Kellogg says FDA confirms salmonella in crackers

0 comments

Posted on 19th January 2009 by Gordon Johnson in Uncategorized

, , , , , ,

Date: 1/19/2009

By EMILY FREDRIX
Associated Press Writer

MILWAUKEE (AP) — Kellogg Co. said Monday federal authorities have confirmed that salmonella was found in a single package of its peanut butter crackers, as a Midwestern grocer recalled some of its products because of the scare.

Kellogg had recalled 16 products last week because of the possibility of salmonella contamination.

On Monday, the company based in Battle Creek said that contamination was confirmed by the Food and Drug Administration in a single package of Austin Quality Foods Toasty Crackers with Peanut Butter.

Food companies and retailers have been recalling products with peanut butter in them because of suspicion of contamination amid a salmonella outbreak that has killed at least six people and sickened more than 470 others in 43 states. At least 90 people have been hospitalized.

Also Monday, Midwestern grocer and retailer Meijer Inc. said it was recalling two types of crackers and two varieties of ice cream because of the possibility of salmonella contamination: Meijer brand Cheese and Peanut Butter and Toasty Peanut Butter sandwich crackers, and Peanut Butter and Jelly and Peanut Butter Cup ice cream.

It was not immediately clear how many packages of Kellogg crackers had been tested, if more tests were being made on other products or if some had already been found not have salmonella, Kellogg spokeswoman Kris Charles said. A spokesman for the FDA said the agency was not providing any new information Monday.

The government on Saturday had advised consumers to avoid eating cookies, cakes, ice cream and other foods containing peanut butter until health officials learn more about the contamination.

Officials said that most peanut butter sold in jars at supermarkets appears to be safe.

Officials have been focusing on peanut paste and peanut butter made at Peanut Corp. of America’s plant in Blakely, Ga.

On Sunday, Peanut Corp. expanded its own recall to all peanut butter and peanut paste produced at the Blakely plant since July 1.

The company’s peanut butter is not sold directly to consumers but it is distributed to institutions and food companies. The peanut paste, made from roasted peanuts, is an ingredient in cookies, cakes and other products sold to consumers.

Meijer, based in Grand Rapids, said in a news release Monday it was issuing its recall because makers of its products had announced possible contamination. The products are sold in Meijer stores and gas stations in Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois and Kentucky.

The recall last week by Kellogg, the world’s largest cereal maker, affected products including Keebler Soft Batch Homestyle Peanut Butter Cookies, Famous Amos Peanut Butter Cookies and Keebler Cheese & Peanut Butter Sandwich Crackers. Charles said the recall affected more than 7 million cases of its products.

Kellogg Chief Executive David Mackay said the company would evaluate its processes “to ensure we take necessary actions to reassure consumers and rebuild confidence in these products.”

Salmonella, a bacteria, is the most common cause of food poisoning in the U.S., causing diarrhea, cramping and fever.

Over the weekend, Little Debbie maker McKee Foods Corp. of Collegedale, Tenn., issued a voluntary recall of its peanut butter crackers because of possible contamination.

Other companies issuing recalls recently include Midwest supermarket chain Hy-Vee Inc. of West Des Moines, Iowa, Perry’s Ice Cream Co. of Akron, N.Y., and the South Bend Chocolate Co. in Indiana. Ralcorp Frozen Bakery Products, a division of St. Louis-based Ralcorp, recalled several brands of peanut butter cookies it sells through Wal-Mart stores.

Some companies were quick to assure their customers their products were fine and they were not involved in the investigation. Russell Stover Candies Inc., maker of Russell Stover and Whitman’s, said Monday it does not use ingredients from Peanut Corp. ConAgra Foods Inc., maker of Peter Pan peanut butter, said Saturday it was not involved in the investigation and neither the Omaha, Neb.-based company nor its suppliers use ingredients from Peanut Corp.

Peter Pan and other peanut butter produced by ConAgra were linked in 2007 to a salmonella outbreak that sickened more than 625 people in 47 states. The company traced the contamination to a leaky roof and faulty sprinkler head at its Georgia plant.

Copyright 2009 The Associated Press.

Little Debbie peanut butter crackers recalled

0 comments

Posted on 18th January 2009 by Gordon Johnson in Uncategorized

, , , , , , , ,

Date: 1/18/2009

WASHINGTON (AP) — The company that sells Little Debbie snacks announced a recall Sunday of peanut butter crackers because of a potential link to a deadly salmonella outbreak.

The voluntary recall came one day after the government advised consumers to avoid eating cookies, cakes, ice cream and other foods with peanut butter until health officials learn more about the contamination.

The announcement by McKee Foods Corp. of Collegedale, Tenn., about two kinds of Little Debbie products was the latest in a string of voluntary recalls following the most recent guidance by health officials.

McKee said it had not received any complaints about illnesses from people who ate any size peanut butter toasty sandwich crackers or peanut butter cheese sandwich crackers. The recall covers crackers produced on or after July 1.

Officials are focusing on peanut paste, as well as peanut butter, produced at a Blakely, Ga., facility owned by Peanut Corp. of America. Its peanut butter is not sold directly to consumers but distributed to institutions and food companies. But the peanut paste, made from roasted peanuts, is an ingredient in cookies, cakes and other products that people buy in the supermarket.

So far, more than 470 people have gotten sick in 43 states, and at least 90 had to be hospitalized. At least six deaths are being blamed on the outbreak. Salmonella is a bacteria and the most common source of food poisoning in the U.S., causing diarrhea, cramping and fever.

The Kellogg Co., which listed Peanut Corp. as one of its suppliers, has recalled 16 products. McKee said Kellogg manufactured the Little Debbie crackers covered by the recall.

The Kellogg products recalled include Austin and Keebler branded peanut butter sandwich crackers, and some snack-size packs of Famous Amos peanut butter cookies and Keebler Soft Batch Homestyle peanut butter cookies.

Late Saturday, the Midwest supermarket chain Hy-Vee Inc. of West Des Moines, Iowa, said it was voluntarily recalling products made in its bakery departments with peanut butter because they had the potential to be contaminated with salmonella. The recall covered seven states: Iowa, Illinois, Missouri, Kansas, Nebraska, South Dakota and Minnesota.

Perry’s Ice Cream Co., based in Akron, N.Y., said it was recalling select ice cream products containing peanut butter because of the PCA investigation. Its recall covered New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Maryland and Virginia.

Most peanut butter sold in jars at supermarkets appears to be safe, the Food and Drug Administration said Saturday.

Peanut Corp. has recalled all peanut butter produced at the Georgia plant since Aug. 8 and all peanut paste produced since Sept. 26.

Health officials are focusing on 30 companies out of a total of 85 that received peanut products from the Georgia plant.

___

On the Net:

FDA: http://tinyurl.com/8srctw

Copyright 2009 The Associated Press.

Illinois, 41 other states in salmonella outbreak

0 comments

Posted on 8th January 2009 by Gordon Johnson in Uncategorized

, , , , ,

Date: 1/8/2009

By MIKE STOBBE
AP Medical Writer

ATLANTA (AP) — A nationwide salmonella outbreak that has struck 42 states has put about one in five of its victims in the hospital, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said Thursday.

Nearly 400 people have become ill in the outbreak that might have killed one person. An elderly woman in Minnesota had the infection when she died, although it’s not clear that salmonella was the cause, a health department spokesman there said.

The same type of salmonella bacteria has been lab-confirmed in 388 cases nationwide, said the CDC, which is leading the investigation but has not yet released the list of states or determined which foods may have caused people to become sick.

However, health officials in Illinois, North Dakota, Ohio, Georgia, Minnesota and California have confirmed cases. Ohio and California reported the most, with 51 cases each.

Nationally, all the illnesses began between Sept. 3 and Dec. 29, but most of the people grew sick after Oct. 1.

Most people develop diarrhea, fever and abdominal cramps 12 to 72 hours after infection. The illness usually lasts four to seven days, and most people recover without treatment.

Officials say steps to protect against the illness include careful handling and preparation of raw meat, and frequent hand washing.

CDC officials say the cases in the outbreak have all been genetically fingerprinted as the Typhimurium type, which is among the most common forms of salmonella food poisoning. Of those cases for which CDC officials have medical treatment information, 18 percent were hospitalized.

A Connecticut congresswoman on Thursday said she was frustrated that health officials don’t yet know how the bacteria has been spreading.

Not knowing what food is responsible means the U.S. Food and Drug Administration or the U.S. Department of Agriculture cannot help track the original source, said U.S. Rep. Rosa DeLauro, a Democrat who chairs the Agriculture-FDA appropriations subcommittee .

“Any delays in these critical investigations can sicken more people,” DeLauro said in a statement.

But foodborne illness investigations can be very complicated, and it can take weeks or months for health officials to interview patients, find common links in what they ate, test suspected foods and come up with a clear-cut cause, said Michael Doyle, director of the University of Georgia’s Center for Food Safety.

“There’s a lot more to this than meets the eye,” he said.

There are about 2,000 types of salmonella and about 40,000 cases are reported each year.

Of lab-confirmed cases, salmonella Typhimurium is the most common. The bacteria type is a year-round threat because it’s found in meat and eggs, and not as subject to seasonal food supply variations as produce.

The current outbreak’s bacteria is different from the salmonella Saintpaul bug that caused more than 1,400 illnesses last spring and summer. That was traced to vegetables from Mexico — jalapeno and serrano peppers and possibly certain types of tomatoes.

___

On the Net:

CDC information on the investigation: http://www.cdc.gov/salmonella/.

Copyright 2009 The Associated Press.

FDA seeks advice to improve tracking of produce

0 comments

Posted on 17th October 2008 by Gordon Johnson in Uncategorized

, , , , , ,

Date: 10/16/2008 4:16 PM

By KEVIN FREKING
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) _ Prompted by this summer’s salmonella outbreak, the government has begun investigating how to quickly identify the source of contaminated food and stop it from getting to consumers.

At the first public hearing on the issue Thursday, representatives from the produce industry cited progress toward labeling on every case of fruit and vegetables that would make it easier to trace tainted food from the dinner table back to the farm.

Consumer advocates want more: marking individual tomatoes, heads of lettuce and other produce from an industry subject to 900 safety recalls over the past two years.

“We need better information going to the consumer so he can identify fruits and vegetables when it’s in his refrigerator and in his cabinet shelves,” said David Plunkett, senior staff attorney at the Center for Science in the Public Interest.

The salmonella outbreak that sickened at least 1,440 people exposed flaws in the nation’s food safety system. Government investigators found strong evidence to implicate jalapeno and serrano peppers, and a farm in Mexico, in the largest outbreak of foodborne illness in a decade. An earlier warning advised people against eating various kinds of tomatoes.

The Food and Drug Administration has asked companies and consumers to recommend ways to improve the tracing of produce throughout the distribution system. Agency officials said the large number of food recalls and food-borne illnesses of recent years is a sign that health officials are better at finding problems.

“We are going to see more of these (outbreaks) rather than fewer,” said Stephen Sundlof, director of the FDA’s Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition. “We just need to respond sooner when they do occur.”

One of the questions the FDA is asking is whether an identifier should be assigned to fresh produce, and if so, at what stage in the supply chain. The industry agrees with that concept, said Kathy Means of the Produce Marketing Association. She said it is in the industry’s best interest to quickly track problems.

“They have every incentive to want to do this,” Means said.

Means said each container of produce should contain a label with a bar code that would allow businesses and the FDA to immediately identify the owner of that product — from manufacturers to packers to retailers. She said individual companies have their own system for tracking products, but the system is not uniform. She also urged the agency to let the industry enact its plan rather than seek new federal rules. Some companies are ready to put in place the barcode system immediately while others have a long way to go.

“This is going to be hundreds of millions of dollars over a few years,” she said.

Some legal underpinnings for a national tracing system are in place.

A federal bioterrorism law requires food to be traced one step forward and one step back — who supplied it, and where it went — so that, in theory, regulators can follow the trail. Industry officials said they believed that law was sufficient to get companies to enact the kind of record keeping that would keep them in compliance with the law, but so far, they have heard of little enforcement by the government to ensure that companies were complying.

Sundlof said the law authorized the FDA to check whether businesses were complying only when health dangers had surfaced. He said on a few occasions this year when potential health problems were identified, the agency exercised its authority

___

On the Net:

Food and Drug Administration: http://www.fda.gov

Produce Marketing Association: http://www.pma.com/

Copyright 2008 The Associated Press.

More foods getting labeled as US or foreign-grown

0 comments

Posted on 30th September 2008 by Gordon Johnson in Uncategorized

, , , , , , , , , , ,

Date: 9/29/2008 2:34 PM

By LAURAN NEERGAARD
AP Medical Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) _ No more wondering where your hamburger came from, or where your lettuce and tomatoes were grown: Starting this week, shoppers will see lots more foods labeled with the country of origin.

It’s a law years in the making but timely, as China’s milk scandal and the recent salmonella-tainted Mexican peppers prompt growing concern over the safety of imported foods.

Still, hold the import-bashing: Numerous outbreaks in recent years have come from U.S.-produced foods, like spinach grown in California.

Until now, shoppers have had little clue where many everyday foods — meats, fresh fruits and vegetables, certain nuts — originate. That’s what the so-called COOL law, for country-of-origin labeling, changes.

Those who want to buy local — or who prefer, say, Chilean grapes and New Zealand lamb — can more easily exercise their purchasing power. Those worried about lax safety regulations in certain countries can avoid those imports. And the next time tomatoes are suspected of food poisoning, consumers may be able to tell investigators they bought only ones grown in a certain region, speeding the probe.

“We do see it as an important step on the road to a more comprehensive system for tracing food items” during outbreaks, says Caroline Smith DeWaal of the Center for Science in the Public Interest.

“It will be a very good thing because we’ll have a lot more information,” adds Jean Halloran of Consumers Union. But, “you can still be fooled by the COOL label.”

How? There are bunches of exceptions. Fresh strawberries get a label but not chocolate-covered ones. Raw peanuts? Label. Roasted ones? No label. Those popular pre-washed salad mixes? Sometimes.

Here are some common questions as shoppers navigate the change:

Q: What does the new law require?

A: That retailers notify customers of the country of origin — including the U.S. — of raw beef, veal, lamb, pork, chicken, goat, wild and farm-raised fish and shellfish, fresh or frozen fruits and vegetables, peanuts, pecans, macadamia nuts and whole ginseng. (The aim was big agricultural commodities; ginseng was added for fear of imports masquerading as U.S.-grown.)

Q: Where will I see the country of origin?

A: Anywhere it fits. The rubber band around asparagus; the plastic wrap on ground beef; the little sticker that says “Gala” on an apple. If a food isn’t normally sold in any packaging — such as a bin of fresh green beans or mushrooms — then the store must post a sign.

Q: Aren’t many foods already labeled?

A: Some fresh produce already uses origin labeling as advertising. “Fresh from Florida” or “Jersey Grown” or “Vidalia Onion” tags don’t have to be changed under the new rules; the shopper should realize they’re all U.S. products.

The COOL law mandating such labels first passed in 2002, but lobbying by grocery stores and large meatpackers led Congress to delay the U.S. Department of Agriculture from implementing it. Seafood labeling was phased in first, in 2005 — a key change given recurring safety problems with fish and shellfish from certain countries, including China.

Q: What’s the biggest exception?

A: The labels aren’t for processed foods, meaning no label if the food is cooked, or an ingredient in a bigger dish or otherwise substantially changed. So plain raw chicken must be labeled but not breaded chicken tenders. Raw pork chops are labeled, but not ham or bacon. Fresh or frozen peas get labeled, but not canned peas. Raw shelled pecans, but not a trail mix.

Q: What if the foods are merely mixed together?

A: They’re exempt, too. So cantaloupe slices from Guatemala get labeled. Mix in some Florida watermelon chunks, and no label. Frozen peas, labeled. Frozen peas and carrots, no label. As for bagged salads, USDA considers iceberg and Romaine to be just lettuce, so that bag gets a label. Add some radicchio? No label.

Q: Must all stores comply?

A: No. Meat and seafood sold in butcher shops and fish markets are exempt.

Q: What if companies buy food from various places — beef from both U.S. and Mexican ranchers, for instance?

A: That’s a bone of contention between large U.S. meat producers and smaller ranchers that produce exclusively U.S. animals. Tyson Fresh Meats, for instance, says it’s too expensive to separate which of its cattle came from which country. So in a July letter to customers, Tyson said it would label all beef “Product of the U.S., Canada or Mexico.” The National Farmers Union is protesting; USDA is considering the complaints.

Q: Aren’t country labels on some processed foods?

A: Yes, tariff regulations have long required that a food put into consumer-ready packaging abroad be labeled as an import; that doesn’t apply to bulk ingredients.

Q: When does the change take effect?

A: The law goes into effect Tuesday, although USDA won’t begin fining laggards until spring. Violations can bring a $1,000 penalty.

EDITOR’s NOTE — Lauran Neergaard covers health and medical issues for The Associated Press in Washington.

Copyright 2008 The Associated Press.
Summary

Food industry bit

0 comments

Posted on 25th July 2008 by Gordon Johnson in Uncategorized

, , ,

Date: 07/25/2008 07:06 AM

By LARRY MARGASAK
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) _ One of the worst outbreaks of foodborne illness in the U.S. is teaching the food industry the truth of the adage, “Be careful what you wish for because you might get it.”

The industry pressured the Bush administration years ago to limit the paperwork companies would have to keep to help U.S. health investigators quickly trace produce that sickens consumers, according to interviews and government reports reviewed by The Associated Press.

The White House also killed a plan to require the industry to maintain electronic tracking records that could be reviewed easily during a crisis to search for an outbreak’s source. Companies complained the proposals were too burdensome and costly, and warned they could disrupt the availability of consumers’ favorite foods.

The apparent but unintended consequences of the lobbying success: a paper record-keeping system that has slowed investigators, with estimated business losses of $250 million. So far, nearly 1,300 people in 43 states, the District of Columbia and Canada have been sickened by salmonella since April.

Investigators initially focused on tomatoes as a culprit. Now they are turning attention to jalapeno peppers.

A former member of Bush’s Cabinet and three former senior officials in the Food and Drug Administration told the AP that government food safety experts did not get the strong record-keeping and trace-back system originally proposed under a bioterrorism law to cope with a major foodborne illness.

“In retrospect, yes, if they (the regulations) had been broader and a bit more far-reaching, it could have helped with this,” said Robert Brackett, senior vice president of the Grocery Manufacturers Association. “It wouldn’t have hurt, for sure.” Brackett formerly was a top safety official at the FDA.

Under pressure in 2003 and 2004, the White House agreed to dilute record-keeping proposals by FDA safety experts.

“If the FDA had been given the resources and authority years ago that it asked for to solve these kinds of problems, I think we would have solved this already,” said William Hubbard, a former FDA associate commissioner.

Tommy Thompson, who was health secretary during the industry’s lobbying campaign, acknowledged that a more robust food-tracking system — opposed by business groups as too expensive — could have helped stem the current illnesses and business losses.

“We went in with the larger package but knew we had to compromise,” Thompson told the AP. “I was satisfied with this being the first step. It’s always better to be a Monday morning quarterback. We could have ended up with nothing. If we had more, would it help the situation now? Yes.”

According to government records reviewed by the AP, business groups met at least 10 times with the White House between March 2003 and March 2004, as the FDA regulations were under debate. Food industry lobbyists successfully blunted proposals using arguments familiar in other regulatory debates: The government’s plans would saddle business with unnecessary and costly regulations.

“The FDA’s strong proposed bioterrorism rules were significantly watered down before they became final,” said Caroline Smith DeWaal, food safety director at the Washington-based Center for Science in the Public Interest. The private advocacy group obtained the White House meeting records under the Freedom of Information Act and provided them to the AP.

Participants in the meetings included companies and trade groups up and down the food chain, including Altria Group Inc. and Kraft Foods Inc., when Altria was Kraft’s parent; The Kroger Co.; Safeway Inc.; ConAgra Foods Inc.; The Procter & Gamble Co.; the American Forest and Paper Association; the Polystyrene Packaging Council; the Glass Packaging Institute; the Cocoa Merchants’ Association of America; the World Shipping Council; and the Food Marketing Institute.

The Grocery Manufacturers Association spent $2.6 million on lobbing in 2003 and 2004, the period when the FDA rules were under consideration, according to federal lobbying records. The Food Marketing Institute spent $1.7 million during the period. The figures were for all lobbying by the trade groups and on their behalf.

The grocery group complained during the comment period that the FDA was overstepping authority that Congress had granted under the new bioterrorism law. It said the FDA wanted a “cradle-to-grave record-keeping system” to track every morsel of food delivered to every retail grocery shelf and said more tracking information does not always produce a better result.

The marketing institute said a proposed tracking system as envisioned by the FDA “would be exorbitantly costly.”

The food industry now says it will agree to a better tracing system operated by the government, as long as the industry can advise how to design it.

“We support the government requiring industry to have traceability systems that are effective and work,” said Jill Hollingsworth, group vice president for food safety programs at the marketing institute. “But industry has to come up with a system that follows products throughout the food chain.”

The FDA official in charge of the current salmonella investigation, David Acheson, said the agency slowly is reviewing paper records to help trace tainted produce. But Acheson disputed arguments that an electronic records system would necessarily have helped investigators.

“We still haven’t managed to figure out this outbreak,” he said in an interview days before the case’s biggest break — discovery of a tainted Mexican-grown jalapeno in a southern Texas warehouse.

The White House Office of Management and Budget defended its meetings with food industry groups in 2003 and 2004, saying it regularly meets with companies and individuals with a stake in proposed government rules.

“Our door is open for anyone — from non-profits, industry representatives to individual citizens — who request meetings on regulations,” OMB spokeswoman Jane Lee said. “These are listening sessions in conjunction with personnel from the regulating agency.”

Copyright 2008 The Associated Press.

Newer Entries »