The study was conducted by scientists at the University of Pretoria (UP) in 2019 and 2020 into the prevalence of Listeria monocytogenes in beef and beef products at abattoirs and retailers in the Gauteng, Mpumalanga and North West provinces.

It showed that 4.6 percent of chilled carcasses sampled at seven abattoirs in Gauteng were positive for Listeria. This means that contaminated items could enter the food chain as beef products sold at retail outlets in the province. 

The study, funded by Red Meat Research and Development South Africa, was prompted by the 2017-2018 outbreak of listeriosis with 1,065 confirmed cases and 218 deaths. It was traced to a ready-to-eat processed meat product called polony, made at a plant in Polokwane run by Enterprise Foods, which at that time was owned by Tiger Brands.

Ready-to-eat (RTE) food, including polony, were also positive for Listeria in the current study.

Supply chain assessment
“Processed foods become contaminated by contact with equipment, the handling of raw products, or from post-processing settings in which the pathogen can survive despite the routine use of disinfectants. Because of potential contamination during slaughter, carcasses can become contaminated, leading to contaminated meat and meat products,” said Dr Rebone Moerane, head of UP’s Department of Production Animal Studies, who was part of the research team.

Another study, published in the Journal of Food Safety, revealed that 8.3 percent, or 33 of 400, beef and beef products were contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes.

University of Pretoria researchers also looked at the prevalence and factors associated with Listeria in cattle, silage, feeds, and water on farms in the three provinces; in slaughtered cattle and carcasses at processing plants; and the contamination of beef products at retail. 

Samples were collected from cattle farms; carcass swabs were taken from abattoirs, and samples of raw beef and beef products, including ready-to-eat items, were collected from shops of all sizes. 

Researchers found the risk of exposure of cattle to listeriosis on farms is minimal. However, the detection of contaminated chilled carcasses sampled at Gauteng abattoirs is troubling, as are the findings at retail outlets, they said.

Get ahead of another outbreak
The prevalence of Listeria was 6 percent, 8.3 percent, and 9.3 percent in beef and beef products sampled in outlets in North West, Mpumalanga, and Gauteng respectively, and 4.3 percent, 11 percent and 9.3 percent for cold beef and beef products.

“Some of the contaminated products were RTE items – including polony, which is widely consumed, and biltong. This increases the risk of human exposure to the pathogen,” said Dr. Moerane. 

“It’s our hope that government and industry stakeholders will act on these findings and introduce strict control and monitoring measures at the appropriate stages in the beef production system. It’s vital that we use the outcomes of this study to get ahead of another potential outbreak of listeriosis.”

In most cases, Listeria monocytogenes isolates responded to penicillin, ampicillin and sulfamethoxazole-trimethoprim, which are important antimicrobials used to treat listeriosis.

Scientists recommended that government and industry implement stringent food safety measures at abattoirs and processing plants to reduce contamination and lower the possibility of another listeriosis outbreak. 

They also suggested follow-up studies of moist biltong, which is widely consumed in the country, to determine its ability to support the growth of Listeria and assess the risk posed to consumers. 

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)

The report was produced by the Animal and Plant Health Agency (APHA) under contract with the Food Standards Agency (FSA).

In 2021, 105 samples of fresh beef and pork on retail sale in the UK were sampled between October and December and investigated for E. coli. In previous surveys, 300 samples were tested throughout one year. Reduced numbers were because of the delayed start following exit from the EU and because of lab capacity.

E. coli isolates are useful indicators of AMR. They are ubiquitous in animals and allow scientists to monitor the presence of AMR typically circulating in food-producing animals.

Resistance levels found
Less than 1 percent of beef and 4 percent of pork samples possessed an Extended Spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL) or AmpC-expressing E. coli. No meat samples, before enrichment, had background or AmpC-/ESBL-phenotype E. coli counts above EU detection levels, indicating low numbers of these bacteria. However, post-enrichment, one beef, and four pork samples yielded AMR E. coli. Results were similar to the 2015, 2017, and 2019 surveys.

Two pork samples were positive for AmpC-producing E. coli, and two were positive for ESBL-producing E. coli. The beef isolate had an E. coli with an AmpC + ESBL-expressing phenotype.

ESBL and AmpC enzymes confer resistance to cephalosporins. No beef and pork samples were positive for E. coli with resistance to last-resort carbapenem or colistin antimicrobials.

In the five E. coli isolates, resistance was seen to some antibiotics. The beef isolate was resistant to all four cephalosporin antibiotics it was tested against (cefepime, cefotaxime, cefoxitin, and ceftazidime), while the pork isolates were resistant to at least two of these antibiotics. All five E. coli isolates resisted ampicillin but not amikacin, temocillin, or tigecycline.

Most beef samples were from the UK, but some came from Ireland, Brazil, Poland, Scotland, and Spain. Most pork samples were domestic, but others were from Germany, Denmark, Belgium, Ireland, and the Netherlands. Samples were collected from retail across England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Pet food AMR study
Another survey is gathering data on antimicrobial resistance in bacteria found in raw dog and cat food on sale in the UK.

Raw pet food does not undergo heat treatment meaning the final retail product can be contaminated with microorganisms, including pathogens and AMR bacteria.

Findings will enable the FSA to identify any risk to the public by cross-contamination during storing and handling of such products.

The survey involves collecting 280 dog and 100 cat food items on sale in the UK from March 2023 to February 2024. Before testing for AMR, samples will be tested for the detection and enumeration of E. coli, Salmonella, Campylobacter, Shiga toxin-producing E. coli, and Livestock-associated Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Screening of AMR will include Extended Spectrum Beta Lactamases (ESBLs), AmpC, Carbapenems, and fluoroquinolones, as well as analysis for colistin resistance and the colistin-resistant MCR genes.

Another 140 dog and 50 cat products will have the packaging swabbed before opening and testing for the above contaminants. This data will indicate whether raw dog and cat food packaging is appropriate to prevent microbiologically contaminated meat liquid seepage during thawing and the potential to cross-contaminate other foods and surfaces within the home.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)

The decision covers consignments of beef, poultry, and meat products and preparations exported from Brazil to England, Scotland, and Wales. It comes after an audit of Brazil’s sanitary and phytosanitary controls.

Following allegations of fraud in Brazil in 2017 during Operation Carne Fraca, measures were implemented for enhanced checks on certain imported animal products.

For beef and poultry meat products from Brazil, exports to Great Britain no longer need enhanced pre- and post-import testing for Salmonella or the added attestation attached to health certificates confirming Salmonella sampling, methods of analysis used, and results.

The number of microbiological non-compliances in Brazilian poultry products was three in 2020, five in 2021, and four between January and October 2022. In 2022, Brazil exported U.S. $282.2 million in poultry meat and around $134.5 million in beef to the UK. Since Brexit, Brazilian agricultural exports to the UK have increased by 67 percent, reaching $1.8 billion in 2022.

A report sets out the conclusions and recommendations of the audit led by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) in October 2022. The visit reviewed the enhanced Salmonella checks in place for exports of poultry meat and of poultry and beef meat products and preparations.

Post-import physical checks for poultry and beef products will be reduced from 100 percent physical and 20 percent microbiological sampling. Brazil can now re-list certain poultry and beef sites for export to Great Britain.

Auditors visited central and regional authorities, two certification centers, eight slaughterhouses, four other businesses, two farms, and four laboratories. The Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, and Supply (MAPA) leads official controls and certification of exports of animals and animal products. The Department of Inspection of Animal Products (DIPOA) is responsible for managing the Brazilian Federal Inspection Service (SIF).

Main audit findings
Brazilian authorities have made “significant” progress in correcting the systemic failings in the framework of controls and their application that led to enhanced Salmonella controls. According to Defra, changes to legislation and a restructuring of the authorities have strengthened the regulatory oversight of exports and clarified accountabilities.

However, there was no consistent process for delisting establishments. One site informed authorities it had stopped production in 2020 and requested delisting. At the time of the audit, the list of approved sites for export to Great Britain, published by MAPA, still had this firm as approved, and UK authorities had not been informed.

In beef slaughterhouses, hygienic dressing of carcasses was not done effectively to minimize the risk of contamination, including the risk of Salmonella cross-contamination. Slaughter lines were overcrowded and required constant monitoring and corrective action, such as slowing the line. 

The audit team was told it was a requirement that Salmonella samples in poultry taken for export consignments to Great Britain should be sent to official MAPA labs. However, some results reviewed by auditors suggested this was not always the case. There was also an “inconsistent” understanding and application of Salmonella testing requirements, depending on the frequency of export and product type.

Several pieces of machinery in poultry plants were not cleaned adequately before production started, with feathers and blood residues from the previous processing shift found.

Several recommendations were made around contingency planning and written procedures; delisting establishments; official controls on approved sites; Salmonella controls; and lab capability and microbiological testing.

One recommendation covered the need for plans to ensure sufficient resources are available to undertake inspections at the required frequency, even if changes in risk levels lead to added demand. Another mentioned health marking of beef carcasses being applied inconsistently. In some cases, it was only put on the packaging, not the carcass.

Meanwhile, the Food Standards Agency (FSA) and Food Standards Scotland (FSS) have called for evidence of the UK joining the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP).

Responses will inform FSS and the FSA advice to the Department for Business and Trade, contributing to a report as part of the parliamentary scrutiny process on the Free Trade Agreement. The deadline for submissions is Sept. 10.

Views are wanted on whether and to what extent human health may be affected regarding food safety and nutrition because of provisions in the CPTPP related to trade in agricultural products.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)

EWG earlier this year petitioned USDA to prohibit “Low-Carbon Beef” labels and require third-party verification for similar carbon claims. The EWG also wants USDA to require a numerical on-pack carbon disclosure when such claims are made.

However, it may not be simple or settled regarding climate claims, even when beef is involved.

Beef is not usually considered a carbon-friendly product compared to what?  The University of California-Davis recently found that lab-grown meat could have a greater carbon impact than regular beef because of the pharmaceutical-like production methods that are likely used.

“We conducted a study, and it shows that there is a risk that cultured meat might be worse for the environment in some situations than animal agriculture,” according to UC Davis’s Edward Sprang.

The environmental group argues that misleading climate claims like “climate-friendly” on beef products or allowing climate claims without sufficient verification and an accompanying numerical carbon disclosure violates federal laws prohibiting false and misleading claims, said EWG in its petition. 

 “There is no single food choice less friendly for the climate than beef,” said Scott Faber, senior vice president for government affairs at EWG. “The only thing ‘brazen’ about Tyson’s beef is its claim that it can ever be climate-friendly.”

Per gram of protein, beef production produces approximately nine times more greenhouse gas, or GHG, emissions than poultry, six-and-a-half times more than pork, and 25 times more than soybeans, according to EWG.

EWG policing climate-related speech has not yet raised concerns about USDA’s labels. USDA spends millions on its programs that it has taken to labeling “Climate Smart” and “Climate Solutions.”

Studies show no food choice results in more greenhouse gas emissions than beef. But many consumers viewing “climate-friendly” claims, like those made by Brazen Beef, an initiative of Tyson Foods, are likely to assume that purchasing beef bearing such a label will help reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The EWG says that, by any measure, beef is the wrong choice for the climate.

The EWG urges the USDA to prohibit “climate-friendly” and similar claims on beef products and to require a third-party verification and a numerical on-pack carbon disclosure for such claims to give consumers more information.

Brazen Beef claims to rely on “innovative, reliable farmers who raise crops using agricultural practices that can help reduce GHG emissions,” citing changes in tillage, the adoption of cover crops, and better nutrient management. It also says that ranchers must meet the Tyson Foods’ Climate-Smart Beef Program criteria, which includes an auditing process and data sharing that is “used in a model that estimates GHG emissions.”

Brazen Beef claims its GHG emissions are already down 10 percent. In support of this claim, Brazen Beef says that it has “built a model that backs it up.”

Yet neither Brazen Beef nor Tyson identifies the farmers or ranchers adopting these practices, names the specific practices that have been adopted, or produces data demonstrating that these practices have reduced the methane emissions produced by animals and their manure or the nitrous oxide emissions caused by fertilizing crops grown for animal feed. 

“Consumers assume that such ‘climate-friendly’ and similar claims have been verified by an independent third party,” Faber said. “But the USDA relies on an honor system, taking ranchers and food companies at their word without any verification by the USDA or a qualified third party.”  

The EWG also submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to the agency asking for all internal communications, including emails, memos, and minutes of meetings between agency staff and representatives from beef producers like Brazen Beef and Tyson.

“No amount of greenwashing by companies can obscure that beef is always the worst food choice for the climate,” Faber said.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)

A half-century ago, Colorado’s Greeley Beef Plant was the first large-scale producer of what it called “boxed beef,” with specific cuts of beet, for restaurant and grocery store customers back East.

Today, case-ready meat, retail-ready meat, or pre-packaged meat is how the industry refers to fresh meat that is processed and packaged at a central facility and delivered store-ready for the retail meat case.

While Walmart can order case-ready cuts of meat from any number of producers these days, the fact that its first wholly-owned plant is going with case-ready products is not going unnoticed.

The “boxed beef” plant will bring 600 jobs to the Olathe area. “This is great news,” said Olathe Mayor John Bacon. “We’re thrilled that Walmart chose Olathe for its innovative facility. This huge capital investment will create more jobs that will greatly benefit the City of Olathe and our entire region.”

Olathe is the county seat of Johnson County, KS. It is the fourth-most populous city in both the Kansas City metropolitan area and the state of Kansas, with a 2020 population of 141,290.

Walmart Inc. is a retail chain of large, discount, department, and grocery stores that is headquartered in Bentonville, AR. It is already a huge purchaser of case-ready beef for its 4,700 U.S. stores with Angus beef from cattle using sustainable practices among its featured products.

The new Olathe facility will add to Walmart’s ability to control its supply chain. It follows the Walmart food production facility that opened in 2018 in Fort Wayne IN. The milk production facility supplies about 500 Walmart stores with milk products under the Great Value brand. The milk comes from dairy farms in Indiana and Michigan.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)

The Class 1 recall by Prem Meats in Prairie du Sac, WI, impacts some pork and beef products sold at its retail store. The implicated products have establishment number No. 793 printed in the mark of inspection.

Products subject to this recall are:

• Bacon-wrapped pork loin, sold in one or two pieces in vacuum-sealed packages
• Bacon-wrapped tenderloin (beef), sold in one or two pieces in vacuum-sealed packages
• Pork squealers, sold in one or two pieces in vacuum-sealed packages

“This is a Class I recall, initiated based on evidence collected during routine inspection activities,” according to the recall notice posted by the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection.

“Evidence shows that the products were produced without an approved formula and without the benefit of inspection.”

According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, a Class 1 recall signifies that the recalled product is a health hazard where there is a reasonable probability that the use of the product will cause serious, adverse health consequences or death.

As of the posting of the notice, no illnesses had been confirmed as a result of consuming these products. Anyone with signs or symptoms of a foodborne illness should contact their doctor. Consumers who have these products should discard them. Consumers with questions about this recall can contact Gavin Prem, Prem Meats, at 608-588-2164.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here)

The problem was discovered when FSIS was conducting routine FSIS testing of ground beef derived from this product and the sample confirmed positive for STEC O103. 

The boneless beef chuck items were packed on Feb. 16, 2023.

These items were shipped to distributors, federal establishments, retail locations, and wholesale locations, which includes hotels, restaurants, and institutions, in Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania.

Recalled product:

• Various weights corrugated boxes containing “Elkhorn Valley Pride Angus Beef 61226 BEEF CHUCK 2PC BNLS; Packed on 2/16/23.” 
• The complete list of serial numbers and box count numbers for the boneless beef chuck product that are subject to recall can be found here.

The product subject to recall bears establishment number “EST. M-19549” inside the USDA mark of inspection. 

As of the posting of this recall, there have been no confirmed reports of adverse reactions due to the consumption of these products.

Distributors and other customers who have purchased these products for further processing should not use them or further distribute them. These products should be thrown away or returned to the place of purchase.

About E. coli infections
Anyone who has eaten any of the implicated beef and developed symptoms of E. coli infection should seek medical attention and tell their doctor about their possible exposure to the bacteria. Specific tests are required to diagnose the infections, which can mimic other illnesses.

The symptoms of E. coli infections vary for each person but often include severe stomach cramps and diarrhea, which is often bloody. Some patients may also have a fever. Most patients recover within five to seven days. Others can develop severe or life-threatening symptoms and complications, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

About 5 to 10 percent of those diagnosed with E. coli infections develop a potentially life-threatening kidney failure complication, known as a hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS). Symptoms of HUS include fever, abdominal pain, feeling very tired, decreased frequency of urination, small unexplained bruises or bleeding, and pallor. 

Many people with HUS recover within a few weeks, but some suffer permanent injuries or death. This condition can occur among people of any age but is most common in children younger than five years old because of their immature immune systems, older adults because of deteriorating immune systems, and people with compromised immune systems such as cancer patients. 

People who experience HUS symptoms should immediately seek emergency medical care. People with HUS will likely be hospitalized because the condition can cause other serious and ongoing problems such as hypertension, chronic kidney disease, brain damage, and neurologic problems.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here)

These items were shipped to schools in Minnesota. While the product was distributed to schools, it was through a commercial sale and was not part of the food provided by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety for the National School Lunch Program.

The problem was discovered when the firm notified the USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) that it received a report from a school that food handlers found thin, wire-like metal on the outside of the product during preparation. The material was not reported to be embedded in the product.

The frozen, ready-to-eat beef sambusa items were produced on Dec. 30, 2022, and Feb. 21, 2023. 

Recalled product:

• Bulk boxes containing 75 pieces of “HOYO Beef Sambusa Ground Beef Pastry with Onions and Spices” and lot codes N341-S and N333-S.

The product subject to recall bears the establishment number “EST. 47424” inside the USDA mark of inspection. 

As of the posting of this recall, there have been no confirmed reports of adverse reactions due to the consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about an injury or illness should contact a healthcare provider.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is concerned that some products may be in school freezers. Schools are urged not to serve this product. This product should be thrown away or returned to the place of purchase.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here)

The proposed rule allows the voluntary “Product of USA” or “Made in the USA” label to be used on meat, poultry, and egg products only when derived from animals born, raised, slaughtered and processed in the United States.

Monday’s announcement delivers on one of the key actions in President Biden’s Executive Order on Promoting Competition in the American Economy. The U.S. Department of Agriculture said the increased clarity and transparency provided by this proposed change would prevent consumer confusion and help ensure that consumers understand where their food comes from.

“American consumers expect that when they buy a meat product at the grocery store, the claims they see on the label mean what they say,” said Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack. “These proposed changes are intended to provide consumers with accurate information to make informed purchasing decisions. Our action today affirms USDA’s commitment to ensuring accurate and truthful product labeling.”

Farm and ranch groups, consumers praise new rule
Justin Tupper, president of the U.S. Cattlemen’s Association, said his organization petitioned for the USDA action.

“In our 2019 petition for rulemaking to FSIS, USCA called out the practice of applying ‘Product of the USA’ and ‘Made in the USA’ labeling claims on beef products that the food safety agency itself admitted could have come from other countries.  

“USCA is pleased to see that the proposed rule finally closes this loophole by accurately defining what these voluntary origin claims mean, something we have been working to clarify since the repeal of mandatory country-of-origin labeling in 2015. If it says ‘Made in the USA,’ then it should be from cattle that have only known USA soil. Consumers have the right to know where their food comes from, full stop.

“USCA would like to thank the Biden Administration for incorporating this goal in their Action Plan for a Fairer, More Competitive, and More Resilient Meat and Poultry Supply Chain issued in 2022. But, we also need to recognize the relentless work by our champions in Congress, including my home-state Sen. Mike Rounds, R-SD, who sponsored the U.S.A. Beef Act would have prohibited beef from bearing the phrase “Product of U.S.A.” unless it was exclusively derived from U.S. cattle. We could not have elevated this issue without the many voices speaking up and supporting the change.  

“USCA plans to submit comments supporting this proposed definition.”

Farm Action and American Grassfed Association were among the farm and ranch groups also applauding  USDA’s announcement while Consumer Reports topped approvals from consumer groups.

The voluntary “Product of U.S.A.” label will apply exclusively to meat, poultry, and egg products derived from animals born, raised, slaughtered, and processed in the United States.

.Current policy allows imported meat to bear a “Product of U.S.A.” label provided it passes through a USDA-inspected plant. It is a heavily exploited loophole that has allowed multinational corporations to import meat, repackage it, and pass it off as a higher-quality product raised by U.S. farmers and ranchers. Monday’s announcement closes that loophole.

“Truthful labels protect consumers and keep the playing field fair,” said Joe Maxwell, president and co-founder of Farm Action. “After a five-year fight, we’re pleased to see the USDA stepping up to stop the cheaters picking the pockets of America’s farmers and ranchers.”

“Our petition filed in 2018 has finally been acted on,” said Carrie Balkcom, executive director of the American Grassfed Association. “We are pleased to have the USDA act on the ‘Product of U.S.A.’ as promised in the executive order issued by President Biden in July 2021. This proposed rule-making change will help American grass-fed farmers not be undercut by mislabeled meat coming from offshore. We will continue to work with Farm Action to make meat labels truthful.”

Consumer Report’s Brian Ronholm said: “Shoppers sometimes pay premium prices for products carrying the ‘Product of USA’ label and deserve to know they can depend on that claim.”

As part of its review, USDA commissioned a nationwide consumer survey. The survey revealed that the current “Product of USA” labeling claim is misleading to a majority of consumers surveyed, with a significant portion believing the claim means that the product was made from animals born, raised, slaughtered, and processed in the United States.

USDA’s comprehensive review shows there is a clear need to revise the current “Product of USA” label claim so that it more accurately conveys U.S. origin information.

Under the proposed rule, the “Product of USA” label claim would continue to be voluntary. It would also remain eligible for generic label approval, meaning it would not need to be pre-approved by USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) before it could be used on the regulated products but would require supporting documentation to be on file for the agency inspection personnel to verify. The rulemaking also proposes to allow other voluntary U.S.-origin claims we see on meat, poultry, and egg products sold in the marketplace. These claims would need to include a description of the package of all preparation and processing steps that occurred in the United States upon which the claim is made.

USDA encourages stakeholders, both domestic and international, to comment on the proposed rule. The proposed rule will be open for public comment for 60 days after publishing in the Federal Register. Public comments can be submitted at www.regulations.gov.

This is the first major progress since Country of Origin (COOL) labeling was originally passed in the 2008 Farm Bill — and the first step toward truth in labeling since the Mandatory COOL program’s repeal in 2015. 

Congress repealed MCool after the World Trade Organization (WTO) said it was a non-tariff trade barrier and would allow Canada and Mexico to collect billions from U.S. concerns.

Mandatory COOL remains the U.S. cattle industry’s primary goal and the wishes of the majority of cattle producers and consumers. The American Beef Labeling Act reinstates mandatory country-of-origin labeling requirements for beef.

Specifically, the bill requires the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) to develop a means of reinstating the requirements that comply with the rules of the World Trade Organization.

The USTR and the Department of Agriculture must implement the means within one year.

The clear definition from the USDA is the first step to securing truthful and accurate labels.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here)

The Controladoria-Geral da União (CGU) verdict relating to Seara Alimentos was officially published this month. JBS said it will appeal the decision.

JBS S.A. is the Brazilian-based parent company of JBS USA, which built its North American units around the acquisition of Swith and Company.

JBS said those responsible for the Carne Fraca (Weak Flesh) investigation did not raise any suspicions about the quality or security of Seara’s or JBS’ products and brands.

Seara Alimentos was fined more than Brazilian Real $14.8 million (U.S. $2.8 million) and told to publish information about the decision in a physical location and on its website.

In March 2017, Brazilian police announced the results of Operation Carne Fraca, which began in 2015 and highlighted cases of fraud and corruption in about 20 beef and poultry processing plants in the country. Major changes were made by the Brazilian Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, and Food (MAPA) as a result of the incident.

CGU findings and JBS response
An investigation as part of Carne Fraca showed that Seara Alimentos had a way to pay “undue benefits” to agents from the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, and Food (MAPA) in the State of Paraná. This affected inspection activities and the issuing of national and international sanitary certificates facilitating the shipment of food products to China and Chile said the CGU.

“It is important to make it clear that those responsible for the Carne Fraca Operation, which began in 2017, did not mention or raise any suspicions about quality or security from Seara’s or JBS products and brands. This can be easily verified in the Federal Court order that authorized the police Carne Fraca operation investigations focused on administrative questions on the Ministry of Agriculture inspection system,” said a JBS statement.

Sanctioned companies normally have 30 days to pay any fines. However, since an appeal has been filed the deadline to comply starts from when a decision on it is made if it is unsuccessful.

At the end of December 2022, BRF S.A. signed a leniency agreement in Brazil related to Operation Carne Fraca and Operation Trapaça (Cheating). 

The company agreed to pay more than Brazilian Real $580 million ($110.4 million). As part of this, authorities ended proceedings targeting the business and will not file related lawsuits against the company.

BRF also promised to adopt preventive measures to ensure such practices would not happen again and to improve its integrity program.

Operation Trapaça results, published in 2018, focused on lab tests for Salmonella that had been falsified to avoid controls by authorities.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)

By Bill Bullard, CEO, R-CALF USA

New Year’s question: What do various organizations with membership comprised of Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals, urbanites and rural folks, and consumers and producers, all have in common?

The answer is: They all want Congress to pass a new law so they can know where their beef comes from. The new law they want is the American Beef Labeling Act that requires country of origin labels on beef. This is known as mandatory country of origin labeling (MCOOL) for beef.

And I can prove that that’s the right answer. In early 2023, 50 diverse organizations representing millions of Americans sent a joint letter to Congress urging swift enactment of the American Beef Labeling Act, which requires beef to be labeled as to where the animal was born, where it was raised, and where it was slaughtered. 

And here’s the proof of the diversity: Organizations joining the letter included the Consumer Federation of America and National Farmers Union, the National Latino Farmers & Ranchers Trade Association and National Women Involved in Farm Economics, the American Economic Liberties Project and the Coalition for a Prosperous America, which is largely a manufacturing group that addresses trade policy.

So why would millions of Americans with such diverse backgrounds and even polar ideals all urge Congress to swiftly enact MCOOL for beef?

We can look at court records for the answer. Here are excerpts from a United States appeal court opinion and a concurring opinion when the court defended MCOOL in the face of a lawsuit filed by the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association and trade associations representing transnational beef packers.

The court said this when determining the value of MCOOL for beef:

“The Government has long required commercial disclosures to prevent consumer deception or to ensure consumer health or safety.”

“Some consumers might want to know whether their U.S.-made product was made by U.S. citizens and not by illegal immigrants.”

“[C]ountry-of-origin labeling is justified by the Government’s historically rooted interest in supporting American manufacturers, farmers, and ranchers as they compete with foreign manufacturers, farmers, and ranchers.” 

“Country-of-origin labeling, it is widely understood, causes many American consumers [] to buy a higher percentage of American-made products, which in turn helps American manufacturers, farmers, and ranchers as compared to foreign manufacturers, farmers, and ranchers.”

“[T]he Government has a substantial interest in this case in supporting American farmers and ranchers against their foreign competitors.”

“The country-of-origin labeling requirement at issue here is purely factual, is not unduly burdensome, and . . . is reasonably related to the Government’s longstanding interest in supporting American farmers and ranchers.”

“Obviously it enables a consumer to apply patriotic or protectionist criteria in the choice of meat. And it enables one who believes that United States practices and regulation are better at assuring food safety than those of other countries, or indeed the reverse, to act on that premise.”

“But here we think several aspects of the government’s interest in country-of-origin labeling for food combine to make the interest substantial: the context and long history of country-of-origin disclosures to enable consumers to choose American-made products; the demonstrated consumer interest in extending country-of-origin labeling to food products; and the individual health concerns and market impacts that can arise in the event of a food-borne illness outbreak.”

“Supporting members of Congress identified [MCOOL’s] [] purpose as enabling customers to make informed choices based on characteristics of the products they wished to purchase, including United States supervision of the entire production process for health and hygiene.”

“The Congress that extended country-of-origin mandates to food did so against a historical backdrop that has made the value of this particular product information to consumers a matter of common sense.”

“[I]t seems reasonable for Congress to anticipate that many consumers may prefer food that had been continuously under a particular government’s direct scrutiny.”

“But such studies,” the court said, “combined with the many favorable comments the agency received during all of its [MCOOL] rulemakings, reinforce the historical basis for treating [] [MCOOL] information as valuable.”

“Simply because the agency believes it has other, superior means to protect food safety doesn’t delegitimize a congressional decision to empower consumers to take possible country-specific differences in safety practices into account. Nor does such an agency belief undercut the economy-wide benefits of confining the market impact of a disease outbreak.”

So there it is – the reason millions of Americans want MCOOL for beef in 2023 is because they all value supporting America’s food supply chain, competition, transparency, and food safety.

About the organization: R-CALF USA’s weekly opinion/commentary educates and informs both consumers and producers about timely issues important to the U.S. cattle industry and Rural America. R-CALF USA (Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund United Stockgrowers of America) is the largest producer-only lobbying and trade association representing U.S. cattle producers. It is a national, nonprofit organization dedicated to ensuring the continued profitability and viability of the U.S. cattle industry. Visit www.r-calfusa.com or call 406-252-2516 for more information. 

Putrescine is responsible for the noxious odors of putrefying meats. If consumed in large doses, putrescine can cause headaches, vomiting, diarrhea and heart palpitations. 

According to the researchers, their newspaper-based synthetic biosensor is inexpensive, reliable, and consumer-friendly.

Lead author Alaa Selim, who is working on her Ph.D. at the University of Saskatchewan’s Vaccine and Infectious Disease Organization says, “Making a rapid, easy-to-use biosensor for people to check the quality of the food they are eating is empowering. We wanted to make a device that anyone could use, that is disposable and contain no toxic materials.”

Their research, titled “A Synthetic Biosensor for Detecting Putrescine in Beef Samples,” was published in the journal Applied Bio Materials. Selim’s co-authors include her former Ph.D. student colleagues at the Shih Microfluidics Lab and Steve Shih, associate professor of electrical and computer engineering.

“We believe our work is a first step toward using sensors in the meat preparation industry,” says Shih. “In addition, we believe this type of sensing can be used for other fields like an environmental sampling of heavy metal contamination and cancer and disease diagnostics.”

Research methods
The technique behind the sensor relies on cell-free protein synthesis, which produces a protein using the biological machinery of a cell without actually using the living cell. 

Researchers added putrescine to the cell-free system that was producing the repressor in a solution and placed it on a paper device to visually see the presence of putrescine under UV light. After an hour, the researchers found that the biosensor was detecting the presence of putrescine; after four hours, they were confident their readings were highly accurate.

Next, they tested actual meat samples. Beef kept in a freezer, in a refrigerator, and at room temperature were compared to see how much putrescine accumulated over the span of several days. 

Results
The samples from the freezer and refrigerator had very low levels of putrescine, while the ones kept at room temperature showed quite high levels. The levels were high enough to sicken anyone who might eat it.

Salim says she wants everyone to be able to use this technology, “whether it’s a college student, a busy mom, or people working in the restaurant industry.”

The full paper can be found here.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here)

The Centre for Food Safety (CFS) of the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department in Hong Kong ordered the industry to suspend the import of raw oysters harvested in Carlingford Lough in Ireland.

The Centre for Health Protection (CHP) of the Department of Health is investigating a food poisoning cluster affecting 16 people.

Eight males and eight females, aged 25 to 36, developed abdominal pain, diarrhea, dizziness, fever, general weakness, nausea, and vomiting about 21 to 44 hours after attending a lunch banquet at a restaurant in late December. Eight people sought medical advice but none required hospitalization and they are all in stable condition.

Oysters harvested in Ireland
Illnesses have also been reported after the consumption of oysters at another restaurant in Mong Kok.

“The CFS conducted investigations at the restaurants concerned and found that both of them had sold raw oysters which had been harvested in Carlingford Lough in Ireland. For the sake of prudence, the CFS has immediately instructed the trade to suspend the import into and sale within Hong Kong of all raw oysters harvested in Carlingford Lough,” said an agency spokesman.

The CFS has told the supplier and restaurants concerned to stop supplying and selling the affected raw oysters and is tracing the distribution of the affected product. The industry should also stop using or selling the implicated products.

Raw or partially cooked oysters are high-risk foods, according to public health officials. Vulnerable groups, such as pregnant women, young children, the elderly, and people with weakened immune systems or liver diseases, should avoid eating them.

When asked to comment on the incident, Irish authorities said: “The Food Safety Authority of Ireland, the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority, and the Marine Institute are investigating the suspected source of two food poisoning clusters which occurred in Hong Kong possibly linked to the consumption of raw oysters which were harvested in Carlingford Lough, Ireland. The investigation is currently ongoing.” 

BSE-related suspension over
Meanwhile, Irish beef exports to China can restart after restrictions that had been in place since 2020 were lifted by the General Administration of Customs of China (GACC).

Beef shipments were suspended in May 2020 following a case of atypical Bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), also sometimes referred to as mad cow disease. Atypical BSE is rarer than classical BSE and happens spontaneously, usually in older cows. Ireland got access to export frozen boneless beef to China in April 2018. Exports grew until 2020 when trade was suspended in line with a sanitary agreement.

The Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine (DAFM) said the BSE case was detected by its surveillance program, did not enter the food chain, and posed no risk to human health. 

Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Charlie McConalogue, said Irish officials had been in ongoing contact with Chinese authorities since the suspension.

“They provided the necessary technical information for evaluation by Chinese experts. Earlier this year, as a result of my communication with my counterpart in charge of GACC, our officials engaged in further bilateral talks to finalize the restoration of beef access based on scientific principles,” he said.

“Ireland’s reputation as an exporter of high-quality beef worldwide hinges on its compliance with stringent animal health and food safety standards. As a major food exporter, we are always very conscious of the concerns of our customers. China’s decision to resume Irish beef imports on the same conditions as before represents a clear vote of confidence in the output of our beef sector.”

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)

The deal with the Controladoria-Geral da União (CGU) and Advocacia-Geral da União (AGU) was made in late December 2022 and covers Operation Carne Fraca (Weak Flesh) and Operation Trapaça, (Cheating) which were led by Brazil’s federal police.

BRF has agreed to pay more than Brazilian Real $580 million ($110.4 million). It means the authorities will end proceedings targeting the business and will not file lawsuits against the company related to the incident.

In March 2017, Brazilian police announced the results of Operation Carne Fraca, which began in 2015 and highlighted cases of fraud and corruption in around 20 beef and poultry processing plants in the country. Allegations included inspectors being bribed to modify export documents as well as allowing the sale of expired and tainted meat. Major changes were made by the Brazilian Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, and Food (MAPA) as a result of the incident.

Findings from follow-up Operation Trapaça, published in 2018, focused on lab tests for Salmonella that had been falsified to avoid controls by authorities. It involved exports to 12 countries including South Africa, South Korea, Switzerland, and Europe which had specific requirements for Salmonella control and types.

BRF promises enhanced systems
In 2018, BRF approached the CGU and AGU to negotiate a leniency agreement. It worked with investigators to mitigate any sanctions that would be applied as a result of the offenses committed. The CGU evaluated and recognized improvements in programs adopted by the company.

The CGU and AGU said the monetary aspect of the deal covers payment of benefits from illegal practices and the fines are based on regulations such as the anti-corruption law. It will be paid by BRF to the Federal Government in five annual installments, starting on June 30, 2023.

BRF has promised to adopt preventive measures to ensure such practices will not happen again and to improve its integrity program.

“The agreement was the result of a deep and detailed internal investigation process carried out by the company, as of 2018, with the support of external independent advisors, which had the purpose to identify past practices carried out by the company employees,” said a company statement.

“The investigation process resulted, during the course of past years, in a series of administrative measures, including the dismissal of former employees involved in the identified illegal practices; improvement of the company corporate governance and integrity system; voluntary cooperation with Brazilian and foreign authorities, and the negotiation of the agreement.

“The company, from the negotiation phase of the agreement until full compliance with obligations undertaken therein, undertook to make its best efforts to cooperate with the public authorities involved, and shall uphold its public commitment to pursue the process of continuous improvement of its corporate governance and compliance practice.”

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)

“The problem was discovered by FSIS during the review of testing results, which showed the product tested positive for E. coli O157:H7,” according to the recall notice.

The raw frozen diced beef items were produced on August 24, 2022. The following products are subject to recall (view labels here):

• 30-lb. box packages containing “BEEF DICED 3/10# BAGS,” with case code FM010152, LOT#: 082422 and a date of 8/24/2022 on the case label. Each case contains three 10 lb. vacuum-sealed, clear plastic bags of diced beef products.

The products subject to recall bear the establishment number “EST. 4102” inside the USDA mark of inspection. These items were shipped to distributor locations in Oregon for further distribution to restaurants and other institutional users.                      

There have been no confirmed reports of adverse reactions due to the consumption of these products.

About E. coli infections

Anyone who has eaten any of the implicated beef and developed symptoms of E. coli infection should seek medical attention and tell their doctor about their possible exposure to the bacteria. Specific tests are required to diagnose the infections, which can mimic other illnesses.

The symptoms of E. coli infections vary for each person but often include severe stomach cramps and diarrhea, which is often bloody. Some patients may also have a fever. Most patients recover within five to seven days. Others can develop severe or life-threatening symptoms and complications, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

About 5 to 10 percent of those diagnosed with E. coli infections develop a potentially life-threatening kidney failure complication, known as a hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS). Symptoms of HUS include fever, abdominal pain, feeling very tired, decreased frequency of urination, small unexplained bruises or bleeding, and pallor. 

Many people with HUS recover within a few weeks, but some suffer permanent injuries or death. This condition can occur among people of any age but is most common in children younger than five years old because of their immature immune systems, older adults because of deteriorating immune systems, and people with compromised immune systems such as cancer patients. 

People who experience HUS symptoms should immediately seek emergency medical care. People with HUS will likely be hospitalized because the condition can cause other serious and ongoing problems such as hypertension, chronic kidney disease, brain damage, and neurologic problems.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here)

U.S. District Court for Nebraska has apparently concluded the case with a $200,000 fine and a year’s probation for the Omaha-based meat processing company. Earlier plea agreements resulted in 2019 in $1,000 fines for James Timmerman, 50, and Dolese Tippery, 61, both former Nebraska Beef employees.

Timmerman, Nebraska Beef’s CFO, was sentenced to two years probation, and Tippery got six months probation. To settle a civil case, the company also agreed to pay $550,000 in additional payments.

The case reportedly stems from a 2016 Grand Jury subpoena for Nebraska Beef to produce grading records for 50 carcasses of beef, which were altered before they were provided to the beef company’s attorneys for submittal.

While it’s unclear as to why the conclusion of this case has taken so long, the reasoning behind the charges is found in the six-year-old Timmerman plea bargain. It says:

“The defendant understands that the offense to which the defendant is pleading guilty has the following elements:

I. Defendant knowingly represented that an agricultural product had been officially inspected or graded by an authorized inspector or grader;

2. That the agricultural product was subject to inspection or grading under Title 7, United States Code, Section 1622; and

3. That the agricultural product had in fact not been graded or inspected as represented by Defendant.”

The plea bargain went on to explain the case this way:

Background
I. A food processing company located in Omaha, Nebraska, (the “Food Processing Company”) slaughters thousands of heads of cattle a month for purposes of the sale of beef products to the public. (the Food Processing Company is Nebraska Beef.)

2. The defendant, James Timmerman, was employed by the Food Processing Company between 1995 and 2019. Between 2015 and 20 I9, the defendant was the Chief Financial Officer (CFO) of the Food Processing Company. As CFO, the defendant’s duties and responsibilities included the keeping, maintaining, and oversight of grading records at the Food Processing Company.

3. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) through its Agricultural Market Service (AMS) provides beef grading services to packing plants by supplying professional graders who grade beef at the facility.

4. One of the ways that beef is graded is by its “quality.” The majority of packing plants usually request grading for cattle carcasses that qualify for the three top grades, which are “Prime,” “Choice,” or “Select.” Generally, if the cattle carcass does not qualify for one of these three quality grades, the beef is considered ungradable, and is designated as “No-Roll.” Prime is the highest quality grade of beef and is usually the most expensive. Beef that is determined to be No-Roll is in most cases significantly less expensive than Prime, Choice, and Select grades of beef.

5. As part of the grading process, an official USDA metal stamp is typically used to place the determined grade, that is, either Prime, Choice, or Select, on the cattle carcass in front of an ink impression. This ink impression is considered an “official” mark of the USDA grading system and is required on all gradable cattle carcasses.

6. Cattle carcasses processed at the Food Processing Company are subject to inspection or grading under Title 7, United States Code, Section 1622.

7. That in as early as 2012 the Food Processing Company, through its senior employees who are known to investigators, was involved in a scheme to relabel, as upgraded beef, certain beef processed at the Food Processing Company intended to be sold to its customers.

8. Boxes of beef processed at the Food Processing Company’s main plant would be labeled initially with the correct grade or designation of beef such as No-Roll and Select. The boxes of beef would then be transported in tractor-trailer-sized loads to an offsite warehouse controlled by the Food Processing Company. At the offsite warehouse, a crew of Food Processing Company employees would remove original labels on the boxes of beef and replace them with higher grade labels such as Choice and Prime. The relabeled product was then returned to the Food Processing Company and put into inventory. Food Processing Company employees, known to investigators, including the defendant, at a point, knowing that the relabeling was occurring, created false internal Food Processing Company records to conceal the scheme from ever being discovered. This allowed the Food Processing Company to realize greater revenues by selling lower-grade meat at higher-grade prices.

9. In February 2012, as a result of a USDA investigation, the Food Processing Company temporarily discontinued the relabeling scheme. However, in the fall of 2012, the Food Processing Company, through a senior corporate officer who is known to investigators, told Defendant that the Food Processing Company would start relabeling again, but that it would be done in a different way. Defendant and another employee, known to investigators, were directed by a senior corporate officer, known to investigators, to change production reports, which would make it appear the relabeled boxed beef was labeled accurately.

I0. Under the updated relabeling scheme, using dummy shipping/customer codes, boxes of beef from the food processing company were taken to a building located at 24th and Lake, Omaha, NE, and relabeled during the night. The boxes of beef would be taken to an offsite warehouse and scanned into inventory, then returned to the food processing company. The defendant would make changes to the food processing company’s production reports based on the dummy codes.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here)

FSIS is concerned that some product may be in consumers’ or retailers’ refrigerators or freezers.

The problem was discovered when FSIS received a complaint reporting product in commerce labeled with the mark of inspection for Est. 451B bearing labels that were not applied by the originating company. FSIS determined that the distributor repackaged and/or relabeled the beef patty products without the benefit of federal inspection and used the mark of inspection from an establishment without proper authorization.

These items were shipped to retail locations in Florida.

The raw, frozen beef burger patty items were repackaged and/or relabeled on June 28, 2022. 

Recalled products:

• 2-pound boxes containing “MIAMI Burgers 6 BEST ANGUS BEEF” with an expiration date of 2/27/2023 and “CERTIFIED ANGUS BEEF” shield on the label.
• 10-pound boxes containing “MIAMI Burgers BEST ANGUS BEEF with a production date of “FEB. 04, 2022” and “CERTIFIED ANGUS BEEF” on the label. 

The products subject to recall bear establishment number “EST. 451B” inside the USDA mark of inspection; however, the recalling firm is a distributor and is not authorized to apply the marks of inspection for Establishment 451B. The products also bear an unverifiable claim that they are certified Angus beef.                  

As of the posting of this recall, there have been no confirmed reports of adverse reactions due to the consumption of these products.

Consumers who have purchased these products are urged not to consume them and retailers are urged not to sell them. These products should be thrown away or returned to the place of purchase.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here)

A remote DG Sante audit, in October 2021 in Poland, followed-up two audits in 2019 on beef and poultry meat and made nine recommendations.

In 2019, a Polish television broadcast showed practices in a bovine slaughterhouse that pointed to violations of EU animal welfare law and, possibly, of food safety legislation.

DG Sante said several actions to address findings made after the beef and poultry audits have been implemented. However, other shortcomings have not been solved by Polish authorities.

Beef audit findings
A draft act, announced in the action plan by Polish officials, had been suspended because of the high financial cost.

The number of authorized veterinarians has increased since the beef audit from around 3,300 in 2019 to 5,800 in 2021 but official staff in the main authority has decreased.

At the time of the audit, the salaries of authorized vets were based on the number of animals slaughtered, which creates a conflict of interest.

“The reduction of staff in the competent authorities leads to a further reduction of the supervision over the official controls at different levels and, in particular, the supervision over a now substantially increased number of authorized veterinarians. This further compromises assurances about the correct and effective implementation of official controls,” said auditors.

During the latest audit, fees charged to food businesses for inspection of adult bovines in slaughterhouses were unchanged from the 2019 beef audit, so are below the minimum EU rates. This also impacts the resources available to the competent authority, said auditors.

Polish officials said a law aiming to ensure that people who do official controls, including veterinarians, are free from conflicts of interest and updating fees charged to companies was signed in July 2022. Plans to change salaries being linked to the number of animals slaughtered were also underway.

A lack of enforcement around bovine animal welfare was also found.

“The lack of sanctions on those operators breaching the animal welfare rules not only provides an incentive for these operators to continue ignoring these rules but is also likely to impact on the continued willingness of control staff to pursue such cases if they are systematically dismissed by the judiciary,” said the report.

Salmonella still a problem in poultry sector
The audit found measures in the poultry action plan, plus added intensified official sampling, have been implemented but Salmonella contamination still remains an issue.

Shortcomings were noted in the design of, and official controls over, hazard analysis and critical control points (HACCP) plans and the reliability of certain private laboratories that test for Salmonella.

Establishments were approved, even though the HACCP-based procedures were not adequate and related issues went undetected by official controls. This included microbiological hazards and measures to control or eliminate them not being correctly identified and the absence of an established HACCP team.

The high average line speed of 11,500 birds per hour was also cited as a problem, as it was not possible to carry out the post-mortem inspection reliably.

“The important shortcomings found in the design and operation of HACCP plans indicate that both food business as well as competent authority staff are incapable of correctly assessing the adequacy of these plans. Together with the ineffective identification of the source of contamination, the measures taken both by food businesses and competent authorities, are not effective in preventing recurrences and/or are not taken in a timely manner,” said the audit report.

Polish officials said training workshops would take place from September to November and an online training platform would be made available.

DG Sante said Salmonella contamination remains a serious problem, with consistent detection over several years in some establishments. This indicates the risk is not being managed properly.

Data given to the audit team showed that around 15 percent of the own-checks results tested negative and did not match the results of parallel official sampling which were positive in 2018.

An intensified sampling plan in six plants with a high number of RASFF notifications requires all lots produced to be officially tested.

One inspection report at a plant involved in several RASFF notices since 2019 found poor hygiene of slaughter processes, and differences between the results of own checks and official tests, which raised concerns about the reliability of the former and the procedure for product recalls did not meet legal requirements. In September 2021, authorities ordered the closure of part of the plant’s activities for two months and told the company to reduce slaughter speed to 10,000 birds per hour.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)

They presented attribution estimates for Campylobacter, enterotoxigenic E. coli (ETEC), Shiga-toxin producing E. coli, Salmonella, Cryptosporidium, Brucella, and Mycobacterium bovis for beef, dairy, poultry and vegetable products in Burkina Faso, Ethiopia and Rwanda.

Findings help support three projects aiming to improve food safety in these African countries. All of them needed foodborne disease burden data attributed to specific products as part of work to improve the safety of beef, dairy, poultry meat and vegetables and inform national decision making.

Eleven experts from Ethiopia, 12 in Burkino Faso and nine in Rwanda participated in the study, published in the journal Neglected Tropical Diseases.

Specialists were interviewed remotely and completed calibration questions without access to resources. They then answered target questions after the interview, using resources. Data were validated using two measures and performance-based weights were applied. 

Pathogen and food group findings
About three-quarters of the foodborne burden by ETEC in Ethiopia was attributed to beef, dairy, poultry, and vegetables. In Burkina Faso, about 40 percent of the burden was attributed to poultry and vegetables. Attribution to dairy was lower in Burkina Faso than in Ethiopia.

There is no evidence that animal pathogenic ETEC strains are infectious to humans but a sizeable proportion of ETEC illness was attributed to animal source foods as experts considered contamination of products by infected food handlers can occur at any step in the supply chain.

In Ethiopia, about 70 percent of infections with Campylobacter, Salmonella and Shiga-toxin producing E. coli (STEC) from dairy was attributed to milk from cattle and about a third of the burden of dairy was linked to drinking raw cattle milk. About 60 percent of the burden of these pathogens in beef was from red meat and about 30 percent from beef consumed raw. 

On the burden of Campylobacter and Salmonella from poultry meat, 56 percent was attributed to chicken bought raw and prepared at home. Attribution of the burden from vegetables to Salmonella and ETEC in Burkina Faso was similar to Ethiopia.

For Rwanda, most of the burden of dairy for all pathogens was attributed to cattle milk. The link to raw milk varied by pathogen with the highest proportions for Brucella and Cryptosporidium and the lowest for Campylobacter. A substantial proportion of the burden was also attributed to traditionally fermented cattle milk and industrially fermented products.

Attribution estimates in the study will be combined with national level estimates of foodborne infection from WHO’s Foodborne Disease Burden Epidemiology Reference Group (FERG), to present estimates of the burden of specific food groups and products. Such data will inform control activities and can be combined with risk assessment and economic estimates for cost-benefit analyses.

Separate studies will report burden figures based on FERG data and other attribution estimates.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)

R-CALF United Stockgrowers of America is out with a new poll of voters that the group says shows “overwhelming” support for mandatory COOL legislation.

“Too many members of Congress talk favorably about reinstating mandatory country of origin labeling for beef, but they have not yet joined the legislation as cosponsors,” said R-CALF USA CEO Bill Bullard. “Our new poll makes it clear that an overwhelming number of American voters want Congress to enact MCOOL for beef, and they demonstrated this with their specific support for the American Beef Labeling Act.

“We hope lawmakers will carefully review this poll and quickly join this legislation as cosponsors to ensure its swift enactment.”

U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilack said in recent days that the “Product of the USA” label on meat products should undergo a full-scale review, one that has long been sought by livestock producers who say that the label is inadequate and often misleading as it currently stands. 

This past week, the Federal Trade Commission finalized a rule that is intended to tighten the use of the Made in the USA standard. The FTC said that this update would especially benefit small business, who lack the resources to defend their products from imitators. However, the rule does not require specific actions be taken regarding beef labeling, and in conjunction with this rule, the U.S. Department of Agriculture announced a review of the “Product of the USA” label.

“I am committed to ensuring that the Product of USA label reflects what a plain understanding of those terms means to U.S. consumers,” Vilsack said.

Bullard and his R-CALF organization has waited long enough and that further review is not necessary, they say. They want a new act now.

The American Beef Labeling Act (S.2716) is a bipartisan bill introduced in the U.S. Senate in 2021 by Sens. John Thune, R-SD, Jon Tester, D-MT, Mike Rounds, R-SD, and Cory Booker, D-NJ. Despite attracting additional bipartisan cosponsors from Sens. John Hoeven, R-ND, Ben Ray Lujan, D-NM, Cynthia Lummis, R-WY, Martin Heinrich, D-NM, John Barrasso, R-WY, and Kirsten Gillibrand, D-NY, the bill has languished without action in the U.S. Senate agriculture committee, according to Bullard.

In March 2022, a bipartisan companion bill was introduced in the U.S. House (H.R.7291) by Reps. Lance Gooden, R-TX, and Ro Khanna, D-CA. Rep. H. Morgan Griffith, R-VA, has since cosponsored the House measure.

According to reporting by The Fence Post, both the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association and the U.S. Cattlemen’s Association, which have had opposing views on labeling, have praised Secretary Vilsack’s decision to review the label.

U.S. Senator Mike Rounds, R-SD, said in a statement: “Consumers deserve to know the true source of their food. This news is a step in the right direction. It’s long past time to fix this label in order to restore transparency and fairness to the market.

“For years, we’ve called on the USDA to take action to stop foreign beef from receiving the ‘Product of the USA’ label. American consumers are being misled when the ‘Product of the USA’ label is allowed to be applied to foreign beef. American ranchers are faced with an unfair disadvantage in the marketplace, as lower quality foreign beef can falsely bear the ‘Product of the USA’ label. This undermines the high-quality of U.S.A. raised beef and needs to be stopped. Only products born, raised and slaughtered in the United States should receive the ‘Product of the USA’ label.”

Bullard’s R-CALF organization cites several statistics from a recent poll by Morning Consult on behalf of the Coalition for a Prosperous America (CPA) to support their stance: 

• 86 percent of American voters support the American Beef Labeling Act that reinstates mandatory country of origin labeling for beef.
• 90 percent of voters are concerned that foreign importers of beef can legally put a “Product of U.S.A.” sticker on a package containing beef that was born, raised, and harvested outside the United States.
• 89 percent of voters are concerned that foreign importers of beef can legally put a U.S. food safety inspection sticker on a package containing beef that was born, raised, and harvested outside the United States.
• 77 percent of voters believe it is important that the beef they purchase was born, raised, and harvested in the United States.
• 74 percent of voters say they would be more likely to vote for a U.S. Senate or U.S. House candidate who supports the American Beef Labeling Act.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here)

Frozen, breaded, ready-to-cook chicken products have a browned, cooked external appearance, which may be perceived as ready-to-eat, leading to mishandling or undercooking by consumers.

Concerns about these products led the Food Standards Agency (FSA) and UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) to look at the prevalence of Salmonella, E. coli and antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in items such as nuggets, dippers and goujons, at retail in the UK.

Overall, 310 samples were tested between April and July 2021, and Salmonella was detected five times. When samples were cooked according to instructions on the packet, Salmonella was killed. Another 20 similar products that contained Salmonella during a previous study in 2020-21 were also cooked based on the instructions, and no Salmonella was detected after cooking.

Link to illnesses

However, since many illnesses have been associated with such chicken products in the UK and other countries, it appears that either people do not always apply effective cooking processes or cross-contamination plays a significant role, according to the study.

Salmonella Infantis was found in three samples and Salmonella Java twice. One of the Salmonella Infantis isolates was linked to three recent cases; the second was behind two infections in early 2021. The two Salmonella Java isolates matched cases with sample dates between 2014 and 2018. Countries of origin of the five Salmonella contaminated samples were Hungary, Ireland and the UK. 

EU rules state that preparations made from poultry meat intended to be eaten cooked should not have any Salmonella in a 25-gram sample when placed on the market and examined during their shelf-life.

Higher concentrations of generic E. coli in foods are commonly recognized as an indicator of poor hygiene. E. coli was found in 113 samples, but only 15 had levels that indicated problems in the hygiene of the tested products. One E. coli isolate showed resistance to colistin and possessed the mcr-1 gene.

A study by Public Health England, now UKHSA, in 2020 found Salmonella in 40 of 456 samples of frozen, reformed chicken products, with Salmonella Enteritidis isolates from 17 samples linked to an outbreak. A series of outbreaks involving Salmonella in breaded chicken products from Poland in 2020 and 2021 affected more than 1,000 people and a number of products and brands.

Data from the latest study suggests there has been a decline in Salmonella contamination rates in frozen, breaded chicken products between 2020 and 2021. Affected supermarkets changed suppliers which appears to explain at least some of the improved results, as Salmonella contamination was linked to only a few producers.

AMR findings

Three Salmonella Infantis isolates were resistant to nalidixic acid, ciprofloxacin and tetracycline, with one also showing resistance to ampicillin, so was classified as multi-drug resistant. The Salmonella Java isolates were resistant to trimethoprim but also had reduced susceptibility to sulfamethoxazole.

E. coli with a presumptive AmpC or Extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL) (or both) phenotype were detected in 18 of 310 samples.

Resistance to three or more groups of antimicrobials, called multi-drug resistance, was seen in 22 of 110 isolates. Of these, one isolate was resistant to six different antimicrobial groups.

Results showed it is important to cook breaded and battered chicken products properly in line with instructions on the packaging. Adequate cooking, good kitchen hygiene such as handwashing between handling uncooked and cooked foods, and cleaning preparation surfaces and utensils properly after using them for uncooked food items, significantly reduces the risks posed by Salmonella and E. coli.

AMR in E. coli on beef and pork

In another survey, beef and pork on retail sale in the UK was sampled between October and December 2021 and investigated for the presence of AMR E. coli. Results showed the prevalence was low. E. coli isolates are useful indicators of AMR.  

A total of 105 beef and 105 pork samples were tested. Samples post enrichment yielded E. coli in one beef sample and four pork samples. The survey had lower sample numbers than previous studies because of a delayed start following the UK exit from the EU, and because of lab capacity.

Two pork samples were positive for AmpC-producing E. coli and two for ESBL-producing E. coli. The beef isolate had an E. coli with an AmpC + ESBL-expressing phenotype.

No meat samples, prior to enrichment, had background or AmpC-/ESBL-phenotype E. coli counts above EU detection levels, indicating low numbers of bacteria on samples.  

No beef or pork samples were positive for E. coli with resistance to so-called last resort carbapenem or colistin antimicrobials.

Resistance was seen to some cephalosporin antibiotics. The beef isolate was resistant to all four of the cephalosporin antibiotics it was tested against, whilst the pork isolates were resistant to at least two of these antibiotics. All five E. coli isolates were resistant to ampicillin, but showed no resistance to amikacin, temocillin or tigecycline.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)

You’ve probably heard a lot about the new plant-based foods — meatless beef and poultry and dairy-free milk, for example, but most people don’t know much, if anything, about them. In fact, the first time you heard about them, you might have said “Forget about that. If I want food, I want ‘real food.’ ”

But now that you’ve heard friends talk about plant-based foods or seen ads about them in restaurants or grocery stores, you can’t help but wonder if this — as crazy as it sounds — is here to stay. Or is it just one of those fads that burst onto the scene with a lot of hullabaloo and then disappear?

As for food safety, which is a major consumer concern, plant-based foods don’t involve slaughtering or butchering animals. In other words, no blood or guts here. But even so, basic food safety principles have to be followed. Keeping products and processing facilities clean and sanitary and keeping plant-based foods and ingredients away from products such as meat that could contaminate them with foodborne pathogens is essential.

The marketplace
When looking at the marketplace, some questions come to mind: “How popular are they? Are they healthy to eat? Are they good or bad for the environment?  And what do they cost  compared to ‘real food?’ ” And maybe more important to you as a consumer, do they taste good?

Good questions and ones that a lot of everyday shoppers are asking. And even some of the major producers are asking now that some are seeing declining sales.

A recently released report  (https://www.plantbasedfoods.org/2021-u-s-retail-sales-data-for-the-plant-based-foods-industry/) on how plant-based meats, poultry, milk, and eggs are faring in the marketplace has some answers to questions about each of the categories. And plenty of encouraging news for producers of plant-based foods. For example, overall, plant-based food retail sales have grown three times faster than total food retail sales, with most plant-based categories outpacing their conventional counterparts when it came to growth.

Released on March 24, the new data was collected by the Plant Based Foods Association (PBFA), The Good Food Institute (GFI), and SPINS.

Even so, there are other reports that show that the popularity and revenues of plant-based categories are slipping.

As for the future, for the most part, it will be in the consumers’ hands. What they buy and how much of it they buy will provide a lot of the answers about the industry’s future. We’re not there yet.

Contrasting predictions
In August 2021 the news was all rosy. According to a report from Bloomberg Intellingence, “Plant-Based Foods Poised for Explosive Growth,” the projected plant-based food market would make up 7.7 percent of the global protein market.

Also according to the report, global retail sales of plant-based food alternatives might even hit $162 billion by 2030 — up from $29.4 billion in 2020. That’s a lot of billions.

The report predicted that the two largest subcategories of plant-based alternatives — milk/dairy and meat — will continue to dominate sales in the segment.

While most people are familiar with plant-based milk — almond and soy milk, for example — meatless meats such as Beyond Meat burgers and Impossible Meats burgers are not as widely known by the general consumer, even though they are popular with consumers who’d rather eat less meat, are concerned about how meat animals are treated, and see advantages to the environment in having fewer animals on the land.

Even so, Jennifer Batashus, senior consumer staples analyst at Bloomberg Intelligence, went so far as to predict that plant-based protein alternatives will become a long-term option for consumers — not just in the United States but around the world as well.

“If sales and penetration for meat and dairy alternatives continue to grow,” she said, “meat and dairy alternatives could even obtain 5 percent and 10 percent of their respective global market shares in the next decade.”

But, then, by early 2022, the situation had taken a different tilt, with one headline declaring “Fake Meat is Bleeding Money.” The featured food item in the AgWeb article (https://www.agweb.com/news/livestock/beef/fake-meat-bleeding-money) was none other than Beyond Meat, hamburgers made with plant-based ingredients — in other words, no meat at all. According to the article, for three years the company has been bleeding cash. It’s gotten so bad that investors in the once trendy company have seen losses mounting.

Another major player acknowledged slowing growth. Based on that, the Canadian meat giant Maple Leaf will downgrade its 40 percent plant-based growth estimate to 10 percent to 15 percent.

All sorts of reasons come into play, among them the disruption the market suffered because of Covid-19. Then, too, other plant-based meat products are now available for consumers to choose from. But Beyond Meat company officials acknowledge that a major obstacle to sustained growth is that it remains higher priced than beef —as much as two times higher. Bottomline: Beyond Meat is still not meat. For many consumers, that’s a no-brainer of a reason to stick with meat.

Meanwhile, consumers still see meat as a major part of their shopping list. According to the 2022 Power of Meat report, (https://www.meatpoultry.com/articles/26302-sneak-peek-the-2022-power-of-meat-report) nearly all American households (98.5 percent) purchase meat, with volume sales up 3.9 percent for all meat compared to pre-pandemic levels.

And just this month, the United States and Japan hammered out an agreement that will allow for more beef exports into Japan. Why? Because demand for beef is so strong in that country.

The ‘new report’
Despite all sorts of up-and-down challenging economic conditions, among them them inflation, supply-chain problems (think ‘empty shelves’), and especially the pandemic, plant-based foods held on tight in 2021.

According to the report released on March 25 by the Plant Based Foods Association (PBFA), The Good Food Institute (GFI), and SPINS, U.S. retail sales of plant-based foods grew a hefty 6.2 percent in 2021 over a record year of growth in 2020. No small change here considering that it brought the total plant-based market value to an all-time high of $7.4 billion.

As for the ingredients, besides the traditional soy, wheat, and corn that used to be the staples for earlier versions of plant-based meats, newcomers like chickpea, mung bean, fava beans, mushrooms, sorghum, and barley are now on the list.

Here’s how the categories did, according to the recent report:

Meatless meats
Think meatless burgers, meatless chicken nuggets, and even meatless bacon. And more. There’s a surprisingly wide range of meatless items that consumers can now choose from either in a conventional grocery store —  or dining out at fast-food chains.

What about plant-based chorizo? Chipotle’s plant-based chorizo’s main ingredient is pea protein, and it’s flavored with chipotle peppers, tomato paste, garlic, smoked paprika, and olive oil. In addition to being certified vegan, the chorizo is also free of gluten and soy.

And what about jerky? Beyond Meat and PepsiCo recently announced the debut of plant-based jerky, the first snack made under a partnership between Beyond Meat and and the soft drink giant.

Data in the recently released report show that plant-based meat dollar sales in 2021 remained strong, delivering a repeat year of $1.4 billion in sales, and growing 74 percent in the past three years, outpacing growth of conventional meat by almost three times.

The unit comparison is even more striking — while conventional meat unit sales have grown 8 percent in the past three years, plant-based meat unit sales have outpaced that by more than six times, growing 51 percent during the same period.

How mainstream has this become? According to the report, 19 percent of households purchased plant-based meat in 2021, up from 18 percent in 2020, with 64 percent of buyers purchasing plant-based meat more than once throughout the year.

Not surprisingly, plant-based burgers lead the pack when it comes to sales in the plant-based meat category.

Even so, there’s now more to choose from. Variety is the spice of life, and that’s what consumers are looking for. What about some plant-based meatballs, chicken nuggets, tenders and cutlets — and even some deli slices. These were the fastest growing plant-based meat items in 2021.

McDonald’s is even getting into the game, with some of its restaurants testing a McPlant burger.

Meanwhile, a relative newcomer into the game, plant-based seafood grew 14 percent, hitting a whopping $14 million. The future in this category beckons.

Plant-based milk
Already a major player, plant-based milk saw its sales grow 4 percent and 33 percent in the past three years to an impressive $2.6 billion.

All the more impressive considering that animal-based milk sales fell 2 percent in 2021.

Representing 16 percent of all retail milk dollars, plant-based milk, is referred to as the “growth engine” of the milk category. As such it contributes $105 million in growth, compared to a loss of $264 million in animal milk sales.

According to the Natural Enhanced Channel, plant-based milk represents 40 percent of all milk sold, up from 34 percent in 2018.

As proof as another mainstreamer on its way, 42 percent of households bought plant-based milk, with almond milk being the most popular. Not only that, 76 percent of plant-based milk buyers purchased it multiple times in 2021.

Of course, there’s more to milk than a glass of milk. Plant-based milk opens the way to a host of popular dairy products — none of them made with cow’s milk.

Think products like yoghurt, ready-to-drink items, cheese, ice cream and even creamers.

As for yoghurt, plant-based yogurt sales grew 9 percent — three times the rate of conventional yogurt. Plant-based cheese grew 7 percent, while conventional cheese declined 2 percent. And plant-based ice cream and frozen desserts grew 31 percent over the past two years to reach $458 million.

Plant-based eggs
No crowing roosters needed here. In fact, JUST Egg’s website (https://www.ju.st/plant-based-eggs?utm_source=google_ads&utm_medium=search_cpc&utm_campaign=JE-US-Branded-Google-Search-Exact-%5BKNOWN%5D&utm_content=Just_Egg&utm_term=just%20eggs&creative=543156369521&matchtype=e&device=c&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI6ceChezp9gIVqGxvBB1N5A5bEAAYASAAEgJ6kvD_BwE) says “We’re living in the golden era of eggs.”

“No cholesterol,” it says. “No industrial chicken farms. No artificial flavors. Just really delicious eggs made from plants.”

You can use plant-based eggs to make all sorts of popular dishes — scrambled eggs as a starter, omelettes, French toast, quiches and soufflés.

With some consumers looking for what they consider a healthier “egg choice,” it’s no surprise that the plant-based egg category also enjoyed rapid growth in 2021, recording a 42 percent increase in dollar sales.

According to the report, plant-based egg dollar sales have grown more that 1,000 percent. At the same time, conventional egg dollars declined by 4 percent in 2021.

Consumers with dollars
According to the report, 62 percent, or 79 million, U.S. households are now buying plant-based products —an increase from 61 percent the previous year.

Industry leaders point to increased repeat rates in plant-based food across already numerous record-breaking years.

And they point to who these consumers are and what’s motivating them.

For example, consumers, particularly Millennials ages 26-41 and Gen Z ages 10-25, are motivated by an interest in foods that are better for their health and deliver on positive environmental impact and social responsibility.

We’re talking about an important shopper demographic. We’re talking about the present but also the future consumer public.

That’s why leaders in this sector say this is important to keep an eye on what’s happening in all parts of the grocery store and in restaurants in general. It’s a new day, they say, and no one wants to be left behind.

Voice of a beef raiser
Western Washington cattleman Larry Gadbois is definitely not part of corporate agriculture. His herd, which includes 65 mother cows, is grass fed, and the hay he raises for the animals and also to help meet expenses is organic. He’s been a cattleman for decades and takes pride in his cows and his hay.

He admits he hasn’t kept up-to-date about plant-based beef. After all, his cattle operation keeps him plenty busy. But he has heard you can go into Burger King and get a burger that’s not made of meat.

“There’s probably going to be a place for plant-based meats,” he said. “You’ve always got someone looking for something different. And there are the people who don’t want animals to be killed. Right now there’s a lot of experimentation going on. People will want to try it, but how many people will actually settle into it. That’s the important question.”

As far as he’s concerned, the real question is “How long is this going to last?”

Is he worried that this “meatless” option is going to hurt his business?

“I do worry about it a little bit, but that’s where it ends,” he said.

For him, there are a some dark clouds looming over small-scale operations like his that have him plenty worried.

“It’s very challenging,” he said. “We need the small farmer, but we’re being forced out. You have to be bigger to get good prices at the auction.”

“There will always be beef,” he said. “But the real question is who’s going to be able to afford it.”

At this point, plant-based industry officials say that although plant-based products are selling for more than conventional products, they also say that as the industry gears up and gets larger, the prices should be more on par with conventional products. When that happens, they say, price will no longer be a stumbling block to increased and sustained sales.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here)

The virtual audit by DG Sante in Uruguay in June 2021 covered beef and sheep meat for export to Europe.

A previous audit in 2016 highlighted deficiencies related to testing of beef for Salmonella in consignments sent to Sweden and Finland and animal welfare monitoring.

In 2021, there were 30 establishments approved to export bovine or ovine meat to the EU. Almost 18,500 tons of beef was sent to Europe in 2020 compared to 216 tons of sheep meat.

The recent audit report revealed adequate enforcement powers, traceability and checks to ensure exported products meet EU standards.

Auditors found some gaps in the national authority’s knowledge or understanding of certain EU requirements, resulting in approval of lactic acid to reduce surface contamination in sheep carcasses. However, before the audit had ended, officials had sent a letter to staff informing them the use of lactic acid to reduce contamination can only be used on beef carcasses.

The audit also identified shortcomings in the authority’s procedures to verify food business compliance with microbiological criteria own-checks. Instructions do not require official veterinarians to check that sampling is done in accordance with EU rules. At one slaughterhouse the official veterinarian had accepted alternative sampling and testing procedures that had not been validated as equivalent with the methods in EU legislation.

The governmental microbiological sampling program included 1,725 samples from beef carcasses in 2020 and only one was positive.

From June 2019 to June 2021, Uruguay received eight Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF) reports from the EU that were because of detection of Shiga toxin-producing E. coli in bovine meat. Auditors verified the cause was investigated with actions taken and verified to prevent a reoccurrence.

French findings
The other remote audit, in France, in November and December 2020 assessed the production of bovine meat, including traceability and gathered information on the poultry sector.

For ante-mortem and post-mortem inspection of bovine animals, rules do not ensure an official veterinarian (OV) is present in the slaughterhouse at all times. This means some tasks may be carried out by the official auxiliary under the responsibility, rather than with the supervision of the OV, which is against EU rules.

Information given to the audit team shows that official veterinarians at slaughterhouses can accept animals that have suffered an accident as being fit for transport. This is not in line with EU requirements as the journey may cause additional suffering.

Authorities have also not introduced any measures to ensure that private veterinarians act independently and are free from conflicts of interest when performing official duties.

Available data suggests 880 poultry slaughterhouses, responsible for 30 percent of national production, are not operating in line with EU requirements on the presence of official staff, mainly because of recruitment difficulties.

The audit found ante-mortem and post-mortem inspections in sites slaughtering more than 150,000 poultry per year do not always take place under the supervision of the OV. In sites slaughtering less than 150,000 poultry per year, the ante-mortem inspection is not carried out under the supervision of the OV.

Where the post-mortem inspection takes place under the responsibility of the OV, the presence of the official auxiliary is not ensured. This is against EU regulation that states slaughterhouse staff may only perform such tasks under instruction, and in the presence, of the OV or official auxiliary.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)

The OIE ruling came just two days after the Brazilian Ministry of Agriculture confirmed the discovery of two cases of BSE of “atypical origin.” One diseased animal discovery each occurred in the Brazilian states of Minas Gerais and Mato Grosso.

The Ministry of Agriculture collected animal samples and sent them to an OIE laboratory in Canada for more detailed analysis. The animal with BSE in Minas Gerais was more than 10-years old. At the slaughterhouse operating in the region, Federal Inspection Service reported suspicions about the animal.

OIE’s “negligible risk” ruling will likely mean there will only be a hiccup for Brazil’s beef exports. Brazilian beef accounts for 40 percent of China’s imports. Brazil suspended exports to China until it sorts out the “Mad Cow” situation.

It is a classic “Mad Cow” disease with links to variant Creutzfeidt-Jacob disease in humans and spread by contaminated animal feed. The infections of “atypical” BSE in the two animals in Brazil are not as much of a risk.

Brazil’s last “atypical” case occurred in 2019, resulting in beef exports suspending for ten days.

“Mad Cow” disease first appeared during the 1980s in Great Britain. Since 2003, six BSE-infected animals have turned up in the United States. Only one, a six-year-old dairy cow imported from Canada, was classical BSE. The subsequent five cases, from 2005 to 2018, were “atypical” BSE.

The United States is also a “negligible risk” for BSE, according to OIE.

According to USDA: “Agricultural officials around the world have taken actions to eradicate or control the disease. These entail prohibiting the inclusion of mammalian meat-and-bone meal in animal feed; prohibiting the use of specified risk materials or SRMs (those tissues, e.g., brain and spinal cord, known to have the highest infectivity) in food, feed, or other products; and destroying animals showing signs of BSE and other animals at high risk of developing the disease. As a result of these actions, most notably the imposition of feed bans, the rate of newly reported cases of BSE around the world has decreased to less than 10 cases annually.”

Further, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) implemented regulations in 1997 that prohibit the feeding of most mammalian proteins to ruminants, including cattle. This feed ban is the most important measure to prevent the transmission of disease to cattle.

In 2008, the ban was strengthened by prohibiting the inclusion of SRMs (brains and spinal cords from animals 30 months of age or older) in any animal feed. The 2008 rule also prohibits the use of all cattle carcasses not inspected and passed for human consumption, unless the cattle are less than 30 months of age, or the brains and spinal cords have been removed.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)

The FSIS Inspection Program Personnel (IPP) announced the availability of the new guidance at weekly meetings with establishment management. The agency regulates 6,500 production facilities. Many produce beef and poultry products.

The “references are guidelines, not requirements,” FSIS told inspectors. They’ll be available until at least Aug.1, 2022. Compiance determinations will continue to hinge on “regulatory compliance.”

Half of the guidelines address the most severe problem facing federal meat inspection — Salmonella and Campylobacter bacteria that account for more than 70 percent of the foodborne illnesses tracked by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Salmonella and Campylobacter, mostly from chicken and turkey, are responsible for 3 million illnesses, costing $6 billion annually. National health goals call for reducing those numbers, but FSIS has not moved the meter in 20 years.

The FSIS guidelines for controlling Campylobacter and Salmonella in raw poultry were drafted in 2015 and published as final documents six years later, on July 28, 2021.

FSIS claims the guidelines will help poultry establishments, including the small and very small, identify and implement pre- and post-harvest interventions to control Campylobacter as part of their HACCP systems.

Additionally, the new Campylobacter guidelines will help poultry establishments with microbial testing for monitoring performance and making decisions.

The Salmonella guidelines, also drafted in 2015, also claim they will help with pre- and post-harvest interventions to control the pathogen as part of a HACCP program. Microbial testing help is also cited as a benefit.

FSIS has its critics for its lengthy process, but the agency may face more severe questioning from food safety advocates who favor an “on-the-farm” approach as being practiced by some European countries.

Guideline documents released for beef, including veal, are designed to minimize Shiga Toxin-Producing E. coli or STEC risk. Slaughter and processing operations are found in separate guidelines.

Here’s how the two beef guidelines, one for slaughter and the other for processing, are explained:

• This guideline helps establishments that slaughter beef (including veal) to implement effective sanitary dressing procedures designed to prevent carcass contamination; implement effective decontamination and antimicrobial interventions; properly assess microbial testing results, and use the results to assess the effectiveness of the overall HACCP system.
• This guideline helps establishments producing non-intact and intact cuts intended for raw non-intact beef products to understand the adulterant status of STEC in beef products; design supportable control measures for STEC; develop ongoing verification measures to ensure that STEC control measures are functioning as intended; and respond when the HACCP system fails to prevent or reduce STEC to below detectable levels.

The beef guidelines replace those from 2017.

A complete list of products and product codes for the beef products that are subject to recall is here. The recalled products bear establishment number “EST. 960A” inside the USDA mark of inspection.

The recalled beef distribution included Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota, and Nebraska.

FSIS discovered the possible contamination when it collected a routine product sample that confirmed positive for the presence of E. coli O157:H7. No adverse reactions were associated with the recall.

About E. coli infections

Anyone who has eaten any of the implicated products and developed symptoms of E. coli infection should seek medical attention and tell their doctor about their possible exposure to the bacteria. Specific tests are required to diagnose the infections, which can mimic other illnesses.

The symptoms of E. coli infections vary for each person but often include severe stomach cramps and diarrhea, which is often bloody. Some patients may also have a fever. Most patients recover within five to seven days. Others can develop severe or life-threatening symptoms and complications, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

About 5 to 10 percent of those diagnosed with E. coli infections develop a potentially life-threatening kidney failure complication, known as a hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS). Symptoms of HUS include fever, abdominal pain, feeling very tired, decreased frequency of urination, small unexplained bruises or bleeding, and pallor.

Many people with HUS recover within a few weeks, but some suffer permanent injuries or death. This condition can occur among people of any age but is most common in children younger than five years old because of their immature immune systems, older adults because of deteriorating immune systems, and people with compromised immune systems such as cancer patients.

People who experience HUS symptoms should immediately seek emergency medical care. People with HUS will likely be hospitalized because the condition can cause other serious and ongoing problems such as hypertension, chronic kidney disease, brain damage, and neurologic problems.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that the process makes certain that the product is no longer available to consumers.

When available, the retail distribution list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website at www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls.

FSIS advises all consumers to safely prepare their raw meat products, including fresh and frozen, and only consume beef products that have been cooked to a temperature of 145°F and allow to rest for at least 3 minutes and ground meat products that have been cooked to a temperature of 160°F.

The only way to confirm that the beef product is cooked to a temperature high enough to kill harmful bacteria is to use a food thermometer that measures internal temperature,https://www.fsis.usda.gov/safetempchart.

• 12-oz plastic squeeze bottle of KITCHEN ACCOMPLICE ORGANIC Beef BONE BROTH Concentrate and lot code MFGA21060A5613, MFGA21060B5613 & MFGA21098B5613 with Use by/Sell by date of 3/1/2023 & 4/8/2023.
• 16-oz. plastic cup of MORE THAN GOURMET Demi-Glace Gold CLASSIC FRENCH DEMI-GLACE and lot code MFGA21097A0205 with Use by/Sell by date of 4/7/2023.

The products subject to recall bear establishment number “27446” inside the USDA mark of inspection. These items were shipped to retailers and distributors nationwide.

The problem was discovered by the establishment after identifying a malfunction in a piece of processing equipment.

There have been no confirmed reports of adverse reactions due to consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about an injury or illness should contact a healthcare provider.

FSIS is concerned that some products may be in consumers’ refrigerators or freezers. Consumers who have purchased these products are urged not to consume them. These products should be thrown away or returned to the place of purchase.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer available to consumers.

Consumers with questions about the recall can contact More Than Gourmet, Inc. customer service at 800-860-9391 and [email protected] and members of the media can contact Paul Taylor, Vice President at 330-762-6652.

Consumers with food safety questions can call the toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline at 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) or live chat via Ask USDA from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Consumers can also browse food safety messages at Ask USDA or send a question via email to [email protected]. For consumers that need to report a problem with a meat, poultry, or egg product, the online Electronic Consumer Complaint Monitoring System can be accessed 24 hours a day at https://foodcomplaint.fsis.usda.gov/eCCF/.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)

The problem was discovered when FSIS collected a routine product sample that confirmed positive for the presence of E. coli O157:H7. There have been no confirmed reports of adverse reactions due to consumption of these products.

FSIS is concerned that some product may be frozen and in cold storage at distributor or further processor locations. Distributors and further processors who received these products are urged not to utilize them.

The raw, frozen, boneless beef products were imported on or around Nov. 10, 2020, and distributed for further processing. The following products are subject to recall [View Label (PDF Only)]:

• 60-lb. cardboard boxes containing “95CL BONELESS BEEF PRODUCT OF AUSTRALIA” with “PACKED ON: 02-SEP-20” and Australian “EST. 4” on the packaging label.

The products were shipped to distributors and further processors in New York and Pennsylvania.

About E. coli infections

Anyone who has eaten any of the implicated products and developed symptoms of E. coli infection should seek medical attention and tell their doctor about their possible exposure to the bacteria. Specific tests are required to diagnose the infections, which can mimic other illnesses.

The symptoms of E. coli infections vary for each person but often include severe stomach cramps and diarrhea, which is often bloody. Some patients may also have a fever. Most patients recover within five to seven days. Others can develop severe or life-threatening symptoms and complications, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

About 5 to 10 percent of those diagnosed with E. coli infections develop a potentially life-threatening kidney failure complication, known as a hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS). Symptoms of HUS include fever, abdominal pain, feeling very tired, decreased frequency of urination, small unexplained bruises or bleeding, and pallor.

Many people with HUS recover within a few weeks, but some suffer permanent injuries or death. This condition can occur among people of any age but is most common in children younger than five years old because of their immature immune systems, older adults because of deteriorating immune systems, and people with compromised immune systems such as cancer patients.

People who experience HUS symptoms should immediately seek emergency medical care. People with HUS will likely be hospitalized because the condition can cause other serious and ongoing problems such as hypertension, chronic kidney disease, brain damage, and neurologic problems.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)

Since mid-November 2020, 23 people have been recorded with the same type of Salmonella Typhimurium in the country, according to the Statens Serum Institut (SSI).

Those sick live across Denmark and there are 13 women and 10 men affected. They are aged 2 to 92 years old. Twelve people have been hospitalized. Nine are sick in Hovedstaden, six in Syddanmark, four in Sjælland while Midtjylland and Nordjylland both have two patients each.

Interviews with those affected have shown they had not been traveling before they became ill, that they did not know each other and they had not participated in joint events.

Officials said this suggests the source of infection is a type of food sold throughout the country. The fact that patients have been reported for four months also points it being a product with a long shelf life.

Norway reports Salmonella in meat from Germany
Meanwhile, a number of meat products have been withdrawn recently in Norway because of findings of Salmonella. All items so far come from a couple of batches of meat from Germany.

Salmonella Enteritidis was found in one batch, prompting the recall of products made from this lot, including several types of minced (ground) meat.

At least 22 people have fallen sick as part of this outbreak and 10 have needed hospital treatment. Patients are aged from 11 to 91 years old and almost two thirds are women.

NorgesGruppen issued a recall for certain items supplied by Norfersk. All were out of date but authorities were concerned consumers could have them at home in their freezers. The batch of beef was imported into the country by Prima Jæren. Further recalls in connection with this batch were made by Coop Norge SA and Unil AS.

Tests for Salmonella before import in mid-January were negative but a sample submitted to an accredited laboratory came back positive. Prima Jæren started trading with the implicated slaughterhouse eight years ago.

This incident also involves the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and INFOSAN as well as Denmark and France, according to a RASFF alert.

Salmonella in pork
Salmonella Typhimurium was also found in a batch of pork in Norway and is resistant to several types of antibiotics, according to officials.

This discovery led to the withdrawal of a number of products but so far there are no reports of illnesses. Nortura SA, Fana Kjøtt, Taga Foods AS and Grilstad all posted recalls as they had used raw materials that are suspected to be contaminated.

When Salmonella is found in imported meat companies must take steps to ensure the bacteria die, for example by using heat treatment, so it can be safely sold to the consumer. Mattilsynet ordered a recall for all meat from the affected batches that was not heat-treated.

Norway has also made two notifications for monophasic Salmonella Typhimurium in chilled pork meat from Germany and one for Salmonella Derby in chilled pork sides from the same country since the other alerts.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)

A recall was not recommended because it is believed that the affected products are no longer available to be purchased by consumers, according to the public alert posted by the FSIS. However, the label information reported in the notice does not include any expiratory dates. The products were sold nationwide via internet sales. The warning did not include any product photographs.

“FSIS is concerned that some product may be in consumers’ freezers. Anyone concerned about an illness should contact a health care provider,” the recall notice says. “Consumers who have purchased these products are urged not to consume them. These products should be thrown away or returned to the place of purchase.”

The beef and lamb products subject to the alert are:

• 1-pound packages of Eastern Asia Trading Corporation “BEEF OMASUM TRIPES”
• 1-pound packages of Eastern Asia Trading Corporation “GROUND LAMB” with “Production date” 12/26/2020
• 1-pound packages of Eastern Asia Trading Corporation “CUTTED BEEF FOR BBQ” with “Production date” 7/31/2020
• 1-pound packages of Eastern Asia Trading Corporation “CHINESE LAMB BBQ”
• 2-pound packages of Eastern Asia Trading Corporation “CUTED BEEF LIGAMENT”
• “Approximately” 1-pound packages of Eastern Asia Trading Corporation “CHINESE BEEF BBQ”
• 1-pound packages of Eastern Asia Trading Corporation “CUBED LAMB FOR BBQ SET”

While some products have the establishment number “EST. 45557” inside the USDA mark of inspection on their labels, the products were not produced by federal establishment 45557.

The items were shipped to an online retailer, Weee! Corporation, and sold directly to consumers through online sales nationwide.

Consumers with questions regarding the public health alert should call Bruce Park, president of One Meat Corp. at 213-238-7863.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)