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

There has been a renewed push by Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich) to move the Food Safety Modernization Act through the Senate, reports Caroline Scott-Thomas.  Using the recent recalls of Salmonella-contaminated alfalfa sprouts and romaine lettuce linked to human illnesses, Rep. Dingell said in a statement: 

It is unfortunate that we find ourselves reading of more foodborne illness outbreaks that have touched the lives of American consumers. This double whammy should open our eyes to the dangers that exist when it comes to our food supply.

It is true that we have one of the safest food supplies in the world. Unfortunately, this title does not suffice. The continuing stream of recalls and illness demonstrate that more can and must be done.

We could not agree more.  The time to move this important piece of legislation forward is long overdue.

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

The latest CDC summary on the ongoing E. coli O157:H7 outbreak linked to Fairbank Farms ground beef says that there are 28 confirmed cases in 12 states.  The USDA-FSIS's latest outbreak summary, which is where you would expect to find information on the retailers who have received recalled product, seems a little slow on the uptake.  As we posted yesterday, the FSIS statement is limited to Price Chopper and Shaws' stores in just 8 states.  So what about the other 4 states with sick people in them?  Isn't there some missing information here?

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

A little over two weeks ago, IBM released the results of a survey that it had conducted among adult grocery shoppers in the ten largest cities in the United States (100 in each city). The survey was intended to gather opinions about food safety issues, and what it found is as disappointing as it is not surprising. For example, less than 20% of consumers trust food companies to develop and sell food products that are self and healthy. Moreover, 60% of consumers are concerned about the safety of the food that they purchase. And the cause of this significant drop in trust? The rise in food recalls linked to contaminated and unsafe food products. According to the survey results, 83% of the people surveyed were able to name a food product that had been recalled in the last years, with nearly half (46%) naming peanut butter as a recently recalled product.

The irony here is that the rise in contamination-related recalls can be explained, in large part, by the drive for greater profits through: the use of cheaper ingredients purchased from suppliers willing to cut-corners (see, e.g. Peanut Corporation of America and its customer Kelloggs); the failure to update and maintain manufacturing facilities to ensure the highest standards of safety (see, e.g., Cargill and its peanut butter plant); insufficient product testing and quality control (see, e.g. Dole baged Spinach); and over-reliance on the consumer to cook the product "properly" as a means of making it safe, when it should have been safe to begin with (see, e.g., Banquet pot pies and Topps-brand and American Chef's Selection brand frozen ground beef patties).  But by putting profits above safety, food manufacturers are trading short term gains for long term losses.  If consumers lose trust in manufactured food products, they will stop buying them.  Look, for example, at peanut butter sales, which still  have not recovered, and may never do so.

To read the full press release discussing the survey results, please click on Continue Reading.

Armonk, NY -- - 24 Jun 2009: A new IBM (NYSE: IBM) study reveals that less than 20 percent of consumers trust food companies to develop and sell food products that are safe and healthy for themselves and their families. The study also shows that 60 percent of consumers are concerned about the safety of food they purchase, and 63 percent are knowledgeable about the content of the food they buy.

The survey of 1,000 consumers in the 10 largest cities nationwide shows that consumers are increasingly wary of the safety of food purchased at grocery stores, and their confidence in – and trust of – food retailers, manufacturers and grocers is declining.

The Debilitating Impact of Recalls

83 percent of respondents were able to name a food product that was recalled in the past two years due to contamination or other safety concerns. Nearly half of survey respondents – 46 percent – named peanut butter, the staple of school lunches for children across the nation, as the most recognizable recall. Spinach came in a distant second, with 15 percent awareness nearly two years after the incident.

Consumers are proving to be extra cautious in purchasing food products after a recall. 49 percent of the respondents would be less likely to purchase a food product again of it was recalled due to contamination. 63 percent of respondents confirmed they would not buy the food until the source of contamination had been found and addressed. Meanwhile, eight percent of respondents said they would never purchase the food again, even after the source of contamination was found and addressed.

These findings underscore how the rise in recalls and contamination has significantly eroded consumer confidence in food and product safety, as well as with the companies that manufacture and distribute these products.

Changing Consumer Behaviors

63 percent of respondents report they have purposefully changed their grocery shopping behavior in the past two years because they wanted better value for their money. And almost half have changed shopping behavior to access fresher foods (45 percent) or better quality foods (43 percent).

"Especially in today's economy, if consumers are going to pay a little extra for a branded or organic product, they want to be assured that they're paying for something different and better quality,” said Guy Blissett, Consumer Products Leader, IBM Institute for Business Value. “Across the board, consumers are demanding transparency and more information about the food they purchase to ensure their safety and that of their families. As the government, industry associations, retailers and manufacturers work through the operational issues associated with ensuring food safety, we can each become more aware and take greater responsibility for the food we purchase.”

Where is my Food From?

The survey found that over the past two years, consumer appetite for information about food products increased. 77 percent of consumers want more information about the content of the food products they purchase, and 76 percent would like more information about its origin. 74 percent are willing to dig deeper and seek more data about how the food products are grown, processed and manufactured. Despite industry efforts to keep consumers informed with more detailed product information, there’s still a significant gap between consumer expectations and what retailers/manufacturers are providing.

The survey also found that consumers are spending more time poring over food labels to know which ingredients were used, questioning supermarkets and product manufactures about product detail, paying closer attention to expiration dates, and doing more in depth background checks on specific food brands and their origin. This will have an even bigger impact as the younger, more Internet savvy generation of consumers evolve into being the primary purchasers of groceries.
An estimated 76 million people in the United States get sick every year with food borne illness and 5,000 die, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Food safety is top of mind for governments, retailers, manufacturers and consumers alike, and in fact, President Obama’s proposed budget includes $1 billion for the FDA to spend on improving food safety. More than 600 bills addressing food safety have been introduced in state legislatures since January 2009.

"The ability to trace a contaminated product all the way back to the source of production is key to modernizing our food industry. It would also allow producers to more precisely identify the source of a problem in order to improve production practices and could help narrow the scope of recalls by more quickly identifying the specific plant or country of origin," said Caroline Smith DeWaal, director of food safety, Center for Science in the Public Interest.[1]

Are Food Retailers and Manufacturers Looking Out for me?

55 percent of respondents trust food manufacturers when handling a recall in the event that a food product is contaminated, indicating a decrease in their level of trust over the past two years. Meanwhile, 72 percent said they trust the store where they buy groceries to properly handle food product contamination recalls.

57 percent of consumers report they’ve stopped purchasing certain foods, even for a short time, within the past two years due to safety considerations.

Take Responsibility: “Smart” Recommendations for Consumers:

Seek out other concerned consumers: connect with those interested in food safety issues. Share information and insights with others.

Make yourself known: Speak up and let your local grocery know you’d be interested in more information on the products they are selling and their origins. Grocers want to listen; they are in a very competitive marketplace. Research from IBM shows 75 percent of consumers are dissatisfied with their grocer.

Ask your retailer: Assess who provides more information about the products they sell. This is being accomplished through in store kiosk and touch screen computers and brochures.

Read the packaging closely: Some products are providing more information than ever, including specific details on the farm where ingredients were grown.

Take responsibility: Leverage the Internet and visit consumer products company websites to learn more about the companies and processes behind the products you buy. Companies are providing a wealth of background information on their products to gain consumer credibility and shift consumer attitude.

Survey Methodology

IBM conducted a survey of adult grocery shoppers (once a month or more) in the 10 largest U.S. cities during June 2009. The study is intended to gather grocery shoppers’ opinions about food safety issues. The survey was fielded by Survey Sampling International (SSI) using random samples from their managed online panels in: Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Dallas-Forth Worth, Houston, Los Angeles, New York, Philadelphia, San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, and Washington, DC. Cities were identified using Nielsen Designated Market Areas (DMA). There are 1,000 responses in the final dataset – 100 in each city. IBM was not identified as the sponsor of the study. The results have a 3.1-point margin of error overall (95% confidence level).

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

 Today's recall of Nestle cookie dough got me thinking about other E. coli O157:H7 cases that we've recently handled.  John McDonald 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

A tip of the meat-thermometer to Herb Weisbaum for an excellent column on how stores could to a better job of notifying customers about recalled products.    Mr. Weisbaum points out that stores are the last line of defense in our food safety system.  He also points out that they often fail. 

California State Senator Dean Florez said his staffers found numerous recalled products on grovery store shelves when doing a spot check.  Senator Florez is introducing legislation to force stores to adopt systems to block the sales of recalled products.   Corporate food safety leader Costco already does just that.   This is especially important in light of a recent study that consumers are not generally in the habit of scanning their household for implicated products when recalls are announced. 

One place consumers can keep track of recalls is at www.recalls.gov. 

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

There has for a long time been valid criticism of food recalls, both with regard to how agencies like the FDA implement them, and whether recalls really work to prevent foodborne illness.  In my view, most recalls are best described as closing the barn-doors after the horses have escaped.  But that said, when a food product is determined to be contaminated, there is no avoiding the need to try to remove the product from the market.  That means recalls are necessary.  It also means that recalls need to be effective as possible at limiting the spread of foodborne disease. According to a great and interesting new study out of Rutgers' Food Policy Institute, it appears that recalls are anything but effective in prompting necessary public action.  For example, in a survey of over 1,100, the study found that only about 60 percent of the studied sample reported ever having looked for recalled food in their homes, and only 10 percent said they had ever found a recalled food product.

This is a disturbing finding, because, unless we can reliably count on the public to take the actions necessary to prevent the spread of foodborne disease, we may be assuming that recalls work when, in fact, they do not.  This study thus deserves to be read carefully by public health officials, and additional research definitely seems to be needed.

The full study can be found here: www.foodpolicyinstitute.org/docs/news/RR-0109-018.pdf

To read the full press release announcing the study, please hit the Continued Reading link.

Rutgers Study Finds Many Consumers Ignore Food Product Recalls
April 14, 2009

NEW BRUNSWICK, N.J. – Rutgers’ Food Policy Institute (FPI) released a study today showing that many Americans fail to check their homes for recalled food products. Only about 60 percent of the studied sample reported ever having looked for recalled food in their homes, and only 10 percent said they had ever found a recalled food product.
The study was based on a survey of 1,101 Americans interviewed by telephone from Aug. 4 to Sept. 24, 2008. The study can be downloaded at www.foodpolicy.rutgers.edu.
Most respondents said they pay a great deal of attention to food recalls and, when they learn about them, tell many other people. But 40 percent of these consumers think that the foods they purchase are less likely to be recalled than those purchased by others, appearing to believe that food recalls just don’t apply to them.
Despite widespread awareness of recent foodborne illness outbreaks and a sense that the number of food recalls is increasing, about half of Americans say that food recalls have had no impact on their lives, said psychologist William K. Hallman, a professor of human ecology at Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, School of Environmental and Biological Sciences. “Getting consumers to pay attention to news about recalls isn’t the hard part," he said. “It’s getting them to take the step of actually looking for recalled food products in their homes.” Hallman is also the director of FPI and lead author of the study report.
The Rutgers researchers also offered suggestions about how to improve communications about food recalls. Nearly 75 percent of those surveyed said they would like to receive personalized information about recalls on their receipt at the grocery store, and more than 60 percent said they also would also like to receive such information through a letter or an e-mail.
Hallman said that personalizing communications about food recalls may be the way to overcome the sense that the messages are meant for someone else. Providing consumers with recall information about specific products they have purchased makes it harder for them to ignore the advice to look for the recalled items.
But even when people find recalled food, not all do what they are told. Approximately 12 percent reported eating a food they thought had been recalled. At the other extreme, some consumers take a “better safe than sorry” attitude. More than 25 percent reported that they had simply discarded food products after hearing about a recall, potentially wasting safe, nutritious food. Many consumers also avoid purchasing products not included in the recall but which are similar, or are from the same manufacturer.pistachios
“Our research also points out that instructions to consumers must be clear and comprehensible if you want them to act appropriately after a food recall,” Hallman said. He cites the Food and Drug Administration’s recent advice to consumers not to eat pistachios, but to hold onto them and not throw them away as confusing to consumers.
“We found that clear, direct messages such as ‘throw the food in the garbage’ or ‘return the food to the store for a refund,’ should motivate action. Keeping people in a holding pattern is more likely to result in inaction, and it certainly increases the likelihood that someone might eat the food by accident.”
The authors of the study are William K. Hallman and Cara L. Cuite, researchers at FPI, and Neal H. Hooker, a researcher at the Ohio State University. The study was funded by the United States Department of Agriculture and the Grocery Manufacturers Association.
An earlier report based on data from the same survey provided insight into consumer awareness of the Salmonella Saintpaul advisory in the summer of 2008. The report is also available at www.foodpolicy.rutgers.edu.
FPI is a research unit of Rutgers’ New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station. The institute addresses important emerging food policy issues and supports public and private decision makers who shape aspects of the food system within which government, agriculture, industry and the consumer interact.
 

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

Keith Warriner  from the University of Guelph commenting on recent recalls and questioning where Canidian's food comes from:

Part of the problem is the fact that Canada gets as much as 80 per cent of its produce from California, where health officials have warned growers three times in the last three years about their growing practices.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has issued several warnings to California producers over the last three years urging them to improve safety standards, said Keith Warriner, a professor of food science at the University of Guelph.

"There's definitely some sort of issues with the quality of irrigation water in California and that's no doubt due to the pressures to get water," Warriner said.

Water contamination is sometimes a problem when it's used in both animal and vegetable production systems, he added.

"It's a recipe for disaster in a lot of ways."

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