FDA Bares Teeth. Kasel Flinches.

In case anyone hasn’t yet figured it out, the Mandatory Recall Authority that Congress granted FDA under the Food Safety Modernization Act was responsible for Kasel’s ‘voluntary’ recall of Salmonella-contaminated pet treats.

Earlier today, FDA released the letter in which the agency threw down its gauntlet and demanded that Kasel Associates Industries, Inc. recall contaminated pet treats. The  February 13, 2013 “Notification of Opportunity to Initiate a Voluntary Recall”, was hand-delivered to Raymond J. Kasel. The letter stated the basis for FDA’s determination that “…there is a reasonable probability that the affected pet treats are adulterated under section 402(a)(1) and (a)(4) of the FD&C Act and that there is a reasonable probability that the use of or exposure to the pet treats will cause serious adverse health consequences or death to humans or animals…” A sampling of the findings include:

  • Multiple finished product samples of Kasel pet treats obtained by the State of Colorado’s Department of Agriculture in September and October 2012, were tested and subsequently found to be positive for Salmonella.
  • In response to the state of Colorado’s Salmonella-positive results, FDA conducted an inspection of Kasel’s manufacturing facility from September 19-28, 2012. During the inspection, the FDA investigators collected various samples for further testing, including bulk and finished product samples and numerous environmental samples. Many of these samples tested positive for Salmonella.
  • Salmonella is a pathogenic organism that can cause serious adverse health consequences or death in humans and animals. The presence of Salmonella in pet food can pose a particularly acute health risk to children and people who are elderly or immunocompromised.
  • [E]vidence collected by FDA and the state of Colorado, including environmental and product samples collected and analyzed by Colorado and the FDA, and observations made by FDA during the inspection of [Kasel], establishes the following:
    • Pet treat products manufactured, processed, packed, or held by [Kasel] from April 20, 2012, through September 19, 2012, are contaminated with Salmonella, or are at risk for contamination with Salmonella, based on the conditions in your facility and multiple Salmonella-positive results from environmental samples, including positive results on food contact surfaces within your facility, and from samples of your finished product. Test results indicate there are more than a dozen different Salmonella serotypes in your firm’s manufacturing facility and finished products. In addition, the test results indicate that various Salmonella positive samples from finished products are serotype matches to, and in some cases share a Pulsed Field Gel Electrophoresis (PFGE) pattern with, other finished products and/or various environmental swabs taken at the facility during the September 2012 inspection. Due to this widespread Salmonella contamination and/or risk of contamination, FDA has determined that there is a reasonable probability these products are adulterated under section 402 of the FD&C Act and there is a reasonable probability that the use of or exposure to these pet treats will cause serious adverse health consequences or death to humans or animals.
    • [Kasel] created, caused or was otherwise responsible for this reasonable probability of adulteration: under section 402 of the FD&C Act. Specifically, FDA has determined that the conditions within your facility (e.g., the presence of Salmonella in various locations throughout the facility and multiple sanitation deficiencies) that could lead to cross contamination between raw materials and finished products caused the reasonable probability.”

The letter, which was signed by Michael R. Taylor (FDA’s Deputy Commissioner for Foods and Veterinary Medicine), demanded action within two (2) business days of its receipt by Mr. Kasel, and concluded with the following two statements:

“If you do not voluntarily cease distribution and conduct a recall in the time and manner described in this section, FDA may, by order, require you to immediately cease distribution of the affected pet treats. Additionally, FDA may, by order require you to immediately notify all persons manufacturing, processing, packing, transporting, distributing, receiving, holding, or importing and selling the affected pet treats to immediately cease distribution of such articles; and to immediately notify all persons to which such articles have been distributed, transported, or sold, to immediately cease distribution of the affected pet treats.”

“If a response is not received from you within two (2) business days of your receipt of this letter, FDA may by order require you to immediately cease distribution and notify applicable parties, as explained above.” 

The food and pet food industries are now on notice. FDA is ready, willing and able to use its mandatory recall authority to achieve the removal of dangerously contaminated food and pet food from the marketplace.

E. coli O157:H7 Outbreak In Canada – Again!

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency is warning the public not to consume certain frozen beef burgers, due to a risk of E. coli O157:H7 contamination after finding E. coli O157:H7 in products tested as part of an “ongoing outbreak investigation.” The Public Health Agency of Canada has not yet released any information about this new outbreak.

Canada Safeway Limited has recalled the following products, which were distributed in Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, British Columbia and Northwest Territories:

  • The Gourmet Meat Shoppe Big & Juicy Burger (1.13 kg: UPC 0 58200 10650 3; Best before 2013 AU 14 EST 752)
  • The Gourmet Meat Shoppe Prime Rib Burger (907g; UPC 0 58200 10733 3; Best before 2013 AU 14 EST 752)
  • The Butcher’s Cut Pure Beef Patties, 10 Patties (1.13 kg; UPC 0 58200 21604 2; Best before 2013 AU 14 EST 752)
  • The Butcher’s Cut Pure Beef Patties, 20 Patties (2.27 kg; UPC 0 58200 21592 2; Best before 2013 AU 14 EST 752)
  • The Butcher’s Cut Pure Beef Patties, 40 Patties (4.45 kg; UPC 0 58200 21594 6; Best before 2013 AU 14 EST 752)

All of the above-listed products originated from Cardinal Meat Specialists Limited (Establishment 752. 155 Hedgedale Road, Brampton, Ontario). This is the same establishment that was linked to a 5-case outbreak of E. coli O157:H7 in December 2012. The same establishment that was investigated ‘extensively’ – and fruitlessly – by CFIA in December 2012.

The detailed report promised in its final investigation update, posted on December 24th, has not yet been released to the public. Perhaps it’s just as well; that ‘final’ report would have been premature.

At this stage of the investigation, all we have are questions:

  1. How large is this outbreak? How many patients? Which provinces?
  2. Is this the same genetic strain of E. coli O157:H7 that was responsible for the December 2012 outbreak?
  3. Has production been suspended at the Cardinal Meat facility? If not, why not?
  4. What does CFIA plan to do this time to improve on its December 2012 performance?

This is the third meat-related E. coli O157:H7 outbreak in Canada in less than one year. What is the federal government doing to prevent E. coli O157:H7 from spiraling out of control in Canadian beef?

Guest Blog: Salmonella’s Not an Adulterant?

The following Guest Blog first appeared on Food Safety News (February 2, 2013), and is reproduced here with the kind permission of its author, Bill Marler.

Salmonella’s Not an Adulterant?

– by William D. Marler

Personally, as I said to the Los Angeles Times several months ago, “I think that anything that can poison or kill a person should be listed as an adulterant [in food].”

Ignoring Salmonella in meat makes little, if any, sense. Even after the Court’s twisted opinion in Supreme Beef v. USDA, where it found Salmonella “not an adulterant per se, meaning its presence does not require the USDA to refuse to stamp such meat ‘inspected and passed,” our government’s failure to confront the reality of Salmonella, especially antibiotic-resistant Salmonella, is inexcusable. The Wisconsin Supreme Court in Kriefall v Excel called it as it saw it:

The E. coli strain that killed Brianna and made the others sick is a “deleterious substance which may render [meat] injurious to health.” There is no dispute about this. Thus, under the first part of 21 U.S.C. § 601(m)(1), meat that either “bears or contains” E. coli O157:H7 (the “deleterious substance”) is “adulterated.” That E. coli O157:H7 contamination can be rendered non-“injurious to health” by cooking thoroughly, as discussed below, does not negate this; Congress used the phrase “may render,” not “in every circumstance renders.” Moreover, if the E. coli bacteria is not considered to be “an added substance,” because it comes from some of the animals themselves and is not either applied or supplied during the slaughtering process (although we do not decide this), it cannot be said that the E. coli strain “does not ordinarily render [the meat on or in which it appears] injurious to health.” Accordingly, meat contaminated by E. coli O157:H7 is also “adulterated” under the second part of § 601(m)(1).

Now, why would Salmonella be different?

According to the CDC, it is estimated that 1.4 million cases of salmonellosis occur each year in the U.S. Of those cases, 95 percent are related to foodborne causes. Approximately 220 of each 1000 cases result in hospitalization, and 8 of every 1000 cases result in death. About 500 to 1,000 deaths – 31 percent of all food-related deaths – are caused by Salmonella infections each year.

So, where do we stand with the existing USDA/FSIS law on adulteration? Here is the law:

21 U.S.C. § 601(m)(4) – SUBCHAPTER I – INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS; ADULTERATION AND MISBRANDING – CHAPTER 12 – MEAT INSPECTION – TITLE 21—FOOD AND DRUGS

(m) The term “adulterated” shall apply to any carcass, part thereof, meat or meat food product under one or more of the following circumstances:

(1) if it bears or contains any poisonous or deleterious substance which may render it injurious to health; but in case the substance is not an added substance, such article shall not be considered adulterated under this clause if the quantity of such substance in or on such article does not ordinarily render it injurious to health; …

(3) if it consists in whole or in part of any filthy, putrid, or decomposed substance or is for any other reason unsound, unhealthful, unwholesome, or otherwise unfit for human food;

(4) if it has been prepared, packed, or held under insanitary conditions whereby it may have become contaminated with filth, or whereby it may have been rendered injurious to health; …

Hmmm. It is hard to read the above and not think that the words in bold equate to all E. coli and Salmonella (frankly, all pathogens in food). I know, I am just a lawyer, but don’t ya think that when food with animal feces (and a dash of E. coli O157:H7) in it is considered an adulterant, that other animal feces (with dashes of other pathogens, like Salmonella) in them, should be considered adulterated too? But, hey, that is just me.

Another odd governmental fact is that the FDA does not seem to make a distinction between pathogens it considers adulterants or not. FDA’s enabling legislation – Sec. 402. [21 USC §342] of the Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act also defines “Adulterated Food” as food that is:

(a) Poisonous, insanitary, or deleterious ingredients.

(1) If it bears or contains any poisonous or deleterious substance which may render it injurious to health; but in case the substance is not an added substance such food shall not be considered adulterated under this clause if the quantity of such substance in such food does not ordinarily render it injurious to health;

(2) If it bears or contains any added poisonous or added deleterious substance … that is unsafe within the meaning of section 406;

(3) if it consists in whole or in part of any filthy, putrid, or decomposed substance, or if it is otherwise unfit for food;

(4) if it has been prepared, packed, or held under insanitary conditions whereby it may have become contaminated with filth, or whereby it may have been rendered injurious to health …

It would be interesting, and perhaps entertaining, to have House and Senate hearings focusing on what should and should not be considered adulterants in our food. I can see panels of scientists from various fields, FDA, USDA and FSIS officials, beef and produce industry representatives and consumers discussing this. I would pay to watch it.

About the author: Bill Marler is a personal injury and products liability attorney, and an internationally known food safety advocate. He began litigating foodborne illness cases in 1993, when he represented Brianne Kiner, the most seriously injured survivor of the Jack in the Box E. coli O157:H7 outbreak. Bill is a graduate of the Seattle University School of Law, and the Law School’s “Lawyer in Residence.”