Screen Shot 2016-06-18 at 5.51.24 PMGNP Company, a Cold Spring, Minn. establishment, is recalling approximately 55,608 pounds of chicken products that may be contaminated with extraneous materials, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced today.

The chicken products were produced on various dates from June 6 to June 9, 2016. The following products are subject to recall: [View Labels (PDF Only)]

  • 40-lb. cases containing “Gold’n Plump CHICKEN WINGETTES & DRUMMETTES 32900” with a use-by date of 6/18/2016 and 6/20/16.
  • 40-lb. cases containing “Gold’n Plump Chicken Tenders 34400” with a use-by date of 6/16/2016, 6/18/2016, and 6/19/2016
  • 40-lb. cases containing “Gold’n Plump BONELESS SKINLESS CHICKEN BREAST PORTIONS 24700” with a use-by date of 6/29/2016.
  • 40-lb. cases containing “Gold’n Plump CHICKEN LEG QUARTERS 20500” with a use-by date of 6/20/2016, 6/21/2016,and 6/22/2016.
  • 40-lb. cases containing “Gold’n Plump CHICKEN DRUMSTICKS 30800” with a use-by date of 6/20/2016.
  • 40-lb. cases containing “Gold’n Plump BONELESS SKINLESS CHICKEN BREAST PIECES 36400” with a use-by date of 6/22/16.
  • 40-lb. cases containing “Gold’n Plump CHICKEN THIGHS WITHOUT BACKS 37800” with a use-by date of 6/20/2016, 6/24/2016, and 6/26/2016.
  • 40-lb. cases containing “Gold’n Plump CHICKEN DRUMSTICKS 20800” with a use-by date of 6/18/2016 and 6/23/2016.
  • 40-lb. cases containing “Gold’n Plump UNDER GRADE CHICKEN WING SEGMENTS 22900” with a use-by date of 6/17/2016, 6/19/2016, 6/20/2016, and 6/21/2016.
  • 40-lb. cases containing “Gold’n Plump CHICKEN WINGS 31100” with a use-by date of 6/17/2016, 6/20/2016, and 6/21/2016.
  • 40-lb. cases containing “Gold’n Plump CHICKEN LIVERS 31300” with a use-by date of 6/18/2016.
  • 40-lb. cases containing “Just BARE BONELESS SKINLESS WHOLE CHICKEN LEG 37200” with a use-by date of 6/22/2016, 6/23/2016, 6/24/2016, and 6/25/2016.
  • 40-lb. cases containing “Gold’n Plump CHICKEN WHOLE LEGS 20700” with a use-by date of 6/20/16.
  • 40-lb. cases containing “Gold’n Plump CHICKEN GIZZARDS 31200” with a use-by date of 6/20/16 and 6/23/2016.
  • 40-lb. cases containing “Gold’n Plump Chicken Wingette and Drummettes 33000” with a use-by date of 6/22/2016 and 6/24/2016.
  • 40-lb. cases containing “Gold’n Plump Chicken Tenders 34900” with a use-by date of 6/23/2016 and 6/25/2016.
  • 24-lb. cases containing “Just BARE WHOLE CHICKEN 59405” with a use-by date of 6/26/2016.
  • 40-lb. cases containing “Just BARE CLIPPED CHICKEN BREAST TENDERS 53200” with a use-by date of 6/18/2016 and 6/20/2016.

The products subject to recall bear establishment number “P-322” inside the USDA mark of inspection. These items were shipped for food service and retail distribution nationwide.

The problem was discovered when the establishment notified FSIS that sand and black soil were found in some of their products. The source of the contamination is currently under investigation by the establishment and law enforcement.

There have been no confirmed reports of adverse reactions due to consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about an injury or illness should contact a healthcare provider.

A new USDA analysis of the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) import refusals report reveals that from 2005 to 2013 the FDA rejected nearly 18,000 imported seafood shipments because they were unfit for human consumption.

According to the FDA, these shipments were refused entry into the United States for containing unsafe levels of “filth,” veterinary drug residues and Salmonella, which is responsible for thousand hospitalizations per year and hundreds of deaths. “Filth” is a catchall term used to describe anything that shouldn’t be in food—like rat feces, parasites, illegal antibiotics and glass shards.

The USDA summarized their findings by saying: “The safety of imported seafood clearly continues to be of significant concern, based on the number of shipments refused by FDA.”

Currently, the majority of all food refusals are seafood products; while the FDA is responsible for ensuring the safety of any food imported from foreign countries, they only have the manpower to inspect less than 1 per cent of the 1.2 billion pounds of shrimp entering into the country each year.

The American Shrimp Processors Association (ASPA), a group representing the US Gulf and Southeast Atlantic Coast shrimp fishing industry, has expressed great concern over the findings.

ASPA President Dr. David Veal pointed out: “This issue goes beyond the FDA; I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect food suppliers to take some responsibility for the health and safety of their products. We hope shrimp exporters will take a more proactive role in assuring that suppliers adhere to laws designed to protect the people who buy their products.”

Shrimp is the most popular seafood in the United States, with the average person consuming more than four pounds of shrimp per year. Worryingly, 90 per cent, or 3.6 of those pounds, will be imports from countries like China, Indonesia and Thailand, who routinely distribute shrimp that the FDA ends up refusing.

According to the report, Indonesia and Thailand account for about a fifth of shrimp refusals, and they are also two of the largest exporters of shrimp to the United States.

Moreover, while the report contains information through 2013, in more recent years other countries like India have greatly increased the amount of shrimp they export; in 2015, 297 million pounds of Indian shrimp was turned away.

While information is unavailable on the total number of FDA seafood inspections performed yearly, it is safe to assume that with the extremely low rates of inspection, Americans are consuming imported shrimp that is fundamentally unfit for consumption.

Given the above, ASDA encourages Americans to purchase wild-caught domestic shrimp, which has demonstrably fewer bacterial and chemical contaminants, and is an important historic industry supporting millions of jobs in the country.

Jim Mann, the executive director of Handwashing for Life Institute, emailed the following response to the Food Safety News article titled "A Call for Uniform Model Food Code Application":

Uniformly good vs. Uniformly enforceable. Of these two choices, I believe the FDA favors the latter.

You make some very good points in your article. I do think the adopting of uniform baseline standards is a good idea but can be overstated.

First, the far and away leading pathogen identified in outbreaks is norovirus. What uniform laws would you suggest to eliminate the predominant fecal-hand-oral pathway? Wear gloves and put them on with contaminated hands? When to change gloves … when soiled as measured by "sight and touch"?

Continue Reading Response to FSN article calling for Uniform Application of the Model Food Code