Header graphic for print

Food Safety News

Breaking news for everyone's consumption

Publisher’s Platform: Salmonella’s Not an Adulterant?

Opinion

Personally, as I said to the Los Angeles Times several months ago, “I think that anything that can poison or kill a person should be listed as an adulterant [in food].” 

Ignoring Salmonella in meat makes little, if any, sense. Even after the Court’s twisted opinion in Supreme Beef v. USDA, where it found Salmonella “not an adulterant per se, meaning its presence does not require the USDA to refuse to stamp such meat ‘inspected and passed,” our government’s failure to confront the reality of Salmonella, especially antibiotic-resistant Salmonella, is inexcusable.  The Wisconsin Supreme Court in Kriefall v Excel called it as it saw it:

The E. coli strain that killed Brianna and made the others sick is a “deleterious substance which may render [meat] injurious to health.” There is no dispute about this. Thus, under the first part of 21 U.S.C. § 601(m)(1), meat that either “bears or contains” E. coli O157:H7 (the “deleterious substance”) is “adulterated.” That E. coli O157:H7 contamination can be rendered non-“injurious to health” by cooking thoroughly, as discussed below, does not negate this; Congress used the phrase “may render,” not “in every circumstance renders.” Moreover, if the E. coli bacteria is not considered to be “an added substance,” because it comes from some of the animals themselves and is not either applied or supplied during the slaughtering process (although we do not decide this), it cannot be said that the E. coli strain “does not ordinarily render [the meat on or in which it appears] injurious to health.” Accordingly, meat contaminated by E. coli O157:H7 is also “adulterated” under the second part of § 601(m)(1).

Now, why would Salmonella be different?

According to the CDC, it is estimated that 1.4 million cases of salmonellosis occur each year in the U.S. Of those cases, 95 percent are related to foodborne causes.  Approximately 220 of each 1000 cases result in hospitalization, and 8 of every 1000 cases result in death.  About 500 to 1,000 deaths – 31 percent of all food-related deaths – are caused by Salmonella infections each year.

So, where do we stand with the existing USDA/FSIS law on adulteration?  Here is the law:

21 U.S.C. § 601(m)(4) – SUBCHAPTER I – INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS; ADULTERATION AND MISBRANDING – CHAPTER 12 – MEAT INSPECTION – TITLE 21—FOOD AND DRUGS

(m) The term “adulterated” shall apply to any carcass, part thereof, meat or meat food product under one or more of the following circumstances:

(1) if it bears or contains any poisonous or deleterious substance which may render it injurious to health; but in case the substance is not an added substance, such article shall not be considered adulterated under this clause if the quantity of such substance in or on such article does not ordinarily render it injurious to health; …

(3) if it consists in whole or in part of any filthy, putrid, or decomposed substance or is for any other reason unsound, unhealthful, unwholesome, or otherwise unfit for human food;

(4) if it has been prepared, packed, or held under insanitary conditions whereby it may have become contaminated with filth, or whereby it may have been rendered injurious to health; … 

Hmmm. It is hard to read the above and not think that the words in bold equate to all E. coli and Salmonella (frankly, all pathogens in food).  I know, I am just a lawyer, but don’t ya think that when food with animal feces (and a dash of E. coli O157:H7) in it is considered an adulterant, that other animal feces (with dashes of other pathogens, like Salmonella) in them, should be considered adulterated too?  But, hey, that is just me.

Another odd governmental fact is that the FDA does not seem to make a distinction between pathogens it considers adulterants or not.  FDA’s enabling legislation – Sec. 402. [21 USC §342] of the Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act also defines “Adulterated Food” as food that is: 

(a) Poisonous, insanitary, or deleterious ingredients.

(1) If it bears or contains any poisonous or deleterious substance which may render it injurious to health; but in case the substance is not an added substance such food shall not be considered adulterated under this clause if the quantity of such substance in such food does not ordinarily render it injurious to health;

(2) If it bears or contains any added poisonous or added deleterious substance … that is unsafe within the meaning of section 406;

(3) if it consists in whole or in part of any filthy, putrid, or decomposed substance, or if it is otherwise unfit for food;

(4) if it has been prepared, packed, or held under insanitary conditions whereby it may have become contaminated with filth, or whereby it may have been rendered injurious to health …

It would be interesting, and perhaps entertaining, to have House and Senate hearings focusing on what should and should not be considered adulterants in our food.  I can see panels of scientists from various fields, FDA, USDA and FSIS officials, beef and produce industry representatives and consumers discussing this.  I would pay to watch it.

© Food Safety News
  • Richard Raymond

    I will carry your bags if I can watch it with you.

  • Phyllis E

    As a microbiologist – and not a lawyer – I am completely with you on this issue. It is nonsensical to consider some STEC E. coli to be adulterants, while treating STEC and Salmonella as though they are simply “indicators” of insanitary conditions.

  • http://twitter.com/RustyBrown47 Russell La Claire

    Thanks for posting this article. If there is one true hammer in the world of food safety, it is that of Mr. Marler and his company. They are well known to Enforcement( FDA, USDA) and most large food manufacturers/processors. It behooves all to pay attention as it is the one unadulterated voice. Sorry, couldn’t help myself.

  • johnmunsell

    Bill, I disagree with your statement above regarding “the courts’s twisted opinion in Supreme Beef vs USDA”.  First of all, since Salmonella does indeed kill and seriously sicken individuals, Salmonella is certainly deleterious and must be considered as such.  It does not naturally occur in beef:  if it did, we can expect it in the middle of a prime rib roast.  Instead, Salmonella is unwittingly deposited onto carcass exteriors via sloppy kill floor dressing procedures.  So, if the “twisted opinion” emanates from the court’s declaring Salmonella acceptable to consume and does not require the agency to withhold its Mark of Inspection, I fully agree with you. 

    So, perhaps we’re on the same page on that issue.

    To me, an equally important issue is that the judge threw out the case (favoring Supreme Beef) because FSIS argued that SB’s contaminated meat was caused by ongoing unsanitary conditions within the plant, although FSIS had not issued NR’s against the plant to prove the alleged unsanitary conditions.  Tom Billy foolishly equated contaminated meat with unsanitary conditions.  As such, Billy insulated SB’s slaughter providers from liability for shipping Salmonella-laced meat to SB. 

    You also mentioned above the Wisconsin Supreme Court in Kriefal vs Excel.  Although Sizzlers’ employee was guilty of cross-contaminating watermelon with E.coli O157:H7, the court, as well as subsequent court decisions have found Excel guilty of shipping unsafe meat into commerce.  Excel has since paid multiple millions in damages.

    In both cases, the judges understood the need to force the source to clean up their act.  FSIS has yet to perceive this truth.

    John Munsell

  • opitz037

    But isn’t there research showing that it does indeed occur endemically in beef cattle — Lymph nodes, I believe?