Food products now come from over 250,000 foreign establishments in 200 countries.  Indeed, 15 percent of fruits, 20 percent of vegetables, and 80 percent of seafood comes from overseas. And, with the consumption of imported foods growing, we have seen an increase in foodborne illness outbreaks linked to them.

In just the past year consumers felt the pain of multiple import-related outbreaks: Turkish pine nuts, Mexican papayas, and Guatemalan cantaloupe were a few products linked to Salmonella outbreaks in 2011.  Contaminated sprout seeds imported to Germany from Egypt caused the disastrous E. coli outbreak that sickened thousands and killed 50 in Europe, including some Americans in Spring 2011.  Most recently, alongside the tempeh outbreak, a nationwide Salmonella outbreak was traced to sushi made from imported Nakaochi scrape (aka tuna Scrape), ground tuna meat scraped from the ribs and backbones on tuna. The contaminated tuna scrape was imported from India and distributed by a California company to supermarkets and restaurants all over the country.  Despite labels indicating the product should be cooked, it was used in sushi rolls and ceviche—dishes served raw.  Over 300 Americans who ate the raw imported tuna scrape became ill with Salmonella infections.

Perhaps it should not be altogether unsurprising that we are experiencing foodborne illness outbreaks tied to imported foods, given the lack of oversight afforded to imports.

While forty-five percent of import-related foodborne illnesses are tied to seafood, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) only inspects 1 percent of seafood that enters the country. Of the seafood inspected, 51 percent gets rejected due to spoilage, physical abnormalities, or pathogen contamination. All other imported food fares only slightly better, with 2 percent becoming subject to inspection.  

So while thousands of people were likely sickened by imported food last year, my dire prediction is that we’ll continue to see a rise in import-related foodborne illness outbreaks.  That is, unless there are upgrades to current FDA import policies.

Fortunately, I’m not alone in this thinking. 

In 2010, President Obama signed into law the US FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA), which included a substantial revamp of food safety procedures required for domestic food production and imports.  If Funded the FMSA will increase the number of import inspections; importers will be specifically required to have a program to verify that the food products they are bringing into this country are safe as well as verify that their suppliers are in compliance with reasonably appropriate risk-based preventive controls.

Unfortunately, there are some very real hurdles to clear before FSMA can take effect.

A critical defect in FSMA is the absence a funding mandate.  This means that while FDA may be required by law to implement improved food safety procedures, there will not be enough money to put those policies into action.  Currently, the funding for FSMA lies in the hands of Congress, though as FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg has pointed out:  so far Congress has been unwilling to allocate FDA the funds necessary to validate the legislation. 

Of course there is another roadblock that preempts even the likes of Congress.  The Whitehouse Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is responsible for approving draft rules such as the provisions established in FSMA. The FSMA rules pertaining to imports were supposed to be finalized by January 4, 2012, but five months later they remain in OMB, apparently stalled. 

Where does this leave us?

We will continue to see a rise in the number of imports.

Americans will continue to eat more imports

Without funding and enacting FSMA import rules, we will continue to see more outbreaks associated with imports.

As for Smiling Hara Tempeh, perhaps if OMB had been on schedule and Congress had appropriated sufficient funding, 83 people would not have become victims of Salmonella poisoning.  In the meantime it will be up to American importers to ensure the foods they are bringing in from other countries are safe.

Download the PDF of the slide show I gave to the Rocky Mountain Food Safety Conference last week.

Last week I was perplexed when Director Catherine Templeton of the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC) announced that a “Spartanburg-area Mexican restaurant” was to blame for a recent E. coli O157:H7 outbreak where at least 10 have been sickened – two with hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS).  According to Director Templeton:  “it is our policy not to release information during a pending investigation unless it affects the health of citizens of South Carolina.” 

In part I agree, if the investigation is in its infancy, and the agency does not know the source of the outbreak, by all means do not announce it.  Of course, by the time Director Templeton named a “Spartanburg-area Mexican restaurant” as the link to the outbreak that began in late April and ended in the first week of May the outbreak was over. 

A quick Google search revealed nearly a dozen Mexican-style restaurants in Spartanburg.  You have to wonder how angry all but one of those restaurants were?  So, you must give credit where credit is due to the owner of the El Mexicana for coming out from the kitchen to say:

“In the interest of all Mexican restaurant in Spartanburg, we felt like it was important to come forward and share what DHEC has determined so far in its investigation and our willingness to assist the agency any way that we can.”

However, I did not see a mention of concern over the customers – perhaps I missed it.

Director Templeton also maintained that it was unnecessary to publically name the restaurant because it no longer posed a health threat.  Why should consumers not be told which restaurants have poisoned customers – whether by bad habits or bad supplier decisions – so they can make choices where to take their families to dinner?  I think we have an absolute right to know.  What right does Director Templeton have to withhold that information?

Hiding the ball from the public as to the source of an outbreak when the outbreak and the investigation is in fact over – especially in the day of instant information via Facebook and Twitter – is not only a waste of time in the long run, but it is a disservice to the taxpaying consumers that Director Templeton is supposed to serve.  Not only is it unfair to the other “Spartanburg-area Mexican restaurants” that are not at fault, but history has shown that hiding public health information from the public can be incredibly detrimental to food safety.  Here are a few examples:

2011 Taco Bell Salmonella Outbreak - In January of 2012 the CDC announced that a Salmonella outbreak had sickened 68 people in 10 states.  While the CDC tracked the source of the outbreak, publically it has only named “a Mexican-style fast food chain restaurant – Restaurant Chain A”.  Reporters at Food Safety News ultimately learned from the Oklahoma State Department of Health that the chain in question was Taco Bell.

2011 Schnuck’s Romaine Lettuce E. coli O157:H7 Outbreak - In October of 2011, health officials in Missouri announced that they were investigating an E. coli O157:H7 outbreak. By October 31, county health officials named romaine lettuce from Schnuck’s salad bars as the likely source of the outbreak. On December 7, the CDC released a report linking the outbreak to “a single grocery store chain (Chain A).” In a December 8 news report, Schnuck’s confirmed that it was “Chain A,” though it refused to name its lettuce supplier.  In December of 2011, I filed two separate lawsuits against Schnuck’s on behalf of people who were hospitalized due to E. coli O157:H7 infections contracted in the outbreak.  Eventually I added Oklahoma-based Vaughan Foods to both lawsuits when I learned the company was the supplier of E. coli O157:H7-contaminated romaine lettuce to Schnuck’s stores.

2009 Caudill Seed and Jimmy John’s Salmonella Outbreak - Between February and March of 2009, 235 people in 14 states became ill with Salmonella.  The CDC conducted an investigation that uncovered alfalfa sprouts from a single unnamed grower to be the source of the outbreak. Many of those sickened ate at a restaurant dubbed “Chain A” by the CDC. While the CDC never did release the names of any of the companies involved, on March 15, 2009 the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued an alert indicating the contaminated seeds came from Caudill Seed Company.  Later it was discovered that “Chain A” was Jimmy John’s. Jimmy John’s would go on to be involved in a total of 5 foodborne illness outbreaks tied to sprouts before finally pulling sprouts from it menus.

1993 Jack in the Box E. coli O157:H7 Outbreak - It has become common knowledge that a 1993 E. coli O157:H7 outbreak that sickened over 600, hospitalized 144, and killed four was linked to undercooked hamburgers from Jack in the Box. Nonetheless, to this day the CDC only refers to it as “chain A restaurant”. 

1982 McDonald’s E. coli Outbreak - While the Jack in the Box outbreak is commonly credited with introducing E. coli O157:H7 to the masses, a decade earlier at least 47 people became ill with severe symptoms of E. coli O157:H7 in Oregon and Michigan.  Almost all of those sickened had eaten undercooked hamburgers from McDonald’s – referred to only as “a fast food restaurant chain” in medical journals. 

Perhaps if researchers had made the 1982 McDonald’s outbreak more public, the Jack in the Box tragedy never would’ve happened.  Perhaps if Jimmy John’s had been publically identified as playing a role in the 2009 outbreak the company would have taken corrective food safety measures and stopped selling sprouts sooner.  And, in each of these cases, perhaps innocent people would not have been needlessly sickened, hospitalized or died.  Director Catherine Templeton and other health officials at local, state and federal agencies should learn from history and not blindly repeat it.

Here is the issue:

The South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control confirmed Friday it is investigating 11 cases associated with the same restaurant, but has declined to identify the establishment. Two of the cases are patients with Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome, which is characterized by kidney failure caused by E. coli.

DHEC spokesman Adam Myrick said he understands the concerns of consumers, but the agency does not believe there is a current health risk. He said inspectors visited the restaurant on Friday, and it scored 96 out of 100 on an inspection.

"When it comes to balancing business interests with the public's health, we're always going to make a decision based on what's in the best interest of the health of our citizens," DHEC Director Catherine Templeton said in a written statement. "If we had any reason to believe there was ongoing transmission of disease or a current public health threat, we would readily disclose more information about the restaurant associated with the disease outbreak investigation."

I had a different take:

A nationally recognized food safety advocate is lambasting DHEC's decision to keep the name of the restaurant under wraps.

"People have a right to know. Consumers have a right to decide if they want to eat at a particular place, and it makes no sense to me how DHEC can justify protecting them while putting a target — literally a target — on every other Mexican restaurant in that area," said Bill Marler, a nationally recognized attorney and author who specializes in food-borne illness cases….

Marler has represented thousands of clients in claims against food companies, securing more than $600 million for victims of E. coli, Salmonella and other food-borne illnesses. He has testified in front of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce and is a national speaker on food safety issues.

"When you hide information from people, it distorts the free market," Marler said. "If people don't know why people are getting sick, or the source of that illness, they can't vote with their pocketbooks and nothing ever changes. Why would a restaurant change its practices if there's no accountability? There's no incentive to change." ...

If it's a mass production supply issue, Marler said, multiple restaurants in this area, and even in multiple states could have been affected.

Marler doesn't favor a state law specifying a timeline for when an agency should disclose the name of a restaurant once it has been linked to a food-borne illness because it takes time to investigate and positively trace bacteria to a facility.

"They should get the data right, release the name to the public and let the chips fall where they may," he said.

Social media and the Internet have opened the door for people to warn others of the culprit in food poisoning cases, he said.

"It's different nowadays because of social media and the Internet," Marler said. "You can't — and I'm not suggesting you should — but you can't hide names anymore."

It is time to give the public its right to know.

For video for slide 7, see Death Toll Continues to Mount in Cantaloupe Listeria Outbreak.  And, on a slightly lighter note on slide 18, John Stewart on food safety.

The CDC announced yesterday that a total of 14 individuals infected with the outbreak strain of Salmonella Infantis have been reported from 9 states. The number of ill persons identified in each state is as follows: Alabama (1), Connecticut (1), Michigan (1), Missouri (3), North Carolina (3), New Jersey (1), Ohio (2), Pennsylvania (1), and Virginia (1). The outbreak has been linked to multiple brands of dry pet food produced by Diamond Pet Foods at a single manufacturing facility in South Carolina.

What is remarkable is that the outbreak was not prompted by ill persons (or dogs) as is the usual case, but it was prompted by a sample collected by Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development on March 14, 2012, during routine retail testing of dry pet food that tested positive for Salmonella Infantis.

Public health investigators used PulseNet to identify recent cases of human illness with a PFGE pattern indistinguishable from Salmonella Infantis, which was isolated from the unopened bag of dry dog food produced by Diamond Pet Foods.

Dog Food Illness and Recall Time Line

A.   On April 2, 2012, the Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development detected Salmonella Infantis in an unopened bag of Diamond Naturals Lamb Meal & Rice dry dog food, which had been collected March 14, 2012, during routine retail testing of dry pet food.

B.   April 6, 2012 - Diamond Pet Foods is voluntarily recalling Diamond Naturals Lamb Meal & Rice. This is being done as a precautionary measure, as the product has the potential to be contaminated with Salmonella Infantis. No illnesses have been reported and no other Diamond manufactured products are affected. The product, Diamond Naturals Lamb Meal & Rice, was distributed to customers located in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina and Virginia, who may have further distributed the product to other states, through pet food channels.

C.   April 30, 2012 - Diamond Pet Foods is expanding a voluntary recall to include Diamond Puppy Formula dry dog food. The company took this precautionary measure because sampling revealed Salmonella Infantis in the product. No dog illnesses have been reported. The recalled Diamond Puppy Formula dry dog food was manufactured by Diamond Pet Foods in Gaston, S.C., and distributed in the following 12 states: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia.

A few questions still unanswered are what prompted the April 6th recall by Diamond Pet Foods (I assume it was Michigan’s positive Salmonella Infantis test), and why on April 6 Diamond Pet Foods said that there were no illnesses reported (perhaps they did not know), and why on April 30th Diamond Pet Food said no dog illnesses have been reported, but did not mention people?

It does show the utility of PulseNet is helping track and stop pathogen outbreaks.

Thrombian, or Transglutaminase (TG), otherwise known as Meat Glue is an enzyme that catalyzes covalent bonds between free amine groups and gamma-caroxminid groups of protein or peptide bond gluatamine. Meat Glue is composed of thrombin and fibrogen, obtained from blood plasma. It has been used by the meat industry as a food additive for reconstituting fresh meat to create a product of desirable size and form. The method can also be applied to poultry, fish and seafood. Basically, the enzyme enables food processors to stick various types of meat together. (a.k.a., “Frankensteak”).

Food Safety News first reported on it in 2010. Since then there has been a growing interest in topic. Here are a few:

From WTAE Pittsburgh

From our friends “downunder”

And, Meat Glue to rock music

My "beef" with it is safety - gluing pieces of meat together increases the risk of bacterial contamination inside the meat that then may not be fully cooked.  And, there is simply a consumers right to know what the hell they are eating and what they are paying for.  Here are a few interviews I have done on Meat Glue:

I did get the following letter that you might find interesting.

Food poisoning is not a new concern. The problem is, it’s not an old one either.  Consumers, Government and Industry have been working to eradicate foodborne illness in the United States since Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle revealed rampant contamination in the nation’s food supply and thrust food safety onto the national scene. And yet, pathogens continue to crop up in our food supply, sickening an estimated 48 million people per year, according to recently updated information from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). And these bugs don’t just land people on the toilet for a few days. Of those sickened, 128,000 are hospitalized each year and 3,000 don’t survive.

Not only are foodborne illnesses tragic; they are costly too. Illnesses from food poisoning pose a $77.7 billion economic burden in the United States annually.  (See, Economic Burden from Health Losses Due to Foodborne Illness in the United States, Author: Scharff, Robert L., Source: Journal of Food Protection®, Volume 75, Number 1, January 2012, pp. 123-131(9)).  That’s about the equivalent of what government spends on national intelligence each year. While agencies such as the CIA and FBI work to protect people from foreign and domestic threats, preventable foodborne diseases leak the same amount spent on these programs from the economy.

Please join us in pushing for a safer food supply so that the next time CDC updates its foodborne illness statistics, there will be fewer to report.

What you can do:

A.     Educate yourself on the topic:

• The Diseases - www.foodborneillness.com
• Current outbreaks – www.outbreakdatabase.com 

B.     Write or call your legislators to tell them why food safety deserves adequate funding and tight regulations, including increased testing and adherence to sanitation guidelines.

C.     Wear a t-shirt that spreads the message about the impact of food poisoning in the United States.  They are on sale at cost at www.occupyfoodsafety.com

"Turn them loose," Parnell had told his plant manager in an internal e-mail disclosed at the House hearing. The e-mail referred to products that once were deemed contaminated but were cleared in a second test last year.

Parnell ordered products identified with salmonella to be shipped and quoting his complaints that tests discovering the contaminated food were "costing us huge $$$$$."

Parnell insisted that the outbreak did not start at his plant, calling that a misunderstanding by the media and public health officials. "No salmonella has been found anywhere else in our products, or in our plants, or in any unopened containers of our product."

Parnell complained to a worker after they notified him that salmonella had been found in more products. "I go thru this about once a week," he wrote in a June 2008 e-mail. "I will hold my breath .......... again."

See, all emails, documents and Congressional testimony.

According to the CDC, 714 persons infected with the outbreak strain of Salmonella Typhimurium were reported from 46 states. The number of ill persons identified in each state was as follows: Alabama (2), Arizona (14), Arkansas (6), California (81), Colorado (18), Connecticut (11), Florida (1), Georgia (6), Hawaii (6), Idaho (17), Illinois (12), Indiana (11), Iowa (3), Kansas (2), Kentucky (3), Louisiana (1), Maine (5), Maryland (11), Massachusetts (49), Michigan (38), Minnesota (44), Missouri (15), Mississippi (7), Montana (2), Nebraska (1), New Hampshire (14), New Jersey (24), New York (34), Nevada (7), North Carolina (6), North Dakota (17), Ohio (102), Oklahoma (4), Oregon (15), Pennsylvania (19), Rhode Island (5), South Dakota (4), Tennessee (14), Texas (10), Utah (8), Vermont (4), Virginia (24), Washington (25), West Virginia (2), Wisconsin (5), and Wyoming (2). Additionally, one ill person was reported from Canada.

The CDC went on to state that among the persons with confirmed, reported dates available, illnesses began between September 1, 2008 and March 31, 2009. Patients ranged in age from <1 to 98 years. The median age of patients was 16 years which means that half of ill persons were younger than 16 years. 21% were age <5 years, 17% were >59 years. 48% of patients were female. Among persons with available information, 24% reported being hospitalized. Infection contributed to nine deaths: Idaho (1), Minnesota (3), North Carolina (1), Ohio (2), and Virginia (2).

It really is time, past time, for the U.S. Attorney’s office to seek justice.  It has the tools.

Congress passed the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act in 1938 in reaction to growing public safety demands. The primary goal of the Act was to protect the health and safety of the public by preventing deleterious, adulterated or misbranded articles from entering interstate commerce. Under section 402(a)(4) of the Act, a food product is deemed "adulterated" if the food was "prepared, packed, or held under insanitary conditions whereby it may have become contaminated with filth, or whereby it may have been rendered injurious to health." A food product is also considered "adulterated" if it bears or contains any poisonous or deleterious substance, which may render it injurious to health. The 1938 Act, and the recently signed Food Safety Modernization Act, stand today as the primary means by which the federal government enforces food safety standards.

Chapter III of the Act addresses prohibited acts, subjecting violators to both civil and criminal liability. Provisions for criminal sanctions are clear:

Felony violations include adulterating or misbranding a food, drug, or device, and putting an adulterated or misbranded food, drug, or device into interstate commerce. Any person who commits a prohibited act violates the FDCA. A person committing a prohibited act "with the intent to defraud or mislead" is guilty of a felony punishable by not more than three years or fined not more than $10,000 or both.

A misdemeanor conviction under the FDCA, unlike a felony conviction, does not require proof of fraudulent intent, or even of knowing or willful conduct. Rather, a person may be convicted if he or she held a position of responsibility or authority in a firm such that the person could have prevented the violation. Convictions under the misdemeanor provisions are punishable by not more than one year or fined not more than $1,000, or both.

The legal jargon aside, Stewart Parnell, as a producer of food who sold adulterated food, can (and should) face fines and jail time.  If not him, then who?  If not now, then when?

According to news reports over the last week, Missouri state health officials have confirmed 13 E. coli cases in Boone, Cooper, Howard, Camden and Jackson counties.  Health officials say a 2-year-old girl a 17-month-old child developed HUS, and while not all nine E. coli cases have been clearly attributed to raw milk consumption, investigators say consumption of raw dairy products is a "possible" factor in some of the cases.

Following is a Q&A with attorney Bill Marler, who has represented thousands of victims of foodborne illness, including dozens who became ill with E. coli and Campylobacter infections after drinking raw milk.

Q:  Pasteurization of milk was lauded as one of the biggest public health successes of the 20^th Century.  Why are so many people turning away from pasteurized milk and seeking out sources of “raw”, or unpasteurized milk?

A:  People have been turning toward raw milk for a variety of reasons.  Some believe pasteurization kills beneficial bacteria and enzymes in milk.  Others have heard that raw milk consumption can cure asthma, eczema, or attention deficit disorder (ADD).  A parent will go to almost any lengths to provide what they believe is the most wholesome source of nutrients for their child, and well-presented misinformation about the purported health benefits of drinking raw milk abounds on the Internet so it’s really difficult for a consumer – even a really smart one – who is desperate to find a remedy to his or her child’s medical condition to discern fact from fiction when it comes to raw milk.

I think, too, that there’s an inherent distrust of government, so when the government or big agriculture tells people not to feed their kids raw milk it’s easy for people to ignore that advice.  Especially when they can afford the $16 a gallon.

Q:  Whole Foods and some other stores that sell many natural food products have stopped selling raw milk.  Why?

A:  Whole Foods and Seattle-area co-op PCC stopped selling raw milk products just over 2 years ago for a couple of reasons.  One reason was because unpasteurized milk is considered a high risk food, especially for children, pregnant women, an immunocompromised people – like people receiving cancer treatment, or those with HIV.  Another was because the liability insurance necessary to cover multi-million dollar HUS cases is not inexpensive.

Q:  You started raising your own chickens a couple of years ago, after a Salmonella outbreak traced to eggs.  Would you ever consider buying a cow or a goat and drinking its milk?

A:  Interesting question.  I grew up on a small farm and drank a bit of raw milk 40 years ago, however, today raw milk is simply too dangerous in part because of sanitation issues.  Cows, goats and sheep all defecate very close to where their milk is produced, allowing for a high probability for fecal contamination during the milking process to ever drink milk produced by this hypothetical new addition to my family.  In theory, I could home pasteurize milk produced by this animal and safely consume it, but I would still be responsible for cleaning up after it, and that would mean handling feces potentially contaminated with E. coli, Salmonella, Campylobacter or other pathogens.  I’ll leave that work to someone else with better skills and continue buying organic pasteurized milk from my local store.

Q:  What would you tell someone who was contemplating a purchase of raw milk?

A:  The first thing I would say is, “Please, I beg you, don’t feed it to your kids.”  Any adult contemplating a purchase of raw milk to consume individually should be educated about the risks associated with consuming unpasteurized dairy products.  Real Raw Milk Facts was inspired by discussions following presentations related to the increasing popularity of raw milk.  It was developed and reviewed by scientists and health educators in universities, government, industry, and professional organizations, and is supported in part by Marler Clark.  The Hot Topics section presents the facts about commonly asked questions related to raw milk consumption. 

Bottom line – be informed and forewarned.

"Is an egg for breakfast worth this"

You can judge for yourself:

To me the inhumanity is evident, the food safety questions perhaps not so clear.  However, in my experience, food produced in conditions like these are bound to carry a greater pathogen risk.

I guess we will see another "Ag gag" law coming to a legislature near you.

One example of a life taken by foodborne illness was 7-year-old Abigail Fenstermaker, who died in May of 2009 of complications from an E. coli infection picked up from her grandfather when he ate contaminated ground beef sold by Valley Meats. Abby suffered kidney failure due to her E. coli infection and died of a stroke a week later. Her grandfather died of complications from his illness the following year.

And just last year 36 people died as a result of eating Listeria-contaminated cantaloupe.

Not only are foodborne illnesses tragic; they are costly too. Illnesses from food poisoning pose a $77.7 billion economic burden in the United States annually.  (See, Economic Burden from Health Losses Due to Foodborne Illness in the United States, Author: Scharff, Robert L., Source: Journal of Food Protection®, Volume 75, Number 1, January 2012, pp. 123-131(9)).  That’s about the equivalent of what government spends on national intelligence each year. While agencies such as the CIA and FBI work to protect people from foreign and domestic threats, preventable foodborne diseases leak the same amount spent on these programs from the economy.

Please join us in pushing for a safer food supply so that the next time CDC updates its foodborne illness statistics, there will be fewer to report.

What you can do:

A.     Educate yourself on the topic:

• The Diseases - www.foodborneillness.com
• Current outbreaks – www.outbreakdatabase.com 

B.     Write or call your legislators to tell them why food safety deserves adequate funding and tight regulations, including increased testing and adherence to sanitation guidelines.

C.     Wear a t-shirt that spreads the message about the impact of food poisoning in the United States.  They will be on sale soon at www.occupyfoodsafety.com

From the introductory summary:

The second edition of the Bad Bug Book, published by the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, provides current information about the major known agents that cause foodborne illness.

Under the laws administered by FDA, a food is adulterated if it contains (1) a poisonous or otherwise harmful substance that is not an inherent natural constituent of the food itself, in an amount that poses a reasonable possibility of injury to health, or (2) a substance that is an inherent natural constituent of the food itself; is not the result of environmental, agricultural, industrial, or other contamination; and is present in an amount that ordinarily renders the food injurious to health.

The first includes, for example, a toxin produced by a fungus that has contaminated a food, or a pathogenic bacterium or virus, if the amount present in the food may be injurious to health. An example of the second is the tetrodotoxin that occurs naturally in some organs of some types of pufferfish and that ordinarily will make the fish injurious to health. In either case, foods adulterated with these agents are prohibited from being introduced, or offered for introduction, into interstate commerce.

The agents described in this book range from live pathogenic organisms, such as bacteria, protozoa, worms, and fungi, to non-living entities, such as viruses, prions, and natural toxins. Included in the chapters are descriptions of the agents’ characteristics, habitats and food sources, infective doses, and general disease symptoms and complications.

Also included are examples of outbreaks, if applicable; the frequency with which the agent causes illness in the U.S.; and susceptible populations. In addition, the chapters contain brief overviews of the analytical methods used to detect, isolate, and/or identify the pathogens or toxins.

So, what are you doing Saturday night?

I was reading Mike Glover’s piece: “Iowa Governor seeks Congressional investigation of 'pink slime,'” and the word “tool” came to mind.

Defined as “a person used as an instrument by another person.” Yes, that would be Republican Governor Branstad (a.k.a., “I will say anything for money and eat hamburgers at your Beck and Call”).

Apparently, Governor Branstad has called for a Congressional investigation (that would be the same Congress that has refused to investigate the 2011 Cantaloupe Outbreak that sickened nearly 150 and killed over 35) into how what he called "a smear campaign" against the meat product commonly called "pink slime" got started.

And, Governor Branstad's desire for a public flogging of First Amendment rights I am sure has nothing to do with the fact that Beef Products Incorporated’s (BPI’s) top executives and workers have given $820,750 to congressional and presidential candidates over the past decade, with all but $28,400 going to Republicans (who are those Democrats?). And, Governor Branstad, a Republican, received $150,000 over the past two years from people tied to BPI.

Governor Branstad, you are not only a tool, but you are pathetic as well. Don’t you have any pride?

According to Mike Glover, the phrase "pink slime," coined by a federal microbiologist, Gerald Zirnstein, has appeared in the media at least since a critical 2009 New York Times report by Pulitzer Prize winner, Michael Moss. Celebrity chef Jamie Oliver has railed against it, and it made headlines after McDonald's and other major chains discontinued their use last year. But a recent piece by The Daily’s, David Knowles, on the U.S. Department of Agriculture's purchase of meat that included "pink slime" for school lunches touched a nerve with Houston mom, Bettina Siegel, whose blog "The Lunch Tray" focuses on kids' food. She started an online petition asking Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack to halt use of "pink slime" in school food.  ABC News,' Jim Avila, brought the issue to a wider audiance, and then USDA announced that starting in the fall it would give schools the option of choosing ground beef that doesn't contain it.

So, now Governor Branstad wants to call before Congress: Gerald Zirnstein, Michael Moss, Jamie Oliver, David Knowles, Betina Siegel and Jim Avila and step on their First Amendment rights?

Say, Governor Branstad, guess who will be sitting right beside them? And, yes, I can match dollar for dollar BPI’s war chest. So, to borrow from a President you might like: “bring it on.”

I think it would be fun to be at that hearing. Perhaps, someone might ask you some tough questions about what else you might do for money?  I think Rush Limbaugh might have a word for that.

And, if you really want to vomit, watch this BPI Press Conference.

What if you had come from nothing and had worked your adult life to create a product used widely by consumers only to find that those same consumers (despite all your donations to charity) had turned against you?

Now, instead of consumers happily (perhaps unknowingly) eating millions of pounds of your product yearly in homes, schools and restaurants, many of those consumers are “twittering” and “facebooking” that your product is now pure evil. Thousands of formerly ignorant consumers are now signing petitions asking for the product to be banned or at least labeled. Bloggers (those damn bloggers) are recycling news articles of years past that cited emails from former government employees that raised questions about the chemicals in your product and coined the terms “Blue Barf,” “Green Goop,” “Purple Puke,” “Red Rubbish,” or “Yellow Yuck.” Now the “lame stream” media, “faux” news and the 24-hour news channels are piling on. And, to pour salt into your wounds, the comedians pounce - making your product the butt end of every late night joke.

Consumers have reacted and pressured grocery stores, schools and restaurants to pull your product. For the first time in decades sales have dropped. Your plants are temporarily closed and the specter of unemployed workers weighs heavily on the now isolated CEO.

Sitting in the boardroom (it feels more like a bunker) with family, friends, and a pile of consultants (all of them paid handsomely) the CEO feels more than slightly paranoid, and for good reason. People are actually out to get him. He turns to his circle of family, friends and consultants and asks: “Why is this happening?” “How can we rebuild public trust and sales?”

“Why is this happening?”

Although many food companies and their government minders feel that consumers, like mushrooms, are best left in the dark, today where information, accurate or not, is accessed on smartphones, the old rules simply do not apply.

“Why is this happening?” It is happening because the CEO did not trust consumers with the truth. Pre-the easily accessible Internet, companies and governments simply made decisions and assumed the public did not care or did not need to know what was in their food. That is neither no longer possible nor the case.

Not openly explaining how the food product was made and what all the additives and ingredients are was a foundational mistake for this CEO. Of course, even 10 years ago it was possible to have an idea for a food additive (err, processing aide), to get a college professor hungry for research dollars to give it high marks, and to get a government bureaucrat yearning for a post-public sector job, to approve its quiet introduction into commerce. Those days are done.

It was also a bad idea to ignore dissenting expert opinions that made it into memos and emails. Documents, especially electronic ones, now exist forever, and, if there exists something negative about your product it cannot and should not be ignored.

“How can we rebuild public trust and sales?”

First, there are a couple of things not to do.

Do not shoot the messenger. Blaming what is now happening on the media or the moms who are concerned about their kids health never works. Had you not built the foundation of your business in part by deciding the public did not need to know something – even something that you believed was good for them – the explosion of negativism you are now experiencing would have been a passing storm instead of a hurricane.

Do not threaten legal action against anyone. There are too many good lawyers (this one included) who would gladly take up their defense - pro bono.

For goodness sakes, do not play the political card. Sure, you have given hundreds of thousands of dollars (perhaps millions) to politicians (hopefully from both parties – Republicans and Democrats will equally prostitute themselves), but do not make them dance in support of your product as they try to explain that the money you threw at them has no bearing on their willingness to dance. And, please do not make them eat your product or say how safe it is in front of the national media. No one will believe people that you paid to endorse your product. Remember, politicians are considered only slightly more trustworthy than lawyers, however, both are in single digits.

So, how can you rebuild sales when what consumers see and hear are “Blue Barf,” “Green Goop,” “Purple Puke,” “Red Rubbish,” or “Yellow Yuck?”

Simple, just tell the truth.

Why not say it was a mistake to hide from the public all ingredients and additives that are in the product? Tell the consumer what they already know – they have a right to know.

Why not tell the public how the product is made and what is in it? If you are proud of your product, explain in honest and clear terms why you are.

Tell the consumer what the real benefit of the product is. Does it taste good? Is it healthful? Does it save on energy? Is it sustainable? Does it create good jobs? Is it good for the environment?

Is the product itself, what is added to it, and the process to make it, safe? What have been and are your lab test results? Why not post them online? If you are proud of the safety of your product, prove it.

Invite the public, not politicians, to your plant for a tour and a taste test.

Bottom line: If you have nothing to hide then hide nothing.

Humans have a great capacity to forgive when they are told the facts. Perhaps someday “Blue Barf,” “Green Goop,” “Purple Puke,” “Red Rubbish,” or “Yellow Yuck” will be forgotten and the name you so painstakingly crafted to sound so appetizing will be remembered – Dude.

Three years ago, thinks didn’t look rosy here.

Peanut Corp. of America issued a massive recall of its food products in early 2009 after a salmonella outbreak from its Blakely plant, with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration later finding the company knowingly distributed food tainted by salmonella.

Today, the peanut industry has recovered and Blakely has rallied.

This weekend’s celebration with entertainment, peanut royalty, etc., looks like a good time.  And, since I was in Blakely in 2009 (court ordered inspection of crime scene), shortly after the announcement of the Peanut Corporation of America (PCA) Salmonella Outbreak, I know that Blakely and the peanut industry needs a boost.

I wonder, however, if there is any mention this weekend of the 714 persons infected with the outbreak strain of Salmonella Typhimurium reported from 46 states in 2009 with nine who died?

According to the last update by the CDC, the number of ill persons identified in each state is as follows: Alabama (2), Arizona (14), Arkansas (6), California (81), Colorado (18), Connecticut (11), Florida (1), Georgia (6), Hawaii (6), Idaho (17), Illinois (12), Indiana (11), Iowa (3), Kansas (2), Kentucky (3), Louisiana (1), Maine (5), Maryland (11), Massachusetts (49), Michigan (38), Minnesota (44), Missouri (15), Mississippi (7), Montana (2), Nebraska (1), New Hampshire (14), New Jersey (24), New York (34), Nevada (7), North Carolina (6), North Dakota (17), Ohio (102), Oklahoma (4), Oregon (15), Pennsylvania (19), Rhode Island (5), South Dakota (4), Tennessee (14), Texas (10), Utah (8), Vermont (4), Virginia (24), Washington (25), West Virginia (2), Wisconsin (5), and Wyoming (2). Additionally, one ill person was reported from Canada.  Among the persons with confirmed, reported dates available, illnesses began between September 1, 2008 and March 31, 2009. Patients range in age from <1 to 98 years. The median age of patients is 16 years which means that half of ill persons are younger than 16 years. 21% are age <5 years, 17% are >59 years. 48% of patients are female. Among persons with available information, 24% reported being hospitalized. Infection may have contributed to nine deaths: Idaho (1), Minnesota (3), North Carolina (1), Ohio (2), and Virginia (2).

My guess not.  I doubt there will be a mention of the 714 – likely many more – who were sickened, or even nine seconds of silence for the nine who died from peanuts processed within a stone throws of this weekend’s celebration.

And, what about Stewart Parnell, the CEO of PCA?  In Blakely it is likely he is despised more for tainting the reputation of the town than for knowingly shipping tainted peanuts around the country and sickening several hundred and killing nine.

Three years since most of the 714 have recovered, and after nine have been buried, Stewart Parnell is still in Virginia and a free man.  To date, although families have been promised that a criminal investigation is ongoing, there has been no criminal prosecution of the man who “took the fifth” in front of one of the last Congressional Hearings on food safety. 

It is past time that those sickened and the families of those who died have justice.

So, Blakely be “peanut proud” this weekend.  But, join me in remembering the others impacted by Stewart Parnell and PCA. 

Good Morning! Hi I am DK, again Thank-You for this long, sad, but truly brilliant blog! As I have written before. I was one of the Jack-in- Box E-Coli victims that was pregnant in the 90's outbreak. The word must get out, and you are the poison preacher, the poisoned are your flock! But as horrible as it must be to deal in the sick and sadness of poor regulation. The educational good you are giving in these matters, far outweighs the sadness! I must tell 10 people a week about your site. Empowering people to make an educated choice. And, question authority "Vons" or any market, or restaurant. We all assume the authority the markets, etc. we shop at have our best interest in mind. But reality is profit! Thank-You for the better good! The daily education. All of my family, friends, and strangers that I share this information with, truly THANK-ALL-OF -YOU!

Sincerely, DK :)

For those who have know me for sometime you have heard me say often, “put me out of business.”  But, I doubt most know when I first said it.  It was in an Op-ed in the Denver Post on August 4, 2002, entitled, “Four steps to safer food.”  Here it is in full:

This summer, scores of Americans, most of them small children or senior citizens, have already or will become deathly ill after eating ground beef boldly labeled "USDA approved."

The now infamous ConAgra case started with a few sick kids in Colorado and quickly spread coast-to-coast, eventually triggering the recall of 18 million pounds of ground beef tainted with E. coli.

Now we know that this recall came weeks late, after most of that meat had been consumed by innocent consumers from Washington State to New Jersey. Because they trusted government's food inspections, several kids suffered kidney failure and spent days or weeks hooked up to kidney dialysis machines. For some, the long-term prognosis is grim, with the risk of further kidney failure, dialysis, transplants or worse. I know this because I am a trial lawyer who has built a practice on food pathogens. Many of those kids' parents have hired me to help them get compensation for hundreds of thousands in medical costs. Which may prompt some readers to consider me a blood-sucking ambulance chaser who exploits other people's personal tragedies.

If that's the case, here's my plea:

Put me out of business. Please.

For this trial lawyer, E. coli has been a successful practice - and a heart-breaking one. I'm tired of visiting with horribly sick kids who did not have to be sick in the first place. I'm outraged with a food industry that allows E. coli and other poisons to reach consumers, and a federal regulatory system that does nothing about it.

Stop making kids sick - and I'll happily move on. Here's how:

Actually inspect and sample food. At present, the U.S. Department of Agriculture employs thousands of inspectors across the nation to inspect hundreds of plants that produce millions of pounds of beef at processing plants and retail outlets. The General Accounting Office has warned that the USDA's food samplings are so scattered and infrequent that there is little chance of detecting microscopic E. coli or any other pathogen.

So hire more inspectors and give them real authority to sample meat and stop its distribution as soon as a pathogen is detected. Implement a sampling system that provides a reasonable chance of preventing another outbreak.

Doing so might add a nickel a pound - maybe less - to the price of hamburger. But it will also cut into my business. And isn't that the idea?

Consider mandatory recall authority. This authority was required in Sen. Tom Harkin's Safer Meat, Poultry and Foods Act of 2002. Under the present system of voluntary recalls, no company has actually refused to recall contaminated product. But in its recent report, the GAO did document several instances where companies delayed complying with recall requests. Delays mean tainted product has more time to reach consumers.

Require the meat industry to document where specific lots of food are sold. That way, it can be recalled quickly if a pathogen is detected. In most E. coli outbreaks, there is no recall because retailers don't know where the meat came from and processors rarely step forward. ConAgra deserves credit for owning up to its responsibility to track down as much of the tainted meat as possible and for covering the medical costs of its victims.

But ConAgra is the exception. Timely online records would allow meat to be efficiently tracked down and recalled as soon as inspectors get a positive test result. Those plastic club cards issued by grocery chains could enable stores to contact specific individuals who have bought suspect ground beef. Merge the two federal agencies responsible for food safety. Right now USDA's Food Safety Inspection Service and the inspection arm of the Food and Drug Administration share this mission. The system is bifurcated, which leads to turf wars and split responsibilities. We need one independent agency that deals with food-borne pathogens.

None of this will stop E. coli entirely. This invisible poison has been around a long time and is bound to pop up again. But these steps will enable us to detect it far more quickly, to alert stores and families, and to keep our most vulnerable citizens - kids and seniors - out of harm's way. And, with a little luck, it will force one more damn trial lawyer to find another line of work.

Fact:  E. coli O157:H7 cases were down 44% in 2010 compared to 1996-1998.  See, Vital Signs: Incidence and Trends of Infection with Pathogens Transmitted Commonly Through Food --- Foodborne Diseases Active Surveillance Network, 10 U.S. Sites, 1996—2010.

I sit here now working on the cases of two 80 plus year olds, who fought in WWII, (splitting three purple hearts between them - coming home as heroes) who got married, who raised families and who then died from eating cantaloupes tainted with Listeria.  In years past my Saturday would have been with a 5-year-old who had died or suffered from acute kidney failure due to E. coli O157:H7 in hamburger.  From 1993 though 2003 most of my firm’s revenue was directly related to E. coli O157:H7 in hamburger.  That has changed and changed for the better.

To the beef industry – yes, including those who sell “Pink Slime” – thank you for meeting my challenge.  That being said, there is still much the industry can do.  Shiga-toxin producing E. coli will always be an issue, and antibiotic resistant Salmonella, and other bad bugs we do not even know about lurk around the corner.  The industry cannot let up.  Even with the success there still have been people like Stephanie Smith and Abby Fenstermaker who remind you the battle will likely always have to be fought.

However, to the beef industry, take some solace that you have been doing a far better on food safety, and doing really well not putting money in my pocket. 

Well, back to cantaloupe.