Adulteration – In The Eyes Of The Beholden?

“Salmonella on a raw uncooked product is not, in and of itself, a public health risk … Salmonella on a raw uncooked hamburger does not make it adulterated. It does not mean that the plant is not operating in an unsanitary way.”

– Patrick Boyle, CEO of the American Meat Institute, in a 2002 Frontline interview

E. coli O157:H7 is a human pathogen that can be found in the intestines of cattle and other ruminants. In 2009-2010, this single serotype of shigatoxin-producing E. coli (STEC) was responsible for thirteen multistate disease outbreaks. USDA recognizes E. coli O157:H7 and six other STEC serotypes as adulterants in raw beef.

Salmonella is a human pathogen that can be found in the intestines of cattle and many other animals. In 2009-2010, Salmonella was behind twenty-one multistate disease outbreaks. Yet, as far as USDA is concerned, Salmonella is NOT an adulterant in raw beef.

According to the Federal Meat Inspection Act, meat is considered “adulterated” if “…it bears or contains any poisonous or deleterious substance which may render it injurious to health…“ A USDA training program explains that, “… E. coli O157:H7 is considered to be an added substance because it is introduced to the product during processing. For example, it is spread from the hide or digestive tract of the animals during slaughter or processing. It is injurious to health because one of the normal ways of cooking this product includes “rare” which is not sufficient to destroy the pathogen.”

In case anyone at USDA hasn’t noticed, Salmonella also is ” … spread from the hide or digestive tract of the animals during slaughter or processing.“ And Salmonella, likewise, is not destroyed by “rare” cooking of meat.

Since October 2011, the CDC has reported three multistate outbreaks of Salmonella infections that were linked to consumption of contaminated ground beef.

Between October 8th and December 17th, 2011, twenty persons in seven states were infected with Salmonella Typhimurium. Victims included a child less than one year of age, and a 79-year-old individual. Eight people were hospitalized. The illnesses were traced to ground beef purchased from Hannaford supermarkets.
Between June 6th and July 27th, 2012, forty-six persons in nine states were infected with Salmonella Enteritidis. The youngest outbreak victim was three years old; the eldest was 101. Twelve people were hospitalized. The outbreak was traced to ground beef produced on a single date at a Cargill Meat Solutions production facility.
On January 25, 2013, CDC announced a new outbreak. Sixteen people in five states have been infected with the Salmonella Typhimurium outbreak strain so far. Seven of the outbreak victims reported eating raw ground beef kibbeh at a restaurant in Michigan. Seven of the 16 outbreak victims were hospitalized. CDC considers that ground beef produced by two companies – Jouni Meats, Inc., and Gab Halal Foods – is the likely source of the outbreak.

In 2001, a Texas-based meat processor (Supreme Beef) successfully fought USDA’s efforts to set limits on Salmonella in raw meat, after the Court of Appeals upheld a lower court ruling in the company’s favor. USDA chose NOT to take the battle to the US Supreme Court. The following year, an effort by the Senator Tom Harkin, the Chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, to introduce legislation to clarify USDA’s authority was opposed – successfully – by the American Meat Institute.

In short, more than ten years ago, USDA tucked its collective head back into its tortoise shell, even though Salmonella is, BY DEFINITION OF THE FEDERAL MEAT INSPECTION ACT, an adulterant.

Are USDA and Congress waiting for raw beef to be the source of a FATAL Salmonella outbreak before scraping together the courage to oppose the American Meat Institute lobby? Are those responsible for food safety so beholden to – or frightened of – the meat lobby that nothing else will embolden them to take action?

Someone explain this to me. Please!

A Word of Explanation

Dear eFoodAlert Followers:

As many of you have remarked, eFoodAlert has “gone dark” for the last week. This was due to a family emergency.

The daily Recalls and Alerts feature will resume later today, beginning with “catch-up” posts that will cover the past week’s news. For convenience, due to the volume of items, I shall divide the posts by geography, beginning with the USA, followed by Canada, Europe, Asia and Africa. There were no recalls or alerts from Australia, New Zealand or Latin America in the past week.

Thanks for your patience and your understanding.

Phyllis Entis (aka Foodbuglady)

More Arguments For ‘Hold and Test’

On December 10th, I praised the introduction of the new ‘Hold and Test’ policy announced that day by USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) while, at the same time, lamenting its limitations. And I asked eFoodAlert readers to respond to a survey on what FSIS should do to improve food safety.

Here are the results of that survey:

Mandate ‘hold and test’ for all meat and poultry processors: 35%
Add Salmonella to the list of beef adulterants: 21%
Increase USDA’s sampling frequency at meat and poultry establishments: 19%
Test every shipment of meat or poultry imported into the USA: 22%

Three readers submitted their own suggestions, which were:

Publish in stores for customers to view
Fruits and veggies need HOLD too
Ensure meat and poultry used for pet food is completely safe as well.

I thank everyone who took the time to respond to the poll, especially, those who submitted their own suggestions. I have long thought that giving maximum publicity to recalls – including posting recall information in stores – would both improve the effectiveness of recalls and encourage food manufacturers to undertake preventative measures in order to avoid the adverse publicity that such recall notices would mean.

I also endorse completely the extension of ‘hold and test’ to all foods, including perishable produce. As I’ve stated in the past, current lab methods provide fast answers. And the tests continue to improve as kit manufacturers compete to develop and market the fastest possible lab tests. Finally, as the human companion of a ten-year-old Australian Labradoodle, I am always mindful of the importance of ensuring the safety of ingredients used in the manufacture of pet food.

Since my December 10th post, there have been at least two more recalls that illustrate the value of ‘hold and test’ as a fundamental food safety policy.

On December 14, 2012, Ocean Beauty Seafoods LLC recalled two brands of Nova Cold Smoked Salmon after “…internal testing by the company revealed the presence of Listeria monocytogenes in samples…” of the recalled products. The Nova Salmon was imported into the USA from Chile.
On December 28, 2012, the French cheesemaker Fromagerie de Jussac recalled nearly two months worth of cheese production after Listeria monocytogenes was found in “certain lots” of nearly twenty varieties of its cheeses. The cheeses were sold in France and were exported to a number of countries, including: Andorra, Austria, Belgium, Germany, Italy, Lebanon, Spain, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom and Vietnam.

Although no illnesses were reported in connection with either of these recalls, there is no question whatsoever that releasing food into the retail market before test results are available places consumers at risk unnecessarily. If the food industry and its regulators make just one resolution for the New Year, it should be to ‘Hold and Test’ all batches of finished product.