Beef

  • Posted: June 21st, 2012 - 8:21am by Doug Powell

     Like mad cow disease, although on a much smaller scale, Australian cattle exporters are reaping the benefits of the pink slime controversy in the U.S.

    AAP reports beef and veal exports to the U.S. are expected to increase by 28 per cent to 205,000 tonnes in 2011/12, the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences (ABARES) said in its June quarter commodities report.

    ABARES attributed U.S. demand for imported beef to reduced cattle slaughter and an ongoing fall-out over reports in March that 70 per cent of ground beef sold in American supermarkets contained pink slime - a cheap meat filler treated with an antibacterial agent.

    But beef exports to Indonesia are likely to fall by about 27 per cent to 530,000 head during the same period, after footage of cattle being treated inhumanely at local slaughter houses was aired on ABC television.

    Public outcry over the footage led to Australian live exports to Indonesia being suspended for a month.

    The live trade resumed after stronger auditing requirements were put in place, but exports have struggled to recover, with Indonesia now pushing for self-sufficiency in the beef market.

    Your rating: None (1 vote)
    Food Safety Policy  |  Comments
  • Posted: June 15th, 2012 - 12:49am by Doug Powell

    filet americain 3.jpg

    Nineteen cases of infection with E. coli O157 have been detected in Limburg, Belgium, of which three have developed hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS).

    The Federal Agency for Security of the Food Chain (AFSCA) said Thursday that all cases are related to the ingestion of filet américain (lit. American fillet) with onions and more seasoning than a normal steak tartare.

    AFSCA launched an investigation and based on date of purchase, consumption and onset of disease, the suspect beef has been traced and initial sampling results were positive for E. coli O157.

    Your rating: None (1 vote)
    E. coli  |  Comments
  • Posted: June 14th, 2012 - 8:52am by Doug Powell

    Nine-year-old Ugo Picot was stricken with E. coli O157:H7 linked to frozen meatballs in tomato sauce in June 2011.

    Ugo was one of eight children in Northern France confirmed with E. coli O157 after eating beef bought from German retailer, Lidl.

    When his mother took him to the hospital because of persistent vomiting, she was told, “gastroenteritis is seven days, it is only five,” and was sent home.

    As reported in today’s edition of La Voix du Nord, "One morning, Ugo is not well at all. I felt like my heart would stop beating. Back in the hospital and the beginning of the nightmare. Helicopter transfer to hospital of Lille, a tube in his stomach: dialysis, to flush the kidneys.”

    Didier Picot and Virginia were told Ugo had developed hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS); Virginia still trembles at the memory of a psychiatrist come "talk of death" to his son.

    A year later, Ugo is a small boy of nine who tires more easily than others, and his kidneys will return to normal functioning.

    In the corridors of the hospital in Lille, she met the parents of other small children, and that most had bought ground meat brand Country Steak at Lidl.

    The parents have launched legal action, but progress is slow.

    Albert Amgar writes on his blog that it is rare in France to hear the voice of those who have suffered from food poisoning.

    Your rating: None (1 vote)
    E. coli  |  Comments
  • Posted: May 28th, 2012 - 2:38pm by Doug Powell

    The Food Safety Authority of Ireland has alerted consumers and food businesses about a theft of a consignment of beef from a Dublin-based meat wholesaler.

    Consumers are being urged not to purchase any meat sold from unregistered outlets or unregistered door-to-door sales.

    Up to 43 boxes (approx 20-24kg per box) of beef containing prime cuts, rolled rib of beef and knuckle were stolen.

    The FSAI said food businesses have a legal obligation to only purchase meat from approved sources after checking all appropriate documentation.

    Any break in the cold chain between the time the meat was stolen and when it may be sold could result in a serious health risk to consumers, particularly given the recent hot weather.

    Your rating: None (1 vote)
  • Posted: May 27th, 2012 - 12:29am by Doug Powell

    Australians don’t take kindly to suggestions their beef may have E. coli.

    A Japanese chain serving raw beef tried the tactic in an E. coli O157:H7 outbreak last year that sickened 20 people, and now a positive sample in South Carolina – no people sick – has triggered diverse responses.

    On May18, 2012, two South Carolina companies, Lancaster Frozen Foods and G&W Inc. announced they were recalling nearly 7,000 pounds of ground beef after a state testing program found an E. coli O157 positive sample (there was no mention of a possible connection with the E. coli O157:H7 outbreak in early May at a restaurant in South Carolina that sickened 11 people, but outbreaks do focus the attention of public health folks).

    The Charlotte Observer reported the SC meat originated from an Australian packing plant, and that the companies no longer buy beef from the Australian company.

    A few days later the story popped up throughout Australia, with meat types insisting the meat was safe and noting that more than 70 Australian plants are certified by the U.S. Department of Agriculture to export meat and poultry.

    Australian TV got into the scrum, declaring that up to 13 Australian shipments of contaminated meat have been rejected by USDA in the past year, including nine loads of mutton contaminated with feces and one load because of veterinary drug residues.

    Meat and Livestock Australia Ltd. said in January that one of the "major hurdles for Australian exports to the U.S. in 2012" would be increased non-O157 E. coli testing requirements. MLA estimated Australia's beef exports to the U.S. in 2011 were valued at A$744 million.

    The U.S. is Australia’s second largest export market for beef and its largest export market for lamb.

    Seek and ye shall find: increased testing means increased positives, and it’s going to take diplomatic skills and data to better understand what a positive means.

    In the short-term, blame the foreigners will remain politically appealing: Australia does it, U.S. does it, Canada does it, every country in Europe does it. 

    Your rating: None (1 vote)
    E. coli  |  Comments
  • Posted: May 3rd, 2012 - 6:03am by Doug Powell

    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.

    Your rating: None (2 votes)
  • Posted: April 2nd, 2012 - 11:33pm by Doug Powell

    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.

     

    Your rating: None (2 votes)
    Food Safety Policy  |  Comments
  • Posted: March 27th, 2012 - 5:19am by Doug Powell

    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.

    Your rating: None (1 vote)
    Food Safety Policy  |  Comments
  • Posted: March 10th, 2012 - 4:55pm by Doug Powell

    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.

    Your rating: None (3 votes)
    Food Safety Policy  |  Comments
  • Posted: February 7th, 2012 - 10:25am by Doug Powell

    Author: 
    Doug Powell

    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.

    Your rating: None (1 vote)
    E. coli  |  Comments