Tag Archives: Beef

Salmonella in steak tartare in Netherlands sickens teenagers

Posted on by
1

At what point does steak tartare earn the label, ‘ready-to-eat?’

Maybe it’s a Dutch thing.

Eurosurveillance reports today about the fourth food-borne outbreak in recent years linked to consumption of steak tartare and other raw beef products in the Netherlands. In 2006 to 2008, despite intensive monitoring and control programmes, Salmonella was still found in-store in raw meats (such as steak tartare and ossenworst) intended for direct consumption.

In the latest case, between October and December 2009, 23 cases of Salmonella Typhimurium (Dutch) phage type 132, each with an identical multiple-locus variable-number tandem-repeat analysis (MLVA) profile (02-20-08-11-212), were reported from across the Netherlands. A case–control study was conducted using the food-consumption component of responses to a routine population-based survey as a control group. The mean age of cases was 17 years (median: 10 years, range: 1–68). Sixteen cases were aged 16 years or under. Raw or undercooked beef products were identified as the probable source of infection. Consumers, in particular parents of young children, should be reminded of the potential danger of eating raw or undercooked meat.

The full report is available at:
http://www.eurosurveillance.org/ViewArticle.aspx?ArticleId=19705
 

People still sick in Ontario from E. coli O157:H7 but no details; more beef recalled

Posted on by
Reply

Supposed health types in Canada still won’t reveal how many people are sick in Ontario (that’s in Canada), as part of an E. coli O157:H7 outbreak. Useful information like geographic location, date of onset and other public health basics that may limit additional illnesses is being withheld. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency will only say it “is aware of an E. coli O157:H7 illness outbreak in Ontario.”

Is this part of a new CFIA Say Nothing policy?

Last night, CFIA did tell the public not to eat Leadbetters Cowboy Beef Burgers, sold frozen in 2.27 Kg (5 lb) cartons containing 20 X 113.5gr (4oz) burgers bearing the UPC 8 73587 00003 5 and code 20169.
 

Will E. coli O26 in beef recall lead to tightened rules?

Posted on by
Reply

William Neuman of the New York Times writes this morning that for the first time in the U.S., public health officials have linked ground beef to illnesses from a rare strain of E. coli, adding fuel to an already fierce debate over expanding federal rules meant to keep the toxic bacteria out of the meat supply.

Cargill Meat Solutions recalled 8,500 pounds of hamburger on Saturday after investigators determined that it was the likely source of a bacterial strain known as E. coli O26, which had sickened three people in Maine and New York.

Under federal rules, it is illegal to sell ground beef containing a more common strain of the bacteria, E. coli O157:H7, which has been responsible for thousands of illnesses, many deaths and the recall of millions of pounds of beef over the years. But federal regulators are now considering whether to give the same illegal status to at least six other E. coli strains, including O26, which can also make people violently sick.

The meat industry has opposed such a change, saying it is not needed. Among the arguments the industry has used was one stubborn fact: no outbreak in this country from the rarer strains of E. coli had ever been definitively tied to ground beef.

James Marsden, a professor of food safety and security at Kansas State University, said about the outbreak and recall,

“It might act as a catalyst. Clearly it’s back on the front burner, that’s for sure, and clearly USDA is under pressure.”

The federal Agriculture Department has been trying for several years to decide what to do about the additional strains of E. coli. The issue now falls in the lap of the Obama administration’s new head of food safety at the department, Dr. Elisabeth Hagen, who was appointed last month.

Dr. Hagen has yet to say publicly what she plans to do. But in a written statement provided to The New York Times, she said, “In order to best prevent illnesses and deaths from dangerous E. coli in beef, our policies need to evolve to address a broader range of these pathogens, beyond E.coli O157:H7. … Our approach should ensure that public health and food safety policy keeps pace with the demonstrated advances in science and data about foodborne illness to best protect consumers.”

The agency has said that it is reluctant to make additional forms of toxic E. coli illegal in ground beef until it has developed a rapid test that can detect those strains in packing plants. Such tests are not expected to be ready until at least late next year.

The beef industry argued against declaring the additional E. coli strains illegal in an Aug. 18 letter that the American Meat Institute, a trade group, sent to the agriculture secretary, Tom Vilsack.

Giving the strains illegal status could “cause more harm than good,” the letter said, by forcing costly testing when resources would be better spent on measures to prevent bacteria from getting into the meat in the first place.

It said that measures the industry had taken to combat the most common strain of E. coli were also effective against the other strains, and it urged the agency to conduct further studies before making a decision.

James H. Hodges, the meat institute’s executive vice president, said that a single outbreak did not alter the industry’s position.

“We have never said it wasn’t a potential public health problem. The debate is what’s the appropriate regulatory program.”

And once again, J. Patrick Boyle, president of the American Meat Institute, going mano-a-mano with Stephen Colbert on issues like non-O157 STECs.

The Colbert Report Mon – Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Better Know a Lobby – American Meat Institute
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes 2010 Election Fox News

Seek and ye shall find; Cargill recalls hamburger because of E. coli O26; 3 sick in Maine and New York

Posted on by
Reply

Cargill Meat Solutions Corp., a Wyalusing, Pa. establishment, is recalling approximately 8,500 pounds of ground beef products that may be contaminated with E. coli O26, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced today.

The product subject to recall includes:

• 42-pound cases of "GROUND BEEF FINE 90/10," containing three (3) – approximately 14 pound chubs each. These products have a "use/freeze by" date of "07/01/10," and an identifying product code of "W69032."

The products subject to recall bears the establishment number "EST. 9400" inside the USDA mark of inspection. These products were produced on June 11, 2010, and were shipped to distribution centers in Connecticut and Maryland for further distribution. It is important to note that the above listed products were repackaged into consumer-size packages and sold under different retail brand names. When available, the retail distribution list(s) will be posted on FSIS’ website at

FSIS and the establishment are concerned that consumers may also freeze the product before use and that some product may still be in consumers’ freezers. FSIS strongly encourages consumers to check their freezers and immediately discard any product subject to this recall.

FSIS became aware of the problem on August 5, 2010 when the agency was notified by the Maine Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Resources of an E. coli O26 cluster of illnesses. In conjunction with the Maine Department of Health and Human Services, Maine Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Resources, the New York State Department of Health, and New York State Department of Agriculture & Markets, two (2) case-patients have been identified in Maine, as well as one (1) case-patient in New York with a rare, indistinguishable PFGE pattern as determined by PFGE subtyping in PulseNet. PulseNet is a national network of public health and food regulatory agency laboratories coordinated by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Illness onset dates range from June 24, 2010, through July 16, 2010.
 

Label old beef(s)

Posted on by
Reply

I have a friend who was a dairy farmer for decades and he refused to eat at McDonald’s.

He likes hamburgers and all, he just couldn’t stand the thought of his spent Holsteins being served as a Big Mac.

Some types in the Australian beef industry feel the same way.

The Courier Mail in Brisbane reports that backers of truth-in-labeling legislation aimed at ensuring old cow meat is clearly labeled as such are concerned industry representatives will succeed in destroying the intent of the legislation.

They are worried that a register being drawn up in response to the legislation will only make buying beef in the supermarket even more confusing for consumers.

Once passed, the terminology would apply to meat sold in supermarkets and butchers around the country.

Consultant to the truth-in-labelling legislation, Norman Hunt, said vested industry interests who did not want consumers to realize they were buying beef from old cows were to blame.

The Aus-Meat domestic retail beef register, drawn up earlier this month, is proposing to change the much-maligned "budget" label, used to describe beef from cattle 10 years old, to "economy".

Under existing law in Queensland, abattoirs must label old cow meat "manufacturing" grade but retailers are then able to market it as prime cut under the "budget" grading.

Government adviser, Red Meat Advisory Council secretary Justin Toohey said it was impossible to provide a guide to eating quality of meat to consumers based on a whole of animal approach, adding,

"The trouble is every muscle has to be graded individually for this sort of thing to be a success. An eye-fillet from an eight-tooth cow could be beautiful eating, for example."

Is grass-fed and organic beef microbiologically safer than conventional? No

Posted on by
1

There are any number of agricultural production systems out there, each with their own way of making a buck and each with a certain level of hucksterism involved. I focus on whether the system and the end product are microbiologically safe. The best producers use techniques – regardless of political ideology – that fit best in their production system in their geographic location.

A new study in Foodborne Pathogens and Disease compared bacterial contamination rates and antimicrobial resistance in bacteria from 50 grass-fed and 50 conventionally produced beef products. The researchers from Purdue University and China concluded there was no safety advantage for either group.

The abstract is below:

Contamination rates and antimicrobial resistance in bacteria isolated from “grass-fed” labeled beef products
Foodborne Pathogens and Disease
Jiayi Zhang, Samantha K. Wall, Li Xu, Paul D. Ebner
http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089/fpd.2010.0562
Abstract
Grass-fed and organic beef products make up a growing share of the beef market in the United States. While processing, animal handling, and farm management play large roles in determining the safety of final beef products, grass-fed beef products are often marketed as safer alternatives to grain-finished beef products based on the potential effects of all-forage diets on host microbiota. We conducted a series of experiments examining bacterial contamination rates in 50 beef products labeled as “grass-fed” versus 50 conventionally raised retail beef products. Coliform concentrations did not differ between conventional and grass-fed beef (conventional: 2.6 log10 CFU/mL rinsate; grass-fed: 2.7 log10 CFU/mL rinsate). The percentages of Escherichia coli positive samples did not differ between the two groups (44% vs. 44%). Enterococcus spp. were frequently isolated from both grass-fed beef products (44%) and conventional beef products (62%; p=0.07). No Salmonella or E. coli O157:H7 isolates were recovered from any of the meat samples. Enterococcus spp. isolates from conventional beef were more frequently resistant to daptomycin and linezolid (p<0.05). Resistance to some antimicrobials (e.g., chloramphenicol, erythromycin, flavomycin, penicillin, and tetracyline) was high in Enterococcus spp. isolated from both conventional and grass-fed beef. There were no differences in the percentages of antimicrobial resistant E. coli isolates between the two groups. Taken together, these data indicate that there are no clear food safety advantages to grass-fed beef products over conventional beef products.
 

Carrefour et Casino recall beef for E. coli O157

Posted on by
Reply

Albert Amgar provided this story from Agence France-Presse about an E. coli O157:H7 beef recall, Nikki Marcotte translated, Amy Hubbell proofed and I embellished.

At least this French company is suggesting a temperature, but doesn’t say how that is to accomplished in a hamburger patty. And while thorough cooking to the appropriate temperature (the. U.S. says 160) will destroy the bad bugs, cross-contamination in any kitchen – home, food service, retail – is a huge issue and difficult to control. Here’s the story.

It was announced Friday that the Covial company, which specializes in ground and vacuum-packed beef, is recalling batches of hamburger and fresh ground beef sold in Carrefour et Casino stores under their own label due to a risk of food poisoning.

The products have been removed from the shelves; consumers have been asked not to eat these products in which the bacteria E. Coli O157:H7 was detected during a self-check, said Covial in a statement. To date, no consumer complaints have been reported, the statement said.

The recall affects 3.8 tons of products that have been sold in the Carrefour stores, Carrefour Market, Carrefour City, Carrefour Contact, Shopi, 8 À Huit, Marché Plus, Géant Casino and Casino supermarkets, according to the source.

The batches bear the following inspection stamp: FR 15 014 032 CE. The products’ expiration dates are July 6th and 7th for the Carrefour batches and July 7th for the Casino batches.

Those affected, for Carrefour, are the Aquitaine, Auvergne, Bourgogne, Centre, Franche-Comté, Haut-Rhin, Languedoc-Roussillon, Limousin, Midi-Pyrénées, Poitou-Charentes et Rhône-Alpes regions. For Casino, the center and the southwest quarter of the country are concerned.

Thoroughly cooking the hamburgers helps prevent the consequences of a contamination of this type, the bacteria is destroyed at 65°C (149 F). The E. coli O157:H7 bacteria can cause symptoms such as gastroenteritis, sometimes accompanied by a fever, within 10 days following the consumption of the contaminated hamburgers.

In rare cases, poisoning can be followed by severe kidney complications in children and in the elderly. Consumers can call 0805 803 134 (free from a land line).
 

Whole Foods still sucks at food safety

Posted on by
2

Whole Foods sucks at food safety. And if they are going to recycle recipes, I’m going to recycle criticism.

With the July 4 holiday on the way, Whole Foods is once again promoting its recipe for the self-proclaimed perfect burger, which says,

“Grill meat to desired doneness; about 4 to 6 minutes per side over a medium hot fire. Be careful not to overcook, which will dry out the meat. If you’re a cheeseburger fan, add the cheese as soon as you flip to the second side.”

This is nonsense. Color is a lousy indicator of food safety and I guess “desired doneness” is about freedom of choice. But if you don’t want to make your kids or guests barf, use a tip-sensitive digital meat thermometer, and stick it in.
 

Lowering loads: food safety starts on the farm

Posted on by
Reply

Every time some government type says there are more cases of E. coli O157:H7 and other dangerous bacteria in the summertime because people barbeque more, I cringe. It’s one of those blame-the-consumer comments when the reality is more complicated. 

Most food safety interventions are designed to reduce or eliminate pathogen loads – to lower the number of harmful bugs from farm-to-fork. A piece of highly-contaminated meat can wreck cross-contamination havoc in a food service or home kitchen.

Elizabeth Weise writes in USA Today today that animals carry higher levels of E. coli O157:H7 and friends during the summer months, and summarizes efforts to lower bacterial loads on animals entering slaughter plants.

Jerold Mande, USDA deputy undersecretary for food safety, said last month,

"To take the next big step forward on food safety, we need to do more to have fewer pathogens on food animals when they arrive at the slaughterhouse gate.”

Jim Marsden of Kansas State University said that microbiologically, the biggest "bang for the buck" is cleaning the bacteria off the hide or the carcass to keep it from coming into contact with the meat.

Weise writes that a number of possible interventions are in the works. Each, it is hoped, might take down the incidence of E. coli O157:H7 by a factor of 100. Below is the edited list.

Vaccines: Gut warfare

Probably the most hopeful are vaccines that lower the amount of O157:H7 in cattle’s guts. Two are furthest along, one from a Minnesota company called Epitopix and one by a Canadian company called Bioniche Life Sciences. Epitopix’s vaccine has received preliminary approval from the USDA and is being tested in the USA. Bioniche’s vaccine was approved in Canada last year and is in the approval process in the USA. In addition, scientists at the USDA’s National Animal Disease Center in Ames, Iowa, have developed two more vaccines.

Field trials of the Epitopix vaccine showed that 86% of vaccinated cattle stopped shedding O157:H7 bacteria in their feces. Of those that still were shedding bacteria, there was a 98% reduction in the amount, says Daniel Thomson (left, photo from USA Today), a veterinarian and professor of Production Medicine at Kansas State University in Manhattan, Kan., who has studied the effectiveness of vaccine for the company.

The issue for cattlemen will be the costs of the two or three shots necessary to create immunity and the wear and tear on the cattle caused by bringing them in to be vaccinated. Going through the chute that holds them still while they’re given the shot, necessary to safeguard workers, can cause some cattle to become agitated.

Phages: A spray of bacteria fighters

Cattle walking through a car-wash-like spray of bacteria-eating viruses called phages sounds more science fiction than feedlot, but it’s actually in use across the USA. In cattle, a phage that is specific to E. coli O157:H7 is sprayed on the animals one to four hours before they’re slaughtered. "They like to have them soak," says Dan Schaefer, director of beef research and development at in Wichita. Cargill is testing the spray at one of its plants.

Probiotics: ‘Exclusion’ cultures

Basically these are bacterial cultures much like those in yogurt, given to cattle in their feed. They’re called "competitive exclusion" cultures because they out-compete the bad bacteria and exclude them in the animals’ guts. Michael Doyle, director of the Center for Food Safety at the University of Georgia in Griffin, spent years investigating them.

One for E. coli O157:H7 "worked really well for a while and then it stopped working for a while," he says. Doses required are often higher than those claimed by the companies that sell them, he says. Currently these aren’t approved by USDA or FDA as E. coli reduction methods, so the companies that market them can’t make any specific claims for them.

Sodium chlorate: A ‘suicide pill’

This chemical is used in part to do environmentally safe paper bleaching. But administered in extremely small amounts, it also plays a deadly trick on E. coli O157:H7 and salmonella.

In the oxygen-free environment of a cow’s gut, these bacteria are able to obtain energy from nitrogen. But they can’t tell the difference between nitrogen and chlorate, so if there’s chlorate present, they try to use that. This turns the chlorate into bleach, killing the bacteria from the inside without harming the animal.

Grain vs. high-quality hay

Research in Texas, Kansas and Idaho has shown that switching cattle from grain to a more expensive diet of high quality hay before slaughter may lower E. coli O157:H7 rates, though the findings have not always been consistent.

From an epidemiologic standpoint, it’s clear that these pre-slaughter interventions lower the E. coli O157:H7 burden in the cattle, says Guy Loneragan, a professor of animal science and expert in O157:H7 in cattle at West Texas A&M University in Canyon, Texas.

The question is whether investing money on the ranch and feedlot will save money at the packing plant.

16 hospitalized and 2 deaths now linked to ground beef recall

Posted on by
Reply

Following Saturday’s FSIS announcement of Fairbank Farms’ ground beef recall, a CDC spokesperson has been cited as saying that the cluster of illnesses has been expanded to 28. USA Today reports that CDCs Lola Scott Russel released information this afternoon that 16 of the ill have been hospitalized an additional death has been linked to the outbreak.

This week’s food safety infosheet focuses on the outbreak and recall.

Food Safety Infosheet Highlights:
–  Fairbank Farms recalls over 500,000 lbs of ground beef in CT, MD, VA, NC, MA, NY, NJ and PA; NH and NY deaths linked to the beef, at least 26 others ill.
– The meat juices created from thawing a frozen product like ground beef can transfer pathogens to other foods.
– Never place cooked hamburger patties on the unwashed plate that held raw patties; wash hands, counters, and utensils (like forks and spatulas) with hot soapy water after they touch raw meat.
– For a full list of recalled products, visit the FSIS release: http://tinyurl.com/yzemas7