Marler Blog - Uptick in E. coli Hamburger Illnesses and Recalls - Comments

Roy Costa

marler@marlerclark.com (E. coli Attorney) — Sun, 11 Nov 2007 12:51:41 -0800

Bill:

The increased number of cases is directly related to how much E coli O157:H7 is in the food supply. The reason for increased prevalence of E coli is multifaceted. More E coli are on the farm due to E coli becoming more entrenched and developing increasingly numerous niches in feed, water and soil. Weather conditions brought excessive rains to the Midwest fostering contamination, growth and survival. Increasing consolidation of the meat industry with wider distribution through wholesale giants like Wal-Mart. Lack of governmental oversight and failure to follow rules in the meat industry. In addition, one point that is becoming clear and that is over reliance on cooking as a CCP in HACCP. Cross contamination and failure of curing in sausages are just two outcomes of over reliance. Manufactures mistakenly believe that they can rely upon consumers to perform the cooking CCP at home.

Pete Snyder

marler@marlerclark.com (E. coli Attorney) — Sun, 11 Nov 2007 12:51:41 -0800

Roy,

I don't think we should blame the manufacturers for the failure of the consumer to cook the hamburger with a digital thermometer. 20 years ago, I showed the USDA and FDA about the bimetalic coil in the bimetalic thermometer. More than 10 years ago I told FSIS that showing the bimetalic thermometer on the warning label was wrong. They refuse to change the label.

It is USDA that requires the label. They are the ones saying that their controls of the contaminated cow problem are only partly effective and the only sure control is the consumer cooking the burger correctly. The best current information is that no more than 2 percent of the consumers use a thermometer when cooking food and most of them probably use the bimetalic. Yet USDA relies on the label. The regulatory, along with the manufacturers, has a lot of responsibility for bad information and very weak microbiological testing requirements.

I don't see much change in the farm or manufacturing in the past few years. What I do see is much better hospital reporting and government analysis and the use of PFGE and I think that is the main reason for the uptick.

Pete

Robert A. LaBudde

marler@marlerclark.com (E. coli Attorney) — Sun, 11 Nov 2007 12:51:41 -0800

First, you should be sure that the up-tick is meaningfully different from other years. If the long-term average number of recalls per year is 8, then 19 is outside of the 2.3 to 14 expected. Even if the long-term average is 10, the 19 would beunusual. But is this an enforcement or surveillance artifact or a real event? Assuming the change in incidence is real, then it should be clear that all of these causes are interrelated. Weather affects "shud" contamination of hides and the disease spread within feedlots. Ethanol production drives up grain prices and presses profit margins. So does immigration enforcement. Lower profit margins means increased pressure to cut costs by shaving points. Typically this means line speeds increase, which increases fecal contamination. Ethanol production also means a change in diet, including large amounts of corn gluten meal. This will change microbial ecology. Because of price pressure, farmers will use more antibiotics and deliver animals still on antibiotics to slaughter. This will change microbial ecology to favor E. coli O157:H7.

Carl Custer

marler@marlerclark.com (E. coli Attorney) — Sun, 11 Nov 2007 12:51:41 -0800

From a beef exporter who cc'ed me this and shall remain anonymous:
"Carl's ex-employers are going to kill me with all this O157 rubbish.
Easily solved. Ban feedlots, ban dirty animals being presented for slaughter, use GHP, use trained persons, use GHP, slow chain speeds, use GHP."

I suspect GHP is either "Good Hygienic Practices" or "God Help Processors" :^)

Alison Benjamin

marler@marlerclark.com (E. coli Attorney) — Sun, 11 Nov 2007 12:51:41 -0800

I follow your blog because of my own interest in
non-industrialized food. But I wanted to make sure you saw this:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/services/newspaper/printedition/sunday/chi
-meat_bdnov11,0,3592273.story?coll=chi_about_custom_company_xpromo
You probably knew about the E. coli loophole - but I thought this was unbelievable. From the article:

USDA regularly tests for E. coli in slaughtering plants, but only on meat that packing companies have already deemed free of E. coli, the agency inspectors say. USDA officials say they do not track how much meat is put into "cook only" categories, but interviews with a half-dozen inspectors suggested it is a significant amount.

"The government keeps putting out that we've reduced E. coli by 50 percent and all of that," said an inspector. "And we haven't done nothing. We've just covered it up."

Anyhow, kudos to you. Keep stickin' it to them. It shouldn't be so hard for moms like me to avoid feeding kids foodborne pathogens.

Ellen Schroth

marler@marlerclark.com (E. coli Attorney) — Sun, 11 Nov 2007 12:51:41 -0800

Bill - Although the beef industry is not my area of expertise, 2 things occurred to me regarding the uptick.

First, does the recent number of E. coli O157:H7 cases reflect a true increase from the 1990s when adjusted for population growth and consumption of ground beef?

And, second, perhaps the PFGE results which are deemed "indistinguishable" are limited by our present ability to distinguish some bacterial changes which have already happened. And that further advances in microbial testing will reveal that the E. coli O157:H7 of the 1990s is not the same bacterium we are dealing with today. So maybe the corrective measures that were implemented in the 1990s did work...but only either for a few years or we are facing a different E.coli subtype that evolved to survive the changes made in the beef industry.