A Colorado outbreak of a drug-resistant strain of Salmonella Newport has been associated with ground beef processed by Beef Packers, Inc., owned by Cargill. Read about the Cargill connection and a Cargill lawsuit.

The Colorado Salmonella outbreak has prompted Beef Packers to issue a recall of about 825,769 pounds of ground beef products.

The Beef Packers/Cargill recall involves ground beef products were produced on various dates ranging from June 5, 2009 through June 23, 2009. They were distributed to retail distribution centers in Arizona, California, Colorado and Utah.

Please be aware that the recalled ground beef was repackaged into consumer-size packages and sold under different retail brand names. TO FIND OUT IF GROUND BEEF YOU HAVE IN THE FREEZER IS THE RECALLED BEEF, CALL THE RETAILER. Our law firm is advocating for more retailer information to be provided to consumers when there is a recall, and there has been progress. More needs to be done.

To contact our Salmonella litigation law firm, please call 1-888-377-8900 (toll free) or submit our free consultation form.

Labels: Colorado, food safety lawyer, lawsuit

Yogurt customers of Stonyfield Farm were complaining about an "off taste'' in quarts of fat free plain yogurt.

When company officials looked into it, they discovered that the offensive ingredient was a cleaning product.

What followed Saturday was a Stonyfield Farm food safety recall of 44,000 quarts of the dairy item.

The company, based in Londonderry, New Hampshire, described the cleaning product as a "food grade sanitizer'' and said no one reported getting sick from the adulteration.

The recall announcement was publicized by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

"The issue was a result of human error in not following our Company’s standard operating procedures,'' the press release said. "Stonyfield has taken all the necessary corrective action to prevent this from occurring again.''

The 32-ounce containers involved in the recall have one of two product codes printed along the cup bottom that start with the following date codes: May 06 09; time stamped 22:17 through 23:59 and May 07 09; all time stamps.

Labels: food safety, food safety lawyer

The recent Salmonella outbreak linked to Peanut Corporation of America peanut butter and peanut paste resulted in recalls of thousands of products (3,863 as of March 27, 2009).

In the following opinion piece, food safety attorney Fred Pritzker discusses the responsibility of retailers and others to get recalled products off of the shelves. According to Mr. Pritzker, "To promote food safety, everyone up and down the stream of commerce has to act and bear responsibility and should be held accountable for failing to do so."

Upstream, Downstream: Everyone Has to be Responsible

by Fred Pritzker

The whole point of a food recall is to prevent additional foodborne illness after producers and their adulterated products are identified. That’s why it’s so important for food companies, food distributors, food retailers and federal, state and local authorities to promptly and effectively remove from the marketplace any food known or reasonably certain to cause illness or death.

That’s also why there should be a special place in hell for those companies that knew or should have known a food product was dangerous but continued to sell it anyway.

The ongoing Salmonella outbreak involving Peanut Corporation of America (PCA) is a case in point. It appears from the company’s emails that its officers and employees knowingly shipped adulterated product. If so, the company’s liquidation and the criminal investigation of its principals are both necessary and fair.

But what about the downstream retailers of food products containing adulterated PCA ingredients? Aren’t they just as culpable if they fail to remove contaminated product from their shelves after they knew or should have known of the recall?

This is not an idle musing. Long after the PCA recall was announced and long after the list of adulterated products was known and accessible on a variety of web sites, retailers big and tiny continued to sell these poisonous snacks. I know because I looked.

Many of the recalled products were snack foods with long shelf lives and wide distribution. Many of the retailers who sell them are small outlets with small product stocks and unsophisticated (if any) recall procedures. For many such retailers, there is little economic justification for removing dangerous products and even less risk of public approbation for failing to do so – little consolation for the victims who continue to get sick long after the products should have been removed.

Perversely, the legal system in many states promotes such behavior. So called “pass through statutes” are intended to insulate downstream retailers from lawsuit liability if the upstream producer or manufacturer of the dangerous product is identifiable and solvent. In such cases, the retailer is automatically dismissed from litigation and bears no financial responsibility (dismissals can be avoided if the downstream retailer modified the product or otherwise actively participated in making the product defective).

So what should be done? From the standpoint of efficacy and efficiency, better product traceback and notification systems have to be designed and implemented. However, I have no illusions that any such improvements are really going to rid long lived snacks from the shelves of retailers disinclined to care all that much. What will incentivize such retailers is the threat of criminal sanctions and financial responsibility.

First, create a tight and focused criminal law that makes it a crime to sell a food product that a retailer knows or should know has been recalled. We do it for sales of liquor and cigarettes to minors; there is no reason not to do it for dangerous food products. If criminalizing the behavior is too extreme, create economic penalties by allowing consumers to prove such illegal sales and awarding them attorney fees if they’re successful. Again, there is precedent for such measures in consumer protection statutes on the books in virtually every state.

To promote food safety, everyone up and down the stream of commerce has to act and bear responsibility and should be held accountable for failing to do so.

Labels: food safety, food safety lawyer, press release, Salmonella

Consumer confidence in the U.S. food supply is at its lowest level since the University of Minnesota Food Industry Center first started tracking food safety perceptions in a weekly online survey.

The latest results indicated that only 22.5 percent of consumers in the study said they were confident that the food safety supply is safer than it was one year ago. It was the lowest reading since the study began in May 2008.

The finding was publicized in a press release issued by the University of Minnesota News Service. The release cited the peanut product Salmonella Typhimurium outbreak as a key factor in lowered confidence.

The outbreak has killed nine and sickened more than 650 people in 44 states. The families of three of the nine fatal victims are represented by national food safety law firm PritzkerOlsen Attorneys. Fred Pritzker, founder and president of the firm, has filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Peanut Corporation of America -- the company that federal officials have blamed for the outbreak.

The press release said that the drop in confidence mirrors a similar drop last year when another Salmonella outbreak traced to jalapeno peppers grown in Mexico sickened nearly 1,500 people.

The study continuously tracks consumer confidence in the domestic food supply via weekly online surveys of 175 consumers chosen new each week by a national market research company.

The U of M conducts the study jointly with the Louisiana State University Ag Center. The venture is funded by the National Center for Food Protection and Defense.

Labels: food safety consumer confidence, food safety lawyer, food safety study, peanut butter salmonella lawyer

A customer of Patrick Cudahy, a Wisconsin pork products company, did its own testing on a delivery of bacon bits and found that the product may be contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes, a potentially deadly pathogen.

Labels: food safety lawyer, listeria recall

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Press Contact: Fred Pritzker
Company Name: Pritzker | Olsen & Associates, P.A.
Email: fhp@pritzkerlaw.com
Phone: (612)338-0202
Website: http://www.pritzkerlaw.com

Fred Pritzker, a leading food safety lawyer, calls for food safety disclosure laws following a recently announced recall involving 48 tons of ground beef products by American Foods Group, LLC.

Minneapolis, MN November 29, 2007 -- So far this year over 28 million pounds of beef products have been recalled due to possible contamination with E. coli O157:H7. Most recently, American Foods Group, LLC, a Green Bay, Wisconsin firm, recalled 48 tons of ground beef products.

Fred Pritzker, a leading food safety lawyer, believes more information about recalls and the companies involved in them should be readily available to consumers. "It is extremely difficult for the average consumer to learn anything about a company's E. coli O157:H7 track record and just as hard to find out if recalled hamburger made its way into the consumer's household (much less the mouths of his/her loved ones)," states Pritzker. "That's because the labels on most ground beef products do not disclose the identity of the company that produced it. In other words, even if a consumer wanted to avoid products from a company that consistently produced hamburger laced with E. coli O157:H7, there is no way to find out."

Pritzker continues, "There is simply no readily accessible source of information, other than digging through old press releases from the United States Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), about a meat producer's prior safety record. Even that won't tell you how many people were sickened in prior outbreaks, the cause of the outbreaks, what corrective action, if any, was taken, and what fines or penalties were levied."

According to Pritzker, consumers do not have important information about recalls because no law requires adequate labeling and no government agency is required to produce readily accessible information that allows consumers to make informed choices.

To remedy this situation, Pritzker recommends a two-pronged approach: 1) enact a federal law requiring every meat package to identify the name of the company that produced it and the date on which it was produced and 2) have a federally-funded web site that lists data about each federally inspected producer including the company's past history of recalls, amount of product recalled, the number of people injured or killed in past foodborne illness outbreaks and other information that allows for informed consumer choice.

Fred Pritzker, is the founding partner of Pritzker | Olsen, P.A., one of America's leading food safety law firms. He practices in Minnesota and represents survivors of foodborne illness throughout the United States. He may be reached toll-free at 1-888-377-8900 or through the firm's web site at http://www.pritzkerlaw.com

###

Labels: American Foods Group Recall, food safety lawyer

West Virginia Commissioner of Agriculture Gus R. Douglass is warning consumers about a recall of ground beef products in surrounding states.

American Foods Group, LLC, a Green Bay, Wisconsin, firm, has recalled approximately 95,927 pounds of various coarse and fine ground beef products because they may be contaminated with E. coli O157:H7, the United States Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (USDA-FSIS) announced Saturday.

The ground beef products subject to recall were produced on October 10, 2007, and were distributed to retail establishments and distributors in Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Ohio, Tennessee, Wisconsin and Virginia.

“Although West Virginia was not explicitly mentioned in the recall, it is possible some of that product entered the state, given the number of states bordering ours that are included,” said Commissioner Douglass.

The problem was discovered through an investigation of two illnesses by the Illinois Department of Public Health.

The following products are subject to recall:

• Bulk weight packages of "BEEF, FINE GROUND 73/27." Each shipping label bears a product code of "65000."
• Bulk weight packages of "BEEF, FINE GROUND 75/25." Each shipping label bears a product code of "65800."
• Bulk weight packages of "BEEF SIRLOIN, FINE GROUND 90/10." Each shipping label bears a product code of "66000."
• Bulk weight packages of "BEEF, FINE GROUND 80/20." Each shipping label bears a product code of "66400."
• Bulk weight packages of "BEEF, FINE GROUND 75/25." Each shipping label bears a product code of "19900."
• Bulk weight packages of "BEEF, FINE GROUND 73/27." Each shipping label bears a product code of "20100."
• Bulk weight packages of "BEEF CHUCK, FINE GROUND 82/18." Each shipping label bears a product code of "20600."
• Bulk weight packages of "CHOP BEEF STEAK, FINE GRIND "86/14." Each shipping label bears a product code of "30000."
• Bulk weight packages of "BEEF SIRLOIN, FINE GROUND 92/08." Each shipping label bears a product code of "30400."
• Bulk weight packages of "BEEF ROUND, FINE GROUND 87/13." Each shipping label bears a product code of "30200."
• Bulk weight packages of "BEEF, FINE GROUND 80/20." Each shipping label bears a product code of "30700."
• Bulk weight packages of "BEEF CHUCK, FINE GROUND 82/18." Each shipping label bears a product code of "31400."
• Bulk weight packages of "BEEF, FINE GROUND 93/07." Each shipping label bears a product code of "31600."
• Bulk weight packages of "BEEF, FINE GROUND 73/27." Each shipping label bears a product code of "31700."
• Bulk weight packages of "BEEF MODIFIED, FINE GROUND 93/07." Each shipping label bears a product code of "31900."

Each shipping label bears the establishment number “Est. 18076” inside the USDA mark of inspection.

The products subject to recall were distributed for further processing and repackaging and will not bear the recalling firm’s establishment number on the package. (Read a press release regarding Fred Pritzker's call for food safety disclosure laws.) As the use-by date for products subject to this recall may have expired, consumers can contact their retailers to ask if they received any of these products. Consumers who have these products in their freezers and suspect that someone has been sickened by them should contact our law firm toll-free at 1-888-377-8900. Learn about tests needed to determine if you are part of an E. coli outbreak.

Labels: American Foods Group Recall

There is no excuse for unsafe and dangerous food products. My professional life is dedicated to holding food producers accountable for the harms and losses they cause by selling poisoned food.

But just as food producers must follow laws and regulations, so must lawyers follow their own professional rules when it comes to soliciting food safety survivors for legal representation.

All lawyers, including food safety lawyers, are required to comply with the Rules of Professional Responsibility. These rules specify what a lawyer can and cannot do in soliciting potential clients. For example, many states allow the lawyer to send a potential client a letter about the lawyer’s services, but no state allows a lawyer to directly contact a potential client. That means it is strictly forbidden for a food safety lawyer to call, visit or ask someone else to call or visit a food outbreak survivor in order to seek representation. Some lawyers try to get around this prohibition by sending out investigators or “runners” to contact potential clients under the guise of “providing information” or “offering assistance.” Whatever the alleged reason, direct or indirect contact is forbidden.

Lawyers are also prohibited from offering something of value to potential clients as an inducement for legal representation. Thus, a lawyer cannot offer goods, money, services or even offer to pay the client’s medical bills in order to induce an attorney-client relationship.

Lawyers are also required to put the client’s interests ahead of their own. For example, some lawyers rush out to find clients, so they can be first to file suit. The real purpose of this practice is usually to attract more clients rather than accomplish anything on behalf of the client for whom the suit is filed. Most ethical lawyers believe it is better to first investigate the case, obtain medical records and reports and understand the client’s losses before rushing to file suit and get publicity.

Your case is judged by the conduct of your lawyer. If he/she violates the rules, you should report the lawyer’s conduct to the Board of Professional Responsibility in the state where the lawyer practices.

Everyone – food producers, food distributors, food sellers and food safety lawyers – have to play by the rules.

Fred Pritzker has over three decades of experience representing survivors of foodborne illness and other unlawful conduct. He has collected millions of dollars on behalf of food safety victims. He is also a civil trial specialist certified by the National Board of Trial Advocacy and is a member of the American Board of Trial Advocates. Please contact Mr. Pritzker for a free case consultation by email (fhp@pritzkerlaw.com) or telephone (toll-free 1-888-377-8900).

Labels: food safety lawyer, lawsuits, lawyers