E. coli Outbreak Detection Lacking in Half of States
When it comes to detecting and reporting outbreaks of E. coli O157:H7 and other pathogens, some state health departments are better than others.
What else could explain the large discrepancy in state by state reporting results? It’s not that certain borders are immune from bacteria.
Now there’s a study by the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) that attempts to quantify the problem, saying that at least 23 states need to improve outbreak reporting. Nationally, public health protection against outbreaks of E. coli O157:H7 and other foodborne illness provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is only as good as the reporting network of states.
CSPI’s study looked at 2007 outbreak data and used health deparments in Oregon and Minnesota as a baseline because they have excellent laboratory facilities and strict regiments for quickly interviewing subjects of food poisoning. Each state reported 10 outbreaks per million people in 2007.
According to the study, seven states had even better reporting records in 2007, including Maine, Kansas, Wyoming, Vermont, Alaska, Hawaii and North Dakota. Those states generated more reports and provided CDC with better information to prevent future outbreaks.
On the other end of the spectrum, twelve states reported just one outbreak of foodborne illness per million people, and 11 states had reporting rates almost as low.
The 23 states with the lowest reporting rates in 2007 were Delaware, Georgia, Pennsylvania, New York, and Massachusetts, each with three outbreaks per million; Missouri, New Jersey, Virginia, Alabama, West Virginia, and Kentucky, each with two outbreaks per million; and Texas, North Carolina, Indiana, Louisiana, Nebraska, Utah, Arkansas, Montana, New Mexico, Nevada, Mississippi, and Oklahoma, each reporting just one outbreak per million.
Steak Safety: The Straight Story
E. coli in steak: What you need to know
Is it always safe to eat a steak served rare? Seems like a simple question.
But a Dec. 24 National Steak and Poultry recall of almost 250,000 pounds of blade-tenderized beef forced consumers and health officials to reevaluate the question—especially after government agencies associated the recalled beef with 21 cases of E. coli in 16 states.
Typically, ground beef comes to mind when considering meat that could be tainted with E. coli. But this outbreak involved blade-tenderized, or what health officials call “non-intact” beef, which included steaks, beef medallions and sirloin tips. “Blade-tenderized” or “non-intact” refers to meat that has been punctured with needles or blades to break down the tissue and make a tougher cut of muscle more tender. Any pathogen (like E. coli) on the surface of the beef is normally killed in the cooking process if the beef is intact. But the mechanical tenderization process drives pathogens inside the beef. If it isn’t cooked until the internal temperature reaches at least 140 degrees, the beef could still contain the pathogen.
Government officials and industry groups offer mixed advice on what consumers should do. The National Advisory Committee on Microbiological Criteria for Foods determined in 2002 that non-intact beef can indeed harbor infective amounts of E. coli, but that following the 140-degree rule will put you in the clear. A 2002 risk assessment by the USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) concluded there is almost no difference in risk of illness from intact versus non-intact steaks.
And yet there have been several E. coli outbreaks since then involving mechanically tenderized meat. This has put the spotlight on the issue of labeling. If non-intact steak must be cooked a certain way to guarantee its safety, then shouldn’t consumers have the right to know whether their steak is intact so they can cook it accordingly? That was the recommendation issued in a 2005 study by the Minnesota Department of Health following a 2003 outbreak of E. coli associated with blade-tenderized frozen steaks sold by door-to-door salesmen. In light of the National Steak and Poultry outbreak, U.S. Rep. Rosa DeLauro called for labeling of non-intact steaks, stating “USDA has been aware of the E. coli risks associated with mechanically tenderized steaks as early as 1999, but has refused to act…consumers should be made fully aware of the products they are receiving so they can assure that they are cooked at the appropriate temperature.”
Furthermore, does this mean every time we eat at a restaurant, we should order our steak cooked to an internal temperature of 140 degrees? The National Restaurant Association in 2000 decided that restaurant patrons asking for rare- or medium-cooked steak should be informed that non-intact steaks should be cooked to at least 145 degrees to ensure safety. But when is the last time your server told you that?
Prevention History of Steak E coli Outbreaks Dates to 1997
In November of 1997, the Meat and Poultry Subcommittee of the National Advisory Committee on Microbiological Criteria for Foods stated that standard beef steaks have a low probability of E. coli O157:H7 migrating from the surface to the interior of the beef muscle.
Because of this, the cooking advice was to cook the steak at least enough to effect a cooked color change on all surfaces. Hence, it was officially safe to eat a steak rare.
But the committee limited this advice to “intact beef steak” and then defined the term as follows: “A cut of whole muscle that has not been injected, mechanically tenderized or reconstructed.” Under the Food and Drug Administration’s 1977 food code, “injected” meant “manipulating a meat so that infectious or toxigenic microorganisms may be introduced from its surface to its interior through tenderizing with deep penetration or injecting the meat such as with juices.”
Based on these definitions, USDA’s Food Safety and Information Service FSIS proclaimed in early 1999 that the agency believes there should be a distinction between intact cuts of muscle and non-intact products, including those that have been tenderized and injected.
The problem is that too few people — including many food handlers at restaurants — realize the difference between a regular steak and a non-intact cut of beef. The results can be harsh. Currently, national food safety law firm Pritzker Olsen Attorneys is investigating cases of E. coli O157 that may be associated with steak served at restaurants in Minnesota and other states. If you or a loved one has been sickened in this potential steak E. coli outbreak, the firm would like to hear from you at 1-888-377-8900 or via our online contact and information form.
By 1999, FSIS had already banned E. coli O157:H7 from ground beef — officially making it an adulterated product in commerce. To prevent against the potential risk of E. coli O157:H7 outbreaks in non-intact steak, FSIS then banned the pathogen from all non-intact products (including beef trimming for making ground beef).
The expansion of the E. coli O157:H7 adulteration policy by FSIS gives special legal rights to victims of E. coli steak outbreaks if the contaminated meats in question were injected or otherwise tenderized. This means that someone who contracts an E. coli infection from a brine-injected non-intact steak product can sue the manufacturer of that steak product and the restaurant where it was served under strict liability laws. The E. coli victim does not have to prove negligence on anyone’s part to recover medical expenses, lost income, pain and suffering and other damages under strict liability laws.
Fairbank Farm E. coli Recall Widens to More Stores
The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) has expanded the list of retailers involved in the Fairbank Farms ground beef recall. The ground beef E. coli outbreak has resulted in two deaths, about two dozen confirmed illnesses and the recall of more than half a million pounds of ground beef products.
If you or e a loved one have been victimized by this outbreak and you need information about your legal rights, contact national food safety law firm Pritzker Olsen Attorneys at 1-888-377-8900 (Toll Free) or complete our contact and information form.
Here’s the updated list of stores that distributed the potentially contaminated ground beef. All product is believed to be consumed or in consumers’ freezers by now because it had sell-by dates marked for late September. The suspect ground beef is marked by USDA establishment number EST 492 in the USDA mark of inspection.
- Shaw’s
- Price Chopper
- Acme
- Giant
- Pathmark
- Food Lion
- Trader Joe
- BJ
- Martins
- Great American
- IGA
- Surefresh
- Grand Union
- A&P
- Waldbaum
- C&S
NEW YORK
- Rod’s
- Alex Bay
- Maxwell Food Store
- Bloomfield
- Boonville
- Ryan’s
- Bolster’s Supermarket
- Leo Genecco & Sons
- Canisteo
- Terry’s Food Market
- Red Onion Grocery
- Spera’s Meat, Deli & Grocery
- Clayton
- Clifton Springs
- Vella’s Market
- Deposit
- De Ruyter
- Dolgeville
- Dan’s Market
- Elbridge
- Bayside Grocery
- Melrose Market
- Mirabito Midstate
- Madia’s
- Hannibal Village Market
- Greg’s Butcher Block
- Hilton
- Murray’s Supermarket
- Waterville Food King
- Kalil’s Market
- Zaharis Enterprises
- Jordan
- Little Falls
- Galeville Market
- Kinney Drugs
- Loson’s
- Yando’s
- Ostrander’s Market
- Mexico
- Sunshine of Minoa
- Morris Midstate
- Morrisville
- Northrose Midstate
- New Berlin Midstate
- Perry’s
- Davis Brothers
- Paul’s
- Ovid
- Plattsburgh
- Potsdam
- Raquette Lake Supply Co.
- Gates
- The Food Center
- Sandy Creek
- Sherburne
- Mack’s Hometown Market
- Sun Up Food Store #9
- Charles Johns
- Spencer
- Cavallaro Foods
- Dominick’s Market
- Leah’s
- Sabastino’s Pizza
- Seneca Knolls
- Syracuse Banana
- Deli Boy
- Union Springs
- Walton
- Warsaw
- The General Store
- Watertown
- Hegedorn’s Market
- Weedsport
- Maier’s Market
- West Field
- Windsor
- Bob’s
OHIO
- Thorne’s Market—3 locations
- Jefferson Bi-Lo
PENNSYLVANIA
- Naser Foods—2 locations
- Stager’s Market
- Harber’s Riverside
- Martino’s Bi-Lo
- Coffy’s Bi-Lo
- Vogel’s Food Mart
- Comet Food Warehouse
- JG Food Warehouse
- Tate’s Super Market, Inc.
- Sander’s Market Fresh Foods
- Ford City Riverside
- Grove City Bi-Lo
- Hallstead
- Northgate Plaza Bi-Lo
- Homer Center Bi-Lo
- Hooversville Riverside
- Moyer’s
- Valeski’s Fourth Street Bi-Lo
- Jersey Shore Bi-Lo
- Bilo Foods—2 locations
- Ideal Market—3 locations
- Merick’s Ideal Market
- Tom’s Riverside—3 locations
- Ed’s Riverside
- Sander Brother’s Inc.
- Northern Cambria Bi-Lo
- Thorne’s—2 locations
- Osceola
- Blackburn-Russell Co., Inc.
- Comet Market
- Jefferson Wholesale
- Shopper’s Choice
- Renovo Bi-Lo
- Mike’s Bi-Lo
- Ridgway Bi-Lo
- Seward Bi-Lo
- Thorne’s Bi-Lo
- Watsontown Bi-Lo
CDC Reports on Fairbank Ground Beef Outbreak
Here is the official statement by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on the current Fairbank ground beef E. coli O157:H7 outbreak, which is more widespread than originally reported — though still concentrated in New England. If you have legal questions about this outbreak, call national food safety law firm Pritzker Olsen Attorneys at 1-888-377-8900 (Toll Free) or complete our online contact and information.
Several state health departments, CDC, and the United States Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and InspectionService (USDA-FSIS) are investigating a multi-state outbreak of Escherichia coli O157:H7 infections. On October 31, 2009, FSIS issued a notice about a recall of 545,699 pounds of beef products from Fairbank Farms that may be contaminated with E. coli O157:H7. Health officials in several states who were investigating a cluster of E. coli O157:H7 illnesses, with isolates that match by “DNA fingerprinting” analyses, found that most ill persons had consumed ground beef, with several purchasing the same or similar product from a common retail chain. At least some of the illnesses appear to be associated with products subject to these recalls. A sample from an opened package of ground beef recovered from a patient’s home was tested by the Massachusetts Department of Health and yielded an E. coli O157:H7 isolate that matched the patient isolates by DNA analysis.
The cluster includes twenty-eight persons from 12 states infected with matching strains of E. coli O157:H7. Of these, the genetic association of 7 human isolates and the product isolate have been confirmed by an advanced secondary DNA test ; secondary tests are pending on others. The number of ill persons identified in each state is as follows: California (1), Connecticut (4), Massachusetts (8), Maryland (1), Maine (2), Minnesota (1), New Hampshire (4), New Jersey (1), New York (1), Pennsylvania (2), South Dakota (2), and Vermont (1).
The first reported illness began on August 18, 2009, and the last began on October 10, 2009; however all but 2 patients reported becoming ill between September 17 and October 10, 2009. Sixteen patients are reported to have been hospitalized and 3 developed a type of kidney failure called hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS). Two deaths have been reported. Sixty-seven percent of patients are male and 43% are less than 18 years old (range 1 to 84 years).
Most of the beef packages in the recall bear the establishment number “Est. 492″ inside the USDA mark of inspection and have identifying package dates of “091509″ or “091609.” Consumers are urged to check their refrigerators and freezers for beef products produced by this firm and purchased on or after September 15, 2009.
