Food Poisoning Lawyer & Attorney : Marler Clark : Food Poison Journal

Counting Friday's sausage recall by Daniele International, Inc., food companies have recalled at least 2,880,000 pounds of meat products since November 2009 due to contamination by E. coli or Salmonella. 

Friday's recall:  (from FSIS press release)

Daniele International Inc., an establishment with operations in Pascoag and Mapleville, R.I., is recalling approximately 1,240,000 pounds of ready-to-eat (RTE) varieties of Italian sausage products, including salami/salame, in commerce and potentially available to customers in retail locations because they may be contaminated with Salmonella, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced today.

The Daniele Inc. sausage outbreak, due to contamination by Salmonella Montevideo, has caused at least 184 illnesses in residents of 38 states. 

On January 18, 2010, the USDA's food inspection branch (FSIS) announced the recall of 846,000 pounds of ground beef products produced by a California company called Huntington Meat Packing, Inc., due to potential contamination by E. coli O157:H7.

On January 11, 2010, Adams Farm Slaughterhouse, LLC., an Athol, Mass., establishment, recalled approximately 2,574 pounds of beef products that was potentially contaminated with E. coli O157:H7.  The beef was the cause of infection in at least one Massachusetts resident. 

On December 24, 2009 (The Christmas Eve sneak), an Oklahoma company called National Steak and Poultry recalled 248,000 pounds of tenderized beef products due to contamination by E. coli O157:H7.  The outbreak is known to have sickened at least 21 people in 16 states.  Last week, Marler Clark filed the first lawsuit arising from the outbreak on behalf of a Utah resident.

And in November 2009, A New York company called Fairbank Farms recalled 545,699 pounds of ground beef due to E. coli O157:H7 contamination. The outbreak caused resulted in 26 E. coli O157:H7 illnesses, nineteen hospitalizations, and five who developed hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS). 

 

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

FSIS reported today that Huntington Meat Packing Inc., a Montebello, Calif. establishment, is recalling approximately 864,000 pounds of beef products that may be contaminated with E. coli O157:H7.  Although the recall is Class I--i.e. associated with a very high risk to consumer health--there are no illnesses currently known to be associated with the potentially contaminated meat.  The recalled ground beef was produced between January 5, 2010, and January 15, 2010, and was shipped to distribution centers, restaurants, and hotels within the State of California.

The following products, consisting of all ground beef products produced by the plant from January 5, 2010 to January 15, 2010, are subject to recall:

40 lb. boxes of “Huntington Meats Ground Beef”
40 lb. boxes of “ HUNTINGTON MEAT PKG. INC. BEEF GROUND FOR FURTHER PROCESSING”
40 lb. boxes of “BEEF BURRITO FILLING MIX”
10 lb. boxes of “IMPERIAL MEAT CO. GROUND BEEF PATTY”
20 lb. boxes of “IMPERIAL MEAT CO. GROUND BEEF PATTY”
10 lb. boxes of “El Rancho MEAT & PROVISION ALL BEEF PATTIES”

Each box bears the establishment number "EST. 17967" inside the USDA mark of inspection on a label.

Interestingly, though, these are not the only products subject to the large recall.  FSIS investigation at Huntington Meat Packing, Inc., must have turned up some serious violations because the company is also recalling meat produced in 2008.  FSIS determined that the 2008 meat was adulterated because the ground beef products produced from February 19, 2008 to May 15, 2008 may have been contaminated with E. coli O157:H7.

As a result, the following products produced from February 19, 2008 to May 15, 2008, are subject to recall:

40 lb. boxes of “Huntington Meats Ground Beef”
40 lb. boxes of “ HUNTINGTON MEAT PKG. INC. BEEF GROUND FOR FURTHER PROCESSING”
40 lb. boxes of “BEEF BURRITO FILLING MIX”
10 lb. boxes of “IMPERIAL MEAT CO. GROUND BEEF PATTY”
20 lb. boxes of “IMPERIAL MEAT CO. GROUND BEEF PATTY”
10 lb. boxes of “El Rancho MEAT & PROVISION ALL BEEF PATTIES”

Each box bears the establishment number "EST. 17967" inside the USDA mark of inspection on a label.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

 Today's announcement by USDA-FSIS of another beef recall due to E. coli O157:H7 contamination bodes poorly for this new year.  Adams Farm Slaughterhouse, LLC., an Athol, Mass., establishment, is recalling approximately 2,574 pounds of beef products that may be contaminated with E. coli O157:H7.  The recall occurs in the wake of an epidemiological investigation into the E. coli illness of at least one Massachusetts resident.  The recall also marks the third beef recall in the last three months due to E. coli O157:H7 contamination.

In November 2009, ground beef from a New York ground beef company called Fairbank Farms was recalled due to E. coli O157:H7 contamination. That outbreak caused resulted in 26 E. coli O157:H7 illnesses, nineteen hospitalizations, and five who developed hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS).   

And on Christmas Eve 2009, National Steak and Poultry recalled at least 124 tons of mechanically tenderized beef products.  The National Steak and Poultry outbreak caused at least 21 E. coli O157:H7 illness in 16 states, including nine hospitalizations and one case of HUS.   

Together, the recalls and outbreaks linked to beef from Adams Farm, National Steak and Poultry, and Fairbank Farms, has caused at least 48 illnesses in nationally.  At least 776,000 pounds of beef have been recalled in total in the three outbreaks.  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

 Adams Farm Slaughterhouse, LLC., an Athol, Mass., establishment, is recalling approximately 2,574 pounds of 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.  A sample of the recalled ground beef tested positive for E. coli O157:H7 in the wake of an epidemiological investigation initiated by Massachusetts into the illness of one resident.  Are there more illnesses?  

This is the second ground time in the last several months that Massachusetts citizens have been caught in the midst of a ground beef recall.  In November, ground beef from a New York ground beef company called Fairbank Farms was recalled due to E. coli O157:H7 contamination.  That outbreak caused at least 8 people in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to become infected with E. coli O157:H7.    

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The CDC again amended its case-count in the Fairbank Farms ground beef E. coli O157:H7 outbreak.  Secondary DNA tests (surely MLVA) have helped the CDC whittle the number of cases down from 28 in 12 states on November 2, to 26 in 11 states on November 3, to 25 in 10 states today.  These changing case-counts got me thinking about an important aspect of every outbreak of foodborne disease:  that the number of "confirmed cases" is rarely, if ever, an accurate count of the number of actual victims in any outbreak situation. 

The reality of these outbreaks (whether E. coli O157, Salmonella, or anything else) is that the number of people who are actually ill, as opposed to the number who have a stool sample that tests positive, is much bigger than the reports would indicate.  In fact, one of the leading studies on the subject suggests that the number of actual victims in a given outbreak, as opposed to merely those with positive stool samples, is as much as 38 times the number of stool sample confirmed individuals. 

 

There are several primary reasons why this is the case. First, as noted by Mead et al. in the classic epidemiological study on the subject, underreporting of foodborne disease is common. “Surveillance of foodborne illness is complicated by several factors. The first is underreporting. Although foodborne illnesses can be severe or even fatal, milder cases are often not detected through routine surveillance.” See Mead et al., Emerging Infectious Disease, Vol. 5, No. 5, September-October 1999.  It is frequently the case that only the more severe illnesses come to the attention of health department officials. The less severe illnesses in any given outbreak often require less medical treatment, and the possibility that the causative agent will be identified decreases as well.

Many cases of foodborne illness are not reported because the ill person does not seek medical care, the health-care provider does not obtain a specimen for diagnosis, the laboratory does not perform the necessary diagnostic test, or the illness or laboratory findings are not communicated to public health officials. See Mead at 609.

Also, frequently in the setting of cantagious foodborne diseases, there is a significant likelihood of secondary transmission of disease. As stated in the Mead Article, “many pathogens transmitted through food are also spread through water or from person to person, thus obscuring the role of foodborne transmission.” See Mead at 607. In other words, it is common in outbreak situations for people who became infected by contaminated food to thereafter sicken co-workers or family members by unwitting transmission of a small amount of bacteria.

Thus, for many reasons, publicized case-counts in outbreaks are only indicators of how many people were actually affected. Turning back to the Fairbank Farms outbreak and recall, its a little frightening to apply the Mead formula: 38 X 25 = A lot of sick people, and way too many kids laying in hospital beds connected to dialysis machines.
 

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

 The CDC did not provide any updated statistics today about the number of people sickened in the ongoing E. coli O157:H7 outbreaks linked to ground beef (still 26 illness in 11 states, with 2 deaths and 3 HUS), but the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) did update the list of retail stores who may have received contaminated ground beef.  The list is long and comprehensive and, to me at least, suggests that the number of people who may be involved in at least the Fairbank Farms outbreak may continue to grow.  See the FSIS update here.

 Here is the short version:  

Shaws in Connecticut, Maine, Massachussetts, Rhode Island, New Hampshire and Vermont

Price Chopper in Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont

Acme in Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania

Giant in Pennsylvania

Pathmark in Delaware, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania

Food Lion in North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia and West Virginia

Trader Joe in Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Massachussetts, New Jersey, New York, and North Carolina

BJ in New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Virginia

Martins in Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia

Great American in New York

IGA in Maine, New York, and Vermont

Surefresh in Delaware, Maryland, and Pennsylvania

Grand Union in Connecticut and New York

A&P in New Jersey and New York

Waldbaum in New York

C&S in Vermont

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

 The CDC reports today that there are currently only 26 illnesses in 11 states that are linked to the Fairbank Farms E. coli O157:H7 ground beef outbreak and recall.  This represents a reduction in the number of cases attributed to the outbreak by two.  

Here is the outbreak rundown:

On October 31, 2009, FSIS issued a notice about a recall of over 500,000 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 26 persons from 11 states infected with matching strains of E. coli O157:H7. 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), and Vermont (1). Of these, the genetic association of 13 human isolates and the product isolate have been confirmed by an advanced secondary DNA test; secondary tests are pending on others. Depending on the results of continuing laboratory testing and ongoing case finding, the number of persons determined to be in this cluster may increase or decrease.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Recently, certain sectors have argued that the incidence of E. coli O157:H7, and other shiga-toxin producing strains of E. coli, in ground beef has dropped precipitously, and that our food safety system is, as a result, working very well.  At Marler Clark, over the last several years—in fact, beginning with the infamous Dole baby spinach outbreak in September 2006—fully 90% of the people we have represented have been victims of severe E. coli O157:H7 infections, sometimes resulting in hemolytic uremic syndrome; and aside from approximately 100 spinach victims, 95% of these folks were sickened by contaminated ground beef.  In fact, with the recent, virtually simultaneous recalls of about 546,000 pounds of ground beef by South Shore Meats and Fairbank Farms, 45,000,000 pounds of ground beef have been recalled in the last two years.  These statistics sure don’t jibe well with any optimism about our food safety system, as a whole, or ground beef more specifically. 

As recently as the beginning of 2007, the beef industry touted that the incidence of E. coli O157 in meat had plummeted since the 1990s, dropping nearly 80%. The rate of actual illnesses in people, it was said, was also way down. It appeared, by both statistics and the profiles of our clients at Marler Clark, that the meat industry had indeed cleaned up its act—that big beef finally would put Bill Marler's firm in Seattle out of business.

If the first several years of this millennium showed progress by the beef industry, 2007, 2008, and 2009 are years that it would rather forget. Beef companies recalled over twenty-nine million pounds of meat in 2007. 2008 saw at least sixteen recalls of beef products, totaling at least 2,361,295 pounds of meat. And to date in 2009, beef companies have recalled close to two million pounds of product, if not more. True enough, these are just bare numbers—courtesy of the USDA website—but a simple contrast with the first five or six years of this millennium are illustrative. Progress? Optimism? I don’t see it.

Ultimately, these numbers may serve the opposing perspective directly: more recalls may mean more testing, but it does not necessarily mean more illness. To that, all we can really say is that, well, we’ve sure as heck seen a lot more sick people in the last three years than we did the six previous ones. Indeed, there are more than a few families that I can think of around the country who would be shocked—probably even dismayed—to learn that our “food-safety system is working, even though the number of recalls is rising.”

Let me make a different assessment; perhaps it will be a better platform from which to build a national, and international, food-safety system that’s more in keeping with what consumers expect: no, we are not making good enough progress; and no, I don’t agree that the increased number of food recalls (ground beef in particular) is just because of better testing, and more surveillance within the public health community. Take it for what you will, but we have represented more victims of foodborne disease in the last three years alone that we did in the entirety of this firm’s first decade of existence.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

 Tuesday morning, we will be filing lawsuits on behalf of the families of two children sickened in the ongoing, likely developing, outbreaks of E. coli O157:H7 linked to ground beef.  The lawsuits will be filed in Plymouth County Superior Court for the Commonwealth of Massachussetts against Brockton, Mass.-based Crocetti-Oakdale Packing, Inc., doing business as South Shore Meats Inc., and Ashville, NY-based Fairbank Farms, Inc. Both companies recalled meat last week after their products were identified as the source of a national E. coli outbreak.

The medical complications associated with E. coli O157:H7 infection are many.  Most infections are characterized by 7-10 days of diarrhea, frequently bloody, severe abdominal cramps, and a host of other painful symptoms.  Infection by this dangerous pathogen frequently results in hospitalization, and kills with frightening efficiency and regularity.  Those who are acutely susceptible to severe infection whether by age or immuno-compromisation frequently have dangerously severe medical courses.  

Far and away the most frightening medical complication associated with infection by E. coli O157:H7, however, is hemolytic uremic syndrome, or HUS.  The chain of events leading to HUS begins with ingestion of Stx producing E. coli (e.g., E. coli 0157: H7) in contaminated food, beverages or through person to person transmission. These E. coli rapidly multiply in the intestines causing colitis (diarrhea), and tightly bind to cells that line the large intestine. This snug attachment facilitates absorption of the toxin into the circulation where it becomes attached to weak receptors on white blood cells (WBC) thus allowing the toxin to “ride piggyback” to the kidneys where it is transferred to numerous avid (strong) Gb3 receptors that grasp and hold on to the toxin. Organ injury is primarily a function of Gb3 receptor location and density. Receptors are probably heterogeneously distributed in the major body organs, and this may explain why some patients develop injury in other organs (e.g., brain, pancreas).

Once Stx attaches to receptors, it moves into the cell’s cytoplasm where it shuts down the cells’ protein machinery resulting in cellular injury and/or death. This cellular injury activates blood platelets and the coagulation cascade which results in the formation of clots in the very small vessels of the kidney resulting in acute kidney injury and failure. The red blood cells are hemolyized (destroyed) by Stx and/or damaged as they attempt to pass through partially obstructed microvessels. Blood platelets (required for normal blood clotting), are trapped in the tiny blood clots or are damaged and destroyed by the spleen.

 

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

Earlier today, the CDC posted the following update on the E. coli O157:H7 ground beef outbreak and recall on its website:

Several state health departments, CDC, and the United States Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (USDA-FSIS) are investigating a multi-state outbreak of Escherichia coli O157:H7 infections. 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).

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

FSIS today released the identities of retail stores that may have received E. coli O157:H7-contaminated ground beef involved in the current recall by Fairbank Farm.  All Shaw's stores in Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Massachussets, and Vermont may have received contaminated meat; and all Price Chopper stores in Connecticut, Pennsylvania, New York and Vermont may have received contaminated meat.  The CDC now reports that 2 deaths and 26 illnesses may be linked to the Fairbank Farm recall, with the majority of illnesses coming from New England residents.  Fairbank Farm has recalled approximately 546,000 pounds of fresh ground beef. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Whether its just extremely competent public health officials, or that this particular state just got more of the bad meat than everybody else, Colorado is currently at the epicenter of a national outbreak of antibiotic resistant Salmonella Newport linked to ground beef.  To date, at least 21 Coloradans have been sickened in the outbreak, with the following breakdown of counties:  Arapahoe (3), Broomfield (3), Denver (3), Douglas (1), Elbert (1), Garfield (1), Jefferson (5), Mesa (1), Pueblo (1) and Weld (2).  The Boulder Food Examiner reports that there may be 3 cases in Boulder County as well.  The contaminated meat was distributed to Safeway and Sam's Club stores in Colorado, and has use or freeze by dates ranging from the end of June to July 11, 2009.  See http://www.fsis.usda.gov/News_&_Events/Recall_041_2009_Release/index.asp for more detail on which products are subject to the recall.   

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

 In 1999, several states reported clusters of Salmonella Newport, an antibiotic resistant strain of the bug, with an indistinguishable PFGE pattern and the same anti-microbial resistance pattern.  The states reported to PulseNet, the national database for foodborne disease surveillance, which prompted an investigation into the cause of the outbreak.

In the investigation, health officials found that 7 out of 8 people in the clusters had eaten ground beef within several days before the onset of illness.  Ultimately, the investation identified a single producer that had distributed the contaminated meat to grocery stores, and an unopened package of ground beef ultimately tested positive for the outbreak strain of Salmonella Newport.  Investigators also found that, from 1997-1999, 1% of all Salmonella in meat processing facilities was Salmonella Newport.  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

This post is about a brutal illness caused by Salmonella.  It happened to one of our clients several years ago.  Don't stop reading just because you think you've seen, or heard about, every varient of a Salmonella illness. I assure you that you've never seen one quite like this before.

At the request of our former client, I have changed the names and locations in this narrative:

Our client, Ron, was infected with Salmonella during a sporting banquet in Indiana. His illness began on July 27, 2004. At first, he suffered from predominantly gastrointestinal symptoms that were, in light of what was to come, relatively mild.

By August 1, Ron was in the emergency room at a nearby hospital The attending physician there noted repetitive diarrhea and, though the vomiting had subsided, that Ron continued to feel “somewhat nauseous and gaggy.” Ron was re-hydrated with a liter of normal saline, and twenty-five milligrams of Phenergan, an anti-nausea medication, were introduced intravenously. He was discharged several hours later with a prescription for Ciprofloxacin, an antibiotic.

Ron’s course over the next two months is one that defies clever adjectival description: He felt generally ill pretty much all of the time. He did manage to return to work after a couple of day’s absence, but he struggled to be as productive as usual, was frequently irritable, and seemed constantly besieged by abdominal discomfort. It was during this time that Ron learned that his stool sample had cultured positive for Salmonella, group D.

The same state of ill health persisted throughout August and September. “Then,” as Ron recalls, “came the first weekend in October,” and “any thoughts I had that the first bout in July was the sickest I’d ever been faded quickly.”

Ron’s memory of the onset of symptoms is vivid:

I returned from a short shopping trip and sat in my favorite chair to look at the printer I bought for my digital camera. While I was sitting there I was suddenly taken very ill. I don’t know how to explain it other than it was as sudden as if a bone were broken or a switch was flipped. I had very severe pain in my lower abdomen and started vomiting. I felt just like I did in July, only worse.

The symptoms persisted for the next two days, while Ron tried treating himself with simple, over-the-counter remedies. He had no reason to suspect that his intestines had started to rot. By Tuesday, October 5, the pain turned frighteningly severe, and Ron drove himself, once again, to the hospital emergency room.

The hours that Ron spent waiting to be seen he describes as “the most uncomfortable [] of my life.” He was eventually seen and admitted soon after, the attending physician having become concerned at the intensity of the sub-umbilical pain that “spread across [Ron’s] entire abdomen,” which suggested acute appendicitis. A CT scan revealed some inflammation in the small bowel mesentery, but “no convincing inflammatory changes around the appendix to confirm the diagnosis of acute appendicitis.”

Afterward, Ron was wheeled to his own room, where he slept intermittently throughout the night. By morning, he was running a high fever, had become nauseated, and his stomach was plagued by intense cramps and pains.

Shortly before noon, Ron met a gastroenterologist in consultation. The gastroenterologist’s note presciently draws the first link to Ron’s recent bout with Salmonella, Group D. The doctor stated, “other than the bout of Salmonella noted above, he never had problems with chronic diarrhea or abdominal pain. There is no family history of inflammatory bowel disease or colitis.” The doctor decided to do laparascopic/exploratory surgery to address the worsening fluid collection and inflammation of Ron’s small intestine.

What was found on introduction of the exploratory laparoscope was not what was expected: “upon induction . . . there were multiple socked-in small bowel loops that were adherent to the anterior abdominal wall as well as to each other.” The surgeon was unable to detach and mobilize the small bowel and consequently had to convert to laparotomy.

Upon exploratory laparotomy, the small bowel had a densely fibrotic reaction throughout most of its length. There was one area in particular, it was in the distal ileum, that had the appearance of a chronic perforation that was very diseased. This was not salvageable.

The surgeon stopped the operation at this point, preferring an intraoperative consultation with yet another surgeon, who noted:

The small bowel was also examined in its entirety from the ligament of teitz to the ileocecal valve. The small bowel in general was very inflamed and beefy red. There were areas of dusky serosa. There was one loop of small bowel, however, that appeared near-necrotic. This loop had been involved with the abscess. It was inflamed and stuck to itself. The mesentery of this portion of the small bowel was also thickened and inflamed . . . It was felt that this portion of the small bowel was the primary process and cause of the peritonitis and abscess.

The doctors concurred that removal of the “near-necrotic” portion of Ron’s small intestine—between twelve and sixteen inches—was required. This was done with no complication and, after copious abdominal irrigation, the functional ends of Ron’s resected intestine were stapled and sutured. And as if this alone was not enough, Ron’s appendix was noted to be “inflamed throughout its course.” Accordingly, the surgeon removed the appendix as well. The surgery concluded with the placement of a Penrose drain in the subcutaneous fat.

Afterward, in search of an infectious cause, the surgeon sent the resected intestine and appendix to pathology; he also ordered that tissue samples from Ron’s abdomen be sent to the lab for culture. The pathology report states, in part:

The morphologic findings . . . confirm the clinical impression of intra-abdominal abscess formation. Although acute inflammation is present in the wall of the appendix, it may be secondary to intra-abdominal inflammatory process. The patient has a previous history of Salmonella infection (July 2004) and correlation with the pending culture results is essential.

The culture report from Ron’s abdominal tissue sample would return later in the month with a positive result for Salmonella enteritidis, group D1.

In the days following Ron’s surgery, his wife Mary spent most of every waking hour at the hospital by her husband’s side, leaving only to sleep or get the kids to their various after-school activities. The kids were required, by parental rule, to stay out of the hospital room. Mary thought that they had enough to endure at present without having to see their incapacitated father in a hospital bed with tubes down his throat and sticking out of his abdomen. But dad was not far from everybody’s thoughts. Ron soon had a large mail delivery, which consisted of get-well-soon cards from every boy and girl in his ten-year-old son’s class.

Meanwhile, Ron’s treatment continued with Ciprofloxacin, Zosyn, Zofran, and repeat dosages of morphine, which was available to Ron, in regulated amounts, at the touch of a button.

Until October 11, with a few minor bumps along the way, Ron progressed well. But that day, a Monday, Ron began to suffer greater pains in his abdomen than he had since surgery. Ron was wheeled to radiology that afternoon for another CT scan of his abdomen and pelvis. The exams showed increased fluid collection in Ron’s abdomen, most prominently in the paracolic gutter region in the lower left quadrant.

The next day, a drainage catheter was installed. In detail not meant for the squeamish, Ron recalls the process by which this drain, and others, was inserted. Beginning with the following caveat, “When [doctors] say they are sorry they have to hurt you as part of the treatment—they mean it,” he states:

The process of inserting a drain, at least in my case, was one of technology and brute force. It is done while lying on the movable platform of a CT machine. First, they run a CT scan to determine the best spot to drain the fluid. Then they prepare the area and push a wire through your side into the abdomen. The first time I had this done I think they went in 11cm. I think that’s a little more than 4 inches. With the wire inserted they run you through the CT machine again to make sure it’s properly placed. If it is in place they then push a larger tube over the wire until it is in place, run the CT again, and try to draw off as much fluid as they can. After that’s done they attach a collection bag that is Velcroed to your leg, and tape the tube to your side. I’ve never been stabbed by a knife or run-through with a sword but I think I can imagine the feeling. Unfortunately a couple of days later, while hauling myself out of bed, I snagged the tube and pulled it out.

In addition to the drain difficulties, Ron continued to suffer a variety of complications from his illness. He was confirmed with a Clostridium difficil infection around October 13, for which he was given another antibiotic called Flagyl. He also experienced a dramatic loss of appetite, which would plague him for months afterward. Fluid and gas continued to accumulate in the area of Ron’s bowel resection, requiring the placement of another catheter on October 15—another unwelcome, painful procedure.

Not all was pain and misery, however. The consensus amongst the doctors was that, under the circumstances, their patient had progressed well. Ron had, after all, had nearly twelve inches removed from his small intestine, and had lost one organ entirely, to say nothing of the gastrointestinal discomfort he suffered for two months prior to hospitalization. Also, Ron’s diarrhea had slowed significantly, and he felt far less fevered.

After nearly two weeks hospitalization, Ron was finally discharged on Saturday, October 16, 2004. The principal diagnosis was intra-abdominal abscess, and the principal procedures were noted to be “1. Exploratory laparotomy [] with a partial small bowel resection. 2. Antibiotic therapy. 3. CT-guided intra abdominal drain placement times two.” As for the resected portion of Ron’s small bowel, the pathology report concludes as follows: “Small bowel with subserosal abscess formation with extensive acute inflammation, acute serositis, fat necrosis, foreign body giant cell reaction and serosal adhesions.”
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The United States Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced that King Soopers, Inc. of Denver, Colorado, was recalling 466,236 pounds of ground beef products due to potential Salmonella Typhimurim DT104 contamination yesterday.  The recall was initiated after public health officials from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention traced a Salmonella Typhimurim DT104 outbreak among Colorado residents to the ground beef products.

Salmonella Typhimurium DT104 is an antibiotic-resistant strain of Salmonella, which can prove to be problematic for physicians treating patients who have eaten the contaminated ground beef and have become ill with Salmonella infections. 

In her 1997 paper, "Emergence of a Highly Virulent Strain of Salmonella typhimurium," M. Ellin Doyle, Ph.D. at the Food Research Institute at the University of Wisconsin-Madison wrote:

Some evidence indicts the increased use of veterinary drugs as a factor in the dramatic increase in drug resistance. Resistance to ciprofloxacin in DT104 isolates has increased from 1% in 1994 to 6% in 1995, coincident with the licensing of this drug for veterinary use in the UK in 1994 (2). Resistance to trimethoprim (present in 27% of DT104 isolates) may have been acquired in response to the use of this drug to combat bovine infections with DT104 resistant to other drugs. Surveys of S. typhimurium isolates from cattle and humans in Australia (16), France (17), Hong Kong (18), and Spain (19) all reveal an increased incidence of resistance to multiple antibiotics in this organism.

As yet, there have been no reports of S. typhimurium DT104 in the USA, but the rapid rise of this organism in the UK warns us in the USA to be vigilant. Increasing resistance to so many different antibiotics makes it very difficult to treat severe cases of human salmonellosis.

By 2000, if not before, Salmonella Typhimurium DT104 had spread to the United States.  Researchers from the Department of Veterinary Microbiology and Pathology, Washington State University-Pullman published an article titled, "Multiresistant Salmonella Typhimurium DT104 infections of humans and domestic animals in the Pacific Northwest of the United States" after investigating a Salmonella Typhimurium DT104 outbreak among residents of the Pacific Northwest. 

In his testimony on food safety before the U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce last March, William K. Hubbard stated:

Those peanut butter, pepper and spinach examples are just a few of the breakdowns that have caused our citizens to question their leaders’ ability to carry out this most quintessential governmental function – the safety of commodities that are so necessary for a healthy society. Indeed, some argue that our food supply is becoming less safe despite the progress that has been made in science and medicine in recent decades. It is certainly clear that there are trends that cry out for intervention by the Congress, namely:

• New pathogens have emerged in foodstuffs, some unknown to science in years past, that are especially lethal when they contaminate our food. They have exotic names, such as Enterobacter sakazakii, E Coli 0157:H7, Listeria monocytogenes, Vibrio cholerae 0139, and Salmonella Typhimurium DT104, (emphasis added) but they all pose a significant threat of severe illness and death when our citizens contract them. And there is an expectation among scientists that yet more of these threats will be discovered in the future.

That Salmonella Typhimurium DT104 had not been identified as the source of an outbreak in the United States prior to 1997, and this "especially lethal" pathogen has been identified as the source of several outbreaks, including the current outbreak among Colorado residents, is alarming. 

The Colorado Salmonella Typhimurium DT104 outbreak should spark more conversation about HR 1549 - Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act of 2009, which aims to preserve the use of antibiotics in food animals strictly for therapeutic use.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

 

Valley Meats LLC recently recalled nearly 96,000 pounds of ground beef due to potential contamination by E. coli O157:H7.  Now, SP Provisions of Portland, Oregon has recalled almost 40,000 pounds of ground beef due to positive sampling of its ground beef during production.   Hamburger E. coli season appears to be getting underway.

John McDonald was a victim of E. coli O157:H7 in hamburger almost two years ago now.  We represented John and his family in a ground beef outbreak that occurred in 2007.  The following summary tells you a bit about John's very sad case.

John was hospitalized at East Tennessee Children's Hospital from October 4 through 12, then was transferred to the University of Tennessee Medical Center where he remained until October 29.  During his hospitalization, John's kidneys failed requiring extensive dialysis to cleanse his blood, and he became badly anemic requiring many blood transfusions.

But these conditions, though in and of themselves potentially lethal, were just the beginning.  What truly separates John's illness from most of the hemolytic uremic syndrome illnesses that we see was the extent of injury to his gastrointestinal tract. 

Jim McDonald, John's father, was present at the moment it became apparent just how severe John's illness was.  It occurred in the early morning hours of Thursday, October 11, 2007.  He recalls: 

As usual, I got up to help as much as possible when the nurses came in and woke us up. When we opened his diaper, I got excited since it looked like he had had dark brown diarrhea, which told me that his digestive system was finally starting to kick in again. Realizing how liquidy the diaper was, we turned on an extra light to help us while changing him.

I will never forget what I saw. To my dismay, the diaper was not full of a bowel movement like I had desperately hoped. It was full of blood. An entire bowel movement of blood. Maybe an entire cup of blood. I got light-headed and almost passed out. I immediately sat down and grasped my head, apologizing to the nurses and telling them that I could no longer help them treat my son. This was the first of five grossly bloody stools that day.

Now bloody diarrhea is typical in the setting of an E. coli O157:H7 illness.  But this was another animal altogether.  John was losing blood from his gastrointestinal tract like he was bleeding from an opened artery.  In fact, over the course of the day on October 11, John was given two transfusions of packed red blood cells to address the significant blood loss he had suffered.  John was transferred to The University of Tennessee Medical Center the next day, where he endured, hopefully, the fight of his life. 

After transfer to UT, it became apparent that John was suffering from an infection somewhere in his body.  Coupled with the fact that he was bleeding heavily from his rectum and was constantly complaining of severe abdominal pain, doctors began to suspect that the infection was in his abdomen.  Heavy duty antibiotics were administered, but with no effect.  John continued for several days to exhibit signs of severe infection. 

The afternoon of October 16, 2007, doctors began to suspect that John had suffered a perforation (e.g. a puncture) somewhere in his gastrointestinal tract.  Besides the immense pain, the concern was that the contents of John's gastrointestinal tract, including the shiga-toxin producing E. coli O157:H7 bacteria, would escape and cause severe, potentially lethal infection elsewhere in his body. 

At around 8:00 PM on October 16, John was rushed to the Operating Room for an emergency exploratory laparotomy—i.e., an incision through the abdominal wall to gain access to the abdominal cavity. What the pediatric surgeon found inside was a mess of fecal material and grossly swollen bowel loops. The surgeon also found a portion of John’s rectum to be necrotic (i.e. diseased and dead) and there he located the perforation through the rectal wall that had allowed the contents of John’s bowel to spill into his abdomen, thus causing the severe infection in his peritoneal cavity.  

Ultimately, the surgeon decided that the necrotic and damaged portions of John’s colon and rectum stood no chance of recovery or survival, and so he removed about five inches of John's colon and rectum. After cutting and removing the damaged tissues, the surgeon washed John’s peritoneum copiously with normal saline. He then took a portion of John's colon outside of the peritoneal cavity and formed a pouch out of John's own tissue.  This pouch was then connected a colostomy bag to drain feces from John's abdominal cavity. 

It goes without saying that John's illness was severe.  After his surgery to remove part of his colon, John had to be sedated and kept on mechanical ventilation for many days.  He was hardly able to walk at discharge on October 29, 2007.  About John's discharge, his father recalls:

October 29, 2007: John got to come home today. He came home to a new house. He still couldn’t walk, but was trying to very hard. It was difficult for him (like Michaela) to rebuild his strength in his atrophied and skinny legs. We carried him when he couldn’t crawl. Nonetheless, everybody, including John, was thrilled that he was home. There were many tears of joy shed by all.
 

John's recovery is still ongoing.  He has done well since discharge, and has proved to be an extremely tough little customer.  We were honored to represent him and his family (by the way, his younger sister Michaela had HUS too), and have truly been inspired by his story.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The recent recall of nearly 96,000 pounds of ground beef by Valley Meats LLC got me thinking about hamburgers and E. coli O157:H7.  Anytime I hear those words together (which, as an attorney at Marler Clark, is quite often), I think of John McDonald.  John was a 5-year-old boy who we represented in a ground beef outbreak that occurred in 2007.  Unfortunately, John's illness was about as bad as an illness can get without causing a death.  (it is unbelievable how many times I find myself saying that about our clients) 

John was hospitalized at East Tennessee Children's Hospital from October 4 through 12, then was transferred to the University of Tennessee Medical Center where he remained until October 29.  During his hospitalization, John's kidneys failed requiring extensive dialysis to cleanse his blood, and he became badly anemic requiring many blood transfusions.

But these conditions, though in and of themselves potentially lethal, were just the beginning.  What truly separates John's illness from most of the hemolytic uremic syndrome illnesses that we see was the extent of injury to his gastrointestinal tract. 

Jim McDonald, John's father, was present at the moment it became apparent just how severe John's illness was.  It occurred in the early morning hours of Thursday, October 11, 2007.  He recalls: 

As usual, I got up to help as much as possible when the nurses came in and woke us up. When we opened his diaper, I got excited since it looked like he had had dark brown diarrhea, which told me that his digestive system was finally starting to kick in again. Realizing how liquidy the diaper was, we turned on an extra light to help us while changing him.

I will never forget what I saw. To my dismay, the diaper was not full of a bowel movement like I had desperately hoped. It was full of blood. An entire bowel movement of blood. Maybe an entire cup of blood. I got light-headed and almost passed out. I immediately sat down and grasped my head, apologizing to the nurses and telling them that I could no longer help them treat my son. This was the first of five grossly bloody stools that day.

Now bloody diarrhea is typical in the setting of an E. coli O157:H7 illness.  But this was another animal altogether.  John was losing blood from his gastrointestinal tract like he was bleeding from an opened artery.  In fact, over the course of the day on October 11, John was given two transfusions of packed red blood cells to address the significant blood loss he had suffered.  John was transferred to The University of Tennessee Medical Center the next day, where he endured, hopefully, the fight of his life. 

After transfer to UT, it became apparent that John was suffering from an infection somewhere in his body.  Coupled with the fact that he was bleeding heavily from his rectum and was constantly complaining of severe abdominal pain, doctors began to suspect that the infection was in his abdomen.  Heavy duty antibiotics were administered, but with no effect.  John continued for several days to exhibit signs of severe infection. 

The afternoon of October 16, 2007, doctors began to suspect that John had suffered a perforation (e.g. a puncture) somewhere in his gastrointestinal tract.  Besides the immense pain, the concern was that the contents of John's gastrointestinal tract, including the shiga-toxin producing E. coli O157:H7 bacteria, would escape and cause severe, potentially lethal infection elsewhere in his body. 

At around 8:00 PM on October 16, John was rushed to the Operating Room for an emergency exploratory laparotomy—i.e., an incision through the abdominal wall to gain access to the abdominal cavity. What the pediatric surgeon found inside was a mess of fecal material and grossly swollen bowel loops. The surgeon also found a portion of John’s rectum to be necrotic (i.e. diseased and dead) and there he located the perforation through the rectal wall that had allowed the contents of John’s bowel to spill into his abdomen, thus causing the severe infection in his peritoneal cavity.  

Ultimately, the surgeon decided that the necrotic and damaged portions of John’s colon and rectum stood no chance of recovery or survival, and so he removed about five inches of John's colon and rectum. After cutting and removing the damaged tissues, the surgeon washed John’s peritoneum copiously with normal saline. He then took a portion of John's colon outside of the peritoneal cavity and formed a pouch out of John's own tissue.  This pouch was then connected a colostomy bag to drain feces from John's abdominal cavity. 

It goes without saying that John's illness was severe.  After his surgery to remove part of his colon, John had to be sedated and kept on mechanical ventilation for many days.  He was hardly able to walk at discharge on October 29, 2007.  About John's discharge, his father recalls:

October 29, 2007: John got to come home today. He came home to a new house. He still couldn’t walk, but was trying to very hard. It was difficult for him (like Michaela) to rebuild his strength in his atrophied and skinny legs. We carried him when he couldn’t crawl. Nonetheless, everybody, including John, was thrilled that he was home. There were many tears of joy shed by all.
 

John's recovery is still ongoing.  He has done well since discharge, and has proved to be an extremely tough little customer.  We were honored to represent him and his family (by the way, his younger sister Michaela had HUS too), and have truly been inspired by his story. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

This week's food safety infosheet (pdf) from the International Food Safety Network focuses on what we learned this week - that ground beef is once again the source of a multi-state E. coli outbreak.  At least five people in Wisconsin and one California resident became ill with E. coli infections after consuming meat produced by Rochester Meats of Michigan.  According to the Food Safety and Inspection Service's recall announcement from last weekend:

The problem was discovered through an investigation initiated by the Wisconsin Department of Health and Family Services and the California Department of Public Health into five illnesses in Wisconsin and one illness in California. Anyone concerned about an illness should contact a physician.

The ground beef products subject to recall were produced on Oct. 30, 2007, and Nov. 6, 2007. The products subject to recall were shipped to distributors nationwide for further distribution to restaurants and food service institutions. These products were not available for purchase by consumers in retail establishments.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The US Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service announced yesterday that Texas American Food Service Corporation of Fort Worth, Texas, was recalling 14,800 pounds of ground beef products for possible E. coli contamination. The products were sold under American Fresh Foods labels (right).

Consumer products being recalled include:

• 2-pound approximate weight packages of "73/27 GROUND BEEF" bearing a sell-by date of "12.30.07"
• 2-pound approximate weight packages of "80/20 GROUND BEEF CHUCK" bearing a sell-by date of "12.31.07"
• 1-pound approximate weight packages of "85/15 GROUND BEEF ROUND" bearing a sell-by date of "12.31.07"
• 1-pound approximate weight packages of "90/10 GROUND BEEF SIRLOIN" bearing a sell-by date of "12.31.07"
• 1-pound approximate weight packages of "96/04 EXTRA LEAN GROUND BEEF, 4% FAT" bearing a sell-by date of "12.31.07"

Bulk ground beef being recalled includes:

• 40-pound "net wt." box of "73/27 100% GROUND BEEF; REWORK MAP"
• 260-pound "net wt." combo bin of " CHUCK 100% GROUND BEEF; REWORK MAP"
• 370-pound "net wt." combo bin of "SIRLOIN 100% GROUND BEEF; REWORK"
• ervice announced yesterday that

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

The USDA announced Tuesday that ground beef patties distributed to schools had been recalled for contamination with Listeria monocytogenes.  According to the USDA recall announcement:

The Maramont Corporation, a Brooklyn, N.Y, firm, is voluntarily recalling approximately 88 pounds of a beef patty product that may be contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service announced today.

The following product is subject to recall:

* 2-oz packages of "BROILED BEEF PATTY (MICROWAVE)." The products were individually packaged and delivered from 17.25-pound cases. Each case label bears a lot code of "07352" and product number "2801." Each case label also bears the establishment number "EST. 5370" inside the USDA mark of inspection.

The beef patty products were produced on Dec. 18 and distributed on Dec. 19 to schools in the Jersey City, N.J., area.

It is believed that ingestion of as few as 1,000 cells of Listeria bacteria can result in illness. After ingestion of food contaminated with Listeria, incubation periods for infection are in the range of 3 to 70 days, usually 4 to 21 days.

Five days to three weeks after ingestion, Listeria has access to all body areas and may involve the central nervous system, heart, eyes, or other locations. Fetuses of pregnant women are particularly vulnerable to the Listeria bacterium. A person with listeriosis usually has fever, muscle aches, and gastrointestinal symptoms such as nausea or diarrhea. If infection spreads to the nervous system, symptoms such as headache, stiff neck, loss of balance, confusion, obtundation or convulsions can occur. With brain involvement, listeriosis may mimic a stroke.

Infected pregnant women ordinarily experience only a mild, flu-like illness; however, infection during pregnancy can lead to miscarriage, infection of the newborn, or even stillbirth. The perinatal and neonatal mortality rate is 80%.

Human cases of Listeria are, for the most part, sporadic and treatable. Nonetheless, Listeria remains an important threat to public health, especially among those most susceptible to this disease. With the increase of the numbers of immunocompromised people, the risk multiplies. The fact that Listeria is a disease easily transmitted from mother to fetus through the placenta is worrisome to an expectant mother, especially since pregnant women themselves rarely show outward signs of such a devastating infection.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service announced that Blue Ribbon Meats, a Florida company, is recalling 8,200 pounds of frozen ground beef products for possible E. coli O157:H7 contamination.  The ground beef was produced between September 14 and September 27, and was shipped to two distributors.  The ultimate destinations the meat was designated for include a correctional institution in Florida and a distributor in St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.

According to the FSIS press release, "The problem was discovered by Creekstone Farm (Est. 27), an Arkansas City, Kan., establishment that supplies the recalling company and inadvertently shipped product that they had on hold." 

The products subject to recall include:

• 10-pound boxes of "WESPAK B.R.'S BRAND SEASONED BEEF PATTIES FOR SALISBURY, 80/20."
• 10-pound boxes and 20-pound cases of "JNS FOODS, LLC, B.R.'S BRAND SEASONED BEEF PATTIES FOR SALISBURY, 80/20."
• 10-pound boxes and 20-pound cases of "JNS FOODS, LLC, BEEF PATTIE MIX, 80/20."
• 10-pound boxes and 20-pound cases of "JNS FOODS, LLC, BEEF PATTIES, 80/20."
• 10-pound boxes and 20-pound cases of "JNS FOODS, LLC, MEATLOAF SEASONED BEEF PATTIES, 80/20."

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention updated its reporting on the E. coli outbreak linked to Topps Meats yesterday. 28 cases of E. coli have been identified as part of the outbreak. According to CDC:

Health officials in several states who were investigating reports of E. coli O157 illnesses found that many ill persons had consumed the same brand of frozen ground beef patties. Ground beef patties recovered from patients' home were tested by state public health department and federal laboratories. Tests conducted by the New York State Wadsworth Center Laboratory and by a USDA-FSIS laboratory on opened and unopened packages of Topp's brand frozen ground beef patties yielded E. coli O157 isolates with several different “DNA fingerprint” patterns.

Investigators compared the “DNA fingerprints” patterns of E. coli O157 strains found in ground beef with “DNA fingerprints” patterns of E. coli O157 strains isolated from ill persons. As of 12 PM (ET) October 2, 2007, 28 cases of E. coli O157:H7 infection have been identified with PFGE patterns that match at least one of the patterns of E. coli strains found in Topp's brand frozen ground beef patties. Ill persons reside in 8 states [Connecticut (2), Florida (1), Indiana (1), Maine (1), New Jersey (6), New York (8), Ohio (1), and Pennsylvania (8)]. Seventeen (94%) of 18 patients with a detailed food history consumed ground beef. Three illnesses have confirmed associations with recalled products because the strain isolated from the person was also isolated from the meat in their home. The first reported illness began on July 5, 2007, and the last began on September11, 2007. Among fifteen ill persons for whom hospitalization status is known, ten (67%) patients were hospitalized. One patient developed a type of kidney failure called hemolytic-uremic syndrome (HUS). No deaths have been reported. Twelve (43%) patients are female. The ages of patients range from 3 to 77 years; 33% are between 15 and 24 years old (only 14% of the US population is in this age group).

DNA "fingerprints" or Pulsed Field Gel Electrophoresis patterns, are explained as follows:

When a sample is taken from either a piece of meat or poultry that is contaminated with a dangerous form of bacteria, such as E. coli O157:H7, listeria, or campylobacter, it can be cultured to obtain and identify the bacterial isolate. If a person consumes some of the contaminated meat or poultry, and becomes infected as a result, a stool sample can then be cultured to obtain and identify the bacterial isolate. These bacterial isolates are then broken down into their various component parts creating a DNA "fingerprint".

The process of obtaining the DNA fingerprint is called Pulse Field Gel Electrophoresis, or PFGE. This technique is used to separate the DNA of the bacterial isolate into its component parts. It operates by causing alternating electric fields to run the DNA through a flat gel matrix of agarose, a polysaccharide obtained from agar. The pattern of bands of the DNA fragments — or “fingerprints” — in the gel after exposure to the electrical current is unique for each strain and sub-type of bacteria. By performing this procedure, scientists can identify hundreds of strains of E. coli O157:H7 as well as strains of listeria and campylobacter, and other pathogenic bacteria.

The PFGE pattern of the bacteria can then be compared and matched up to the PFGE pattern of the strain of infected persons who consumed the contaminated product. When PFGE patterns match, they, along with solid epidemiological work, are proof that the contaminated product was the source of a person's illness.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

According to a press release by Topps, Topps Meat Company LLC, located in Elizabeth, NJ, has voluntarily expanded its recall announced on September 25 to include 21.7 million pounds of ground beef products that may be contaminated with E. coli O157:H7. This represents all products produced by Topps with a "sell by date" or "best if used by date" that falls between September 25, 2007 and September 25, 2008. This information may be found on the back panel of the package. All recalled products will have a USDA establishment number of EST 9748, which is located on the back panel of the package and/or in the USDA legend.  For more information on past recalls and specific information about this recall, visit Marler Blog and E. coli Blog.

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

Proof that ‘Lightning does strike the same spot twice,’ says Marler Clark attorney

The USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service yesterday announced that Topps Meat Company of Elizabeth, New Jersey, was recalling 331,582 pounds of frozen ground beef products that may be contaminated with E. coli O157:H7. The recall was prompted by a combined New York Department of Health and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention investigation into an E. coli O157:H7 outbreak that was determined to have been caused by consumption of Topps ground beef products.

New York is not the only state impacted by the beef recall and E. coli outbreak. The Associated Press reported today that residents of Connecticut, Indiana, New Jersey, Ohio, and Pennsylvania were part of the outbreak.

“We have a lawsuit pending in Albany County Superior Court that is the result of a 2005 E. coli case traced back to ground beef produced by Topps and sold at Price Chopper,” said William Marler, the nation’s foremost attorney representing victims of foodborne illness. “What we’re seeing here is that lightning does strike the same spot twice.”

Marler noted that for the first time since 2002, the number of meat recalls and E. coli outbreaks connected to ground beef has been increasing. “The CDC and USDA’s numbers have shown significant declines in E. coli outbreaks traced back to contaminated ground beef since 2002, and our client-base was backing those numbers up,” Marler continued. “Most of our E. coli cases in the last five years have been the result of contaminated produce, but not this year – we’ve filed lawsuits against California [UFG and the Fresno Meat Market], Minnesota, and Oregon beef producers in the last six months.

“To quote Buffalo Springfield, ‘Something’s happening here.’”

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

Fairbank Reconstruction Corp., doing business as Fairbank Farms, an Ashville, N.Y., establishment, is voluntarily recalling approximately 884 pounds of ground beef products because they may be contaminated with E. coli O157:H7, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service announced today. The products subject to recall include:

1.33-pound trays of “SHAW’S FRESH GROUND ROUND BEEF PATTIES, 85/15.” Each package bears the establishment number “Est. 492” inside the USDA mark of inspection. Each “Nutrition Facts” label bears a time stamp between “17:05” and “17:25” as well as a date code of “243.”

The ground beef products were produced on Aug. 31, 2007, and were distributed to retail establishments in Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Vermont.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Omaha Beef Company, Inc., a Danbury, Conn., firm, is recalling approximately 1,680 pounds of ground beef products that may be contaminated with E. coli O157:H7, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service announced yesterday.

The products subject to recall include:

10-pound boxes of "HAMBURGER PATTIES, OMAHA BEEF CO., INC."

Five- and 10-pound bags of "HAMBURGER, OMAHA BEEF CO., INC."

Each package bears the establishment number "Est. 2769" inside the USDA mark of inspection, as well as the case code, "101861."

The problem was discovered through routine FSIS microbiological testing. FSIS has received no reports of illnesses associated with consumption of these products.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Citizen reports that Georgia consumers are being urged to check their freezers for potentially contaminated beef products:

"Georgia Commissioner of Agriculture Tommy Irvin is advising Georgians to check their freezers and refrigerators for recalled ground beef products that may be contaminated with a dangerous form of E. coli bacteria. Jim's Market and Locker Inc. of Harlan, Iowa, is voluntarily recalling about 5,200 pounds of ground beef products distributed to seven states, including Georgia, because they could be contaminated with E. coli O157:H7."

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link