April 25, 2024

Del Monte Fresh Produce in Dispute Over Melon Safety

When health investigators identified imported cantaloupes as the source of a salmonella outbreak early this year, the importer agreed to a recall. But now that company, Del Monte Fresh Produce, is trying to block additional restrictions on melon imports, setting off an unusually public battle between the produce industry and food safety regulators.

The company, which is one of the country’s largest produce marketers, says the restrictions could damage its reputation, and it has sued the Food and Drug Administration to lift them.

The effort is being cheered by many in the produce industry, who often complain about what they call overreaching by regulators and welcome a company with resources pushing back.

But advocates of safe food said that it was extremely rare for a major food company to take such a publicly aggressive stance, and that they suspected Del Monte Fresh Produce was trying to bully regulators into thinking twice before pursuing recalls in the future.

Aside from suing the F.D.A., the company has threatened legal action against a leading state food-borne disease investigator in Oregon, where the Del Monte cantaloupes were identified as the cause of the salmonella outbreak. And it has challenged some of the basic techniques of food safety investigations, like relying on ill people’s memories of what they ate when microbiological testing does not find pathogens on food.

“This clearly looks like an attempt to intimidate state level investigators,” said Caroline Smith DeWaal, food safety director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, an advocacy group. “The chilling effect is real, and it could have serious implications for consumers who may be exposed to more tainted products because of delays in announcing the results of these epidemiologic investigations.”

An executive of Del Monte Fresh Produce said that its melons did not make anyone sick and that the purpose of the lawsuit, filed in Federal District Court in Maryland last month, was to improve food safety by pointing out flaws in the way some investigations were handled.

“It’s got to be a comprehensive and reliable investigation, and in our opinion this was neither,” said Dennis Christou, vice president of marketing for Del Monte Fresh Produce, which is based in Coral Gables, Fla. “There’s absolutely no basis in the claim that this was done intentionally to intimidate or bully anyone.”

The company said Wednesday that it was in talks with the F.D.A. to resolve the dispute and expected an agreement soon.

Many in the produce industry, which has been buffeted by recalls for items as diverse as spinach, peppers and papayas, are quietly rooting for the company. “In this particular case, the F.D.A. took on an adversary that has some ability to stand up and say, ‘We’re not going to be treated this way,’ ” said Jim Prevor, editor in chief of Produce Business, a trade magazine.

The dispute is not related to the current recall of Rocky Ford cantaloupes grown in Colorado, which have caused a deadly listeria outbreak.

The Del Monte Fresh Produce tussle began in February when people in several states began to fall ill with a rare bacterium known as salmonella Panama, which can cause severe diarrhea. Eventually, at least 20 people were sickened in 10 states.

State public health investigators soon discovered that many of the victims had eaten cantaloupe bought at Costco, the large warehouse retailer.

Using data from Costco membership cards, they found that the melons came from one farm in Guatemala, called Asunción Mita, owned by Del Monte Fresh Produce.

The early investigation involved 13 cases of illness, and officials found that at least 12 of them had a clear link to cantaloupes from Asunción Mita, a very high correlation.

The investigators, working with the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the F.D.A., asked Del Monte Fresh Produce for a recall, following the usual procedure. The company at first resisted but, according to its lawsuit, eventually agreed to a limited recall to prevent the F.D.A. from issuing a broad warning about contaminated melons that could have affected the entire cantaloupe market. The recall was announced on March 22.

But in mid-July the F.D.A. issued an import alert, saying that the conditions that caused the contamination might still exist on the Asunción Mita farm. The alert allowed inspectors to stop cantaloupes grown on the farm from entering this country.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=452495b5c01ddde61434ce4840a285bb

E. Coli Ban in Ground Beef to Be Expanded

The new rule, which officials said would be announced on Tuesday, means that six relatively rare forms of E. coli will be treated the same as their notorious and more common cousin, a strain called E. coli O157:H7. That strain has caused deaths and illnesses and prompted the recall of millions of pounds of ground beef and other products. It was banned from ground beef in 1994 after an outbreak killed four children and sickened hundreds of people.

“We’re doing this to prevent illness and to save lives,” said Dr. Elisabeth Hagen, the head of food safety for the Agriculture Department, which regulates meat. “This is one of the biggest steps forward in the protection of the beef supply in some time.”

It is not illegal to sell fresh meat or poultry containing most toxic bacteria, like salmonella; they are frequently found on groceries’ meat, and thorough cooking typically kills the pathogens. But since the 1994 outbreak, which involved hamburgers served at Jack in the Box restaurants, regulators have treated E. coli in ground beef differently.

Many people eat rare or undercooked ground beef, and if it is tainted, resulting illnesses can be deadly. Toxic E. coli, in its most common O157 form, is so virulent that just a few organisms can make people violently sick. The toxic E. coli live in the digestive tracts of cows and can get on meat during slaughter. It can cause bloody diarrhea, stomach cramps and, in severe cases, kidney failure.

In recent years, scientists found that several other strains of E. coli in food were also making people sick, and they identified the six most potent, called the Big Six non-O57s. Beginning at least four years ago, the U.S.D.A. began considering extending its ban to those additional toxic strains.

But the American Meat Institute, an industry group, has argued that safety measures already in place are sufficient. On Monday, the group was highly critical of the extended ban.

“Imposing this new regulatory program on ground beef will cost tens of millions of federal and industry dollars — costs that likely will be borne by taxpayers and consumers,” the group said in a statement. “It is neither likely to yield a significant public health benefit nor is it good public policy.”

While several outbreaks caused by the Big Six strains have been linked to produce, the group pointed to the fact that only one has been related to ground beef. In that outbreak, last year, three people fell ill.

“It’s just not supported by the science,” James H. Hodges, the institute’s executive vice president, said in an interview.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimate that E. coli strains other than O157:H7 cause nearly 113,000 illnesses each year, one-third of which can be attributed to tainted beef, according to U.S.D.A. officials. Until recently, few cases were reported, however, because most medical labs were not equipped to test for the less common forms.

The Agriculture Department will begin enforcing the rule in March, to give the meat industry time to prepare. The rule will apply to hamburger meat and trim or beef scraps that go into it, as well as some other products, like steaks that have been tenderized with machines that use needles to poke minute holes in the surface. Some meat processors have begun to test for the six strains in recent months in anticipation of federal action, and many others will most likely begin testing once the government begins its own testing.

Under the rule, raw meat containing the Big Six E. coli cannot be sold to the public. Currently, most packing plants divert meat containing E. coli O157:H7 for use in cooked products, and will most likely do the same with meat containing the new strains, as well. The bacteria is killed by heating the meat to 160 degrees.

While the new rule significantly expands the Agriculture Department’s beef ban, it does not include all forms of toxic E. coli. A highly virulent strain of the bacteria that caused dozens of deaths among people who ate contaminated sprouts in Europe this summer is not one of the Big Six because it has not been detected as a cause of illness in the United States.

Dr. Hagen said the list of banned pathogens might grow. “This is where we started and it doesn’t rule out the possibility that we would consider other pathogens in the future,” she said.

The new rule highlighted the patchwork and often confusing nature of food safety regulation, where most meat is under the jurisdiction of the U.S.D.A. while most other foods, including produce, are regulated by the Food and Drug Administration. The F.D.A. already considers it illegal to sell food containing any bacteria, including toxic forms of E. coli or other substances that could make people sick.

Dr. Hagen also said the rule did not conflict with the Obama administration’s push to cut back on regulation that could increase costs for business at a time of economic hardship.

“There’s really no inconsistency between having a strong economy and having a safe food supply,” Dr. Hagen said. The U.S.D.A. estimated that the rule would cost the industry up to $10 million a year for testing and holding meat back from the fresh ground beef market.

“The amount this is going to cost is insignificant compared to the lives that will be saved,” said Senator Kirsten E. Gillibrand, Democrat of New York, who pushed for the expanded rule.

After the U.S.D.A. banned the O157 form of E. coli from ground beef in 1994, the meat industry sued to block the move, but the agency prevailed in court.

Mr. Hodges, of the meat institute, said the group had yet to see a full version of the rule and would consult with its members before deciding how to respond.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=f7599abee250569e175c374ce5f6200c

Bucks Blog: Tuesday Reading: How To Ensure Lunchbox Food Safety

August 30

Tuesday Reading: How To Ensure Lunchbox Food Safety

How to ensure lunchbox food safety, the case against a payroll tax cut, airlines struggle to rebook passengers after Hurricane Irene and other consumer-focused news from The New York Times.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=e765b7912d65a4aaab7b1d93c79832a8

U.S.D.A. Ruling on Bluegrass Stirs Cries of Lax Regulation

The department said that an herbicide-tolerant Kentucky bluegrass being developed by Scotts Miracle-Gro was not subject to federal regulation because its creation did not entail use of any plant pests.

The decision, issued late Friday, frees Scotts to sell the grass, which is meant for lawns, without federal approval. The company also does not need federal permits to conduct field trials, even though a different type of genetically engineered grass escaped from company test plots in the past and established itself in the wild.

The genetically engineered bluegrass contains a gene that allows it to tolerate the widely used herbicide Roundup, also known as glyphosate. That allows the chemical to be sprayed to kill weeds without harming the grass.

Michael C. Gregoire, who oversees biotechnology crop regulation at the Agriculture Department, said in an interview Wednesday that the ruling did not represent “a change in policy or a relaxing or abandoning of the regulation of G.E. crops.” He said other genetically engineered crops, like a petunia, had been exempted from regulation in the past.

Still, the decision shocked some critics of biotechnology crops. “It’s a blatant end-run around regulatory oversight,” said George Kimbrell, senior lawyer at the Center for Food Safety, a Washington advocacy group.

Margaret Mellon, director of the food and environment program at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said other companies might follow the same strategy, putting the Agriculture Department “out of the game of regulation.”

The critics say there have been other signs that the Agriculture Department has been looking to weaken regulation, like a proposed pilot project that would let companies provide more input into the environmental assessments of their crops.

While some environmental groups say regulation is too lax, some biotechnology executives and academic plant scientists say it is unnecessarily rigorous and slow, impeding development of important new crops.

The situation with the Kentucky bluegrass arises because genetically engineered crops are regulated under rules pertaining to plant pests.

The rules are really meant for pathogens and parasites, not corn stalks. Still, they could be stretched to cover the crops because most of them contain a snippet of DNA from a plant virus that functions as a genetic on-switch. And the foreign gene is often inserted using a bacterium that can cause a disease in plants.

But in creating its bluegrass, Scotts deliberately avoided using any material from plant pests. The herbicide resistance gene and the genetic on-switch came from other plants and were fired into the grass’s DNA with a gene gun, rather than being carried in by a bacterium.

The company then sent a letter to the Agriculture Department in September, arguing that the grass was therefore not subject to regulation.

The Agriculture Department agreed. It also declined to regulate the bluegrass as a noxious weed, denying a request from the Center for Food Safety.

Richard Shank, chief environmental officer at Scotts, said the company’s strategy “wasn’t designed specifically to get around regulations or anything like that. It just made more sense. There was a lot of concern about using plant pest materials in biotechnology and we wanted to get away from that.”

Still, the strategy means that the bluegrass will not encounter the regulatory problems that have beset Scotts’s genetically engineered creeping bentgrass, which does contain material from plant pests.

That grass, meant for golf courses, is still awaiting approval eight years after the company submitted its application.

Scotts was fined $500,000 in 2007 after the bentgrass escaped from field test sites in central Oregon and established itself in the wild. More recently the grass, presumably from a field test in Idaho, was found growing in nearby southern Oregon.

Mr. Shank said limited field testing of the Kentucky bluegrass would begin soon but the product would not come to market for years.

In a letter to Scotts on Friday, Tom Vilsack, the secretary of agriculture, told the company to work with others to make sure that the grass did not spread where it was unwanted, for example, pastures where organic cows graze. Mr. Shank said Scotts would do that.

Doug Gurian-Sherman, a senior scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said many of the genetically engineered crops now under development did not use viral material so they could conceivably escape regulation.

But L. Val Giddings, an industry consultant, disagreed, saying most crops continue to use material from plant pests. Monsanto, the leading developer of genetically engineered crops, said products in its current pipeline would be regulated.

Stanley H. Abramson, a Washington lawyer who has represented biotech companies, said that genetically engineered food crops would not be accepted by the market without government approval. So only developers of nonedible plants like grass or flowers might try to exempt themselves from regulation, he said.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=c0c85f31c5ddaa357b38c30810656556

Outbreak in Europe May Revive Stalled U.S. Effort to Tighten Rules on Food Safety

Food-safety advocates hope the federal government will act soon to ban the sale of ground beef if it contains any of six dangerous strains of E. coli that have increasingly been found to cause illness in the United States — a step that regulators have been considering for at least four years in the face of stiff industry opposition.

The outbreak in Europe could also bring more scrutiny of the produce industry. Investigators believe the outbreak was caused by contaminated vegetables, but they have not been able determine which type. So far, the authorities say, more than 1,700 people have been sickened, including 6 Americans, and at least 18 people have died.

For now, the focus in this country is on beef, since E. coli lives in the guts of cows.

In January, the United States Department of Agriculture drafted a much-anticipated proposal to regulate six forms of toxic E. coli in meat, in addition to the most common form, O157:H7, which is already regulated. But the proposal has been stalled at the federal Office of Management and Budget, which typically reviews proposed regulations, and officials could not say when it would be made public.

The details of the proposal have been kept secret until a final version is settled on, but there is wide expectation in the food industry and among food-safety advocates that it would either ban the sale of ground beef containing those strains or call for testing and other controls. Advocates for the rules fear that the White House, which had a representative at O.M.B. meetings on the issue, was seeking to dilute the measure or even kill it. But they say that the catastrophic European outbreak could now force the government’s hand.

“The horrific illnesses that are happening in Germany will make government and industry here have to pay attention,” said Bill Marler, a Seattle lawyer who specializes in food safety and who has petitioned the Agriculture Department to ban the pathogens from meat.

The form of E. coli in the European outbreak is not on the list made by the Agriculture Department because that strain has never been identified as a cause of illness in the United States. But food-safety experts said that because of its virulence, officials would almost certainly have to consider adding it at some point. David Goldman, an assistant U.S.D.A. administrator, said at a news conference on Friday said that he could not comment on the proposed rule.

“There are indeed a lot of complicated technical issues as well as many stakeholders,” he said. “We all intend to get this right.”

For many, the outbreak in Europe evokes memories of a 1993 outbreak in the United States that first brought toxic E. coli bacteria to widespread public attention. In that outbreak, four children died and hundreds became sick after eating hamburgers contaminated with the O157:H7 strain that were served at Jack in the Box restaurants.

David M. Theno, a food safety consultant who worked with Jack in the Box to help it respond to the 1993 outbreak, predicted that the German outbreak would force the U.S.D.A. to take action against a broader group of bacteria. “You can’t just ignore them and hope it doesn’t happen here,” Dr. Theno said.

In 1994, the Agriculture Department declared the sale of ground beef containing the O157 strain illegal, and the industry began establishing measures to keep it out of meat sold to the public. Since then, there have been numerous outbreaks and millions of pounds of ground beef have been recalled. The bacteria has also caused outbreaks tied to vegetables, including spinach and lettuce. Produce can become contaminated from exposure to cow manure in the fields or the water supply or during processing.

Over the years, other toxic strains of E. coli began to get the attention of public health officials. They eventually identified six that most frequently caused illness, and federal officials began studying whether the sale of meat containing these strains should also be banned.

As part of that effort, the Agriculture Department last fall issued standards for tests to rapidly screen food for the six strains.

Gardiner Harris contributed reporting from Washington.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=d4f533985cbb6fa2d0fb19b42fe8c915