
Category: food safety
E. coli outbreak in Canada linked to Pizza Pops




Certain Pillsbury brand Pizza Pops + Bacon have been linked through epidemiological analysis to an outbreak of 20 cases of E. coli O26 infections in 5 Canadian provinces.
Victims range in age from 1 to 87 years. Four of the victims have been hospitalized. There have been no deaths.
The Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) reports that confirmed cases have been recorded in British Columbia (3), Alberta (9), Saskatchewan (5), Ontario (2), and New Brunswick (1).
Many people who became sick reported eating or handling Pillsbury brand Pizza Pops prior to becoming ill. The investigation is ongoing and it is possible that additional sources may be identified.
General Mills Canada Corporation has initiated a recall of the following items:
- Pillsbury Pizza Pops Pepperoni + Bacon (30 pizza snacks (2.85 kg); Better if used by 09JN2026WN and 10JN2026WN; UPC 0 69052 12961 9)
- Pillsbury Pizza Pops Supremo Extreme Pepperoni + Bacon (30 pizza snacks (3 kg); Better if used by 10JN2026WN, 11JN2026WN, and 12JN2026WN; UPC 0 69052 46901 2)
- Pillsbury Pizza Pops Pepperoni + Bacon (8 pizza snacks (760 g); Better if used by 09JN2026WN and 10JN2026WN; UPC 0 69052 12967 1)
- Pillsbury Pizza Pops FRANK’s RedHot Pepperoni + Bacon (4 pizza snacks (380 g); Better if used by 14JN2026WN; UPC 0 69052 12947 3)
The recalled products are labeled as “Made in Canada” from domestic and imported ingredients.
The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) is conducting a food safety investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products.
What the public should know (per PHAC)
The following advice applies to individuals, as well as retailers, distributors and food service establishments, such as grocery stores across Canada:
- Check to see if you have the recalled products in your home or establishment by looking for the specific product name and size, UPC and codes in the recall alert.
- Do not consume, serve, use, sell or distribute recalled products.
- Throw out or return recalled products to the place of purchase. Consumers or establishments who are unsure if they have purchased the recalled products are advised to contact their retailer or supplier where the products were purchased.
- Clean and sanitize all surfaces and storage areas that recalled products may have come in contact with, including countertops, containers, utensils, freezers, and refrigerators.
- Do not cook food for other people if you’ve been diagnosed with an E. coli infection or have symptoms of infection such as diarrhea.
- Contact your health care provider if you think you’re experiencing symptoms of E. coli.
For general use of frozen foods, like Pizza Pops, the following advice can help prevent illness:
- Some frozen foods are not ready-to-eat products. They must be cooked thoroughly before they are safe to eat. Always follow the cooking instructions on the packaging.
- Wash your hands with soap and warm water for at least 20 seconds before and after handling frozen food that is not ready to eat.
- Clean and sanitize any surfaces that touched the frozen food or its packaging, such as countertops, containers, utensils, freezers, and refrigerators.
Most people who become ill from an E. coli infection will recover fully, after a few days, without treatment, but infection can also cause severe illness and hospitalization.
Those at higher risk for serious illness include:
- people who are pregnant
- children ages 5 and under
- people with weakened immune systems
- adults ages 60 and over
E. coli infections, including E. coli O26, have a wide range of symptoms. You may not get sick at all. However, if you do get sick, symptoms usually start within 1 to 10 days after exposure, and last for 5-10 days. Symnptoms can include nausea, vomiting, headache, mild fever, severe stomach cramps, and/or watery or bloody diarrhea.
Interested in learning more about food safety and the history of foodborne disease outbreaks and investigations?
Click on the link to listen to a short excerpt, then follow the buy links to add a digital, print or audio copy to your personal library.
We still need the risk of Criminal Sanctions in Food Poisoning Cases
This opinion piece by Bill Marler first appeared on Marler Blog and is reposted here with the author’s permission.
As I wrote last Spring, I have tried to steer clear of politics with respect to the Felon in Chief, but this is nuts, or at least peanuts. According to yet another edict from the White House, it is now the policy of the United States that:
(a) Criminal enforcement of criminal regulatory offenses is disfavored.
(b) Prosecution of criminal regulatory offenses is most appropriate for persons who know or can be presumed to know what is prohibited or required by the regulation and willingly choose not to comply, thereby causing or risking substantial public harm. Prosecutions of criminal regulatory offenses should focus on matters where a putative defendant is alleged to have known his conduct was unlawful.
(c) Strict liability offenses are “generally disfavored.” United States v. United States Gypsum, Co., 438 U.S. 422, 438 (1978). Where enforcement is appropriate, agencies should consider civil rather than criminal enforcement of strict liability regulatory offenses or, if appropriate and consistent with due process and the right to jury trial, see Jarkesy v. Securities and Exchange Commission, 603 U.S. 109 (2024), administrative enforcement.
(d) Agencies promulgating regulations potentially subject to criminal enforcement should explicitly describe the conduct subject to criminal enforcement, the authorizing statutes, and the mens rea standard applicable to those offenses.
Typically, every crime has two elements—a bad act and a culpable state of mind (mens rea, which generally means intent or recklessness). Section 333(a)(1) of the FDCA, the misdemeanor provision, is noteworthy because it creates one of the few true strict liability crimes in federal criminal law. That is, the government does not need to prove a state of mind to obtain a conviction. If a food product is misbranded or adulterated and is distributed into the channels of interstate commerce, a crime has been committed. Depending upon the nature of the conduct, a violation of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act may be a felony or a misdemeanor. Misdemeanor violations of section 331 are punishable by a maximum prison sentence of one year and a maximum fine of $100,000.
Perhaps the folks at the Peanut Corporation of America would still be prosecuted as a felony, but they certainly argued that they did not know the peanut butter was tainted with Salmonella. However, if this new policy stands it is not likely the Blue Bell, Kerry, Con Agra, Chipotle, Wright County, Odwalla nor Jensen Farms would have been prosecuted, and it is likely that few prosecution will occur in the future.

Even if they had an appetite to prosecute, there will be no one there to do the work. According to Sarah N. Lynch at Reuters:
A Justice Department unit that handles criminal and civil enforcement of U.S. food and drug safety laws is being disbanded as part of an ongoing cost-cutting campaign by President Donald Trump’s administration…
About 215 people work for the Consumer Protection Branch, part of the Justice Department’s Civil Division, including attorneys, support staff and law enforcement agents…
Although it is located in the Civil Division, the Consumer Protection Branch is an unusual office because its work involves a hybrid of criminal prosecutions and civil enforcement.
It handles criminal cases to enforce the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, a federal law that makes it a crime to sell or distribute adulterated or misbranded food or drugs. It also enforces statutes for the Federal Trade Commission and the Consumer Product Safety Commission…
The Consumer Protection Branch has been at the heart of some high-profile cases…
Prosecutors from the branch also brought the criminal case against former executives at Peanut Corporation for crimes that led to a 2009 outbreak involving more than 700 cases of salmonella poisoning.
We live in interesting times.



