After a Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) investigation of complaints about discoloration and off-odors, a New Jersey-based meat processor has reportedly recalled more than 225,000 pounds of ground beef products distributed to penal institutions in California and Oregon. In a recall release, FSIS reported that its review “uncovered evidence to show that the establishment repackaged and recoded returned products and sent them out for further distribution to institutional customers.” While no reports of illness were apparently associated with the recall, FSIS considers the products to be adulterated “because the establishment’s food safety plan was inadequate to produce wholesome product.” The meatpacker involved is One Great Burger. See FSIS News Release, January 10, 2011; Meatingplace.com, January 12, 2011.
Tag Archives recalls
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has agreed, for the most part, with the resolution of multidistrict litigation claims against pet food manufacturers involving the melamine contamination and recall of their products in 2007. In re: Pet Food Prods. Liab. Litig., Nos. 08-4741 & 08-4779 (3d Cir., decided December 16, 2010). Further details about the settlement agreement appear in Issue 283 of this Update. The court determined that certification of a settlement class was appropriate and that most of the settlement’s terms were fair and reasonable. Because the district court agreed with the settlement’s cap of “purchase claims,” that is, “claims solely for reimbursement of the costs associated with the purchase of a Recalled Pet Food Product by a Settlement Class Member who has not been reimbursed for such costs to date,” without “the information necessary to evaluate the value and allocation of the Purchase Claims,” the appeals court vacated and…
The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) has issued an offer of settlement to Safeway Inc., claiming that it intends to sue the company if it fails to adequately notify its customers about the recall of contaminated foods. According to CSPI’s May 5, 2010, letter, Safeway has a club card membership program through which the retailer “can easily identify which Customers purchased products subject to Class 1 recalls, and then advise those Customers that they have purchased a product that puts them at risk of a serious health problem or death.” CSPI contends that Safeway’s competitors do this and that Safeway is engaging in “unfair and deceptive acts and practices by selling dangerous products and then failing to inform its Customers that they are at risk.” If the company does not agree to inform customers about food recalls by posting online warnings and in-store signs, as well as…
The 111th Congress is now on recess until April 20, 2009, but before legislators left Washington, D.C. for their district offices, they introduced several more bills relating to food safety, nutrition or wellness. They include: H.R. 1869 – Introduced April 2, 2009, by Representative James McGovern (D-Mass.), this bill would require the president to convene a “White House Conference on Food and Nutrition.” The main focus of the bill is addressing hunger and food insecurity. It has been referred to the House Committee on Agriculture. H.R. 1897 – Introduced April 2, 2009, by Representative Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.), this proposal would amend the Internal Revenue Code to give employers a tax credit for the costs of implementing workplace wellness programs that would have health awareness, employee engagement, behavioral change, and supportive environment components. Among the targets of the legislation are obesity and fitness. The bill, which has a companion in the…
The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) has sent letters to retailers, calling on them to use their membership and bonus card data, which track customer purchases, to provide targeted warnings when tainted foods are subject to recall. Noting that some companies with bonus card programs already issue food safety alerts and, in fact, notified their affected customers by phone and mail “in response to the peanut recall,” CSPI expressed its hope that “your company will do its part to protect your customers’ health and help restore their confidence in the food supply.” According to a CSPI staff attorney, “It would be outrageous if some of the deaths in this latest [contaminated peanut butter] outbreak could have been prevented had a supermarket just used the phone numbers and addresses in its database to notify its customers. It’s not enough just to take the tainted product off the supermarket shelf.…
With hundreds of foods containing potentially contaminated peanut butter being recalled daily, plaintiffs’ lawyers across the nation have begun to file claims against producers, suppliers, retailers, and others in the supply chain. Food claims lawyer William Marler has reportedly brought an action against the Virginia-based Peanut Corp. of America on behalf of Vermont residents Gabrielle and Daryl Meunier whose 7-year-old son was among the nearly 500 people purportedly sickened by the Salmonella typhimurium traced to a Peanut Corp. processing plant in Georgia. According to a news source, the Meunier’s son spent six days in the hospital after consuming cheese and peanut butter crackers. A Minnesota-based food safety lawyer reportedly plans to file a claim against Peanut Corp. and its distributor, King Nut Companies, on behalf of the family of a 72-year-old woman who allegedly died in December 2008 after eating Salmonella-contaminated peanut butter served at a long-term care facility in Minnesota. In…
12
