The great hazelnut/Salmonella caper part deux

A lot of a risk manager’s job is just paying attention to what’s going on. Food safety types at a company that buys food and resells it (a grocery store, food service operator, wholesaler) or uses food ingredients, should be constantly scanning the news and literature for what risks suppliers are encountering. They might look for stuff like whether the vendor’s industry is dealing with increased focus from regulators or if similar inputs are being recalled or linked to illnesses.hazelnut

Paying attention is the first step, but making decisions to switch suppliers or increase standards is how food gets safer. For this to work though, information needs to be publicly shared. When a regulator finds a problem with a supplier but doesn’t name the source, hiding behind privacy rules, they are doing a disservice to public health. Pretty hard for a buyer to proactively switch away from a supplier who is having Salmonella issues if they don’t know who has problems and who doesn’t.

And so expands the recall as CFIA’s investigation reveals that an unnamed nut seller’s bulk nuts have been spread across Quebec.

The public warning issued on May 16, 2013 has been updated to include additional product and distribution information.

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) is warning the public not to consume certain in shell hazelnuts or mixed nuts in shell described below because the products may be contaminated with Salmonella.

The following products (list can be found here -ben) were sold in packages of various weights or in bulk at the locations indicated below.  Consumers who are unsure if they have affected product are advised to check with their retailer.

These recalls are part of an on-going food safety investigation associated with a recall of bulk hazelnuts from USA. The CFIA is working with the recalling firms and distributors to identify all affected products.

The importer, distributers, and retailers are voluntarily recalling the affected products from the marketplace.  The CFIA is monitoring the effectiveness of the recall.

If I was a nut buyer, I’d want to know who the Salmonella-linked importers and distributors are.

Alberta’s cattle industry sort of recovers a decade after mad cow outbreak

On March 20, 1996, British Health Secretary Stephen Dorrell rose in the House to inform colleagues that scientists had discovered a new variant of Creutzfeldt-Jacob disease (CJD) in 10 victims, and that they could not rule out mad.cows.mother's.milka link with consumption of beef from cattle with bovine spongiform encephalapthy (BSE), also known as mad cow disease.

Overnight, the British beef market collapsed and politicians quickly learned how to enunciate BSE and CJD. Within days, the European Union banned exports of British beef; consumption of beef fell throughout Europe, especially in France and Germany, and in Japan, where suspicion of foreign food runs high. The triumvirate of uncertain science, risk and politics was played out in media headlines.

To refer to the events of 1996 as the BSE crisis is a misnomer, just as scientists are quick to point out that mad cow disease should more appropriately be called sad cow disease or unco-ordinated cow disease.  Rather, the announcement of March 20, 1996 was the culmination of 15 years of mismanagement, political bravado and a gross underestimation of the public’s capacity to deal with risk.  More important than any of the several lessons to be drawn from the BSE fiasco is this: the risk of no-risk messages.  For 10 years the British government and leading scientific advisors insisted there was no risk — or that the risk was so infintesimly small that it could be said there was no risk — of BSE leading to a similar malady in humans, CJD, even in the face of contradictory evidence.  The no-risk message contributed to the devastating economic and social effects on Britons, a nation of madison.men.cowbeefeaters, the slaughter of over 1 million British cattle, and a decrease in global consumption of beef, especially in Japan, at a cost of billions of dollars.

The Canadian Minister of Agriculture was quite adamant there was no risk of BSE developing in Canada.

In July 1996, Dr Norman Willis, Director General, Animal and Plant Health, Agriculture and Agrifood Canada, told the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association’s annual convention that “Actions were taken out of sheer paranoia, with people significantly hyped by the media.  We took actions that went way beyond ones that were scientifically  justified. … We wouldn’t have political interference.  We wouldn’t  have non-science factors influence the actions we took.  BSE blew that all away. … Canada and other trading countries couldn’t hold with science-based  decisions.  There was just too much at stake by way of trade.’’

Canada’s initial dragging to the grown-up’s table of BSE risk management, and apparent lax enforcement of feed regulations for years afterwards led to the inevitable: On May 20, 2003, Canada announced its first home-grown case of BSE.

The eight-year old cow from Alberta had been condemned at slaughter, was sent for rendering and did not enter the food chain.

The first few chapters of the story about the discovery of BSE in Canada were positive.

BSE was bound to show up eventually and the surveillance system set up in 1992 sorta worked. The inspector who pulled a sickly looking eight-year-old cow from the slaughter line prevented it from entering the food chain.

The line in Canada was, this is not the UK, and I was on TV at 5 a.m. the next morning, saying the U.K., had some 186,000 cattle test positive and millions preemptively slaughtered. The significant question was, will Canadian numbers of BSE-positives remain in the dozens or the tens-of-thousands (or something like that).

And yes, producers, processors and government should have been fully aware of the risk rather than act stunned when it happened.

Ten years on, with the perspective that time often offers, my statements seem accurate but naïve.

Canada has since reported 18 cases of BSE, and, just like other aspects of food safety, those in charge talk a good line, but do they know what really bbq_bse_cross_contaminationhappens on farms (or anywhere) day-in, day-out.

And are they interested? Because being interested costs money.

Ian Gray of the Edmonton Journal wrote a 10-year-retrospective piece on the first homegrown BSE case today, beginning with:

In January 2003, Marwyn Peaster’s cow fell down.

The six-year-old Black Angus was one of a small herd Peaster had bought the year before for his grain farm and feedlot near Wanham, in Alberta’s Peace Country.

Believing the cow had pneumonia, Peaster made the fateful decision to send it to a local abattoir instead of calling for a veterinarian or disposing of it on his own property. The vet at the slaughterhouse went by the book and condemned the “downer” cow, so there’d be no chance it could be used for human consumption.

The carcass then went to a rendering plant, but the head was sent to a provincial laboratory in Edmonton for testing. As there was no perceived urgency, there it sat, until May 16, 2003.

Three and a half months after it was shipped, the head was finally tested at the provincial lab and, to the disbelief and horror of everyone involved, registered positive for BSE. The results were confirmed by federal and international laboratories and were announced to the public on May 20.

As of May 1, 2013, vCJD had killed 237 people worldwide.

The attack on Peaster  reached its peak that September with the now infamous remark by then-premier Ralph Klein that “any self-respecting rancher would have shot, shovelled and shut up, but he (Peaster) didn’t do that.”

Peaster has since moved back to the U.S. and is living in the farming community of Ontario, Oregon, where he has a small trucking company. True to form, he has no desire to comment on the 10th anniversary of the discovery of BSE in Canada, in which he was a key, if unwilling, player.

Mad cow no longer dominates the food safety headlines, and that’s good. The potential is always there, and requires good risk management, but a lot more people get sick from lots of other things associated with beef (although vCJD is a terrible way to die).

As the elementary school year wound down in June, 2003, in Ontario, Canada, 
the school three of my four daughters attended had a barbeque for students, staff 
and parents. 
The earlier discovery of Canada’s first domestic case of bovine spongiform 
encephalopathy which received 
extensive media coverage, was of concern to some parents and school
 officials, so a note was sent home to parents, assuring them that the
 hamburgers and hot dogs to be consumed came from a supplier of so-called
 natural, beef and was therefore safe from BSE.

At this particular BBQ, several of the well-meaning volunteer cooks were
 observed to handle the raw, natural hamburger patties with tongs that were
 then used to place re-heated wieners into hot dog buns, possibly
 cross-contaminating the wieners with any number of pathogenic microorganisms
HappyCow[1]such as E. coli O157:H7, salmonella or listeria, and subsequently served to
 parents and children.

About the same time, a bunch of industry folks hosted a BBQ on Parliament Hill in Ottawa, to demonstrate the safety of Canadian beef to politicos.

I watched the servers cook burgers, not use thermometers, and cross-contaminate everything in sight.

I asked, where is the hamburger form?

Don’t worry, it’s not from Alberta, no mad cow here.

Are these pre-cooked?

Nah, they’ve been sitting in the (non-refrigerated) truck for a few hours.

I always wondered if anyone got sick after that feast.

More E. coli testing, labels for tenderized beef, but questions remain in Canadian food safety plans

Canada is strengthening its E. coli testing in summer months and will mandate labeling of mechanically or needle tenderized beef, but some omissions are notable.

• The changes only apply to meat produced at federal plants inspected by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. How do consumers know which is which?

• The labeling requirements only apply to cuts that are tenderized at a CFIA-regulated slaughterhouse. What about cuts that are treated further down the supply system? Health Canada says it’s working on it.

• Most notable, the expanded testing for E. coli only applies to the O157:H7/NM serotype (details of the changes are at http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/fssa/meavia/man/ch4/annexoe.shtml). There is no mention of testing for other shiga-toxin producing E. coli (STECs) such as the big six (O26, O45, O103, O111, O121 and O145) which were declared adulterants by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. I’m fairly sure that those slaughterhouses that want to continue exporting to the U.S. will have to meet U.S. testing requirements. As a consumer I’d like to know which meat has been produced under such a system of testing.

The changes follow an outbreak of E. coli O157:H7 last fall that sickened 18 people. Contaminated product was produced at XL Foods of Alberta and led to the largest meat recall in Canadian history. Several of those sickened were tenderizingPage-282x300thought to have consumed needle-tenderized product (with this technique, outside becomes inside, like hamburger, so should be cooked to 165F for safety reasons; I don’t know anyone that spends on the expense of a roast and then cooks to 165F).

Ritz said, “Canada has a world-class food safety system and our Government is committed to taking real steps to make it even stronger.”

Uh-huh.

Ritz said of labeling of mechanical tenderization beef, “It’s common sense, but it needs to be out there.”

Uh-huh.

Can we guarantee there’ll never be anymore (outbreaks)? No. Anybody that tells you you can is lying to you. It wouldn’t matter how much money, how many people you have on the lines, there’s too many moving parts to Chicago_meat_inspection_swift_co_1906-268x300guarantee an absolute. But at the end of the day, we want to take every precaution we can.”

Uh-huh.

A table of non- E. coli O157 STEC outbreaks is available at http://bites.ksu.edu/nonO157outbreaks

2 more sick from E. coli burgers from Canada’s Cardinal Meat; 1 death in Dec. just now revealed

Two days after the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) warned about another or related outbreak linked to the Cardinal Meat plant in Ontario, the rapid response folks at the Public Health Agency of Canada Chicago_meat_inspection_swift_co_1906-268x300decided to say, yes, two more people had been sickened with E. coli O157:H7, bringing the total to seven.

And that’s all they said.

Fortunately, Matt McClure of the Calgary Herald had already done lots of digging and revealed two days earlier that not only were there additional illnesses, but that a death was related to product from the same plant.

The Public Health Agency of Canada confirmed Wednesday that testing has shown the two outbreaks share a similar, but slightly different genetic fingerprint – a potential sign that they were caused by a common source of E.coli contamination.

“Work is underway to assess if and how these two situations may be linked,” CFIA said in a written statement.

Cardinal president Brent Cator said although the firm conducts random tests of the beef trim it uses to make burgers and every 500 kg of finished product, Cator said he depends on the food safety programs of the meat packers that supply his grinding facility.

Back in Dec., Cator, told the Herald his company makes frozen patties using beef trim from various Canadian and international processors that has been certified as free from E. coli O157:H7. However, he refused to identify the sources of the meat used in the recalled burgers.

Unwilling to tell consumers where their food comes from? Don’t buy it.

In Dec., McClure says, some food safety experts criticized the federal agency for waiting nearly two months to recall product after it had positive test results from patients with food histories that pointed to frozen burgers from Cardinal.

Oh, and by the way, McClure got PHAC to admit there was another patient who actually died in early December after being infected with the same strain of E. coli as the one found in the recalled burgers.

Officials at the federal health agency had said that the DNA fingerprint in those cases had never been seen before in North America and was strong evidence all the patients got sick from eating the same product.

But PHAC’s website now says those test results weren’t enough proof to say the fatality was caused by a tainted burger.

Canadians will apparently tolerate anything.

People sick but how many remains a Canadian mystery; E. coli O157 in burgers

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) and Canada Safeway Limited are warning the public not to consume The Gourmet Meat Shoppe and The Butcher’s Cut brands of Frozen Beef Burgers described below because these products may be contaminated with E. coli O157:H7 bacteria.

This recall is the result of E. coli O157:H7 product testing by the CFIA related to an ongoing outbreak investigation. The CFIA is currently conducting a food safety investigation at the producing facility to determine if any additional products may be affected.e.coli.burger.2.13d

e.coli.burger.feb.13

Food companies not allowed to sue Ottawa over mistaken recalls, B.C. court rules

On Aug. 17, 2007, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency issued two warnings about LA Salad baby carrots sold at Costco because they may have been contaminated with Shigella. The Agency said at the time that the carrots had already made four people sick, which triggered a subsequent recall in the United States.

The company responded by saying CFIA’s allegations weren’t supported by scientific fact and accused them of shoddy testing. In babycarrotsdocuments filed in B.C. Supreme Court, the company claimed damages due to a continued loss of business.

Six years later, a B.C. court ruled that it and other such companies cannot sue the federal government over mistaken recalls, saying CFIA inspectors owe a legal duty to the public, not the food producers they might wrongly accuse.

The National Post reports that with regulators more often criticized for failing to keep on top of foodborne illness, the case offers a rare view from the other side: producers who, deservedly or not, suffer hugely from public alerts.

If they don’t face any liability ever, they can make mistakes and never find out which food product was actually making people sick

The food-inspection agency should be held accountable in court when it points the finger at the wrong culprit, if only to ensure the real sources of outbreaks are uncovered, said Dale Sanderson, L.A. Salad’s Vancouver lawyer.

“If they don’t face any liability ever, they can make mistakes and never find out which food product was actually making people sick,” said Mr. Sanderson. “There should be an incentive to do a really good job. … I can’t believe the CFIA won’t recall food because they might get sued.”

Our nostalgic food safety dinner

Ron Doering pretty much invented the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

Back about 1996, he was asked to review food inspection for the Canadian government and figure out ways to make it better and more ron.doug.3.jan.13efficient. He did such a good job he was named the first president from 1997-2002.

Canadians probably can’t name a CFIA president since.

Not bad for an environmental lawyer.

Ron has lectured in my graduate classes and disagreed with some of my food safety stuff over the past 15 years, but we’ve always stayed in touch, so it was a pleasure that Ron and his wife, Beth, joined us for dinner on the Island last night.

Turns out they were staying in Venice for part of the winter (that’s in Florida, about 30 minutes away).

And, just like in hockey, we can disagree but still have a beer afterwards.

I can’t quite put into words how moved and grateful I was by the get-together last night.

No confidence: Canada’s food safety rules good, but must be followed, enforced

Canada has an excellent international reputation for crafting rules and regulations and a lousy international reputation for verification and enforcement.

This has been a truism, along with the best health care in the world – it’s not – for the 50 years I’ve been around; others can speak to no-bs4more dated legacies.

Canadian Press picked up on this theme and applied it to food safety.

Veteran cattleman George Graham has a common-sense solution for how to prevent a repeat of an E. coli outbreak and extensive product recall in the fall that made 18 people sick, threw thousands out of work and smeared the Canadian beef brand.

Officials who regulate and work in the industry must simply do their jobs properly.

“We have an extremely good product and we have a very good food-safety program compared to other places around the world,” Graham said from his feedlot in southern Alberta where his family has raised cattle since 1918.

“We just need to be more vigilant that the job is getting done.”

It’s more complicated. The bugs are constantly changing, better science is developed, and the rules need to be flexible. And the best will always go above and beyond the minimal standard of government.

Professor Rick Holley, a University of Manitoba food safety expert, said there is no excuse for the sanitation problems that led to the closure of the Brooks plant.

He said Canada is respected around the world for its progressive food safety rules. The problem, he suggested, is that those rules are not as vigorously enforced as they should be.

How could 40 inspectors and six veterinarians at the XL plant somehow miss the problems?

Ron Glaser of Canada Beef – the marketing folks – said the industry is developing an information campaign that it is expected cow-faceto roll out in the new year, to reassure consumers.

It is likely to include information on how producers take care in raising cattle and an assurance that Canada has an extremely safe food system.

And it will be void of data.

The days of trust us, we’re farmers, processors, retailers, restaurants, has long passed.

If people want to know where their beef comes from as an indicator of confidence, put a url on the package so consumers can look it up; link to the farm and slaughterhouse; show them what happens; and, because farmers, processors, retailers, restaurants or even government inspectors have X-ray bacteria-sensing goggles, make test result data publicly available. McDonald’s demands that data from the slaughterhouses that provide beef for their burgers, why shouldn’t consumers have the same access?

Inexplicable Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz said the federal government has faith in JBS USA, the company that’s now managing the Brooks XL plant in Alberta.

“JBS is a tremendous corporate partner. They brought an era of food culture to that plant that we haven’t seen for quite some time so we look forward to them and moving on to the future.”

I get creeped when Ritz starts talking about food culture.

And I tried to parse the quote but my head started spinning, so I’ll leave that to my elders as well.

More E. coli O157 illnesses and recalls in Canada

CFIA ain’t so good at this food safety thing.

Earlier this month, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and Loblaw Companies Ltd. warned the public not to consume certain Butcher’s Choice Garlic Peppercorn Beef Burgers because this product may be contaminated with E. coli O157:H7.

By Saturday, five people were confirmed sick in this outbreak.

In Sept. 2012, at least 17 Canadians were sickened with E. coli O157:H7 linked to beef slaughtered at the XL Foods plant in Alberta.

Now, CFIA and Cardinal Meat Specialists Ltd. are warning the public not to consume Prime Rib Beef Burgers because this product may be contaminated with E. coli O157:H7 bacteria.

CFIA says, “This investigation was initiated as a result of recent product testing associated with an outbreak investigation. There may be recalls of additional products as the investigation at this facility continues.”

Are more people sick? Are these outbreaks and recalls related? Does genetic fingerprinting exist in Canada or are chromosomes still being quantified under a microscope after jumping on a telephone book on a slide containing some cells (we actually did that in early 1980s genetics).

The Calgary Herald reports this morning CFIA officials were first alerted to a potential problem with hamburgers from a Brampton, Ont. plant in early October after an Edmonton patient became ill from E. coli O157:H7 poisoning.

But nearly two months passed and four more cases emerged before the federal agency began an investigation in early December.

At that point, CFIA decided it needed to confirm that contaminated product had actually found its way into the market, so it ordered inspectors to visit more than 300 stores across Canada to collect samples.

When two samples tested positive a week later on Dec. 12, agency officials issued a health alert, and Cardinal Meat Specialists Limited began a voluntary recall.

CFIA officials did not reply Sunday to written questions from the Herald about the apparent delay in launching a recall, although a spokesman has said the agency was unable to act until it had conclusive proof there was tainted product on store shelves.

Why? Doesn’t epidemiology matter?

Where is this policy enshrined? On what basis does CFIA go public?

Brent Cator, president of Cardinal Meat Specialists, told the Herald his company makes frozen patties using beef trim from various Canadian and international processors that has been certified as free from E. coli O157:H7. However, he refused to identify the sources of the meat used in the recalled burgers.

Walnuts again; Canadians say certain Compass brand in-shell California walnuts may contain Salmonella

In April 2011, 14 people in Canada were stricken with E. coli O157:H7, including one death, linked to walnuts from California.

Many questions were raised about the link, and there was never any follow-up report (not one that I saw).

Today, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) and Compass Food Sales warned the public not to consume Compass brand in-shell California Walnuts described below because the product may be contaminated with Salmonella.
The following walnuts, product of USA, are affected by this alert:

Brand Product Size UPC Best Before
Compass California Walnuts (in-shell) 300 g 0 68297 20121 0 07MA2014

This product has been distributed nationally.

There have been no reported illnesses associated with the consumption of this product.

CFIA always says that, and then sometimes changes its tune.