PEI church dinner suspect as 160 sickened

At least 160 people became ill following a weekend church supper in Malpeque, Prince Edward Island (that’s in Canada).

The Charlottetown Guardian reports the province’s Health Department must wait "several days” before receiving lab results to help pinpoint the exact cause.

Deputy chief public health officer Dr. Lamont Sweet says all indications are the cause of the wide spread illness was foodborne. However, the ongoing investigation has yet to determine if a virus or bacteria is responsible.

Sweet says the illnesses, mainly diarrhea but also some cases of abdominal pain and nausea, appear linked to the 500 meals that were sold Saturday at Princetown United Church, most as takeout dinners. Many were ill for only a few hours but others reported being sick for 24 hours or longer, he said.

If this outbreak of illness proves to be food-borne, this will mark only the third time in the past 22 years that community meals have resulted in food-borne illness on P.E.I.

Any remaining food purchased from the church on the weekend should be tossed out, he added.

The meal was roast beef, vegetables, rolls and desserts. A portion of the meal was prepared on site and some of the items, including desserts, were brought into the venue.

Cheerleaders and apologists; beef folks need neither

The last thing the beef industry needs right now is apologists and cheerleaders.

Blaming consumers doesn’t help much either.

Alexander Hrycko wrote the Toronto Star about the creepy crawly recall of beef produced in Saskatchewan because of E. coli O157:H7 to say that “once again the beef industry in Canada is being unfairly targeted.

“Over the past 10 years, hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent by the beef industry on food safety and the introduction of cleaner processing methods. The results speak for themselves as data from the CDC reveal that in North America, E. coli O157:H7 infections as a result of ground beef have declined 72 per cent from 2000 to 2010 … if consumers were to cook their beef thoroughly then there would be no risk of infection."

Since this Canadian author quotes U.S. statistics (oh, the Alanis irony) he should know the U.S. Department of Agriculture decided in 1994 to stop blaming consumers for E. coli O157:H7 infections; cooking beef thoroughly means using a tip-sensitive digital thermometer; and exquisite care is required to minimize cross-contamination.

The author concludes that “another article instilling fear into consumers is not what the fragile Canadian beef industry needs at this time. This is a fight that the beef-processing industry cannot win despite the fact it continues to better its effort at keeping consumers safe.”

Making people barf is bad for business. Killing them is worse.

Variable record-keeping, compliance; inconsistent enforcement; salmonella in Hanaford beef trim

The Portland Press Herald ran a two-part series on the Salmonella Typhimurium in ground beef outbreak linked to Hannaford grocery stores in Maine that sickened at least 20 people. Excerpts below:

On the night before Halloween, Danielle Wadsworth’s boyfriend made tacos for dinner at her home in Lewiston. A week later, she was hooked up to two intravenous drips at Central Maine Medical Center as doctors debated whether she needed a blood transfusion.

Wadsworth, an otherwise healthy 31-year-old woman, was one of 20 people known to have been infected with a rare antibiotic-resistant strain of salmonella linked to ground beef sold at Hannaford stores in seven states last fall.

Severe stomach pain and near-constant diarrhea containing blood concerned Wadsworth enough to seek medical treatment. She was hospitalized for three days and missed two weeks of work.

"I wouldn’t even wish it on my worst enemy," said Wadsworth, who’s pursuing a claim against Hannaford supermarkets.

Federal and state investigators traced the "genetic fingerprint" of the salmonella to ground beef sold at Hannaford, prompting the Scarborough-based grocery chain to pull 17,000 pounds of meat from its shelves on Dec. 15, 2011, in the first health-related recall of a store-brand product in its 129-year history.

Investigators were never able to identify the source — and possibly prevent more consumers from getting sick — because of Hannaford’s record keeping, even though it exceeded federal requirements. However, Hannaford’s records, like most retailers, still fell short of USDA recommendations.

The first hint at Hannaford that something was wrong came in mid-December, when four investigators from the USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service showed up at Hannaford’s South Portland and Schodack, N.Y., distribution centers and a handful of Hannaford stores.

Without telling the company why, they collected copies of inventory records and grinding logs, according to Mike Norton, Hannaford’s director of corporate communications. Hannaford employees were only told it was part of a foodborne illness investigation, one of 17 the agency conducted in 2011.

On the morning of Dec. 15, Norton said, Hannaford’s director of food safety, Larry Kohl, called company executives to a noon meeting at the corporate office on Pleasant Hill Road in Scarborough. Federal food inspectors, working with public health officials, had made a connection between Hannaford’s beef and a salmonella outbreak, he explained at the meeting. They’d hear more later that day, Kohl told the group.

The federal agents told company officials that a national database kept by the CDC had connected 14 people from seven states infected with the same strain of salmonella. Through interviews with the patients, public health officials found that 10 of them had eaten ground beef purchased at Hannaford. (The number of people known to have become sick later rose to 20, with 12 reporting having eaten Hannaford beef in the week before their symptoms appeared.)

Since the USDA doesn’t have the authority to require a recall, it was up to company officials to decide what to do. At that meeting, they decided to recall all store-brand ground beef with a sell-by date of Dec. 17 or earlier — meaning anything that was put on the shelves on Dec. 15 or before.

That set off a chain of events, starting with a message that appeared at 7:45 p.m. on monitors at store registers throughout the chain, telling clerks to alert on-duty managers to immediately check their computers for an important announcement.

Their inboxes contained a list of 10 varieties of ground beef carrying the Hannaford, Taste of Inspirations and Nature’s Place labels that had to be removed from the shelves within an hour.

Meanwhile, the corporate communications staff was putting together a press release that was sent out around 11 p.m. to 675 media outlets and later emailed to 70,000 customers.

The major roadblock in the USDA’s investigation, according to the agency, was the lack of information about ground beef that’s made from "trim," the scraps of meat left over when steaks and roasts are cut in stores from larger slabs.

About 20 percent of Hannaford’s ground beef packages are made from trim. The rest comes to the company in tubes of coarsely ground meat that’s ground again in stores and packaged.

Every morning, Hannaford meat clerks grind beef with varying percentages of fat, depending on what’s needed in their store that day. After every grind, they write down information about the meat on a paper log that’s kept near the grinder — fat content, the number of packages made and the sell-by date.

Clerks also write down the lot numbers for each box of tube meat but not the primal cuts whose trim was used for ground beef.

Complicating their ability to trace the source of any tainted beef, the stores didn’t clean equipment between grinding the tube meat and grinding the trim, which created an opportunity for cross-contamination, company officials admit.

The USDA called those practices "high-risk" and pointed to them as the reason its investigation was unsuccessful.

Yet, there are no USDA regulations that require retailers to clean equipment between grinding beef from different companies, or to keep grinding logs at all.

The USDA only requires that meat retailers keep track of what suppliers they use, how much meat they receive and when it arrives.

Still, grocers are aware that the agency recommends a much higher level of transparency, said Daniel Engeljohn, an assistant administrator for the USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service.

He said the Hannaford case proves that they’re choosing not to listen.

"We’ve publicly been making statements and developing best practices for retail since at least 2007," Engeljohn said. "It’s evidence that, industry-wide, there has not been good adoption of best practices."

Norton said halting the use of trim was a stopgap measure to simplify Hannaford’s grinding practices and records right away. He said stores resumed grinding trim in the first week of February, but they now clean equipment before and after those grinds and record the source of all cuts of meat used.

Those additional steps have tacked on between one and two hours of work for an employee in every meat department every day, said Norton.

Retailers’ approach to record keeping varies. Some keep detailed records, most don’t. But that could change under a proposed rule that would require retailers to keep detailed grinding logs.

A three-sentence summary of the proposed rule released last month said it would require retailers to record "all source materials" going into ground beef.

Norton said Hannaford hopes the USDA will start holding all meat retailers to that standard and supports the agency’s effort to upgrade record-keeping rules.

At Pat’s Meat Market in Portland, butcher Nick Vacchiano grinds meat every two hours using only trim from cuts of beef sourced from three suppliers in the western United States.

No beef is ground before it gets to the store, and no logs are kept of what goes into the grinder. Vacchiano, whose father owns the Stevens Avenue market, said the operation is so small, there’s no need for extensive records.

"We’re watching everything that goes on," he said.

Blame the consumer: while congratulating itself beef industry takes shot at consumers

Is you is, or is you ain’t, my constituency?

The U.S. beef industry said last week beef is safer than it was 10 years ago, and cited survey data to show consumers agreed.

Surveys still suck.

“When asked whether someone is more likely to get sick from foodborne bacteria eating at home or at a restaurant, 65 percent of consumers answered “at a restaurant.” However, 72 percent of the experts attending the summit answered “at home.”

“In fact, statistics back up the experts’ opinion showing between 60 percent and 70 percent of foodborne illnesses occur at home.”

Got a reference for that? Or were the press release authors too busy inserting “dick fingers” and statements of nonsense like, “In fact.”

“In fact, it isn’t beef safety consumers are concerned about. When asked which fresh food they might buy in the supermarket was their biggest safety concern, 48 percent of consumers answered “Fish and Seafood.” Only 10 percent said beef was their biggest safety concern.”

Beef safety may have improved, but industry types can’t help but continue to cast stones. Beef types have lots to concern themselves with – non-O157 shiga-toxin producing E. coli, pink slime, cross-contamination, welfare and workplace issues — instead of wasting rhetorical energy about who’s to blame for foodborne illness.

It’s called playing to your constituency

Jacob, C.J. and Powell, D.A. 2009. Where does foodborne illness happen—in the home, at foodservice, or elsewhere—and does it matter? Foodborne Pathogens and Disease, 6(9): 1121-1123.?http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089/fpd.2008.0256
Foodservice professionals, politicians, and the media are often cited making claims as to which locations most often expose consumers to foodborne pathogens. Many times, it is implied that most foodborne illnesses originate from food consumed where dishes are prepared to order, such as restaurants or in private homes. The manner in which the question is posed and answered frequently reveals a speculative bias that either favors homemade or foodservice meals as the most common source of foodborne pathogens. Many answers have little or no scientific grounding, while others use data compiled by passive surveillance systems. Current surveillance systems focus on the place where food is consumed rather than the point where food is contaminated. Rather than focusing on the location of consumption—and blaming consumers and others—analysis of the steps leading to foodborne illness should center on the causes of contamination in a complex farm-to-fork food safety system.

1 sick with E. coli O157:H7; Ottawa supermarket recalls beef

At least one person is sick, leading to a recall of finely ground beef sold at New Middleast Supermarket, Ottawa (that’s in Canada).

The affected ground beef is a finely ground raw beef known to be used for Kebbeh. This product was sold on December 28 and 29, 2011 (darn timely recall) from the New Middleast Supermarket, 1755 Bank Street, Ottawa, ON. This product was likely served from the fresh meat counter in plastic bags wrapped with paper. The packages may not bear a label identifying store name and other information. Consumers are advised to contact the retailer if you are unsure as to whether you have the affected beef product stored in your home freezer.

1 sick with E. coli O157:H7; Ottawa supermarket recalls beef

At least one person is sick, leading to a recall of finely ground beef sold at New Middleast Supermarket, Ottawa (that’s in Canada)

The affected ground beef is a finely ground raw beef known to be used for Kebbeh. This product was sold on December 28 and 29, 2011 (darn timely recall( from the New Middleast Supermarket, 1755 Bank Street, Ottawa, ON. This product was likely served from the fresh meat counter in plastic bags wrapped with paper. The packages may not bear a label identifying store name and other information. Consumers are advised to contact the retailer if you are unsure as to whether you have the affected beef product stored in your home freezer.

Don’t go blaming no Spanish beef, wipe that smirk off your face; Contador stripped of 2010 Tour de France title, banned 2 years

Perpetually smirking Alberto Contador has been stripped of his 2010 Tour de France victory and banned from cycling for two years after the sport’s highest court found the Spanish cyclist guilty of doping.

The Court of Arbitration for Sport suspended the three-time Tour champion after rejecting his claim that his positive test for clenbuterol was caused by eating contaminated meat.

CAS backdated Contador’s ban and he is eligible to return to competition on Aug. 6.

Contador blamed steak bought from a Basque producer for his high reading of clenbuterol, which is sometimes used by farmers to fatten up their livestock.

CAS said both the meat contamination theory and a blood transfusion scenario for the positive test were “possible” but “equally unlikely.”

“The Panel found that there were no established facts that would elevate the possibility of meat contamination to an event that could have occurred on a balance of probabilities,” CAS said. “Unlike certain other countries, notably outside Europe, Spain is not known to have a contamination problem with clenbuterol in meat. Furthermore, no other cases of athletes having tested positive to clenbuterol allegedly in connection with the consumption of Spanish meat are known.”

Andy Schleck of Luxembourg, who finished second at the 2010 Tour, stands to be elevated to victory.

Is USDA moving too slow in salmonella probe?

First the company plays the Pinto defense – we meet all government standards – and now the local paper lashes out at government incompetence.

What’s missing is any concern for people sickened by salmonella-in-beef sold by Hannaford and the responsibility any retailer has to provide safe food.

Earlier this week, Department of Agriculture investigators said they were hampered by lousy records and procedures at retailer Hannaford.

The Portland Press Herald says today the regulatory response to the outbreak, “looks like a horse and buggy operation. … federal authorities have not been able to shed much light on what happened before the meat was sold, with one official blaming the supermarket chain’s practice of mixing beef from different sources when it grinds it into hamburger.”

The editorial rightly says that if the mixing practice is risky, it should be prevented everywhere and that outbreaks require “thorough and transparent investigations and timely communication with the public.” But it also states that because meat is likely to cross state lines multiple times before it is put on a dinner table, regulating it is a federal responsibility.

Regulating is one aspect of responsibility. But the ultimate responsibility for safe food lies with producers and retailers and whoever is making the profit from the sale of food.

I look forward to more transparent and public communications from Hannaford.

16 sick from Salmonella Typhimurium in ground beef from Hannaford Supermarkets; CDC weighs in

CDC is collaborating with public health officials in several states and the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (USDA-FSIS) to investigate a multistate outbreak of Salmonella Typhimurium infections linked to eating ground beef purchased from Hannaford Supermarkets.

Representatives from Hannaford have been cooperating with public health officials throughout the investigation. Public health investigators are using DNA "fingerprints" of Salmonella bacteria obtained through diagnostic testing with pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE) to identify cases of illness that may be part of this outbreak. Investigators are using data from PulseNet, the national subtyping network made up of state and local public health laboratories and federal food regulatory laboratories that performs molecular surveillance of foodborne infections.

Preliminary testing shows that the outbreak strain of Salmonella Typhimurium is resistant to several commonly prescribed antibiotics. This antibiotic resistance may be associated with an increase in the risk of hospitalization or possible treatment failure in infected individuals.

A total of 16 persons infected with the outbreak strain of Salmonella Typhimurium have been reported from 7 states. The number of ill persons identified in each state is as follows: HI (1), KY (1), MA (1), ME (4), NH (4), NY (4), and VT (1). Among persons for whom information is available, illnesses began on or after October 8, 2011. Ill persons range in age from 1 year to 79 years old, with a median age of 45 years old. Fifty percent are male. Among the 13 ill persons with available information, 7 (54%) have been hospitalized. No deaths have been reported.

Among 16 ill persons for whom information is available, 11 (69%) reported consuming ground beef in the week before their illness began. Among the 11 cases who reported consuming ground beef, 10 (91%) reported purchasing ground beef from Hannaford stores. For ill persons for whom information is available, reported purchase dates range from October 12, 2011 to November 20, 2011.

On December 15, 2011, Hannaford, a Scarborough, Maine-based grocery chain, recalled an undetermined amount of fresh ground beef products that bear sell-by dates of December 17, 2011 or earlier.

Pennsylvania man charged with eating raw beef off Walmart shelf, enters mugshot-hall-of-fame

A Carlisle, Penn., man faces felony charges after police said he was seen eating raw meat from off of the shelf of the Carlisle Walmart Monday afternoon.

Carlisle police told The Sentinel an employee saw Scott T. Shover, 53 (right, exactly as shown), opening packages of raw ground beef and raw stew beef in the store and eating some of it at 2:40 p.m. Shover then placed the opened packages back on the shelf to be sold and never paid for them, according to police.

The total loss of meat was valued at $24.53, police said.

The potential for foodborne illness? Free.