Del Monte vs. The Food Cops: Your Verdict Is In

The polls are closed on eFoodAlert’s inaugural survey, and your verdict is in. Sincere thanks to everyone who took the time to vote, and especially to those of you who posted your comments on both sides of the issue.

The first question dealt with the suit filed by Del Monte Fresh Produce against FDA, seeking to lift FDA’s Import Alert detention order against cantaloupes from a farm in Guatemala. These cantaloupes were linked epidemiologically to an outbreak of 20 cases of Salmonella Panama illnesses earlier this year.

I asked, If you were on the jury, what would be your verdict?

  • 79% (57/72) voted in favor of FDA
  • 14% (10/72) supported Del Monte Fresh Produce
  • 7% (5/72) chose “Don’t know”

The second question went to the heart of an ongoing controversy on what constitutes sufficient evidence to trigger a recall. In this case, the outbreak strain was never recovered from Del Monte’s cantaloupes. Nevertheless, epidemiological and traceback evidence was strong.

I asked, “Should FDA have to find the outbreak bug in a food sample before requesting a recall?”

  • 72% (52/72) voted “No”
  • 22% (16/72) voted “Yes”
  • 6% (4/72) chose “Don’t know”

This outbreak and recall was odd right from the start. The chronology tells the story:

In case you missed it, the cantaloupes that Del Monte Fresh Produce recalled WERE NOT EVEN IN THE COUNTRY during the bulk of the outbreak. In fact, by the time the outbreak was detected, the cantaloupes that were thought to be contaminated with the outbreak strain had passed their expiration date and were no longer available for sale.

I commented on the date discrepancy in my original March 23rd posting on this outbreak. And I had a long conversation on the topic with Dr. William Keene, Senior Epidemiologist with Oregon Public Health, who was instrumental in this outbreak investigation. This is what I found out (and reported in a follow-up article on March 30th):

Costco receives only about 6% of the cantaloupes grown on Del Monte’s Asuncion Mita farm. The rest of the crop is shipped to numerous other wholesalers and retailers – most, but not all, of them in the USA. The farm comprises some 15 cantaloupe fields, which are planted and harvested in series to ensure a continuous supply of melons. The last of the 15 fields to be harvested has been shut down since early March.

I asked Bill Keene about the rationale behind the recall. He said that the situation presented quite a dilemma, both to public health officials and to Del Monte. By the time the outbreak was identified and a probable source determined – which happened rather quickly, thanks to the relative rarity of Salmonella Panama and the Oregon illness cluster – the implicated melons had passed their usable shelf life. There was no point in recalling fruit that was no longer edible.

Why, then, did Del Monte recall the cantaloupes that were sold in Costco stores in several states beginning on March 10th? According to Keene, it was unclear whether the outbreak was a “one-off” problem relating to a small quantity of melons from one portion of a single field or whether it was a continuing situation. Del Monte Fresh Produce, therefore, decided on the recall.

And why was the recall limited to cantaloupes shipped to Costco in seven states? Because, except for the Maryland case, all of the illnesses were clustered within that group of states and were linked to cantaloupes purchased from Costco stores. It did not seem logical to recall the entire remaining production from the Asuncion Mita farm for what appeared to be a limited contamination problem.

This begs the question as to whether the recall was justified at all. Therefore, while I would ordinarily support recalling a food product implicated by epidemiological evidence and traceback investigation, in this specific instance, I do not believe that the Del Monte Fresh Produce recall was appropriate. I was uneasy with the rationale then, and I’m uneasy with it now.

As for the Import Alert, “It’s a puzzlement,” as Yul Brynner sang in “The King and I.” Here’s why:

  1. As far as I know, FDA never found Salmonella Panama (or any other Salmonella) in a sample of cantaloupe from the Asuncion Mita farm. If they had, this would have been stated as a justification in the Import Alert.
  2. According to the statements made in Del Monte Fresh Produce’s Court FilingFDA never inspected the Asuncion Mita farm (either before or after the outbreak), and has no direct evidence of breaches of Good Agricultural Practices at that farm. Why would FDA not have inspected the farm that was implicated in this outbreak?
  3. Del Monte Fresh Produce arranged for a third-party expert audit of the Asuncion Mita farm and the operations of the packing house that handled the cantaloupes from that farm – Productos Agricolas de Oriente S.A. – in April 2011. If, as the company claims, the operations at the farm and the packing house were such that they “…meet and/or exceed current guidelines required to maintain a high level of food safety and regulatory compliance such that only wholesome food is shipped,” why was an Import Alert imposed, and why has it not been lifted?

I’m not in possession of the full story; only the direct participants know everything that has been going on. Nevertheless, based on the information available to me at this time, I believe that Del Monte Fresh Produce is justified in filing suit against FDA to have the Import Alert set aside.

But, that’s as far as I would go. I do NOT agree with Del Monte Fresh Produce’s plan to file suit against the Oregon Public Health Division and its Senior Epidemiologist, Dr. William Keene. Public health officials must be allowed to use their best professional judgement without fear of litigation or reprisal. Any errors of judgement – and there will be errors – should be on the side of public safety.

Del Monte vs. The Food Cops: What’s YOUR Verdict?

On March 30, 2011, I reported on an outbreak of Salmonella Panama that eventually sickened – when all the dust settled – 20 people in 10 states. Twelve victims (out of 16 interviewed) reported eating cantaloupe in the week before they became ill. Eleven of the twelve purchased their cantaloupes from eight different Costco locations.

The melons implicated during the outbreak investigation were supplied to Costco by Del Monte Fresh Produce, and were grown on a single farm in Guatemala. But the outbreak strain never was recovered from the implicated cantaloupes.

By the time the outbreak was detected and the probable source of the infections determined by the federal and state epidemiologists (through patient interviews and product traceback investigations), the implicated cantaloupes had passed their useable shelf life and were no longer on the market. Nevertheless, Del Monte Fresh Produce decided to recall the remaining stock of Guatemalan cantaloupes that it had supplied to Costco in states where outbreak cases has been confirmed.

In addition to the recall action, the FDA issued an Import Alert (#22-03), authorizing its District Offices to “…detain, without physical examination, all raw fresh and raw fresh refrigerated cantaloupes, frozen and processed cantaloupe, including fresh-cut cantaloupe (i.e., sliced/chopped), offered for importation that appear to originate from …” Asuncion Mita, the Guatemalan farm that grew the implicated melons.

At the time of the recall, Del Monte Fresh Produce chose to cooperate with FDA. Now, however, the company has had second thoughts. On August 22, 2011, Del Monte filed a lawsuit against the FDA, claiming that the federal agency had “…imposed harmful restrictions on Del Monte’s importation of cantaloupes from a major source in Guatemala, based upon an erroneous speculative assumption, unsupported by evidence, that cantaloupes previously imported from that source were contaminated with the pathogen Salmonella.” The lawsuit asks the Court to issue “…declaratory judgment holding that FDA’s actions restricting importation are unlawful, set aside the actions, and issue a permanent injunction prohibiting FDA from enforcing or effectuating them in the future.”

And that’s not all. Del Monte also has notified the state of Oregon that the company intends to file suit against the state’s Department of Public Health and its senior epidemiologist, Dr. Bill Keene, who played a major role in the outbreak investigation.

This is the first time that I can remember that a food company has sued FDA over a regulatory decision such as an Import Alert or a recall recommendation. If this case goes forward – even if it is ultimately decided in favor of FDA – I strongly fear that the agency will be more timid in future when faced with potentially controversial recall recommendations.

I know what Del Monte Fresh Produce thinks – that’s clear from their Court filing.

I know what food poisoning attorney and blogger Bill Marler thinks – that’s eminently clear from his blogs on the subject since the lawsuit was filed on August 22nd.

But, I want to know what my readers think. Here’s your chance to have your say. Just answer the two poll questions below, and add any comments you care to in the comments field at the bottom of this post.


I look forward eagerly to reading your replies.

FDA Import Alert On Mexican Papayas, Effective Immediately

The Mexican government still appears unconvinced that papayas grown in Mexico are to blame for an outbreak of Salmonella Agona that has, at last count, sickened 99 or more people in 23 US states.

When news of the outbreak first was released by FDA and the CDC in late July, Mexico replied that it was “premature” to blame their papayas for the illnesses. Since that time, FDA and the Mexican government have been cooperating in an investigation of Agromod Produce, Inc. (McAllen, TX), the importer whose papayas were implicated in the outbreak. Agromod recalled all of its papayas from the US and Canadian markets on July 23, 2011.

The joint USA/Mexico investigation, however, revealed a problem that is much broader in scope than papayas from a single producer/importer. As part of the investigation, FDA sampled papayas from every growing region of Mexico. More than 15% of the samples – 33 out of 211 samples – contained Salmonella. Positive samples originated from 28 different firms and from nearly every growing region in Mexico.

With these findings in hand, FDA has issued Import Alert 21-17, COUNTRYWIDE DETENTION WITHOUT PHYSICAL EXAMINATION OF PAPAYA FROM MEXICO. Under this Alert, the onus is on the importer to provide evidence, through third-party lab analysis, that each shipment of papayas is Salmonella-free before the papayas are permitted to enter the USA. According to the terms of the Import Alert, a firm can request removal from the detention order by providing “…documentation with sufficient evidence that future shipments of their papaya will not be adulterated. FDA may consider five consecutive commercial shipments over a period of time, analyzed as described in the preceding paragraph, as being adequate for removal…”

Despite the documented finding of widespread Salmonella contamination in Mexican papayas, the Mexican government seems unconvinced of the link between its papayas and the outbreak of Salmonella Agona in the USA. The Secretaria de Agricultura, Ganaderia, Desarrollo Rural, Pesca y Alimentacion released this statement on its website today (loosely translated with the aid of Google):

“Today the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued an import alert on Mexican papayas, arguing that from May 2011 to date  it has detected the presence of ” Salmonella spp “in 33 samples out of 211 (15.6%) from 28 exporting companies.

This alert means that this agency of the United States federal government will increase control over all shipments of papaya at the ports of entry from Mexico into the USA.

Producers who apply preventive measures to reduce the risk of contamination and document at least five successive Salmonella-negative shipments of papaya may be permitted to return to the prior random system of review.

It is important to highlight that the export sector, in coordination with, and with the support of, SENASICA will implement a nation-wide action plan in order to correct those elements that favor the presence of “Salmonella” along the entire supply chain, and also to strengthen the nation’s traceability system. This action plan is available on the website http://www.senasica.gob.mx

It should be noted that recent reports of outbreaks of “Salmonella” in the U.S., allegedly linked to Mexican papaya, cannot be linked with certainty to those papayas inspected [by FDA] in Mexico during the May to August 2011 investigation period.

According to the Federal Commission for Protection against Health Risks (COFEPRIS), it is recommended that people follow good hygienic handling practices of all consumer products in the home, and personal hygiene in food preparation, [including] washing hands with soap and water before eating and after using the bathroom.”

Note the disclaimer in the penultimate paragraph, casting doubt on the link between Mexican papayas and the US outbreak of Salmonella Agona!

For those who prefer to read the original, following is the Spanish text of the Mexican statement:

“El día de hoy la Administración de Alimentos y Medicamentos de los Estados Unidos (FDA, por su siglas en inglés) emitió una alerta sobre la importación de las papayas de origen mexicano argumentando que desde mayo de 2011 a la fecha ha detectado la presencia de “Salmonella spp” en 33 muestras de un total de 211 (15.6%) procedentes de 28 empresas exportadoras.

Esta alerta implica para el sector exportador nacional que esa agencia gubernamental de los Estados Unidos de América incrementará los controles de revisión a todos lo contendedores de papaya procedentes de México al momento de ingresar al territorio estadounidense.

La aplicación de las medidas preventivas que reduzcan el riesgo de contaminación y la generación de registros prevalecerán hasta en tanto los exportadores demuestren que al menos cinco embarques den resultado negativo a la presencia de ese organismo patógeno y con ello gestionar su liberación de esa alerta, lo que significa que se podrá volver al sistema aleatorio de revisión.

Es importante resaltar que el sector exportador de este producto en coordinación y apoyo del SENASICA instrumenta un plan de acción de alcance nacional con la finalidad corregir aquellos casuales que favorecen la presencia de “Salmonella spp” a lo largo de toda la cadena de suministro, así como el reforzamiento del sistema de trazabilidad en el territorio nacional. Este plan de acción está disponible en el sitio web http://www.senasica.gob.mx

Cabe precisar que los recientes reportes de brotes de “Salmonella spp” en Estados Unidos, presuntamente asociados a papaya mexicana, no pueden ser vinculados con certeza a lo inspeccionado en un periodo de estudio que va de mayo a agosto de 2011 en nuestro país.

De acuerdo con la Comisión Federal para la Protección contra Riesgos Sanitarios (COFEPRIS), se recomienda a la población seguir las buenas prácticas de manejo higiénico de todos los productos de consumo en el hogar, así como la higiene personal de quienes preparan los alimentos: lavarse las manos con agua y jabón antes de comer y después de ir al baño.”

CDC last updated its Investigation Report on July 26, 2011. As of that date, federal and state agencies had confirmed 99 cases of the Salmonella Agona outbreak strain from 23 states: Arkansas (1), Arizona (3), California (7), Colorado (1), Georgia (8), Illinois (17), Louisiana (2), Massachusetts (1), Minnesota (3), Missouri (3), Nebraska (2), Nevada (1), New Jersey (1), New Mexico (3), New York (7), Ohio (1), Oklahoma (1), Pennsylvania (2), Tennessee (1), Texas (25), Virginia (2), Washington (5), and Wisconsin (2). Ten people – 10% of the outbreak victims – were hospitalized.

Distribution of Salmonella Agona illnesses per CDC report

FDA import policy is ass-backwards. The agency operates on an “innocent until proven contaminated” basis, which has contaminated food into the country time and again. Instead, FDA should adopt an approach that is similar to Australia’s.

Australia requires importers to submit analytical test results for all microbiologically sensitive food products – or countries – before the foods are allowed to enter distribution. After a certain number of sequential import shipments pass the test, the required frequency of testing is reduced – until a shipment fails. At that point, more stringent testing is reinstated.

If this system had been in place, the contaminated papayas would have been detected and refused entry into the USA. A Salmonella outbreak that sickened at least 99 people and hospitalized ten of them would have been averted. And the safety of our food supply would have been improved.

Is that too much to ask?