More information below:
Organization: USDA Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS)
.jpg)
Summary: The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 requires the Secretary of Agriculture to establish a Peanut Standards Board for the purpose of advising the Secretary on quality and handling standards for domestically produced and imported peanuts. The Board consists of 18 members representing producers and industry representatives.
USDA seeks nominations for individuals to be considered for selection as Board members for terms of office ending June 30, 2011, and June 30, 2012. Selected nominees sought by this action would fill two currently vacant industry representative positions for the remainder of terms of office ending June 30, 2011, and six producer and industry representatives who are currently serving for the term of office that ends June 30, 2009. The Board consists of 18 members representing producers and industry representatives.
Nominees should complete a Peanut Standards Board Background Information form, which can be obtained at - LINK
Source: Federal Register: April 29, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 81)
Applications Due By: Nominations must be received on or before May 29, 2009
Web site: The Federal Register notice is at LINK
More information about the Peanut Standards Board is at LINK
Contact: Nominations should be sent to Dawana J. Clark, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, Telephone: (301) 734- 5243; Fax: (301) 734-5275; E-mail: Dawana.Clark@usda.gov
Many of our past and present clients are in Washington DC today lobbying on behalf of all of us to get congress to pass meaningful food safety legislation.
Lindsey and Michael Jennings (MI) – Lindsey became ill in 2008 in the Aunt Mids E. coli O157:H7 Outbreak linked to lettuce grown in California.
Peter and Jacob Hurley (CA) – Jacob was one of nearly 700 sickened from Salmonella-tainted peanut butter in 2009.
Cheryl and Brian Grubbs (CO) – Brian became ill from eating Salmonella-tainted peppers along with 1,200 others in 2008.
Terri Marshall (LA) - on behalf of her Mother in Law Mora Marshall who still remains in a nursing home after eating peanut butter tainted with Salmonella in 2007.
Karen Hibben-Levi (IA) was sickened in 2006 by E. coli O157:H7 tainted lettuce grown in California.
Juliana and Jacob Goswick (AZ) – Jacob developed Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome after eating baby spinach in 2006 linked to E. coli O157:H7.
Elizabeth Armstrong (IN) – her daughters, Ashley and Isabella both suffered E. coli O157:H7 infections due to consumption of baby spinach in 2006. Ashley developed severe Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome.
As I wrote to each of them yesterday: "I want to honor each of you for taking the time to go to DC to try and move safe food onto the national agenda. What you are doing is a selfless act of citizenship and I am proud to represent (or have represented) you and your family. I hope you know how much this means to me personally and for the thousands of families who each year needlessly suffer what you have gone through. Standing up for your fellow citizens is what makes our country progress.
Thank you for the bottom of my heart."
We should all thank them. Also, see here for some short videos on other clients. It is important to put a human face on our food safety problems.
The campaign for Student Body President is in full swing at Bainbridge Island High School. If elected, Morgan will be one of the first female presidents. I'll post on the election outcome.
.jpg)
Spoke with Sarah Randag of the ABA last evening after she "shouted out" the Forbes editorial giving a "tip o' the hat" to what I do. Generally, the ABA tends to look down on the lawyers that represent victims, so perhaps there is a positive trend here?
Editor William Baldwin calls attention to an epidemic in a commentary piece in the May issue of Forbes: foodborne illness. It “sickens 76 million Americans a year, kills 5,000 and runs up $3 billion in hospital costs,” he writes.
But his rallying cry isn’t for more federal regulation—it’s for more plaintiffs lawyers. Hear him out. “The tort bar has not, on the whole, covered itself with glory,” he wrote. “A large fraction of asbestos cases, for instance, are based on quack readings of X-rays.”
In food-poisoning litigation, however, genetic subtyping can make an unmistakable link from food to victim. “The lawyer's main task is to argue over how much the kid's life is worth.”
He points to the success of Seattle plaintiffs lawyer William Marler, saying that, aside from the high cost to food vendors of adverse judgments, Marler’s promotions of his efforts call attention to these adverse rulings and keep food vendors on their toes.
“If it's expensive to make mistakes, more money will go into the detection and prevention of microbes,” Baldwin writes. “Entrepreneurs will find opportunity here.”
Marler told the ABA Journal that at a regulatory level, at least, he has seen "pretty dramatic" changes in food safety practices since his career-launching 1990s verdict against Jack in the Box over undercooked hamburgers that were the source of an E. coli outbreak. in Washington state. For example, in response to that particular case, the Food and Drug Administration guideline for the internal cooking temperature of hamburgers was raised from 140 degrees to 155 degrees (and later 160 degrees). "It doesn't sound like a big deal, but for a fast-food restaurant, it's an enormous deal."
I sat for a few hours in the Atlanta airport last night during a thunder storm so had some time to finish up my PowerPoint for my speech in a few weeks in London before the Royal Society for Public Health. Here is the PowerPoint - there will be two added videos - which one to use?:
.png)
Product Liability in England & Wales
Continue Reading...
Had a great chat with William Baldwin of Forbes Magazine for his opinion piece - "Needed: Tort Lawyers" - in the last week about the status of our Nation’s food supply. This interview may be a first for Forbes – that did not skin this trial lawyer alive, nor dip me in a vat of boiling ink.
Campylobacter, Escherichia coli, salmonella, listeria--it's very dangerous to put things in your mouth. Foodborne illness sickens 76 million Americans a year, kills 5,000 and runs up $3 billion in hospital costs. What's the answer to this epidemic?
One possible solution is more government and more laws. Those familiar with the proclivities of this magazine will not be surprised that I take a dim view of this solution (and, in particular, of the proposed Food Safety Modernization Act, which would bury food preparers in paperwork). No, I would prefer to have the same government and the same laws, but--here's the surprise--more tort lawyers.
The tort bar has not, on the whole, covered itself with glory. A large fraction of asbestos cases, for instance, are based on quack readings of X-rays. But it's a different story in the narrow specialty of food-poisoning litigation. There the science is sound. The typical plaintiff is the family of a child whose kidneys and other organs were damaged (in some cases fatally) by an E. coli infection. The link from the culprit food to the injured child is made unmistakable by genetic subtyping. The lawyer's main task is to argue over how much the kid's life is worth.
Meet William Marler, a 52-year-old Seattle attorney whose career was launched with a $15.6 million settlement against Jack in the Box. (This victim survived but lost her large intestine.) Sixteen years later he can brag that his firm, Marler Clark, has extracted just shy of half a billion dollars in settlements from food vendors. This suggests cumulative revenues of maybe $150 million for a small firm (seven lawyers, one full-time epidemiologist). But letting lawyers get rich has a nice side effect. The settlements get the attention of food producers. Bill Marler is not shy about using the Web, press releases and Capitol Hill testimony to publicize what he's doing.
Continue Reading...
I had a great chat last week with Larry Smith - Each week Bulletproof Blog interviews top plaintiffs’ attorneys for their perspective on the crises likely to affect businesses in the near future. In this issue, we talk to Bill Marler of the Seattle-based Marler Clark, LLP PS. He is the legal profession’s best-known advocate for plaintiffs in food-related cases and a major force for food safety in the U.S. During his career, Mr. Marler has secured nearly $500 million for his clients. He publishes widely and speaks on food safety around the world.
How has this litigation changed and how do you see it changing again in the future?
Bill Marler: The growing danger for the industry is that problems are no longer cyclical. They are coming at us in rapid succession. To a great extent that is due to the expansion of the supply chain and the safety control problems that have resulted. The peanut butter crisis offers a stunning example: The Peanut Corporation of America (PCA) provided less than 1% of the nation’s product, yet cost the Peanut Industry and 200 companies between $1 billion and $1.5 billion as 4,500 items were recalled and people turned away from peanuts.
Industry economics are also problematic. Labor and other costs go up. Market pressures force retail prices down. So there’s less room for thorough product testing and other safety measures.
From 1993 (when I became involved in the Jack in the Box E. coli outbreak) to 2003, 95% of our work was E. coli linked to hamburger. The meat industry then imposed better safety standards and those cases disappeared. Now we’ve come full circle in a big way and E. coli incidents are skyrocketing. There were 186,000 pounds of meat recalled in 2006. In 2007 and 2008, that number increased to 44 million! It is an absolutely astonishing development that neither industry experts nor I can explain. It could be the great looming crisis even though the story may now be eclipsed by the other product recalls grabbing the headlines.
Are there specific products that you now have your eye on?
Bill Marler: It’s hard for anyone to predict the next crisis because we’re talking about ever-morphing pathogens. I have nothing but empathy for responsible companies challenged to somehow predict the next bacterium and where it’s going to strike. To cite just a couple of danger zones, pork products face increased risk of Methicillin-resistant Staphyloccus aureus (MRSA) bacteria and, as we effectively control salmonella, we create opportunites for Clostridium difficile (C-dif) bacteria to proliferate in our guts. It’s a deadly threat to the elderly.
How do you use the media for practice development and litigation support?
Bill Marler: Journalists know my personal brand and I believe they respect it, although they still don’t like to quote me openly because I’m perceived to be biased. But they do lean on me heavily for off-the-record guidance, which includes providing them with sources that they are comfortable quoting.
I take a high-volume approach to the Internet, posting as much information as possible as often as possible – information that is of direct value to my clients and useful for reporters.
To what extent are your relationships with third parties – public officials, interest groups, etc. – a part of your overall strategy?
Bill Marler: I’ll mention one area where such relationships may be important, especially as it pertains to a discussion of what’s next for the food industry…I often talk to people in power about criminalizing some actions – or inactions – by various parties along the food supply chain. In terms of deterrence, the civil justice system has its limits…So does simply shuttering miscreant companies.
You may well see increased support from diverse quarters for protecting the public by throwing more people in jail. I’ll be a member of that choir.
.jpg)
This morning I spoke to Debra Weiss of the ABA Journal, who had heard about my twitter challenge and was writing a story on it. We chatted at about 5:30 a.m., as I was on my way to the airport. By the time my plane was boarding, the story was online. Here are some quotes from her story, and the entire article can be found here.
A blogging lawyer doesn’t think he can top Ashton Kucher, but he has been inspired by the actor’s agreement to donate 10,000 nets to charity as a result of winning a race with CNN to sign up 1 million Twitter followers.
Seattle personal injury lawyer Bill Marler has a more modest aim: He wants 25,000 additional Twitter followers by the end of the month, and will donate $25,000 to a charity if he achieves the goal.
Marler, who represents victims of food-borne illnesses, made the offer in a post at his Marler Blog on April 17, when he had about 1,650 followers. Marler has been using twitter for a couple months, posting news of what he is doing and what he is blogging. His followers include “foodie-type people,” government health workers, journalists and other lawyers. He doesn’t view the service as a way of generating clients, but he does see it as a way of communicating with government and media representatives interested in food-safety issues. He also uses Twitter to follow food-safety news, but is finding that it can be “another one of those Internet time drains.”
Marler reports some critics claim he made the offer for ego gratification. “Any criticism leveled against a lawyer for their ego, I suppose, is pretty much on the mark,” he muses. “The reason I did it, I was just so fascinated by the whole Ashton Kucher CNN thing. I thought it would be interesting to see if people would respond to an offer like a dollar for each follower.”
Marler says he’s a little surprised that the post hasn’t generated more followers, but he has generated some great suggestions for worthy charities. “It’s run the gamut,” he says, from Parkinson’s disease to sustainable farming to “a reply from somebody in Africa who wants to put in a permanent well in the village.”
I can be found @bmarler on twitter.
As I said last week, I have the great honor to once again speak before the Royal Society for Public Health in London next month. My Power Point is due (two days ago), but I got a bit distracted by my twitter challenge and “kid stuff” over the weekend. I did, however, have time to read Dr. Hugh Pennington’s report on the 2005 E. coli O157:H7 Outbreak. It is a through report and one that is applicable regardless on which side of "the pond" you are on. It was also sad, but helpful, to have a human face on the one death that occurred in this outbreak - Mason Jones.
A year ago I hosted a great food safety conference (thinking of doing so again in 2010) entitled "Who is Minding the Store." Governor Gregoire said what everyone was, and should be, thinking:
Maybe our goal here should be to put Bill Marler right out of business.
And I would bet my friend, Bill, would be the first to say that.
Continue Reading...
The battle to become the owner of the first Twitter account that has 1 million followers has ended. It was a clash between the old TV, represented now by CNNbrk (CNN breaking news), and the new kid on the block Ashton Kutcher. Ashton Kutcher won the battle to become the first Twitter millionaire. Is that the anti-Slumdog?
OK, I am not looking for 1M followers - just 25,000 more than the 1,650 I have today. So, I if I get 25,000 followers by the end of the month, I'll donate $25,000 to the best charity twitter folks come up with. You can get to Twitter at @bmarler.
Over the last several years we have seen multiple instances where Clostridium difficile and foodborne illness have been related. However, the Clostridium difficile infection has generally been associated with the foodborne illness after treatment for the infection by antibiotics, not as a result of actual ingestion of the Clostridium difficile bacteria. However, in the recent Salmonella Typhimurium Peanut Butter outbreak, we have two cases where children seem to be co-infected with both Clostridium difficile and Salmonella Typhimurium. Which begs the question – Is Clostridium difficile foodborne?
A little background first - Wikipedia reports that Clostridium difficile is a species of Gram-positive bacteria of the genus Clostridium. Clostridia are anaerobic, spore-forming rods (bacillus). C. difficile is the most serious cause of antibiotic-associated diarrhea (AAD) and can lead to pseudomembranous colitis, a severe infection of the colon, often resulting from eradication of the normal gut flora by antibiotics. The C. difficile bacteria, which naturally reside in the body, become overgrown: The overgrowth is harmful because the bacterium releases toxins that can cause bloating, constipation, and diarrhea with abdominal pain, which may become severe.
.png)
The CDC reports that mortality rates from Clostridium difficile disease in the United States increased from 5.7 per million population in 1999 to 23.7 per million in 2004. Increased rates may be due to emergence of a highly virulent strain of C. difficile.
Here are a few articles that I have found or have been sent on the topic. Clearly more research needs to be done.
Possible Seasonality of Clostridium difficile in Retail Meat, Canada
Rodriguez-Palacios A, Reid-Smith RJ, Staempfli HR, Diagnault D, Janecko N, Avery BP et al. Possible seasonality of Clostridium difficle in retail meat, Canada. Emerg Infect Dis. 2009 May
We previously reported Clostridium difficile in 20% of retail meat in Canada, which raised concerns about potential foodborne transmissibility. Here, we studied the genetic diversity of C. difficile in retail meats, using a broad Canadian sampling infrastructure and 3 culture methods. We found 6.1% prevalence and indications of possible seasonality (highest prevalence in winter).
Clostridium difficile in Retail Meat Products, USA, 2007
Songer JG, Trinh HT, Killgore GE, Thompson AD, McDonald LC, Limbago BM. Clostridium difficile in retail meat products, USA, 2007. Emerg Infect Dis. 2009 May
To determine the presence of Clostridium difficile, we sampled cooked and uncooked meat products sold in Tucson, Arizona. Forty-two percent contained toxigenic C. difficile strains (either ribotype 078/toxinotype V [73%] or 027/toxinotype III [NAP1 or NAP1-related; 27%]). These findings indicate that food products may play a role in interspecies C. difficile transmission.
Clostridium difficile in Ready-to-Eat Salads, Scotland
Bakri MM, Brown DJ, Butcher JP, Sutherland AD. Clostridium difficile in ready-to-eat salads, Scotland. Emerg Infect Dis. 2009 May
Of 40 ready-to-eat salads, 3 (7.5%) were positive for Clostridium difficile by PCR. Two isolates were PCR ribotype 017 (toxin A–, B+), and 1 was PCR ribotype 001. Isolates were susceptible to vancomycin and metronidazole but variably resistant to other antimicrobial drugs. Ready-to-eat salads may be potential sources for virulent C. difficile.
.png)
Had a great chance to speak with Miriam Wolf of Culinate. Here is the interview:
In 1993, as a Seattle trial lawyer, he was hired to litigate against the fast-food restaurant chain Jack in the Box, whose E. coli-contaminated hamburgers had killed four children. Since then, he’s worked on nearly every major case of food-borne illness in the U.S., including the current salmonella-in-peanut-butter scandal.
Marler — who keeps a blog about food-safety issues — talked with Culinate recently about raw milk, locally grown food, and food-safety reform.
Continue Reading...I have the great honor to once again speak before the Royal Society for Public Health in London next month. It will be great to share the stage again with Hugh Pennington. Professor Pennington just finished an extensive investigation into an E. coli O157:H7 outbreak that sickened many and killed a child. I also look forward to speaking with Frank Yiannas of Wal-Mart. I hope to give "the mother country" an overview of E. coli O157:H7 and other Shiga-toxin E. coli and their impacts on the food industry and consumers in the United States.
.png)
The evening before I will be speaking at the House of Lords.
How one Peanut Company caused $1.5 Billion in Losses: The story of PCA
Speech for House of Lords dinner, May 12, 2009
William D. Marler
The recall of Salmonella-tainted peanuts and peanut products processed and produced by the Peanut Corporation of America has caused one of the largest food recalls in US history; more than 3000 products made by hundreds of companies have been withdrawn, and the number is still growing. The 700 culture-confirmed cases of Salmonella indicate a much higher number of unreported illnesses – the actual number is probably close to 25,000. At least nine lost their lives. Beyond this terrible human toll, the financial toll on businesses and the American food supply has been staggering. The speaker, whose firm, Marler Clark, represents more than 100 of the victims of the outbreak, explains the complex web of corporate malfeasance, inspections, insurance, and bankruptcy that makes this story a page-turner.
Bacteria, specifically E. coli O157:H7 outbreaks and illnesses, linked to leafy greens have sickened hundreds in dozens of outbreaks in the last several years. The "salad bowl" of the nation has been hit with recall upon recall. No one, regulator, farmer, consumer or environmentalist knows quite what to do to protect consumers, business and the environment. Perhaps, some "facts" would help?
The California Department of Fish and Game yesterday released a "[p]reliminary results from a joint E. coli environmental study found less than one half of one percent of 866 wild animals tested positive for Escherichia coli O157:H7 in Central California." The press release further stated:
The study of water, soil, livestock and wildlife is being conducted by the University of California, Davis, the California Department of Fish and Game (DFG) and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). It investigates the occurrence of the strain of E. coli that caused the disease outbreak in California agricultural fields in 2006.
Preliminary results from the wildlife portion of the study suggest less than one half of one percent of the wildlife tested positive for E. coli O157:H7. The finding is based on environmental sampling done over a two year period by government and university scientists from wild animals in the central coast region of California. Preliminary results from water, soil and livestock samples are not yet completed and may be reported separately.
The multi-agency study was prompted after state and federal investigators reported E. coli O157:H7 in 13 wild pig fecal samples tested during the 2006 spinach outbreak investigation in California. These findings led to concerns that wild animal feces may be one of several ways that produce fields or water sources are contaminated with E. coli O157:H7 or other harmful bacteria.
From 2007 through 2008, the research team collected 866 wildlife samples, including 311 black-tailed deer, 184 wild pig, 73 birds, 61 rabbits, 58 tule elk, 52 ground squirrels, 51 coyotes, 24 mice, 19 raccoons, 17 opossums and 16 striped skunks. Of the 866 animals sampled, 862 tested negative. The four positive samples included: one wild pig, one coyote and two tule elk. These findings are preliminary and the research team will continue to collect and test a total of 2,400 wildlife samples from this region.
Scientists are seeking to understand if certain species of wildlife are sources of E. coli O157:H7. These preliminary results indicate wildlife is not a primary source of E. coli O157:H7. The study findings will assist resource agencies and growers in developing strategies, and management plans and policies for preventing crop contamination in the fields to protect the public health and to protect wildlife and their habitats.
A previous study on free-ranging deer reported in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medicine Association estimated the fecal prevalence of E. coli O157:H7 to be similar to the prevalence in water and cattle fecal samples from the same region (Sargeant et al., 1999). All three of these sources are being investigated separately in this study.
Other studies have found similar or greater numbers in animals infected with E. coli O157:H7 and other bacteria:
Human Illness Caused by E. coli O157:H7 from Food and Non-food Sources
Food Safety Risks and Mitigation Strategies for Feral Swine (Sus scrofa) near Agriculture Fields
Implications of Wildlife in E. coli Outbreaks Associated with Leafy Green Produce
These preliminary findings might suggest that wild animals perhaps pose less of a risk to leafy green growing operations that originally thought. In an article following the 2006 E. coli spinach outbreak that sickened 205, killing four, “Distributors Aim to Alter Farm Practices,” it was suggested that “some produce distributors are pressuring farmers to abandon practices that have long been considered environmentally friendly.” For example:
- Fresh Express, the nation's No. 1 maker of packaged salads, is refusing to buy lettuce and spinach from farmers who don't stop using compost and recycled water.
- Other shippers and handlers want farmers to stop planting native grasses that limit erosion but can attract animals and trap disease-causing bacteria.
The real issue is does this new preliminary study suggest that more research is needed to help determine the balance that needs to exist between environmental concerns and food safety concerns? I think it does.
I was reading obamafoodorama's post on the "First Pooch" and it got me to thinking. Could President Obama’s best known campaign promise endanger the well being of little Malia and Sasha?
Think about it: When President Obama sat down with Jay Leno a few weeks ago, he hinted he was about ready to fulfill his ever-so-popular promise to provide the White House, and those outrageously cute Little Obamas, with a new puppy.
That prospect has kept this pet-crazy nation abuzz since Election Night. What will it be? Chihuahua? Great Dane? Poodle? Portuguese Water Dog?
Whatever the breed or bloodline, I can only hope that the First Mom and Dad are paying equal attention to the doggy diet. Because, according to our friends at the Center for Disease Control, pet food and treats can come with a nasty dose of Salmonella poisoning.
Back in 2005, the CDC warned that Salmonella traced to pet treats had sickened nine people in Washington State and Western Canada.
That was chickenfeed compared to an outbreak in 2006-2007, when the CDC identified 79 Salmonella cases in 21 states, and traced it to dry dog food produced by Mars Petcare US in a Pennsylvania plant. Most of the victims were small children, and the outbreak was worst in Eastern Seaboard states, including the Greater DC area. That case led to recalls of 135 different pet products, including dog biscuits, treats, supplements and some 23,000 tons of dry pet food.
For every sick kid we hear about, the CDC estimates that there are another 38 who are just as sick, but don’t get properly diagnosed. Epidemiologists believe millions of Americans – mostly children – are sickened with Salmonella every year.
.png)
So here’s some advice to the 44th President and the First Family:
- Keep the kids, and especially seven-year-old Sasha, away from the pet food.
- Get the critter spayed, or neutered, and vaccinated for rabies, etc.
- Pleeeeease: No pet rats, wildlife, or reptiles.
- Advise the staff: Wash your hands after handling pets, pet food or treats. Especially if they plan to serve dinner to the family upstairs.
- Dog feces pose a particular risk to small children. Designate an adult, preferably a Republican, to clean up after that puppy.
And maybe consider a nice GIANTmicrobe® as a pet instead. They are stuffed animals that look like tiny microbes. They don’t chase balls or catch Frisbees, but they’re kind of cute. It will also help remind us all of the 76,000,000 citizens who are sickened each year from foodborne illnesses.
I was quoted the other day in USA Today about investing in food safety BEFORE an outbreak happens that sickens hundreds and drives your business and others into the ground: “It's a good investment, says Bill Marler, a prominent Seattle-based food-safety lawyer who has already filed eight lawsuits against PCA. 'You always worry that you'll spend $2,000 more a month to do testing, but if that $2,000 can save from going bankrupt or losing hundreds of millions of dollars, it's a cheap investment.'"
PCA, (Peanut Corporation of America), now facing criminal sanctions is now bankrupt, costing hundreds of people their jobs and according to the Georgia Peanut Commission, “the outbreak may cost peanut producers $1 billion in lost production and sales.” As of April 3, 3883 different peanut containing products have been recalled from some 200 companies. Recall costs are in the hundreds of millions of dollars and some of those companies have also filed for bankruptcy. Peanut product exports have fallen. At a time when our economy is on its knees, this is all clearly an unnecessary waste.
And, then there are the victims, to date the CDC has reported nearly 700 ill with 150 hospitalized and nine deaths. Costs, perhaps incalculable.
Bottom Line, PCA’s Georgia and Texas peanut manufacturing facilities were seldom inspected, rat and bird infested that leaked when it rained. How much would it have cost to keep the rats, birds and rain out? How much would it have cost to inspect the plants? How much would it have cost to test finished products for bacteria that could kill customers? My guess, perhaps tens of thousands over many years.
Whatever the cost, my hunch is it would have been a lot less than the illnesses, deaths, bankruptcies, job losses and prison time.
I told Laura I believe they will get done what needs to be done but they are no Marler Clark that's for sure! You, Laura and Andy have been so wonderful to us and I have been unable to find a way to express to you and your staff how touched David and I are about you cutting your fees for us. What do you say to someone who basically worked (hard) for two years and at the end says don't pay me? You've given my children and our family a very special gift. Somehow "thank you " seems inadequate...... but thank you, thank you, thank you. You have to know though that David and I take every opportunity to sing your praises. I think you have single handedly redeemed the bad rap that the legal profession bears! If you ever need someone to give you good press please let me know. In addition can I tell you how much I adore Laura? She is a doll and so funny and smart as they come. Thank you again for everything and let me know if there is anything else you need from us.
Perhaps reflecting the seeming daily recalls of contaminated food and the frustration with the "Other Washington" in its inability to make our food supply safer and more sustainable, State legislatures are trying to fix the problems on a local level. Here is the "Real Washington's" attempt. I have been invited to come to Olympia to support the bill.
House Bill 2309 - Commission on Safe and Healthful Food
Creates the commission on safe and healthful food to:
(1) Identify current issues relating to foodborne illness outbreaks and the ways state oversight and regulation may help prevent and mitigate the effects of the outbreaks;
(2) Identify best practices for notifying consumers of food product recalls;
(3) Identify state and federal efforts to enforce labeling and inspection laws and determine if additional resources are necessary; and
(4) Recommend and prioritize actions that may be taken by the state to provide disclosure to consumers on certain food products.
Although, I am not a huge fan of committees and commissions, at least it is a start.
Maintaining a specialty law blog can also help attorneys establish that they are experts in their particular fields.
“I’m a great believer in what I call the ‘ubiquity’ factor in marketing,” he said. “The more you can get your name out there in different media online, and in different locations online, the more that comes back to your benefit.” Seattle, Wash.-based attorney William Marler, well-known throughout the country for handling food-poisoning cases, said his firm began an E. coli blog about five years ago and has since developed specialty blogs for most of the common forms of illness-causing bacteria. Marler said that the blogs, which are continuously updated by staff and now getting between 8,000 and 10,000 hits a day, are primarily a forum for providing information to the public.
Marler said he often spends as much as two hours a day blogging on issues relating to food poisoning and providing his opinions on how we can have a safer food supply. He’s convinced that blogging has helped elevate his stature in the legal and food safety advocate arenas. “Having a voice and having people comment and cite to your blog and understand you are a serious player in this business … it makes you feel a little bit better about what you do.”
Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS)
A recently published study surveyed the extant scientific literature and noted that post-infectious irritable bowel syndrome (PI-IBS) is a common clinical phenomenon first described over five decades ago. The Walkerton Health Study further notes that:
Between 5% and 30% of patients who suffer an acute episode of infectious gastroenteritis develop chronic gastrointestinal symptoms despite clearance of the inciting pathogens.
In terms of its own data, the “study confirm[ed] a strong and significant relationship between acute enteric infection and subsequent IBS symptoms.” The WHS also identified risk factors for subsequent IBS, including: younger age; female sex; and four features of the acute enteric illness—diarrhea for > 7days, presence of blood in stools, abdominal cramps, and weight loss of at least ten pounds.
Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a chronic disorder characterized by alternating bouts of constipation and diarrhea, both of which are generally accompanied by abdominal cramping and pain. In one recent study, over one-third of IBS sufferers had had IBS for more than ten years, with their symptoms remaining fairly constant over time. IBS sufferers typically experienced symptoms for an average of 8.1 days per month.
As would be expected from a chronic disorder, IBS sufferers required more time off work, spent more days in bed, and more often cut down on usual activities, when compared with non-IBS sufferers. And even when able to work, a significant majority (67%), felt less productive at work because of their symptoms. IBS symptoms also have a significantly deleterious impact on social well-being and daily social activities, such as undertaking a long drive, going to a restaurant, or taking a vacation. Finally, while a patient’s psychological state may influence the way in which he or she copes with illness, and responds to treatment, there is no evidence that supports the theory that psychological disturbances in facts cause IBS or its symptoms.
Reiter’s Syndrome
A variety of other medical problems may derive from Salmonella infections in any given case. Within several months of infection, a certain percentage of ill individuals will develop an arthritic condition known as reactive arthritis, or “Reiter’s Syndrome,” which results from an immune response to the Salmonella bacteria in the body where the immune system attacks the cartilaginous tissues in the joints. The condition frequently resolves within several months, but it can become chronic, even permanent.
Reiter’s Syndrome, which includes, and is sometimes referred to as reactive arthritis, is an uncommon, but debilitating, possible result of a Salmonella infection. Reiter’s Syndrome is a disorder that causes at least two of three seemingly unrelated symptoms: “reactive” arthritis, eye irritation, and urinary tract infection. The reactive arthritis associated with Reiter’s develops when a person eats food that has been tainted with bacteria. Reactive arthritis is characterized by the inflammation of one or more joints, following an infection localized in another portion of the body, commonly the gastrointestinal tract. The symptoms of Reiter’s Syndrome usually occur between one and three weeks after the infection.
he three most common symptoms of Reiter’s Syndrome are arthritis, eye irritation, and urinary tract symptoms. The arthritis associated with Reiter’s Syndrome typically affects the knees, ankles, and feet, causing pain and swelling. Wrists, fingers and other joints can be affected, though with less frequency. Patients with Reiter’s Syndrome commonly develop inflammation where the tendon attaches to the bone, a condition called enthesopathy. Some patients with Reiter’s Syndrome also develop heel spurs, bony growths in the heel that cause chronic or long-lasting foot pain. Arthritis from Reiter’s Syndrome can also affect the joints of the back and cause spondylitis, inflammation of the vertebrae in the spinal column. The duration of reactive arthritis symptoms can vary greatly. Most of the literature suggests that the majority of patients recover within a year. The condition, can, however, be permanent. One study found nearly 50% of patients with postdysenteric reactive arthritis continued to have symptoms roughly one year after onset.
The involvement of the eye in Reiter’s Syndrome is most commonly manifested as conjunctivitis, inflammation of the mucous membrane that covers the eyeball, or uveitis, an inflammation of the inner eye. Conjunctivitis and uveitis can cause redness of the eyes, eye pain and irritation, and blurred vision.
The third situs for Reiter’s Syndrome symptoms is the urogenital tract. This includes the prostate, urethra, and penis in men and the fallopian tubes, uterus, and vagina in women. Men may notice an increased need to urinate, a burning sensation when urinating, and a discharge from the penis. Some men also develop prostatitis. Symptoms of prostatitis include fever, chills, increased need to urinate, and a burning sensation when urinating.
The presence of E. coli O157:H7 in hamburger was defined as an adulterant under the Federal Meat Inspection Act in 1994. However, recalls of E. coli O157:H7 contaminated meat and related illnesses continued over the next decade to grow, as did my law firm. Oddly too, and with near regularity, E. coli O157:H7 recalls and illnesses seemed to begin in the Spring and peak in late Summer and Fall from 1993 through 2002.
.jpg)
After 24 million pounds of contaminated beef were recalled in 34 separate incidents in 2002, recalls dropped off to just over a million pounds a year for the next three years, and then to just 181,900 pounds in 2006. The Centers of Disease Control and Prevention saw E. coli O157:H7 – related illnesses drop 48% between 2000 and 2006.
The reality is that from 1993 through 2002, children sickened with E. coli O157:H7 tainted hamburger made up the bulk of my law practice. However, as E. coli O157:H7 hamburger recalls fell from 2003 through the end of 2006, I wondered if the law firm would survive. Springs just simply were not the same.
But then came Spring 2007. E. coli O157:H7, which begins its life in the hindgut of a cow, mounted a surge on its home court. And, it came back with a vengeance. Since the Spring of 2007, forty-four million pounds of beef have been recalled in 25 incidents due to E. coli O157:H7. And, I am now back in the meat business, and look to Spring not just for the beginning of hay fever season.
Now, Spring 2009 is upon us. In preparing for it, I had some research done on the “seasonality” of E. coli O157:H7 in both humans and cattle and then say what was available in the literature as to the reasons behind it. Perhaps it does not fully explain what I experienced from 1993 though 2008, but it is a start. It is all about being prepared.
Seasonality in humans:
• A review of E. coli O157:H7 diarrhea in the US by Slutsker et al (1997) found that E. coli O157:H7 was isolated most frequently from patients during the summer months.
• Results from an epidemiological review of E. coli O157:H7 outbreaks in the US (1982-2002) showed that outbreaks involving ground beef peaked in summer months (Rangel et al, 2005)
• In a review of non-O157 STEC infections in the US from 1983-2002 revealed that these infections also were most frequent during the summer (Brooks et al, 2005)
• In Scotland, HUS and E. coli O157:H7 infections peaked in patients under 15 years of age in July/August, followed by a plateau from June to September (Douglas et al, 1997). Interestingly, the prevalence in Scottish beef cattle at slaughter was found to be highest during the winter, but the concentration of E. coli O157:H7 (number of bacteria shed in cattle feces) was highest during the warmer months (Ogden et al, 2004).
.jpg)
Seasonality in ruminants:
• Numerous studies in cattle indicate that fecal shedding of E. coli O157:H7 is typically low in the winter, increases in the spring, peaks during the summer and tapers off in the fall (Edrington et al, 2006; Hancock et al, 2001; Hussein et al, 2005, etc.)
• Barkocy-Gallagher et al (2003) found that the prevalence of E. coli O157:H7 in cattle feces peaked in the summer, and prevalence on hides (a known risk factor for beef contamination) was highest from spring through fall.
• A survey of ground beef samples in the US showed that they were 3x more likely to be contaminated with E. coli O157:H7 from June – September (Chapman, et al 2001)
• A survey in the UK found that the majority of retail meats that tested positive for E. coli O157:H7 were collected between May and September.
Hypotheses on why there are seasonal differences in prevalence in both humans and cattle
Human factors:
• Differences in handling and cooking food, or differences in consumption patterns during the summer, especially ground beef (outdoor BBQs, picnics, summer camps)
• Higher prevalence of E. coli O157:H7 in cattle feces and hides entering the slaughterhouse
• More outbreaks linked to swimming pools, recreational water, and agriculture fairs during the summer
Animal factors:
• Speculation that temperature may affect shedding or survival in feces (warmer months promoting survival and/or growth of E. coli O157:H7).
• Studies by Edrington et al (2006 and 2008) suggested that day length and effects on hormones such as melatonin secretion from the gastrointestinal tracts may be the underlying mechanism for seasonality in cattle. The authors hypothesized that the seasonal variation is a result of physiological responses within the host animal to changing day-length. Hormones have been shown to play a role in the regulation of bacterial populations and host immunity.
REFERENCES
Continue Reading...
Show #631: LAWYERING UP FOR FOOD SAFETY
Guests: Food Poisoning Lawyer Bill Marler, Marler Clark
Subject: Campylobacter, E. coli, hepatitis A, listeria, norovirus, salmonella, and shigella are some of the food borne pathogens that lead us to ask… Can the law protect us from bad food?
Topics include why good food goes bad; recent food poisoning incidents and what caused them; and what the law can and cannot do to protect us from poisoned foods.
I was pleasantly surprised to read today that the USDA has apparently decided to take notice of the elephant in the room when it comes to the tons of ground beef that consumer purchase every day. That is, grocery stores and other retail establishments routinely add trimmings—the bits of meat leftover from cutting steaks and roasts—to the ground beef they grind each day and put out for sale. And as we have discovered in case after case involving this kind of ground beef, very often the store has no records that would allow the source of the contamination to be traced back to any particular meat processor.
As the recent outbreaks involving retailers like Kroger and Whole Foods have made clear, contaminated trimmings are a real danger to the public health. And what is worse, if grocery stores are not keeping the necessary records, then the true scope of the E. coli O157:H7 problem is not really known. While the USDA requires that trimmings be tested for E. coli O157:H7 if they are going to another meat plant to be ground, there is no such requirement for meat that goes to grocery stores, restaurants, and other retail outlets. So huge numbers of people every day are eating ground beef made that has been made with untested, potentially contaminated meat.
This is why it is a great first step for USDA to develop (as reported at Meatingplace.com, and reprinted here: http://shopsmartkentucky.org/index.cfm?zone=/unionactive/view_article.cfm&homeID=121817) to develop guidance for retailers. But this should not be the only steps taken. Instead of guidance, proper recordkeeping should be required of all retailed. Even better, it is time for the USDA to abolish the indefensible distinction it makes in its E. coli policy, which suggests that this deadly pathogen is an adulterant in trimmings and ground beef, but not on so-called “intact” cuts of meat—the very cuts from which grocery stores generate the trimmings to make ground beef. It is time that the USDA has a truly zero-tolerance policy for E. coli O157:H7. And to enforce such a policy, the USDA has to once more get serious about a rigorous sampling and testing program at retail. Let’s stop using the American public as test subjects where illness and death are the truest signs that the meat supply is not safe.
.jpg)
Elissar Khalek - Food and Water Watch
The dilemma of how to regulate food safety in a way that prevents problems caused by industrialized agriculture but doesn’t wipe out small diversified farms is not new and is not easily solved. And as almost constant food safety problems reveals the dirty truth about the way much of our food is produced, processed, and distributed, it’s a dilemma we need to have serious discussion about.
The dilemma of how to regulate food safety in a way that prevents problems caused by industrialized agriculture but doesn’t wipe out small diversified farms is not new and is not easily solved. And as almost constant food safety problems reveals the dirty truth about the way much of our food is produced, processed, and distributed, it’s a dilemma we need to have serious discussion about.
Most consumers never thought they had to worry about peanut butter and this latest food safety scandal has captured public attention for good reason – a CEO who knowingly shipped contaminated food, a plant with holes in the roof and serious pest problems, and years of state and federal regulators failing to intervene.
It’s no surprise that Congress is under pressure to act and multiple food safety bills have been introduced.
Two of the bills are about traceability for food (S.425 and H.R. 814). These present real issues for small producers who could be forced to bear the cost of expensive tracking technology and recordkeeping.
The other bills address what FDA can do to regulate food.
A lot of attention has been focused on a bill introduced by Rep. Rosa DeLauro (H.R. 875), the Food Safety Modernization Act. And a lot of what is being said about the bill is misleading.
Here are a few things that H.R. 875 DOES do:
Continue Reading...
Nonny Mouse wrote "Monsanto and HR 875, Take Two"
To set the record straight:
There is no language in HR 875 that would regulate, penalize, or shut down backyard gardens or ‘criminalize’ gardeners; the bill focuses on ensuring the safety of food in interstate commerce.
Farmer’s markets would not be regulated, fined, or shut down, and would, in fact, benefit from strict safety standards applied to imported food to ensure that unsafe imported food doesn’t compete with locally grown produce.
The bill would not prohibit or interfere with organic farming, or mandate the use of any chemicals or types of seeds. The National Organic Program (NOP) is under the jurisdiction of the USDA. HR 875 addresses food safety issues and falls under the jurisdiction of the FDA.
Monsanto and any other large agribusiness company had no part whatsoever in drafting this bill, and Rep. DeLauro’s husband and his company do no lobbying on this issue.
HR 875 has nothing to do with any national animal ID system, which would fall under the jurisdiction of the USDA, and not the FDA.
This isn’t a done deal – the bill hasn’t yet even been considered by any Congressional committee, nevermind seen any debate or proposed amendments. There is no ‘plot’ to ram this through Congress and into law.
For those who are backyard gardners, farmers and growers who sell direct to customers, and folks who sell at farmers markets, certainly some of the provisions on records keeping will necessarily need to be less than for business who put thier product into the broader stream of commerce - organic or not so. The goal behind this and other food safety legislation is to try and make a complex national and international food supply be more traceable and more trasparent. One only needs to look at the recent peanut butter fiasco to see how one relativey small player (<1% of peanuts processed) can cause nearly 4,000 products to be recalled, $1.5 billion in losses, as well as 700 illnesses and nine deaths.
Bottom line, food needs to be safe. All producers - small or large - need to have standards. But, they also need to be rational, based on risk and be fairly enforced. Large producers should not be cut slack because they have lobbyists. Small producers should not have relaxed standards because they are small. If you produce food that does not involve a handshake with your customer (a direct sale), you wll necessarily require more oversight because the risks are much greater that a small mistake can bloom into a nasty outbreak.
There has been a lot of hysteria floating around about HR 875, a bill being put through in congress to further regulate food safety. I have been hearing so much about this all month, and decided not to make up my mind until I had a chance to read all the information. A friend on a mothering site I frequent posted info the co-op she works for sent out, which I think really clarifies the issue:
HR 875: Myths & Facts
Over the last few days, we’ve been hearing a lot about a bill in Congress called HR 875 and there is a wave of false information and hysteria being created that suggests HR 875 would eliminate organic back yard farms, make it illegal to grow organic product except for big businesses, and eliminate farmers markets. Nothing is further from the truth. The bill is actually mean to be a “place marker bill”. (This is a term meant to describe a piece of unwritten or far too basic legislation that is put on a congressional calendar, so that a more appropriate bill can be written and come up sooner. It’s kind of like asking someone to hold your place in line at a big event.)
The following is a quick synopsis of the myths and facts surrounding HR 875. Our thanks to Claudia Reid, Program Director of CCOF (http://www.ccof.org/foodsafety.php), and Food and Water Watch for this information. Berkshire Co-op Market is staying on top of this issue through our National Cooperative Grocers Association, and CCOF. Food and Water Watch.
Myths and Facts: H.R. 875 – The Food Safety Modernization Act
MYTH: H.R. 875 “makes it illegal to grow your own garden” and would result in the “criminalization of the backyard Gardner.”
FACT: There is no language in the bill that would regulate, penalize, or shut down backyard gardens. This bill is focused on ensuring the safety of foods sold in supermarkets.
MYTH: H.R. 875 would mean a “goodbye to farmers markets” because the bill would “require such a burdensome complexity of rules, inspections, licensing, fees, and penalties for each farmer who wishes to sell locally - a fruit stand, at a farmers market.”
FACT: There is no language in the bill that would result in farmers markets being regulated, penalized any fines, or shut down. Farmers markets would be able to continue to flourish under the bill. In fact, the bill would insist that imported foods meet strict safety standards to ensure that unsafe imported foods are not competing with locally-grown foods.
MYTH: H.R. 875 would result in the “death of organic farming.”
FACT: There is no language in the bill that would stop organic farming. The National Organic Program (NOP) is under the jurisdiction of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). The Food Safety Modernization Act only addresses food safety issues under the jurisdiction of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
MYTH: The bill would implement a national animal ID system.
FACT: There is no language in the bill that would implement a national animal ID system. Animal identification issues are under the jurisdiction of the USDA. The Food Safety Modernization Act addresses issues under the jurisdiction of the FDA.
MYTH: The bill is supported by the large agribusiness industry.
FACT: No large agribusiness companies have expressed support for this bill. This bill is being supported by several Members of Congress who have strong progressive records on issues involving farmers markets, organic farming, and locally-grown foods. Also, HR 875 is the only food safety legislation that has been supported by all the major consumer and food safety groups, including:
* Center for Foodborne Illness Research & Prevention
* Center for Science in the Public Interest
* Consumer Federation of America
* Consumers Union
* Food & Water Watch
* The Pew Charitable Trusts
* Safe Tables Our Priority
* Trust for America’s Health
MYTH: The bill will pass the Congress next week without amendments or debate.
FACT: Food safety legislation has yet to be considered by any Congressional committee.
The blogosphere has sounded the alarm warning that Congress and agribusiness and biotechnology lobbyists are conspiring to pass legislation that will force organic and local farms, and even home gardeners, out of business. What are the threats and opportunities, and how should we gear up to communicate with our congressional representatives?
There is no question that our increasingly industrialized and concentrated food production system needs a new regulatory focus. Contamination of spinach, lettuce, tomatoes, peanuts and other foods are an indictment of a food safety system that is out of control and has become dominated by corporate agribusiness and powerful insider lobbyists. Regulators at the FDA, USDA and other agencies have fallen short in their public safety responsibilities.
The public outcry over this situation has finally led some in Congress to propose remedies—and we should support strict oversight of the runaway industrial farming and food production system that is responsible for illnesses and deaths among our citizenry.
Although stakeholders in the organic community need to be on-guard, the flurry of e-mails and Internet postings suggesting that HR 875 will end organic farming as we know it seem to grossly exaggerate the risks. Here’s what we know:
Some level of reform is coming and we must work diligently to make sure that any changes do not harm or competitively disadvantage organic and local family farm producers and processors who are providing the fresh, wholesome and authentic food for which consumers are increasingly hungry.
Several bills aimed at fixing the broken food safety system have been proposed. Of these bills, the FDA Globalization Act (HR 759) appears most likely to be voted on, with elements of the other bills, including the Food Safety Modernization Act (HR 875) and the Safe FEAST Act (HR 1332) possibly incorporated into the bill.
A vote on a final bill shortly before Memorial Day is likely.
All three bills would require new food safety rules for farms and food processing businesses. Therefore, as with most legislation, the real battle will be in the rule-making process that follows the passage of the bill. We must stay engaged.
Anyone with an interest in food safety issues has probably seen or received emails charging that backyard gardens and organic farming would be outlawed by new food safety laws. We have closely read the proposed legislation, done extensive background research, and talked with the chief staff member responsible for the drafting of HR 875. Some have argued that this is a conspiracy promulgated by Monsanto and other corporate interests in conventional agriculture. It is our conclusion that none of these bills would “outlaw organic farming.” Other groups, such as Food and Water Watch and the organic certification agent CCOF have reached similar conclusions. But as we just noted, we need to be engaged in this process to protect organic and family farmer interests.
Also, concerns have been raised that these new laws don’t examine meat safety concerns. The USDA is responsible for much of the nation’s meat safety regulations. It does not appear that Congress, at this time, is prepared to address deficiencies involving meat.
HR 759, authored by John Dingell (D-MI), the House’s most senior member, is the bill that will be given priority by the House as they weigh food safety legislation. It proposes that all food processing facilities register with the FDA and pay annual fees, evaluate hazards and implement preventive controls of these hazards, monitor these controls and keep extensive records.
HR 759 would give authority to the FDA to establish “science-based” minimum standards for the safe production and harvesting of fruits and vegetables. These food safety standards would address manure use, water quality, employee hygiene, sanitation and animal control, temperature controls, and nutrients on the farm.
Such one-size-fits-all food safety rules, especially preventative measures, created with industrial-scale farms and processors in mind, would likely put smaller and organic producers at an economic and competitive disadvantage. A similar voluntary set of regulations in California have damaged the environment and hurt organic and fresh produce growers.
These high-quality, owner-operated, and often “local” farms are an important part of the solution to our nation’s food quality problems—not the cause—and they must be protected!
It should be noted that unlike conventional farms, organic producers are already highly regulated in managing manure by composting and other requirements that dramatically reduce pathogenic risk. Spinach, tomatoes, peppers, almonds, and peanuts are in no way inherently dangerous. These fresh and nutritious foods pose a risk only after they are contaminated, which is why new food safety legislation must address the underlying causes of food safety hazards.
Whatever the final legislation looks like, it must make clear that it is the intent of Congress to ensure that ensuing regulations will not disproportionately burden small-scale family farm producers and farmstead businesses that are the backbone of the local, sustainable and organic food movement.
Part of the Solution, Not Part of the Problem!
Continue Reading...
A good friend sent me Barry Estabrook’s article from Gourmet Magazine “Politics of the Plate: The Price of Tomatoes - If you have eaten a tomato this winter, chances are very good that it was picked by a person who lives in virtual slavery.”
I am not sure anyone can read the article and not feel saddened by the abuse these workers take to put tomatoes on our plate. Me, I have a special thought for the workers. See, 35 years ago I left home for a very long summer and worked as a farm worker in the fields and orchards of Eastern Washington. I still cannot stand to eat cherries, apples or peaches. Clearly, I always had the option – which I took – to go back to a much different and easier life.
Have we ever thought we should simply pay a bit more for the food on our tables? Perhaps eating cheap food not only allows – perhaps encourages the “virtual slavery”- but also forces businesses to cut corners on food safety.
Food for thought.
The Wall Street Journal is reporting this morning that many food companies are not complying with federal recordkeeping requirements. The requirements, encoded in a 2002 bioterrorism law, are intended to provide the basis for "traceback" upon the discovery of contaminated foods. In other words, the records are designed to enable public health and safety officials to determine the source of a contaminated food product. The WSJ reports that 60% of those facilities surveyed are not keeping the records. It also reported that a "watchdog agency also tried to trace 40 items such as fresh tomatoes, whole milk, oatmeal and yogurt from retail stores to the farm where they were grown, but could do so for only five items."
This blog regularly catalogs the negative end results for consumers when traceback cannot be quickly and successfully completed - outbreaks of foodborne illness spread and linger while thousands are sickened or killed. Ironically though, the failure of the industry to properly track the U.S. food supply also causes great damage to the industry itself.
First of all, the inability to quickly and accurately identify the true source of a foodborne outbreak can implicate corporations, or even an entire sector of the food industry, that ultimately have no connection to the culprit. Last summer's peppers/tomatoes/what-is-it-this-week Salmonella outbreak is a perfect example. Businesses lost large sums of money pulling products off the shelves in large part because grocery stores, distributors, and importers had no idea where the products they sold came from or went to.
Second, even where a business is in the chain of distribution of a defective product, its legal and economic gameplan can be crippled by an inability to identify the source of the implicated food. Being the manufacturer of a food product that ultimately causes consumer illness is a tough spot legally, but it sure helps to have company. If a manufacturer can identify a contaminated ingredient or raw material it may have contractual or tortuous claims, or both, against its supplier. Also, in some states, the law provides some legal relief for an entity that is "only" a seller of a contaminated food product, and not the manufacturer. However, those same states remove those protections where the seller cannot identify the manufacturer and provide an avenue of relief for the injured consumer.
For a manufacturer, distributor or seller, tracking the source of the food products you handle is the easiest way, if not the only way, to avoid being on the hook for someone else's food-safety shortfall. The attorneys at Marler Clark spent a great deal of time speaking with corporate representatives, sharing what we know about curtailing foodborne illness. Inevitably we are asked, "What can we do to avoid being sued by Marler Clark?" Often my first answer is to thoroughly, and accurately track the food items moving through your production lines. The best news is that if corporations do this, they will also be complying with the law, and keeping all of our food safer.
With a current population of 1,319,175,333, according to the China Ministry of Health, there were 431 food poisoning incidents reported in China last year, causing 13,095 illnesses, and 154 deaths.
The United States current population is 306,090,800. Our version or the Ministry of Health, the CDC, reports approximately 76,000,000 illnesses, 325,000 hospitalizations, and 5,000 deaths in the United States each year.
So, that means with a population four times that of the United Sates that China poisons 75,986,905 fewer of its citizens? Let me be the first to say – Bullshit.
The Trust for America's Health and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation have released a report which examines problems with the current system and proposes ways to improve the food safety functions at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to better protect the nation’s food supply.
Document Title: Keeping America’s Food Safe: A Blueprint for Fixing the Food Safety System at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Organization: Trust for America's Health (TFAH) and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF)
Summary: The report calls for the immediate consolidation of food safety leadership within the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and ultimately the creation of a separate Food Safety Administration within HHS.
Problems with the current structure of food safety programs at HHS highlighted in the report include:
* Inadequate leadership, prioritization, and coordination. No FDA official whose full-time job is food safety has line authority over all food safety functions. FDA’s three major food safety components are managed separately, hampering efforts to effectively prevent disease outbreaks.
* Inadequate technologies and inspection practices. Current laws and practices are antiquated. Existing laws date back to 1906 and 1938, and policies are disproportionately focused on monitoring food after it has been produced, instead of trying to prevent and detect problems throughout the entire production process. And there is no system in place to keep inspection practices up-to-date with the constantly modernizing food production technologies and practices.
* Inadequate staffing and resources. The FDA’s Science Board found the agency is chronically underfunded. While the U.S. Government Accountability Office reports the turnover rate in FDA science staff in key areas, including food safety, is twice that of other government agencies.
* Inadequate inspection of imports. Only one percent of imported foods are currently inspected, even though approximately 60 percent of fresh fruits and vegetables and 75 percent of seafood Americans consume is imported.
The Keeping America's Food Safe report recommends:
* Increasing and aligning resources with the highest-risk threats;
* Modernizing the mandate and legal authority of the HHS Secretary to prevent illness, which would include enforcing the duty of food companies to implement modern preventive controls and meet government-established food safety performance standards;
* Immediately establishing a Deputy Commissioner at FDA with line authority over all food safety programs, including the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, the Center for Veterinary Medicine, and the food functions of the Office of Regulatory Affairs, as an interim step toward creating a Food Safety Administration; and
* Working through Congress toward the creation of a Food Safety Administration within HHS, strategically aligning and elevating the food safety functions currently housed at FDA and better coordinating regulation policies and practices with the surveillance and detection of outbreak functions at CDC and with food safety agencies at the state and local level.
Date Released: 03/25/2009
Web site: A press release from Trust for America's Health is at http://healthyamericans.org/newsroom/releases/?releaseid=163
The report is at http://healthyamericans.org/assets/files/2009FoodSafetyReport.pdf
I got this email yesterday:
Zelda Parnell - March 24, 2009 3:56 PM
@hat an A>> Hole you are. You know you probably kept $299 million of the 300. I hope our government never stoops so low as to appoint you to the staff. It already has gone to hell in a hand basket and you would finish it off.
She then wrote:
On 3/24/09 4:14 PM, "Zeldagrey@aol.com" <Zeldagrey@aol.com> wrote:
You cannot be embarrassed. You Tort Lawyers are the scum of the earth.
I then asked her to call and talk about it and she wrote:
On 3/24/09 4:21 PM, "Zeldagrey@aol.com" <Zeldagrey@aol.com> wrote:
Your note went where it should have gone into my spam. This is all I have to say to you.
I then "googled" her:
Parnell Investments Zelda Parnell. Physical Address: 1332 Ballast Point Drive Manteo, NC 27954. Mailing Address: 300 Molly Stark Trail Lynchburg, VA 24503
.png)
I am sure it is just a coincidence that she has the same last name as the head of Peanut Corporation of American in Lynchburg - might recall that company's Salmonella-tainted peanut butter is responsible for 700 illnesses and nine deaths and likely over $1 Billion in recall costs and lost sales.
Those Parnells sure do like to email - 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7. Perhaps she should just have called me a rat?
It is good to be hated by some people.
Come on - I really have legal work to do. I can not blog all the time. Companies keep poisoning their customers despite my plea to "put me out of business, please."
We have so many issues. All the bills before congress, third-party audits, pasteurization, irradiation, raw milk, single food safety agency, sustainability, and on and on.
Take the time to give me your thoughts. I promise not to edit (well, the typos I will). Pass the request on to friends, students and let us get the ideas out there to actually make the "US food supply the safest in the world."
President Obama's announced that he is establishing a Food Safety Working Group to develop and present him with recommendations for improving the US food safety system. This new group will be co-chaired by two Cabinet members – Agriculture Secretary Vilsack and Health and Human Services Secretary (nominee) Sibelius – and will include senior officials from departments and agencies that are involved in food safety regulation.
My friend Phyllis Entis at efoodalert is posting ideas for the group – go here to see the great and varied proposals.
Our 100-year-old food inspection system is not aging gracefully. Despite a century of improvements, consumers are still playing Russian roulette when it comes to the food they eat. Even today, one in four Americans —- 76 million people —- endures a food-borne illness and 5,000 people die each year.
This year’s peanut meltdown alone has killed nine people, sickened thousands and shaken consumer confidence in food safety. Reports of the filthy conditions at Peanut Corporation of America sound more like Upton Sinclair’s 1905 “The Jungle” than a 21st-century food facility. Health inspectors and former employees described roaches, mold-covered walls and a rat dry-roasting in the peanuts.
Yet, no one seems to take responsibility for the depressingly routine food safety fiascos. Congress wants to know who is culpable and which agency —- the U.S. Department of Agriculture or the Food and Drug Administration —- is in charge. It is no wonder that some are calling for a single food inspection agency to consolidate accountability.
Before rushing to create the Department of Homeland Security of food safety, Congress must consider what could be lost by combining two agencies with radically different levels of authority and resources.
USDA inspects 20 percent of the food supply, including all meat, poultry and egg products, while FDA is responsible for the rest. This confused jurisdiction is highlighted in the ubiquitous pizza example —- FDA oversees cheese pizza and USDA inspects pepperoni pizza. This seemingly idiotic division of labor reflects the important differences in the authority and mission of these food inspection agencies. We shouldn’t ask which agency inspects which pizza. Instead, the question should be this: How often and how well is food inspected?
USDA’s billion-dollar food safety budget funds 7,400 inspectors that provide at least daily inspection to 5,600 meat and poultry facilities. In contrast, FDA has two-thirds the food safety budget of USDA, but oversees 80 percent of the food. FDA’s fewer than 500 inspectors only visit the nation’s 150,000 processing plants under its jurisdiction once every decade. So, USDA inspects pepperoni pizza makers every day, but FDA inspects cheese pizza factories once every 10 years.
Moreover, USDA has a powerful tool that FDA lacks. USDA can withdraw inspectors from a substandard facility, which legally prevents the plant from operating, effectively preventing contaminated pepperoni pizzas from reaching grocery store shelves. FDA cannot block tainted food from the marketplace or enforce mandatory recalls. This has proved to be a fatal weakness.
Nonetheless, USDA has its own set of problems, and its oversight has been eroded over the past decade. In 1996, the Clinton administration reduced USDA authority by allowing meat processors to write their own inspection plans —- plans that are not certified by USDA. Inspectors began focusing on paperwork audits instead of inspecting products for possible contamination. Additionally, USDA has not kept up with the increased volume of meat and poultry being processed. In 1981, USDA employed about 190 workers per billion pounds of meat and poultry inspected and approved. By 2007, USDA employed fewer than 88 workers per billion pounds, a 54 percent drop.
Considering the disproportionate resources, inspection authority, and the flaws plaguing both agencies, a rapid merger of USDA and FDA would make a rocky marriage. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack was right when he said, “Before there can be any conversation about merging of entities or a single agency or anything of that sort, you’ve got to get the foundation right.”
Legislative proposals abound for mending the broken food safety system, especially the glaring failures of the FDA. Rep. Rosa DeLauro’s (D-Conn.) bill, the Food Safety Modernization Act, would require FDA to mirror USDA’s inspection model and correct the statutory limitations that have shackled the agency. DeLauro’s bill has the strongest framework to upgrade the FDA’s outdated and ineffective food safety oversight.
After reforming FDA, then we can update USDA laws and restore USDA’s inspection authority to prevent future outbreaks of food-borne illnesses from meat and poultry. However, if USDA and FDA are combined before the basic building blocks of food safety reform are in place, the merger could do more harm than good.
Wenonah Hauter is executive director of Food & Water Watch, a Washington consumer organization.
Charles Stanley Painter chairs the National Joint Council of Food Inspection Local Unions.
I think I have pulled together all of the pending (and one missing) pieces of legislation on food safety for your reading pleasure. If the links below do not work, go to thomas.loc.gov and type in "food safety," If between lawsuits, and I have time, I will give you my thoughts on the legislation.
H.R.759: To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to improve the safety of food, drugs, devices, and cosmetics in the global market, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep Dingell, John D. [MI-15] (introduced 1/28/2009) Cosponsors (8)
Committees: House Energy and Commerce
Latest Major Action: 1/28/2009 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Summary – Bill
H.R.814: To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, the Federal Meat Inspection Act, the Poultry Products Inspection Act, and the Egg Products Inspection Act to improve the safety of food, meat, and poultry products through enhanced traceability, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep DeGette, Diana [CO-1] (introduced 2/3/2009) Cosponsors (5)
Committees: House Agriculture; House Energy and Commerce
Latest Major Action: 2/3/2009 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the Committee on Agriculture, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned. Summary – Bill
H.R.815: To amend the Federal Meat Inspection Act, the Poultry Products Inspection Act, and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to provide for improved public health and food safety through enhanced enforcement, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep DeGette, Diana [CO-1] (introduced 2/3/2009) Cosponsors (11)
Committees: House Agriculture; House Energy and Commerce
Latest Major Action: 2/3/2009 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the Committee on Agriculture, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned. Bill
H.R.875: To establish the Food Safety Administration within the Department of Health and Human Services to protect the public health by preventing food-borne illness, ensuring the safety of food, improving research on contaminants leading to food-borne illness, and improving security of food from intentional contamination, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep DeLauro, Rosa L. [CT-3] (introduced 2/4/2009) Cosponsors (41)
Committees: House Energy and Commerce; House Agriculture
Latest Major Action: 2/4/2009 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Agriculture, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned. Summary – Bill
H.R.999: To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to improve food safety.
Sponsor: Rep Roskam, Peter J. [IL-6] (introduced 2/11/2009) Cosponsors (1)
Committees: House Energy and Commerce
Latest Major Action: 2/11/2009 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Summary – Bill
H.R.1332: To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act with respect to the safety of the food supply.
Sponsor: Rep Costa, Jim [CA-20] (introduced 3/5/2009) Cosponsors (28)
Committees: House Energy and Commerce; House Agriculture
Latest Major Action: 3/5/2009 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Agriculture, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned. Bill
S.92: A bill to ensure the safety of seafood and seafood products being imported into the United States.
Sponsor: Sen Vitter, David [LA] (introduced 1/6/2009) Cosponsors (None)
Committees: Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
Latest Major Action: 1/6/2009 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. Summary - Bill
S.425: A bill to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to provide for the establishment of a traceability system for food, to amend the Federal Meat Inspection Act, the Poultry Products Inspections Act, the Egg Products Inspection Act, and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to provide for improved public health and food safety through enhanced enforcement, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen Brown, Sherrod [OH] (introduced 2/12/2009) Cosponsors (None)
Committees: Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry
Latest Major Action: 2/12/2009 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. Bill
S.429: A bill to ensure the safety of imported food products for the citizens of the United States, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen Casey, Robert P., Jr. [PA] (introduced 2/12/2009) Cosponsors (1)
Committees: Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry
Latest Major Action: 2/12/2009 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. Summary – Bill
S.510: A bill to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act with respect to the safety of the food supply.
Sponsor: Sen Durbin, Richard [IL] (introduced 3/3/2009) Cosponsors (8)
Committees: Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
Latest Major Action: 3/3/2009 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. Bill
Then there was S.3358: A bill to provide for enhanced food-borne illness surveillance and food safety capacity that was introduced by then Senator Obama. Bill
Did I miss any?
The foodie/organic/raw/local/small farmer blogs are alive with conspiracy theories (real or imagined) about the reasons behind the moves in Congress to finally try to make our food supply safer. Some see the evil hand of Monsanto, Cargill, etc., and their minions in Congress, as trying to crush the organic, small farmer by enacting “one size fits all” rules. Others see that the administration and Congress have finally noticed that 76,000,000 of our citizens are sickened by food each year in the US and may actually try and do something. True? False? Perhaps a little of both?
Last week I had a long chat with the Dean of Agriculture reporters, Phil Brasher, about the risks to “small-scale farmers and organic growers [who] say those standards can force them to choose between selling to supermarkets and schools or else following practices that degrade the soil and require more synthetic chemical … [that] … farmers worry that food-safety bills being considered in Congress could make matters more difficult.” As I said:
Bill Marler, a Seattle lawyer who represents victims of food poisonings, said safety standards shouldn't be weaker for small farms. Should kids get sick at school from contamination linked to a small farm, parents will ask why the farm didn't meet the standards required of bigger suppliers, he said. "We all need to figure out a way, whether you're a big player or a small player, that you're treated fairly, that you're inspected fairly and the product you're producing, whether big or small, has the least chance of poisoning some kids," Marler said. "That's not easy."
Not easy, but not impossible. It is time to actually engage in a reasoned discussion instead of a shouting match across the blogs. Food safety should be important whether you’re a small or large producer of food for supermarkets or schools. The discussion should not be that food safety regulations should be less concerned about producing safe food if you’re a small farmer. Small or large, producers of food should be concerned about what we feed our neighbors and kids.
Perhaps we need to look hard at stopping the environmental degradation caused by mass-produced, factory farming – overuse of pesticides, antibiotics and energy – in the production food? Perhaps we need to look hard at localizing and regionalizing our food supply while at the same time making it safe and sustainable? Perhaps we need to focus at changing how we get our food while still making it safe for parents who buy the food at the local supermarket or kids that eat in our school lunch rooms?
So, ideas? I've been blogging about ideas for a long time. Heck, I've even applied for a job - "Hey, Mr. President, call me, I'll work for peanuts."
So, engage the President, FSIS, FDA and Congress in a dialog about how to fix the problem of creating a safe, sustainable, fair food supply. For me, there can be no compromise on food safety - I have seen too much to give slack to Cargill or to a local farmer who supplies my grocery store or my kid's school. Sure, some rules will need to be adjusted to reflect economic realities. However, regardless of your size, if you poison someone with your products it is wrong.
We - all of us - need to figure out what our goals are and move fairly and openly towards solving the problems plaguing our food supply. So, stop with the conspiracies and roll up your sleeves and dig in the garden of politics, you might actually find it fruitful.
According to press reports, eight senior China food regulators were fired for "slack supervision" in a tainted milk scandal that killed at least six children and sickened over 300,000. High-ranking regulators in the country's major food supervisory agencies, including the ministries of Health and Agriculture and the top food safety watchdog, were stripped of their positions and their membership in the Communist Party. Regulators in the State Administration for Industry and Commerce and the State Food and Drug Administration were also punished. Last September, the chief of the General Administration of Quality Supervision and Quarantine and two high ranking officials in the city of Shijiazhuang, where Sanlu was based, were dismissed or stepped down.
Help me here. Can anyone recall anyone ever being fired in the US - in local, state or federal government - after a major foodborne illness outbreak? Frankly, I can not recall any corporate leader being canned after his or her product sickened or killed?
No one was fired in 1993 at FSIS or at Jack in the Box after E. coli O157:H7-tainted burgers sickened 650 and killed four. No one lost their jobs at the CDC or FDA for bungling the 2008 the tomato - right - pepper Salmonella outbreak that sickened over 1,200. What about the Con Agra E. coli O157:H7 outbreak of 2002 and then its Salmonella outbreaks of 2007 in peanut butter and pot pies? What about the ongoing Salmonella peanut butter fiasco that began in September but was not figured out until hundreds were sickened, many hospitalized and nine died?
Remember, 76,000,000 of us are poisoned by food every year in the US and no one looses their jobs? When ever were "[US] food regulators ... fired for 'slack supervision.'" When was a CEO ever shown the door. Get the picture? As my teenager would say - "like - never - Dad!"
Perhaps it is time to follow China's example?
From Eddie at obamafoodorama.
Although the most recent outrage over the profligate behavior of American financial institutions has been focused on AIG's executive bonuses, Americans are equally outraged by the rate of foreclosures, by the credit crisis, by rising unemployment due to the bad economy. Bailout money, courtesy of American taxpayers, was given in good faith that the financial institutions were providing vital services to Americans--but it turns out these institutions were crushing the global economy to rubble, with absurd ponzi schemes and dangerous "financial instruments."
This same outrage should be turned on the American Ag sector. If we're so appalled by the foolhardy way our financial institutions have behaved, why aren't we equally outraged at the foolhardy way Big Agribusiness has behaved with taxpayer money--and taxpayer health and well being? Big Ag routinely gets federal farm subsidy monies, courtesy of the taxpayers, but many of their farming practices are immediately dangerous to human health. We don't call farm "subsidies" bailouts--rather they're referred to as "a safety net" for farmers. But subsidies are legislated government cash payments, voted on by our elected officials, in the same way that the bailout money for automakers and financial institutions were. In 2007 alone, which was a record year for crop prices, the feds gave $5 Billion of your hard-earned cash in direct payments to farmers. And since the year 2000, according to a Washington Post report, the government has paid at least $1.3 billion in "farming" subsidies for rice and other crops to individuals who do no farming at all. Where's the outage over this?
Polluting the environment and fostering a dangerous resistance to antibiotics through the rampant use of confined animal feeding operations is the Ag equivalent of a sub-prime mortgage. It looks good on paper, but eventually it could kill you. Toxic assets are the equivalent of genetically modified crops and rampant pesticide use. Seems like a swell idea at the time, in order to get a huge crop out of the ground, yet the future for eaters is completely unknown--but suspected to be very dangerous. And in terms of food safety, it's the Big Ag corporations that have been routinely responsible for the jumbo poisoning outbreaks, such as Cargill with ground beef, Tyson's and Smithfield for chicken with salmonella, Dole and Mission Organics for spinach and salmonella. Think these corporations aren't getting federal subsidy bucks--your money? Think again. If they're not getting direct subsidy payments from the federal government, they're buying their products from farmers who do. The Environmental Working Group has an excellent site that tracks where subsidy payments go, to whom, by category. Your taxpayer dollars are funding your own ill health and the future ill health of your children, and wrecking the environment at the same time. Where's the outrage?
In 2007, corn was the most subsidized crop in the United States, according to EWG, getting more than $2 Billion in subsidy money. Perhaps it's no accident that corn--usually genetically modified corn--is in almost everything we eat. And perhaps it's no accident that busting down EPA guidelines and elevating the blend percentage for ethanol is the latest policy platform from our very bizzy Secretary of Agriculture, Tom Vilsack, who seems bent on turning the USDA into the New Energy Department. Ethanol promotion is a policy that's potentially outlandishly dangerous both to the environment and to human beings. And corn in general has been under increasing scrutiny for causing all kinds of health problems, too, in the form of high fructose corn syrup, and with the recent discovery of mercury issues. Yet taxpayer money is annually given to companies that promote corn-induced environmental and health crises. Where's the outrage? Where are the lawmakers pounding their fists and excoriating Big Ag execs in congressional hearings and on television, the way they do with banking execs?
Giving taxpayer money to corporations that are dangerous to human health is not a new problem; it's simply one that's growing more and more out of control. Ag policy analyst James Bovard's 1995 case study of Archer Daniels Midland shows both how long this has been going on (since 1980), and how bad it is for human health--as well as the economy:
The Archer Daniels Midland Corporation (ADM) has been the most prominent recipient of corporate welfare in recent U.S. history. ADM has lavishly fertilized both political parties with millions of dollars in handouts and in return have reaped billion-dollar windfalls from taxpayers and consumers. Thanks to federal protection of the domestic sugar industry, ethanol subsidies, subsidized grain exports, and various other programs, ADM has cost the American economy billions of dollars since 1980 and has indirectly cost Americans tens of billions of dollars in higher prices and higher taxes over that same period. At least 43 percent of ADM's annual profits are from products heavily subsidized or protected by the American government.
And yes, this is still going on today. In his Joint Congressional Address, Barack pledged to cut farm subsides in an effort to reduce our multi-trillion dollar deficit, which immediately caused farm-state senators and corn lobbyists to declare "a war," led by Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa). Iowa is the largest corn-producing state, of course, and the Iowa Corn Mafia, a cross section of elected officials, gets a lot of subsidy money. Yesterday, Congress passed a 90% taxation Bill to recoup AIG bonus money that was paid with bailout funds, as a fast fix to quell public outrage. This may prove unconstitutional, but the point is, it was rapid action in response to public outrage. Surely the billions and billions of taxpayer dollars being given to corporations that are fostering food-created disease and environmental destruction could be better used to help fulfill those Obama campaign pledges about supporting smaller and family farms, and helping organics...where's the outrage?
I learned a long time ago to "try" and not argue politics (people still think Obama is a Muslim) or religion (people still think the earth is 5,000 years old) with people. Regardless of the facts, folks tend to dig in their heels and can not hear another side's perspective. However, after listening to the religion and politics of the "Raw Milk Folks" denying the facts of this outbreaks for nearly three years, I have had enough. Here are the facts:
.png)
Click above to download PDF. Here are Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2. Here is a Pro and Con Paper that I wrote. Here is the Weston Price Foundation's Response. One of my "fans" asked me what the above-document was prepared for and by whom? The answer is that it was prepared by me and given to counsel for Organic Pastures and the grocery stores so they would better understand our position in the litigation. We have nothing to hide. I also told him with respect to his version of the facts - "Obama could be a Muslim and the earth could be 5,000 years old. All possible, but very, very unlikely."
And, yes, I do understand that pasteurized milk - more specifically - improperly pasteurized milk or milk that becomes contaminated AFTER pasteurization - has caused a lot of human illnesses - see link. I am suing them too. By the way, here is a link to what happened to two of the children who drank Organic Pastures Raw Milk.
So, I bought myself a Kindle and now download both the New York Times and Washington Post – Well, I try to read them daily. Anyway, I see that according to the Washington Post that the Obamas are planting a garden (first reported on obamafoodorama):
On Friday, Michelle Obama will host a groundbreaking for a White House kitchen garden on the South Lawn. She will be joined by students from Bancroft Elementary in Washington, who will be participating in the project during tomorrow's event as well as by planting in the coming weeks and harvesting later this year. The 1,100 square foot garden will include 55 kinds of vegetables, including peppers, spinach, and, yes, arugula. (The list of vegetables is a wishlist put together by White House chefs.) There will also be berries, herbs and two hives for honey that will be tended by a White House carpenter who is also a beekeeper. The chefs will use the produce to feed the first family and for state dinners and other official events. The White House will be using organic seedlings, as well as organic fertilizers and organic insect repellents. The garden will be located near the tennis courts and visible to passerbys on the street.
We have a garden too, and I grew up with a big garden. I honor that the Obamas are going to get their hands dirty in the garden. However, I wonder what that says about the safety of the food supply?
The Georgia House and Senate have both moved rapidly over the last several weeks to solve the public relations disaster that was the Peanut Corporation of American. In an effort to prop-up the nearly $2.5 Billion Georgia peanut industry which has lost millions of dollars over the last month, the legislature has passed both houses have passed SB 80 (http://www.legis.ga.gov/legis/2009_10/pdf/sb80.pdf).
Under the legislation, state agriculture officials would be required to craft rules establishing how frequently food processors must conduct testing. However, those manufacturers with a state-approved food safety plan would be exempt from the rules. The legislation reads:
“If an operator of a food processing plant, in its discretion, submits to the department a written food safety plan for such plant and such plan conforms to rules and regulations promulgated for purposes of this subparagraph, then such food processing plant shall comply with the requirements of such written food safety plan, including but not limited to any test regimen provided by such plan, in lieu of complying with a test regimen established by rules or regulations promulgated by the Commissioner pursuant to subparagraph.”
The legislation empowers the Georgia Department of Agriculture to order more tests at the processor's expense – but, again, only if necessary:
“Such rules or regulations shall identify the specific classes or types of food processing plants, foods, ingredients, and poisonous or deleterious substances or other contaminants that shall be subject to such testing requirements and the frequency with which such tests shall be performed by food processing plants.”
However, there are time that certain companies may be required to test - “the Commissioner may order any food processing plant to have samples or specimens of its foods and ingredients tested for the presence of any poisonous or deleterious substances or other contaminants whenever in his or her determination there are reasonable grounds to suspect that such foods or ingredients may be injurious to health.” Those test results “shall [be] report[ed] … to the department within 24 hours after obtaining such information.”
So, what’s the bottom line? The Department of Agriculture will now draft regulations encouraging companies to craft food safety plans. If those plans are approved by the department, then the company does not have to test the products for pathogens. So, how many companies will have a plan so they will not have to test? (Guess what Peanut Corporation of America had one). What am I missing here?
Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack today (Saturday) announced a final rule to amend the federal meat inspection regulations to require a complete ban on the slaughter of cattle that become non-ambulatory disabled after passing initial inspection by Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) inspection program personnel.
The final rule amends the federal meat inspection regulations to require that all cattle that are non-ambulatory disabled ("downer") cattle at any time prior to slaughter at an official establishment, including those that become non-ambulatory disabled after passing ante-mortem inspection, be condemned and properly disposed of according to FSIS regulations. Additionally, the final rule requires that establishments notify inspection program personnel when cattle become non-ambulatory disabled after passing the ante-mortem, or pre-slaughter, inspection. The rule will enhance consumer confidence in the food supply and improve the humane handling of cattle.
Funny thing, I thought this happened in 2008 - or should have. See, AGRICULTURE SECRETARY ED SCHAFER ANNOUNCES PLAN TO END EXCEPTIONS TO ANIMAL HANDLING RULE and USDA ANNOUNCES PROPOSED RULE FOR REQUIREMENTS OF THE DISPOSITION OF DOWNER CATTLE. Likely
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
