Author: Phyllis Entis

Prompt Prose: That Book

She closed the book, placed it on the table, and finally, decided to walk through the door.

She knew she was late and would miss her bus. But she hadn’t been able to help herself. Once she started reading, she was compelled to finish. It had taken her 15 hours – and cost her a night of sleep – but it was worth it.

It’s not as though Anna didn’t know the story. She couldn’t help knowing it – she had grown up with it. She first heard about what her grandmother had done in “the war” when she was just a toddler, too young to understand what it all meant. It was a story to be whispered among the grown-ups, lest the youngsters get scared and have nightmares.

As Anna grew older, she began to question. “Why, Grandma,” she would ask, “Why did you do it?”

“I had to,” was the unfailing reply. “It was the war. I did what had to be done.” After a while, Anna stopped asking.

Somehow, through the years, she managed to avoid That Book. Its very existence was disturbing. She didn’t think it would be wise or safe to delve too deeply. This time, though, she had no choice. It was required reading – part of the literature syllabus at the high school where she taught.

So last night, in trepidation, she opened a tattered copy at random and read, “Nice people, the Germans! To think that I was once one of them too!” Shocked, she flipped forward through the book, only to encounter, “There’s in people simply an urge to destroy…”

This would never do. She must begin at the start and force her way through. She must find out for herself – at last – why Grandma had behaved the way she did. Anna began to read. As she approached the story’s climax, she believed that she had discovered the answer she was searching for.

But, what now? This question occupied Anna as she absorbed the remainder of the book. It filled her mind as she walked outside and headed to the bus stop. Suddenly, she knew what she must do.

Abruptly, she crossed the street to catch a bus that would take her to the center of town – away from her school. Away from her daily responsibilities. She would be missed, of course, but that didn’t matter. She had to see for herself.

One hour and two bus transfers later, with whole sentences from The Diary of Anne Frank – it was no longer That Book in her mind – running riot through her brain, she found herself in the center of Amsterdam. Stopping for directions, she made certain of her route. She strode purposefully now – no longer in doubt; no longer questioning herself – “two blocks down, then turn right, cross the Prinsengracht canal and you can’t miss it,” the helpful police officer had told her.

All at once, she saw it. Prinsengracht 263-267. The Anne Frank House. After all those years of hearing the stories, after reading Anne’s Diary in a single sitting, she was face-to-face with her family’s past. She felt Anne Frank’s words reverberate through her soul, “[I]n spite of everything I still believe that people are really good at heart.”

Solemnly, Anne Frank’s namesake crossed the threshold into the factory building where, for more than two years, her Grandmother Miep had sustained the lives and the hopes of a handful of Jews, so many decades ago.

©2012 Phyllis Entis. All rights reserved.

A Note of Explanation: This story was my submission to Round Eight of National Public Radio’s “Three Minute Fiction” contest. All stories submitted for Round Eight were required to begin with the sentence “She closed the book, placed it on the table, and finally, decided to walk through the door.”

Recalls and Alerts: November 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.

For current information on retail distribution of peanut butter products recalled due to Salmonella Bredeney, please consult the Trader Joe’s/Sunland Peanut Butter Recalls tab.

For current information on retail distribution of beef products containing Canadian beef recalled due to E. coli O157:H7 contamination please consult the Canada/USA Beef Recall tab.

United States

  • Allergy Alert: Tri-Union Seafoods LLC recalls Chicken of the Sea White Albacore Tuna in Water (7-oz cans in multipack; UPC 0 48000 00097 2; Best by 10/01/16 through 11/09/16), because the product contains undeclared soy. The recalled product was distributed in October and November 2012 to Costco stores in California, Arizona, Washington, Utah, Hawaii, Alaska, Oregon, New Mexico, Colorado, Montana, Idaho and Nevada.
  • Food Safety Recall: Tony’s Imports and Exports (Clovis, CA) warns consumers, food distributors and food processors not to consume or purchase certain containers of AL-RABIH Tahineh, 100% Sesame (40lb pails; Product of Lebanon; Best before February 2014), after 141 pails of the product were stolen from the company’s warehouse where it was awaiting destruction due to Salmonella contamination.
  • Pet Food Safety Recall: Magnolia Bird Farm, Incorporated (Anaheim, CA) recalls Sunland Peanuts in Shell, Hulled Peanuts, Magnolia Bird Farm Conure Mix Seed Mix, Magnolia Bird Farm Large Hookbill Seed Mix, Magnolia Bird Farm Hookbill Supreme Seed Mix, and Magnolia Bird Farm Parrot Mix Seed Mix (Distributed October 12, 2011 to October 12, 2012), because the peanuts, which were supplied by Sunland, Inc., may be contaminated with Salmonella. Please refer to the recall notice for additional details.
  • Consumer Product Safety Recall: Focus Products Group International, LLC (Lincolnshire, IL) recalls West Bend brand Cocoa Latte™ Hot Drink Maker (Model 65032) and Back to Basics Cocoa Latte™ Hot Drink Maker (Models CM300BK, CM300BKL, CM300BLSS, CM300BR, CM300BRBRL CM300BRL, CM300W), because a small bushing inside the container has to potential to leach lead. The recalled products were shipped nationwide starting in 2004 through October 12, 2012 and sold primarily in the USA through various retailers and e-retailers and through the Focus Products’ online store.

Canada

  • Allergy Alert: David Roberts Food Corporation recalls David Roberts Two for the Road Madeira Mix (80g; All codes; UPC 0 67261 14321 1), due to the presence of undeclared sulphites. The recalled product was sold nationally.
  • Food Safety Recall: Shah Brothers Imports recalls Shabros Sesame Laddoo (200g; No codes; UPC 0 59011 01061 4), due to the presence of unspecified extraneous material in the product.

Europe

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 web site.

*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.

Sunland vs. FDA: Who Should We Believe?

At no time in its twenty-four year history has Sunland, Inc. released for distribution any products that it knew to be potentially contaminated with harmful microorganisms.

– Jimmie Shearer, President and CEO, Sunland, Inc.

On November 14, 2012, FDA issued the following update to its investigation of the Salmonella Bredeney peanut butter outbreak.

“November 14, 2012 – FDA posts observations from recent inspection at Sunland Inc.  

The FDA has made the observations from its recent inspection of Sunland Inc. publicly available.  This inspection was conducted between September 17 and October 16, 2012, and became part of the investigation of the Salmonella Bredeney outbreak linked to peanut butter made by Sunland Inc.

During this inspection investigators found that conditions in the company’s facility, the company’s manufacturing processes, and the company’s testing program for Salmonella may have allowed peanut butter that contained Salmonella to be distributed by the company.  

The FDA found that between June of 2009 and August of 2012, Sunland Inc. had distributed, or cleared for distribution, portions of 11 lots, or daily production runs,  of peanut or almond butter after its own testing program identified the presence of at least one of nine different Salmonella types (Arapahoe, Bredeney, Cerro, Dallgow, Kubacha, Mbandaka, Meleagridis, Newport, and Teddington) in those lots.  Two of these lots showed the presence of the outbreak strain of Salmonella Bredeney.  

Equally important, five product samples collected and analyzed by FDA from Sunland Inc. showed the presence of Salmonella, but had not been identified as containing Salmonella by Sunland Inc.’s internal testing.  Among those products were peanut butter and shelled raw peanuts.  Two of these samples showed the presence of the outbreak strain of Salmonella Bredeney.  

Additionally, during its inspection of the plant in September and October 2012, the FDA found the presence of Salmonella in 28 environmental samples.  Three of these samples showed the presence of the outbreak strain of Salmonella Bredeney.  

Upon identifying the contaminated peanut butter, FDA investigators informed the company and called for corrective action.  On October 4, 2012 Sunland Inc. expanded its ongoing recall to include all products made in the Sunland Inc. nut butter production facility between March 1, 2010 and September 24, 2012.  

Upon identifying the contaminated shelled raw peanuts, FDA investigators informed the company and again called for corrective action.  On October 12, 2012 Sunland Inc. expanded its ongoing recall to include raw and roasted shelled and in-shell peanuts sold in quantities from 2 ounces to 50 pounds which are within their current shelf life or have no stated expiration date.   

Additionally, investigators found that employees improperly handled equipment, containers, and utensils used to hold and store food. Employees handling peanut products wiped gloved hands on street clothes and other times failed to wash their hands or change gloves. There were no hand washing sinks in the peanut processing building production or packaging areas and employees had bare-handed contact with ready-to-package peanuts.  

There were no records documenting the cleaning of production equipment.  The super-sized bags used by the firm to store peanuts were not cleaned despite being used for both raw and roasted peanuts.  There was a leaking sink in a washroom which resulted in water accumulating on the floor, and the plant is not built to allow floors, walls and ceilings to be adequately cleaned.  

Finally, investigators found that raw materials were exposed to potential contamination.  Raw, in-shell peanuts were found outside the plant in uncovered trailers. Birds were observed landing in the trailers and the peanuts were exposed to rain, which provides a growth environment for Salmonella and other bacteria.  Inside the warehouse, facility doors were open to the outside, which could allow pests to enter.  

The FDA is currently evaluating Sunland Inc.’s official response to FDA’s observations from the inspection.”

Yesterday – November 15th – Sunland responded with this statement:

“At no time in its twenty four year history has Sunland, Inc. released for distribution any products that it knew to be potentially contaminated with harmful microorganisms.  The Company has followed internal testing protocols that it believed resulted in the isolation and destruction of any product that did not pass the test designed to detect the presence of any contaminants.  In every instance where test results indicated the presence of a contaminant, the implicated product was destroyed and not released for distribution.  The Company believed at all times that its response was sufficiently robust such that any product which might be contaminated was isolated and destroyed. 

Sunland, Inc. continues to cooperate openly with FDA to address matters related to the recent recall of its products and the inspection of its manufacturing facilities.  Sunland has submitted a comprehensive point by point response to the Form 483 observations issued at the close of the inspection.  The Company’s response is currently under review by the agency.  We believe that drawing any inferences much less conclusions about the Company’s practices based solely on the observations as set forth in the Form 483 without considering the Company’s response would be wholly premature and unduly prejudicial to Sunland.  The Company believes that its response to the Form 483 will not only help the agency understand the Company’s decision-making process but also lead the agency to confirm that such decision-making was, at all times, conducted in good faith.  In deference to the agency’s review process, the Company will not publicly discuss its responses until the agency has completed its review.”

Sunland has not denied that contaminants were found. Nor has it denied that multiple strains of Salmonella were present at various times and in various locations, in its finished products, its raw peanuts, and its production environment.

How does a food processor allow this magnitude of contamination to exist in its finished products and in its production facility for more than three years? What does this say about the ethics of the company’s owners and management?

Or has ethical behavior become an oxymoron in the food industry?