Susan Schneider is the Director of the LL.M. Program in Agricultural and Food Law at the University of Arkansas School of Law. She is a member of the Board of Directors of Farmers Legal Action Group, Inc. and past president of the American Agricultural Law Association. Her private practice experience includes agricultural law work with firms in Arkansas, Minnesota, North Dakota and Washington, D.C. She also served as staff attorney at Farmer’s Legal Action Group Inc. and at the National Center for Agricultural Law Research & Information, and taught courses in agriculture-related law at William Mitchell College of Law in Minnesota and Drake University Summer Agricultural Law Institute in Iowa. Olivia Marler interviewed Susan for a series of conversations with food safety leaders that she calls “Food for Thought.” How did you get into food safety? My first interest in food safety goes back to my parents. My father was a dairy farmer who prided himself on the clean conditions in the dairy barn and the top quality rating his milk always received. His herd was always clean, healthy, and very well cared for. He gave the same attention and care to the family vegetable garden. Bountiful crops of tomatoes, green beans, peas, cucumbers, cantaloupe and onions were harvested from that big garden each summer in addition to our perennial beds of asparagus and the apple orchard. There was always something for my mother to freeze or can. Our family had a deep respect for food – its care, its origin, its preparation. Growing up on a farm, agricultural law was a natural fit for me, and I have practiced and taught a variety of agricultural law subjects throughout my career as a lawyer. My road to food law has been a fascinating, but rather natural journey. When I first began practicing law, the Midwest was in the middle of a farm financial crisis. My role as an attorney was to try to save family farms from foreclosure and help farmers to restructure their debts. I admit that I did not think about food safety much at that time. Trends in agriculture and federal agricultural policy were working against the kind of diversified operations like my father had. My clients were primarily growing commodity crops, i.e. corn and soybeans that were destined for processing or livestock feed – no real food safety issues there. So it was only if I was representing a dairy that food safety was a concern. Then I knew that cleanliness and the proper care of the milking cows was not only essential to a good operation but was legally required in order to maintain a high grade standard for the operation. And that standard was essential to getting a decent price for the milk. So it all came back to the bottom line – how could this farm be saved? Like most Americans, it was the Jack in the Box tragedy that made me realize that food safety was not something that I could just assume. I realized how much our food system had changed just in my lifetime, and I began to wonder about where we were headed. By this time, I was teaching agricultural law. My husband and I had been hired by the University of Arkansas School of Law to teach in their unique advanced law program, the LL.M. Program in Agricultural Law. We were looking forward: What were the issues that our students should know about to best prepare them for their future careers as agricultural attorneys? It occurred to us that not just food safety, but all aspects of food law in general had to become part of our agricultural law studies. An agricultural law attorney needed to understand how the food system is regulated and how our system of regulation and subsidization impacts that food system, and how it affects what our agricultural industry looks like. We changed the name of the Program to be the LL.M. Program in Agricultural & Food Law to reflect our view that you really couldn’t learn one without the other. The more questions I asked and the more I learned, the more I became fascinated with food law. Food Law & Policy became one of my favorite classes to teach. When I knew we needed to introduce our students to the very best food safety litigator, I reached out to Bill Marler and invited him to join us as a Visiting Professor. For the past three years, he has taught our Food Safety Litigation class, and we have all learned so much from him. Even beyond his success in litigation on behalf of victims of food borne illness, his tireless work as an advocate for food safety has been an inspiration to our faculty and students alike. Food Safety News is an important part of that advocacy, and we are proud to have a Marler Clark Graduate Assistant writing for it every year. I credit Bill and Food Safety News for raising my awareness. What is the most immediate change that could be made to improve food safety by industry? And by the government? Industry needs to step back from the treadmill that they are on – faster, cheaper, easier – and focus on quality. I recognize that this is hard to do, because businesses are competing against each other, but consumers are asking for change, and industry leaders can respond to that. I also think that when there is a food safety or food quality issue, we need to go back and ask why that problem occurred, not just come up with a new technological system to fix the problem. Government needs more resources to do their job in assuring food safety. State health departments are struggling with budget cuts, and yet they should be on the front lines in recognizing when a food borne illness occurs. It takes manpower, expertise, and well-equipped labs to identify problems – some departments just don’t have the funding to do what is needed. The same is true on the federal level. We finally have a new federal food safety law, but the FDA does not have the funding needed to carry it out as it should. We also need more transparency from both industry and the government. When a food safety problem occurs, consumers should know what happened, where it happened, and what is being done to protect them. Transparency will benefit everyone in the long run. Antibiotic resistance arising from antibiotics in feed is a hot topic in food safety circles. What, if anything, do you think should be done to regulate animal antibiotics? Should it be industry or government regulated? You cannot expect the meat industry to regulate itself with respect to antibiotics. We have become too dependent on them in livestock production – for growth promotion and for disease prevention in crowded growing conditions. Companies and the farmers that grow for them are subject to too many competitive pressures to produce faster and bigger animals. Federal regulation is going to be needed to break that dependency and get off the treadmill. What do you think of the argument that smaller is safer, and that local, sustainable farms should be subject to different regulations than large, industrial farms? Smaller is not necessarily safer on an individual level. Unsafe practices can occur at any size. Two size-related factors are really important to food safety, however. First, if I am buying food directly from a producer, I can assess on a personal level whether I think it is safe. I can talk to the farmer, and I can ask questions. Or, even if I buy at a store, if I know that farm, I can buy based on what I personally know. I can’t do that if my food has passed through many different hands or beens shipped across the country to me, so I need some additional assurances, such as regulatory standards. Second, if a small producer has an unsafe product, only a few people will become ill. If a pathogen makes its way into food that is part of a large, industrialized system, it can affect thousands of people all over the country, even the world. From an efficiency standpoint, government should focus on this wider impact. I think it just makes sense that regulations should be size specific because the setting is so different. Larger operations should be regulated more because there is more potential for a large-scale problem and because consumers have no way of protecting themselves. Do you generally avoid eating specific foods because of the risk associated with eating them? If so, which foods? I can’t say that I avoid any specific food for food safety reasons, although I like to know where my food comes from and how it was produced. That combines food safety, taste, health, animal welfare issues, environmental issues, even politics all into the mix!
]]>
Greg Pallaske has been the Director of Regulatory Compliance at US foods for 5 years. In this role, Greg works to ensure that USF meets or exceeds all federal and state regulations regarding food safety, food defense, and bio-security, including recalls. Greg acts as a liaison to the FDA, USDA, DHS, CDC, and other federal and state agencies, as well as to industry and trade associations and organizations such as the national conference for food protection (CFP). He has also been extensively involved in the USF Corporate Sustainability and Wellness program, and is currently co-chair of a CFP Recall Evaluation Committee. Previously, Greg was Chief of the Food Safety Program for the Wisconsin Department of Health and Family Services, where he oversaw the licensing and regulation of over 33,000 facilities. Greg is a Registered Environmental Health Specialist and has a Master’s Degree in Conservation Biology and Sustainable Development from the University of Wisconsin. Olivia Marler interviewed Greg about his history with food safety and his thoughts on current food safety issues as part of her “Food for Thought” series. How did you get into food safety? Sort of by accident. After 15 years of managing restaurants I went to school and got my degree. Based on my experience and new-found knowledge I was hired by the city of Madison, WI to be a health inspector. Once I got into it I found I really enjoyed being involved in helping to protect everyone by keeping our food supply safer. Interestingly, during my 15 years as a restaurant manager I only encountered a health inspector a few times, and those experiences were not pleasant. They weren’t especially helpful either, so I determined that as an inspector I would focus on education, using enforcement only to get someone’s attention. What is the most immediate change that could be made to improve food safety by industry? And by the government? By the Government: start throwing people in jail for intentionally cheating on food safety. Also, government really needs to learn from industry. Most inspectors (USDA, FDA, state and local) have never operated or worked in a food production environment. In my opinion, you can’t increase food safety in a process you know nothing about. For industry, try this: one of these items does not belong with the others. Can you guess which? -Get your hair cut -Go out to eat -Get your nails done -Get your teeth cleaned -Hire a real estate agent -Teach a grade school class If you guessed “go out to eat,” you are right. For everything else on the list, the service provider must be educated and certified. But anyone can open a restaurant or even a food processing facility with no education or experience. Pretty scary, huh? Antibiotic resistance arising from antibiotics in feed is a hot topic in food safety circles. What, if anything, do you think should be done to regulate animal antibiotics? Should it be industry or government regulated? The problem is not the use of antibiotics; it is the injudicious use of antibiotics. If [antibiotics in animals] were outlawed, meat would triple in cost and our diets would be much different. It is easy to say the government should enforce, but how? Public health is dramatically underfunded and underappreciated in America, and there are no resources available. Therefore the responsibility falls by default to industry. Big suppliers/processors have to set standards (or use FDA guidelines) for the judicious use of antibiotics. Any grower found to violate those standards should not be allowed to sell their cattle (or hens or pigs). What do you think of the argument that smaller is safer, and that local, sustainable farms should be subject to different regulations than large, industrial farms? The argument is garbage. Small operations generally (not always) lack the expertise, infrastructure, and resources to do food safety properly. They are “safer” because they may make only one or two unrelated people sick, where a big processor may infect dozens, causing an outbreak. I occasionally did dairy farm inspections in Wisconsin in the past. The bigger the operation (in general), the better the animals were cared for, the more modern the equipment, and the more likely someone in charge knew about keeping products safe. It was the smaller farms that caused me to stop drinking milk (even pasteurized) years ago. Do you generally avoid eating specific foods because of the risk associated with eating them? If so, which foods? As a former health inspector, it would have been easy to become phobic, and I chose to live life on the edge. I even eat Chinese food in spite of almost never finding a clean and well-run Chinese restaurant. I risk it because the nice thing about food fresh out of the wok is it is very hot and all the bugs are probably dead. The only thing I won’t do is eat at a Chinese buffet, because they make 15-gallon batches of stuff that never gets properly cooled or reheated.
]]>Olivia Marler interviewed Tony for a series of conversations with food safety leaders that she calls “Food for Thought.”
How did you get into food safety?
We are all consumers, so food safety should be on everyone’s radar screen. My interest in food safety as a public policy began when I was a union representative for the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees in the 1970s and 1980s and I came into contact with state and local food inspectors. I developed a strong appreciation for what they do to protect the public — especially during tough budget times.
For eight years I lived in California’s Central Valley, where agriculture is the economic engine for that region. I eventually went to work for Congressman Gary Condit, who represented the Fresno, Stanislaus, Madera and Merced Counties in California. I had to deal with agriculture and food policy on a daily basis.
In 2000, I was interested in a campaign that the public interest advocacy group Public Citizen had started to preserve the labeling requirements for irradiated foods, so I went to work as a staffer there. We fast realized that food irradiation was part of a bigger problem with the way our food was being produced, so we expanded our efforts to work on food safety in a broader context. In 2005, Food & Water Watch was born and those of us who worked on food and agriculture public policy at Public Citizen continued our food safety work here.
What is the most immediate change that could be made to improve food safety by industry? And by the government?
It is in industry’s best interests to have effective food safety measures in place. I believe that most food producers and processors realize that. A foodborne illness outbreak caused by sloppy production practices could put any company out of business in a heartbeat.
On the meat and poultry side, I think that industry needs to realize that it has to drop its opposition to having enforceable performance standards to deal with such pathogens as Salmonella. While progress has been made to reduce the levels of Salmonella in poultry and meat products over the past 10 years, the progress has stalled in recent years.
We have had major foodborne illness outbreaks and major recalls tied to Salmonella in meat and poultry products. We need a stronger preventative approach to dealing with that pathogen, so we would urge industry to work with key food safety advocates in the Congress, such as Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) and Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro (D-CT), who have worked on legislation to give USDA additional authorities.
For those foods regulated by the Food and Drug Administration, I think that the industry along with everyone else is waiting for the proposed regulations called for by the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act to be released by the White House Office of Management and Budget so that the public comment period can begin.
I have noticed that some industry groups and state agricultural extension programs are not waiting for the new regulations to be promulgated and have gone ahead with food safety training conferences so that producers and processors become familiar with how to develop effective food safety plans and how to monitor them to ensure that there is food safety process control. Those efforts are commendable, but we really need to get those regulations out so that everyone understands what the food safety playing field looks like and what will be expected of industry by the FDA.
Antibiotic resistance arising from antibiotics in feed is a hot topic in food safety circles. What, if anything, do you think should be done to regulate animal antibiotics? Should it be industry or government regulated?
Food & Water Watch agrees that there is overuse and abuse of antibiotics in animal production in the United States. We have seen increasing numbers of foodborne illness outbreaks and recalls of products that have been contaminated with strains of pathogens that were antibiotic resistant. That has led to illnesses caused by these pathogens to be prolonged because doctors were prescribing medicines that proved to be ineffective.
Food & Water Watch supports the enactment of the Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act (PAMPTA) that would restrict the use of antibiotics in animal production. We believe that the approach taken thus far by the Food and Drug Administration has been much too timid, so we believe that legislation is required to deal with this issue.
Food & Water Watch has Factory Farm Map posted on its website that highlights the food safety issues associated with intensive animal production. It can be accessed at http://www.factoryfarmmap.org/
Food & Water Watch also supports the petition filed by the Center for Science in the Public Interest with the Food Safety and Inspection Service to declare certain antibiotic strains of Salmonella as adulterants so that a more preventative approach can be taken to deal with those pathogens found in meat and poultry products and keep them out of the food supply.
What do you think of the argument that smaller is safer, and that local, sustainable farms should be subject to different regulations than large, industrial farms?
I do not subscribe to the notion that small is necessarily safer. However, I think that food safety regulations can be flexible enough to take into account the burdens faced by smaller producers. Food production is becoming too concentrated in the U.S. with a few large corporations controlling a bigger share of the market. Consumers are demanding access to local and fresher sources of food. Food safety regulations should not be used to disadvantage smaller producers.
I think that a good example of where the concerns of smaller businesses were addressed effectively by government is the recently issued draft guidance from the Food Safety and Inspection Service on the validation of HACCP plans in the meat and poultry industries. The initial guidance document met with severe opposition in 2010 when it is first proposed because smaller processors argued that it was going to be too costly for them to implement the validation procedures that the agency was proposing. Without sacrificing food safety, FSIS has issued a new guidance document that gives smaller processors various options to validate their HACCP plans. I think that food safety regulations and policies can be made scale-appropriate without sacrificing food safety.
Do you generally avoid eating specific foods because of the risk associated with eating them? If so, which foods?
I am not a consumer of raw milk, although I do eat cheeses made from raw milk that have been properly fermented. I hav
e always preferred beef products cooked either well-done or medium well. I regularly use a meat thermometer at home. I have FSIS refrigerator magnets posted at the office and at home that list the proper cooking temperatures for different types of foods.
I have never been a big seafood eater and I really don’t like raw seafood. While I have occasionally put sprouts in sandwiches and salads, I have tended to use less of them as there have been too many outbreaks associated with raw sprouts. I am getting to that age where I will become part of a vulnerable population susceptible to foodborne illness, so I am becoming more careful of what I am eating.
]]>
Olivia Marler interviewed Donna for a series of conversations with food safety leaders that she calls “Food for Thought.”
How did you get into food safety?
I don’t think of my field as food safety, so much as food LAW. I’m interested in a wide range of legal and policy issues involving food and nutrition. As a law professor, I have the freedom to study any aspect of law that catches my attention. Food has always been interesting to me. My younger sisters struggled with anorexia when they were younger, and we all became interested in nutrition as a result. Somewhere along the way, I also became interested in organic food production and what it meant. But what really got my attention was the 2005 USDA Food Pyramid. The popular media had included numerous stories suggesting that people should eat somewhat more protein and somewhat less carbohydrate, but the 2005 food pyramid looked a lot like the 2000 food pyramid — grains and starches were the biggest segment. I wondered who gets to decide what goes in the pyramid, and I wondered whether it matters. (It turns out it does matter — USDA food policy has ramifications for government-subsidized food programs.) And a little light bulb went off saying, “this is Law — I can study it!”
Nutrition policy was my starting point, but I am also interested in how food is grown, what chemicals are used, how environmental protection standards apply, patent rights in genetically engineered seeds, and how organic standards are developed and applied. Moving along in the food production process, I am curious about what must or can go on food labels, how ingredients are approved, and how health claims come to be. Of course, I also pay attention to food safety issues, but even if all food were safe all the time, I would still have lots to think about.
What is the most immediate change that could be made to improve food safety by industry? And by the government?
I am certainly not qualified to answer this one, but I feel very strongly that consumers have a right to know where their food comes from. Consumers should also have a right to know about safety issues as they arise. Every time government or industry decides that consumers don’t need information because it is either “irrelevant” or “misleading” my trust in our food system erodes a bit more. The appropriate response to consumer confusion is not hiding the ball, it’s educating consumers.
Antibiotic resistance arising from antibiotics in feed is a hot topic in food safety circles. What, if anything, do you think should be done to regulate animal antibiotics? Should it be industry or government regulated?
I think it has to be government regulated. The profit motive is too strong for industry regulation to be effective. I don’t know as much as I should about food animal production (and I know far more than I wish I did), but in my opinion, animals should be raised in such a way that there is no need for antibiotics most of the time. I should put in a disclaimer here — my daughter and I are vegan, primarily because we are appalled at the way food animals are treated. The place to start is animal treatment. If the animals we intend to eat were not kept in conditions conducive to disease, there would be much less need for antibiotics.
What do you think of the argument that smaller is safer, and that local, sustainable farms should be subject to different regulations than large, industrial farms?
While I know that smaller is not always safer, the outbreaks from small producers tend to be much smaller because small farms have smaller customer bases. There is another aspect to smaller, sustainable production that may be important too, though. That is that in smaller operations, the people at the top are in contact with the food itself. The operation is not merely producing a commodity to be mass distributed; it is producing food, the stuff you eat with your family at Thanksgiving. It is hard to imagine a CEO sending food to a family table knowing there were positive tests for salmonella. But it is not such a stretch to send an imperfect product to market.
Several years ago I attended a breakfast sponsored by an agricultural law organization. A woman in the buffet line struck up a conversation with me. She was an agricultural lawyer from North Dakota. When I told her I was interested in food law, she seemed surprised. “Huh. I don’t think any of my clients think of themselves as producing food!” Thinking of agriculture as producing food rather than a commodity, changes the whole way we approach safety and profit. And I think that many small farmers are closer to the notion of producing “food” than are industrial scale farms.
Do you generally avoid eating specific foods because of the risk associated with eating them? If so, which foods?
I don’t eat sprouts. Also, I used to make vegan cookie dough so I could eat it without worrying about Salmonella, but now I avoid eating anything with raw flour. For that matter, raw foods make me a bit nervous in general. If I were a meat eater, I would not eat hamburger or anything raw.
]]>
The Hostess Candy Mix contains wheat and milk and may contain egg, none of which are declared on the Chocolate Sprinkles package.
People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to milk, eggs, and wheat run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume these products.
No adverse reactions have been reported to date.
The recalled Hostess Candy Mix was distributed from April 5 through 19 to Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky, Pennsylvania and Tennessee Gordon Food Service Marketplace Stores.
Product is in a red, stand up GFS®, 48-oz. pouch that says Chocolate Sprinkles. The code date is embossed on the top of the pouch as 088 12.
Consumers who have purchased GFS® Hostess Mix by the case, or GFS® Chocolate Sprinkles should investigate their purchase.
Consumers who have the mis-packed product may return it to the place of purchase for a full refund.
For more information contact Krispak, Inc. at 1-616-554-1377 from 6 a.m. to 2 p.m. ET.
]]>
Consumers are warned not to use the product even if it does not look or smell spoiled.
There have not been any reported cases of illness related to these products.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration discovered the problem during an inspection.
The sale of improperly eviscerated fish, 5 inches in length or greater, is prohibited because Clostridium botulinum spores are more likely to be concentrated in the viscera than any other portion of the fish. Uneviscerated fish has been linked to outbreaks of botulism poisoning which may pose a potentially life-threatening health hazard.
The recall is for:
– Vobla Dry, 20lb bulk boxes, not vacuum packed, no lot numbers or expiration dates.
– Vobla Smoked, 20lb bulk boxes, not vacuum packed, no lot numbers or expiration dates.
Products were distributed and sold at: Arbat Store, Utah; European Importing, Russian Import, and M and M Market, Northern California; Golden Farms Market, Karabagh Market, and Tashkent Market, Southern California; Global Importing, Oregon; Solomon’s Groceries and Europa, Colorado.
Customers who may have purchased the above products from February 28 to April 23, 2012 are urged to destroy or return the products to the place of purchase.
For more information contact the company at 213-687-6558, Monday through Friday, 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. PST.
Symptoms of botulism include blurred or double vision, general weakness, poor reflexes, difficulty swallowing and respiratory paralysis, which may lead to death. People experiencing these problems should seek immediate medical attention.
]]>
The recall was initiated after it was discovered that the company’s supplier had added egg to a key ingredient.
No adverse reactions have been reported and the company says the problem has been corrected.
Consumers who are allergic to eggs may run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reactions if they consume products with them. The donuts are safe for individuals without allergies to eggs.
The recalled Glazers Donuts are in a 10.75 oz. cardboard box, UPC CODE 39779 04033, and were sold in Iowa, Minnesota and Wisconsin with a sell-by date on or before 04/07.
Consumers who are allergic to eggs may return the recalled Glazers Donuts (those purchased on or before April 5) to the place of purchase.
For more information contact the company at 608-781-8988.
]]>There have been no reports of illness and this is a Class III recall, meaning the product will not cause adverse health consequences.
FSIS said the shipment of imported pork, inspected and passed by the Canadian authorities, arrived from Canada earlier than scheduled and and was sold to Lawson Foods without being presented to U.S. food safety authorities for re-inspection.
The recall is for various weight cases of PORK SHOULDER BUTTS, with an identifying case code of 30312 and the establishment number EST. 34227 inside the USDA mark of inspection.
This product was produced on March 3, 2012, and was distributed to one wholesale firm in New Jersey.
For more information contact the company’s representative, Simon Law, at 973-375-8800.
]]>This recall was discovered when the milk-containing product were distributed in packaging that did not have a label saying the presence of milk in the ingredient statement.
“Backroad Country Caramel Puffcorn” is sold in 8 and 16 ounce plastic bags and was distributed between January 6 and March 12, 2012 to the following 32 states: AL, AR, CO, FL, GA, IA, ID, IL, IN, KS, KY, MD, MI, MN, MO, MS, MT, NC, ND, NH, NV, NY, OH, OK, PA, SC, TN, TX, UT, VA, WA and WV in retail stores and through mail orders
The product comes in clear plastic bag labeled with the following codes stamped on the front of the package:
Backroad Country Caramel Puffcorn, 8 oz bag, UPC 0 49646 90176 0, Sell By Date/Lot Code:
03/07/12 C1P16, 03/21/12 B2Y16, 05/16/12 B1X16, 05/30/12 B1X16, 06/13/12 A3K16.
Backroad Country Caramel Puffcorn, 16 oz bag, UPC 0 49646 90157 6, Sell By Date/Lot Code: 03/07/12 C1P16, 03/21/12 B2Y16, 05/16/12 B1X16, 05/30/12 B1X16, 06/13/12 A2R16 or A3K16.
No illnesses have been reported due to this product.
Distribution of the product has been suspended until FDA and the company are certain that the problem has been corrected.
Consumers who have an allergy to milk and purchased 8 and/or 16 ounce packages of “Backroad Country Caramel Puffcorn” are urged to return them to the place of purchase for a full refund.
Consumers with questions may contact the company at 1-877-343-1614 M-F 8:00am-4:00pm EST.
]]>There have been no adverse reactions reported.
The recalled products are:
– fungus, 80 g, UPC 6 948691 100064
– fungus, 200 g, UPC 6 948691 100071
For more information contact the CFIA at 1-800-442-2342 / TTY 1-800-465-7735 (8 a.m. to 8 p.m. Eastern time, Monday through Friday).
]]>There have been no reported allergic reactions.
All codes of the following Frito Lay brand Cheetos products, imported from Korea, are affected by this alert:
– Cheetos (BBQ flavor, red bag) 88 g, UPC 8 801062 289936, contains undeclared milk
– Cheetos (Hot flavor, black bag). 88 g, UPC 8 801062 380015, contains undeclared soy
The recalled Cheetos were distributed in Ontario and Manitoba.
For more information contact CFIA at 1-800-442-2342 / TTY 1-800-465-7735 (8 a.m. to 8 p.m. Eastern time, Monday through Friday).
]]>The expanded recall by New Food Classics of Burlington, Ontario is for:
– no name 12 Beef Burgers, 1.36 kg, UPC 0 60383 37333 7, lot codes BB 2012, AL 22, EST 761
– no name Club Pack Beef Steakettes, 2.27 kg, UPC 0 60383 01321 9, lot codes BB 2012, AL 22, EST 761
These recalled burgers and steaks were distributed by Loblaws nationally.
For more information, contact New Food Classics at 1-855-344-1825 or
CFIA at 1-800-442-2342 / TTY 1-800-465-7735, 8 a.m. to 8p.m. Eastern time, Monday through Friday.
]]>The raw protein was distributed in Alberta, British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec.
The recalled 1 kg raw protein has the UPC 7 18122 58829 9, lot number AC25111 and an enjoyed-best by date of March, 2013.
]]>
People with an allergy or severe sensitivity to milk should not consume the product. There have been no adverse reactions reported.
The 1.45 ounce container has a UPC number of 41415-03608 and a date code on the package of BEST BY DEC 09 13 H. The mislabeled beef stew mix was distributed in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Tennessee and South Carolina.
Consumers may return the recalled stew mix to their local store for a full refund. For more information call the Publix Consumer Relations department at 1-800-242-1227 or visits its website at www.publix.com.
]]>There have been no reports of adverse reactions.
FSIS said its personnel discovered the problem during a routine inspection. FSIS said the MSG was added as an ingredient when seasoning blends were changed, but the company did not update its product label.
The recall is of 5-lb boxes of “Milano’s Country Breakfast Sausage,” containing 80 sausage links per box. Each box bears the establishment number “EST. 8777” inside the USDA mark of inspection.
These recalled sausages were made-to-order for restaurants and caterers in the New York City area through Feb. 21, 2012.
For more information contact the company’s co-owner Michael Milano at 212- 255-2135.
]]>The Chili Station in Ludlow, MA recalled containers of its beef and turkey chili Thursday. No illnesses have been linked to these products.
The following products have been recalled:
– 5 gallon containers and 1-gallon bags of “The Chili Station” Beef Chili with Beans
– 5 gallon containers and 1-gallon of “The Chili Station” Beef Chili with Beans and/or Turkey Chili
Establishment numbers “EST. 6380” or “P-6380” may be printed on labels or packaging, inside the mark of inspection or ink-jetted on the case label.
The chili products were distributed and sold in Massachusetts. The problem was discovered during a routine Food Safety Assessment conducted by FSIS. Anyone with concerns surrounding the recall should contact Jeffrey Belkin, a company representative, at 413-883-5096.
The recall notice is available here.
]]>The problem was discovered during an investigation by FSIS. There have been no reports of illness associated with this recall.
The recall is of:
30-pound and 22-pound cases of the following products produced between Jan. 11 and Feb. 8, 2012:
– AA Scalded Beef Omasum Tripe
– AA Honeycomb Beef Tripe
– AA Scalded Beef Tripe Menudo De Vovino
– AA Beef Omasum Tripe
– AA Beef Tripe
Various weights of the following products produced between March 5 and Feb. 8, 2012:
– Pork chops
– Beef short ribs
– Beef tongues
– Boneless beef shank
– Boneless beef ribeye lipon
– Boneless beef short plate
– Boneless beef strip loin
– Beef fat
10-pound bags of the following products produced between April 7 and Feb. 8, 2012:
– Chicken feet
– Duck feet
– Pork uteri
Also, FSIS says the pork uteri, chicken feet and duck feet may have been produced using sodium percarbonate, a food additive not approved for use in these specific products.
Case labels or packaging may bear the establishment numbers EST. 21492, P-21492 or EST. 21492A in the USDA mark of inspection, or EST. 21492 simply ink-jetted on the case label. The products were sold in California, Colorado, Illinois, Nevada, Oregon, Texas and Washington.
Images of the labels can be seen here. The retail distribution list is available here.
For more information about this recall contact Johnny Wu, a company representative, at 1-626-376-2819.
]]>The recall is one of many resulting from a recall by Minnesota-based Michael Foods, which produced the cooked eggs at its Wakefield, NE facility.
There have been no confirmed reports of illnesses associated with the eggs.
The recall is for 30-lb. boxes of Harold Food Co. Grand Strand Deluxe Chicken Salad with sell-by dates of 2/15/2012 and the establishment number P-20479.
The products were sent to a distributor in South Carolina for further distribution to retail establishments in North Carolina and South Carolina. The chicken salad products may have been repackaged as sandwiches under a brand other than Harold Food Co. and no longer bear the identifying information listed above.
Consumers with questions about the recall should contact Bost Distributing Company’s General Manager, Jeff Bennett, at 919-775-5931.
]]>
After receiving a consumer complaint of an allergic reaction, Walgreen said it learned that the product manufacturer, GKI Foods of Brighton, MI, had mistakenly packaged bridge mix with chocolate-covered raisin labeling.
The recalled 13 oz. blue and white plastic bags have chocolate-covered raisins pictured on the front and the following identifying information on the back label: best-by date of Oct 42012A1, UPC number 04902245661, and item number 280217.
The recalled packages were distributed through Walgreen distribution centers in Arizona, Connecticut and California and to Walgreens retail stores in the Northeastern and Western United States.
Customers may return the recalled packages to Walgreens for a full refund.
For more information, contact Walgreens Product Quality Department at 847-315-2755, Monday through Friday from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Central Time.
]]>
The eggs – from Michael Foods Egg Products Co. — are the subject of a U.S. Food and Drug Administration recall due to contamination with Listeria monocytogenes, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced Friday.
The problem was discovered when 18th Street Deli was notified by one of its suppliers that hard-cooked eggs (a product inspected by the FDA) had tested positive for Listeria monocytogenes and were being recalled by Michael Foods Egg Products Co.
18th Street Deli of Hamtramck, MI, said its recalled salad products were produced on Jan. 20, 2012 and then distributed to retail stores in Michigan and vending companies in Indiana, Michigan and Ohio.
The recall is for 9.25-ounce packages of 18th Street Deli Julienne Salad, 18th Street Deli Julienne Salad Lite, and Balanced Choice Julienne Salad Lite that bear the establishment number P-22061 inside the USDA mark of inspection and expiration dates of 01/27/12 and 01/30/12.
18th Street Deli has received no reports of illnesses associated with these recalled products.
For more information contact Robert Guzzardo, head of Quality Assurance for 18th Street Deli, at 313-921-7710.
]]>
No illnesses have been reported.
Routine sampling by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services detected Listeria in some sandwiches.
The recall is for Anytime Deli Turkey & Ham Footlong Sandwiches, packaged in white butcher wrap, with the UPC 0543200194 and a best-by date of January 19 and January 22. The sub sandwiches were distributed January 2 and 3 to convenience stores in Florida and South Georgia.
The product has been removed from store shelves; however, consumers who purchased the sandwich for later consumption are urged to return it to the place of purchase for a full refund.
For more information contact the company at 1-800-394-6258 Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. EST.
Listeria monocytogenes can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems. Although healthy individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms such as high fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and diarrhea, listeria infection can cause miscarriages and stillbirths among pregnant women.
]]>
California Innovations Inc. of Toronto said on its website that the gel packs contain diethylene glycol and ethylene glycol, which can be poisonous if ingested.
The company has received two reports of dogs chewing and ingesting the leaked gel from the lunch box. One dog died and the second was treated and recovered.
The recalled lunch boxes, made of vinyl and polyester nylon are Ci Sport three-piece, expandable, insulated lunch box sets, which include the lunch box, an aluminum bottle and the freezer gel pack. The recalled lunch box sets have the code “1-61731-99-57” printed on one of two white labels sewn under the white fastener inside the main compartment. The lunch box was available in four colors: navy blue, red, black and denim blue.
The gel pack is a 6-inch by 4-inch transparent plastic pouch filled with blue liquid gel. The words “Cryofreeze” and “Ice Pack/Hot Pack” are printed in white letters on the front.
The lunch boxes, which were made in China, were sold by Costco Wholesale Club, Leon Korol and Cost U Less stores between May 2007 and September 2008.
Consumers should immediately stop using the gel packs and dispose of them according to federal, state and/or local regulations, the CPSC advised, adding that consumers should contact their local waste disposal authority for instructions.
The lunch box set can be returned to Costco for a full refund, or a $5 cash refund is available for the gel pack only by contacting California Innovations.
For more information call California Innovations at 800-722-2545 from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, e-mail [email protected] or visit the firm’s website at www.californiainnovations.com
]]>
The recall is for 16 oz. cheese with the UPC 41735-12509 and an expiration date of April 21, 2012 sold chain-wide from Jan. 4 through Jan. 17, 2012.
Price Chopper is also alerting customers who bought the recalled cheese via its Smart Reply notification program, which uses purchase data and consumer phone numbers on file in connection with the company’s AdvantEdge (loyalty) card .
The cheese can be returned to a local Price Chopper for a full refund. For more information, visit the pricechopper.com website or call Price Chopper at 1-800-666-7667, option 3, from 8:30 a.m. to 7 p.m.
]]>Rich Foods, the manufacturer of the sponge cake layers contained in these cakes, notified Price Chopper that they may contain plastic fragments. Rich Foods recalled the cake about two weeks ago, saying small plastic fragments were shredding from defective packaging.
In a news release, Price Chopper said that although these specialty cakes have been available in stores since July 10, 2011, no plastic fragments or consumer injuries have been reported.
The chain said it is also alerting consumers to the recall through its Smart Reply notification program, which uses purchase data and consumer phone numbers on file in connection with the company’s AdvantEdge (loyalty) card.
The cakes may be returned to local Price Choppers for a full refund. For more information, visit the pricechopper.com website or call Price Chopper at 1-800-666-7667, option 3, from 8:30 a.m. to 7 p.m.
]]>The recall is for Gourmet Stuffed Clams with a scale code of 209181, sold chain-wide in Price Chopper seafood departments between Sept. 30 and Dec. 30, 2011.
According to the company’s news release, the store-generated label was updated on December 30 to correctly reflect all of the ingredients contained in the product. The news release did not explain whether the recalled clams would still be available in stores.
Price Chopper said it initiated its Smart Reply notification program, which uses purchase data and consumer phone numbers on file, in connection with the company’s AdvantEdge (loyalty) card, to alert those households that may have purchased the stuffed clams.
The company said the product can be returned to local Price Choppers for a full refund. For more information, visit the pricechopper.com website or call Price Chopper at 1-800-666-7667, option 3, from 8:30 a.m. to 7 p.m.
]]>No adverse reactions have been reported.
The recall is for 16 oz. containers of Alaska Sourdough’s Hot Buttered Rum Batter with the package code 11/25/11 and the sell-by date of 4/25/12.
The product was distributed to retail food establishments only in Alaska.
For more information contact company president Mike Johnson at 907-562-2272 or go to www.sourdoughmining.com.
]]>
Routine sampling by New York State Department of Agriculture & Markets food inspectors and subsequent testing found the sliced herring, known as Forelka, to be positive for Listeria monocytogenes.
No illnesses have been reported.
The Forelka comes in both 330 gram and 600 gram plastic containers with the best-before date 03/06/2012 and the best-by date 5/18/2012. The imported herring fillet was sold in the New York metropolitan area.
The recalled herring should not be consumed, and may be returned to the place of purchase.
For more information contact the company at 732-225-3600 from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Friday.
Listeria, which can cause serious flu-like symptoms in healthy individuals, can cause serious complications for pregnant women, such as miscarriage and stillbirth, and is also dangerous for people with compromised immune systems.
]]>There’s been one report of illness connected to the mislabeled rugelach.
The recalled Laromme brand Vanilla Rugelach comes in a 14 oz. round, clear plastic container with the UPC 87062500954-8. Ten cases of the mislabeled product, with 18 containers each, were distributed between Nov. 2 and Dec. 22, 2011.
According to the recall notice, the problem was caused by a supplier’s change in the label, which did not reveal that egg was an ingredient.
The company says the label has now been corrected to properly identify all ingredients, including any allergens.
Consumers may return the recalled Laromme Vanilla Rugelach for a refund. For more information contact the company at 845-352-8811 from 11 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday.
]]>The size of the plastic bits ranged from 1/4 to 3/4 inches. The company, also known as Rich’s, says it has not received any reports of injuries.
In the recall news release, the company said the vanilla-flavored sponge cake is produced in Ocoyoacac, Mexico. The packaging problem, it added, was caused by a change in the resin used by the supplier.
Rich’s said it is now working with the supplier to ensure that all defective packaging is removed from distribution and that monitoring systems are in place to eliminate the potential for the problem to reoccur.
The recall is for quarter sheet Vanilla Flavored Pre-Soaked Sponge Cake produced after July 10, 2011 with the product code 00405 and the UPC code 00049800004054.
The recalled sponge cake was not packaged for retail distribution and was sold by the case primarily to in-store bakeries, as well as to some foodservice customers.
For more information contact the Rich’s Product Helpline at 1-800-356-7094 (United States) or 1-800-263-8174 (Canada) from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. EST. Voice mail is available after hours.
]]>The problem was discovered by the USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service during a routine inspection.
In the recall alert late Friday, FSIS and the company said they have received no reports of adverse reactions.
The recalled products are:
– Cases containing 2 10-lb. packages of “Chicken, Breast Double Lobe Marinated Randoms” with the number of 2844671.
— Cases containing 2 10-lb packages of “Beef Chuck, Shoulder Clod 1/2 Sliced Marinated USDA Prime” with the number of 3096311.
The recalled products were produced from Dec. 1 through Dec. 29, 2011, and shipped to food service institutions in Arizona.
For more information contact Sandy Kelly, senior director of Marketing and Communications, Shamrock Foods, at 602-477-2401 or via e-mail at [email protected]
]]>