Marler Blog

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.

Fairbank Farms Recalls Fresh Ground Beef Products Due To E. coli O157:H7 Illnesses in Connecticut, Maine and Massachusetts possibly linked to Trader Joes, Price Chopper, Lancaster and Wild Harvest, Shaw's, BJ's, Ford Brothers, and Giant

marler@marlerclark.com (E. coli Lawyer) — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 08:13:50 -0800

Recall Release CLASS I RECALL
FSIS-RC-059-2009 HEALTH RISK: HIGH

Fairbank Farms, an Ashville, NY, establishment, is recalling approximately 545,699 pounds of fresh ground beef products that may be contaminated with E. coli O157:H7, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced today.

FSIS became aware of the problem during the course of an investigation of a cluster of E. coli O157:H7 illnesses. Working with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and state health and agriculture departments, FSIS determined that there is an association between the fresh ground beef products subject to recall and illnesses in Connecticut, Maine and Massachusetts. FSIS is continuing to work with the Massachusetts Department of Public Health, the Connecticut Department of Public Health, other state health and agriculture departments and the CDC on the investigation. Anyone with signs or symptoms of foodborne illness should consult a physician.

The products subject to recall include: [View Labels, PDF Only]

Trader Joes

* 1-pound packages of "TRADER JOE'S BUTCHER SHOP FINE QUALITY MEATS GROUND BEEF 85/15."
* 1-pound packages of "TRADER JOE'S BUTCHER SHOP FINE QUALITY MEATS GROUND BEEF 80/20."
NOTE: The sell-by dates for the above two products may be October 6 or 7, 2009.
* 1-pound trays of "TRADER JOE'S BUTCHER SHOP FINE QUALITY MEATS GROUND BEEF PATTIES 96/4 EXTRA LEAN."
* 1-pound trays of "TRADER JOE'S BUTCHER SHOP FINE QUALITY MEATS GROUND BEEF PATTIES 85/15."

Price Chopper

* 1- and 2.5-pound trays of "PRICE CHOPPER MEATLOAF & MEATBALL MIX."
* 1-pound trays of "PRICE CHOPPER EXTRA LEAN GROUND BEEF 96/4."
* 1-pound trays of "PRICE CHOPPER FRESH GROUND BEEF CHUCK FOR CHILI 80% LEAN 20% FAT."

Lancaster and Wild Harvest

* 1-pound trays of "LANCASTER BRAND 96/4 EXTRA LEAN GROUND BEEF."
* 1- and 2-pound trays of "LANCASTER BRAND 90/10 GROUND BEEF."
* 1-pound trays of "WILD HARVEST NATURAL 85/15 ANGUS GROUND BEEF."

Shaw's

* 1- and 2-pound trays of "SHAW'S FRESH GROUND BEEF 93/7."
* 1-, 2- and 3-pound trays of "SHAW'S FRESH GROUND BEEF 80/20."
* 1- and 3-pound trays of "SHAW'S FRESH GROUND BEEF 75/25."
* 1.3-pound trays of "SHAW'S FRESH GROUND SIRLOIN BEEF PATTIES 90/10."
* 1.3-pound trays of "SHAW'S FRESH GROUND ROUND BEEF PATTIES 85/15."
* 1.3-pound trays of "SHAW'S FRESH GROUND BEEF PATTIES 80/20."
* 3-pound trays of "SHAW'S FRESH GROUND BEEF PATTIES FAMILY PACK 80/20."
* 1-pound trays of "SHAW'S ANGUS GROUND BEEF 85/15."
* 1-, 2- and 3-pound trays of "SHAW'S FRESH GROUND ROUND BEEF 85/15."
* 1-pound trays of "SHAW'S 90% NATURAL GROUND BEEF."
* 1-pound trays of "SHAW'S 85% NATURAL GROUND BEEF."
* 1-, 2- and 3-pound trays of "SHAW'S FRESH GROUND SIRLOIN 90/10."
* 1-pound trays of "MEATLOAF & MEATBALL MIX."

BJ's

* 5-pound trays of "FRESH GROUND BEEF, CONTAINS 15 % FAT" patties.
* 3- and 5-pound trays of "LEAN GROUND BEEF, CONTAINS 7% FAT."
* 2.5-pound trays of "MEATLOAF & MEATBALL MIX."

Ford Brothers

* 3-pound trays of "FRESH GROUND BEEF, CONTAINS 20% FAT" patties.

Giant

* 1-pound trays of "GIANT EXTRA LEAN GROUND BEEF 96/4."
* 1-pound trays of "GIANT MEATLOAF & MEATBALL MIX."
* 1-pound trays of "GIANT NATURE'S PROMISE GROUND BEEF."
* 1-pound trays of "GIANT NATURE'S PROMISE GROUND BEEF PATTIES."

Each package bears the establishment number "EST. 492" inside the USDA mark of inspection or on the nutrition label. These products were packaged on September 15 and 16, 2009, and may have been labeled at the retail stores with a sell-by date from September 19 through 28, 2009, unless otherwise noted above. Consumers should ask at their point of purchase if the products they have are subject to recall. The products were sent to distribution centers, intended for further distribution to retail establishments in Northeast and Mid-Atlantic regions. When available, the retail distribution list(s) will be posted on FSIS' Web site at http://www.fsis.usda.gov/FSIS_Recalls/ Open_Federal_Cases/index.asp.

Products for further processing:

* Cases of 10-pound "FAIRBANK FARMS FRESH GROUND BEEF CHUBS."

Each case bears the establishment number "EST. 492" inside the USDA mark of inspection; has package dates of "09.14.09," "09.15.09," or "09.16.09;" and sell-by dates of "10.3.09," "10.4.09," or "10.5.09. These products were distributed to retail establishments in Maryland, Massachusetts, North Carolina, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia for further processing. However, these products at retail will likely not bear the package dates and sell-by dates listed above. Customers with concerns should contact their point of purchase.

Vermont Veal Slaughter Plant Shut after USDA Views Video

marler@marlerclark.com (E. coli Attorney) — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 17:33:20 -0800

The Beef Industry and the USDA really need to get their shit together. This it truly stupid. It is beyond words.

According to a recent press release:

“The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Vermont Agency of Agriculture today suspended their respective licenses and thereby ceased operations at the Bushways Slaughterhouse facility in Grand Isle, Vermont.

“The Vermont Agency of Agriculture was notified by the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) late Wednesday afternoon of alleged animal welfare violations at the facility. The agency immediately referred the matter to the USDA as the facility is operated and monitored under the inspection of USDA.

“USDA and the state have suspended the operation of the facility and are conducting an investigation. These allegations of inhumane handling and treatment of animals if verified, warrant prompt corrective actions to ensure they do not happen again.

“In addition, in accordance with agency animal health statutes, the Attorney General has been notified of possible criminal actions in regards to animal health and welfare.

“The agency finds the alleged animal welfare practices disturbing and states that there is no excuse for the inhumane treatment of animals. These practices are not representative of the industry as a whole in Vermont and such actions will not be tolerated in our state. The agency is taking every action within its power to address the situation.”

Mr. Peanut Goes to China - Deadly Nuts/Deadly Crimes

bmarler@marlerclark.com (Bill Marler) — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 13:53:14 -0800

On January 29, 2009, the Untied States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) implicated Peanut Corporation of America (PCA) of Blakely Georgia as the source of a massive Salmonella Typhimurium outbreak that sickened at least 700 sent about a dozen to early graves. Investigation into the outbreak revealed knowledge of product contamination at the highest levels of the PCA corporate structure, yet, ten months later, criminal charges have yet to be filed against PCA executives.

One can only imagine what thoughts are going through the head of PCA owner Stewart Parnell these days. Perhaps he’s grown complacent with the fact that it has been over three quarters of a year since the massive recall of PCA products and yet criminal charges are nowhere in sight. Perhaps he’s more concerned at the moment with his company’s bankruptcy proceedings. One thought that may not yet have occurred to him, however, is gratitude for the fact that, at worst, he’s subject to American tainted food laws. In other countries (read: China) Mr. Parnell might have more to worry about right now than shaky finances.

The facts of the PCA Salmonella outbreak are no light matter. What made the PCA outbreak particularly noteworthy was the huge number of products involved in the recall and the disastrous nation-wide health consequences resulting from the tainted products. The investigation following the outbreak revealed evidence of conditions unsanitary to a degree that would likely make Upton Sinclair turn in his grave. The most egregious findings from the investigation, however, came not from production facilities riddled with rat feces, but from internal communications that illustrated knowledge of shipping contaminated products that could be traced all the way to Mr. Parnell himself.

In an e-mail dated October 6, 2008, Mr. Parnell complained to Blakely, Georgia PCA plant manager, Sammy Lightsey, that positive Salmonella results were “costing us huge $$$$$ and causing obviously a huge lapse in time from the time we pick up peanuts until the time we can invoice.” In the same e-mail, Mr. Parnell stated, “we need to protect our self [sic] and the problem is that the tests absolutely give us no protection.” (Link)

Subsequent statements from Michelle Pronto, the microbiology manager of the lab that warned PCA of dangerous test results, indicated that Mr. Lightsey “confirmed that because of high coliform results they were going to send samples to a different lab for a while.” (Link) Ms. Pronto further indicated that her lab “did not receive any samples labeled ‘PCA’ between 8/26/08 and 11/24/08.” Additional evidence indicates that Mr. Parnell begged the FDA to allow PCA to continue shipping peanuts even after the FDA identified PCA’s Georgia plant as the source of the Salmonella outbreak. (Link)

In light of the fact that Mr. Parnell and Mr. Lightsey wanted to continue with business as usual, even though their products were dangerously contaminated, and the fact that those practices resulted in hundreds of illnesses and a dozen deaths, criminal charges in this case seem more than apt. And yet, to this day we have yet to see a single PCA employee or shareholder prosecuted. It is not as if there are no laws applicable to this situation.

Under federal law, it is a felony to adulterate or misbrand food and put it into interstate commerce. A person who commits such an act “with the intent to defraud or mislead” is guilty of a felony punishable by three years imprisonment.

Under the same federal law, a person may be convicted of a misdemeanor without a showing by the prosecution of proof of fraudulent intent, or even a showing of knowing or willful conduct. Instead, 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 up to one year imprisonment or a $1,000 fine.

In cases involving food adulteration or misbranding, individuals can be named as defendants along with corporate entities through which crimes were committed. (Link). Individuals named in such cases are usually high ranking officials who were in charge of the decision-making process that led to a violation of the law, as well as those persons who were actively involved in fraudulent activity. As a result, the presidents of corporations and the managers of the facilities where violations took place are often proper defendants.

These laws indicate that sellers of tainted food in America may at least be subject to some criminal penalties, however, such laws don’t hold a candle to the criminal penalties executives of Chinese companies have faced in similarly egregious matters. This fact is easily observed by looking at just a couple recent examples.

On September 16, 2008, a Chinese powdered milk company accused of selling poisoned product that left nearly 300,000 children ill fired its general manager and board chairwoman Tian Wenhua. That same day, Communist party officials from Hebei Province removed Ms. Tian from her position as secretary of the corporation committee of the Communist Party of China. The next day, Ms. Tian was formally charged with producing toxic food, a criminal charge punishable by up to life imprisonment or death.

By September 18, six days after the official announcement of the crisis, Chinese police had already arrested 18 people in connection with the powdered milk contamination, including 6 sellers of melamine and 12 milk suppliers accused of adding melamine to their products. Police also seized 300 kg of chemicals, including 223 kg of melamine. Additionally, 87 people were summoned for questioning and 28 were detained.

Over the next three weeks, the arrests continued. By October 10, Hebei police had arrested 36 people in total, including a dairy farmer who was accused of producing over 600 tons of a protein powder made of melamine and maltodextrin, which he subsequently sold to food additive vendors, cattle farm owners, and fresh milk purchasers.

Another notorious recent example was the execution of Zheng Xiaoyu, the former director of the Chinese State Food and Drug Administration. According to government authorities, during Mr. Zheng’s tenure as State Food and Drug Administration director, from its founding in 1998 to his removal in mid-2005, he accepted bribes totaling $850,000. In exchange, he allegedly approved drug production licenses for multiple untested and unsafe medicines, resulting an unknown number of deaths. In May 2007, after pleading guilty to charges of corruption and accepting bribes from pharmaceutical companies, Mr. Zheng was sentenced to death. The court that sentenced Mr. Zheng stated that he had approved at least six fake drugs during his tenure. Mr. Zheng was executed on July 10, 2007.

What makes these examples interesting is not only the harshness of the punishments compared to American law, but also the swiftness. In Ms. Tian’s case, a mere day passed between her firing and her facing severe criminal charges. In Mr. Zheng’s case, he was executed less than two months after sentencing. Whether such harsh punishments will deter future wrongdoing in China is yet to be seen, and certainly the Chinese legal system is not a place American courts or lawyers should turn to for inspiration. Nevertheless, PCA executives may want to take a moment to consider the fact that their reprehensible behavior is a capital offense in some parts of the world. Likewise, executives of similar food companies that may be looking for ways to cut costs in this difficult economic climate may want to think twice about putting profits before ethics. These executives owe it to their customers to ensure that the food they produce is safe. They owe it to their customers to work to produce safe products as if their lives depend on it.

I leave for China on Monday with my 10 year old daughter. Thanks to Alex Ferguson of my office for the help on the above.

E. coli O157 Update - With 1,039 Pounds of Hamburger Recalled at Midnight by South Shore Meats, the Total Since 2007 is Now 41,412,504 Pounds

marler@marlerclark.com (E. coli Lawyer) — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 08:54:28 -0800

At midnight Crocetti's Oakdale Packing Co., doing business as, South Shore Meats, Inc., a Brockton, Massachusetts establishment, "voluntarily" recalled 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, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced today. Hamburger recalls since 2007 have now reached 41,412,504 pounds.

And, this is not counting another recall from 2008. Then, Hallmark/Westland Meat Packing Co., a Chino, California establishment, voluntarily recalled approximately 143,383,823 pounds of raw and frozen beef products that FSIS has determined to be unfit for human food because the cattle did not receive complete and proper inspection. Through evidence obtained by FSIS, the establishment did not consistently contact the FSIS public health veterinarian in situations in which cattle became non-ambulatory after passing ante-mortem inspection, which is not compliant with FSIS regulations.

This recall was initiated after the Massachusetts Department of Public Health confirmed a positive sample for E. coli O157:H7 in hamburger which it collected during an epidemiological investigation at the home of our client. She and family members are now ill.

FSIS is continuing to work with the Massachusetts Department of Public Health, the Rhode Island Department of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on the investigation. CDC had determined that the product sampled is associated with the illnesses being investigated related to illnesses in Massachusetts and in illnesses linked to Camp Bournedale in Plymouth, Massachusetts of 20 children from Rhode Island. Total number of illnesses are now near 30.

Crocetti's Oakdale Packing Company dba South Shore Meats, Inc., Recalls Fresh Ground Beef Patties And Beef Steak Products Due To E. coli O157:H7 Contamination

bmarler@marlerclark.com (Bill Marler) — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 22:12:50 -0800

Crocetti's Oakdale Packing Co., doing business as, South Shore Meats, Inc., a Brockton, Mass., establishment, is voluntarily 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, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced today.

This recall was initiated after the Massachusetts Department of Public Health (DPH) confirmed a positive sample for E. coli O157:H7 which it collected during an epidemiological investigation. FSIS is continuing to work with the Massachusetts DPH, the Rhode Island Department of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on the investigation. CDC had determined that the product sampled is associated with the illnesses being investigated. Anyone with signs or symptoms of foodborne illness should consult a physician.

The products subject to recall include:

* 10-pound boxes containing 40, 4-ounce packages of "Beef Sirloin Patties, Manufactured by South Shore Meats."
* 7.5-pound boxes containing 12, 10-ounce packages of "Beef Teres Major Steaks Seasoned."
* Boxes of 24, 5-ounce packages of "BEEF BUTT STEAKS, (Filet Style)."
* 9-pound boxes containing 12, 12-ounce packages of "BEEF BUTT STEAKS, Center Cut, (sirloin style)."
* 9-pound boxes containing 12, 12-ounce packages of "BEEF BUTT STEAK, Center Cut, (filet style)."
* 6.75-pound boxes containing 12, 9-ounce packages of "BEEF BUTT STEAK, Center Cut, (sirloin style)."
* Boxes of 16, 10-ounce packages of "Beef Top Butt Steaks Sirloin Style."
* Boxes of 20, 8-ounce packages of "Beef Butt Steaks Club Style."
* Boxes of 26, 6-ounce packages of "Beef Top Butt Steaks Sirloin Style."
* Boxes of 12, 10-ounce packages of "BEEF BUTT STEAKS, (Filet Style)."
* 6-pound boxes containing 16, 6-ounce packages of "Beef Filet Of Sirloin, Executive Cut."
* Boxes of 12, 8-ounce packages of "BEEF BUTT STEAKS, (Filet Style)."

Each box bears the establishment number "EST. 6336" inside the USDA mark of inspection and may also bear a date code of "281." The beef products were produced on October 8, 2009, and were distributed to wholesale distributors and institutions in Massachusetts. If available, the retail distribution list(s) will be posted on FSIS' Web site at http://www.fsis.usda.gov/FSIS_Recalls/ Open_Federal_Cases/index.asp

Rhode Island Department of Health Recalls Ground Beef Due to E. coli Contamination Linked to Camp Bournedale and Massachusetts Star Market

marler@marlerclark.com (E. coli Attorney) — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 16:42:26 -0800

The Rhode Island Department of Health (HEALTH) advises Rhode Islanders that the South Shore Meat packing plant in Brockton has initiated a voluntary recall on certain ground beef products based on confirmed laboratory evidence of the presence of E. coli O157:H7 in leftover ground beef samples obtained from Camp Bournedale in Plymouth, Massachusetts. The ground beef was tested by the Massachusetts Department of Public Health (MDPH) after more than 20 students and chaperones from Lincoln Middle School became ill. Other Massachusetts residents are also sickened from meat purchased at Star Market in Marshfield.

USDA is investigating what lot codes are involved at this time and will be updating their website with detailed information on a regular basis. HEALTH continues to work with MDPH and federal partners to determine if any other products are involved with this recall and where the product(s) were distributed.

Senator Harry Reid (D) and Senator John Ensign (R) - Something You Two Should be Able to Agree On

bmarler@marlerclark.com (Bill Marler) — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 09:09:26 -0800

Below - Linda Rivera and the Rivera family a few months before Linda was stricken with E. coli O157:H7.

Below - Linda Rivera and her husband, Richard, in the hospital where Linda has been since May 1, 2009 struggling for her life. To date, medical bills at over $1,500,000. She has lost her job and is now on COBRA insurance coverage. She has suffered through kidney and liver failure and the removal of her large intestine and pancreas - she is now being weaned off a ventilator and she fights other infections. One tough lady - the family hopes and prays for her recovery. Here is an update I received a few moments ago:

Linda continues to remain in serious condition. They are trialing her on non-ventilator support, or independent, breathing. She is only modestly successful in that she stops breathing after some hours, probably from both respiratory fatigue and continued lung disease. She therefore requires mostly ventilator assisted breathing for now. Impaired respiratory muscles mechanics, muscle wasting, and lung tissue disease in the setting of severe nutritional deficits makes it difficult for her to maintain adequate independent, reliable, respiratory physiology.

Linda’s liver remains impaired. She is jaundiced and the liver enzymes remain elevated. Serum proteins are decreased, indicating that her liver’s ability to assemble dietary amino acids into sequences that results in specific proteins for essential body functions is impaired. This impacts her immunity, fluid balance, blood clotting ability, and drug clearance of all the medications required to treat her successfully.

Linda has a large decubitus ulcer on her buttocks. This is also known as a bed sore. Her bed sore is large and potentially deep. This can be an entry way for serious infections and must be brought under control. With nutritional deficits and poor regional blood flow to an area typically compressed by the weight of her body on her buttocks while in bed, progression of the ulcer (bed sore) tends to be greater than regression unless the wound care team at her hospital aggressively treats it. This ulcer is perhaps one of the greatest threats to her otherwise relatively stable condition.

Linda is moving both upper extremities but has very limited left leg movement. With all the muscle disuse and impaired nutrition, it hurts her to move her extremities. Linda is being trialed on a special “talking tracheotomy” tube that allows her to talk. Richard says she is able to speak but apparently only perhaps single words. Using one of these tubes requires a good respiratory reserve in a recovering patient. Linda has almost no real reserve to make this tube a realistic part of her care. Nonetheless, they will continue to train her for it. Rich said that she was a bit shocked to hear her own voice. She is oriented to her place and person, but obviously time is a big blur to her. The stroke of a few months ago seems improved.

S 510 is sitting in the Senate and needs to be passed. Senator Reid, Senator Ensign, how about a bi-partisan effort for one of your constituents? Move S 510 to the floor for a vote. Get it to the President before Thanksgiving.

41,411,465 Pounds of E. coli Tainted Beef Recalled Since 2007 - That is 165,645,860 Quater Pounders

marler@marlerclark.com (E. coli Lawyer) — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 08:49:06 -0800

Although recalls of beef have fallen off a bit in 2009 (only 571,922 pounds) from 2008 (7,083,399 pounds) and 2007 (33,756,142 pounds) (PDF), 2006 was the best year we had seen awhile - 181,900 pounds.

Of course this does not account for the over 143,000,000 pounds of beef product recalled due to the Hallmark fiasco. Illnesses? Well, we have not yet seen a downturn as we had hoped. Let's hope the rest of 2009 has no more recalls and no more illnesses.

Camp Bournedale E. coli O157:H7 Hamburger Outbreak Linked to 15 Illnesses

marler@marlerclark.com (E. coli Lawyer) — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 08:16:25 -0800

Rhode Island health officials said 15 students from Lincoln Middle School suffered diarrhea after a trip to Camp Bournedale in Cedarville Massachusetts last week. Two of the students tested positive for E. coli O157:H7. Two students were hospitalized for treatment.

Rhode Island health officials said the sixth-grade students from Lincoln attended a three-day session at the camp from Oct. 13-16. Health officials were notified that several students had become sick on Monday, Oct. 19. The Rhode Island Department of Health reported that Massachusetts health officials are investigating foods at the camp as the likely source of the illness. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention is said to be assisting in the investigation.

Arnie Gerson, owner and director of the camp, said state and federal health officials traced the outbreak to tainted raw hamburger. Gerson said the camp will no longer cook raw hamburger. As a precaution, the camp will serve pre-cooked burgers to campers, if it serves hamburger at all.

Meatpoulty.com - Secretary for food safety vacancy looms large

bmarler@marlerclark.com (Bill Marler) — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 14:15:38 -0800

Steve Bjerklie MeatPoultry.com

WASHINGTON — The real consequence of the continuing vacancy in the Undersecretary for Food Safety’s post at USDA is that there is no one "with the gravitas of a Senate appointment" to unite the industry, consumer organizations and regulatory agencies into an effort to pursue a plan to improve the safety of the meat and food supply.

So says Bill Marler, the influential E. coli victims’ attorney, based in Seattle, Wash., who has made a career from successfully suing meat companies in the wake of outbreaks of E. coli O157:H7 poisoning traced to adulterated meat. "We are missing the person who can see the big picture," he told MEATPOULTRY.com.

Marler thinks the longer the post goes unfilled – the Obama Administration has reportedly considered several candidates since last January, but no names have been officially announced – the deeper the problem becomes. "Although the focus lately has been on the FDA, with these new proposals being made in Congress, not having a real food-safety point person at either FDA or USDA is hampering a pretty unique opportunity to move forward on food safety in a unique way. I think there have been a lot of missed opportunities for the industry and consumer groups to work together to improve food safety," he said.

He pointed out that in the long article published on Oct. 2 in the New York Times that detailed lapses in testing protocols and other E. coli control problems, resulting in several deaths as well as cases of permanent disability, there was no one at USDA who could effectively address the issue beyond a general statement from Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack and a couple of comments from executive assistants at the department’s Food Safety and Inspection Service. "To really not have anybody at USDA respond in a meaningful way to the issues the article brought up was telling," Marler said.

This week, a bill with bipartisan support to expand FDA’s authority to regulate the nation’s food supply made its way on to Congress’s crowded calendar. A sense of urgency has pushed politicians to pursue food-safety reform: In addition to the Times story, which inspired a roundtable discussion on beef safety on "Larry King Live," a survey conducted in July by the Pew Charitable Trusts found that nearly 90% of voters favored new food safety measures. While the legislation proposed this week would not directly impact FSIS, there is widespread agreement that a major overhaul of FDA would likely influence reform in the meat inspection program.

Marler said he thinks that "sometimes, FSIS forgets what its mission is. Its mission is public health and food safety. The person who takes the food-safety job at USDA has to wake up every morning and say, first thing, ‘My job is to protect the public health.’" He added: "But how do we get there? That’s the part that’s missing. You can’t try to strike a balance between food safety and industry needs, like one USDA person said in the Times article that they were trying to do, and not compromise on the safety. That’s the bottom line. The government’s job is to protect the public health."

Marler is disappointed, he told MEATPOULTRY.com, by remarks he still hears and reads on occasion from industry executives who say that if consumers simply cooked ground beef to the correct temperature, there wouldn’t be a problem. "The idea that it’s the consumer’s fault, that cow poop on meat is ‘natural’ – this is still pervasive in the packing industry. Look, I understand that large-scale food production is difficult to do. But it’s not impossible to do it and have the safety of the product be the top priority," he said.

In Marler’s view, the real culprit behind the industry’s struggle to eliminate E. coli and other pathogens from the meat and poultry supply is the commodity cost structure the industry is trapped in. "If food safety is all of our responsibility – the industry’s, the consumer’s and USDA’s – then the cost structure we have, where cheaper is always better, makes no sense whatsoever," he stated.

The attorney doesn’t buy excuses that the Administration hasn’t been able to find viable candidates for the USDA food-safety job who can meet the Administration’s no-previous-lobbying standard. "Frankly, that’s BS," he said. "There are a lot of people – and I’ll include myself here – who have a broad interest in and knowledge of food safety. My God, there are 300 million people in this country. Surely we can find one person who can do this job effectively."

What do "Balloon Boy's" Dad and Stewart Parnell have in common?

bmarler@marlerclark.com (Bill Marler) — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 16:53:13 -0800

Not much really.

Last word from US Attorney's Office on the Peanut Corporation of America Investigation:

For Immediate Release
February 9, 2009 FBI Atlanta
Contact: Special Agent Stephen Emmett
(404) 679-6451

FBI To Assist FDA in Ongoing Investigation of the Peanut Corporation of America

ATLANTA, GA—Special Agent in Charge (SAC) Gregory Jones, FBI Atlanta, announces the FBI’s assistance to the Food and Drug Administration, Office of Criminal Investigations (FDA/OCI), in the ongoing investigation of the Peanut Corporation of America.

The FBI was asked to assist FDA/OCI in this matter, due to its ability to bring to bear a considerable amount of investigative resources. Although the FBI is fully involved in this investigation, FDA/OCI remains the lead federal investigative agency. As such, the FBI will defer to FDA/OCI for all public commentary regarding the details of this ongoing investigation.

For the time being, the FBI will make no further public comment on this matter.

Contact for USDA, Middle District of GA is:

Sue McKinney, Public Affairs Specialist, United States Attorney’s Office at 478-621-2602.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++

Last word from FDA as of a few moments ago:

"It is FDA's longstanding policy, consistent with the policy of the Department of Justice, not to comment or provide information with respect to on-going investigations. Inquiries should be addressed to the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Middle District of Georgia."

So, we go after "Balloon Boy's" dad, but not Stewart Parnell? What the hell is that all about?