E. coli lawsuit filed against PM Beef, Lunds
A lawsuit has been filed against PM Beef Holdings, LLC and Lund Food Holdings, Inc., the producer and retailer who sold E. coli-contaminated ground beef traced to an outbreak of E. coli O157:H7 illnesses in Minnesota and Wisconsin residents in April, 2007.
The lawsuit was filed on behalf of a Minneapolis, Minnesota, woman who became ill with an E. coli O157:H7 infection and was hospitalized after eating contaminated ground beef in April. The plaintiff is represented by Marler Clark, a Seattle law firm with a long track record of successfully representing victims of foodborne illness.
The plaintiff is one of seven Minnesotans who were confirmed as part of the E. coli outbreak that prompted PM Beef Holdings to recall 117,500 pounds of beef trim products that was ground and sold at Lunds and Byerly’s stores. She consumed the ground beef on April 19, and became ill with symptoms of an E. coli O157:H7 infection, including bloody diarrhea, on April 24. The plaintiff was hospitalized twice between April 25 and April 30, when she was finally discharged to recover at home.
She has yet to make a full recovery.
The meat which caused the recalls at Lunds and Byerlys in Minneapolis emanated from the slaughter facility in Windom, MN operated by PM Beef Holdings. A definitive traceback to the source of contamination ends at the slaughter plant, since E.coli is an "enteric" bacteria, that is, it originates from within animals' intestines. Lunds and Byerlys have no intestines or manure-covered hides on their premises, meaning that they unwittingly purchased previously-contaminated meat from PM Beef Holdings.
When the previously-contaminated meat arrived at Lunds and Byerlys, the contaminant was invisible bacteria, not detectably by the naked eye. Furthermore, the meat arrived at Lunds' and Byerlys' docks in containers bearing the official USDA Mark of Inspection, which states "Inspected and Passed".
Therefore, is Lunds or Byerlys guilty of being noncompliant with food safety regulations? What could Lunds and Byerlys have done to remove the invisible pathogen? The USDA regularly suggests 3 alternatives to downline further processing plants which have been stung by innocently purchasing previously contaminated meat:
1. Purchase from a different supplier. When USDA offers this alternative, the agency admits that it knows that the slaughter plant is shipping contaminated meat into commerce. Also, delisting the noncompliant slaughter facility does nothing to prevent future recurrences of contaminated meat, because the guilty slaughter plant is not required by USDA to implement corrective actions to prevent recurrences. Instead, the agency focuses all its enforcement actions against the victimized downline further processing plant which legally inherited the hot meat. These downline plants are smaller entities, which are easier prey to misdirected agency enforcement officials.
2. Irradiate all meat. This suggestion has no merit, because of the outlandish investment cost required to construct irradiation equipment at a plant. Secondly, most consumers do not want irradiated meat, nor do they want to be forced to eat a slaughter plant's irradiated manure.
3. Fully cook the meat. When consumers purchase meat at retail meat markets like Lunds and Byerlys, they want to buy raw steaks, roasts and ground beef for cooking at home.
Why does USDA make these nonsensical suggestions? Because, quite frankly, the agency has no other suggestions for these downline further processing plants which really have no viable methods to dry clean their suppliers' adulterated products. The agency continues to make such ludicrous suggestions merely as a way to circumvent tracebacks to the true source of contamination, which is the originating slaughter plant.
Likewise, law suits against victimized downline further processing plants such as Lunds also miss the mark. It could be argued that naming downstream plants like Lunds as defendents could force such victims to place pressure on its slaughter house suppliers, in essence forcing back door improvements at the slaughter facilities. We must remember that the slaughter industry has been greatly consolidated, such that over 80 % of all fat cattle are now slaughtered by the big four slaughter consortiums. Frankly, downline plants have access to an ever-shrinking base of slaughter suppliers, and can't afford to lose or delist any of their limited number of suppliers. Sad to say, but in most cases, these victimized downline plants are stuck with what they have, and in many cases, are darned fortunate they have the few slaughter suppliers they have. Bottom line: downline plants will tread lightly when requesting that their suppliers improve their production practices, because their operations totally depend on the meat they can purchase from whatever slaughter plants are still in existence.
Personally, I'm concerned that naming downline further processors as defendents deflects public health attention away from the originating slaughter plants, which benefit from "shared" responsibility.
John W. Munsell
Manager, Foundation for Accountability in Regulatory Enforcement (FARE)
Miles City, MT
June 13, 2007