Food Safety

California organic beef producer recalls meat over E. coli concerns


January 3, 2011
10:47 am

There’s nothing that dampens your New Year's appetite like a food-safety recall, particularly one for an organic ground-beef product.

Federal officials announced Monday that First Class Foods Inc., an organic beef producer based in Hawthorne, has recalled 34,373 pounds of organic ground beef and hamburger patties due to concern that they may be contaminated with E. coli O157:H7.

E. coli O157:H7 is a potentially deadly bacterium that can cause bloody diarrhea, dehydration, kidney failure or, in the most severe cases, death.

There have been no reports of illness connected to these products, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service and the company. The bacterium was found during a routine company test of its facilities, according to the FSIS.     Read More

There have been plenty of misconceptions about different types of food production methods.  Specifically in beef production there are some that have tried to convince consumers that organic production makes for safer beef.  Regardless of how beef cattle are raised there are going to be E. Coli that live in the digestive tract of the cattle.  When we harvest cattle, regardless of the production method used to raise them, precautions must be taken to ensure no contamination takes place.  This is true for all types of food coming from all types of production methods. 

E.Coli Illnesses Significantly Drop

Beef industry keeps focus on safety improvements
High Plains Journal

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the rate of illness due to E. coli O157 significantly decreased in 2009. The 2009 E. coli illness rate is the lowest since 2004 and meets the Healthy People 2010 goal to cut the number of O157 illnesses in half.

"This is good news for beef producers and consumers alike," says Jeff Clausen, a beef producer from Carson, Iowa, and the beef industry's Beef Safety Committee chairman. "Anyone involved in the ongoing battle to improve food safety is gratified by the news that illnesses from E. coli O157 have declined. However, E. coli O157 is a tough, adaptable foe and our work is not done."

Through beef checkoff investments and widespread industry commitment, the beef industry continues to make strides toward reducing the incidence of E. coli O157 by implementing multiple interventions throughout the beef production chain.

For more information on the industry's beef safety efforts, visit BIFSCo.org. For more information about programs funded by your checkoff investment, visit MyBeefCheckoff.com.

Link

Every year, producers are committing their own money to learn more about e. Coli and how best to reduce the chances for contamination. While research is determining new and better ways to handle O157, the time-tested advice of avoiding cross contamination in the kitchen and properly cooking all meat will still eliminate any chance of ever getting sick. Food safety is a team effort that we all need to be part of. ~Troy

Congress Learns About Livestock Antibiotic Use

AVMA Briefs Congress On Importance Of Antibiotics
TheCattleSite.com

US - The nation's largest veterinary association briefed Congress yesterday (29 March) on the uses of antibiotics and how they help protect animal health, providing in-depth scientific information on the necessity of antibiotic use for preventing and treating disease in companion animals and livestock.

Two educational sessions were held by the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) with honorary hosts Representative Kurt Schrader, DVM, (Oregon) and Senator John Ensign, DVM, (Nevada), the only veterinarians serving in Congress. The discussions allowed congressional staffers to learn about when and how veterinarians utilise antibiotics to keep both food supply animals and household pets disease-free.

Speaking at the briefings as an expert in livestock medicine, Dr Lloyd Keck, a worldwide animal health consultant to the poultry industry and former AVMA Congressional Science Fellow, dispelled arguments related to human antibiotic-resistance risks.

Dr Keck said: "Antibiotics are necessary for veterinarians to protect the health and well-being of animals. Benefits to animals and people outweigh the current risk associated with bacterial resistance. Going forward, we need to let good sense and good science guide this issue." Read More

For those who raise livestock, keeping them healthy is your job. Restricting the use of antibiotics would prevent them from doing that job. The idea that you should let animal get really sick before you could start treating them flies in the face of good animal husbandry. Not only that but keeping our livestock healthy is also an important step in keeping ourselves healthy.

Katie Couric's Report on Antibiotic Use in Livestock

Watch CBS News Videos Online

Tonight will begin the two part series on CBS News about antibiotic use in livestock. Unfortunately by the looks of the preview, Katie is going to be more interested being an activist rather than a journalist. Just count how many times she uses the undefineable term "factory farm" in this preview.

I am very concerned about "superbugs" and antibiotic resistance, just like everyone else. However, attacking one area of usage, mostly the low hanging fruit, will not help. All of us use products that are designed to kill bacteria every single day. If we want to have a serious discussion about antibiotic resistance, we are going to need to evaluate everything. I will be disappointed if Katie doesn't address that.

This should open up many opportunities for family farmers and ranchers to explain how and why they use antibiotics. Their is a big misconception that all livestock are fed antibiotics all the time. The phrase most commonly used is "they are pumped full of antibiotics". They are just too expensive to do such a thing. I don't know who she refers to everytime she talks about a factory farm, but everyone that I know who raises livestock tries to give them the very best care possible.

That's the story I am looking forward to sharing with people.

Making Beef Even Safer

New methods aim to keep E. coli in beef lower all year
By Elizabeth Weise, USA TODAY

The dead of winter may not be the time when most people's thoughts turn toward the allure of a hamburger on the grill. But from a food safety standpoint, it's probably the safest time there is to eat ground beef.

"The theory is that animals are carrying higher levels of E. coli during the summer months, and sometimes they may overwhelm the systems in place to control pathogen contamination in (processing) plants," says James Marsden, a professor of food safety and security at Kansas State University.

Research has been focusing "on how to level out that curve," says Marsden, also senior science adviser to the North American Meat Processors Association.

So industry and researchers are turning their sights to new technologies being deployed on the farm, the feedlot and at the slaughterhouse to knock E. coli O157:H7 down to winter levels all year round.

There's an unconventional mix at the forefront of this fight: bacteria-eating viruses, a paper-bleaching chemical, vaccines and a kind of yogurt for cattle. Read More

I am proud of the fact that I am in involved in the first step of getting high quality beef to the consumer’s plate. Along with that, I am also concerned about keeping our food supply as safe as possible. No matter what type of food you are talking about, all of us need to take precautions to ensure it’s safe to eat. Farmers and ranchers who raise cattle have contributed tens of millions of dollars of their own money over that last several years to find even better ways to ensure beef is safe to eat. We have the safest food supply in the world, but that’s not good enough for us, we want to make it even better. I want to thank this reporter for providing a straight-forward, informational piece highlighting these efforts. It just goes to show that it is possible for reporters to educate people about agriculture and food production without having to scare them out of eating.

The Real Story on Food Safety

The unusual suspects
As food production and preparation moves farther afield, tainted items become hard to avoid
By Arthur Allen
Special to The Washington Post
Tuesday, December 8, 2009

If you were planning to serve shrimp during the holidays, you might not want to talk to Michael Doyle, director of the Food Safety Center at the University of Georgia. You see, most of the shrimp sold in the United States, as well as the tilapia and some other fish, are grown in ponds on small farms in China and Southeast Asia. Doyle has visited those farms. What they feed the fish doesn't belong in a family newspaper.

Most of us have long been aware that raw meat is crawling with pathogenic microbes. For most Americans, avoiding it is common sense. Undercooked chicken? Send it back. Steak tartare? Non, merci.

But shrimp? Tilapia? Spinach? Peanut butter? Cookie dough? And how about apple juice?

The increasing number of front-page outbreaks and the high-profile critiques of the food system by such writers as Michael Pollan ("The Omnivore's Dilemma") and Eric Schlosser ("Fast Food Nation") can give the impression that the U.S. food supply is spiraling out of control. But is Americans' food, in fact, more dangerous that it was in the day of home-cooked meals? People who have studied the numbers aren't convinced. The food supply is certainly safer than it was 100 years ago, experts agree, and probably a bit safer than it was even two decades ago, according to CDC food safety expert Robert Tauxe. That said, it could be a lot safer -- and there are real reasons to worry.

With improved surveillance, more outbreaks are identified, which can make things seem worse than they were in the past. The CDC tracks food-borne outbreaks primarily through two networks, called FoodNet and PulseNet. FoodNet uses hospital records and microbial testing programs to trace the spread of pathogens, while PulseNet uses genetic fingerprinting to link cases of illness. Read More

I have to give credit to a reporter when a balanced, informational piece is written about food. It’s interesting that he even counters some widely held beliefs, such as the myth that e. coli was created by modern livestock production methods. I also really appreciate that he emphasized the fact that properly handling and cooking meat will eliminate the risk of any food related illnesses. Our food safety system isn’t perfect, but I wouldn't trade it for any other system in the world. Unfortunately, since humans aren’t perfect, our food safety system never will be either, but we will never quit trying to make it better. And it only helps when we get reporters who write informational pieces rather than creating fear about food.

Cattlemen Dealing With Many Issues

WINDMILL: Cattlemen bristle at EPA, USDA rules
By Jerry Lackey
Saturday, November 21, 2009

SAN ANGELO, Texas — An unbelievable number of issues confront not only the cattle business but agriculture as a whole, says Colin Woodall, vice president of government affairs for National Cattlemen’s Beef Association in Washington, D.C. But one of the biggest concerns is the Environmental Protection Agency’s dust rule.

“The EPA is proposing a tenfold reduction in the thresholds of what they call coarse particle matter, which is EPA talk for agricultural dust,” Woodall said in a recent interview during the 65th annual National Association of Farm Broadcasters convention.

“We’re talking about everything that comes out of the back of a cotton stripper or a combine (dust, leaves and harvest debris), cows that are milling around in the lot, even dust kicked up from pickup tires while driving down the ranch road,” Woodall said. “They would all be in violation of EPA’s clean air rules.” Read More

There certainly are many issues facing agriculture, and animal agriculture in particular. In my mind it highlights the need for producers to become involved in helping shape the solutions to these problems. It’s more important than ever to be active in an agriculture organization that represents your views. Your involvement can’t end there though, you need to be politically active as well by contacting your elected officials to share your thoughts and let them know how pending legislation might affect your ability to produce food and fiber. I was reminded again this weekend that politics is a contact sport. If you have been sitting on the sidelines, please suit up and get on the field!

Food Safety Involves Everyone

November 19, 2009
Senate Bill Would Require E. Coli Testing
By MICHAEL MOSS

Citing public concern that meat companies and federal regulators are not doing enough to make ground beef safe, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, Democrat of New York, has introduced legislation that would require companies to test for a deadly E. coli strain.

The bill, the E. Coli Eradication Act of 2009, is focused on the slaughterhouse trimmings and other meat components commonly used to make ground beef. It would require testing at the slaughterhouses and then at grinding facilities before the trimmings are mixed.

A few companies, including the retail giant Costco, already test incoming trimmings at their grinding facilities, but most of the industry relies on slaughterhouses to test their own trim. Grinders that do their own spot checks typically wait to test the finished product after the trim is mixed, which prevents identifying the source of contamination.

The testing required by the legislation would increase the cost of producing ground beef by about a penny a pound, a spokesman for the senator said. The United States Department of Agriculture, which in 1994 banned the sale of ground beef tainted by O157:H7, has encouraged meat companies to test their products for the pathogen. In the absence of such a rule, meat companies have adopted varied practices and testing protocols. Read More

Regardless of whether or not this legislation passes, it wouldn’t necessarily change the safety of our food supply. The reason is that proper handling and cooking guidelines must still be followed by the consumer. All the testing known to man won’t make a difference if the final handler of the product doesn’t do their part to keep the food safe. If you want to guarantee the safety of the meat you are eating, all you have to do is cook it to the proper temperature and you will never have anything to worry about. And that doesn’t cost anything to do. I believe that we need to do what we can at every stage of production to protect the safety of our food supply, but consumers have to hold up their end of the bargain as well. That goes for all types of food.

McDonalds/Beef Internet Hoax Continues

McDonald's and Canadian cattle producers debunk persistent Internet hoax
(CP) – 13 hours ago

LANIGAN, Sask. — McDonald's Canada and the president of the Canadian Cattlemen's Association are trying to counter what they say is false information being spread by an Internet hoax.

The hoax email purports to be from an Alberta cattle-feeding group and calls for a boycott of the fast-food chain because it says McDonald's has plans to buy most of its beef from South America.
Not true, association president Brad Wildeman said Monday.

He's been receiving the email in one form or another since 2003 and in the past, has tried personally emailing the sender to refute it.

Because the email has been so widely circulated, the association thought it was time to set the record straight, he said.

"We needed to take a more proactive stance and not only say it's not true and it's a hoax, but here's the real facts behind what's going on," Wildeman said. Read More

I bet I get this United States version of this email at least a few times a year. Every time I get it, I take the time to email everyone who received it to let them know it is a hoax. There is always some beef producer that forwards it to me that is mad as hell about this. What we should be mad about is the fact that the original intent of this email was to make people question the safety of our product. Yes, because there are humans involved in the food chain, mistakes are sometimes made. That goes for any type of food you eat. But the truth is that we enjoy the safest food supply on the planet. If you see this email going around, please let everyone know that it is a hoax.

Antibiotics Increase Food Safety

November 1, 2009
Restrictions could make food less safe
By Don Villwock

Livestock farmers across Indiana and the U.S. are absolutely committed to the production of safe, affordable and abundant food. To do this, farmers must have access to approved, safe and effective technologies, including animal health products.

That's why Farm Bureau opposes HR 1549 and S 619, the legislation currently before Congress that would restrict the use of antibiotics. Rather than protecting the efficacy of antibiotics and the safety of our food, the legislation:

Won't reduce the incidence of antibiotic resistance.

Won't result in a safer food supply.

Will make it harder for farmers to raise healthy animals that will, in turn, produce healthy food.

Might result in food that is less safe for human consumption.

Livestock farmers do not routinely overuse antibiotics in animals. When Indiana Farm Bureau saw the accusations against livestock farmers being used as justification for this legislation, we asked livestock producer members if they use antibiotics at the levels that critics claim. The answer? A resounding "no." Read More

Antibiotics are a great tool that, when properly used in livestock, benefit all of us. These exaggerated claims of livestock being pumped full of antibiotics are frustrating to hear when we know it isn’t the truth. In addition to that, the reasons that antibiotics are used is much different than the claims that say it’s because of the diet we feed them. This is absolutely one of the most commonly asked questions I get from consumers. It’s a confusing subject for those not involved in animal agriculture and it’s especially important that we share this information with them.

PETA Billboard Suggests H1N1 From Eating Pork

PETA rapped over swine flu fear mongering
Wed, 14 Oct 2009 By Russell Parsons

A People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) campaign has been banned by the Advertising Standards Authority for spreading “undue fear and distress” about swine flu.

The ad states “meat kills” in large letters next to a list of diseases with swine flu more prominently featured than others including e.coli and mad cow. The end line reads: “Go Vegetarian. PETA”.

The watchdog ruled some readers might infer that eating meat caused swine flu because the disease stood out more than the others and sat next to the statement on meat and vegetarianism. Read More

Since PETA’s views and ideas can’t stand on their own in society, they have to blatantly lie to the public to garner support. This billboard suggests that eating pork will give you H1N1 and probably kill you. Along with that, eating any type of meat will kill you according to their message. Thankfully it has been rejected by British officials because it is so blatantly misleading. However, they will continue to produce these outlandish ads which is why those of us in agriculture must continue to be vigilant in telling the true story of ag.

E. Coli Is Focus of Conversation Lately

E. coli in burger sparks meat industry controversy
The meat producing and processing industries have been taking criticism that they’re not doing enough to prevent E. coli contamination.

Published: 10/11/2009
By Rebecca Ernst

In the wake of a stark exposé on safety practices in the beef industry that appeared last week in The New York Times , consumers are taking a second look at the meat they eat.

The media backlash after the article’s publication has paved the way for another debate over food safety regulation, in particular the limited role inspections and testing play in keeping ground beef contaminated with E. coli off the market.

“Testing of product, either raw materials or finished products, is something that has limited usefulness,” said Craig Hedberg, professor of environmental health sciences at the University of Minnesota. “We can’t test every square inch of an animal’s carcass to see if there’s bacteria present … it just would be too expensive.”

Contrary to the recent media buzz, most facilities are extremely clean, said Ryan Cox, professor of meat science at the University.

“If you were to go into a modern meat facility,” he said, “it looks very similar to a surgical suite in a hospital.”

Cox explained that meat industry practices are so stringently regulated that “to infer in some way that we have an unsafe system would be certainly an error.” Read More

E.coli has become the hot topic as of late. Starting with the New York Times and going through the Larry King Live show last night, it’s the featured conversation all of a sudden. One of the things from last nights show that was unbelievably absent from most of the conversation was the fact that E. coli is very easy to eradicate. Patrick Boyle only mentioned it briefly at the end of the show when he said that proper cooking of meat will eliminate any contamination. Between the New York Times and Larry King last night, the conversation was all about questioning the safety of beef and talking to people that suggested we should stop eating meat all together. So if the solution to all of these problems is a meat thermometer, why isn’t that talked about? It’s a good example of the sensationalized media we are dealing with today. It’s a shame that both of these institutions didn’t use their resources to help educate people more about this, and instead they only worked to raise more fear and doubt about the world’s safest, most affordable food supply.

Consequences of HSUS Actions

U.S. Consumer Egg Prices Could Rise by 25 Percent if Animal Rights Activists Get Their Way
Gov't Spending on Food Assistance for the Needy Would Increase by $169 million

Cheap Imports Would Increase Food Safety Dangers

WASHINGTON, Oct. 6 /PRNewswire/ -- Consumers would be forced to pay 25 percent more for eggs soon if animal rights activists succeed in getting only non-cage eggs sold in the U.S., according to a new study by a respected economic consulting group. That increase would cost consumers $2.6 billion more each year for eggs, a nutritional staple in the American diet. The higher costs would strain Americans' budgets during a difficult economic climate.

Federal spending on food assistance programs for children and the needy also would increase by $169 million annually if the government could only purchase cage-free eggs, according to the study by Promar International, a Washington, D.C. economic consulting firm. Significant amounts of eggs are purchased for the school lunch and breakfast program ($47 million annually); Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC-$100 million); and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP-formerly the Food Stamp Program).

The study predicts that such a dramatic consumer cost increase could open the door to a sharp rise in egg imports from other countries that have far lower food safety and animal welfare standards than the United States. Egg imports could rise from virtually zero today to 7 billion eggs annually, seriously straining the ability of the U.S. government's food safety inspection system.

"If we have to start importing eggs into this country we will increase our food safety risks," said Gene Gregory, president of United Egg Producers, a national cooperative of U.S. family egg farmers. "I don't think American consumers really want to play Russian Roulette with every carton of eggs they buy, which is essentially what would happen if we allow special interest groups to force a ban on the most modern, sanitary egg housing systems in the world. Those systems are used to produce 95 percent of the eggs that American consumers buy every day."

Read More

Regardless of what the Humane Society of the United States tries to tell us, their actions are either going to make our food more expensive, less safe or both. Those are the only possible outcomes of their stated goals. For the voters that continue to support their measures, these are consequences for their actions as well. This part of the story isn’t being told very well and it needs to be. Having a safe, affordable, domestically grown food supply is vital to our nation’s future success.

Consumers Enjoying Affordable Food

When it comes to food, consumers say price does matter
By Drovers news source Tuesday, September 29, 2009

As consumers place more emphasis on price and value as they fill their grocery carts, America’s conventional beef producers are helping ease the financial burden of rising food costs.

According to the Food Marketing Institute’s (FMI) 2009 U.S. Grocery Shopper Trends1, nearly 70 percent of shoppers say the recession is affecting their food shopping — up from 48 percent in 2008. Consumers in every income bracket are checking prices before checking out at the grocery store.

“U.S. consumers are facing rising food costs in a very challenging economy. What most consumers don’t know is that conventional production systems and using modern technologies keep beef affordable,” says Jan Lyons, owner of Lyons Ranch near Manhattan, Kansas.

“Conventional beef production significantly increases the volume of beef produced while conserving natural resources and reducing production costs across all segments of the industry. The result is more affordable beef for everyone.”

Conventional beef production keeps meat-case prices down

A 2009 analysis by Iowa State University agricultural economists Dr. John Lawrence and Maro Ibarburu shows if conventional beef production practices were replaced by organic- or natural-only practices, beef production would decrease by 18 percent and retail prices would increase by 11 percent. Read More

Conventional modern agriculture is under attack, mostly for being too productive. Elitists in this country don’t appreciate a safe affordable food supply since it doesn’t really matter to them. But to families that live paycheck to paycheck, it’s a make or break difference. This article does a nice job of highlighting the benefits of modern beef production.

Innovation & Technology Helping To Feed The World

White Paper Examines Role of Agricultural Innovations in Meeting World Food Crisis

Thu Sep 10, 2009 1:06pm EDT
Agricultural Innovations Can Ensure Affordability, Supply, Safety and Sustainability

GREENFIELD, Ind.--(Business Wire)— Does agriculture need technology to help meet the growing worldwide demand for safe, nutritious and affordable food? The answer is a resounding "yes," according to Jeff Simmons, author of a white paper titled "Technology's Role in the 21st Century: Food Economics and Consumer Choice." In his paper, Simmons provides a comprehensive review of the growing challenge of feeding the world's population, including both historical data and projections that underscore the absolute necessity for new and existing technologies in food production.

"Already, an estimated 963 million people do not have enough to eat, and by 2050, we will need to produce 100 percent more food than we do now," says Simmons. "We can't achieve that by merely adding farmland or increasing crop intensity. But, we can use technology-such as advances in nutrition, disease and pest control, and livestock management-to increase productivity. Having said that, it's imperative that we use only those innovations that have a neutral or positive effect on the environment; to do otherwise is to sacrifice our long-term survival in favor of short-term gains."

Simmons concludes that technology is an important key to meeting the global demand for food and consumer choice for three reasons. First, technology enables food producers to provide more high-quality grains and protein sources using fewer resources. For example, a combination of best-management feeding practices and efficiency-enhancing feed ingredients enables today's cattle growers to use two-thirds less land to produce a pound of beef than it takes to produce a pound of beef from "all-natural," grass-fed cattle.

Second, technological innovation can help keep food affordable while ensuring maximum consumer choice - especially in developing nations. While some countries' well-designed organic systems can provide better yields and profits than traditional systems, on a global scale, organic foods come with a premium that many consumers can't afford.

Finally, technology can help minimize the global environmental impact of increased food production. For instance, modern beef-production techniques actually reduce greenhouse gas emissions per pound of beef by 38 percent compared with "all-natural" production methods, according to a 2007 study by the Hudson Institute. Moreover, technologies such as livestock feed ingredients can help significantly reduce animal waste production that threaten vital water resources, particularly in developing nations where modern pollution-control standards are not in use. Read More

Most of our consumers don’t realize the huge gains in efficiency that agriculture has made over the last 100 years. We are producing incredible amounts of food with a fraction of the inputs. It’s trendy today to blast conventional agriculture and make wild claims about how it’s not sustainable but the reality is much different. Because of the accomplishments we’ve made in increasing our food production capabilities, America enjoys the safest, most affordable food supply.