New Jersey-based Lakeside Refrigerated Services is recalling about 120,872 pounds of ground beef products that may be contaminated with E. coli O103. The issue was uncovered during routine FSIS testing of imported products.
The recall affects ground beef products that were produced between February 1, 2022 and April 8, 2022, and have the establishment number EST. 46841” inside the USDA mark of inspection (FSIS has provided a full list of products and product codes as well as product labels). The products were distributed to retail locations nationwide.
Thus far there are no confirmed reports of illness or adverse reactions related to products affected by this recall. “Many clinical laboratories do not test for non-O157 Shiga toxin-producing E. coli (STEC) such as O103 because it is harder to identify than STEC O157:H7. People can become ill from STECs 2–8 days (average of 3–4 days) after consuming the organism,” FSIS stated in an announcement. The agency has advised that consumers throw out or return the recalled products to the place of purchase.
–UPDATE–March 14, 2022 — In an agency update, the FDA stated that it has removed the Salmonella Newport illness that was previously noted in the investigation. “In the early stages of this investigation, FDA included all consumer complaints of illness with exposure to products from the Sturgis, MI, facility. After further investigation, the FDA has determined that there is not enough information to definitively link this illness to powdered infant formula. CDC confirmed that this single Salmonella illness is not linked to an outbreak. The FDA and CDC are continuing to monitor for Salmonella cases and consumer complaints that may be related to this incident,” the FDA stated.
Earlier this week Abbott issued a recall of infant powdered formulas (including Similac, Alimentum and EleCare) that were manufactured at the company’s Sturgis, Michigan plant. The company received consumer complaints in infants who had consumed powdered infant formula manufactured in this facility—specifically, three reports of Cronobacter sakazakii and one report of Salmonella Newport. All cases resulted in hospitalization, and one death was reported.
FDA began onsite inspection at the facility and thus far has found several positive Cronobacter results from environmental samples and reported adverse inspectional observations. “A review of the firm’s internal records also indicate environmental contamination with Cronobacter sakazakii and the firm’s destruction of product due to the presence of Cronobacter,” FDA stated in a CFSAN update.
The recalled Similac, Alimentum and EleCare products can be identified by their 7-to-9 digit code and expiration date:
First two digits of the code are 22 through 37 and
Code on the container contains K8, SH, or Z2, and
Expiration date of 4-1-2022 (APR 2022) or later.
In a company announcement published on FDA’s website, Abbott stated, during testing in our Sturgis, Mich., facility, we found evidence of Cronobacter sakazakii in the plant in non-product contact areas. We found no evidence of Salmonella Newport. This investigation is ongoing.” It added that “no distributed product has tested positive for the presence of either of these bacteria” but that the company will continue to conduct testing.
Parents and caregivers can find out whether the product they have is included in the recall by visiting the Similac recall website.
Tanimura & Antle, Inc. is voluntarily recalling its packaged single head romaine lettuce, out of an abundance of caution, due to possible E. Coli 0157:H7 contamination. The product has a packaged date of 10/15/2020 or 10/16/2020, and the UPC number 0-27918-20314-9.
Although no illnesses have been reported, the recall is based on the test result of a random sample taken and analyzed by the Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development. The company distributed 3,396 cartons to 20 states. Retailers and distributors can identify the affected products using the Product Traceability Initiative stickers (571280289SRS1 and 571280290SRS1) that are attached to the exterior of the case.
Listeria monocytogenes: Advancing Food Safety in the Frozen Food Industry, with Sanjay Gummalla, American Frozen Foods Institute
Shifting the Approach to Sanitation Treatments in the Food & Beverage Industry: Microbial Biofilm Monitoring, with Manuel Anselmo, ALVIM Biofilm
A Look at Listeria Detection and Elimination, with Angela Anandappa, Ph.D., Alliance for Advanced Sanitation
TechTalk on The Importance of Targeting Listeria Where It Lives, presented by Sterilex
The event begins at 12 pm ET on Thursday, October 29. Haven’t registered? Follow this link to the 2020 Food Safety Consortium Virtual Conference Series, which provides access to 14 episodes of critical industry insights from leading subject matter experts! We look forward to your joining us virtually.
Learn more about food safety supply chain management & traceability during the 2020 Food Safety Consortium Virtual Conference SeriesThe FDA and CDC have been investigating a multistate outbreak ofCyclospora involving bagged salads from Fresh Express since June. Although the products were recalled and should no longer be available in retail locations, the CDC continues to report more cases. As of August 12, 2020, the CDC counted 690 people with laboratory-confirmed Cyclospora infections throughout 13 states. Thirty-seven people have been hospitalized, and no deaths have been reported.
As the FDA conducted its traceback investigation to find the source of the outbreak linked to the Fresh Express products, the agency was able to identify several farms. It analyzed water samples from two public access points along a regional water management canal (C-23) west of Port St. Lucie, Florida. Using the FDA’s validated testing method, the samples tested positive for Cyclospora cayetanensis. However, it is important to note that the Cyclospora found might not be a direct match to the pathogen found in the clinical cases.
According to FDA: “Given the emerging nature of genetic typing methodologies for this parasite, the FDA has been unable to determine if the Cyclospora detected in the canal is a genetic match to the clinical cases, therefore, there is currently not enough evidence to conclusively determine the cause of this outbreak. Nevertheless, the current state of the investigation helps advance what we know about Cyclospora and offers important clues to inform future preventive measures.”
The agency’s traceback investigation is complete, but the cause or source of the outbreak has not been determined. The investigation also revealed that carrots are no longer of interest at as part of the outbreak, but red cabbage and iceberg lettuce are still being investigated. FDA is also working with Florida and the area’s local water district to learn more about the source of Cyclospora in the canal.
For close to 20 years, Strategic Consulting Inc. (SCI) has been following the industrial microbiology market, and food safety testing applications in particular. As part of the data gathering for our most recent report, Industrial Microbiology Market Review, SCI interviewed 15 senior managers at major food companies and food contract labs (FCLs) to understand their priorities when choosing a pathogen diagnostic method. The interviews were roughly split between food companies and food contract labs.
SCI identified ten important attributes for evaluating a diagnostic method or instrument, and asked the interviewees to stack rank the top five items most important to them.
The three top-ranked choices were the same at both food companies and FCLs, with sensitivity/specificity the most important attribute. Second in importance was the ability of the method to be utilized in a broad range of food matrices. Ranking third was the cost-per-test for diagnostic reagents.
For food companies, time-to-results (TTR) was tied for third in the stack ranking, followed by ease-of-use (EOU)/automation in fifth place. Clearly food companies want quick results but only after they are assured that the pathogen diagnostic they are using provides accurate results and is able to work with a range of food types.
For food contract labs, the cost of the pathogen diagnostic instrument ranks fourth, and TTR is tied with the cost of labor per test for fifth. For FCLs, most of the key attributes in method selection are based on operational considerations, which makes perfect sense given testing is their business.
An ideal pathogen detection solution should provide increased confidence in results, high reproducibility and robustness to routine testing labs, fit seamlessly in laboratory workflow without disrupting it, and work well for medium-to high-throughput testing laboratories. This Q&A provides some insights.
Q: How can an automation system help safeguard against false negative pathogen results?
Pathogen testing can typically be broken up into three categories:
Raw material testing;
Finished product testing; and
Regardless of the type of testing that is done, it is clear that pathogen detection is an important component of any hazard analysis and risk-based preventative control program. Verification of results is crucial, particularly negative results. When performing pathogen testing with a real-time PCR based assay, the presence of an internal amplification control is critical. When present for each individual sample, the internal control monitors for inhibition, which can be common with matrices such as spices and chocolate. When a negative result is obtained, it is important to know if that sample is truly negative because the pathogen of interest is not present or if the reaction was inhibited.
Another potential for false negative results can come from technician error. If a sample is not actually added to the reaction block, tube or strip for testing, the result will be negative. Therein lies the power of an automation system. The iQ-Check Prep automation system employs a liquid level sensing volume verification step at the beginning of the run. Utilizing monitored air displacement technology and conductive pipette tips, users are alerted if a sample was missed in the setup. The user then has the option to add the sample or skip it and continue the run. If the sample is not added, the result is flagged as invalid. Combining the internal control of iQ-Check real-time PCR detection kits with the verification of the iQ-Check Prep automation system, users can be confident in their results and safeguard against false negatives.
Q: How can an automation system be incorporated into a laboratory without disrupting existing workflow?
Incorporating an automation system into a laboratory can greatly increase efficiency, traceability and throughput…if it is the right solution for the lab. Many factors need to be taken into consideration, for example batch processing. Examining time intervals at which samples finish incubation can determine how batch processing fits into the lab workflow. Technician responsibilities also play a part. Does the system require monitoring and continuous feeding of samples or is it a walk away system that frees technicians up to perform other lab duties? Another important consideration is maintenance. The scheduled upkeep of the system needs to be evaluated not only for the amount of time required but for the cost associated with the maintenance.
The iQ-Check Prep system was designed with efficiency in mind. Samples are processed in batches (plates of 94 samples at a time) for a throughout of >500 samples per instrument per eight hour shift. The system is a true walk away system that does not require constant monitoring or continuous feeding. The maintenance is self-contained and completed by the instrument in 5 minutes. These are just a few questions to ask when considering an automation system for the laboratory. The chosen system should fit effortlessly into the laboratory workflow and increase throughput and efficiency without causing major disruptions.
This article looks at proficiency testing (PT) for pathogen analysis, and the recent finding by the the American Proficiency Institute (API) of a 6.6 percent false-negative rate on food safety PT samples (14-year average for the 1999-2012 period).
While at IAFP this year, I met with Heather Jordan, who directs food PT programs at API. The proficiency testing programs are used at many food labs in conjunction with lab accreditation programs. Proficiency testing is done at food plant labs (FPLs) and corporate labs, as well as at food contract testing labs (FCLs) as a way to demonstrate quality results in their food micro and chemistry testing.
More proficiency testing but less proficiency?
In fact, the use of PTs is increasing in food labs, which is probably tied in part to the push for lab accreditation by FSMA and non-government groups like GFSI. Yet it seems to me that the current use of PTs doesn’t go far enough to enable an FPL or FCL to demonstrate overall laboratory competency, and gain or maintain accreditation (ISO 17025).
In most labs, PTs are done just a few times a year. And really, they test the competency of the lab technician and protocols used in analyzing the PT samples. They are not a holistic measure of the lab and its ability to consistently generate quality results on every test run by every operator in the lab.
In a previous life I ran a group of environmental testing labs, which also are required to run PT samples during the year. From this experience, I know that lab personnel are aware that PTs are in-house: The sample-receiving group logs them in, and then alerts management. As a result, the best operators usually are assigned to run the PTs. This kid-glove treatment is not representative of day-to-day practices and processes. If we really want to validate and accredit the proficiency of an entire lab, shouldn’t every operator be tested on all protocols in use?
Plus, if labs know when they are running PT samples, and likely have their best operators running them, shouldn’t there be few, if any, false-negative or false-positive results? Surprisingly, that’s not what the API research found…
API study: Performance accuracy for food pathogens remains problematic
In a retrospective study, “Pathogen Detection in Food Microbiology Laboratories: An Analysis of Proficiency Test Performance,” API analyzed the results from 39,500 food proficiency tests conducted between 1999 and 2012 to see how U.S. labs are doing in detecting or ruling out contamination of four common food pathogens.
Over the 14-year period, “False negative results ranged from 3.3 percent to 14.0 percent for E. coli O157:H7; 1.9 percent to 10.6 percent for Salmonella spp; 3.4 percent to 11.0 percent for L. monocytogenes; and 0 percent to 19.8 percent for Campylobacter spp.” Most concerning is that while both false positive and false negative rates were down in the last year of the study, the cumulative false negative rate for the 14-year period was 6.6 percent.
As we know, false positive results (in which a sample that does not contain pathogens is incorrectly shown as positive) are a nuisance. But false negative test results—which fail to detect true pathogenic organisms in the sample—are not unacceptable.
The cumulative average false positive rate was 3.1 percent, less than half of the false negative rate for the same period.
The objective of the study—and, I would think, of proficiency testing in general—is to demonstrate improvement in lab performance year over year. The results of the API report concluded to the contrary, however: “Performance accuracy for food pathogens remains problematic with the recent cumulative trend showing a slight decrease for false positive and false negative results.”
Clearly if false negatives happen in proficiency programs, they happen in the course of regular testing at food labs. I’m told that many FCLs and FPLs rely on other parts of their QA systems to make sure testing is being conducted properly. Even so, the documentation of ongoing and unacceptably high false negative rates in PT testing is a big concern for everyone. It also points to a number of follow-on questions:
Would the false negative and false positive results be even higher if every technician, rather than the best operator, performed the analysis?
PT samples are created in only a couple of sample matrices. Would results be even worse if performed on the myriad of sample matrices present in the food industry?
What are the performance results among all of the pathogen methods available? Are some methods better than others when measured in real world conditions? Do the more complex protocols of some pathogen diagnostic systems result in poorer PT performance results?
Would PT results and, even more important, lab proficiency improve if the frequency of PTs increased, and were required of every technician involved with real food samples?
How can proficiency testing be used to isolate problem areas, whether in the pathogen diagnostic method or the competency of lab operators and processes?
And finally, is the performance data different between food contract labs and food plant labs? And are all FCLs are equal, or are some more able to deliver quality results?
Strictly Necessary Cookies
Strictly Necessary Cookies should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for these cookie settings.
We use tracking pixels that set your arrival time at our website, this is used as part of our anti-spam and security measures. Disabling this tracking pixel would disable some of our security measures, and is therefore considered necessary for the safe operation of the website. This tracking pixel is cleared from your system when you delete files in your history.
If you visit and/or use the FST Training Calendar, cookies are used to store your search terms, and keep track of which records you have seen already. Without these cookies, the Training Calendar would not work.
If you disable this cookie, we will not be able to save your preferences. This means that every time you visit this website you will need to enable or disable cookies again.
A browser cookie is a small piece of data that is stored on your device to help websites and mobile apps remember things about you. Other technologies, including Web storage and identifiers associated with your device, may be used for similar purposes. In this policy, we say “cookies” to discuss all of these technologies.
Data generated from cookies and other behavioral tracking technology is not made available to any outside parties, and is only used in the aggregate to make editorial decisions for the websites. Most browsers are initially set up to accept cookies, but you can reset your browser to refuse all cookies or to indicate when a cookie is being sent by visiting this Cookies Policy page. If your cookies are disabled in the browser, neither the tracking cookie nor the preference cookie is set, and you are in effect opted-out.
In other cases, our advertisers request to use third-party tracking to verify our ad delivery, or to remarket their products and/or services to you on other websites. You may opt-out of these tracking pixels by adjusting the Do Not Track settings in your browser, or by visiting the Network Advertising Initiative Opt Out page.
You have control over whether, how, and when cookies and other tracking technologies are installed on your devices. Although each browser is different, most browsers enable their users to access and edit their cookie preferences in their browser settings. The rejection or disabling of some cookies may impact certain features of the site or to cause some of the website’s services not to function properly.
The use of online tracking mechanisms by third parties is subject to those third parties’ own privacy policies, and not this Policy. If you prefer to prevent third parties from setting and accessing cookies on your computer, you may set your browser to block all cookies. Additionally, you may remove yourself from the targeted advertising of companies within the Network Advertising Initiative by opting out here, or of companies participating in the Digital Advertising Alliance program by opting out here.