Update On Distillers Grains - E. coli Link Not Established
By Guest Blogger Jason Johns
We've previously discussed ongoing research concerning safety of distillers grains previously. An article on distillers grains and E. coli in Distillers Grains Monthly (Third Quarter 2008) suggests that the scientific debate continues, and questions remain unanswered.
Conflicting studies have now been released by Kansas State University and the University of Nebraska regarding the link between distillers grains and the presence of E. coli O157:H7. In December 2007, KSU released a study showing that E. coli O157:H7 levels were approximately two-fold higher in cattle fed dried distillers grains. In reaction to the KSU findings, researchers at Nebraska revisited their findings from an earlier distillers grains feeding trial and arrived at a conclusion different than that of KSU.
Nebraska researchers found E. coli O157:H7 produced at statistically significant levels between diets low in distillers grains and those high in distillers grains. However, neither of those diets produced E. coli O157:H7 at levels statistically significant from the control diet. The Nebraska data also showed that diets low in distillers grains may help animals to shed the microbe in feces.
Apart from the studies, the article explains that much remains unknown about the effects of distillers grains when introduced into cattle diets. For example, researchers do not know why cattle respond differently when fed dried distillers grains-spiked steam-flaked corn and dried distillers grains-supplemented dry-rolled corn. Researchers are also unaware of how distillers grains produced from different sources--sorghum, barley, and so forth--may affect cattle differently.
Hopefully, we will learn more in October 2008, when Nebraska plans to make available a study involving 480 cattle and high levels of distillers grains. Until then, it appears the link between distillers grains and the presence of E. coli O157:H7 in cattle remains unsettled.
More on The Raw Milk Debate - Consumer Choice vs. Consumer Protection
Recently discussed on this site was how the raw milk debate is in many ways ground zero for the debate between consumer protection and consumer choice. The Seattle Post Intelligencer ran an interesting piece today focusing on just that debate.
I found comments attributed in the article to Kansas State professor Doug Powell most salient:
Doug Powell says he's not surprised that government health officials denounce the dangers of raw milk then turn around and license the sale of the same milk.
"In part, it's because of the almost evangelical way people talk about raw milk and that America is founded on consumer choice," said the associate professor of food safety at Kansas State University.
"The numbers of illnesses from outbreaks caused by unpasteurized milk are not that high. You could very easily make the cases that 'Wow, maybe tomatoes should be regulated a whole lot more than we do now because the numbers of cases of salmonella saintpaul are up to 550 now,' " said Powell, who is also scientific director for the International Food Safety Network.
While I'm not sure I agree that "America is founded on consumer choice," professor Powell is surely right that the conflict between consumer choice and consumer protection is bringing raw milk to boil. Professor Powell is also correct that from a public health standpoint, fresh produce presents a greater and more certain danger.
Implicit in the Post-Intelligencer article is that the debate suffers from a lack of consumer information. For example, do we really understand the alleged benefits of raw milk? There is some information on the web but is this peer-reviewed information that consumers can trust? On the flip side, consumers should be given better information than the kind of "scared straight" quality of information currently available. Both those who advocate against raw milk and those who support it can surely agree that both would be served by better research and consumer information.
Tomato Fallout - Recall Insurance Coverage Disputes
In the wake of the FDA warning on tomatoes (which remains ongoing because the FDA hasn’t identified the source of the salmonella outbreak), questions arise about its economic impact. The 2006 spinach outbreak caused massive economic damage in lost sales. Spinach sales are probably still not at their preoutbreak levels. So what will be the tomato fallout?
A fundamental difference between tomatoes and spinach is shelf life. Tomatoes can last in cold storage for many weeks. Leafy greens like spinach must be sold within about a week of harvest. Therefore tomatoes that can’t be sold now may be able to be sold after the FDA pinpoints the contamination source. Growers and suppliers may avoid at least some immediate economic impact.
Still, given the scope of the FDA warning, many will suffer economic loss. No doubt litigation between those in the supply chain will ensue.
From a legal perspective, what may be more interesting is the insurance fallout. Although the FDA has not issued a “recall,” claims will be made by suppliers, growers and retailers holding so-called “recall insurance.” Policy language varies.
Some policies may require an actual “recall” and preapproval from the insurer before a claim can be made. These policies may make recovery especially difficult for a policyholder. Other policies may include broader terms, for example covering a situation where product “withdrawal is made necessary by reason of determination by the insured or by any ruling of any governmental body that the use of such product or property could result in bodily injury or property damage, because of any known or suspected defect, deficiency, inadequacy or dangerous condition in it.”
Even for those holding broader recall insurance, expect insurers to push back. Insurers will argue that the FDA never made a “ruling” that, for example, tomatoes from New Mexico “could result in bodily injury or property damage.” Yet the FDA has warned consumers and retailers for nearly two weeks that these tomatoes have not been ruled out as a possible source of the outbreak. Enough may be at stake for the insurers to resist these claims and argue the narrow scope of recall insurance.
Businesses contemplating a claim under their recall insurance should be as strategic as possible. Tenders should be made promptly but carefully. Information documenting the claim should be collected thoroughly and systematically.
Yes, We Have No Tomatoes
By Guest Blogger Richard Goldfarb
Sunday, at a local restaurant, I saw a sign saying that there would be no fresh sliced tomatoes on my burger. Although it is quite clear that there are safe tomatoes available, the FDA has encouraged restaurants simply to cease selling them. This makes a lot of sense: rumors fly so rapidly and irresponsibly. Though, individual restaurants may take different steps; those that pride themselves on knowing the source of their heirloom tomatoes should be advertising that fact.
The problem is salmonella, in particular a strain called “saintpaul.” The FDA identified salmonella in tomatoes as a significant risk a year ago. Thus, they had the infrastructure in place to monitor and deal with the significant number of reported outbreaks this year. So far, no one knows the source of the problem, and all the FDA can do at this point is to list those tomatoes that have not been associated with the outbreaks:
• Cherry tomatoes
• Grape tomatoes
• Tomatoes sold with the stems on
• Homegrown tomatoes
In addition, the FDA lists those tomato-growing areas that have been ruled out in the outbreaks. This doesn’t mean that tomatoes grown in those areas will always be safe, but that they have not been linked to this outbreak. The FDA also reiterates its advice on the safe handling of fresh tomatoes and other fresh fruits, both in restaurants and at home. The CDC website provided a nice summary:
• Refrigerate within 2 hours or discard cut, peeled, or cooked tomatoes.
• Avoid purchasing bruised or damaged tomatoes and discard any that appear spoiled.
• Thoroughly wash all tomatoes under running water.
• Keep tomatoes that will be consumed raw separate from raw meats, raw seafood, and raw produce items.
• Wash cutting boards, dishes, utensils, and counter tops with hot water and soap when switching between types of food products.
The problem isn’t limited to the United States; New Zealand tomatoes have been implicated as well, and banned in Hong Kong. It was nice to know that the tomatoes we had with dinner last night were doubly safe: they were hothouse tomatoes sold with the stems on, and they were from British Columbia, one of the locales ruled out by the FDA.
