Why?

After nearly four years of intensive blogging, there are many things I still don’t understand. Perhaps you, my readers, can help me find answers to some of these questions.

Why does USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) consider E. coli O157:H7 and six other E. coli serotypes to be adulterants in raw beef, while turning a blind eye to other pathogens such as Salmonella, Campylobacter, Yersinia enterocolitica, and even other pathogenic or toxic E. coli?

Why is FDA unable (or unwilling) to release retail distribution information on food safety recalls – even those definitively linked to deadly outbreaks – while FSIS routinely releases retail distribution information on all such recalls?

Why does FDA not allow interstate shipment of raw milk for human consumption, as long as the raw milk meets the same microbiological standards as pasteurized milk?

Why does the burden of demonstrating the safety (or hazard) of imported food products and ingredients rest on FDA’s shoulders – and bank account – rather than on the shoulders of the offshore producers and the importers?

Why are there no federal criminal penalties imposed on food producers and processors who knowingly supply contaminated food?

Why does FDA make it so difficult for consumers to notify the agency about food, drug, medical device and pet food safety problems?

Why is it impossible to request information from FDA under the Freedom of Information Act on-line?

Why does the USA need two major federal food safety agencies with overlapping responsibilities?

Why, with so much money, time and effort spent on food safety enforcement in the developed world, do countries such as the USA, Canada, the United Kingdom and France continue to experience high annual rates of food poisoning and foodborne diseases?

Finally, why must consumers continue to rely on non-government sites such as eFoodAlert, barfblog, Food Safety News, and Le blog d’Albert Amgar (in France) for timely information of foodborne disease outbreaks, food recalls and other food safety issues?

E. coli O104:H4 – Europe’s Name, Blame and Shame Game

“It really is public health malpractice not to name these companies when they’re involved, particularly when there’s a potential risk to the public as a result of their product still being on the market.”

– Michael T. Osterholm, PhD, MPH, Director of the University of Minnesota’s Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy, publisher of CIDRAP News

A curious thing has happened on June 29th.

The European Center for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC), in conjunction with the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), released a risk assessment on the E. coli O104:H4 cases reported from the Bordeaux region of France. Fenugreek sprouting seeds – supplied by the British firm Thompson & Morgan – were implicated in the French outbreak.

The report named AGA SAAT GMBH of Dusseldorf, Germany as the supplier both of the seeds packaged and sold by Thompson & Morgan, and of the seeds implicated in the far larger and very deadly German outbreak of hemolytic uremic syndrome and bloody diarrhea.

The seeds, according to the report, originated from Egypt. The Egyptian Ministry of Agriculture has denied that Egypt had exported fenugreek seeds to Germany.

But this isn’t the curious thing that happened. What’s curious is that – several hours after the report was first issued – ECDC quietly replaced its initial report with an edited version that omitted the name of the German company, according to a news story released this evening by CIDRAP News. CIDRAP has posted a link to both the original ECDC report (see page 3 of the report) and the revised version.

Why did ECDC take this action? Here’s what CIDRAP has to say:

In response to a query today about the reason for removing the company’s name, ECDC spokeswoman Caroline Daamen told CIDRAP News by e-mail, “In the initial risk assessment posted on the website, EFSA and ECDC reported information that had been made available to support the ongoing outbreak investigation. However, some key partners involved felt that it may unnecessarily harm the company to publish its name while the investigations are still ongoing. So it was thought more appropriate to remove the name of the company from the final report.

“We hope that this helps to clarify why the name of the company is not included anymore.”

Both CIDRAP News and attorney/blogger Bill Marler – who also reported the story -have received email messages from AGA SAAT’s attorney, “reserving the right” to take legal measures if they do not delete the company’s name from their respective articles.

I have been critical in the past of the EU policy of not naming manufacturers, distributors, or brand names of foods that are listed in its Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF). But this back-door removal of the name of an implicated company from an already published report takes the cake.

In contrast to this sorry German saga, Thompson & Morgan – the British company that supplied the packaged seeds implicated in the French outbreak – has withdrawn from sale five varieties of sprouting seeds and sprouting seed mixes, even though the company contends that “…there has been no established link…” between the seeds they supplied and the outbreak cases.

If ECDC and EFSA were uncertain of the validity of their conclusion, they should not have named the company to begin with.

If the agencies have developed new information that invalidates their initial conclusion and clears AGA SAAT, they should say so.

If ECDC and EFSA simply yielded to pressure and altered their initial report for no valid scientific reason, they should be ashamed of themselves.

The primary role of public health and safety agencies is to protect the health and safety of their citizens – not the political safety of the agencies.

For shame!

Double Dip Ducklings – And Chicks

The Salmonella outbreak tied to chicks and ducklings supplied by Mt. Healthy Hatcheries, Inc. and sold through a national (and still unnamed) feed store chain has turned out to be two…two…two outbreaks in one.

CDC reported earlier today that, since February 25, 2011, the infected chicks and ducklings have been responsible for 49 cases of Salmonella Altona infections in 16 states. And a second Salmonella serotype is now in the mix. Chicks and ducklings from the same hatchery also have infected 22 people in 12 states with Salmonella Johannesburg since March 19, 2011.

The geographic distribution of illnesses associated with the two Salmonella serotypes overlap, as this CDC summary table and map clearly show. The green-colored states have reported cases of both Salmonella Altona and Salmonella Johannesburg infections.

In all, 71 people – more than one-half of them 5 years old or less – in 19 states have become ill as a result of handling these infected chicks and ducklings. Eighteen people were hospitalized. All of the illnesses so far have been reported from the eastern half of the country, including the states of Alabama (1), Arkansas (1), Georgia (3), Indiana (1), Kentucky (7), Maryland (4) , Maine (1), Michigan (1), Minnesota (1), North Carolina (11), New Hampshire (1), New York (5), Ohio (12), Pennsylvania (6), Tennessee (5), Virginia (4), Vermont (3), Wisconsin (1) and West Virginia (3).

And what does the Mt. Healthy Hatcheries have to say about their role in this outbreak? NOTHING! The company simply has posted a list of Basic Safety Practices for the Handling of Poultry on its web site. No mention whatsoever of an on-going Salmonella outbreak, or of the link to Mt. Healthy Hatcheries chicks and ducklings.

As I pointed out in The Chicken Ranch (my earlier post on this outbreak), apparently healthy chickens and other poultry can harbor and spread Salmonella, Campylobacter and other diseases. Chicks, ducklings or any other fowl are not toys.

And they most certainly are not safe pets for young children!