Marler Blog : Food Poisoning Lawyer & Attorney : Bill Marler : Marler Clark

I had a nice chat with Neil Waugh of the Edmonton Sun yesterday about the twisted trail of E. coli from Canada. I am hurt (not really) that he called me a “legal vulture.”

Fallout from 'dirty' Alberta beef plant felt on both sides of the border

According to Mr. Waugh:

Ranchers Beef Ltd. of Balzac collapsed on Aug.15 after company president Tony Martinez reported in a court affidavit that his outfit was "in the midst of a severe liquidity crisis". In other words it was broke. And likely would have stayed that way if the United States Department of Agriculture hadn't blown the whistle on what Ranchers and the feds' controversial Canadian Food Inspection Agency were doing - or apparently NOT doing -last summer. Which might or might not have resulted in the death of "one elderly individual" from E. coli poisoning, another 44 cases in Canada, plus 40 cases with 26 "known hospitalizations" as of last Friday in the U.S.

The above is shocking, however, here is the most ominous part, Ranchers was funded in large part by the Canadian Government:

The company business plan was "developed in the wake of the 2003 BSE crisis," Martinez told the court, as a result of the "near decimation" of the Canadian cattle industry when the U.S. border was closed. And it wasn't just a brainwave of 45 unidentified ranchers plus Sunterra Foods and Picture Butte feedlot kingpin Cor Van Raay. In an attempt to "ameliorate the reliance" on U.S. markets, the Alberta and federal governments "developed policies to encourage construction of Canadian-based meat processing facilities." The feasibility study costs were split between the partners and the Alberta Tories. Then the taxpayers' grease really started to roll. There was a $46.5-million loan from Alberta Treasury Branches, the feds' Business Development Bank and the National Bank of Canada. A $20-million "credit enhancement" from the federal ag department added to the taxpayers' exposure. The Alberta Agricultural Financial Services also kicked in $9.35 million in "credit facilities" so investors could "purchase" company preferred shares.

Now Mr. Waugh tries to hurt my feelings (assuming I actually have any):

And now there are legal vultures hovering over the border planning on following the DNA fingerprints all the way back to the Alberta Tories and their BSE Bingo boondoggle. "We will clearly have to look at additional assets," said Seattle lawyer Bill Marler, who has already filed a class-action suit against Topps. "We're going upstream looking at who supplied the meat," said Marler, who has already collected more than $250 million in food poisoning litigation. "Who owns them and what's their backing."

Hey, do I get to wear a wig when I go to Canada?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks (1)
• Share Link

I’m a bit confused. Yesterday it was reported that Ranchers Beef Ltd (now out of business) was both the source of an E. coli outbreak in the United States that had sickened at least 40 tied to the consumption of Topps Meat (also out of business) AND 44 ill persons and 1 death in Canada.  See, "Topps story continues to grow more ominous."  Now the Ottawa Government releases this press statement:

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) is warning the public not to consume the various beef products described below because these products may be contaminated with E. coli O157:H7 bacteria. The affected products are being recalled as a result of the CFIA’s investigation and traceback conducted on contaminated beef involving Ranchers Beef Ltd. (Establishment 630), Balzac, Alberta.  There have been no reported illnesses associated with the consumption of these products.

This does seem to contradict the press release from the same government entity just the day before:

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) and the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) are currently investigating possible linkages between E. coli cases that occurred earlier this summer in Canada. The investigation is examining 45 cases of E. coli O157:H7 that were found in New Brunswick, Quebec, Saskatchewan, Ontario and British Columbia. These cases were previously reported from July to September, 2007. As a result of these cases, eleven people were hospitalized and one elderly individual died.

However, according to the USA FSIS, there seems to be a “genetic link” to both the 40 people ill from the Topps outbreak and the 44 people ill and 1 death in Canada:

On October 25, the CFIA provided FSIS with PFGE patterns, or DNA fingerprints, from tests of beef trim from a Canadian firm, Ranchers Beef, Ltd., Canadian establishment number 630. This firm provided trim to the Topps Meat Company. While the firm, which had been located in Balzac, Alberta, ceased operations on August 15, 2007, some product remained in storage and was collected and tested by CFIA as part of the joint investigation of the Topps recall and as part of CFIA's own investigation into 45 illnesses in Canada from E. coli O157:H7.

It is hard to imagine that our USDA/FSIS might be more competent that its Canadian counterpart. 

Remember, according the New Jersey AP, Topps products revealed three different E. coli O157:H7 genetic "fingerprints," according to Kenneth Petersen, an assistant administrator at the USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service. This means that although one of these fingerprints has been traced to Ranchers Beef, Ltd., in Canada, it will be interesting to see if we can track the other fingerprints to the source - Tyson, IBP, Cargill, others?  It will also be interesting to get legal jurisdiction over out of country corporations.

Also, recall the report from the New York Times, revealed that Topps sourced a significant amount of beef trimmings from countries like Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Uruguay – countries that FSIS has required little E. coli O157:H7 testing.  Will FSIS change this rule too soon?

So, FSIS has limited requirements that out of country producers test for E. coli.  And, we have learned during the Topps recall that Topps had cut back on its testing for E. coli.  It will be interesting to see if other meat companies have been doing the same.  Perhaps more testing at the retail (grocer store) would be helpful in tracking this ugly bug?  According to the FSIS website, “the agency still collects some samples from retail stores, but normally only when the retail store actually produces raw ground beef using trimmings from a cutting/boning operation conducted at the store.”  Perhaps it or someone should do more retail testing?

I also think we need to look at several other reasons for the spike in E. coli illnesses and recalls (in addition to testing product), such as: 1)  has the make-up of workers in slaughter plants changed in 2007?  Do we have less experienced workers?  2)  has cattle feed in 2007 changed significantly to allow greater growth of E. coli O157:H7?  3)  has global warming impacted the ecology of E. coli O157:H7?  Other ideas?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link