Header graphic for print

Food Safety News

Breaking news for everyone's consumption

Why Do Beef Trimmings Need to be Sanitized?

A central focus in the controversy over the use of ammoniated hydroxide to sanitize beef trimmings are the claims that the source meat may be highly pathogenic, otherwise destined for dog food or laced with dangerous bacteria.

So why would the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS) publicly state that beef trimmings are “high risk,” which would seem an embarrassing admission?

The fact that USDA knowingly allows “high risk” meat to be shipped into commerce in containers marked “USDA Inspected & Passed” is surprising.  But true.  And it is the driving force energizing industry innovators to devise new antimicrobial interventions to protect consumers from foodborne disease.

We need to dissect this driving force to understand, as Paul Harvey used to say, “The Rest of the Story.”

USDA declared E. coli O157:H7 to be an adulterant in 1994, forbidding its shipment into commerce.  The agency proclaimed “zero tolerance” for this type of E. coli. The agency also required all meat and poultry plants to implement a new system of production and inspection entitled Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP).  In a phased-in implementation, the largest plants implemented HACCP by Jan. 26, 1998. 

 

Under contract with NASA and the U.S. Army, Pillsbury developed HACCP for plants making products that would be exposed to what’s called a “kill step” (such as cooking) to eliminate harmful bacteria, and thus create consistently safe, ready-to-eat consumer items.

USDA, however, mandated HACCP at all meat plants, even those producing raw meat and poultry.  These plants produce food not exposed to a kill step.

USDA-style HACCP thus suffered from a fatal flaw from day one, because in the absence of a kill step, raw food plants are incapable of producing food with a zero tolerance for E. coli.  In spite of this obvious discrepancy, USDA tenaciously adhered to its impossible zero tolerance demand on raw meat and poultry. The agency hoped against hope that the mere declaration of E. coli O157:H7 to be an adulterant would somehow regulate the pathogen into extinction.

  

E. coli and Salmonella are classified as “enteric” bacteria, meaning by strict definition that they emanate from within animal intestines and, by extension, proliferate in manure, which is found extensively on live animal hides. Intestines and hides are found in slaughter plants, but not in retail meat markets, restaurants or hospital cafeterias.

In all likelihood, such downstream entities innocently purchase previously contaminated meat from their suppliers. These destinations operate under the false assumption that incoming meat, bearing the USDA Mark of Inspection, is safe. Yet even USDA has issued written documents revealing that the agency does NOT equate the mark with product safety.

Although USDA has declared E. coli O157:H7 to be an adulterant, the agency conveniently states that the E. coli is an adulterant only in ground beef and in boneless trimmings destined for ground beef.  However, USDA allows intact cuts of beef surface-contaminated with E. coli to be shipped into commerce.

Retail meat markets, and to a lesser degree restaurants, purchase intact cuts as “boxed beef.”  Boxed beef includes intact cuts such as chucks, rounds, sirloin, etc., which are then further processed at those downstream locations into steaks, roasts and ground beef.

These intact cuts, which may be surface-contaminated with  E. coli, can legally be shipped into commerce, under the guise that the bacteria are not adulterants but merely contaminants when existing on intact cuts.  

However, where they are further processed at downstream entities, these contaminants somehow morph into lethal pathogens and, if detected in finished products, become the responsibility of the entity that did the processing.

Processing the intact cuts produces massive amounts of boneless trimmings, which are destined for ground beef.  Thus, it is easy to understand why USDA classifies the boneless trimmings as “high risk,” because the agency knowingly permits slaughter plants to ship intact cuts into commerce that may be surface-contaminated by invisible E.coli bacteria “contaminants,” not yet considered adulterants.

  

Complicating this scenario is USDA’s historical unwillingness to conduct tracebacks to the source of contamination, which, in the case of E. coli and Salmonella, is invariably the slaughter plant.

From Jan. 1, 2009 to  Nov. 30, 2010, USDA labs detected E. coli O157:H7 in 64 samples collected from USDA-inspected processing plants. 

In 29 of these 64 positives, the samples were obtained at plants that purchased all their meat from one source slaughter supplier. In all 29 cases, USDA refused to conduct a traceback to the one well-documented source, but instead assessed full liability against the victimized establishment further downstream that had processed the meat purchased from that supplier.

Several years ago, a then-USDA microbiologist who suggested that in such cases the agency should conduct tracebacks to the source slaughter plant was told the agency “won’t get involved in a witch hunt.”  Instead, the hunt for contaminated meat starts and finishes at the downstream destination.

As such, Americans are virtually guaranteed ongoing disease outbreaks from contaminated meat, because USDA refuses to implement enforcement actions at the source of the contamination, preferring to use its regulatory authority at smaller downstream plants that are easier enforcement prey and lack the political clout and financial wherewithal enjoyed by the multinational slaughter behemoths.

The top four slaughter plants in the U.S. kill 88 percent of our feedlot-finished steers and heifers, and constitute a formidable potential legal adversary to an agency fearful of litigation or political pressure. 

 

Since USDA allows slaughter plants to ship E. coli-laced intact cuts into commerce, the pathogen is somewhat ubiquitous (although still just a “contaminant,” mind you).

This intentional USDA oversight has spawned the need for development of additional antimicrobial interventions, such as treatment with ammonia hydroxide.  We should not pillory BPI or Eldon Roth for using this intervention, because it actually makes ground beef safer.

Admittedly, whether the treated beef should be labeled as such is another issue entirely.  Nevertheless, because USDA allows the bug free entry into commerce, American consumers benefit by entrepreneurs such as Eldon Roth for pioneering interventions that make our food safer.

  

Consumers who prefer that their meat not be subjected to chemicals such as lactic acid and ammonia hydroxide should not place the blame or target companies that are making “high risk” (to use USDA’s terminology) meat safer.

They should instead put USDA at the top of their radar, because the agency intentionally allows potentially risky meat to be labeled with the valueless USDA Mark of Inspection and shipped into commerce.

USDA has utilized vexatious ingenuity in concocting an allegedly “science based” deregulated system of limited inspection at the monolithic source slaughter plants to subtly forward all pathogen liability downstream to supposedly noncompliant processors and on to consumers, who are considered negligent if they don’t cook contaminated meat thoroughly.

The Eldon Roths of this world are saving lives, while USDA’s policies imperil public health.  These agency policies were fabricated in the 1990s, and continue to cause heartburn for the agency’s current leaders who have been burdened w
ith indefensible practices. 

 

Industry leaders who improve the safety of our food are the unsung heroes here, while USDA is the true villain, and needs to be brought to accountability. 

 

Food Safety News previously published my in-depth analysis of this USDA scandal.  That commentary can be accessed here and provided historical facts that better delineate how USDA has pulled its pseudo-scientific wool over our eyes.

© Food Safety News
  • Linda Simmons

    USDA should have never allowed this to happen.This is what we pay taxes for. All meat should also be truthfully labeled so the consumer knows what they are buying and feeding their childen.

  • http://eFoodAlert.net pentis

    Well said, John. Thank you for this recap of how we got to where we are.

  • http://TryLivingOrganic.com Paul

    If cows were fed grass like they are supposed to, were treated with respect like they deserve, weren’t shot up with hormones and antibiotics since birth, I highly doubt E Coli would even be an issue. Instead they are fed GMO corn which they can’t digest, sit in feces for weeks, have very high levels of stress which causes sickness and death. And what do we get, PINK SLIME as food from beef that can only be cleansed by adding nasty chemicals like ammonium hydroxide. I’m sorry but the fact that the USDA has to do this is a telling sign that we have gone down the wrong path with regards to farming and producing food for our children. read about Pink slim in beef and chicken here: http://trylivingorganic.com/2012/03/23/pink-slime-in-chicken-vs-pink-slime-in-beef/

  • mrothschild

    I think grass-fed beef tastes great but, unfortunately, all cattle — pastured and corn-fed feedlot cattle — are natural reservoirs for pathogenic E. coli.
    The scientific evidence indicates there are no clear safety advantages to grass-fed beef over feed-lot beef. Several studies have shown that overall coliform contamination does not differ. Grass-fed cattle have been implicated in several foodborne disease outbreaks (the outbreak strain in the big 2006 spinach outbreak was isolated from grass-fed cattle), as well as contamination of a water supply that sickened 2,300 people and killed 7.
    The exception to this may be cattle fed distiller’s grains — the stuff left over when corn is processed to make ethanol — in the last few months before slaughter. Research indicates a higher prevalence of E. coli O157:H7 in the manure of cattle whose corn-based feed included distiller’s grains than in the manure of those whose corn-based feed did not.
    Nevertheless, promoting or marketing grass fed beef as safer is dangerously deceptive, and could cause consumers to disregard important advice on how to safely handle and cook beef.

  • http://eFoodAlert.net Phyllis Entis

    Well said, John. Thank you for this recap of how we got to where we are.

  • Mary Rothschild

    I think grass-fed beef tastes great but, unfortunately, all cattle — pastured and corn-fed feedlot cattle — are natural reservoirs for pathogenic E. coli.
    The scientific evidence indicates there are no clear safety advantages to grass-fed beef over feed-lot beef. Several studies have shown that overall coliform contamination does not differ. Grass-fed cattle have been implicated in several foodborne disease outbreaks (the outbreak strain in the big 2006 spinach outbreak was isolated from grass-fed cattle), as well as contamination of a water supply that sickened 2,300 people and killed 7.
    The exception to this may be cattle fed distiller’s grains — the stuff left over when corn is processed to make ethanol — in the last few months before slaughter. Research indicates a higher prevalence of E. coli O157:H7 in the manure of cattle whose corn-based feed included distiller’s grains than in the manure of those whose corn-based feed did not.
    Nevertheless, promoting or marketing grass fed beef as safer is dangerously deceptive, and could cause consumers to disregard important advice on how to safely handle and cook beef.

  • http://www.marlerblog.com bill marler

    Several people have commented that switching from grain to grass feeding could be one of the solutions to the problem with foodborne pathogens in cattle and other livestock. Quotes like these are becoming more common on the Internet and in recent media reports:
    “Products from grass-fed animals are safer than food from conventionally-raised animals.” Eatwild, 2008
    “Research has shown that the strains of E. coli most devastating to humans are the product of feedlots, not cows. This is due to the animals being forced to eat an unnatural diet, and not their natural choice, grass.” Grass-Fed Beef: Safer and Healthier, Animal Welfare Approved, June 15, 2008
    If true, changing the cow’s diet would be such a simple and cheap management practice to implement. Have we found the Holy Grail for food safety? Below is some research I did on the topic.
    OVERVIEW
    • Identification of on-farm management practices that would reduce or eliminate foodborne pathogens in cattle and other livestock (including diet changes) is an active area of research, but many study results are inconclusive. E. coli O157:H7, Campylobacter, Salmonella, and other dangerous pathogens have been repeatedly isolated from both grass and grain fed livestock, and the studies show conflicting results regarding whether the levels of pathogens are higher, lower, or the same when animals are fed grass- or grain-based diets.
    • There is no clear and consistent definition in the literature of “grass-fed,” but the majority of papers describe animals that are on pasture or confined, but receiving only hay-based diets. Last year, the USDA Agricultural Marketing Service issued a standard for grass (forage) fed marketing claims. More research on this topic is needed that compares rates of foodborne pathogens among grain and grass fed animals using a specific definition such as the USDA standard or other accepted definition.
    • The original study by Diez-Gonzalez published in Science in 1998, and since cited numerous times in the literature and media, suggested that cattle could be fed hay for a brief period before slaughter to significantly reduce the risk of foodborne E. coli infection. They based this conclusion on a hypothesis that grain feeding increases acid resistance of E. coli in cattle. Although they showed increased acid resistance in E. coli from grain-fed cattle, but the sample size was small, and they used “generic” E. coli stains, not E. coli O157:H7.
    • Studies by other researchers worldwide have since found little difference in acid resistant E. coli O157:H7 among grain- verses grass-fed cattle, and some even found more E. coli O157:H7 shed by grass-fed animals.
    • It has been discovered that E. coli O157:H7 and Salmonella can rapidly switch from being “acid sensitive” to “acid resistant” within minutes after entering an acidic environment (such as the human stomach). Thus, even if the grass-fed/E. coli acid-resistance hypothesis were true, manipulating the diet may not have any effect since pathogens can adapt quickly to new environments like the human stomach.
    • Outbreaks have traced back to grass-fed and pastured animals, as well as animals in feedlots. Notably, the E. coli O157:H7 spinach outbreak strain in 2006 was isolated from grass-fed cattle. Another outbreak of E. coli O157:H7 was linked recently to raw milk and colostrum from cattle raised organically on grass.
    • In summary, the scientific evidence at this time does not support a broad conclusion that grass feeding significantly and consistently reduces the risk of E. coli O157:H7 or other dangerous foodborne pathogens entering the food chain. However, more research is needed into the influence of food animal diets. For example, preliminary experimental data shows a possible association between feeding dried distiller’s grains and shedding of E. coli O157:H7 in cattle feces.
    INTRODUCTION
    A systematic approach is necessary to combat the emerging challenges in food safety such as the unexplained “uptick” of E. coli O157:H7 outbreaks and recalls linked to beef products. Interventions to protect the food supply should ideally occur across the continuum from “farm to fork.” The “Holy Grail” of pre-harvest (farm-level) food safety would be to find an effective, affordable, and practical means to prevent or reduce food animals from shedding foodborne pathogens in the first place so the dangerous bacteria never enter the human food chain. Since cattle or other livestock may be located near drinking water sources or vegetable crops, a farm-level intervention could also help to protect nearby water and crops from contamination by manure via runoff, transport by wildlife/insects, or other mechanisms.
    Oliver et al (2008) published a comprehensive review of developments and future outlooks for pre-harvest food safety this month. Examples of potential farm-level management practices that have been studied for E. coli O157:H7 and other foodborne pathogens in livestock include:
    • Antibiotics
    • Bacteriophages (viruses of bacteria)
    • Dietary changes
    • Immunization
    • Probiotics or prebiotics in animal rations
    • Sanitation/hygiene (feed, water, environment)
    • Wildlife and insect control
    Unfortunately, the best approaches for on-farm control of foodborne pathogens in livestock remain elusive. No single management practice, or even a combination of methods, has proven to be very effective or reliable in preventing foodborne pathogen colonization in livestock. Clearly, sanitation including clean feed/water sources and insect control are important, but difficult to maintain in a farm environment. Livestock immunizations are not available for most foodborne pathogens with the exception of an E. coli O157:H7 vaccine under development (and some ask “who would pay for such a program?” since cattle do not become ill from E. coli O157). Use of antibiotics is problematic because it can lead to resistance.
    GRASS VERSUS GRAIN FEEDING
    Definition of “Grass-Fed”
    The majority of cattle are fed grass or other forage at some time during their lives. For the purpose of marketing, the USDA Agricultural Marketing Service issued a voluntary standard for grass (forage) fed marketing claims last year that states: “grass fed standard states that grass and/or forage shall be the feed source consumed for the lifetime of the ruminant animal, with the exception of milk consumed prior to weaning. The diet shall be derived solely from forage and animals cannot be fed grain or grain by-products and must have continuous access to pasture during the growing season.”
    Note that most papers in the literature do not specifically define grass-fed using this new standard or any other specific definition, but differentiate, in general, between animals on forage (grass) only verses diets containing grain.
    The Study that Started the Controversy
    The original study that launched the controversy over grain feeding was published in Science in 1998 by researchers from Cornell (Diez-Gonzalez et al). They described potential dietary effects on the acid resistance of E. coli in cattle fed grain- versus hay-based diets. This study has since been cited numerous times in the literature and media, but later studies have not been able to reproduce the findings. This may be due, in part, to several limitations in the original study design including: 1) small sample size and 2) “Generic” E. coli levels were measured, not E. coli O157:H7.
    In 2006, Hancock and Besser wrote a summary of the evidence surrounding the hypothesis that feeding hay instead of grain would reduce the problem with E. coli O157:H7, purportedly because the stomachs of grain-fed cattle are more acidic. They concluded: “while one cannot rule out a role of cattle diet on affecting exposure and infectivity of E. coli O157:H7 to humans, the data available at present demonstrate that cattle on a wide variety of diets (including 100% forage diets) are regularly and similarly colonized with this pathogen.”
    Another interesting study from a research group in The Netherlands discovered that E. coli O157:H7 and Salmonella can rapidly switch from being “acid sensitive” to “acid resistant” within minutes after entering an environment with reduced pH (such as the human stomach). Thus, even if the grass-fed hypothesis were true, manipulating the diet may not have any effect since E. coli O157:H7 can adapt quickly to new environments like the human stomach.
    Recent Findings in the Literature
    In searching through the literature since Hancock and Besser’s review, several new papers relevant to the discussion were found.
    1. Nutritional aspects of grass-fed beef.
    Leheska, J. M., L. D. Thompson, J. C. Howe, E. Hentges, J. Boyce, J. C. Brooks, B. Shriver, L. Hoover, and M. F. Miller. 2008. Effects of conventional and grass feeding systems on the nutrient composition of beef. J Anim Sci.
    • This paper explores the question about whether there are differences in nutrient composition of grass-fed beef compared with conventional (grain)-fed beef. Researchers have previously found higher omega-3 fatty acids and CLA (conjugated linoleic acid) in forage-fed beef, and lower fat content overall. Some consumers prefer eating grass-fed meat because they believe it is “healthier,” and/or tastes better than conventional beef.
    • The authors of this study enrolled only producers that were marketing grass-fed beef and confirmed that “100% of the diets were made up of native grasses, forages, or cut grasses or forages.”
    • Fatty acid composition of grass-fed and conventional-fed beef was found to be different, but the authors conclude “the effects of the lipid differences between grass-fed and conventional raised beef, on human health, remains to be investigated.”
    2. Papers continue to be published about possible effects of diet on E. coli O157:H7 prevalence and concentration.
    For example, a research team from Kansas State University reported that feeding distillers grains, a co-product of ethanol production, to feedlot cattle may have a positive association with fecal shedding of E. coli O157. The mechanism is unknown, but they hypothesize that the grains change the ecology of the hindgut where E. coli O157 is most likely to colonize cattle. The authors report that larger studies are underway to investigate this possible link.
    CONCLUSIONS
    In summary, the scientific evidence at this time does not support a broad conclusion that grass feeding significantly reduces the risk of E. coli O157:H7 or other dangerous foodborne pathogens from entering the food chain. However, more research is needed to better understand the influence of diet, especially the use of different types of grains in animal feed.
    REFERENCES BELOW
    1. Bach, S. J., L. J. Selinger, K. Stanford, and T. A. McAllister. 2005. Effect of supplementing corn- or barley-based feedlot diets with canola oil on faecal shedding of Escherichia coli O157:H7 by steers. J Appl Microbiol 98:464-75.
    2. Bailey, G. D., B. A. Vanselow, M. A. Hornitzky, S. I. Hum, G. J. Eamens, P. A. Gill, K. H. Walker, and J. P. Cronin. 2003. A study of the foodborne pathogens: Campylobacter, Listeria and Yersinia, in faeces from slaughter-age cattle and sheep in Australia. Commun Dis Intell 27:249-57.
    3. Berg, J., T. McAllister, S. Bach, R. Stilborn, D. Hancock, and J. LeJeune. 2004. Escherichia coli O157:H7 excretion by commercial feedlot cattle fed either barley- or corn-based finishing diets. J Food Prot 67:666-71.
    4. Brownlie, L. E., and F. H. Grau. 1967. Effect of food intake on growth and survival of salmonellas and Escherichia coli in the bovine rumen. J Gen Microbiol 46:125-34.
    5. Buchko, S. J., R. A. Holley, W. O. Olson, V. P. Gannon, and D. M. Veira. 2000. The effect of different grain diets on fecal shedding of Escherichia coli O157:H7 by steers. J Food Prot 63:1467-74.
    6. Callaway, T. R., R. O. Elder, J. E. Keen, R. C. Anderson, and D. J. Nisbet. 2003. Forage feeding to reduce preharvest Escherichia coli populations in cattle, a review. J Dairy Sci 86:852-60.
    7. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2008. Escherichia coli 0157:H7 infections in children associated with raw milk and raw colostrum from cows–California, 2006. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 57:625-8.
    8. Cray, W. C., Jr., T. A. Casey, B. T. Bosworth, and M. A. Rasmussen. 1998. Effect of dietary stress on fecal shedding of Escherichia coli O157:H7 in calves. Appl Environ Microbiol 64:1975-9.
    9. de Jonge, R., K. Takumi, W. S. Ritmeester, F. M. van Leusden. 2003. The adaptive response of Escherichia coli O157 in an environment with changing pH. J Appl Microbiol. 94:555-60.
    10. Depenbusch, B. E., T. G. Nagaraja, J. M. Sargeant, J. S. Drouillard, E. R. Loe, and M. E. Corrigan. 2008. Influence of processed grains on fecal pH, starch concentration, and shedding of Escherichia coli O157 in feedlot cattle. J Anim Sci 86:632-9.
    11. Diez-Gonzalez, F., T. R. Callaway, M. G. Kizoulis, and J. B. Russell. 1998. Grain feeding and the dissemination of acid-resistant Escherichia coli from cattle. Science 281:1666-8.
    12. Djordjevic, S. P., V. Ramachandran, K. A. Bettelheim, B. A. Vanselow, P. Holst, G. Bailey, and M. A. Hornitzky. 2004. Serotypes and virulence gene profiles of shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli strains isolated from feces of pasture-fed and lot-fed sheep. Appl Environ Microbiol 70:3910-7.
    13. Doyle, M. P., and M. C. Erickson. 2006. Reducing the carriage of foodborne pathogens in livestock and poultry. Poult Sci 85:960-73.
    14. Fegan, N., P. Vanderlinde, G. Higgs, and P. Desmarchelier. 2004. The prevalence and concentration of Escherichia coli O157 in faeces of cattle from different production systems at slaughter. J Appl Microbiol 97:362-70.
    15. Fox, J. T., B. E. Depenbusch, J. S. Drouillard, and T. G. Nagaraja. 2007. Dry-rolled or steam-flaked grain-based diets and fecal shedding of Escherichia coli O157 in feedlot cattle. J Anim Sci 85:1207-12.
    16. Franz, E., A. D. van Diepeningen, O. J. de Vos, and A. H. van Bruggen. 2005. Effects of cattle feeding regimen and soil management type on the fate of Escherichia coli O157:H7 and salmonella enterica serovar typhimurium in manure, manure-amended soil, and lettuce. Appl Environ Microbiol 71:6165-74.
    17. Fu, C. J., J. H. Porter, E. E. Felton, J. W. Lehmkuhler, and M. S. Kerley. 2003. Pre-harvest factors influencing the acid resistance of Escherichia coli and E. coli O157:H7. J Anim Sci 81:1080-7.
    18. Gilbert, R. A., S. E. Denman, J. Padmanabha, N. Fegan, D. Al Ajmi, and C. S. McSweeney. 2008. Effect of diet on the concentration of complex Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli and EHEC virulence genes in bovine faeces, hide and carcass. Int J Food Microbiol 121:208-16.
    19. Gilbert, R. A., N. Tomkins, J. Padmanabha, J. M. Gough, D. O. Krause, and C. S. McSweeney. 2005. Effect of finishing diets on Escherichia coli populations and prevalence of enterohaemorrhagic E. coli virulence genes in cattle faeces. J Appl Microbiol 99:885-94.
    20. Grauke, L. J., S. A. Wynia, H. Q. Sheng, J. W. Yoon, C. J. Williams, C. W. Hunt, and C. J. Hovde. 2003. Acid resistance of Escherichia coli O157:H7 from the gastrointestinal tract of cattle fed hay or grain. Vet Microbiol 95:211-25.
    21. Hancock, D. and T. Besser. 2006. E. coli O157:H7 in hay- or grain-fed cattle. Accessed at: http://www.puyallup.wsu.edu/dairy/nutrient-management/data/publications/E%20coli%20O157%20in%20hay-%20or%20grain-fed%20cattle%20Hancock%20and%20Besser%2011%2006.pdf
    22. Hovde, C. J., P. R. Austin, K. A. Cloud, C. J. Williams, and C. W. Hunt. 1999. Effect of cattle diet on Escherichia coli O157:H7 acid resistance. Appl Environ Microbiol 65:3233-5.
    23. Hussein, H. S. 2007. Prevalence and pathogenicity of Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli in beef cattle and their products. J Anim Sci 85:E63-72.
    24. Jacob, M. E., J. T. Fox, J. S. Drouillard, D. G. Renter, and T. G. Nagaraja. 2008. Effects of dried distillers’ grain on fecal prevalence and growth of Escherichia coli O157 in batch culture fermentations from cattle. Appl Environ Microbiol 74:38-43.
    25. Jacob, M. E., J. T. Fox, S. K. Narayanan, J. S. Drouillard, D. G. Renter, and T. G. Nagaraja. 2008. Effects of feeding wet corn distillers grains with solubles with or without monensin and tylosin on the prevalence and antimicrobial susceptibilities of fecal foodborne pathogenic and commensal bacteria in feedlot cattle. J Anim Sci 86:1182-90.
    26. Jacob, M. E., G. L. Parsons, M. K. Shelor, J. T. Fox, J. S. Drouillard, D. U. Thomson, D. G. Renter, and T. G. Nagaraja. 2008. Feeding supplemental dried distiller’s grains increases faecal shedding of Escherichia coli O157 in experimentally inoculated calves. Zoonoses Public Health 55:125-32.
    27. Jay, M. T., M. Cooley, D. Carychao, G. W. Wiscomb, R. A. Sweitzer, L. Crawford-Miksza, J. A. Farrar, D. K. Lau, J. O’Connell, A. Millington, R. V. Asmundson, E. R. Atwill, and R. E. Mandrell. 2007. Escherichia coli O157:H7 in feral swine near spinach fields and cattle, central California coast. Emerg Infect Dis 13:1908-11.
    28. Krueger, N. A., R. C. Anderson, W. K. Krueger, W. J. Horne, I. V. Wesley, T. R. Callaway, T. S. Edrington, G. E. Carstens, R. B. Harvey, and D. J. Nisbet. 2008. Prevalence and Concentration of Campylobacter in Rumen Contents and Feces in Pasture and Feedlot-Fed Cattle. Foodborne Pathog Dis.
    29. Kudva, I. T., P. G. Hatfield, and C. J. Hovde. 1995. Effect of diet on the shedding of Escherichia coli O157:H7 in a sheep model. Appl Environ Microbiol 61:1363-70.
    30. Leheska, J. M., L. D. Thompson, J. C. Howe, E. Hentges, J. Boyce, J. C. Brooks, B. Shriver, L. Hoover, and M. F. Miller. 2008. Effects of conventional and grass feeding systems on the nutrient composition of beef. J Anim Sci.
    31. Looper, M. L., T. S. Edrington, R. Flores, J. M. Burke, T. R. Callaway, G. E. Aiken, F. N. Schrick, and C. F. Rosenkrans, Jr. 2007. Influence of dietary endophyte (Neotyphodium coenophialum)-infected tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea) seed on fecal shedding of antibiotic resistance-selected Escherichia coli O157:H7 in ewes. J Anim Sci 85:1102-8.
    32. Looper, M. L., T. S. Edrington, R. Flores, C. F. Rosenkrans, Jr., M. E. Nihsen, and G. E. Aiken. 2006. Prevalence of Escherichia coli O157:H7 and Salmonella in beef steers consuming different forage diets. Lett Appl Microbiol 42:583-8.
    33. Oliver, S. P., D. A. Patel, T. R. Callaway, and M. E. Torrence. 2008. ASAS Centennial Paper: Developments and future outlook for preharvest food safety. J Anim Sci.
    34. Renter, D. G., J. M. Sargeant, and L. L. Hungerford. 2004. Distribution of Escherichia coli O157:H7 within and among cattle operations in pasture-based agricultural areas. Am J Vet Res 65:1367-76.
    35. Renter, D. G., J. M. Sargeant, R. D. Oberst, and M. Samadpour. 2003. Diversity, frequency, and persistence of Escherichia coli O157 strains from range cattle environments. Appl Environ Microbiol 69:542-7.
    36. Russell, J. B., F. Diez-Gonzalez, and G. N. Jarvis. 2000. Invited review: effects of diet shifts on Escherichia coli in cattle. J Dairy Sci 83:863-73.
    37. Russell, J. B., F. Diez-Gonzalez, and G. N. Jarvis. 2000. Potential effect of cattle diets on the transmission of pathogenic Escherichia coli to humans. Microbes Infect 2:45-53.
    38. Sargeant, J. M., J. R. Gillespie, R. D. Oberst, R. K. Phebus, D. R. Hyatt, L. K. Bohra, and J. C. Galland. 2000. Results of a longitudinal study of the prevalence of Escherichia coli O157:H7 on cow-calf farms. Am J Vet Res 61:1375-9.
    39. Tkalcic, S., C. A. Brown, B. G. Harmon, A. V. Jain, E. P. Mueller, A. Parks, K. L. Jacobsen, S. A. Martin, T. Zhao, and M. P. Doyle. 2000. Effects of diet on rumen proliferation and fecal shedding of Escherichia coil O157:H7 in calves. J Food Prot 63:1630-6.
    40. Van Baale, M. J., J. M. Sargeant, D. P. Gnad, B. M. DeBey, K. F. Lechtenberg, and T. G. Nagaraja. 2004. Effect of forage or grain diets with or without monensin on ruminal persistence and fecal Escherichia coli O157:H7 in cattle. Appl Environ Microbiol 70:5336-42.

  • http://burningbird.net Shelley

    I don’t care if cows are hand fed clover plucked by virgins, and bathed hourly in crystal clear waters–after pixies have cleaned their tushes and their hooves, while they rested in dew drenched meadows.
    This process is not the way of the future. This is not the direction we should be going. This is nothing more than a follow up to CAFOs, and that’s not where we should be going.
    We get it: Food Safety News thinks this company is the cat’s jammies. OK, fine. This doesn’t change my opinion (and others) that products with this material mixed in should be identified so that people can make their own choices.
    I do care that the USDA does a better job, but whether it does or not doesn’t impact on my perception of this material, and the importance of people given the facts they need in order to make our own decisions.
    Don’t tell us what to think, or pat us on the head and say everything is fine.

  • JerryHaun

    John, You have nailed down the reasons these measures were needed for food safety reasons. It is a crime that FSIS has to put out the image that they are working to make ground beef and primals safe for the public. They are like a giant monster that is more interested in protecting there backsides and to hell with the small processes that get caught up in there BS. As a small custom processer my business can not hide behind alot of science based mumbo-jumbo. I take steps, as lactic acid rinseon the on site farm slaughter I do. When it comes down to it USDA does not want to admit they can not stop Ecoli from getting into there inspected beef. The only true way to contol it is cookig to a proper temp. The speed the big 88% operate is a large part of the problem, and FSIS does not want to relly butt heads with the big 4, and we know the reasons for that. Keep up the good fight,we all need someone with your knowledge and Will in our corner.

  • JerryHaun

    John, You have nailed down the reasons these measures were needed for food safety reasons. It is a crime that FSIS has to put out the image that they are working to make ground beef and primals safe for the public. They are like a giant monster that is more interested in protecting there backsides and to hell with the small processes that get caught up in there BS. As a small custom processer my business can not hide behind alot of science based mumbo-jumbo. I take steps, as lactic acid rinseon the on site farm slaughter I do. When it comes down to it USDA does not want to admit they can not stop Ecoli from getting into there inspected beef. The only true way to contol it is cookig to a proper temp. The speed the big 88% operate is a large part of the problem, and FSIS does not want to relly butt heads with the big 4, and we know the reasons for that. Keep up the good fight,we all need someone with your knowledge and Will in our corner.

  • JC

    I love all the talk about how CAFOs are evil, causing most of the world’s food borne pathogen outbreaks… but what solution do you have? The demand for meat in this country is high enough that it would be impossible to raise all cattle on pasture. We simply do not have enough land for that… not if we are to continue farming. I do not like the idea of CAFOs either, but there is little to no science backing up the idea that pasture raised cattle carry less pathogens. Poop is poop, and it is going to have pathogenic bacteria and viruses in it. Poop has been a source of disease for thousands, if not millions of years. I am just simply tired of anecdotal “evidence”, and hearing about how the food industry does not care about the consumers.

  • Holiday

    @JC
    The answer to your question is easy. People need to eat less meat. A study was recently published showing that red meat consumption was directly related to mortality rate. If people ate less meat, we could all eat better quality meat, and no one would need to spray poison on our food before we could safely eat it.

  • http://www.johnmunsell.com jmunsell

    Enteric bacteria such as E.coli & Salmonella originate within animals’ intestines, and fluorish in manure. Animals in CAFO’s carry a much higher load of manure than pastured animals which enjoy the ability to lay down on grass, rather than on manure piles. When livestock go through the kill floor, animals with manure-covered hides become a veritable sanitation problem as fecal bacteria can easily slough off and cross-contaminate exposed beef carcasses. Animals from grass pastures carry a much smaller tag of manure, and thus constitute a smaller pathogen risk.
    I respectfully suggest that if CAFO’s were outlawed, we would have less meat available for domestic consumption, and our exports might morph into imports instead. CAFO’s can operate year-round, while access to pasture grass is seasonal. Let’s give consumers a choice of meat from both sources.

  • http://www.johnmunsell.com John Munsell

    Enteric bacteria such as E.coli & Salmonella originate within animals’ intestines, and fluorish in manure. Animals in CAFO’s carry a much higher load of manure than pastured animals which enjoy the ability to lay down on grass, rather than on manure piles. When livestock go through the kill floor, animals with manure-covered hides become a veritable sanitation problem as fecal bacteria can easily slough off and cross-contaminate exposed beef carcasses. Animals from grass pastures carry a much smaller tag of manure, and thus constitute a smaller pathogen risk.
    I respectfully suggest that if CAFO’s were outlawed, we would have less meat available for domestic consumption, and our exports might morph into imports instead. CAFO’s can operate year-round, while access to pasture grass is seasonal. Let’s give consumers a choice of meat from both sources.