President Obama today announced his intent to nominate Dr. Elisabeth Hagen as the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Under Secretary for Food Safety. Hagen will serve with Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack.
"There is no more fundamental function of government than protecting consumers from harm, which is why food safety is one of USDA’s top priorities," said
Today the USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced a recall of ground beef products due to possible Salmonella contamination. According to the press release, “Beef Packers, Inc. [BPI]…is recalling approximately 825,769 pounds of ground beef products that may be linked to an outbreak of salmonellosis.” The link between confirmed Salmonella infections and consumption of BPI ground beef products was first discovered by the Colorado Department of Public Health, and a subsequent traceback investigation conducted by FSIS.
This recall was, for me, surprising news—and also inexplicable given the USDA’s long-held position that Salmonella is not an adulterant per se in raw meat, and the meat industry’s prior success in getting a court to invalidate Salmonella performance standards that the USDA had tried to implement as part of its Pathogen Reduction, HACCP regulations adopted in 1996. So when I read about this recall, my first thought was to wonder why BPI agreed to the recall. (Remember: FSIS lacks the statutory authority to compel a recall.) And my second thought was: I wonder if the meat industry is going to sue the USDA to try and prevent the Agency from seeking a second recall in the future based on possible Salmonella contamination.
I obviously cannot answer either of these questions. But I can provide some useful background information about why this particular recall is so surprising, and so inexplicable. (And, by the way, by inexplicable I mean that it is nearly impossible to explain how FSIS could take this action in light of 25 years worth of policy and court decisions that would appear to suggest that the Agency has no authority to do what it did. The recall is certainly NOT inexplicable from a public health and safety perspective, which is certainly ironic given the fact that the FSIS has the term “safety” in its name, and doing something in favor of safety should not be inexplicable.)
And so now onto some history:
Continue Reading BPI Ground Beef Salmonella Recall: Will the Meat Industry Sue, and Who Will the USDA stand up for?
Blatantly (and self-servingly) rewriting history, in Friday’s Wall Street Journal, the USDA is reported as stating the following:
The USDA has been considering for more than a year a policy change that would allow whole beef cuts to be considered "adulterated" — and thus subject to recall — even if they aren’t "intended for use in ground beef," according to Daniel Engeljohn, a deputy assistant administrator for USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service, or FSIS.
The policy change is still under consideration, he said.
See Bill Tomson, U.S. Beef Safety Plan Languishes Amid New Illnesses, Wall Street Journal, July 10, 2009, see: online.wsj.com/article/SB124725846273124757.html
Despite the fact that it has been pressed on the problem for over eight years, the USDA is now trying to act as if the serious risk of E. coli O157:H7 contamination of primal and subprimals, so-called intact cuts of meat, is a recent problem that is currently subject to ongoing policy review. This, to put it mildly (and aptly), is a bunch of cow-sh*t. Confusion has reigned since the FSIS E. coli O157:H7 policy on intact vs. non-intact meat was first announced on January 19, 1999. See 64 Fed. Reg. No. 11, 2803-05, see ftp.resource.org/gpo.gov/register/1999/1999_2805.pdf (hereinafter “Intact Meat Policy Statement)”.
For a complete and accurate history of how long this issue has been before the USDA, without it taking any action to address the risk, please click on the Continue Reading link.Continue Reading More Doubletalk from USDA on E. coli and Swift Meat Recall
Yesterday, the USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service issued a largely useless, but still widely published, news release entitled “Independence Day: Drills for the Grill.” See News Release, www.fsis.usda.gov/News_&_Events/NR_062909_01/index.asp While notable for a cheery and reassuring tone, the information provided is, at best, unhelpful, and, at worst, is dangerously misleading. In addition to providing little in the way of substantive food safety information about how to “safely” grill a burger, the FSIS news release deceitfully soft-pedals the real risks posed by ground beef, generally, and outdoor grilling in particular. For example, the new release clumps together hamburgers, steak, chicken, hot dogs, and ribs as if all can be treated in the same way, and pose the same relative risk—which is blatantly false. And also, how can anyone at FSIS expect to educate the public about safely grilling ground beef (the real risk here) without once mentioning E. coli O157:H7, the primary risk?
Take, for example, the introductory quote from FSIS Administrator, Alfred V. Almanza, who states: “Safe food handling is always important, but during the warm summer months — peak grilling season — there is an increased need for awareness of safe food handling practices.” Well, Mr. Almanza, why is that? Could it be because numerous research studies have shown that the incidence of E. coli O157:H7 in cattle rises significantly during the spring, and peaks during the summer months? See, e.g., Edrington, et al, 2006. Seasonal shedding of Escherichia coli O157:H7 in ruminants: a new hypothesis. Foodborne Pathog Dis 3:413-21; Hancock, et al., 1994. The prevalence of Escherichia coli O157.H7 in dairy and beef cattle in Washington State. Epidemiol Infect 113:199-207; Hancock, et al., 1997. A longitudinal study of Escherichia coli O157 in fourteen cattle herds. Epidemiol Infect 118:193-5; and Hussein, et al., 2005. Prevalence of Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli in beef cattle. J Food Prot 68:2224-41. Why not level with the public and tell them that ground beef simply tends to be more dangerous in the summer, and that is when a higher than average percentage of E. coli O157:H7 infections occur? Of course, that might make the USDA look bad, and could further depress the sales of ground beef.
(Please click on Continue Reading to view the rest of this article.)Continue Reading How to Safely Cook a Burger (NOT according to the USDA)
The recent (and still unfolding) E. coli O157:H7 outbreak linked to contaminated Toll House cookie dough manufactured by Nestle has no shortage of lessons to teach, including the reminder that this deadly pathogen can find its way into nearly any food product if sufficient care is not taken during its manufacture. But this sad outbreak is also a case study in the ridiculously complicated, and too-often ineffective, state of food safety inspection in the United States. What makes the outbreak such an excellent case-study is the fact that the Nestle plant located in Danville, Virginia was not only manufacturing Toll House cookie dough products, but also a variety of Buitoni flat and stuffed pastas, and pasta sauces. This made the plant what is called a “dual jurisdiction establishment” that fell under the regulatory authority of both the FDA and the USDA. And to make things even more interesting, Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (VDACS) was performing routine plant inspections under contract with the FDA. So how come with all these agencies involved no one prevented the outbreak?
.jpg)
By way of background, the FDA has jurisdiction over all domestic and imported food products, except meat, poultry, or processed egg products, which fall under the jurisdiction of the USDA. But not all food products fall neatly on one side of the jurisdiction line or the other. For example, the products that Nestle manufactured for its Buitoni-brand fell on both sides of the line, with a few falling almost on the line. Meat-flavored pasta sauce would be inspected by the FDA, while meat sauce containing 3% or more of meat would be inspected by the USDA. The ravioli stuffed with cheese would be the responsibility of the FDA, while those stuffed with pork or prosciutto would be the responsibility of the USDA. Thus, if you look at the FDA Inspection Report from September 11 and 12, 2006, you will see that the inspector takes note of fettuccini and linguine being manufactured (FDA products), and chicken tortellini being manufactured (USDA product). Only the Toll House cookie dough products feel solely within the jurisdiction of the FDA. Nonetheless, the FDA plainly took note of all products being manufactured, without, however, making mention of whether or how what was found would be communicated to the USDA. Of course, since the USDA had an inspector onsite, and the FDA showed up in the plant only every year or so, it is the USDA that presumably knew much more about the plant.
Given the presence of the USDA in the plant on a daily basis, the obvious question then is what did the USDA know, and when did it know it? Another obvious question is: Could the USDA have prevented this outbreak from occurring? And, indeed, was it potentially in a better position to prevent this outbreak. (NOTE: As part of my firm’s investigation into this outbreak we are currently attempting to obtain the USDA inspection records for this plant.)
For more, please click on the Continue Reading link.Continue Reading The “Guess Who Inspects It Game”: Nestle E. coli Cookie Dough Edition
Somebody has finally noticed. In this case, the somebody is Tom Laskawy, a food and environment specialist, and what he has noticed is that President Obama has NOT yet nominated anybody as U.S. Department of Agriculture Undersecretary for Food Safety to run the Food Safety & Inspection Service (FSIS), the key federal agency for
As I noted in an earlier post on a different blog about the USDA’s decision to, in a matter of speaking, take its head out of the sand and recognize that E. coli O157:H7 is a problem that starts (and someday will hopefully end) with the slaughter and dressing process, the agency is finally appearing to take a more reality-based (which is to say, less industry-biased) approach to ensuring food safety. For the earlier post, see here:www.foodpoisonblog.com/2009/05/food-policy-regulation/usda-sees-the-light-on-e-coli-o157h7-and-meat/#comments
Specifically, the only way that meat gets contaminated is because insufficient care was taken during slaughter and feces or ingesta cross-contaminates the previously uncontaminated carcass. Knowledge that this cross-contamination is commonplace is what has given rise over the years to post-slaughter “interventions” like steam-pasteurization and organic acid washes. Put bluntly, there is no need to try to remove the poop on the meat if it does not end up there in the first place.
Since the Pathogen Reduction; HACCP Final Rule was issued in 1996, it has been the stated policy of the USDA that E. coli O157:H7 be reduced to an "undetectable level." This is the so-called zero-tolerance policy for this deadly pathogen, which is based on the irrefutable fact that if the “presence [of E. coli O157:H7] can be prevented, no amount of temperature abuse, mishandling, or undercooking can lead to foodborne illness.” See HACCP Final Rule, 62 Fed. Reg. at 38,962. Now, seemingly more intent at make zero-tolerance a reality, USDA yesterday issued notice that it was mandating an increase in the frequency of its in-plant testing for E. coli O157:H7 in raw ground beef. While this is an improvement, it is but a baby step, since the most frequent testing that will occur under this policy is 4 times per month, and this is only at plants that produce volumes of ground beef greater than 250,000 pounds PER DAY.
For more on this change in policy, please click on CONTINUE READING.
Continue Reading Baby Steps: USDA Implements Increase in E. coli O157:H7 Testing.
For years, the USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) has allowed meat plants to divert meat that has tested positive for E. coli O157:H7 (or some other pathogen) to a further-processing facility where it is cooked for a time and at a temperature sufficient to kill the pathogens. What FSIS has not done, however, is require immediate corrective action of the plant’s slaughter and sanitary dressing procedures so as to determine how the meat came to be contaminated in the first place. Because, let us be clear: ground beef, trimmings, an intact cuts of meat do not get contaminated with E. coli O157:H7 unless the carcass is contaminated, or cross-contaminated, druing the slaughter or carcass-dressing process. Bottom-line: Meat is not contaminated but for the manner of its slaughter and dressing.
So lax has been the FSIS focus on and oversight of the slaughter and dressing process that it has routinely allowed plants to send meat that has tested presumptively positive for E. coli O157:H7 to be sent for further-processing without requiring that confrimatory testing be done. This give the plant a free pass by avoiding a confirmed positive test result for E. coli O157:H7, something that would be higly likely to prompt a comprehenisve assessment at the plant, and the requirement that the plant’s HACCP plan be re-assessed and re-validated. This also allows both the plant and FSIS to pretend that the Slaughter HACCP plan has not failed for not reduciing E. coli O157:H7 to an "undetectable level"–something that FSIS policy has required since October 7, 2002.
Now, if in reading the above the image of an ostrich with its head in the sand came to mind, then you are definitely grasping the gist of my criticism here. But, that said, I am happy to report that FSIS finally seems to have pulled its proverbial head out of the sand and seen the light.
Yesterday the agency issued FSIS Directive 6410.1, and it is a very good thing indeed. For more on this, please hit the CONTINUED READING link.Continue Reading USDA Sees the Light on E. coli O157:H7 and Meat
As the year comes to a close, many publications are looking back on the year and assessing our nation’s food safety system. From the Wall Street Journal to USA Today and Reuters, everyone has something to say about the American food supply.
The Wall Street Journal focused today on the USDA and the number of
John Munsell, a former meat-processing facility owner, was recently interviewed by Meat & Poultry Magazine about what he learned while conducting interviews of industry players. While Munsell has been a critic of USDA meat inspection practices and policies, he is working for change through FARE, the Foundation for Accountability in Regulatory Enforcement. What he had