Month: July 2012

Chicken Jerky Pet Treats – FDA Does Data Dump

FDA did a data dump today. The agency has made available for download the results of 5 1/2 years worth of pet treat lab analyses.

This unprecedented release of (relatively) raw lab data by FDA comes on the heels of JoNel Aleccia’s July 13th article on the more than 1,000 pet illnesses and deaths being blamed on chicken jerky pet treats.

When eFoodAlert last contacted FDA’s Center for Veterinary Medicine on this subject in February 2012, the level of frustration felt by the agency was clear in the response we received from FDA Spokeswoman Laura Alvey.

“Testing continues and is ongoing,” Alvey said back then in reply to my questions. “We have tested samples from all over the country.”

Among the tests Alvey mentioned were Salmonella, and chemical toxicants such as melamine, melamine analogs and diethylene glycol. Alvey explained that FDA’s regulatory hands were tied until its scientists could detect a contaminant and demonstrate that a product was adulterated. “The regulations don’t allow for products to be removed based on complaints,” she emphasized.

It’s clear from today’s data dump that FDA has not made any further progress in solving the mystery. In my opinion, the absence of progress is due to two factors – lack of resources dedicated to researching the problem, and lack of a systematic approach to the problem.

Since November 18, 2011, FDA’s various District Offices have collected and analyzed a total of 48 samples of various brands and varieties of pet jerky treats in six district and regional FDA labs. That’s roughly one sample per lab per month. Twelve of the samples were tested for Salmonella; 30 were analyzed for the presence of ethylene glycol, diethylene glycol and/or propylene glycol; 12 were examined for melamine and cyanuric acid. An occasional sample was also examined for other microbial or chemical contaminants. Some samples were analyzed for multiple microbiological and chemical contaminants; others were subjected just one microbiological or chemical test.

In fairness, the data released today by FDA may not be complete. They include only those product samples for which the word “Jerky” appeared on the product label or in the product description. A product labeled simply as a “Pet Treat” or “Pet Chew” would not be part of these data.

There is no way to tell what motivated the selection of tests to be run on a given sample; that information is not included in the data dump. Nor do we know why these samples were collected. Were they part of routine surveillance? Were they the result of a consumer complaint or “adverse event” report? Were they taken during a pet food production plant inspection? This information, too, is lacking.

So far, all of the tests results have been negative, except for the finding of undeclared propylene glycol in twelve samples. Propylene glycol is on FDA’s Generally Recognized As Safe (GRAS) list of food chemicals and ingredients, both for human and animal consumption. Thus, even though the ingredient was not listed on the package label, no regulatory action was “indicated” according to FDA.

Propylene glycol is a humectant – it keeps a food soft, moist and chewy. It also is an antifreeze, although it is far less toxic than other common antifreezes, namely, ethylene glycol and diethylene glycol. But propylene glycol, at certain exposure levels, can be toxic to dogs and cats. And I have not been able to find any studies that evaluate the effect of propylene glycol in combination with other possible pet food ingredients.

Furthermore, has anyone at FDA thought to examine the chemical reactions involving propylene glycol that may take place during the manufacture of pet treats? Dow Chemical lists several reactions that could occur under favorable conditions of heat and oxidation. Has anyone investigated the effects of irradiation on propylene glycol? Some manufacturers irradiate their pet treats to ensure microbiological safety. There are, no doubt, several possible avenues of research here.

Come on, FDA! It’s time to pause, breathe, and start thinking outside the treat bag.

Recalls and Alerts: July 17, 2012

Here is today’s list of food safety recalls, product withdrawals, allergy alerts and miscellaneous compliance issues. The live links will take you directly to the official recall notices and company news releases that contain detailed information for each recall and alert.

If you would like to receive automatic email alerts for all new articles posted on eFoodAlert, please submit your request using the sidebar link.

United States

  • Outbreak Alert Update (Ohio): Fourteen people have been hospitalized – three of them serious ill with hemolytic uremic syndrome – and at least 68 attendees at a July 3rd Germantown, Ohio picnic have become ill, according to an update from Dayton & Montgomery County Public Health. Sixteen of the 68 outbreak victims are confirmed to be infected by E. coli O157.
  • FDA Warning Letter: FDA warns Mexican Products and Spice Company (La Feria, TX) that a May 2012 inspection of the company’s seafood processing facility found serious violations of the seafood Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) regulation.
  • FDA Warning Letter: FDA warns Prismic Light International (Murfreesboro, TN) that a January 2012 inspection of the company’s facility revealed a failure to comply with the Current Good Manufacturing Practice (CGMP) regulations for dietary supplements.
  • FDA Warning Letter: FDA warns Vincent Piazza, Jr. & Sons Seafood, Inc. (Harahan, LA) that a February-March 2012 inspection of the company’s seafood processing facility found serious violations of the seafood Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) regulation, and the Current Good Manufacturing Practice (CGMP) regulation for foods.
  • FDA Warning Letter: FDA warns Silva Foods of Kansas City, Inc. (Kansas City, KS) that a May 2012 inspection of the company’s food processing facility found significant deviations from the requirements of the Acidified Food regulations.

Europe

  • Food Safety Recall (Denmark): Falengreen A/S recalls Urtekram Organic Shredded Mozzarella Cheese (140g; Best before 01-10-2012), due to mold growth in the bags. The recalled product was sold in grocery stores, supermarkets and Salling shops.
  • Food Safety Recall (Denmark): Rieber & Son Denmark A/S recalls AH Pølseketchup/Hot Dog Ketchup (900g plastic bottles, L-code 3025098; 1800g plastic containers, L-code 3025091; 4.25kg Bag in box, L-code 3025087), due to contamination with lactic acid bacteria. The recalled products were sold to catering companies in Denmark; the 900g bottles also were sold to SuperBrugsen in Thisted.
  • Food Safety Recall (Luxembourg): La Société Gabriel Coulet SA recalls Auchan brand Roquefort AOP Tranche (150g; Lot #120406156 and 120406159; Best before 06/10/2012) and Le Fromager brand Roquefort AOP Barquette (130/180g; Lot #120406164; Best before 13/07/12, 14/07/12 and 15/07/12), due to possible contamination with Escherichia coli O26:H11. The recalled products were sold from 13/06/2012 to 13/07/2012, inclusive.
  • Food Safety Recall (UK): Prompt Thai 2000 (Wholesale) recalls Kraft Cheez Whiz Original (450g; Product of Philippines; all codes and expiry dates), and Kraft Cheez Whiz Pimiento Flavour (450g; Product of Philippines; all codes and expiry dates), because the Philippines is a country not approved to export milk or milk-based dairy products into the European Union.
  • Allergy Alert Notification (EU #2012.0999): Undeclared sulphite in champagne from France; distributed to the United Kingdom.
  • Food Safety Notification (EU #2012.1000): Salmonella enteritidis in frozen poultry meat preparation from Poland; distributed to Slovakia.
  • Food Safety Notification (EU #2012.1002): Mercury in swordfish from Spain; distributed to Italy.
  • Allergy Alert Notification (EU #2012.1004): Undeclared milk ingredient in biscuits from Slovenia; distributed to Slovenia.
  • Food Safety Notification (EU #2012.1005): Prohibited nitrofuran in frozen peeled shrimps from India; distributed to Greece.

Australia and New Zealand

  • Food Safety Recall (New Zealand): United World Foods Ltd. (Christchurch, NZ) recalls Sea Cuisine Frozen Oyster Meat (1kg bags; Code 2090), Sea Cuisine Frozen Battered Oysters (1kg bags; Code 2080), Sea Cuisine Frozen Crumbed Oysters (1kg bags; Code 2083), Sea Cuisine Frozen Floured Oysters (1kg bags; Code 2084) and Sea Cuisine Frozen Japanese Crumbed Oysters (500g bags; Code 2085), due to possible presence of Norovirus. The recalled products were sold in smaller retail and wholesale food outlets throughout New Zealand.
  • Food Safety Recall (New Zealand): Bay Cuisine Ltd. (Napier, NZ) recalls The Mad Butcher Salami Roll (500g; All best before dates up to and including 17 August 2012), The Mad Butcher Pepperoni Roll (500g; All best before dates up to and including 17 August 2012), Ratanui Hams – cooked on the bone (Whole, half and champagne hams; All best before dates up to and including 12 September 2012) and Eazi Carve Plain Packed Boneless Leg Ham (Pieces and whole; All best before dates up to and including 9 September 2012), because the products may be contaminated with Listeria. The recalled products were sold in The Mad Butcher stores throughout New Zealand; ham products also were sold in Preston’s stores in Wellington, Porirua and Palmerston North.

Some supermarket chains post recall notices on their web sites for the convenience of customers. To see whether a recalled food was carried by your favorite supermarket, follow the live link to the supermarket’s recall website.

*The Kroger umbrella encompasses numerous supermarket, marketplace and convenience store chains, listed on the Kroger corporate home page.
**Includes Safeway, Vons, Pavilions, Dominick’s, Genuardi’s, Randalls, Tom Thumb, Carrs and Pak N’ Save.

California Lettuce Fingered In US/Canada E. coli O157:H7 Outbreaks

Romaine lettuce grown on a California farm is the probable source of E. coli O157:H7 illnesses that were reported in April and May in California, New Brunswick and Quebec.

The binational outbreak sickened at least 18 people in New Brunswick (Canada) and nine residents of California. At least one resident of Quebec also was infected with the same outbreak strain.

The New Brunswick outbreak victims ate at Jungle Jim’s, a restaurant in Miramichi, between April 23rd and April 26th, and had consumed romaine lettuce, either in a salad, as part of a wrap, or as a garnish on hamburger. Most of the nine California victims had eaten at a single (unnamed) restaurant in April 2012, according to information provided by Ronald Owens (Office of Public Affairs, California Department of Public Health). A case control study implicated lettuce as the source of the California outbreak. No information has been released on the Quebec cases(s).

California was notified in May by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) that CDC had learned of an outbreak in Canada, caused by the same strain of E. coli O157:H7 as the California illnesses. Traceback investigations carried out by Canada and California both led to a single California farm that supplied lettuce to the California restaurant and to Jungle Jim’s in New Brunswick. Lettuce from the implicated fields was also supplied to Quebec.

Unfortunately, tracing the source of the lettuce did not lead to the source of the contamination. According to Ronald Owens, FDA and California followed up at the farm, but could not identify what might have led to the contamination. “The field had long since been harvested at the time of the investigation,” Owens explained in his email to me, “and all lettuce from the implicated lots had long since been consumed or disposed.”

In addition to shining a spotlight on the behind-the-scenes cooperation that takes place between federal, state and provincial health agencies in the USA and Canada, this outbreak investigation also highlights a significant difference in attitude and responsiveness between the New Brunswick Department of Health and the California Department of Public Health.

In its May 15, 2012 update on the Miramichi outbreak – the last update that appears on the Province’s website – a promise was made to release the results of the outbreak investigation. I have twice requested a copy of the investigation report, and both requests have been ignored. Not refused. Ignored.

In comparison, I requested information on the California investigation by email on the evening of Friday, July 13th. I received a complete and substantive reply today – less than one business day after making the request. My thanks to Ronald Owens of the CDPH Office of Public Affairs for his prompt and thorough attention to my information request.