Currently browsing posts about: Salmonella

This post from food safety lawyer Bill Marler got my attention: 20,400,000 Salmonella tainted Cage Free, Organic Eggs recalled after 79 Sickened: According to the FDA, California-based August Egg Company of Hilmar is recalling 1,700,000 dozen brown cage-free and brown certified organic eggs due to potential contamination. A total of 79 people infected with the outbreak strain of Salmonella have been reported from seven states. Illnesses started on dates ranging from February 24, 2025, to May 17, 2025. Twenty-seven… Continue Reading

The FDA’s report of its investigations is here.

The FDA and CDC, in collaboration with state and local partners, are investigating illnesses in a multistate outbreak of Salmonella Enteritidis infections linked to brown cage free eggs and brown certified organic eggs supplied by August Egg Company, Hilmar, CA.

The CDC’s account of this investigation  is here.

The CDC notes:

The true number of sick people in this outbreak is also likely much higher than the number reported. This is because many people recover without medical care and are not tested for Salmonella.

Comment

To endlessly repeat: Salmonella in eggs is preventable, but nobody is making egg producers do what they need to do to prevent hens from getting infected.  If 79 cases and 21 hospitalizations doesn’t get you upset, ask yourself why you are inured to such information.  One more time: these are preventable illnesses and hospitalizations.  And no, organic and cage free conditions do not prevent hens from carrying Salmonella .  And how could they?  I’ve been to industrial organic egg production faciltities and have seen thousands of hens on top of each other in crowded barns.  We have the laws.  They need to be enforced.

Bill Marler keeps insisting that we put him out of business.  Let’s do that.

The USDA announced last week that it is withdrawing its proposed framework for reducing Salmonella in raw poultry.  Oh great.

Why?

FSIS received 7,089 comments on the proposed framework…from a variety of stakeholders that included poultry and meat industry trade associations, small poultry producer and processor trade associations, large and small poultry processing establishments, consumer advocacy organizations…The issues that generated the most comments…[were] the proposed Salmonella levels and serotypes for the final product standards…the scientific and technical information used to support the proposed framework, the potential economic impacts of the proposed framework, and the potential impact of the proposed framework on small poultry growers and processors. Several comments also suggested alternative approaches other than the proposed framework for addressing Salmonella illnesses associated with poultry products.

While FSIS continues to support the goal of reducing Salmonella illnesses associated with poultry products, the Agency believes that the comments have raised several important issues that warrant further consideration.

Consumer Reports, which has for years been pushing the USDA to do something about Salmonella contamination in poultry, is not happy with this move, not least because its investigators found large numbers of poultry plants to be heavily contaminated with Salmonella. contamination.

The proposed rule was intended to help reduce the number of salmonella infections in the U.S. Of the estimated 1.35 million illnesses that occur each year from food tainted with the bacteria, nearly 200,000 of them are due to chicken, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “And instead of declining, salmonella infections are increasing and expected to continue to grow…This move, along with the steep budget and staffing cuts at the USDA and FDA, appears to be part of an overall effort to weaken food safety oversight,” says director of food policy at Consumer Reports.

Comment

This is an extremely disappointing decision.  The poultry industry argues that Salmonella contamination is normal.  They don’t need to do anything to prevent chickens getting contaminated.  It is your responsibility to store and cook your chicken properly.

Safety advocates (like me) argue that Salmonella is not normal, contamination is preventable, and the industry ought to be doing that.  The USDA’s 2021 proposal to declare Salmonella an adulterant was a major step in making food safer.

This decision is a major setback.

Resources

What the USDA says about Salmonella

What the USDA says today about reducing Salmonella in poultry.  The web page displays USDA’s 2021 announcement that it would be “mobilizing a stronger and more comprehensive effort to reduce Salmonella illnesses associated with poultry products.”

The USDA is at long last giving some attention—a small but significant first step—to reducing Salmonella contamination of poultry products.

Salmonella is a big problem in poultry and eggs.  For decades, food safety advocates have called on the USDA to declare Salmonella an adulterant.  Adulterated food is illegal to sell.

The poultry industry has resisted, arguing that chicken gets cooked before it is eaten; cooking kills Salmonella.

It does, but you don’t want toxic forms of Salmonella in your kitchen where they can get into other foods.  For background all this, see my book, Safe Food: The Politics of Food Safety.

In a press release, the USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announces that it

is considering a regulatory framework for a new strategy to control Salmonella in poultry products and more effectively reduce foodborne Salmonella infections linked to these products…The most recent report from the Interagency Food Safety Analytics Collaboration estimates that over 23% of foodborne Salmonella illnesses are attributable to poultry consumption—almost
17% from chicken and over 6% from turkey.

The proposed Salmonalla framework has three components:

What FSIS is actually doing:

We will publish a proposed notice of determination to declare Salmonella an adulterant in NRTE [not ready to eat] breaded and stuffed chicken products in 2022, and we intend to publish additional proposed rules and policies implementing this strategy in 2023, with the goal of finalizing any rules by mid-2024.

The adulterant consideration only applies to breaded and stuffed chicken or turkey products that are likely to be microwaved but not necessarily thoroughly cooked.  It does not apply to plain, unbreaded and unstuffed poultry.

Consumer Reports finds lots of poultry to be contaminated with Salmonella.  Consumer Reports says Salmonella is “lethal but legal.”

Currently, a chicken processing facility is allowed to have salmonella in up to 9.8 percent of all whole birds it tests, 15.4 percent of all parts, and 25 percent of ground chicken. And producers that exceed these amounts are not prevented from selling the meat. If salmonella became an adulterant, even in some poultry products, it would help reduce the amount of contaminated meat that hits the market.

As might be expected, the National Chicken Council opposes the USDA’s proposed framework: “lacks data, research.”

the facts show that the Centers for Disease Control and FSIS’s own data demonstrate progress and clear reductions in Salmonella in U.S. chicken products.  “Increased consumer education about proper handling and cooking of raw meat must be part of any framework going forward…Proper handling and cooking of poultry is the last step, not the first, that will help eliminate any risk of foodborne illness. We’ll do our part to promote safety.”

A report from the U.S. Public Interest Research Group (PIRG) says that USDA recalls of meat and poultry have nearly doubled since 2013.

• USDA posts its recalls and notices here.

The PIRG report says FDA recalls of the products it regulates—produce, seafood, and processed foods—have dropped.  The Food Safety Modernization Act rules are in effect, and working.

• FDA posts its recalls and notices here.

To do something about meat and poultry recalls, some of which involve Salmonella, food safety lawyer Bill Marler along with  Consumer Reports and other advocacy groups, have petitioned USDA to classify Salmonella as an adulterant, an action that is long overdue (see the Washington Post’s story on Marler’s action.

Does USDA have the authority to do this?  I think yes, even though courts have ruled that because Salmonella can be killed by cooking, they are a natural contaminant.

Yes, but supermarket raw chicken is frequently contaminated with Salmonella and frequently associated with disease outbreaks.

Salmonella-contaminated chicken requires special handling in kitchens: Don’t wash it!  Keep it entirely separate from all other foods.  Don’t put it on counters, plates, or cutting boards that can come in contact with other foods.   In other words, run your kitchen like a maximum security laboratory.

It’s high time the USDA did something about this one.

As readers of this blog should know by now, I’m a big fan of food safety lawyer Bill Marler, whose blog keeps me up to date on food safety matters.

He posted recently on a Salmonella outbreak caused by contact with backyard chickens.

The CDC keeps track of such things.  By its count,

A total of 279 people infected with the outbreak strains of Salmonella have been reported from 41 states.

• 40 (26%) people have been hospitalized and no deaths have been reported.
• 70 (30%) people are children younger than 5 years.

The CDC’s advice:

I was interested in Marler’s account because I knew that he had backyard chickens at his place near Seattle.

Here’s what he says about that:

We have had hens in our backyard since just after the DeCoster egg debacle in 2010.  I clean the chicken house about twice a month and the shoes and clothes I wear are removed before going inside.  I wear a mask and gloves when I clean and either wash my hands well or take a shower.  I do not pick up the chickens unless they are ill, and I wash my hands after I do.  I wash the eggs and refrigerate then.  They tend to get used within the week.

I do my best to think about the possibility of cross-contamination with Salmonella and/or Campylobacter.  So far, so good.

Good advice.

I wrote about the recall of Honey Smacks cereals last June when its Salmonella outbreak was just past its peak, but a post from food-safety lawyer Bill Marler made me think this outbreak is worth another look.

The CDC says the Honey Smacks outbreak is over now.  But it also says you should still be careful not to eat Honey Smacks with a “best if used by” date of June 14, 2019 or earlier (the packages I saw on the shelf at the Ithaca Wegmans were dated May 19, 2019—oops).

Marler got my attention by pointing out what the FDA found in its June 2018 investigation and reported in its warning letter to Kerry, Inc, the manufacturer of this Kellogg’s cereal.

Between September 29, 2016 and May 16, 2018, you repeatedly found Salmonella throughout your facility, including in cereal production rooms. During this time period, you had 81 positive Salmonella environmental samples and 32 positive Salmonella vector samples (samples taken in response to finding a positive on routine testing)…Further, you had repeated findings of other Salmonella species in some production lines and rooms used for the manufacture of cereal.

What?  Over a period of a year and a half, the manufacturer’s testing identified 113 samples positive for Salmonella—and did little or nothing to prevent Salmonella from getting into the cereal?

The damage was hardly trivial.The Food Safety and Modernization Act set rules governing the safe production of foods.  Clearly, some companies, this one apparently, did not bother to follow them.

This, then, is a matter of inadequate enforcement.

Do food companies need to be forced to follow standard food safety procedures?  Apparently so if public health is to be protected.

I am baffled by food safety issues related to the recent recall of Ritz Crackers and Goldfish by their manufacturers, Mondelēz and Campbell/Pepperidge, respectively.

I understand how their whey protein ingredient could be contaminated by Salmonella.  Whey is an excellent growth medium for bacteria.

What I don’t understand is how people eating Ritz Crackers or Goldfish could become ill with Salmonella (the New York Times reports two cases of illness).

Aren’t crackers baked?  Isn’t that a kill step?

I can understand why Mondelēz would issue a recall as a precautionary measure.

But can someone please explain to me how Ritz Crackers or Goldfish could contain live Salmonella from whey baked into them?

I am not the only one puzzled by this.  BakeryAndSnacks.com quotes Stewart Eton, an industry food safety official, who emphasizes that baked goods undergo a kill step.

This would ordinarily be a CCP [Critical Control Point] under their HACCP [hazard analysis and control plan] program with the process validated and verified at regular intervals.  Under the FSMA [FDA’s food safety laws], for example, this risk-based rationale would be deemed sound and would not require a recall.

What’s going on here?

A possible explanation

A reader writes that flavoring agents are sprayed on to Goldfish after they are baked.  If this is true, Goldfish would be make in the same way as dry pet foods and would not be sterile.

The CDC tracking of the papaya outbreak continues, with a score of

• Case Count: 173
• States: 21
• Deaths: 1
• Hospitalizations: 58
• Recall: Yes

All foodborne illness outbreaks are devastating for victims but fascinating for investigators, since each is different.

This investigation has traced the illness-causing Salmonella to one kind of papaya (Maridol, under Caribeña, Cavi, and Valery brands) to one Mexican farm (Carica de Campeche).

But four Salmonella strains have been found in papaya samples and in ill people:

• Kiambu
• Thompson
• Agona
• Gaminara

The shift from one to another is evident in the epi curve:

The moral:

• Don’t buy Maridol papayas.
• If you have one, throw it away (but be careful not to cross contaminate surfaces)
• If you don’t know where the papaya was grown, don’t eat it

If you are interested in the legal implications, check Bill Marler’s website.