food poisoning

Over the weekend, the New York Times reported on the unfortunate story of a 22 year-old woman who became paralyzed due to a reaction to E.coli that she contracted from a hamburger.  Even though preventable food-borne illnesses like this one continue to occur, not enough is being done to ensure safe food for consumers.

In 2008, USDA tested ground beef at processing facilities it regulates and found deadly E. coli contamination 54 times.  USDA already found it 31 times this year. But what happened after that? You might assume that the agency tried to find all the product in those batches that were tested so that it could be removed from store shelves before it could harm the public. That’s where you’d be wrong.

We don’t know exactly what happens because USDA refuses to explain it to the public and has blocked our attempts to use the Freedom of Information Act to determine it by looking at their records.  Just last week, USDA officials reneged on their promise for a 2009 meeting to explain exactly what actions the government takes when it finds the deadly E. coli  O157:H7 pathogen in products that have left meat plants. 

What we do know is that most testing is done at the smallest plants, so positive tests often reveal only the tips of the iceberg of how much product might be involved, especially because these small plants often buy scraps of beef from other larger companies to process into ground beef.  After government health departments link illnesses to particular product, all efforts are made to identify the rest of the “iceberg” and recall as much contaminated product as possible.  But, until someone gets sick, even confirmed E. coli 0157:H7 tests in ground beef, lead to a much milder response by USDA. If there are no illnesses and USDA has only a test showing contamination, it will check company paperwork at the slaughterhouses that supplied the beef to the processor and will likely collect one or more samples of current production to see if it is contaminated.  This will indicate nothing about the specific production lot from which the positive test came and will do nothing to alert consumers to the potentially deadly beef that is still in the market, if not already in their freezers.

How many more lives have to be sacrificed before changes are made in the food safety system?  Real action must be taken to prevent more senseless tragedies like this one from occurring. USDA needs to update their E. coli testing and response policies. 

– Felicia Nestor

The Food Safety Enhancement Act (H.R. 2749) passed last week in the U.S. House of Representatives  by a vote of 283-142. 

The bill gives the U.S. Food and Drug Administration new mandates and authority to regulate food safety of the 80% of the food supply that falls under its jurisdiction.  It addresses some of the gaping loopholes in the food safety program at FDA that were tragically exposed by a series of food borne illness outbreaks in recent years that sickened and even killed U.S. consumers.  On balance, the bill is a positive first step to correcting the deficiencies at FDA, but there are still some issues that need to be addressed as the debate moves over to the Senate. Read more about the bill.

We love The Onion.* Don’t you? Does anyone not love The Onion?

Check out their latest take on the food safety scandals that have been racking our nation. Of course, Salmonella is no joke, and we definitely don’t want to make light of the suffering of those who’ve been affected or lost loved ones to the outbreak. But when it comes to the almost Kafkaesque level of absurdity that seems to pervade our regulatory system, The Onion just seems to have it so right.

I mean, really… ’Nella Wafers?  Too good.

*In case you've never read The Onion, it's a humor newspaper that publishes entirely fictional, satirical articles.

The Food and Drug Administration is sadly becoming notorious for sloppy work. Not only has it failed to adequately protect consumers from recent food safety fiascos, it now seems to be allowing consumption of a well-known toxin… mercury.

First, FDA ignored the presence of mercury in high fructose corn syrup, and decided to forego further testing – while neglecting to make consumers aware of the problem. Now, FDA has added fuel to the fire by releasing a flawed report regarding mercury in fish that serves as yet another example of a lack of concern for the health and wellbeing of the U.S. public. Once again, FDA is dragging its feet on what is a critical consumer safety issue.

Specifically, this report gives off the highly improbable impression that the benefits that come from eating fish, specifically from omega-3s, somehow cancel out the risks from ingesting mercury – even for pregnant women and children. These claims now have the Environmental Protection Agency, along with a variety of consumer groups like ours, in an uproar, and with good reason.

The report itself is a scientifically flawed mess, as we at Food & Water Watch made sure to mention in a letter to FDA's Acting Commissioner of Food and Drugs, Frank Torti. One notable problem is that the report groups all fish together. This is highly problematic as various fish have different average concentrations of both omega-3s and mercury, making the supposedly "positive" net effects different for every fish. FDA did not take the time to generate a meaningful report, hoping instead that the existing report’s content would simply be accepted as credible without questions.

The implications of this report could go beyond human health. Specifically, it may provide cover for industrial fish farms to hide behind, as the pollution from some of these farms may cause mercury contamination in surrounding sediments and wild-caught fish. Should this mercury suddenly be considered harmless based on a faulty FDA report, this gives fish farms little incentive to improve their practices and limit pollution. In addition, it gives off the general impression that fish farms are far more benign than they actually may be.

If this report goes unchallenged, consumers are likely to ingest fish containing more mercury than is acceptable, under the mistaken belief that it is safe to do so. The problems mentioned here are just a few of the several that FWW found in the report.  We urge FDA to conduct a more thorough analysis for the sake of the consumers that they claim to serve, rather than rest on their (rather questionable) laurels. 

-Sofía Baliño

At today’s hearing in the House Energy and Commerce Committee over the contaminated peanut scandal, Peanut Corp. of America owner Stewart Parnell refused to answer any questions, taking the fifth even when asked whether he’d eat his own company’s products. As reported in the New York Times, Rep. Greg Walden of Oregon held up a jar of contaminated snacks, asking Parnell and the plant’s manager, Sammy Lightsey, “Would either of you be willing to take the lid off and eat any of these products?” Both Parnell and Lightsey declined to answer, and soon after were dismissed and left the courtroom. In an email, sent after the company was identified as the source of the illness, Parnell said that the plant needed to “turn the raw peanuts on the floor into money.” Sorry, Stewart—turns out there is no magic trick for turning Salmonella into money. Just dire consequences and a bunch of hard questions. 

– Erica Schuetz

PB&J anyone? At this particular moment, you might hesitate to consume a snack of this sort. And who could blame you?  No, the blame is definitely well-deserved somewhere else.

Considering peanut butter's staple-status in most American households and its highly popular use in packaged foods, the latest salmonella outbreak is especially concerning.  Since January 10th and until today, the peanut related recalls just keep on coming... From cookies to health bars to dog treats, and from vending machines to supermarkets to natural food stores, the tainted peanut butter has spread indiscriminately to hundreds of products throughout the country.

Just as disturbing as the invasive bacteria itself is the fact that it keeps coming back. This is actually the second major peanut butter outbreak in less than two years. Peter Pan peanut butter contaminated with salmonella in late 2006 and early 2007 sickened at least 628 people in 47 states.  It would be reasonable to assume that some lessons could have been learned along the way, lessons that could have lead to proactive prevention of another salmonella outbreak.  Well, apparently not – because here we go again. The current outbreak involving products from the Peanut Corporation of America has caused almost 500 cases of illness and possibly 6 deaths so far.

Despite their frequency, these outbreaks aren't merely inconvenient incidents that we should learn to get used to. They reveal unacceptable negligence by food safety authorities and the inability to do their job of protecting consumers.

This specific instance of salmonella most likely originated in the production plant, which logically leads to questions about the rate of inspection in the facilities involved.  The Peanut Corporation of America was last inspected by the state of Georgia in July of 2008 but even though they are public records, the inspection results have not been released.* The Food and Drug Administration didn't even know there was a problem until people got sick. In fact, FDA didn't issue a recall notice until 4 days after King Nut announced a recall of its peanut butter, knowingly putting consumers at risk.

Although one of the main pillars of FDA's Food Protection Plan is preventing food borne illness, it is more obvious than ever that the agency has a long way to go before coming close to that goal. In order to get there, regulatory controls put directly in the production process and increased inspections are necessary. We can't afford to gamble with the safety of our food. Consumer health must be the first priority of FDA – after all, isn't that precisely the reason it exists?

- Elissar Khalek

See the complete list of recalled products.

Sign up to stay informed.

*Inspection results were released on February 5th.

Whole Foods proudly asserts that it is “highly selective about what [it] sell[s], dedicated to stringent Quality Standards, and committed to sustainable agriculture.” Consumers have responded to these promises of quality, as the chain has experienced tremendous growth in the last couple of years.  Which is why so many consumers, who choose to pay more at Whole Foods based on its promises of quality, were troubled to find out that that the company had to recall ground beef from its stores on August 8th.

The decision to pull the beef from the stores was made after learning that seven people infected with E. coli 0157:H7 had recently purchased ground beef from Whole Foods. How did this happen given the market’s commitment to safety and health? In all fairness, it wasn’t entirely Whole Foods’ fault. The meat was from Coleman Natural Foods, which produces natural and organic products that are supposed to meet the high standards at Whole Foods. However, what Whole Foods didn’t know is that Coleman was getting some of its meat processed at Nebraska Beef, a company that has a long history of safety violations.

In the past two months alone, E. coli contamination has led to two large recalls from Nebraska Beef. Last month, over 5 million pounds of ground beef were recalled, and this month’s recall totals 1.2 million pounds. Sadly, these types of problems are nothing new. Back in 2003, USDA tried to shut down the plant, citing unsanitary conditions. But Nebraska Beef filed a lawsuit and USDA backed down, agreeing to simply increase monitoring. However, since then there have been numerous food borne illness outbreaks traced to the company, including these most recent two, which show that whatever system is in place to regulate contaminants is inadequate.

The fact that Whole Foods didn’t know that it was selling meat processed by Nebraska Beef undercuts the claims about their stringent standards. 

Whole Foods should be responsible for knowing where the products they sell were processed and making sure they buy from plants with good food safety practices.  And the USDA needs to crack down on plants with repeated food safety problems. 

Let’s hope that Whole Foods learned a lesson about checking out their suppliers.  And in the meantime, remember that there are lots of places you can find healthy and sustainable food.  Check out the Eat Well Guide to find them.

Is it in the tomatoes? The peppers? Perhaps the cilantro? Apparently, your guess of a random salsa ingredient may be as good as the FDA’s. Unfortunately, this is no game. Over 1000 cases of the recent salmonella strain have been reported while the hunt for the source continues.

The lack of progress and the inability to contain the spread of this bacterium for over a month now reveals the frightening state of the American food industry’s procedures and the Federal Government's food inspection system.  Instead of requesting the additional funds needed to hire more FDA food inspectors, Secretary of Health and Human Services Michael Leavitt would like to turn more of the inspection responsibilities over to the industry so that it can police itself.

This far-reaching problem not only threatens the health of citizens but that of the entire nation. It has resulted in significant losses to the economy. With the sinking of tomato sales, many farmers even resorted to allowing their crops to rot in order to save the money they would have otherwise spent in harvesting them for probably nothing.

''What Hurricane Katrina was to FEMA, this salmonella outbreak is going to be to the FDA,'' said one tomato grower.

Deplorably, this outbreak isn’t surprising. According to the CDC, illnesses caused by tainted food affect close to a quarter of the country’s population each year. Sick to your stomach yet?

This recent scare only further implicates the obvious and urgent need for action in order to improve the systems that are supposed to ensure our food’s safety. Read more about the issue here.

Have you cut tomatoes and peppers from your diet? Personally, I've been buying only local peppers and cherry or grape tomatoes. I look forward to a time where we can once again enjoy salsa without thinking about this nasty little thing called salmonella. Each of us can help bring that day closer: tell the FDA that it's long overdue for a system makeover.

email   

It’s almost time to pull out the lawn chairs, open the sparklers, and put on your red, white and blue.  Whether your plans for the Fourth of July are to head to the beach, attend a parade, or simply relax with friends and family, chances are food and drink will be involved.  Here are some suggestions on which products to pick and which to avoid in order to have a safe and healthy holiday.

Let’s start with the meat. According to the Food Safety and Inspection Service of the USDA, summer is the prime time for foodborne illnesses.  But with proper precaution, you can keep your guests from getting sick. Always make sure to cook meats thoroughly (160° on the inside, even steak – see table below and previous entry) and double-check the expiration date on the package. Paying careful attention to the expiration date is especially important because some processors use carbon monoxide gas to keep meat looking red and fresh even if it is several days past its prime. Another thing to look out for is meat marked with the irradiation symbol . Some stores – like Wegmans – promote irradiation as a solution to prevent contamination. But in truth, irradiation does not miraculously purge the product of any and all harmful elements, transforming that steak or patty to sushi-grade meat. In fact, irradiation destroys many vital nutrients and vitamins, and consuming irradiated food may cause immune system failures, tumors and a host of other problems. In addition, the process of irradiation often creates a nasty texture, smell, and taste.

For those of you who plan to serve up seafood, there are a number of things for you to consider as well. Much of the seafood available in the United States is imported from foreign, industrial aquaculture farms.  Bacteria, viruses and parasites thrive in the unsanitary conditions that often characterize these farms, such that some imported fish have been described as “filthy” by inspectors, with Salmonella and other contaminants not uncommon.  Where chemicals and antibiotics (many of which have been outlawed in the United States) are applied in an attempt to eliminate the disease-causing agents, harmful residues can accumulate in the flesh. To protect yourself and your guests, ask your grocers where the product is from and how it was produced. Generally, the best bet is to opt for domestic, wild fish.  A particularly healthy and sustainable option is U.S. troll-caught Mahi Mahi.  If you are set on having salmon, choose U.S. wild Pacific salmon over Atlantic/farmed salmon.  Domestic halibut, whiting, and tilapia are also good choices.  If shellfish is on your menu, again stick to products from the United States.

Now undoubtedly you will need something to drink. But pass up the bottled water and instead treat your guests to tap water (if you will not be near a tap, fill up a cooler before you leave and take it with you).  Bottled water is not safer than tap water; in fact, tap water is better regulated and tested more frequently.  True, there may be impurities and the mineral content may not be to your liking, but these issues can be easily fixed with a simple filter.  Bottled water creates unnecessary garbage and pollution, plus it is expensive (it costs more per unit volume than gas).  So save your money or spend it instead on that fancy cake you’ve been eying.

So remember, when it comes to food, the bottom line is to cook meats and eggs to appropriate temperatures and choose local, sustainably-produced products.  Not only will you be supporting local producers, you will also be protecting your safety and the environment.  For resources and more information, consult the Eat Well Guide. And check out our water filtration guide to learn how to serve the best water in town, straight from your tap.
Have a good Fourth!

You may have read about the meat industry’s fun new practice of using carbon monoxide (CO) to turn meat artificially red for an indefinite amount of time. This deceptive technology may not be harmful in itself, but prevents consumers from using their own sense of sight to choose fresh, healthy meat at the grocery store. Since the color can last up to a year, shoppers have no way of knowing if their meat is rotten till after they get it home and unwrapped, and notice a bad odor or slimy texture.

The next idea, presented by Dr. Joseph Sebranek, professor in the Department of Animal Science at Iowa State University, Ames, IA, on October 30, 2007 before the House Agriculture Committee, is to combine this technology with irradiation—a process that may be very harmful. When meat is irradiated, it can turn an unappetizing color—purplish or even greenish. But pump some CO in there, and meat is back to cherry-red—eliminating one indicator that allows consumers to steer clear of meat that’s been zapped.

The combination of these two technologies is the ultimate in treating the symptoms instead of the problem—masking bad meat with one techno-fix after another, rather than simply producing cleaner food. And get this—between the two, we can now extend the meat’s shelf life to… drumroll please… 38 days. Who would want to eat a cut of meat that’s well over a month old?  And the joke is that even after those 38 days after over, the meat will remain red—so we’ve got to rely on grocery chains to take perfectly good-looking meat off their shelves.

Gross.

-Erica Schuetz
email • bio