The Marler Clark Network
Posted by Bill Marler on May 02, 2012

USDA Announces New Safeguards to Protect Consumers from Foodborne Illness

The U.S. Department of Agriculture today announced a series of policy measures that will better protect consumers from foodborne illness in meat and poultry products. These measures will significantly improve the ability of both plants and USDA to trace contaminated food materials in the supply chain, to act against contaminated products sooner, and to establish the effectiveness of food safety systems.

“The additional safeguards we are announcing today will improve our ability to prevent foodborne illness by strengthening our food safety infrastructure,” said USDA Under Secretary for Food Safety Dr. Elisabeth Hagen “Together, these measures will provide us with more tools to protect our food supply, resulting in stronger public health protections for consumers.”

The policy measures include the following:

USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) intends to implement new traceback measures in order to control pathogens earlier and prevent them from triggering foodborne illnesses and outbreaks. FSIS is proposing to launch traceback investigations earlier and identify additional potentially contaminated product when the Agency finds E. coli O157:H7 through its routine sampling program. When FSIS receives an indication of contamination through presumptive positive test results for E. coli, it will aim to link products, companies, and the pathogen to a sole source supplier and to any other processors that received the contaminated product from the supplier, instead of waiting for confirmation.

FSIS is implementing three provisions included in the Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008 (the 2008 Farm Bill). The new regulations, published as a Final Rule and directed by Congress, require establishments to prepare and maintain recall procedures, to notify FSIS within 24 hours that a meat or poultry product that could harm consumers has been shipped into commerce, and to document each reassessment of their hazard control and critical control point (HACCP) system food safety plans.

FSIS is announcing the availability of guidance to plants on the steps that are necessary to establish that their HACCP food safety systems will work as designed to control the food safety hazards that they confront. This process, called “validation,” enables companies to ensure that their food safety systems are effective for preventing foodborne illness. This notice announces that the draft guidance document is available for comment.

In the past two years, FSIS has announced several measures to safeguard the food supply, prevent foodborne illness, and improve consumers' knowledge about the food they eat. These initiatives support the three core principles developed by the President’s Food Safety Working Group: prioritizing prevention; strengthening surveillance and enforcement; and improving response and recovery. Some of these actions include:

• Zero tolerance policy for six Shiga toxin-producing E. coli (STEC) serogroups. Raw ground beef, its components, and tenderized steaks found to contain E. coli O26, O103, O45, O111, O121 or O145 will be prohibited from sale to consumers. USDA will launch a testing program to detect these dangerous pathogens and prevent them from reaching consumers.

• Test and hold policy that will significantly reduce consumer exposure to unsafe meat products, should the policy become final, because products cannot be released into commerce until Agency test results for dangerous contaminants are known.

• Labeling requirements that provide better information to consumers about their food by requiring nutrition information for single-ingredient raw meat and poultry products and ground or chopped products.

• Public Health Information System, a modernized, comprehensive database about public health trends and food safety violations at the nearly 6,100 plants FSIS regulates.

Posted by Bill Marler on April 13, 2012

CRS: Lean Finely Textured Beef: The "Pink Slime" Controversy

Joel Greene - Since early March 2012, the use of lean finely textured beef (LFTB) in the U.S. ground beef supply has come under a barrage of media criticism and consumer backlash. The depiction of LFTB in the media as “pink slime” raised the product’s “yuck” factor and implied that there were food safety issues with LFTB, mainly because ammonium gas is used as an antimicrobial intervention in the production of LFTB. Also, the fact that ground beef purchased for the school lunch program could contain LFTB triggered consumer calls for the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to immediately end the practice.

The meat industry saw media sensationalism as a campaign of misinformation to undermine a product used for more than ten years to supplement lean beef supplies used in ground beef. Ground beef is the most popularly consumed beef item among American consumers, and consumers have increasingly demanded lean ground beef. USDA approved the process that Beef Products, Inc. (BPI), the primary producer of LFTB, uses to produce LFTB, and USDA continues to affirm that LFTB is a safe, nutritious beef product.

Although LFTB received negative press in previous years, the uproar starting in March 2012 has had greater impacts. USDA changed its policy on school lunches to allow schools to have a choice of whether to buy ground beef with LFTB or not. Major grocery chains announced that they were discontinuing the use of LFTB in retail ground beef. The result has been an immediate, sharp decline in 50% beef trimming prices, and expectations of higher ground beef prices. Some companies decided to voluntarily use LFTB labels on ground beef containing the product. Some food safety advocates who believe BPI was a food safety innovator have expressed concern that the barrage of negative publicity could stifle further innovation by meat companies.

The LFTB controversy demonstrates that consumers’ perceptions and understanding of modern food production can quickly affect markets and/or a company’s business. It raises policy issues about how consumers should be informed by either industry or government. Some Members of Congress have expressed strong interest in the LFTB controversy through statements and letters to USDA. Some Members have called for the immediate end of LFTB in the school lunch program, and others have asked that ground beef include labels informing consumers that LFTB is used in a beef product. Legislation also has been introduced that would require LFTB labels.

Full Report PDF.

Posted by David Babcock on March 23, 2012

CDC Provides Update on Schnuck's E. coli O157:H7 Outbreak - Still not Naming Names

lettuce.bmpThe CDC today released an update on the E. coli O157:H7 outbreak from the fall of 2011 linked to romaine lettuce.

The following information was provided as "Outbreak Highlights:"

  • As of March 21, 2012, 58 persons infected with the outbreak strain of E. coli serotype O157:H7 were reported from 9 states.
  • Collaborative investigative efforts of state, local, and federal public health and regulatory agencies indicated that romaine lettuce was the likely source of illnesses in this outbreak, and contamination likely occurred before the product reached retail stores.
  • This particular outbreak appears to be over and consumers are not being advised to avoid eating any specific foods at this time. However, E. coli O157:H7 is still an important cause of human illness in the United States.

In keeping with their dubious practice, CDC is still not providing the name of the grocery store chain associated with the illnesses- which is Schnucks.   Similarly, the distributor, Vaughan Foods is not named.   In connection with litigaiton brought by Marler Clark, the grower, "Farm A" should be identified soon.

The following are the updated details on the state by state breakdown, timing of illnesses, and other biographical date provided by CDC today:

As of March 21, 2012, 58 persons infected with the outbreak strain of E. coli O157:H7 were reported from 9 states. The number of ill persons identified in each state was as follows: Arizona (1), Arkansas (2), Illinois (9), Indiana (2), Kansas (2), Kentucky (1), Minnesota (2), Missouri (38), and Nebraska (1). Two cases were removed from the case count because advanced molecular testing determined that they were not related to this outbreak strain. Among persons for whom information was available, illnesses began from October 9, 2011 to November 7, 2011. Ill persons ranged in age from 1 to 94 years, with a median age of 28 years. Fifty-nine percent were female. Among the 49 ill persons with available information, 33 (67%) were hospitalized, and 3 developed hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS). No deaths were reported.

Posted by Bill Marler on March 05, 2012

Listeria Victims' Call For Open Meetings on Cantaloupe Safety

On March 1, Joan Murphy of the Produce News wrote that produce trade organizations will be meeting to draft additional guidance to ensure the safe production of netted melons (i.e. cantaloupe).  The move is in response to the 2011 Listeria monocytogenes outbreak that was traced by the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to cantaloupes produced by Colorado-based Jensen Farms, sickened 146 and killed at least 32 people.

According to Murphy’s report, the meetings are open to growers, buyers, and auditors in the produce industry, as well as regulators from state agencies, the Food & Drug Administration and the U.S. Department of Agriculture.  However, the meetings will not be open to the public– a decision that has left many Listeria victims and their families feeling ignored.

“If the full weight of our losses is not recognized by those in industry, how can they make fully informed decisions regarding the importance of improved practices?” asks Kathleen Gilbert Buchanan, whose mother, Frances Gilbert, died in September from a Listeria infection.   “Treating all of the illnesses and deaths as mere statistics will not have the same impact as hearing the voices of our families and seeing the faces of our loved ones.”

Jennifer Exley, the daughter of a Colorado man who was hospitalized for over a month and still requires in-home health care believes that the cantaloupe industry needs to hear the victims’ side of the outbreak in order to fully understand the real-life impact of foodborne illness.

“They need to know our stories,” said Exley. “People that have been affected should be allowed to speak about what we all have been through and are continuing to go through so the seriousness of foodborne illnesses can be relayed in a personal manner.”

In October, the Associated Press published a story covering the Death of George Drinkwalter called, Nebraska Family Hopes Changes Follow Listeria Outbreak. Despite the initial optimism that the loss might actually help improve food safety in the future, the family now says the decision of the cantaloupe industry has dampened any expectation of real change.

“We feel tremendously let down and ignored. This is very disappointing for those of us who lost a family member in this outbreak, said Drinkwalter family spokesman Keith Drinkwalter. “After the deaths of over 35 people, I would think that the industry would want to be open and upfront with upcoming discussions.”

For additional comments from the families of those affected by the 2011 cantaloupe Listeria outbreak regarding the upcoming industry meetings visit: Marler Blog.  For additional information contact Cody Moore at 206-407-2200 or cmoore@marlerclark.com

Posted by Bill Marler on February 27, 2012

Obama and Vilsack Bow to Produce Lobbyists and Eliminate Program to Test for Food-Borne Diseases

Matt Bewig

Bowing to industry lobbying, the Obama administration has proposed eliminating a program that tests fresh produce for food-borne diseases like the listeria outbreak in cantaloupe that killed 36 people in 2011. The USDA microbiological data program (MDP), created by the administration of President George W. Bush in 2001, collects fresh produce samples from distribution centers and terminal markets across the United States and tests them for pathogens. Specifically, MDP tests high-risk produce like alfalfa sprouts, cilantro, green onions, peppers, tomatoes, spinach, and other leafy greens, every one of which has caused a product recall or a food-borne illness outbreak, some of them lethal. The Obama administration has proposed defunding the program. As the program cost is barely $5 million annually, the justification for the cut is not budgetary.

In fact, food industry lobbyists like the United Fresh Produce Association, which spends more than $1 million a year on lobbying, have never liked the program, contending that it needlessly duplicates other government efforts, unfairly burdens growers, may yield false positive test results, and causes unnecessary food recalls. Yet the FDA, which generally has jurisdiction over food safety, lacks the budget to conduct anything more than limited inspections. The industry’s plan is for it to regulate itself via privately contracted testing, a practice the FDA recently termed “an inherent conflict of interest,” and which failed to prevent the deadly Listeria outbreak last year.

When challenged at a House of Representatives appropriations hearing, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack gave weak excuses for eliminating MDP. He said that its mission was not appropriate to agency of which it is a part, the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS). The Obama budget says the program “is not central to the core mission of AMS, which is to facilitate the competitive and efficient marketing of agricultural products.”

Posted by Colin Caywood on February 21, 2012

CDC: Raw milk outbreak rate 150 times higher than pasteurized milk

raw milk-bottle.jpgA new study published in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) journal, Emerging Infectious Diseases, found that the rate of outbreaks caused by unpasteurized milk (raw milk) and unpasteurized milk products was 150 times greater than outbreaks linked to pasteurized milk.  In addition, the study revealed that states where raw milk sales are legal had more than twice the rate of outbreaks as states where it was illegal.

The 13-year study, involved a review of dairy product outbreaks from 1993 to 2006 in all 50 states.  The authors compared the amount of milk produced in the United States during the study period (about 2.7 trillion pounds) to the amount that CDC estimates was likely consumed raw (1 percent or 27 billion pounds) to determine the 150 times higher rate for outbreaks caused by raw milk products.  Raw milk products include cheese and yogurt.

The study included 121 dairy–related disease outbreaks, which caused 4,413 illnesses, 239 hospitalizations and three deaths. In 60 percent of the outbreaks (73 outbreaks) state health officials determined raw milk products were the cause.  Nearly all of the hospitalizations (200 of 239) were in those sickened in the raw milk outbreaks.  These dairy-related outbreaks occurred in 30 states, and 75 percent (55 outbreaks) of the raw milk outbreaks occurred in the 21 states where it was legal to sell raw milk products at the time. The study also reported that seven states changed their laws during the study period.

For a consumer, it is impossible to tell if raw milk is safe to drink by simply looking at, smelling, or tasting it.  Even under ideal conditions of cleanliness, the process of collecting milk introduces some bacteria.  Unless the milk is pasteurized, these bacteria can multiply and grow in the milk and cause illness in those who consume it.  Pasteurization involves heating milk to kill disease-causing bacteria.

“This study shows an association between state laws and the number of outbreaks and illnesses from raw milk products,” said Robert Tauxe, M.D., M.P.H., deputy director of CDC’s Division of Foodborne, Waterborne and Environmental Diseases (DFWED). “Restricting the sale of raw milk products is likely to reduce the number of outbreaks and can help keep people healthier. The states that allow sale of raw milk will probably continue to see outbreaks in the future.”

The study also found that the raw milk product outbreaks led to much more severe illnesses, and disproportionately affected people under age 20. In the raw milk outbreaks with known age breakdowns, 60 percent of patients were younger than age 20, compared to 23 percent in outbreaks from pasteurized products.  Because of their underdeveloped immune systems, children are more likely than adults to get seriously ill from the bacteria in raw milk.

“While some people think that raw milk has more health benefits than pasteurized milk, this study shows that raw milk has great risks, especially for children, who experience more severe illnesses if they get sick,” said study co-author Barbara Mahon, M.D., M.P.H., deputy chief of CDC’s DFWED Enteric Diseases Epidemiology Branch. “Parents who have lived through the experience of watching their child fight for their life after drinking raw milk now say that it’s just not worth the risk.”

Additional information on evidence-based scientific studies covering the benefits and risks of raw milk consumption can be found HERE (pdf).

According to Food Safety News, since the end of the study's review period of 1993 to 2006, there have been an additional 56 foodborne illness outbreaks associated with raw milk and raw milk products. 

According to Jay-Russell, nearly all instances of outbreaks from pasteurized dairy occur because of contamination after the pasteurization process.

This year, Indiana, New Jersey, Iowa, Idaho, New Hampshire, Kentucky and Wisconsin have all considered changes to their raw milk sales laws. The majority of the bills under review would either permit the sale of raw milk where currently illegal, or remove certain restrictions on its sale in states where it's already permitted.

Federal law restricts the transport of raw milk across state lines for sale, though consumers are free to travel across state lines to purchase milk and take it home, and there is no law against consuming unpasteurized milk.

The push for loosened raw milk sales rules across many states runs counter to the best scientific recommendations the CDC and Food and Drug Administration can make based on the available data, Jay-Russell said. Many raw milk proponents argue that raw milk provides nutrients and numerous health benefits negated by the pasteurization process, while many food scientists say there's no credible scientific evidence for any of those claims.

"It's [the CDC and FDA's] charge to look at the health statistics and inform the public and help policy makers create policy that makes sense," Jay-Russell said. "But there's a push-back. Some groups don't want government influence over food, so it makes it a much more political debate than a scientific one."

Posted by Bill Marler on February 19, 2012

An Open Letter Regarding An Internet Smear of FDA Official Michael Taylor

We the undersigned are writing to offer another perspective on Michael Taylor, the deputy commissioner for foods at the Food and Drug Administration, and the subject of a petition that SignOn.org, which is sponsored by MoveOn.org, is circulating on the Internet. The petition attacks Taylor based on his former employment at the controversial agricultural biotechnology company Monsanto. The undersigned have diverse views regarding genetically engineered foods, but we are unanimous in our belief that Taylor is a valued deputy commissioner, and we regret that a factually untrue Internet smear campaign has attracted so much support.

Several of us have been representing consumer interests on food safety and nutrition issues for most of our careers. All of us have known Michael Taylor for many years, including when he occupied previous high‐level positions in the federal government, taught at George Washington University School of Public Health, and even when he worked at Monsanto.

We acknowledge that Monsanto symbolizes a lot of things that many people (including some of us) don’t like about modern, industrial agriculture. But Mr. Taylor’s résumé is not reducible to his work at that company. It is far more relevant that in the Clinton Administration he headed the Food Safety and Inspection Service at the U.S. Department of Agriculture, where he stood up to the meat industry and fought for strict controls that help keep E. coli and other pathogens out of meat and poultry. Since joining the Obama Administration, Taylor has been working extraordinarily hard to transform the FDA from a reactive agency that chases down foodborne‐illness outbreaks after people fall ill, to a proactive public‐health‐based agency focused on preventing foods from becoming contaminated in the first place. We are confident that his leadership, formerly at USDA and now at FDA, has and will continue to reduce the number of Americans sickened, hospitalized, and killed by foodborne pathogens.

Also, the attack on Taylor includes statements about genetically engineered foods that are simply without any basis in fact. The petition states that since the introduction of GE foods, the “diagnosis of multiple chronic illnesses in the U.S. has skyrocketed,” and that the industry’s products “may also be contributors to colon, breast, lymphatic, and prostate cancers.” Reasonable people can disagree about Monsanto’s corporate policies (often bad), or the quality of government oversight of GE foods (inadequate), or the appropriateness of genetically engineering food crops in the first place. But all of us agree that there is no foundation for the outlandish statements made in the petition.

Undermining MoveOn’s credibility is that the petition’s author, Frederick Ravid, self‐ identifies as the “the 21st generation descendent from father‐to‐son of the famous 12th century Kaballistic [sic] Master Rabbi Abraham ben David, of Posquierres, known as the RaVaD.” Ravid’s web site claims that President Barack Obama is the reincarnation of a Civil War‐era Senator, Lyman Trumbull. It also indicates his belief that various events, such as the earthquake in Haiti or the founding of the League of Nations, are linked to solar eclipses. We mean no disrespect for Mr. Ravid’s religious beliefs, but we do question his respect for science.

We are disturbed that SignOn.org/MoveOn.org and other organizations have spread Mr. Ravid’s uninformed statements so far and wide, seemingly without any apparent concern about their veracity or of its author’s bona fides. Frankly, the petition represents the baldest sort of character assassination and plays right into the hands of those who are bent on convincing the public that all government officials are corrupt.

Michael Taylor has been an important part of an impressive food safety team that has accomplished an enormous amount in a short time. While the Administration has not accomplished everything we food safety advocates would like to see done, Mike Taylor, along with President Obama, USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack, Under Secretary for Food Safety Elisabeth Hagen, and FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg, have made great progress on food safety in a rather short period of time. They deserve the chance to keep on doing it, despite the conspiracy mongering to which Mr. Taylor is now being subjected.

We urge MoveOn to inactivate the petition, send an email to everyone who has signed the petition correcting its factual misstatements and offering instructions for people to unsign, and apologize to Mr. Taylor.

Sincerely,

Michael F. Jacobson, Ph.D., Executive Director Center for Science in the Public Interest

Shaun Kennedy, Director, National Center for Food Protection and Defense Director, Partnerships and Programs, College of Veterinary Medicine Assistant Professor, Veterinary Population Medicine University of Minnesota

William D. Marler, Esq. Marler Clark, The Food Safety Law Firm

J. Glenn Morris, M.D., Director, Emerging Pathogens Institute University of Florida

Michael Rodemeyer, Lecturer, Department of Science, Technology and Society University of Virginia, Former Executive Director, Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology

Donald W. Schaffner, Ph.D., Extension Specialist in Food Science and Professor Director of the Center for Advanced Food Technology Rutgers University

Deirdre Schlunegger Chief Executive Officer STOP Foodborne Illness

Carol L. Tucker‐Foreman, Distinguished Fellow, The Food Policy Institute Consumer Federation of America, Former Assistant Secretary of Agriculture

Posted by David Babcock on February 17, 2012

Attorney Bill Marler Echoes Public Criticism of Food Safety Budget Cuts

budget cut.jpgIn a televised interviewyesterday, Bill Marler voiced criticism of the proposed cut of an important USDA food safety program in the new Federal budget.  The program is called the Microbiological Data Program.  Through the program, USDA officials randomly test vegetables from all over the country for the presence of harmful bacteria.  Companies are informed of problem batches, and recalls may result.

Marler pointed out that the value of the program greatly outstrips the related cost:

"For the amount of money, $5 million a year, to cut this when we're also adding $900 billion to the deficit, it's really a penny wise and a pound foolish," Marler said.

Produce companies are pushing to axe the program.   Marler says they'd rather ask for forgiveness with a check than prevent future problems with this program.

"In the [2006 Spinach E. coli] outbreak, just in the 200 people that became sickened, cost the spinach and lettuce industry upwards of $150 million," Marler said.

Outbreaks from produce are not just a thing of the past though.  This week, the CDC announced an outbreak of the rare E. coli O26 connected to sprouts that sickened 12 people in 5 states.

And of course, last fall, the listeria cantaloupe outbreak sickened 146 in 38 states.

Posted by Bill Marler on February 03, 2012

Video - KCTS 9 Connects Interview with Bill Marler, E. coli Attorney and Lawyer

From Seattle KCTS Public Television: Attorney, Lawyer and food-safety advocate Bill Marler talks about how his career has changed since the 1993 E. coli break in Seattle and his ongoing fight for tough food-safety laws.

Posted by Bill Marler on January 22, 2012

Safe Workers = Safe Food

320x175Gateway.jpgWhen AP reported this week that an owner of Jensen Farms was being fined by the U.S. Department of Labor for failing to provide safe migrant worker housing, I must admit even I was a bit shocked.  Could it be that an owner of a business that allowed the deadly fecal bacteria Listeria to coat its product would also treat its employees like crap too? 

Well, apparently yes.  It seems that Eric Jensen, the Colorado Cantaloupe grower that caused an outbreak that killed 30 (by my count 32) - sickening a total of 146 - people, rented migrant workers unsanitary, overcrowded rooms at a motel he owns. Inspectors said many rooms lacked beds, laundry facilities and smoke detectors. Jensen now faces a whopping $4,250 in civil penalties.  As the Department’s Denver director said:

"Profiting at the expense of vulnerable workers is not just inhumane, it's illegal."

I would add immoral and really, really stupid – especially when it comes to producing safe food.

Less we forget, the FDA and the staff of the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee found a number of safety lapses at Jensen Farms that likely led to the outbreak:

  • Condensation from cooling systems draining directly onto the floor,
  • Poor drainage resulting in water pooling around the food processing equipment,
  • Inappropriate food processing equipment which was difficult to clean (i.e., Listeria found on the felt roller brushes),
  • No antimicrobial solution, such as chlorine, in the water used to wash the cantaloupes,
  • No equipment to remove field heat from the cantaloupes before they were placed into 
cold storage, and
  • FDA officials were highly critical of the processing methods used at Jensen Farms. According to these FDA officials, the probable causes of the melon contamination at Jensen Farms included “serious design flaws” in the processing technique used at Jensen Farms, “poor sanitary design of the facility itself,” and “lack of awareness of food safety standards by Jensen Farms.” In particular, FDA emphasized to Committee staff that the processing equipment and the decision not to chlorinate the water used to wash the cantaloupes were two probable causes of the contamination.

Hmm, does this sound familiar to you?  Remember the sickening of 1939 people with Salmonella and the recall of 500,000,000 eggs in 2010 linked to Iowa’s Wright County Egg?  Who could forget the FDA inspection report highlights of some of its findings at Wright County:

  • Chicken manure located in the manure pits below the egg laying operations was observed to be approximately 4 feet high to 8 feet high at the following locations: Layer 1 – House 1; Layer 3 – Houses 2, 7, 17, and 18. The outside access doors to the manure pits at these locations had been pushed out by the weight of the manure, leaving open access to wildlife or domesticated animals,
  • Un-baited, unsealed holes appearing to be rodent burrows located along the second floor baseboards were observed inside Layer 1 – Houses 1-9 and 11-13; Layer 2 – Houses 7 and 11; Layer 3 – Houses 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6; Layer 4 – House 3,
  • Dark liquid which appeared to be manure was observed seeping through the concrete foundation to the outside of the laying houses at the following locations: Layer 1 – Houses 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 11, 12, and 14; and Layer 3 – Houses 1, 8, 13, and 17,
  • Standing water approximately 3 inches deep was observed at the southeast corner of the manure pit located inside Layer 1 – House 13,
  • Un-caged birds (chickens having escaped) were observed in the egg laying operations in contact with the egg laying birds at Layer 3 – Houses 9 and 16. The un-caged birds were using the manure, which was approximately 8 feet high, to access the egg laying area,
  • Layer 3 – House 11, the house entrance door to access both House 11 and 12 was blocked with excessive amounts of manure in the manure pits,
  • There were between 2 to 5 live mice observed inside the egg laying Houses 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, and 14, and
  • Live and dead flies too numerous to count were observed at the following locations inside the egg laying houses: Layer 1 – Houses 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11, and 12; Layer 2 – Houses 7 and 11; Layer 3 – Houses 3, 4, 4, 5, 7, 8, 15, 16, 17, and 18. The live flies were on and around egg belts, feed, shell eggs and walkways in the different sections of each egg laying area. In addition, live and dead maggots too numerous to count were observed on the manure pit floor located in Layer 2 – House 7.

And, guess what else – the owner of Wright County, Jack DeCoster, cared little for his employees too.  A few examples:

  • In 1997, DeCoster Egg Farms agreed to pay $2 million in fines to settle citations brought in 1996 for health and safety violations at DeCoster's farm in Turner, Maine. Then-Labor Secretary Robert Reich said conditions were:

"As dangerous and oppressive as any sweatshop."

  • In 2002, the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission announced a more than $1.5 million settlement of an employment discrimination lawsuit against DeCoster Farms on behalf of Mexican women who reported they were subjected to sexual harassment, including rape, abuse and retaliation by some supervisory workers at DeCoster's Wright County plants.

And, who can forget Stewart Parnell and the Peanut Corporation of America Salmonella outbreak of 2009 that sickened 714 persons in 46 states – killing nine.  The FDA reported that the company shipped tainted products under three conditions: (1) without retesting, (2) before the re-test results came back from an outside company, and (3) after a second test showed no bacterial contamination.

As one PCA employee was quoted as saying:

“I never ate the peanut butter, and I wouldn’t allow my kids to eat it.”

My strong suspicion is that Jensen Farm workers were not eating Jensen Farm cantaloupes as they sat in their overcrowded hotel rooms.  And, I would be willing to bet that Wright County employees were not taking a dozen eggs home to the family from work.

Perhaps there is a lesson here?  Perhaps how you treat your employees, and how the employee feels about the product, says volumes about the quality and safety of the product?  If the employees will not eat the product, perhaps that products should simply not be sold.