Marler Blog

Settlement Reached in Yet Another E. coli Raw Milk Case

bmarler@marlerclark.com (Bill Marler) — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 06:17:06 -0800

A confidential settlement was reached yesterday in the following outbreak:

On May 12, 2008 the Lawrence County Health Department (LCHD) was notified of a case of HUS in a child with a history of bloody diarrhea. The health care provider reported that the child had consumed unpasteurized goat’s milk obtained from a local store, the Herb Depot, in Barry County, Missouri. The milk had been purchased on April 29, 2008. It was quickly learned that an additional Barry County child that had cultured positive for E. coli O157:H7 had also consumed unpasteurized goat’s milk from the same store. As a result, the LCHD contacted the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services (DHSS) who began a full epidemiological and environmental investigation of the illnesses. The investigation revealed that the milk consumed by both ill children had been produced at Autumn Olive Farms.

We represent two of the HUS cases. Nicole Riggs is 9 years old. She lives in Willard, Missouri with her mother, Julie; father, Dustin; and her younger sister, Christina. Larry Pedersen is a 2-year-old toddler. He lives in Monett, Missouri with his parents, Brian and Angela, and his two older sisters, Hailey and Kelsey. Both had a severe episode of HUS as demonstrated by over a week of anuria [no urine output], oliguria [low urine output] for an additional week. Both needed dialysis to survive. Both were hospitalized for over a month. Medical bills were over $100,000 for each.

At the conclusion of its investigation, the DHSS ultimately announced that there were four cases of E. coli O157:H7 associated with the outbreak. Of these, three were laboratory confirmed, and one was identified as a probable case. Each of these individuals resided in different counties in Southwest Missouri, and were not known to have any relation to each other. Nonetheless, each shared a common exposure to milk from Autumn Olive Farms. In addition, the three culture-confirmed cases shared a common, indistinguishable genetic strain of E. coli O157:H7. The strain was identified as a unique subtype of E. coli O157:H7, never before reported in Missouri. Each of the four cases had consumed milk from Autumn Olive Farms within 3-4 days of onset of illness. The DHSS reported: “no other plausible sources of exposure common to all four cases were identified [other than the milk.]” The final outbreak report ultimately concluded: “the epidemiological findings strongly suggest the unpasteurized goat’s milk from Farm A [Autumn Olive] was the likely source of infection for each of the cases associated with this outbreak.”

Given the above, I find the below odd:

Alamosa Salmonella Outbreak Linked to Leaky Water Tank

marler@marlerclark.com (Salmonella Lawyer) — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 15:49:11 -0800

A state report has indicated the city of Alamosa ignored a recommendation to have a deteriorating drinking water tank inspected years before the 2008 outbreak that sickened hundreds. The final Department of Public Health and Environment Report on the outbreak was released Wednesday along with an Executive Summary and Appendix.

The report found animal waste likely contaminated an in-ground storage tank that had been identified as a problem in 1997. The 2008 outbreak included 442 reported cases of illness, but state health officials estimate as many as 1,300 of the towns 8,900 residents were sickened. One death was associated with the outbreak.

Also see Youtube Links:

Alamosa Outbreak Photo Journal Slideshow

Alamosa Outbreak Investigation

Government Accountability Project (GAP) Speech of Protecting Food Integrity

bmarler@marlerclark.com (Bill Marler) — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 13:28:27 -0800

I am the Luncheon Speaker Friday (I always find it odd when I am asked to speak over a meal). Here is the outline of Speech at The Government Accountability Project (GAP) - videos can be found on right.

The Government Accountability Project (GAP) is a 32-year-old nonprofit public interest group that promotes government and corporate accountability by advancing occupational free speech, defending whistleblowers, and empowering citizen activists. We pursue this mission through our Nuclear Safety, International Reform, Corporate Accountability, Food & Drug Safety, and Federal Employee/National Security programs. GAP is the nation's leading whistleblower protection organization.

S 510 - FDA Food Safety Modernization Act "Mark-up" on to Senate Floor

bmarler@marlerclark.com (Bill Marler) — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 11:33:27 -0800

It has been a busy few days. I spent all day and evening Wednesday trying to resolve a number of E. coli O157:H7 cases involving the Barbecue Pit and Nebraska Beef in South Georgia - made some progress, but not there yet on all the cases. This morning was the deadline given to the insurers to resolve two Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome cases linked a raw goat milk E. coli outbreak in Missouri. The insurers, the farm, the store and the families opted to settle the claims.

In the meantime, I am trying to keep up on the comings and goings in Washington D.C. - food safety in particular. Attached you will find the HELP Committee Chairman's "Mark-up" of S 510, which was adopted by the Committee. It now moves on to the full Senate. Assuming it passes, there will be a Conference Committee to work out the details of the House version, HB 2749. I have not had time to read the "Mark-up," (click on image of bill to download) but have time this evening in addition to preparing my speech for Friday at the Government Accountability Project.

Regarding S 510, I understand that four amendments were accepted.

Sen. Murkowski - To require a study of food transportation that includes an examination of the unique needs of rural areas.

Sen. Murkowski - To require that the Secretary update the Fish and Fisheries Products Hazards and Control Guidance.

Sen. Burr - To clarify certain provisions with respect to alcohol wholesalers (exempting wholesalers in addition to producers from Sec 103, preventive controls. Sen. Murray cosponsored)

Sen. Burr - To ensure that the Secretary carries out consultation and outreach with various types of entities engaged in the production and harvesting of fruits and vegetables that are raw agricultural commodities, including small businesses and entities that sell directly to consumers and farmer representatives. Require more public meetings/consultation with producers, growers, etc. Sen. Bennet cosponsored).

So, I guess I will start reading while looking out the window.

Barbecue Pit E. coli O157:H7 Outbreak and Nebraska Beef's Problem History

marler@marlerclark.com (E. coli Attorney) — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 13:00:14 -0800

The E. coli Outbreak at the Barbecue Pit

The E. coli O157:H7 outbreak that is the subject of this claim is but one part of a big, multistate outbreak that seriously injured dozens of innocent victims. The source of the E. coli O157:H7 that infected all these victims was adulterated meat manufactured and sold by Nebraska Beef, a company from which no reasonable restaurant, grocery store, or any other retail outlet should have ever been doing business. For its part, the Barbecue Pit, a restaurant that very definitely used Nebraska Beef meat—top sirloin butt—may or may not have known that Nebraska Beef was its source. But there is no question that the outbreak was caused by cross-contamination in the restaurant.

At the request of the Southwest Georgia Public Health District, Barbecue Pit shut-down temporarily, on July 2, to give investigators full access in their hunt to determine if the restaurant was the source of infection that had sickened scores of people in the area. It was subsequently confirmed that the restaurant was in fact the source of infection. Tests of meat samples from the restaurant were positive for E. coli O157:H7, and PFGE testing of the bacterial isolated were found to be indistinguishable from patient isolates. The tests also found that these isolates were indistinguishable from national outbreak pattern—i.e., the previously-identified strain that had caused infections in other parts of the country.

An environmental investigation conducted at the restaurant found much evidence of cross-contamination attributable to unsafe practices. The restaurant used the gooseneck cuts to make shredded beef and ground beef, which it ground itself. There were no grind-logs kept, however. More troubling, there was no designated hand-washing sink, and the one available sink for hand-washing was also used to wash lettuce. The meat grinder was also found to be in close proximity to the coleslaw chopper, and cutting boards were old, deeply cracked, and used interchangeably for cutting meat and other food items. Finally, raw meat was stored in cracked plastic dishwashing bins that were difficult to clean. As a result, there was ample proof that customers were infected by the consumption of tainted food made that way through cross-contamination from adulterated Nebraska Beef meat.

Nebraska Beef’s Six-Plus Years of Serious Food Safety Violations

Nebraska Beef and its meat-processing plant not only has a long history of safety and health violations, it has repeatedly been the target of USDA efforts to shut it down, including this year. This sordid history is summarized in a recent front-page, investigative news article that was published in the Washington Post, which stated:

Nebraska Beef has a contentious history with the USDA. Over the past six years, federal meat inspectors have repeatedly written it up for sanitation violations, and the company has fought back in court.

From September 2002 to February 2003, USDA shut down the plant three times for problems such as feces on carcasses, water dripping off pipes onto meat, paint peeling onto equipment and plugged-up meat wash sinks, according to agency records.

After the third suspension, Nebraska Beef took USDA to court, arguing that another shutdown would put the company out of business. A judge agreed and temporarily blocked the department. The USDA and the company then settled out of court and inspections resumed. However, when federal meat inspectors found more violations, Nebraska Beef sued the department and the inspectors individually, accusing them of bias. The suit was later dismissed.

In 2004 and early 2005, Nebraska Beef ran afoul of new regulations aimed at keeping animal parts that may be infected with bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or mad cow disease, out of the meat supply. Meat processors are required to remove certain high-risk parts, such as brains and spinal cords. Between July 2004 and February 2005, federal meat inspectors wrote up Nebraska Beef at least five times for not removing spinal cords and heads, according to USDA records obtained by Food and Water Watch, a Washington advocacy group. The company corrected the problems.

In August 2006, federal meat inspectors threatened to suspend operations at the packing house for not following requirements for controlling E. coli. The company corrected the problem a week later, USDA records show.

The hundreds of safety and sanitation violations from April 2002 through February 2003 include dozens of instances of documented fecal contamination—the major source of E. coli O157:H7—on beef carcasses and other cut meat items, like chuck rolls. There were also repeated instances where failures were identified in the plant’s E. coli testing program. And nearly every violation for that time period involved the plant’s failure “to prevent insanitary conditions or the adulteration of product.”

Ultimately, it was the regrettable history of food safety violations, and the threat the plant and its meat products posed to the public health, that prompted the USDA to conduct a “comprehensive public health assessment…during the week of September 2, 2002.” According to the legal brief later filed by the USDA in its attempt to shut down Nebraska Beef’s plant and operations:

That assessment was conducted because Nebraska Beef was one of the few suppliers of meat products used to prepare ground beef which was identified to contain E. coli O157:H7. The evidence…will show that Nebraska Beef provided a large amount of the meat products used to prepare the contaminated ground beef.

Accordingly, USDA argued that the Court should not prevent it from shutting the plant down, explaining:

FSIS has determined after extensive oversight that Nebraska Beef’s HACCP system is not working, and that its products are being produced under insanitary conditions that may make them unsafe for human consumption….Anyone who might handle or consume Plaintiffs’ [Nebraska Beef] products is therefore being exposed to greater than normal risk.

There is ample evidence that Nebraska Beef continued to run its meat-processing plant in a way that put the public at a “greater than normal risk” when consuming its products. This risk was because the plant’s HACCP and other safety systems—e.g., Standard Sanitation Operation Procedures (SSOP’s) and E. coli testing program—were insufficient or simply not working. The earlier E. coli outbreak caused by Nebraska Beef meat that occurred during the summer of 2006 is but one piece of such evidence. Indeed, in a striking replay of what had occurred in 2003, the USDA once more tried to shut down Nebraska Beef’s plant. Specifically:

On August 3, 2006, the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) issued establishment 19336, Nebraska Beef, a Notice of Intended Enforcement (NOIE). This decision was based on the finding noted during the Comprehensive Food Safety Assessment performed at [its] establishment from July 10, 2006 through August 3, 2006.

Not coincidentally, this time period was the one leading up to and including the same time period as the first Nebraska Beef E. coli Outbreak.

The NOIE Letter that FSIS sent to Nebraska Beef on August 3, 2006 is replete with examples of unsafe and insanitary practices and conditions at the plant in the months—if not years—leading up to the Longville E. coli outbreak. FSIS notes numerous noncompliances, including: the insufficiency and failure of its E. coli testing program; the failure to maintain or implement SSOP’s in compliance with regulatory requirements; and HACCP system that was inadequate because it “allowed adulterated product to be produced,” and failed to meet numerous other regulatory requirements.

Another Outbreak, and FSIS Attempt to Shut Nebraska Beef Down

Since the Longville E. coli outbreak, Nebraska Beef has been involved in another E. coli O157:H7 outbreak linked by FSIS, CDC, and other public health officials to contaminated meat products like those implicated in the present case—i.e., 60-pound boxes of Nebraska Beef chuck rolls. See, e.g. FSIS Recall No. 022-2008, dated June 30, 2008. According to FSIS:

[it] has concluded that the production practices employed by Nebraska Beef, Ltd. are insufficient to effectively control E. coli O157:H7 in their beef products that are intended for grinding. The products subject to recall [including chuck rolls] may have been produced under insanitary conditions.

See, e.g. FSIS Recall No. 022-2008, dated June 30, 2008. The cited practices and conditions have also been explicitly linked to insufficiencies that were subject to FSIS Noncompliance Reports as far as April 25, 2002 involving, among other things, insanitary practices in the fabrication area—i.e., the part of the plant where carcasses are turned into primal and subprimals. The Nebraska Beef plant has been operating with a broken safety system for over six years, and all aspects of its plant and operations are evidence of Nebraska Beef’s long history of continuing negligence—indeed, negligence so severe that it appears consciously indifferent to the safety and well-being of the consuming public, including the plaintiffs in this present action.

Unfortunately, not many ordinary consumers know of the systemic problems at Nebraska Beef, and those who are unaware have regrettably placed their faith in this company who so woodenly adheres to its intransigent, dilapidated, and mostly non-existent, food safety practices. The world would certainly be a better place if Nebraska Beef simply vanished as a link in our country’s food chain.

Perhaps more reprehensible than Nebraska Beef, however, are the companies that continue to buy or use Nebraska Beef’s products. These companies, which include many otherwise respectable organizations like Kroger and Whole Foods, simply have no excuse for what transpired in summer 2008. These companies have actual knowledge of the USDA’s repeated efforts to shut Nebraska Beef down.

Pictures from last week's China Food Safety Conference

bmarler@marlerclark.com (Bill Marler) — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 10:15:02 -0800

For those avid blog readers who wondered what happened to me last week, I was doing more than hiking the Great Wall.

WHO - a Global Approach to Food Safety

marler@marlerclark.com (Food Poisoning Attorney) — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 17:47:23 -0800

WHO was a presence at the recent China Food Safety Conference. Here is too hoping more governments - FDA and USDA - spend a bit more time thinking about food safety as a global issue.

Millions of adults die every year from bugs and toxins in what they eat, according to new WHO data that shows food-borne diseases are far more deadly than the UN agency previously estimated.

The research faults unsafe food for 1.2 million deaths per year in people over the age of five in Southeast Asia and Africa — three times more adult deaths than the Geneva-based WHO had thought occurred in the whole world.

“It is a picture that we have never had before,” WHO food safety director Jorgen Schlundt said in an interview. “We now have documentation of a significant burden outside the less than five group, that is major new information.”

Ailments linked to contaminated food and water have long been seen as a major threat to young children, who can dehydrate quickly. But the Danish veterinarian and microbiologist said the risks to older populations had been grossly underestimated.

Older children and the elderly are especially vulnerable to severe illness from major food and water-borne diseases such as salmonella, listeria, E. coli, hepatitis A and cholera.

Food safety experts are now seeking to measure the burden of such afflictions in people over the age of five in the Arab world, Latin America and elsewhere in Asia including China.

And already, Schlundt said, health officials are recognizing the need to confront the most dangerous types of contamination in their industrial regulations and trade standards.

“Literally millions are dying every year and we know that a lot of these could be prevented,” he said. “There is a realization that instead of doing what we did in the past, in the future we should really focus on where the problems are.”

Many of the contaminants that have made headlines in recent years in the US, such as salmonella and E. coli, also exist in poorer countries but are not monitored as carefully there, Schlundt said.

Health authorities in developed countries are now much more able to document food safety risks because of tests that can quickly connect disparate cases of illness to tainted foods such as lettuce, peppers, spinach and beef.

But the WHO expert said that some ailments have also become more prevalent in the food system alongside the globalization of the food supply and the rise of modern food production methods, which can propagate ailments quickly and on a large scale.

“There are certain pathogens that have increased over the last 20 or 30 years. Some problems clearly have moved and become bigger because of the ways that we produce,” he said.

Simple steps can cut the levels of chemicals and toxins in foods, such as avoiding conditions where mould can grow, Schlundt said. Farming techniques can also root out microorganisms from the food chain and parasites can be wiped out by targeting their hosts and transmission patterns, he said.

Because it is now clear that some foods are more vulnerable to certain food-borne ailments than others, health officials are well placed to focus their energies on monitoring areas posing the highest potential disease risk, Schlundt said.

Another vital part of the food-borne disease fight is having consumers take precautions in the way they prepare foods, and ensuring patients and health workers take symptoms such as diarrhea seriously as a risk across population groups.

“Many of the deaths that we see in developing countries, if they had been treated at the right time, they would not have died,” Schlundt said.

"Change?" Give me a $%&#ing Break - FDA backs off oyster ban after strong criticism

marler@marlerclark.com (Food Poisoning Lawyer) — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 13:58:22 -0800

I'm still dealing with a bit of jet lag from my trip to China. I woke up too early this morning (about 1 AM), and just woke up from a nap in my office chair to yet another move by the Obama administration that shows that "real change" in Washington is hard to come by - unless it is another cash request by a political candidate.

First, let me make clear that I dumped a lot of "change" into the Democratic change wagon - I have given or raised millions of dollars for Democratic candidates over the last several years. My goal was to put people in office that did good public policy. Well, I guess I needed to wake up literally and figuratively.

So, the food safety reality? "Real change" Legislation is bogged down in the Senate, and despite overwhelming public and industry support, the bill will likely not come out of committee until next year - "change is on the way?"

Now, the FDA runs and hides from the Oyster industry. Here is what AP just posted on the wire:

Facing fierce resistance, the Obama administration on Friday backed off a plan to ban sales of raw oysters from the Gulf of Mexico during warm-weather months.

The abrupt turnaround came as oyster-lovers and industry officials — as well as Democrats and Republicans across the Gulf — blasted the plan as unnecessary government meddling. Industry officials said it could have killed a $500 million economy and thousands of jobs.

"They might have been tone-deaf in the beginning, but they got the tune pretty quickly and listened to what we had to say," said Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., who said FDA Commissioner Peggy Hamburg notified her of the decision Friday afternoon. "I'm really thankful that they listened."

About 15 people die each year in the United States from raw oysters infected with Vibrio vulnificus, which typically is found in warm coastal waters between April and October. Most of the deaths occur in people with weak immune systems caused by health problems like liver or kidney disease, cancer, diabetes, or AIDS.

While the total number of deaths is small compared with the annual estimates of 5,000 U.S. deaths from food-borne illnesses, FDA officials say it is a relatively high frequency that could be easily eliminated by processing oysters through treatments such as pasteurization.

Industry officials argue that anti-bacterial processing is too costly. They also say the treatments ruin the fresh taste and texture of raw oysters, which are considered a delicacy by many, particularly in the Gulf, which supplies about two-thirds of the U.S. oyster harvest.

The oyster industry has been working with regulators for years to improve its safety performance by increasing refrigeration and trying to raise awareness of the hazards to people with weak immune systems.

But the FDA says the results haven't changed much.

The FDA proposal — which was announced last month and had been slated to go into effect in 2011 — would have prohibited sales of raw oysters from the Gulf for much of the year unless the shellfish were treated.

Perhaps the FDA should never have passed the ban to begin with, but FDA, get some b%$*%s for goodness sake. "Change you can believe in" my a%$! Democratic candidates - do not bother calling, this "change" machine is out of order.

What will the USDA do about non-E. coli O157:H7 Shiga Toxin E. coli?

bmarler@marlerclark.com (Bill Marler) — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 02:31:51 -0800

Several weeks ago I filed with the USDA a Petition for an Interpretive Rule Declaring all enterohemorrhagic Shiga Toxin-producing Serotypes of Escherichia coli, Including Non-O157 Serotypes, to be Adulterants Within the Meaning of 21 U.S.C. § 601(m)(1). The Petition can be found here.

I just received notice that the USDA received it.

Now, let's see what happens next.

Speech at China Agricultural University School of Law

bmarler@marlerclark.com (Bill Marler) — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 15:22:32 -0800

Perhaps not quite on par with the Great Wall or the Forbidden City, yet meeting the about 150 law students was pretty exciting - even for my 10-year-old daughter, Sydney (she took the photo). Think of China Agricultural University as a Davis/WSU/Cornell with a Law School.

I had been invited to speak by Dean Yu Huajiang and Sub-Dean Ge Min. My talk, which I posted earlier, was an overview of the US Civil Justice System - specifically, how food litigation happens. The students were engaged and most spoke English extremely well. Many of the questions involved comparing the Chinese regulatory model with the US version. Some wondered about restrictions on Chinese imports due to food safety issues over the last few years. We also had a long discussion about whether a jury trial of citizens was the best way to seek justice.

What I found most interesting is how open the students were about problems that they saw in their legal system, yet how clear-eyed they are about the problems in ours.

One very interesting question was somewhat personal. One of the students wanted to know how I managed to run a law practice, travel the US and the world speaking about food safety and the civil justice system, and still have a family. Tough question. It helps to have great, intelligent daughters and a supportive wife that understands that I love my job.

Food Safety News Supported Third China Food Safety and Quality Conference

bmarler@marlerclark.com (Bill Marler) — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 01:56:06 -0800

Despite postponing the Conference from late September until this week for the 60th anniversary of the Revolution, CIFSQ once again put on a quality Conference with several hundred in attendance for dozens of countries. Food Safety News – www.foodsafetynews.com was a presence – sponsoring the speaker’s dinner the first night of the Conference. Please check out the speakers list www.chinafoodsafety.com.

This was the third year that Marler Clark was one of the lead sponsors of the event. I was asked by one of the attendees after my keynote address (topic was the Peanut Corporation of America Salmonella outbreak) why we would take the time to support a Conference thousands of miles from home. Bottom line is that the Conference makes sense to support because the Chinese care about food safety. Shocked, do not be. The Chinese Government and business (some would argue they are one in the same), get that selling food to the USA and other countries requires that you not poison the customers. My goal is simply to support their understanding that poisoning customers have legal and financial consequences.

Comparing the Food Safety Record of Pasteurized and Raw Milk Products - Part 4

bmarler@marlerclark.com (Bill Marler) — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 22:36:01 -0800

Part 1 and Part 2 of this series examined the historical context of the debate surrounding dairy product food safety, and the mechanisms by which pasteurized or raw dairy products may become contaminated with foodborne pathogens. Part 3 compared foodborne illnesses and disease outbreaks linked to raw and pasteurized dairy products. In this section, the potential risks and benefits that consumers must weigh when buying dairy products for themselves or their children are compared.

Recommendations to move this debate forward in a direction that promotes dairy food safety regardless of processing method will be published in a final summary of this series.

Making a Decision at the Dairy Case, Farmers’ Market, or on the Farm

As described in Part 1, there is considerable variation from state-to-state in the way raw dairy products are regulated in the US. Only a few states allow retail stores or farmers’ markets to sell raw milk, while others restrict sales to on-farm purchases, or ban raw milk altogether (Oliver et al, 2009). The FDA allows cheeses made with raw milk to be sold interstate so long as they have been aged for 60 days.

For consumers who live in states where both pasteurized and raw milk are sold legally for human consumption, there are three broad considerations to weigh when making a choice between the products:

I. Food Quality: including taste, nutrients and other health benefits

II. Food Safety: potential for contamination with dangerous pathogens or toxins

III. Value: including cost to purchase, as well as values such as environmental stewardship, support for community farms

I. Quality and Health

a. Nutrients

The websites that promote raw (unpasteurized) milk products often claim that there are substantial losses in nutrients due to the heat treatment used during pasteurization. In contrast, public health agencies such as the FDA and CDC cite nutritional analyses showing that the losses in nutritional content after pasteurization are negligible for the key nutrients that milk provides in the human diet. A comparison of the nutrition labels on raw and pasteurized milk purchased at a retail store shows very little difference between commercial raw, organic milk and organic or conventional pasteurized milk products.

A. Raw whole milk, organic, unhomogenized.

B. Pasteurized whole milk, organic, unhomogenized.

C. Pasteurized whole milk, conventional, homogenized, fortified with vitamin D

The Table below shows the differences on the labels (highlighted in yellow). Comparison of nutrition labels from three commercial raw and pasteurized milk products.

b. Health Benefits

Overall, the medical benefits of dairy products (raw or pasteurized) beyond basic nutrition are unclear. The “raw milk pros” review published previously showed results from epidemiological studies in Europe that suggested consumption of raw milk products in childhood may help prevent some allergic conditions (e.g., asthma, hay fever, eczema). Both raw and pasteurized dairy producers have also made claims about beneficial or “probiotic” bacteria, and their effects on digestive health and immunity. The science behind probiotics in dairy products such as yogurts and kefirs is an active area of research (Sanders 2009).

Although dairy products may provide health benefits beyond nutrition, consumers should be wary of product claims that appear to be implausible, or "too good to be true." For example, WAPF promotes raw milk consumption for its curative effects on conditions ranging from autism to allergies to tooth decay to lactose intolerance and heart disease. It seems implausible that one food product could provide so many different and unrelated health benefits, which suggests that the claims may be primarily a marketing strategy not founded in sound medical research.

c. Taste

The sensory qualities of milk, cheeses and other dairy products include taste, texture, and aroma. These qualities are mostly subjective, and depend on personal preference. For example, traditional Mexican-style soft cheeses such as queso fresco made with raw milk have a distinctive flavor; however, these raw cheeses have also been associated with a number of outbreaks and illnesses. An interesting intervention to address an ongoing problem with Salmonella in queso fresco cheeses occurred in Yakima County, Washington. Several agencies worked together with the Hispanic community to develop a pasteurized milk queso fresco recipe with a taste and texture as desirable as the raw cheese product (Bell et al, 1999). The educational effort, termed “The Abuela Project” (“abuela” is “grandma” in Spanish) successfully reduced the incidence of Salmonella in that community.

II. Food Safety

In Part 3, CDC data on milk-related outbreaks from 1973-2005 was analyzed. To examine more recent food safety trends, data from surveillance records and the literature from 2000-2007, was analyzed and summarized in the attached tables. This period also coincides with the time that WAPF has been most active in promoting raw milk sales.

As before, the type of milk was divided into three categories:

• Pasteurized milk/cheese
• Raw milk/cheese
• Mexican-style fresh queso fresco cheese (see photo and description in Figure 1c, Part 3 )

The analysis summarized in the Table focused on the four pathogens most often implicated in dairy-related foodborne disease outbreaks: Campylobacter, E. coli O157:H7, Listeria monocytogenes, and Salmonella. The limitations and caveats relating to this type of analysis using surveillance data were described previously in Part 3. Most importantly, we know that many outbreaks and illnesses are not reported to health departments (Mead et al, 1999), thus these numbers are an underestimation of the true burden of illness. But, despite these limitations, the statistics provide a useful snapshot of differences between these three categories of milk products.

Summary of Findings for Four Major Pathogens Involved in Dairy-Related Outbreaks in the US, 2000-2007 are summarized in the table below.

Outbreaks:

• Raw dairy products caused 42 (75%) of 56 dairy-related outbreaks during this 8-year period due to the four major pathogens, which is almost 5 times more outbreaks compared with pasteurized dairy products and about 8 times more outbreaks compared with queso fresco cheeses.
• Outbreaks cause a burden on the public health system because each one must be investigated to determine the cause and prevent future illnesses. Furthermore, outbreaks often involve recalls, which hurt the industry through loss of product, and loss of consumer confidence in milk.
• Both pasteurized and raw milk outbreaks have resulted in farm closures including Whittier Farms in Massachusetts in 2007 (pasteurized milk, listeriosis) and, more recently, Simsbury Town Farm Dairy in Connecticut (raw milk, E. coli O157:H7).

Illnesses

• Pasteurized dairy products caused 2,181 (65%) of 3,371 milkborne outbreak-related illnesses for these four major pathogens, which was approximately 2 times as many illnesses compared with raw dairy products and queso fresco cheeses during this recent 8 year period.
• 84% of these pasteurized milk-related illnesses were due to campylobacteriosis from milk produced and distributed at prison facilities (not sold to the general public).
• These illnesses cause suffering and costs to individuals and their families, as well as increased stress on the health care system.

The Pathogens

Campylobacter: Raw dairy products caused 34 (94%) of the Campylobacter outbreaks compared with only 2 from pasteurized milk and none due to queso fresco from 2000-2007 (Table). The two large campylobacteriosis outbreaks due to pasteurized milk involving 1,844 illnesses were both associated with prison dairies, which suggests that prisoners may be at increased risk of Campylobacter infections if there is post-pasteurization contamination during processing at on-site dairies. The disproportionate number of Campylobacter outbreaks from raw milk is not a new trend. Indeed, since first identified as a human pathogen in the late 70’s, Campylobacter has repeatedly been linked to raw milk outbreaks. In a review of Campylobacter outbreaks in 10 different countries from 1978 to 2002, Miller and Mandrell (2005) identified only 5 outbreaks traced to pasteurized or heat-treat milk compared with 68 outbreaks from consumption of raw dairy products. Unfortunately, WAPF often uses conspiratorial arguments to discount the problem with Campylobacter in raw milk, rather than helping raw dairy producers address the ongoing contamination events with this foodborne pathogen in their products, or downplay the importance of the illnesses. Campylobacter infections usually result in full recovery, but about 1 in 1,000 patients may develop Gillain Barre syndrome (GBS) and become permanently paralyzed. As an example, there was a tragic case of GBS in a previously healthy woman who drank raw milk purchased through an unlicensed herdshare program in 2008; leftover raw milk still in her refrigerator tested positive for Campylobacter.

E. coli O157:H7: From 2000-2007, there were 5 raw milk-associated outbreaks with 232 illnesses including several HUS cases among children compared with 1 outbreak linked to queso fresco cheese and no outbreaks linked to pasteurized milk (Table). In general, milk-related outbreaks due to E. coli O157:H7 are uncommon, but almost always associated with raw milk products when they occur (Rangel et al, 2005; Hussein et al, 2005). The severity of some of the recent E. coli O157:H7 illnesses associated with raw milk and/or raw colostrum consumption by children should be a cause for concern, yet WAPF and other raw milk advocates frequently dismiss these illnesses despite strong epidemiological and laboratory evidence implicating raw milk. For example, two raw milk dairies that specifically followed WAPF principles were associated with 6 cases of HUS among children in Washington and California in 2005-2006 (CDC 2007; CDC 2008). During the Washington investigation, unsanitary conditions were found at the dairy, and the outbreak strain was isolated from the raw milk (see Figure 1a, Part 3 ). The California investigation revealed very high coliform counts in the raw milk and raw chocolate colostrum, which suggested fecal contamination. Although the outbreak strain was not isolated from raw milk during that investigation, other E. coli O157:H7 strains were found in feces from heifers on the dairy. Notably, the California dairy owner later admitted to buying and bottling raw colostrum from surrounding dairies not licensed to sell Grade A raw milk in order to meet his supply demands (a dangerous practice called “outsourcing”); thus, it is theoretically possible that the outbreak strain was introduced into the implicated raw milk dairy from colostrum that was destined to be consumed by calves and/or pasteurized. In 2008, two more E. coli O157:H7 outbreaks were linked to raw goat’s milk sold illegally in Missouri and raw cow’s milk from a Connecticut dairy, respectively. Three children were hospitalized due to HUS, and the Connecticut dairy ultimately closed down. An injunction was sought in the Missouri case.

Listeria monocytogenes: From 2000-2007, there were 3 queso fresco- and 2 pasteurized milk-related outbreaks involving several deaths, still births, premature deliveries (Table). During that same time period, there were no reported outbreaks linked to raw dairy products except those involving queso fresco or Mexican style cheese. In general, dairy products are considered moderate to high risk for listeriosis infections, second only to deli meats and other ready-to-eat processed meats (Swaminathan and Gerner-Smidt, 2007). Pregnant women and persons with weakened immune systems are at much great risk of serious illness from listeriosis than the general population. Historically, soft Mexican-style cheeses such as queso fresco have been associated with severe listeriosis outbreaks, especially cheeses prepared illegally under unsanitary conditions. Sanitation problems were identified as the key factors in both of the recent listeriosis outbreaks that were published. The North Carolina outbreak in 2000-2001, involved consumption of Mexican-style cheese made from raw milk. The cheese was manufactured illegally, and the “outbreak strain” was found in 4 cheese samples and raw milk taken from the farm that supplied the milk (CDC 2001). The Massachusetts outbreak in 2007, involved pasteurized milk from a local dairy and bottling facility that was likely contaminated with Listeria over an extended period of time; three patients died as a result of their infections, and the dairy ultimately shut down. The Massachusetts outbreak underscores the vulnerability of dairy products to becoming contaminated after pasteurization if stringent hygiene is not maintained throughout processing, bottling, and handling of the milk.

Salmonella: From 2000-2007, there were 4 (329 illnesses) pasteurized-, 3 (163 illnesses) raw-, and 1 (135 illnesses) queso fresco-related outbreaks of salmonellosis (Table). Notably, over one-third (233 of 588 illnesses) of the salmonellosis cases during this period were from multidrug resistant strains (MDR) of Salmonella Newport. These outbreaks from MDR Salmonella Newport were linked to raw cheese served at a picnic in 2001 (multistate), pasteurized milk in California in 2004, and Mexican-style cheese served in homes in Illinois in 2006 (Oliver et al, 2009; CDC 2008b), which suggests that the problem may be important in all three categories of dairy products (e.g., pasteurized milk, raw milk, and queso fresco cheese). Additionally, Olsen et al (2004) described an outbreak of MDR Salmonella Typhimurium linked to milk contaminated post-pasteurization involving 96 illnesses in 2000. The issue of antibiotic resistant Salmonella strains in dairy products (whether raw or pasteurized) is a cause for concern.

Although no recent review paper was available, the epidemiology of Salmonella in dairy products appears to be changing. It is also worth noting that a major shift in raw milk-associated salmonellosis occurred over the last three decades. Specifically, in the 70’s and 80’s, there were significant problems with Salmonella Dublin infections and deaths linked to a single, large certified raw milk dairy in California (Werner et al, 1979; Richwald et al, 1988). Since that dairy shut down, the salmonellosis problem with raw dairy products has been greatly reduced in the US. Likewise, in the 80’s and 90’s, two of the largest ever documented salmonellosis outbreaks were linked to pasteurized dairy products including milk (contaminated after pasteurization) and ice cream (cross-contaminated with raw eggs) (Ryan et al, 1987; Hennessey et al, 1996). No similar enormous salmonellosis outbreaks have been documented from pasteurized dairy products in 15 years.

Brucellosis and Bovine Tuberculosis: Although not shown in the table, these diseases continue to occur in the US, but are mostly a problem among travelers that consume raw dairy products in countries where the infections are endemic in cattle or goat populations. Illnesses have also been documented following consumption of raw dairy products imported illegally into the US. For example, from 2001-2004, 35 cases of human bovine tuberculosis were linked to fresh cheese (queso fresco) brought to New York City from Mexico (CDC 2005). Similarly, the two most recent reports of brucellosis outbreaks in California were traced to consumption of imported raw cheeses (CDPH 2009).

III. Values

In addition to food quality and food safety, consumers may also factor cost and other more subjective values into their decision about which type of dairy product they choose to buy. First, there is the actual cost to purchase the product. In general, commercial, Grade A raw milk sold in the US is more expensive than its organic or conventional pasteurized counterparts. For example, the organic, whole raw milk (photo A) cost ~$15/gallon compared with ~$10/gallon (photo B) for the organic, pasteurized whole milk, and ~$6/gallon (photo C) for the conventional, pasteurized milk (each were bought at the same food co-op). These prices are likely to vary depending on regional differences, but overall raw milk is more expensive than pasteurized milk, and organic milk is more expensive than conventional milk.

Second, beyond the purchase price, many consumers consider other values such as how the milk was produced. Consumers may be willing to pay more for organic dairy products (raw or pasteurized) because of the perceived environmental benefits. Similarly, there is a growing desire to support local, smaller farmers in the community, which potentially creates new niches for dairy products.

IV. Summary

In summary, consumers must weigh many different factors when choosing the most appropriate dairy product for themselves and their families. The data on outbreaks and illnesses show that there is currently more risk of exposure to foodborne pathogens such as Campylobacter and E. coli O157:H7 from raw milk products compared with pasteurized milk products. Children, pregnant women, and immune-compromised individuals are at higher risk of illness from contaminated raw dairy products and soft cheeses (raw or pasteurized). Both pasteurized and raw dairy products can be dangerous if produced under unsanitary conditions. Consumers should avoid any dairy products sold illegally, especially “black market” raw milk/cheeses, and soft Mexican-style cheeses such as queso fresco sold by unlicensed vendors, or imported illegally into the US.

References

1. Bell, R. A., V. N. Hillers, and T. A. Thomas. 1999. The Abuela Project: safe cheese workshops to reduce the incidence of Salmonella Typhimurium from consumption of raw milk fresh cheese. Am J Public Health 89:1421-4.

2. CDC. 2001. From the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Outbreak of Listeriosis associated with homemade Mexican-style cheese--North Carolina, October 2000-January 2001. Jama 286:664-5.

3. CDC. 2005. Human tuberculosis caused by Mycobacterium bovis – New York City, 2001-2004. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 54:605-8.

4. CDC. 2007. Escherichia coli O157:H7 infection associated with drinking raw milk – Washington and Oregon. November – December 2005. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 56:165-7.CDC. 2008a. Outbreak of Listeria monocytogenes infections associated with pasteurized milk from a local dairy--Massachusetts, 2007. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 57:1097-100.

5. CDC. 2008a. Escherichia coli 0157:H7 infections in children associated with raw milk and raw colostrum from cows--California, 2006. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 57:625-8.

6. CDC. 2008b. Outbreak of multidrug-resistant Salmonella enterica serotype Newport infections associated with consumption of unpasteurized Mexican-style aged cheese – Illinois, March 2006 – April 2007. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 57:432-5.

7. CDPH. 2009. Epidemiologic summary of human brucellosis in California. Available from: http://www.cdph.ca.gov/data/statistics/Documents/brucellosis-episummary.pdf

8. Hennessy, T. W., C. W. Hedberg, L. Slutsker, K. E. White, J. M. Besser-Wiek, M. E. Moen, J. Feldman, W. W. Coleman, L. M. Edmonson, K. L. MacDonald, and M. T. Osterholm. 1996. A national outbreak of Salmonella enteritidis infections from ice cream. The Investigation Team. N Engl J Med 334:1281-6.

9. Hussein, H. S. and T. Sakuma. 2005. Prevalence of shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli in dairy cattle and their products. J Dairy Sci 88:450-465.

10. MacDonald, P. D., R. E. Whitwam, J. D. Boggs, J. N. MacCormack, K. L. Anderson, J. W. Reardon, J. R. Saah, L. M. Graves, S. B. Hunter, and J. Sobel. 2005. Outbreak of listeriosis among Mexican immigrants as a result of consumption of illicitly produced Mexican-style cheese. Clin Infect Dis 40:677-82.

11. Mead, P. S., L. Slutsker, V. Dietz, L. McCaig, J. S. Bresee, C. Shapiro, P. M. Griffin, and R. V. Tauxe. 1999. Food-Related Illness and Death in the United States. Emerg Infect Dis 5:607-25.

12. Miller, W. G. and R. E. Mandrell. 2005. Prevalence of Campyobacter in the food and water supply: incidence, outbreaks, isolation and detection. In: Campylobacter: Molecular and Cell Biology. Ketley, J. M. and M. E. Konkel, eds. Norfolk, UK: Horizon Biosciences, pp. 101-63.

13. Oliver, S. P., K. J. Boor, S. C. Murphy, and S. E. Murinda. 2009. Food safety hazards associated with consumption of raw milk. Foodborne Pathog Dis 6:793-806.

14. Olsen, S. J., M. Ying, M. F. Davis, M. Deasy, B. Holland, L. Iampietro, C. M. Baysinger, F. Sassano, L. D. Polk, B. Gormley, M. J. Hung, K. Pilot, M. Orsini, S. Van Duyne, S. Rankin, C. Genese, E. A. Bresnitz, J. Smucker, M. Moll, and J. Sobel. 2004. Multidrug-resistant Salmonella Typhimurium infection from milk contaminated after pasteurization. Emerg Infect Dis 10:932-5.

15. Rangel, J. M., P. H. Sparling, C. Crowe, P. M. Griffin, and D. L. Swerdlow. 2005. Epidemiology of Escherichia coli O157:H7 outbreaks, United States, 1982-2002. Emerg Infect Dis 11:603-9.

16. Richwald, G. A., S. Greenland, B. J. Johnson, J. M. Friedland, E. J. C. Goldstein, and D. T. Plichta. 1988. Assessment of the excess risk of Salmonella Dublin infection associated with the use of certified raw milk. Public Health Rep 103:489-93.

17. Ryan, C. A., M. K. Nickels, N. T. Hargrett-Bean, M. E. Potter, T. Endo, L. Mayer, C. W. Langkop, C. Gibson, R. C. McDonald, R. T. Kenney, and et al. 1987. Massive outbreak of antimicrobial-resistant salmonellosis traced to pasteurized milk. JAMA 258:3269-74.

18. Sanders, M. E. 2009. The Pros of Probiotics. California Dairy Dispatch. Published by the California Dairy Research Foundation. Available from: http://www.cdrf.org/content.asp?contentID=539.

19. Swaminathan, B., and P. Gerner-Smidt. 2007. The epidemiology of human listeriosis. Microbes Infect 9:1236-43.

20. Werner, S. B., G. L. Humphrey, and K. I. Kamei. 1979. Association between raw milk and human Salmonella Dublin infection. BMJ 2:238-41.

Food Poisoning is Serious - Read Mari's Story of a Campylobacter Illness Linked to Raw Milk

bmarler@marlerclark.com (Bill Marler) — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 05:01:03 -0800

I am in Beijing at yet another food safety conference. It is odd really that at each of these conferences - regardless the continent - all tend to talk about the victims of food safety failures in the abstract. Mari's story is jarringly real. Click on the below and read the three part story of a food poisoning victim - a raw milk Campylobacter outbreak.

Lawsuits Filed in Multistate Outbreaks of E. coli O157:H7 Infections Associated with Beef from Fairbank Farms and South Shore Meats

marler@marlerclark.com (E. coli Attorney) — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 15:04:45 -0800

I am heading to a food safety conference here in Beijing sponsored by the Chinese Government. However, we still had time to keep on top the food safety situation in the United States.

The parents of Andrea Munro, 12, of Marshfield, say their daughter became infected with E. coli after eating Fairbank Farm’s beef on September 24.

On October 31, 2009, FSIS issued a notice about a recall of 545,699 pounds of beef products from Fairbank Farms that may be contaminated with E. coli O157:H7. Health officials in several states who were investigating a cluster of E. coli O157:H7 illnesses, with isolates that match by “DNA fingerprinting” analyses, found that most ill persons had consumed ground beef, with several purchasing the same or similar product from a common retail chain. At least some of the illnesses appear to be associated with products subject to these recalls. A sample from an opened package of ground beef recovered from a patient's home was tested by the Massachusetts Department of Health and yielded an E. coli O157:H7 isolate that matched the patient isolates by DNA analysis.

The cluster includes twenty-eight persons from 12 states infected with matching strains of E. coli O157:H7. Of these, the genetic association of 7 human isolates and the product isolate have been confirmed by an advanced secondary DNA test; secondary tests are pending on others. The number of ill persons identified in each state is as follows: California (1), Connecticut (4), Massachusetts (8), Maryland (1), Maine (2), Minnesota (1), New Hampshire (4), New Jersey (1), New York (1), Pennsylvania (2), South Dakota (2), and Vermont (1).

In the second case, the mother of Austin Richmond, 11, of Lincoln, R.I., says her son was infected with E. coli after eating a hamburger on a school trip to Camp Bournedale in Plymouth. Richmond’s burger was reportedly produced using meat from South Shore Meats, Inc., a subsidiary of Crocetti’s Oakdale Packing. Crocetti's Oakdale Packing Co., doing business as, South Shore Meats, Inc., a Brockton, Mass., establishment, is recalling approximately 1,039 pounds of fresh ground beef patties derived from bench trim as well as mechanically tenderized beef cuts that may be contaminated with E. coli O157:H7.

E. coli O157:H7 Outbreak Grows

bmarler@marlerclark.com (Bill Marler) — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 12:47:51 -0800

ABC News Reports the growing E. coli O157:H7 Outbreak is spreading West after killing two and sickening dozens in the Northeast. Now - Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Vermont according to the CDC.

E. coli Outbreak Update - Two Deaths and Twenty-Six Illnesses Linked to Fairbank Farm E. coli Recall

marler@marlerclark.com (E. coli Attorney) — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 09:39:12 -0800

The CDC now says that two deaths and 26 other illnesses may be linked to contaminated ground beef recalled by Fairbank Farms. Lola Scott Russell, a spokeswoman for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, says one of the deaths involved a New York adult with several underlying health conditions. The other is a death previously reported by New Hampshire officials.

She says all but three of the suspected E. coli infections are in the northeastern U.S. and 18 are in New England. The CDC is investigating all the cases. Ashville, N.Y.-based Fairbank Farms recalled almost 546,000 pounds of fresh ground beef that may be tainted with E. coli bacteria. The meat was distributed in September to stores from Virginia to Maine.

South Shore Meats and Fairbank Farms E. coli Outbreaks and Recalls Appear Separate - For Now

marler@marlerclark.com (E. coli Lawyer) — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 07:06:26 -0800

On October 26, South Shore Meats in Brockton recalled more than 1,000 pounds of hamburger and steak after 20 Rhode Island students and adults became sick after eating E. coli O157:H7 contaminated meat at Camp Bournedale in Plymouth. A sixth-grade class from Lincoln, Rhode Island and adult chaperones spent several days at an environmental education program at Camp Bournedale in mid-October. Two of the students were hospitalized but were released on October 23.

Then on October 31, Fairbank Farms recalled almost 546,000 pounds of ground beef because E. coli O157:H7 contaminated meat has caused illness and one death. USDA has said that Fairbank Farms is linked to cases of E. coli-related illness in New Hampshire, Connecticut, Maine and Massachusetts. At least on child remains hospitalized in Massachusetts. The USDA says the ground beef was sold at numerous retail stores, including B.J.’s Wholesale, Giant, Lancaster, Price Chopper, Shaw’s, Trader Joe’s and Wild Harvest. In addition, ground beef packaged under the Fairbank Farms name was distributed to stores in Maryland, Massachusetts, North Carolina, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania and Virginia, and was likely repackaged for sale.

In nearly 17 years doing E. coli cases, I do not recall two separate outbreaks and recalls occurring in the same geographical area in the same time frame. It will be interesting to see during litigation (we represent children linked to the Camp and to illnesses in Massachusetts) and discovery, if Fairbanks supplied meat to South Shore. It will also be interesting to see if any of all of these cases are linked genetically via PFGE. Bottom line is that people getting sick and dying are still how we do outbreak investigations and issue recalls. It will be certain that we will be looking hard at finished hamburger testing for E. coli from both plants.

The Third Annual China International Food Safety & Quality Conference + Expo November 4 and 5, 2009

marler@marlerclark.com (Food Poisoning Lawyer) — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 08:21:28 -0800

Sydney and I are packing today for the long flight between Seattle and Beijing. Although we plan a bit of Daddy/Daughter sightseeing, this food safety conference is important.

"The Chinese government attaches great importance to food safety because it is not only in the interest of the Chinese but also people in the world," Premier Wen Jiabao, People's Republic of China

I have two talks. One a keynote speech where I am going to cover the Peanut Corporation of America Salmonella Outbreak and then a session later in the day on the legal issues surrounding Chinese food imports. I also have been invited to speak at two universities about how civil litigation happens in the United States. Click on image below to see the PowerPoints. I did not attach the videos, but they can be seen here.

New Hampshire Illnesses and Death Linked to E. coli O157:H7 Hamburger Recall

marler@marlerclark.com (E. coli Lawyer) — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 13:45:55 -0800

New Hampshire health officials are advising residents to take part in a beef recall after one person has died and two others became ill after eating contaminated ground beef.

"E. coli is a bacteria that produces a toxin that is potentially deadly to people," said Dr. Jose Montero, Director of Public Health at DHHS, a press release.

Montero urges residents to check their freezers for any affected products.

Health officials said Saturday the products were packaged between Sept. 15-16 and may have been labeled with sell-by dates from Sept. 19-28, and were sold at various stores throughout the state.

Health officials say the three became sick because of possible E. coli contamination.

They say the contaminated meat may be related to the recall of almost 546,000 pounds of ground beef in Connecticut, Maine and Massachusetts. That meat was sold by Fairbank Farms in Ashville, N.Y.

Each package carried the number "EST. 492" inside the USDA inspection mark or on the nutrition label.

First Lawsuit to be filed in Northeast E. coli O157:H7 Outbreak as More Tainted Meat is Recalled

bmarler@marlerclark.com (Bill Marler) — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 09:20:35 -0800

NY Firm Recalls 546,000 pounds tied to E. coli Illnesses - 45,000,000 pounds recalled in last two years.

The first lawsuit stemming from the E. coli outbreak in Massachusetts and likely Rhode Island will be filed Monday in the Trial Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Superior Court, against Crocetti-Oakdale Packing, doing business as South Shore Meats, Inc., which had recalled 1.039 pounds of E. coli tainted beef linked to illnesses.

The E. coli lawsuit was filed on behalf of a Marshfield, Massachusetts family, whose grandmother and children were infected with the pathogenic E. coli strain O157:H7 after eating ground beef purchased from the Star Market in Marshfield. The plaintiff is represented by Marler Clark, a Seattle law firm dedicated to representing victims of foodborne illness.

In addition, on Saturday (10/31/09), Ashville NY firm Fairbank Farms recalled 546,000 pounds of beef products due to E. coli contamination. According to the USDA release, the meat has been linked to illnesses in Maine, Massachusetts, and Connecticut, and distributed via retail outlets including Trader Joe's, Price Chopper, Lancaster, Wild Harvest, Shaw's, BJ's, Ford Brothers, and Giant.
Ground beef packaged under the Fairbank Farms name was also distributed to stores in Maryland, Massachusetts, North Carolina, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia.

It appears that this recall is an expansion of the Crocetti-Oakdale Packing, doing business as South Shore Meats, Inc., recall of 1.039 pounds of E. coli tainted beef linked to illnesses in Massachusetts and likely Rhode Island. “This expansion is a massive recall, and the danger cannot be overstated,” said foodborne illness expert and attorney Bill Marler, who represents several families in the outbreak. “The last recall of this size—Nebraska Beef in August of 2008—sickened dozens. It means that tainted meat is in homes across the country, and we have to do our best to get the word out to consumers so that they don’t suffer the illnesses that these families have.”

In addition, a cluster of at least 20 E. coli illnesses were reported by middle schoolers and chaperones who visited Camp Bournedale in Plymouth, MA in mid-October. “At this time it is unclear if these illnesses are linked to either recall, however, the timing is quite suspicious,” added Marler.