Category: recalls

Chicken Jerky Dog Treats Recalled In Australia

December 10, 2008

The Australian Veterinary Association has warned pet owners and veterinarians to watch for dogs exhibiting signs of acquired Fanconi-like syndrome after KraMar announced that it was withdrawing its Supa Naturals Chicken breasts strips from the Australian market.

The dog treats were imported from China.

The withdrawal comes as a result of an unusually high number of dogs being reported as suffering from symptoms consistent with this relatively uncommon syndrome. University of Sydney researchers have pointed an epidemiological finger linking the problem to the consumption of the chicken treat.

While KraMar has withdrawn the implicated product, the company was careful to point out that there is no direct scientific evidence linking the chicken treats to the problem. KraMar routinely tests these products for the presence of melamine, Salmonella and E. coli.

Fanconi’s syndrome, most often an inherited disease, is characterized by elevated levels of glucose in urine, but not in blood. The high glucose level is an indicator of damage to the kidney’s ability to reabsorb nutrients and electrolytes back into the body.

Non-hereditary Fanconi-like symptoms can be triggered – at least in humans – by a number of factors, including exposure to heavy metals or other chemicals, vitamin D deficiency, or multiple myeloma, among others. While the definition of a “heavy metal” is somewhat arbitrary, this category of chemical elements includes arsenic, bismuth, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, copper, iron, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, selenium, silver, thallium and zinc.

The situation in Australia is eerily reminiscent of a similar incident that took place last year in the United States. In September 2007, FDA warned consumers that as many as 95 dogs might have been sickened – some fatally – as a result of having been fed chicken jerky treats imported from China. Extensive chemical and microbiological testing carried out by the agency failed to reveal anything unusual. At least some of the dogs exhibited symptoms consistent with Fanconi-like syndrome. But FDA never was able to tie down a cause for the illnesses.

KraMar has told ABC News that it is considering moving the production of their Supa Naturals Chicken treat to Australia. Meanwhile dog owners should be watchful for symptoms such as excessive drinking and urination, lethargy and vomiting, and should contact their veterinarian immediately should these symptoms appear.

For more information about the precautionary recall, consumers can contact KraMar by email at customerservice@kramar.com.au or by telephone at 02 4648 8500.

Food Safety And Good Corporate Citizenship

Bill Marler wrote yesterday evening (July 5, 2008):

“Frankly, I think the grocery stores – especially the big box types – need to take a more active role in seeing that plants like this perform – that is – they do not produce meat products contaminated with E. coli, Salmonella, Listeria, etc. Perhaps stores should be less concerned about sales and more concerned with safety.”

Bill’s statement reminded me of an experience I had back in the mid-1990’s, when I was Research Director of QA Life Sciences, a company that developed and supplied rapid test systems to the food industry. One of our customers was a supermarket chain (not one of the Kroger’s group of companies).

My contact at Company X was the QA Manager (“Q”), an old-timer who felt a responsibility for the safety of the foods his employer sold to consumers. He was especially concerned about the beef and trimmings that Company X was purchasing for grinding, and he decided to put pressure on the company’s meat suppliers to clean up, or risk losing Company X’s business.

Q adopted our rapid test, which produced simultaneous counts of total E. coli and E. coli O157 within 24 hours. He could then determine the “H7” part of the E. coli O157:H7 within an additional 24 hours. After receiving grudging corporate management support for his plan, Q contacted Company X’s beef suppliers and proposed that they meet specific standards for total E. coli and for E. coli O157:H7.

Q was ahead of his time. USDA had recently (October 1994) named E. coli O157:H7 as an adulterant in ground beef, but not in beef destined for grinding. He met stiff resistance from several of the company’s suppliers, especially for his E. coli O157:H7 proposal. Eventually, he was able to negotiate standards based on total E. coli and E. coli O157.

Why the resistance to completing the H7 portion of the test? Company X’s suppliers did not want to know that their beef was contaminated with E. coli O157:H7. Were they advised of a positive E. coli O157:H7, they would have to act on the knowledge. But if the test was limited to E. coli O157, the beef suppliers could accept returned meat that failed Company X’s standards and resell it to a less demanding customer.

Q told me on several occasions that his program was successful. The overall safety and cleanliness of Company X’s ground beef was much improved.

The beef screening program stayed in force until Q retired. Company X dropped the program soon afterward.

Organic Pastures, Happy Cows & E. coli O157:H7

When a large, multi-state food poisoning outbreak is in progress, it’s easy for a second outbreak to go virtually unnoticed, especially when the same microbe – in this case E. coli O157:H7 – is responsible for both. That’s what would have happened in 2006, except for the vigilance of California’s health authorities and the technology of microbiological “fingerprinting”.

On September 8, 2006, Wisconsin health authorities reported to CDC that they had identified a small cluster of E. coli O157:H7 illnesses – all due to the identical strain of the microbe. Within a week, Oregon and New Mexico were added to the list of affected states, and the source of the outbreaks had been traced to bagged spinach.

The 2006 spinach outbreak had begun. Ultimately, 199 people in 26 states would report an illness with the outbreak strain. Just over one-half (102) of the victims would be hospitalized, and 31 would develop kidney failure and other consequences of hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS). Three people would die.

While the spinach outbreak was in full bloom, the California Department of Health Services received reports of five children who had been infected with E. coli O157:H7. Two of the children were hospitalized, one of them suffering from HUS. A sixth child was also hospitalized with HUS, but E. coli O157:H7 was not lab-confirmed.

The E. coli O157:H7 cultures obtained from the five lab-confirmed victims matched each other, but had a different molecular fingerprint from the microbe that was behind the spinach outbreak. When investigators questioned the victims and their parents, they quickly found a common link. All six children had consumed raw milk or (in one case) raw colostrum from Organic Pastures Dairy Co., California’s largest producer of organic raw milk for retail sale.

The California Department of Food and Agriculture, on September 21st, ordered a state-wide recall of Organic Pastures’ whole and skim raw milk, raw cream and raw colostrum, and barred the company from producing raw milk. The production quarantine was lifted on September 29th, but the company was still forbidden from bottling its milk and cream for retail sale.

The owner of Organic Pastures, Mark McAfee, has always denied that his dairy was responsible for the six illnesses. In a telephone interview reported by SignOnSanDiego.com at the time of the outbreak, McAfee claimed he had been told that some of the children had eaten spinach and undercooked hamburger. And he contended that one of those foods had made them ill – despite the lab evidence that the children were infected with a different strain of E. coli O157:H7 than the one responsible for the spinach outbreak.

But Mark McAfee is an honorable man, and we should believe him.
The Organic Pastures web site boasts that “In more than 32 million servings, and more than five years of intensive testing, not one single pathogen has been found or detected. Not one person has complained to the state of CA that they have become sickened by an OPDC product.”

Yet victims of the 2006 outbreak specifically reported drinking Organic Pastures raw milk and raw colostrum. And California ordered a recall of Organic Pastures raw cream in 2007 after finding Listeria monocytogenes in a sample.

But Mark McAfee is an honorable man, and we should believe him.
After California lifted its quarantine order, McAfee celebrated his exoneration. In his opinion, without the State having found the outbreak strain in his milk, in his dairy environment, or in his cows, there was no evidence that Organic Pastures was responsible for the E. coli O157:H7 outbreak.

According to the CDC report released this week, however, the production lot that was linked to the outbreak was no longer available for testing. Also, non-outbreak strains of the microbe were recovered from the dairy herd.

But Mark McAfee is an honorable man, and we should believe him.
Organic Pastures claims that the total bacterial counts in its raw milk are consistently below the State’s limit of 15,000 bacteria per milliliter – even during the period covered by the 2006 outbreak. The State lab, though, found numerous samples containing counts in excess of the 15,000 limit – several of them in excess of 1,000,000 per milliliter.

Organic Pastures implies that its products have been negative for E. coli O157:H7 since 2002; however, the pdf file accessed from the same web page shows that testing for the pathogen only began about one month before the start of the 2006 outbreak.

But Mark McAfee is an honorable man, and we should believe him.
FDA prohibits the interstate sale of raw milk for human consumption. Organic Pastures says on its web site that it does not ship raw milk to customers outside of California. McAfee has exploited a loophole in the FDA regulations, which treat raw colostrum as a “non-dairy dietary supplement.” Organic Pastures’ Superlite Colostrum, containing 95% raw milk and 5% raw colostrum, is shipped to customers nationwide.

But Mark McAfee is an honorable man, and we should believe him.

Or should we believe the families of five children who were sickened in the 2006 outbreak and who have filed lawsuits against Mark McAfee?