In 1999, the USDA-FSIS asked the National Advisory Comittee for Microbiological for Foods whether tenderized beef presented increased risks of contamination by E. coli O157:H7. The answer, of course, was that it does, and that risks to consumer health increased correspondingly. See Recommendations.
This is not surprising, of course, nor is it particularly newsworthy
Bill Marler, food safety advocate and attorney, whose Seattle law firm, Marler Clark, has been contacted by victims of the E. coli outbreak traced to the National Steak and Poultry steak recall that has sickened people in Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, South Dakota and Washington, called today on National Steak and Poultry to
Injury issues aside (see John Mcdonalds HUS story), the problem with tenderized beef is that it internalizes bacteria from the surface of intact cuts of beef, thereby reducing the likelihood that cooking will serve as an effective kill step. The recent (ongoing???) outbreak of E. coli O157:H7 linked to National Steak and Poultry products occurred
My email box is filling up following yet another FSIS recall – this time the issue is “mechanically tenderized” steaks contaminated with E. coli O157:H7 linked to illnesses in several states.
So, how often are our steaks penetrated or hammered? As you can imagine, that information is not that readily available. It is hard to see that as a positive spin on the menu at your favorite restaurant.
But, how often? According to A Risk Assessment of E. coli O157:H7 in Tenderized Beef Steaks, “the majority of steaks and roasts destined for hotel, restaurant, and institutional use in the U.S. may be subjected to ‘mechanical tenderization.’” Also, some 18% of steaks are tenderized in retail and 25% of steaks are consumed in restaurants.
And, Why? According to another industry publications, tenderness is the most important factor affecting consumer ratings of beef. Beef tenderness is affected by two primary factors called background tenderness and protein (muscle fiber) tenderness.
So what is it? Mechanical tenderization is a method whereby fine incisions are made in the meat by closely spaced, specially designed knives (also, hammering and needling) which cut the connective tissue. The mechanical tenderization process takes less than one minute with a roller type tenderizer or a crank type hand operated tenderizer. Meat, which has been treated in this manner, is immediately tenderized without the use of chemicals or other artificial means or the need to wait for natural bacterial action to take place. The depth and the spacing of the knives and the number of times the meat is passed through the tenderizer permits the degree of tenderization to be determined, thus controlling the amount of tenderizing. Almost every grade of meat can be tenderized without danger of meat fabric deterioration or granulation.
Why should we care? A 2005 study found the incidence of E. coli O157:H7 on surfaces of beef cuts intended for blade/needle tenderization by Warren-Serna et al. (2002) revealed a 0.2% occurrence on 1,014 cuts from six packing plants or purveyors geographically dispersed throughout the U.S. The fact that E. coli O157:H7 does (albeit rarely) occur on beef primal/subprimal cuts generates risk of its entry into cuts when blade/needle or moisture-enhancement tenderization technologies are used, and its probability of occurrence is dramatically increased if improper cleaning/sanitizing of equipment is practiced. Gill and McGinnis (2004) collected 25 samples from four grocery stores, two of 100 samples, both from the same store, had detectable levels of E. coli on the internal surface of the product, further indicating that the risk of transferring E. coli O157:H7 to the interior of muscle samples is low and often dependent on site specific cleaning and sanitation programs. Blade tenderization has been found to transfer 3 to 4% (Hajmeer et al., 2000; Phebus et al., 2000) or 1 to 7% (Lambert et al., 2001) of surface contamination to the interior of the muscle; needle injection (during enhancement) results in 4 to 8% translocation of surface contamination to the center of the cut (Lambert et al., 2001).
What to do about it? As a result of the work of the Blade Tenderization Committee of the CFP, needle tenderized steaks… aka "pinning" or Jacquard processing, must be cooked to 155 degrees F, same as ground meats and injected meats, and is included as such in the 2009 FDA Food Code.
So, what does the Government Say? Keep reading:Continue Reading My Steak has been needle or blade penetrated or hammered – Really? What about E. coli?
Every time an E. coli O157:H7 outbreak occurs, we get yet another reminder how devastating the bacteria can be, particularly when it causes hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS). See www.about-hus.com.. And every time we represent a young child with HUS, I am reminded of the story of Regan Erickson, who was sickened in the spinach E. coli outbreak in September 2006 (We represented over 100 victims, including nearly 30 who suffered kidney failure and hemolytic uremic syndrome).
Tiffany and Russ Erickson were just like most Americans until September 2006. Their four-year-old son Regan (pronounced "Ree-gun") was one of many young kids whose future was unalterably and forever changed by spinach. What appears below is Regan’s story. It is a little long, but that must be forgiven. Regan’s illness very nearly cost him his life.
ONSET OF ILLNESS:
Regan’s mother, Tiffany, and his sister, Emma, were both sickened during the Spinach outbreak as well. Tiffany actually fell ill first, on August 28. It felt like cruel timing, given that it was only three days before Emma’s birthday and little more than a week since discovering that she was pregnant with her third child, Maggie, but Tiffany took everything in stride. She had no reason to suspect that she was dealing with anything more than a run-of-the-mill flu, and her primary concern was with the health of her unborn child.
After twenty-four hours or so, however, thoughts began to change about the nature of Tiffany’s illness. Her bouts of diarrhea had grown more frequent and severe, and her abdomen was beset by cramps more severe than labor pains. Then, the evening of August 29, after a particularly painful bout of diarrhea, Tiffany noticed that the toilet bowl was streaked with blood. Up until this point, Tiffany had endured everything with resolute confidence, but this symptom suggested something that she had never before reckoned with.
Tiffany soon underwent a diagnostic procedure called an endoscopy to shed light on what was wrong. Of his wife’s illness, before his thoughts turned to Regan alone, Russ recalls:
We left the urgent care facility and gave the drugs some time to work, but the pain continued to be unbearable. As my concern shifted from the baby to Tiffany I couldn’t stand seeing her in that much pain, tired from lack of sleep, and not able to get comfortable.
Meanwhile, Regan had begun to develop symptoms, and Emma soon would. “We didn’t realize that the illnesses could be related,” Russ recalls, “since Regan couldn’t express his pain as well as Tiffany. He just knew his ‘tummy’ hurt and he began having diarrhea.” Emma’s symptoms began the very next day, September 1.
Russ recalls:
Everyone in the family was sick, tired, and the children being so young, not knowing how to tell or deal with the symptoms like diarrhea, I was continually cleaning, comforting, and helping where I could, all without Tiffany’s help who is usually the stalwart caregiver. We knew that we had some kind of ‘bug’ but not how severe yet. It presented a lot like flu symptoms, but we began to know it was more serious as the kids, just as Tiffany, began to have blood in their stool, and then blood instead of stool. That is a scary, unnerving experience to see blood when your 3 and 4 year olds are using the bathroom.
Compared to four year-old Regan, the illnesses that Tiffany and Emma Erickson suffered were nothing more than a small current in a raging sea. Nevertheless, to hear Russ describe what his wife and daughter endured is to fully comprehend the aggressive nature of this virulent pathogen. Emma endured many days of an illness more acutely painful than anything her parents had ever seen. But as sick as she was, her older brother was fast-becoming critically ill, and her parents thoughts and attention soon went solely and exclusively to Regan.
Continue Reading Hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS) and E. coli O157:H7
Certain circumstances surrounding the National Steak and Poultry E. coli O157:H7 outbreak have me worried. The pathogen is incredibly dangerous; the vehicle (non-ground beef products) is often not cooked to a high enough temperature to kill E. coli; many of the beef products recalled are frozen, thus extending the shelf-life, putting more people at risk
E. coli O157:H7 strikes again, this time stealing some of Santa’s thunder and delivering a pile of bad news (for the meat industry, the consumer, everybody) on Christmas Eve. The outbreak linked to National Steak and Poultry, an Oklahoma-based purveyor of pre-portioned beef products, has sickened people in Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, South Dakota, and
On Christmas Eve, the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) released an advisory that there was “a recall of approximately 248,000 pounds of steaks that may be contaminated with E. coli O157:H7.” This is a CLASS I RECALL – which means – “This type of recall involves a health hazard where a reasonable probability exists that eating the food would cause serious, adverse health consequences or death.” The recalled products are packages of steaks bearing a label with the establishment number “EST. 6010T” inside the USDA mark of inspection and packaging dates of “10/12/2009,” “10/13/2009,” “10/14/2009,” or “10/21/2009.”
National Steak and Poultry and the FSIS have only made available a list of recalled products, but so far have refused to reveal where those products were shipped, even in light of illnesses linked to the meat in “Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, South Dakota and Washington.”
“The FSIS has indicated that E. coli illnesses are being investigated by the CDC in connection with the recall,” said food safety advocate and attorney William Marler. “Yet consumers have no information as to what states the tainted steaks were shipped or what retail outlets or restaurants received it. National Steak and Poultry has this information at its fingertips, FSIS should have access to it as well, and it is unconscionable that they have not made it available to the public,” continued Marler.
“This recall is the tenth so far in 2009. The FSIS policy of identifying retailers that received recalled products continues to appear to be getting a hit-or-miss application. At times, retailers and restaurants are identified on the same day as a recall, and on others, not at all. We know where we shop or where we had a steak. If we or restaurants are told where the contaminated steaks that has been recalled were sold, someone could go right to the freezer to see if there is any of the product,” added Marler.
After years of large recalls, focused efforts by meat regulators brought down E. coli contamination recalls to a low of 182,000 pounds in 2006. Recalls shot up again in 2007, and in the ensuing years (2007-2009), nearly 45 million pounds of beef have been recalled due to contamination with E. coli O157:H7.
The CDC estimates that every year at least 75,000 Americans are sickened and 2000 Americans are hospitalized, and about 60 die as a direct result of E. coli infections and its complications. A recent study estimated the annual cost of E. coli O157:H7 illnesses to be $405 million (in 2003 dollars), which included $370 million for premature deaths, $30 million for medical care, and $5 million for lost productivity.
The products subject to recall include:Continue Reading Marler Clark Calls on National Steak and Poultry and the FSIS to Reveal What Restaurants Received the 248,000 Pounds of E. coli-Tainted Steaks
E. coli Steaks
National Steak and Poultry, an Owasso, Okla., establishment, is recalling approximately 248,000 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.
FSIS became aware of the problem during the course of an investigation of a cluster
.gif)
List Follows Yesterday’s Naughty Entries
Food Safety News, the web-based newspaper that covers all things food safety, today released the second part of its 2009 Food Safety Naughty and Nice list. The web-based newspaper’s “Naughty” list was published yesterday and included food safety missteps, missed opportunities, and downright dirty deeds. But it won’t be