St. Cloud Personal Injury Lawyer - ConAgra

JBS Swift Beef Recalled Due To E.Coli Contamination

Mike Bryant — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 02:31:00 GMT

This week, The U.S. Department of Agriculture announced the recall of 41,280 pounds of beef products are being recalled by JBS Swift Beef Company of Greeley, Colo. because they may be contaminated with E. coli 0157:H7. There have been 18 reported illnesses. Today the recall was expanded to 380,000 pounds of products. The products subject to recall include:

Boxes of "USDA CHOICE OR HIGHER, Bnls Beef Bottom Sirloin, Butt Ball Tip 2/DN S/T." Each box bears the establishment number "EST. 969" inside the USDA mark of inspection, identifying package dates of "042109" or "042209" and a case code of "21852."
Boxes of "USDA CHOICE OR HIGHER, Bnls Beef Bottom Sirloin, Butt Ball Tip 2/UP S/T." Each box bears the establishment number "EST. 969" inside the USDA mark of inspection, identifying package dates of "042109" or "042209" and a case code of "21853."
Boxes of "Swift, Bnls Beef Bottom Sirloin, Butt Ball Tip 2/DN S/T." Each box bears the establishment number "EST. 969" inside the USDA mark of inspection, identifying package dates of "042109" or "042209" and a case code of "31852."
Boxes of "Bnls Beef Bottom Sirloin, Butt Ball Tip 2/UP S/T." Each box bears the establishment number "EST. 969" inside the USDA mark of inspection, identifying package dates of "042109" or "042209" and a case code of "31853."
Boxes of "Swift, USDA SELECT, Bnls Beef Bottom Sirloin, Butt Ball Tip 2/DN S/T." Each box bears the establishment number "EST. 969" inside the USDA mark of inspection, identifying package dates of "042109" or "042209" and a case code of "33852."
Boxes of "USDA SELECT, Bnls Beef Bottom Sirloin, Butt Ball Tip 2/UP S/T." Each box bears the establishment number "EST. 969" inside the USDA mark of inspection, identifying package dates of "042109" or "042209" and a case code of "33853."
Boxes of "BLACK ANGUS, Swift Premium, BEEF, USDA CHOICE OR HIGHER, Bnls Beef Bottom Sirloin, Butt Ball Tip 2/UP S/T." Each box bears the establishment number "EST. 969" inside the USDA mark of inspection, identifying package dates of "042109" or "042209" and a case code of "41853."
Boxes of "BLACK ANGUS, Swift Premium, BEEF, USDA CHOICE OR HIGHER, Bnls Beef Bottom Sirloin, Butt Ball Tip 2/UP S/T." Each box bears the establishment number "EST. 969" inside the USDA mark of inspection, identifying package dates of "042109" or "042209" and a case code of "41853."
Boxes of "Bnls Beef Bottom Sirloin, Butt Ball Tip 2/DN S/T." Each box bears the establishment number "EST. 969" inside the USDA mark of inspection, an identifying package date of "042109" and a case code of "79852."
Boxes of "Bnls Beef Bottom Sirloin, Butt Ball Tip 2/UP S/T." Each box bears the establishment number "EST. 969" inside the USDA mark of inspection, an identifying package date of "042109" and a case code of "79853."
Boxes of "USDA CHOICE OR HIGHER, Bnls Beef Bottom Sirloin, Butt Ball Tip 2/UP S/T." Each box bears the establishment number "EST. 969" inside the USDA mark of inspection, identifying package dates of "042109" or "042209" and a case code of "90853."

All the beef products in the expanded recall were produced April 21 and are in boxes bearing "EST. 969," a package date of "042109" and a time stamp ranging from "0618" to "1130."

Review information in the Food Poison Journal this is the 8th recall of the year. On June 24 JBS Swift Beef Company (former ConAgra Plant famous for 2002 E. coli Outbreak) recalled approximately 41,280 pounds of beef products contaminated with E. coli O157:H7. With this recall, the FSIS announced that JBS Swift Beef Company is voluntarily expanding its June 24 recall to include approximately 380,000 pounds of assorted beef primal products that may be contaminated with E. coli O157:H7.

he recalled beef products, which were produced on April 21 and April 22, 2009 and were shipped to distributors and retailers in 13 states: Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, and Wisconsin. Consumers and media with questions about the recall should contact JBS Swift Beef Company at 800-555-7675.

If you suffer from food poisoning, you need to get immediate medical care. If it continues or there are long term affects, you should contact an attorney concerning the problem. Early investigation can include the collection of samples, checking for health alerts, and the proper notifying of those who caused the problem.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mike Bryant

Minnesota's Good Work On Food Poisoning

Mike Bryant — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 09:59:00 GMT

This past week, the New York Times looked at the issue of state responses to the food poisoning problem. Comparing Kentucky to Minnesota primarily, the report found that Minnesota was on the ball in looking at complaints. Considering the importance of the issue, clearly it should constitute more of a shame on the other states.

The story praises Minnesota for not only protecting the state , but also the nation, as it's diligence lead to the protections that if ignored " the Peanut Corporation of America might still be selling salmonella-laced peanuts, Dole might still be selling contaminated lettuce, and ConAgra might still be selling dangerous Banquet brand pot pies — sickening hundreds or thousands more people. " Because right now our nation's food supply is being defended by 3,000 poorly financed, poorly trained and disconnected federal, state and local health departments.

From 1990 to 2006, Minnesota health officials uncovered 548 food-related illness outbreaks, while those in Kentucky found 18. The article goes on to explain the importance of early investigation and regular follow up. With people in Kentucky rarely being called and being asked few questions vs. people in Minnesota reporting follow up phone calls with thorough reviews of what was eaten and testing when necessary.

Hopefully, Minnesota will be looked at as a national model and become less important in the national protection. Dr. Robert Tauxe, deputy director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s division of food-borne diseases, said the agency planned immediate investments “to increase the capacity of several health departments.” Like everything else, it's going to require more money, but considering the consequences, is there really any choice?

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mike Bryant

Stunning Testimony At Capital Hill Peanut Hearings.

Mike Bryant — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 23:50:20 GMT

Here at the Injuryboard a number of the writers have been covering the various recalls and the implications. I've written about it a number of times. But I have to say the testimony I read from Congress today concerning the Peanut Butter recall, seems to say it all:

Jeffrey Almer of Savage, Minn., described how his elderly mother survived lung cancer, a brain tumor, and other illnesses—and then she died from salmonella poisoning. "Cancer couldn’t claim her but peanut butter did," said Almer.

The rest of the testimony included the company owner taking the fifth and members of the committee reviewing emails from that same owner complaining about the money the government was forcing him to lose.

I truly hope justice is served both on the owner and for all of those injured. I feel for the Almer family and all of those that lost loved ones. We have to learn from this horrible event and make sure that it's never repeated.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mike Bryant

Dealing With The Peanut Butter Problem

Mike Bryant — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 14:53:00 GMT

Hopefully, the main company at fault will be dealt with, probably by the system, on both the criminal and the civil fronts. We also should learn from this situation so that it doesn't happen again.

Companies that are not involved are doing everything they can to distance themselves from the problem. Clearly, something they have to do as the recall list grows and people having no idea what is the truth about how big this thing is. Those that are, seem to be recalling everything that is anywhere close to the problem.

It is important that we also review what was done after the 2007 peanut butter scare. At that time ConAgra remodeled their entire plant, separating the areas for raw peanuts from finished peanut butter and paste, which must remain sterile. These actions were beyond what is required by the Food and Drug Administration guidelines.

Guidelines critics say do little to assure protection of the food supply or ease the ability to trace the source of contamination. What's more, the FDA has too few inspectors to visit the nation's 65,520 domestic food production facilities more than once a decade on average, critics say.

These statements about the FDA are startling. But, with the budget cuts and their record on other issues it may not be surprising. But with the number of people involved in this outbreak it is imperative that just like the companies reputations , we do what we have to, to ensure that our food is safe.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mike Bryant