Minnesota Farmers Union

(July 1, 2011) - The strain of E. coli responsible for the recent German foodborne outbreak shows some characteristics that distinguish it from the strains that have caused illness in the US. First, except for the recent cases that are tied to tourists who have recently returned from that area in Germany, the German strain O104:H4, has only been traced to one previous foodborne illnesses in the US—“a [1994] outbreak of bloody diarrhea associated with consumption of raw milk in Montana.” The most common outbreak strain found in the US is E. coli O157:H7, which is a Shiga-toxin producing strain and is considered an adulterant when found in meat samples. 

E. coli O104:H4 is not among the other six Shiga-toxin producing strains that have been identified as responsible for previous E. coli-based outbreaks. At present none of these six strains nor E. coli O104:H4 is considered an adulterant and there are no US regulations requiring packers to test for them.

(June 24, 2011) - In response to our previous columns—http://agpolicy.org/articles11.html—on the devastating E. coli 0104:H4 outbreak in Germany, a reporter called and asked the obvious question: “Can this happen in the US?” While we are neither pathologists nor epidemiologists, everything that we have read indicates that the answer is “Yes.” We have nothing in place to prevent this type of outbreak.

That said, there is still a lot to be learned about the particular configuration of this version of E. coli. Specifically, researchers are searching for information that will allow us to understand why this particular version of the disease has been so deadly and has left so many others with hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS), a kidney disease that will reshape the rest of their lives. As of Friday, June 17, 2011 the death toll from this outbreak had reached 39. In addition, 839 people out of at least 3,517 reported illnesses had come down with HUS.

(June 17, 2011) - In following the story of the E. coli outbreak in Germany, we were intrigued when they declared that they had determined that the point of origin was raw bean sprouts produced on an organic farm despite the fact that tests on bean sprout samples were negative for E. coli 0104:H4, the bacteria responsible for 30 deaths in Germany and 1 in Sweden. So far the number of those who have come down with hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS), permanent damage of the kidneys, is nearing 800 out of 3,000 recorded illnesses. 

It turns out that they used a variety of evolving investigative and statistical techniques as they sought to identify the source material. In this column, we will look at the processes they used to investigate the source of the material responsible for the outbreak.

Much of the material in this column is based on documents that can be found on the website of the Robert Koch Institute (RKI), http://www.rki.de/EN/Home/homepage__node.html. The institute is part of the German Federal Ministry of Health. As in the US, responsibility for food-borne illness outbreaks is fragmented among several agencies.

(June 10, 2011) - As we are writing this column, 2,153 people have become ill from an E. coli outbreak that is centered in Germany, 22 have died and approximately 30 percent of the reported patients have contracted hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS). The species (serotype) of bacteria responsible for this outbreak is E. coli 0104:H4 which is a non-104:H7 STEC (Shiga Toxin producing Escherichia coli).

This identification is important because, in the US, only E. coli 0157:H7, which is responsible for about half of the E. coli-related illnesses, is considered an adulterant when found on meat. At this time, the “Big 6” non-0157 STEC, which are responsible for the other half of the E. coli related illnesses in the US are not considered to be an adulterant when found on meat and thus are allowed to be processed and sold to further processors and consumers.

The serotype found in the German outbreak is unique in several ways. First, the rate of HUS at 30 percent is much higher than found in other E. Coli serotypes where the number of people who contract HUS is between 5 and 10 percent. 

(October 16, 2009) - The Sunday, October 4, 2009 issue of the New York Times featured a story that gave dramatic visibility to the issue of food safety in the beef industry. The article, "E. Coli Path Shows Flaws in Beef Inspection," told the story of a 22-year-old woman who was left paralyzed because she ate a "hamburger that her mother had grilled for their Sunday dinner in early fall 2007" (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/04/health/04meat.html). Cargill "recalled 844,812 pounds of ground beef on October 6, 2007, after an estimated 940 people were sickened."

The reaction to the article was immediate with responses from the defenders of the meatpacking industry, to food safety experts, to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), to members of Congress. It even led to an article in The Economist (United Kingdom) that said, "America's dirty secret is that it is one of the most dangerous places in the developed world to eat" (http://www.economist.com/sciencetechnology/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14627082).

(August 24, 2009) - Shortly after we began writing this column nine years ago, critics of genetically modified crops (GMO) tested some tortilla chips and found the protein from StarLink corn in the chips. That discovery set off a massive recall of corn products because the StarLink corn was approved by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for animal feed but not for human food.

That was the first time that the EPA had approved the growing of a GMO corn for cattle feed only while awaiting results showing that the protein expressed by the StarLink gene would not create allergic problems if eaten by humans. The EPA also established a set of requirements to require farmers to segregate the StarLink corn from the rest of the corn crop. Despite all of the safeguards put on paper, they did not work very well in real life and StarLink genes ended up in the food supply.

In some ways, the USDA has replicated the problems created by EPA's split approval of StarLink corn with their decision to consider E. coli O157:H7 not to be an adulterant when found on beef primals and intact steaks and roasts, but recognizing that it is a disease causing adulterant when found in hamburger. The most common problem of this split approval arises because the bench trim from primals ends up being converted into ground beef.

(August 14, 2009) - In response to the principles developed by the White House Food Safety Working Group, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) jointly announced on July 31, 2009 that they were taking steps to increase the security of the US food supply (USDA News Release 0359-09).

DHHS announced that its Food and Drug Administration had issued draft guidelines “aimed at minimizing or eliminating contamination of leafy greens, tomatoes, and melons that can cause foodborne illnesses.”

“Agriculture Secretary Vilsack announced that the USDA’s Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS) is issuing guidelines for inspectors to begin conducting routine sampling of bench trim for E. Coli. Bench trim is pieces left over from steaks and other cuts that are then used to make ground beef.” In this column we will be focusing on the new sampling of bench trim.

(August 7, 2009) - One of several comments that we have run across since we began writing about food safety is that imposing additional requirements on slaughterhouses is unnecessary because the ultimate responsibility belongs to the person cooking the meat.

One person writes, "Just cook it stupid! We're trying to protect people from ignorance...never going to happen no matter how hard producers or government tries."

A blogger responding to that comment says, "Amen. Brother!!! Americans would rather [complain] about everything than take personal responsibility. Leave the patty in the pan until it is 160 degrees, problem solved."

We believe that those preparing food items should engage in safe food handling procedures, including frequent hand washing and the use of separate cutting boards for meat and vegetable products. Certainly it would not hurt for the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to better communicate the importance of safe food handling in restaurants and at home.

(July 31, 2009) - The July 21, 2009 romaine lettuce recall by Tanimura & Antle puts another exclamation point on the issue of food safety. The lettuce was being recalled because of a positive result for Salmonella on a random test conducted by the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture. As of Sunday, July 26, 2009, the recall had not been posted on the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) "2009 Recalls, Market Withdrawals, & Safety Alerts" website even though Tanimura & Antle posted it on their site on July 21.

When President Obama established the Food Safety Working Group in the White House, he said, "We are a nation built on the strength of individual initiative. But there are certain things that we can't do on our own. There are certain things that only a government can do. And one of those things is ensuring that the foods we eat...are safe and don't cause us harm."

(July 24, 2009) - Food safety has been getting a lot of attention lately. In response to the peanut butter, pistachio, and toll house cookie recalls, the House Energy and Safety Committee has approved the Food Safety Enforcement Act of 2009 to strengthen and expand the US Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) role in food safety and inspection. To gauge the response of the agricultural community, the House Agriculture Committee held a hearing on this legislation.

At the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, a White House Food Safety Group was formed by the Obama administration. In July 2009, the Working Group recommended "a new, public health-focused approach to food safety based on three core principles: (1) prioritizing prevention; (2) strengthening surveillance and enforcement; and (3) improving response and recovery"
(http://www.foodsafetyworkinggroup.gov/FSWG_Fact_Sheet.pdf).

In all this, major-crop and livestock farmers are worried that the move toward increased emphasis on food safety will lead to the FDA inspection of farms as part of its role in protecting the integrity of the food ingredients that are produced by farmers. Many involved in beef production are resistant to an animal identification system that would allow traceback to the farm-level.