Why We Do What We Do

Salmonella Pot Pies  272 isolates of Salmonella I 4,[5],12:i:- with an indistinguishable genetic fingerprint were collected from ill persons in 35 states. Three of these patients’ pot pies yielded Salmonella I4,[5],12:i:- isolates with a genetic fingerprint indistinguishable from the outbreak pattern.  Lesson - clear pattern of customer confusion over ready to eat and ready to cook – especially in microwaves.

Salmonella Veggie Booty?  69 reported cases of Salmonella Wandsworth in 23 states and 14 cases of Salmonella Typhimurium in six states who became ill after consuming Veggie Booty, a puffed vegetable snack food with a raw, dried vegetable coating. A total of 61 bags were tested in twelve states. Salmonella sp. was isolated from thirteen bags of Veggie Booty.  Lesson – know your suppliers.

Salmonella Tomatoes, or was it Peppers?  A final count of 1,442 ill in 43 states, D.C., and Canada, and those are the confirmed illnesses. Using CDC math - which estimates that for every documented case of salmonella in the US, another 38.5 go unreported - the total number sickened was probably closer to 50,000.  Lesson – FDA and CDC are woefully underfunded and understaffed.

Botulism in a Can  As of August 24, 2007, eight cases of botulism had been reported to CDC from Indiana (2 cases), Texas (3 cases), and Ohio (3 cases). All eight persons were reported to have consumed hot dog chili sauce made by Castleberry's Food Company.  Castleberry’s manufacturing facility closed after decades in operation.  Lesson – Invest in equipment and people.

E. coli and Campylobacter in Raw Milk

E. coli and Hamburger – Together Again  In 2007 and 2008 – 26 recalls; ground beef companies recalled more than 44 million pounds of E. coli O157:H7- contaminated meat.  In 2006 – 186,000 pound recalled.

E. coli is back – Why?  Complacency: After five years of progress with the E. coli problem, one wonders if meat processors have consciously or unconsciously slacked off, relaxing their testing procedures so that they are less likely to detect tainted meat.  Better Reporting: More doctors are more likely to recognize the symptoms of E. coli poisoning, thereby increasing the chances that an outbreak will be detected, leading to a recall.

E. coli is back – Why?  Global Warming: Too dry? One theory has it that drought through much of the southeast and southwest has led to more fecal dust wafting in the breezes through beef- slaughtering plants, creating new avenues for beef to become tainted.  Too wet? This theory focuses on excessive rainfall in other regions, which leads to muddy pens that serve as an ideal vehicle for E. coli at meat- processing plants.

E. coli is back – Why?  High oil prices: The theory is that $3 gas has fueled the growth of ethanol plants. Those plants tend to be built next to feedlots because the plants produce a byproduct called distiller’s grains, which serves as an excellent feed for livestock. Problem is, according to research at Kansas State University, the distillers grain also increases the incidence of E. coli in the hindguts of cattle.

E. coli is back – Why?  Illegal Immigration: Wait, perhaps not. The New York Times reported that immigration officials began a crackdown at slaughterhouses across the country last fall. Some are now hiring men from homeless missions and providing free transportation to many of them.  Hmmm, an influx of unskilled, but U.S. workers, with no experience and high turnover.

Emerging Foodborne Pathogens  E. coli O111 linked to nearly 300 illnesses and one death in Oklahoma. E. coli O111 and other Shiga-toxin E. coli are NOT listed as an adulterant under the Federal Meat Inspection Act – Yet.  MRSA  Bird Flu  Mad Cow

Peanut Butter and Salmonella - Again  As of last week, over 691 persons infected with the outbreak strains of Salmonella Typhimurium have been reported from 46 states  Over 150 people hospitalized  Nine Deaths  Over 3,800 products recalled  Bankruptcy  Criminal Prosecution  Declaratory Judgment  Lesson - ?

It Can Happen Up North 2008  Listeriosis in Maple Leaf Foods (Estimated 57 cases with 21 deaths)  E. coli linked to Johnathan’s Family Restaurant in Burlington (Estimated 43 cases)  E. coli linked to Harvey’s chain in North Bay, Ontario (Estimated 246 cases)  Salmonella linked to cheese in Quebec (Estimated 87 cases and 1 death)

It Can Happen Up North 2007  Topps E. coli outbreak linked to Rancher’s Beef in Balzac, Alberta (Estimated 45 cases) 2006  E. coli outbreak linked to Dutch Meat Market in St. Boniface (Estimated 40 cases)  Botulism in carrot juice - (Two Toronto residents paralyzed, four Americans on ventilators)

It Can Happen Up North 2005  Salmonella in Bean Sprouts in Ontario (Estimated 648 cases)  Salmonella in Bean Sprouts in Ontario (Estimated 648 cases) 2004  E. coli outbreak in Calgary (Estimated 29 cases linked to five restaurants)  E. coli outbreak in Calgary (Estimated 29 cases linked to five restaurants) 2002  Shigella outbreak in Ontario (Estimated 200 ill)

And Then There Was Walkerton 2000  E. coli in Walkerton, Ontario (Estimate 5,000 ill, seven dead)

And, then there is China

Incentives for Companies to Produce Safe Food Products  Market Forces - risk of damage to business reputation, loss of market share, and decreased sales revenue; –Contract Specifications as a “market force” –Charging a “premium” for safer food

 Food Safety Laws and Regulations - violations can result in fines, product-recalls, plant- closures or criminal penalties Incentives for Companies to Produce Safe Food Products

 Product Liability Law - forcing firms to bear the full costs of decisions made about product quality and safety by requiring the payment of monetary compensation for the injuries caused by defectively manufactured or unsafe products Incentives for Companies to Produce Safe Food Products

Strict Liability For Food: In Sum Strict Liability Is Liability Without Regard To Fault  The focus is on the product; not conduct  You are liable if: –The product was unsafe and thus defective –The defective product caused an injury

Can a Canadian Manufacturer be sued?  From Injured Person’s and Importer’s perspective: 1.Can the supplier be subject to personal jurisdiction of the U.S. courts? 2.Does the supplier have fixed assets in the United States that can be attached to satisfy a U.S. court judgment? 3.Can the supplier be sued in Canadian Courts?

Where is this Headed? Unlikely that Injured persons will have rights in the short run directly against a Canadian Supplier, However:  First, contracts with Canadian exporters will be amended to include specific indemnities in favor of the importer on product safety and quality issues.  Second, contracts with Canadian exporters will be amended to include a specific provision requiring the Canadian seller to obtain and maintain sufficient product and general liability insurance, with a reputable U.S. or international insurance carrier, or to have sufficient, attachable, assets in the U.S.

What is the “Bottom Line?”  The entire chain of distribution is impacted

Again, Why We Do What We Do

Planning AGAINST Litigation What Is Really Important  Identify Hazards – HACCP – Do you have qualified/ committed people?