E. coli Attorney: Recent outbreaks traced to meat products
In April of 2005, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announced that the incidence of E. coli O157:H7 infection traced to ground beef products had significantly declined. CDC attributed the decline to the implementation of a new set of recommendations from the United States Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) in 2002 and the beef industry’s subsequent enhancement of food safety systems, including testing and control measures. In a press release issued on April 14, 2005, USDA Secretary Mike Johanns stated:
“The continued reduction in illnesses from E. coli O157 is a tremendous success story and we are committed to continuing this positive trend in the future. These results demonstrate that through innovative policies and strong and consistent enforcement of inspection laws, we are protecting the public's health through a safer food supply.”[1]
It is true that since 2002, there has been a general decline in the number of E. coli cases traced to red meat, and an increase in the number of E. coli cases traced to fresh produce, namely bagged lettuce and spinach. But in the last weeks E. coli outbreaks traced to beef products have underscored the importance of continued efforts to protect the public from E. coli in meat.
- On June 4, FSIS warned consumers to discard ground beef products produced by United Food Group, LLC, of Vernon, California, after its products were traced as the source of an E. coli O157:H7 outbreak. United Food Group issued a recall of approximately 75,000 pounds of potentially contaminated ground beef, which was confirmed as the source of at least twelve E. coli O157:H7 illnesses among residents of several Western states and British Columbia. Most of the products were sold under the Moran's label at Albertsons stores in California, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon, Utah, Washington and Wyoming and Save-A-Lot stores in Arizona, California, and Nevada.
- On May 29, the Fresno County Department of Community Health issued a press release stating that it was investigating an E. coli outbreak among Fresno County residents. As of May 31, eleven people had been confirmed ill with E. coli O157:H7 infections as part of the outbreak, and the Health Department had inspected the “Meat Market” in Northwest Fresno, a potential source of the outbreak. The outbreak investigation is ongoing.
- On May 11, FSIS announced that Davis Creek Meats and Seafood of Kalamazoo, Michigan, was recalling approximately 129,000 pounds of beef products due to possible contamination with E. coli O157:H7. The recall was issued in response to a Michigan Department of Community Health investigation into the E. coli illnesses of two Michigan residents. The potentially contaminated beef products were distributed in Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.
- On May 10, FSIS issued a recall notice to consumers who may have purchased ground beef products made with beef trim products produced by PM Beef Holdings, LLC, of Windom, Minnesota. PM Beef Holdings recalled approximately 117,500 pounds of beef trim products, which were sold to distributors and retail outlets in Arizona, Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Virginia, and Wisconsin. The beef trim products were subsequently ground and sold under different retail names. Minnesota and Wisconsin health officials traced at least seven E. coli illnesses to consumption of the ground beef products, which were purchased at Lunds or Byerly’s stores in the two states.
- On April 20, FSIS announced the recall of 107,900 pounds of frozen ground beef products produced by Richwood Meat Co., of Merced, California, stating that the California Department of Health Services had discovered E. coli contamination during an investigation. The ground beef products were distributed to stores in Arizona, California, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington.
- Also on April 20, FSIS and the Pennsylvania Department of Health warned consumers that steak products produced by HFX, Inc. of South Claysburg, Pennsylvania, and sold at Hoss’s Family Steak and Sea Restaurants, a Pennsylvania-based restaurant chain, were potentially contaminated with E. coli O157:H7. The announcement came after an investigation linked several E. coli illnesses to consumption of the steaks at Hoss’s. HFX recalled approximately 4,900 pounds of meat products.
Marler Clark has been retained by victims of many pf the above-listed E. coli outbreaks, and has been contacted by several more who are seeking legal representation. Bill Marler, managing partner of Marler Clark, commented on the recent outbreaks: “This up-tick in E. coli cases traced to meat products is certainly cause for concern. I hope we’re not seeing a reversal in all the progress that has been made in recent years to curb E. coli contamination in meat processing plants.”
BACKGROUND: Marler Clark has extensive experience representing victims of E. coli bacterial infections. The firm has represented over 1,000 E. coli victims since 1993, when William Marler represented HUS survivor Brianne Kiner in her $15.6 million E. coli settlement with Jack in the Box. In 1998, Marler Clark resolved Odwalla Juice E. coli outbreak cases for five families whose children developed HUS and were severely injured after consuming contaminated Odwalla juice for a reported $12 million. Since that time, Marler Clark has represented victims of E. coli outbreaks traced to ConAgra, AFG, Cub Foods, Supervalu, Carneco, Excel, Topps, Stop & Shop and other ground beef suppliers. For a list of E. coli cases, visit www.marlerclark.com/news-ecoli.htm.
[1] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “Foodborne Illnesses Continue Downward Trend: 2010 Health Goals for E. Coli 0157 Reached.” Press Release. April 14, 2005, Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/od/oc/media/pressrel/r050414.htm
The improvements in the industry flowing from agency recommendations in 2002 and alluded to in your opening paragraphs above were the result of FSIS Notice 44-02 in October 2002, 9 months after my recall, and 5 months after ConAgra's 19 million lb recall. This notice required all USDA-inspected plants to perform a hazard assessment in their plants and reassess their HACCP plans to determine if E.coli was likely to occur in their establishments. Why did the agency ostensibly unilaterally embrace such a bold new approach? What enticed them to issue this Notice?
Within a year after posting this Notice, a USDA veterinarian who shares my opinions about the need for changes in meat inspection policies, attended a USDA-conducted management training session at Texas A & M. One of the trainers was an agency official from Washington, D.C. During a coffee break, the vet privately asked the agency official if the Notice was issued because of what had transpired at Montana Quality Foods from January - June 2002. The official responded affirmatively. Why do I bring this up?
Frankly, the USDA coverup of the true origin of E.coli-contaminated meat at my plant was exposed on NBC Nightly News with Tom Brokaw on 8-1-02. While the agency did its best to close me down for four months, I aggressively opposed their unethical actions and continued to demand that they implement policies which would enable, in fact require, trace backs to the origin. They steadfastly refused.
Now that the cat was out of the bag, the agency issued Notice 44-02 to portray FSIS as the premier public health defender in the nation. Because of the national scope of outbreaks in 2002, plants felt obligated to admit that E.coli was likely to appear in their plants, which forced them to devise protocol to mitigate such possibilities. The result was primarily the formulation of additional paperwork documents which ostensibly would "prevent" previously contaminated meat from entering their facilities. For example, plants commenced requiring their suppliers to provide annual letters of certification which were boiler plate, generic statements which made statements like:
"We are in full compliance with our HACCP plans"
"We fully meet all our CCP's"
"We test 100 % of our lots of trimmings"
"Independent 3rd party entities have validated that our HACCP plans are effective in consistently producing safe meat"
"All ground beef and boneless trimmings originated from production lots of trim which were tested for E.coli, and tested negative"
Etc, etc. Most of the manufacturers' annual certifications made the same or similar statements.
Since testing continued to reveal the ongoing production of contaminated meat, the agency responded by mandating that downline further processing plants have much more thorough supplier certifications on file.........while not elucidating exactly what the new certifications should say, causing nationwide confusion and unnecessary animosity between FSIS field force and company management, neither of whom had been provided a road map about what the agency was expecting. It has remained a paper chase to this day, absent clear guidelines.
Simultaneously, the large slaughter plants have implemented new pathogen intervention steps, which HAD seemed to be reducing the incidence of contaminated meat. Please know that the primary recommendation made by FSIS was merely their requirement that every plant reassess their HACCP plans. The fact the agency does not explain this fact is that the agency's open-ended statement provides the appearance, or perception, that the agency has unilaterally mandated numerous new requirements on the industry, which is not true.
The agency's "strong and persistent enforcement of inspection laws" as quoted above from Mike Johanns is a ruse. The agency boldly monitors activities at small plants, and have verbally mandated a minimum quota of NR's (Noncompliance Reports) at the small plants, while further insulating the large slaughter plants from any meaningful enforcement oversight or liability for producing pathogen-laced meat.
At the risk of being redundent, the frequency of outbreaks and recalls will most likely increase as long as the agency refuses to place accountability at the true source of contamination. USDA's half hazard investigative efforts are consistently and prematurely truncated at the downline further processing plants. Such establishments lack the financial wherewithal or political clout to engage the agency in protracted litigation while defending their rights. Therefore, small plants resign themselves to the inevitable enforcement actions, and do whatever the agency "suggests" (actually demands) just to keep the facility up and running. I finally realized I was living a lie, which is that HACCP is a "science based" meat production system. While I successfully jettisoned personal ownership of my plant, the vast majority of plant owners have clung to their marginal operations, hoping beyond hope that USDA will eventually implement common sense and ethical policies.
Now, the agency is running out of options, and are grasping at Risk Based Inspection, which may never come on line. The last thing the agency wants to do is trace back to the origin, because such evidence would require the agency to engage the big plants with effective enforcement actions.
John W. Munsell