New E. coli O121 outbreak in Canada sickens six

Six residents of British Columbia were infected with E. coli O121 between February and April 2017, according to a report issued last Friday by the BC Centre for Disease Control (BC CDC).

Lab tests on a sample of flour recovered from the home of one of the victims revealed the presence of a strain of E. coli O121 that was genetically identical to the strain found in the six outbreak victims. Neither the flour nor the microbe are a match to the nationwide outbreak of E. coli O121 illnesses that has been simmering in Canada since last fall.

The flour suspected of being behind the most recent outbreak was identified by BC CDC as “Rogers all-purpose flour in a 10kg bag with the lot number MFD 17 Jan 19 C” and was sold in Costco stores beginning in January 2017.

According to the Company’s website, Rogers Foods Ltd. mills its own flour in two locations: Armstrong and Chilliwack, BC. Its products are distributed across Western Canada and into Ontario.

In a statement posted on May 20th on its website, Rogers Foods Ltd. acknowledged the positive test result, while emphasizing that the microbe was found in a bag of flour that had already been opened. The Company also indicated that the production lot from which the E. coli O121 had been recovered was sold exclusively in Costco Wholesale stores in British Columbia.

According to a spokesperson for the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA), the BC CDC has formed a BC Outbreak Investigation Coordinating Committee. CFIA is participating in the investigation by carrying out an inspection of the manufacturing facility, while also conducting tests of flour samples drawn from the production date corresponding to the postive sample reported by the BC CDC.

As of this evening, no formal product recall has been announced. Nevertheless, BC CDC is recommending that consumers dispose of Rogers All-Purpose Flour (10kg bag; Lot #MFD 17 Jan 19 C) as a precaution.

 

Sunland Knowingly Shipped Contaminated Peanut Butter

“Since 2009, your firm has distributed lots of peanut butter and nut butters that were positive for Salmonella. The following is a list of products since 2009 that have been manufactured by your firm, have tested positive for Salmonella by your firm’s internal testing program, and were at least partially distributed by your firm.”

– FDA Form 483, issued October 29, 2012

It’s Peanut Corporation of America all over again.

Earlier today, FDA released a series of Enterprise Inspection Reports and Form 483 reports issued following inspections of Sunland Inc.‘s production facilities in Portales, New Mexico from as long ago as 2007.

The company, whose peanut butter was definitively linked to an outbreak of Salmonella Bredeney that sickened at least 41 people from 20 states, has known about its Salmonella contamination problems since at least June 2009. Somehow, this information escaped the notice of the company’s customers – including Trader Joe’s –  its third party auditors, and FDA inspectors for more than 2 years.

According to company records reviewed by FDA, Sunland found Salmonella contamination in its nut butters (peanut and almond) on more than 20 occasions, including findings of Salmonella Newport in 2009, Salmonella Dallgow in 2010, Salmonella Dallgow, Salmonella Arapahoe, Salmonella Teddington, Salmonella Cerro, Salmonella Mbandaka and Salmonella Kubacha in 2011, and Salmonella Bredeney and Salmonella Meleagridis in 2012.

FDA’s own in-depth inspection – carried out in September and October 2012 after epidemiologists pointed to Sunland’s peanut butter as the likely source of an outbreak of Salmonella Bredeney – found Salmonella Bredeney in samples of peanut butter, as well as Salmonella Senftenberg, Salmonella Montevideo, Salmonella Bredeney, Salmonella Mbandaka, Salmonella Meleagridis, and Salmonella Anatum in the production plant environment.

That’s more strains of Salmonella than many labs maintain in their reference collection!

In addition to turning a blind eye to the contamination that pervaded its operations since 2009, Sunland’s management ignored standard Good Manufacturing Practices, as evidenced by the following litany of “Observations” reported by FDA in October 2012:

Observation 1: Failure to manufacture foods under conditions and controls necessary to minimize the potential for growth of microorganisms and contamination.

Observation 2: Failure to handle equipment, containers and utensils used to convey, hold, and store food in a manner that protects against contamination.

  • Specifically, the production and packaging lines of equipment in the Peanut Butter Plant were not cleaned after each time Salmonella was isolated from peanut and nut butter products between 2009 and 2012.
  • The … packaging equipment in the small packaging room of the Peanut Plant is not effectively cleaned between raw and roasted peanuts. Cleaning consists of wiping off non-food contact surfaces with dry paper towels, sweeping underneath and around equipment, as well as vacuuming excess dust.
  • Tote mesh bags utilized by your firm for storing bulk peanuts are not effectively cleaned between storage o f raw and treated (roasted and/or brined) peanuts. The tote bags are considered multi-use, and re-used for both raw and roasted peanuts.
  • Firm does  not clean production and packaging equipment between runs of various allergen-containing products.

Observation 3: Food contact surfaces used for manufacturing low-moisture food were wet at time of use.

Observation 4: The design and workmanship of equipment does not allow proper cleaning.

Observation 5: Failure to have smoothly bonded or well maintained seams on food contact surfaces, to minimize accumulation of food particles, dirt, and organic matter and the opportunity for growth of microorganisms.

Observation 6: Employees did not wash hands thoroughly in an adequate hand-washing facility at any time their hands may have become soiled or contaminated.

Observation 7: Plumbing is not adequately installed and maintained to properly convey sewage and liquid disposable waste from the plant.

Observation 8: The plant is not constructed in such a manner as to allow floors, walls, and ceilings to be adequately cleaned and kept clean and kept in good repair.

Observation 9: Failure to store raw materials in a manner that protects against contamination.

  • From 9/17112-10/2112, raw, in-shell peanuts were observed outside in uncovered trailers and open to the elements. Birds too numerous to count were observed flying over, and landing on peanuts in the trailers.
  • On 9/28/12, [FDA inspectors] observed the weather as overcast and rainy, seven open trailers filled with peanuts were observed stored uncovered on the front of [the] property exposed to moisture from the weather.

Observation 10: Effective measures are not being taken to exclude pests from the processing areas.

As for the company’s compliance history, consider the following:

In 2003, FDA cited the following problems: (1) the firm’s plumbing constitutes a source of contamination to food; (2) effective measures were not being taken to protect against the contamination of food on the premises by pests; (3) the firm failed to provide adequate screening or other protection against pests; (4) the firm failed to hold rework materials in bulk or in suitable containers so as to protect against contamination; and (5) the firm failed to maintain the buildings in repair sufficient to prevent food from becoming adulterated.

In 2007, FDA cited the following problems: (1) the firm failed to manufacture foods under conditions and controls necessary to minimize the potential for growth of microorganisms and contamination; (2) the firm failed to take reasonable precautions to ensure that production procedures do not contribute contamination from any source; (3) employees were observed not washing and sanitizing hands thoroughly in an adequate hand washing facility before starting work and after each absence from the work station; (4) effective measures were not being taken by the firm to protect against the contamination of food on the premises by pest (a repeat observation); (5) the firm failed to store raw materials in a manner that protects against contamination; and (6) the firm failed to maintain buildings in repair sufficient to prevent food from becoming adulterated (a repeat observation).

In 2009, FDA cited the following problems: (1) the firm failed to manufacture foods under conditions and controls necessary to minimize the potential of microorganisms and contamination (a repeat observation); (2) the firm failed to take all reasonable precautions to ensure that production procedures did not contribute contamination from any source (a repeat observation); (3) failure to take all reasonable measures and precautions to ensure personnel cleanliness by utilizing effective hair restraints and ensuring that beard covers were worn in an effective manner; (4) failure to ensure employees washed/sanitized their hands properly when returning from the work station (a repeat observation); (5) failure to maintain equipment used to hold food ingredients in a manner that protects them from contamination. Also, FDA found Salmonella in an environmental sample taken during its 2009 inspection.

In 2010, FDA cited the following problems: (1) All reasonable precautions are not taken to ensure that production · procedures do not contribute contamination from any source; (2) Effective measures are not being taken to exclude pests from the processing areas and protect against the contamination of food on the premises by pests; (3) The plant is not constructed in such a manner as to allow floors to be kept in good repair; (4) Failure to wear beard covers in an effective manner; (5) The design and construction of equipment and utensils fails to preclude the adulteration of food with contaminants.

In 2011, FDA cited the following problems: (1) Failure to store raw materials in a manner that protects against contamination; (2) Failure to provide adequate screening or other protection against pests.

Am I the only one who doesn’t understand what’s going on here?

Where were the company’s customers? Did they never visit the production plant?

Where was Silliker Laboratories, the company’s third party auditor? Did they ever visit the production plant or review the company’s internal lab results?

AND WHERE THE HELL WAS FDA? Why did the agency not review Sunland’s internal lab results and production/distribution records until after the company’s negligence resulted in a food poisoning outbreak?

If this is an example of “Food Safety Modernization” in action, please give me the Good Old Days.

Tardy Testing Endangers Consumers

Once upon a time, a routine E. coli O157:H7 presence/absence test required at least two days to complete.

Once upon a time, a routine Salmonella presence/absence test took at least four days to complete.

Once upon a time, a routine Listeria monocytogenes presence/absence test required at least four days.

Today, all of these analyses can be performed in 24 hours or less, using recognized, readily available rapid test kits.

So, why are we still seeing recall notices that state “…the bacterium was discovered during routine sampling?

On August 22, 2012, Spence & Co. Ltd. (Brockton, MA) recalled approximately 635 pounds of Wellsley Farms brand Nova Lox and Smoked Salmon Trim. The recall was initiated after routine sampling detected Listeria monocytogenes in the product. The products already were in circulation for two months at the time of the recall. No illnesses were reported, according to the recall notice.

Did the company learn from this? You can bet your life it did NOT! On November 9, 2012, Spence issued a second recall notice, this time for approximately 390 pounds of New York Style Nova Lox that were distributed – you guessed it – more than one month earlier. This time, Spence’s Lox may be responsible for two cases of listeriosis.

With affordable rapid testing kits readily available, there is no justification for releasing untested products – even highly perishable products – into the retail marketplace.

I am the first to acknowledge that finished product testing isn’t foolproof. A proper microbiological testing program must include ingredient testing and environmental monitoring in addition to finished product tests. Nevertheless, the retail distribution of a product without any testing whatsoever is unconscionable, especially when that same product already has a history of Listeria monocytogenes contamination.

Consumers have every right to expect that the food they purchase has been processed and handled in a safe manner – and that manufacturers have taken every reasonable precaution to ensure that this is so.

It’s time to make “test and hold” a standard food industry practice.