Emails Regarding E. coli contaminated meat from Greeley, Colorado ConAgra plant |
From: MCP
Subject: VITAL INFORMATION DEAR DR. CLARK: I AM SURE YOU ARE A BUSY MAN, SO YOU MAY NOT KNOW OF THE CURRENT STATUS OF FOLLOW-UP ACTION TAKEN REGARDING THE THREE CONSECUTIVE E.COLI SAMPLES TAKEN AT OUR FIRM LAST WEEK. I E.MAILED YOUR OFFICE LAST NIGHT TO NOTIFY YOU OF THE SHOCKING INFORMATION THAT ALL THREE POSITIVE E.COLI SAMPLES CAME FROM THE SAME MANUFACTURER, FROM THE SAME PRODUCTION DATE, AND FROM THE SAME BATCH!!!!! IMPECCABLE DOCUMENTATION CAN CERTAINLY BE EFFECTIVE IN DETERMINING THE SOURCE OF CONTAMINATION, THEREBY MINIMIZING THE POTENTIAL FOR A FUTURE PUBLIC HEALTH HAZARD. PLEASE REFER TO THE DETAILS OF MY E.MAIL TO YOU LAST NIGHT WHICH SPECIFY WHY THE USDA LEGAL DEPARTMENT WILL PROSECUTE ME IF I RELEASE THIS DOCUMENTED INFORMATION TO YOU. I'VE BEEN WAITING ALL DAY TO RECEIVE AN OFFICIAL REQUEST (MORE PROBABLY A DEMAND) FROM YOUR OFFICE FOR THIS INFORMATION, THE RELEASE OF WHICH MAY POSSIBLY PREVENT WIDESPREAD ILLNESS AND/OR DEATHS IN THE AMERICAN PUBLIC. I DID RECEIVE A REQUEST FROM I.I.C. RONALD IRVINE THIS MORNING FOR COPIES OF SHIPPING RECORDS WHICH SHOW WHERE I ORIGINALLY PURCHASED THE PRODUCT. I DID GIVE A COPY OF THIS SHIPPING RECORD TO I.I.C. IRVINE THIS MORNING, AND A COPY OF IT WAS FAXED TO DR. GRADY SKAGGS @5:29 PM TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 26TH. THE SHIPPING DOCUMENT DOESN'T EVEN IDENTIFY THE MANUFACTURER OF THE COARSE GROUND BEEF IN QUESTION. THE ONLY OTHER REQUEST I HAVE RECEIVED WAS A GENERIC LETTER FROM DR. J.M. CONLEY THIS AFTERNOON REGARDING "SUBJECT: AVAILABILITY OF RECORDS" WHICH I IGNORED BECAUSE IT DID NOT SPECIFICALLY REQUEST INFORMATION REGARDING THE PRODUCER OF THE COARSE GROUND BEEF, PRODUCTION DATE RECORDS, OR BATCH NUMBERS, ALL OF WHICH ARE VITALLY IMPORTANT IN THIS ISSUE. THE "GENERIC" NATURE OF DR. CONLEY'S LETTER SIMPLY REQUESTED INFORMATION WHICH I HAD ALREADY PROVIDED TO I.I.C. RONALD IRVINE EARLIER IN THE DAY. DR. CLARK, I AGAIN OFFICIALLY WANT TO NOTIFY YOU, AND ALL THE PEOPLE LISTED ABOVE WHO ARE RECEIVING COPIES, THAT I HAVE ALL OF THIS INFORMATION READILY AVAILABLE WHICH IS VITALLY IMPORTANT FOR THE CONTINUATION OF WHOLESOME FOOD IN THIS NATION, INFORMATION WHICH IF NOT ACTED UPON COULD CAUSE CONSUMER SICKNESS IN AMERICA POTENTIALLY MUCH GREATER THAN WHAT HAPPENED WITH JACK-IN-THE-BOX. I WANT TO RELEASE IT TO YOU, AND THE SOONER THE BETTER IF WE VALUE PUBLIC HEALTH TO BE A HIGH PRIORITY. THE ONLY THING YOU HAVE TO DO, AND IT IS SO SIMPLE, IS TO PROVIDE ME A WRITTEN REQUEST, ON USDA LETTERHEAD, THAT I RELEASE TO YOU (1) THE MANUFACTURER'S NAME (DR. GRADY SKAGGS ALREADY KNOWS), (2) THE PRODUCTION DATE, AND (3) THE BATCH NUMBER ON THE THREE GROUND BEEF SAMPLES WHICH WERE POSITIVE FOR E.COLI. MY E.MAIL TO YOU LAST NIGHT, AS WELL AS THIS E.MAIL, SHOWS GOOD FAITH ON MY PART TO COOPERATE WITH THE USDA IN IDENTIFYING THE SOURCE OF CONTAMINATED GROUND BEEF, AND TO PROTECT AMERICAN CONSUMERS WHILE COMPLYING WITH THE MANDATES OF THE "WHOLESOME MEAT ACT". I HUMBLY REQUEST THAT THE USDA ALSO EXHIBIT GOOD FAITH. I STEADFASTLY REMAIN COMMITTED TO A NON-ADVERSARIAL, COOPERATIVE RELATIONSHIP WITH THE USDA, WITH ONE OBJECTIVE ONLY: PRODUCE SAFE FOOD FOR AMERICAN CONSUMERS. WITH THIS IN MIND, I REMAIN... RESPECTFULLY YOURS, JOHN W. MUNSELL, PRESIDENT
From: MCP
Subject: 3 consecutive confirmed positive e.coli samples Dear Dr. Clark: You may be aware of a most unusual set of circumstances which have occured at my establishment this past week, i.e. three consecutive positive e.coli samples of ground beef which were taken last week. Because of the tremendous adverse effect this could have on public health, I thought it imperative that I immediately document for your review all pertinent documentation surrounding this scenario. The three positive samples were taken at our establishment last week by I.I.C. Ronald Irvine. The three days were: Tuesday, February 19, 2002
As a result of the fiasco which occurred at this establishment last month, i.e. a positive e.coli sample, our staff commenced tedious, copious documentation of the sources of all trimmings used in ground beef which is sampled by the USDA for laboratory analysis. USDA personnel who visit this plant can easily verify that the vast majority of ground beef produced here originates from Coarse Ground Beef which we purchase from a variety of large packers. The documentation we perform even includes the actual labels off the boxes of the Coarse Ground Beef!!! We file these labels, plus make several copies of the labels and all other documents affiliated with the sample and associated mid-shift cleanup. Just for your information, the original and extra copies are deposited at several locations in Miles City, in the event the file in our plant office might mysteriously disappear sometime. Last Friday am, February 22nd, I was notified via e.mail from the USDA lab that the Tuesday sample was now a "Presumptive Positive", and that the Wednesday sample was a "Potential Positive". We immediately reviewed our records to determine if there was a connection between the two, and if so should we quarantine any remaining Coarse Ground Beef from that particular manufacturer. The results of our research were astounding: both samples were from Coarse Ground Beef from (1) the same manufacturer, (2) from the SAME PRODUCTION DAY, and (3) FROM THE SAME BATCH!!! We then reviewed the records from the sample taken on Thursday and discovered that Thursday's sample met the same 3 criteria. However, we hadn't (as of that time) received any lab report on Thursday's sample. We immediately inspected all our remaining inventory of Coarse Ground Beef from that manufacturer, only to discover that none remained from the production date and batch number in question. We still have a large supply of Coarse Ground Beef in stock from the manufacturer involved, but they all have different production dates. It is extremely interesting to note that the sample which was taken last Friday, February 22nd by I.I.C. Abe Waldner, which originated from a DIFFERENT production date, tested out as a "Negative" for e.coli. Just for the record, we now automatically quarantine all ground beef which was ground prior to the sample being taken, which means we have product on "hold" in our freezer for all three days which experienced positive e.coli samples. This of course means that no recall is necessary, nor a public press release. We WILL NOT sell this product, but intend to hold it here for eventual return to the distributor who sold it to us, pending the results of whatever future actions the USDA may decide to pursue. Dr. Clark, you and I have had telephone conversations in the past month, beside an exchange of letters. Two topics you frequently refer to are (1) professionalism, and (2) the need to have a non-adversarial relationship. I whole-heartedly agree with you on both items. I think you will detect my sincerity in both areas after you have reviewed this e.mail. The very fact that all three positive e.coli samples came from the same manufacturer, from the same production date, and the same batch number, points out the potentially devastating impact which could be facing consumers at the present time. My firm is so small, we don't qualify as a minnow in the ocean as far as meat production tonnages are concerned. Other processors, and further grinders purchase infinitetesimally larger quantities of Coarse Ground Beef than my firm does. The unfortunate fact stares us in the face that there is a high probability that large amounts of Coarse Ground Beef from the same production date and batch number are still held in storage, perhaps in dozens of plants. If those plants perform a final grind on that product, and some consumers get sick and/or die, while you and I both know the details spelled out in this e.mail, then ..................? Both of us should share a cell in Alcatraz. Herein lies the dilemma for me. After my firm suffered through the recall a month ago, I visited your Compliance Officer DuWayne Hansen in detail regarding the fact that the sample in question (a month ago) came from Brand X Coarse Ground Beef, which was also attested to by your IIC Dan Ellis. My complaint then, and now, is that the USDA press release must also state that the meat being recalled did not originate from the plant who did the final grinding. The press release wouldn't have to identify the name of the originating plant, only specify that the Coarse Ground Beef came "from another source". I asked DuWayne Hansen why the USDA doesn't release ALL THE TRUTH. He replied to me "The USDA Legal Department forbids the Inspectors to record the origin of the meat". This dilemma was further explained by a statement from Abe Waldner, the IIC who collected the sample at our plant last Friday, February 22. Prior to taking the sample, I suggested to him: "Instead of taking the sample after it comes out of our grinder, why don't you simply open up the bag of Coarse Ground Beef from Brand X and take a sample directly from it? It would be more scientific, and would quickly narrow down the source of contamination". He replied "If I did, I would be guilty of 'conspiring' with the plant to point blame at the big packer". Dr. Clark, I have to assume that the reason the Inspectors are prohibited from recording the actual source of the meat is that such record-keeping would be illegal. There is no other sensible conclusion that could be reached. For the life of me, I can't see how it would be illegal, especially in the HACCP environment in which detailed record keeping is not only suggested, but mandatory. I feel that the three consecutive positive e.coli samples we've just experienced is proof positive that the HACCP system can and does work!!! Detailed documentation, combined with microbiological testing in your lab, has indeed pointed out one source of contamination and needs to be addressed. Lab results like these serve as an effective management tool, and regulatory tool in our joint effort to produce safe food as mandated under the Wholesome Meat Act. The problem is, how can the lab results and related documentation be legally used? Furthermore, with each succeeding day that no action is taken, the chances of consumer sickness tremendously escalates. I remember oh so well how quickly your ten-member "Recall Committee" acted so decisively last month when we experienced our positive e.coli sample. It only seems sane that the same sense of urgency would apply in this situation. You may have noticed that I have not identified the manufacturer of the Coarse Ground Beef which was the source of our three positive samples last week. Your field staff here knows the name of the manufacturer. In fact, Dr. Skaggs mentioned the company by name today when he called me shortly after 9:00 am to notify me that the second sample had been classified as "Confirmed Positive". This is very complimentary to your field staff here, for they truly have watched the entire proceedings very closely and know first hand what is happening. However, I don't think the field staff at this establishment have the production date or the batch number, both of which are imperatively important. I have them both, in fact I have the actual labels from the boxes on which are printed the production date and the batch number. Since the mere documentation of the origin of trimmings is illegal (I presume) for your inspectors, my release of the same information would also be illegal. I want to fully participate with your staff in addressing the origin of this contaminated meat, but I also know that if I release the information, USDA's legal staff will have my butt in court the next day. Dr. Clark, I want to cooperate with you 100% in this issue, but the USDA legal staff prevents it. Bottom line: before I release to you the information (and I want to), I require signed documentation from the USDA requesting this information, and stating it is legal for me to do so. I'm not gonna sit in jail in return for exposing the source of contaminated meat. Firmly desiring to maintain a cordial, complimentary, cooperative, professional and non-adversarial relationship with all USDA personnel, I remain Sincerely Yours, John W. Munsell, President
From: JOHNMUNSELL
Subject: Request for Congressional hearing The purpose of this e.mail is to give you an updated status report of my dealings with the USDA re their handling of the 4 positive e.coli samples taken at my plant, to document the procedures used by the USDA in dealing with contaminated products, and how I feel the issue can be resolved. This past Friday, May 3 my wife Kathy and I had a 4-hour visit at the USDA district office in Minneapolis with Dr. Nathanael Clark and six of his staff members. Although we didn't come to any mutual agreements regarding how the issues at my plant should be resolved, I can now clearly define the policies and procedures the USDA has implemented which explain their behaviour the last few months. You may totally disbelieve some of the following information, but all the following are FACTS which the USDA staunchly defends, and which can be easily verified by the USDA. Here are some of their policies. 1. When Coarse Ground Beef, or Beef Trimmings have e.coli 0157:H7 in them, the e.coli is NOT considered an adulterant. The USDA considers the e.coli to be an adulterant only AFTER the final grind has been done. 2. The company which performs the final grind is solely responsible for the e.coli adulteration. 3. The USDA inspector or compliance officer who takes the ground beef sample for laboratory analysis is expressly forbidden to document the source of the trimmings which produced the sample. The above 3 policies are formally in place and have been implemented by the USDA. The ramifications are substantial, and show that the USDA has abdicated its mandate to protect consumer food safety. First of all, e.coli 0157:H7 is an adulterant whenever it is in a food product, at any stage of production. Making the final grinder solely responsible for the contamination merely exonerates the original packer from any responsibility, and penalizes the final grinder by making him responsible for all contamination, wherever it occured, including contamination which occured at the original packing house. The presence of 0157:H7 in multiple locations raises questions about the efficacy of the sampling protocol approved by the USDA for the big packing houses. When large packers meet the requirements found in FSIS Directive 10,010.1 dated 2-1-98, USDA personnel are prevented from conducting any product sampling! Furthermore, when the large packers do all their own testing, they can claim that results of their in-house e.coli sampling of trim and/or coarse ground beef are proprietary, preventing the USDA from even reviewing the results. It could be argued that the fox controls the hen house, and the government regulatory agency has no access or authority. If we can make the assumption that a successful traceback of food contamination to the SOURCE of the contamination would be beneficial in promoting the goal of safe food, then the USDA official taking the sample should indeed record as much data as possible which documents where this meat originated. The large packing houses have already told feedlots that a traceback of cattle harboring 0157:H7 should be done to identify which feedlots may be harboring the bacteria, with the goal of identifying the source and preventing a recurrence. Likewise, contamination at the final grinder should be traced back to the point where the contamination occured for the purpose of establishing a program to prevent its recurrence. Existing USDA policies prevent such a traceback. For the record, my company (Montana Quality Foods & Processing) experienced one positive e.coli in January this year, plus three more on February 19, 20 & 21. These four positives were discussed at the Minneapolis meeting on May 3. I explained (again) to the USDA personnel at the meeting that the USDA inspector who took this sample, I.I.C. Dan Ellis, has publicly stated that he took the sample from coarse ground beef which we had purchased from another packer. When confronted with this fact, the USDA responded "It was improper for Dan Ellis to make that comment, and he has no authority to make such a statement". USDA Compliance officer Duwayne Hansen told me that he would be obtaining a signed statement from inspector Ellis documenting his making this statement. Utilizing the Freedom of Information Act, I hope to obtain a copy of this statement this week. I further went on to explain to the Minneapolis staff that our company had full documentation of the source of the three consecutive positive samples in February, including the very labels off the boxes of the coarse ground beef. Our impeccable documentation also shows that all three positives came not only from the same company, but also from the same production date and the same batch number. The source of the contamination has indeed been narrowed down to one batch, on one production day. Also, the USDA Inspector who took all three samples (Ronald Irvine) and his veterinarian supervisor (Dr. Daryl Burden) wrote and signed a letter in which they indentified the common source of all three positives to be a USDA inspected plant in another state. These two USDA employees also suggested a further investigation of the source of these three positives because of the potential public health consequences! When I discussed these facts with the USDA personnel in Minneapolis, the USDA likewise commented that Dr. Burden and Inspector Irvine "were not authorized to make those improper statements". One week after Dr. Burden and Inspector Irvine wrote and signed this statement, Dr. Burden approached me and said "I have been told to politely ask you to return that letter to me". Realizing I had already distributed dozens of copies of this factual letter to many people, a return wasn't possible as the evidence had already been released to many parties. Now why would the USDA desire to conceal documented scientific evidence revealing the source of food contamination? It is interesting to note that the original packing house which produced this coarse ground beef has already issued me a credit for the value of their coarse ground beef which had to be destroyed as a result of the three positive samples. The packer doesn't dispute my documentation, only the USDA disputes it. The obvious question is "Why does the USDA not want to document all the factual evidence, and take appropriate action?" The answer is obvious not only to me, but also to USDA field personnel and to others in the meat industry. The USDA does not want the uncomfortable job of confronting the large packers, prefering to levy punitive administrative actions against the small final grinders who lack the budget and courage to mount an effective response to USDA's unjust and vindictive enforcement actions. The USDA has not yet learned its lesson in its two legal losses caused by its improper closure of Supreme Beef. In these court cases, the courts agreed with the USDA that the meat was contaminated with Salmonella, but disagreed with the USDA accusation that the contamination was caused at Supreme Beef, who was merely grinding trim purchased from other packers. It is ironic to note that the USDA currently allows Montana Quality Foods to grind brand x coarse ground beef (which was the source of our four positives) and sell it with the USDA mark of inspection, while the company is forbidden to grind and sell trim, with the mark of inspection, originating from its own kill floor or trim originating from boxed beef purchased from the big packers. The USDA is now requiring Montana Quality Foods to establish a new e.coli sampling program for all trim originating from its own kill floor, and for trim off of boxed beef. Also, the company must find a scientific basis to prove the statistical validity of its proposed sampling proposal. Once these steps have been taken, AND ACCEPTED BY THE USDA, the company will be authorized to grind and sell this trim under the USDA mark of inspection. The cost to the company is yet to be determined, but will be substantial at $60 per sample, as all sampling must be done by USDA certified labs. The availability of "appropriate" scientific justification may be a real challenge as it cannot be a generic, canned protocol because of the unique nature of this scenario. It most likely will be an expensive, custom-made resolution. It is of utmost importance to note that even if Montana Quality Foods had already utilized this yet-to-be-defined sampling protocol for the past several years, it still would have experienced the four e.coli positives in January and February. Montana Quality Foods has already been forced to implement a lactic acid rinse on its kill floor to partially address this e.coli issue. Even after an expensive (& unjustified) additional sampling system is implemented, the source of the four e.coli contaminations still has not been identified (at least by the USDA), nor have actions been taken to prevent recurrence. Bottom Line: consumer food safety is being jeopardized because of USDA's unwillingness to trace back e.coli contaminations to the large packers. The USDA has intentionally created and implemented policies allowing them to punish the final grinders, thereby circumventing any need to confront the origin of the adulteration, i.e. the large packer. The USDA has abdicated its mandate to protect American consumers from unwholesome food. Think of the implication to retail grocery meat markets. Whenever a ground beef sample from a retail store turns up positive, and the USDA compliance officer has been specifically instructed not to document the origin of the meat, the retail market is automatically guilty of contaminating its product and must undergo an expensive and embarrassing public recall, and no measures are taken to prevent a recurrence at the point where the contamination actually occured! Upton Sinclair's book "The Jungle" created a public outcry, resulting in the creation of the Wholesome Meat Act. The purpose of the Act was to protect public health via production of safe food. The purpose of the Act was NOT for USDA convenience, which in this case has been the driving force justifying their policies allowing the agency to avoid uncomfortable confrontations with the big packers. This entire sordid mess is not simply an issue of Montana Quality Foods versus the USDA. This is a public health food safety issue which is being ignored via improper motives by the agency charged with overseeing wholesome food production practices. I feel that anyone who favors a public discussion on these practices would properly be seen as a champion of consumer health safety, as well as defending the rights of businesses of all sizes to operate free from improper government enforcement actions, and at the same time protecting workers' jobs. The USDA may indeed beat their chest proclaiming they successfully closed down x number of plants last year, but I suggest that in some cases they are focusing on the wrong targets via illegitimate and self-serving motives. I have been asked why I continue to press a proper resolution to this issue, realizing I am making enemies at the USDA, the very agency which has the authority to withdraw its inspectors from my plant, effectively shutting me down. My reply is two-fold: First, if they are doing it to me with impunity, they are doing it all over the country to a variety of other final grinders. No one should be forced to experience the hassle my staff has been exposed to these last four months, at least not in a democracy. Secondly, the USDA's singling me out for enforcement action while simultaneously ignoring the source of the contamination continues to endanger the public health of our meat consuming population. I think of my two grandchildren aged 4 years old, and 7 months, whose consumption of meat products is done with a higher degree of health risk than is necessary simply because the USDA avoids confrontation with the big packers at all costs. Two people have told me that the only way the USDA will be forced to address and change their improper policies is after an outbreak of sickness and several deaths which will propel this issue to the forefront again, as happened in the Jack In The Box incident. I'd like to think that policies can be changed without further deaths. Every death is someone's child or grandchild, and I certainly don't want the deaths to be my grandchildren, or anyone's. Some people question whether Congressional action is the proper route to resolving this issue. I took this issue to Montana's congressional delegation when I observed that the USDA chain of command continued to support their existing, inappropriate policies in spite of my documentation. The USDA's unwillingness to examine these policies in a scientific manner continues to undermine public food safety. The only resolution I see is Congress forcing a public discussion of these faulty policies. My goal is not to embarrass the USDA, simply to publicly discuss the efficacy of existing policies and to decide whether changes should be necessary. I fully believe that if existing policies were discussed publicly, the USDA would be embarrassed. However, my ultimate goal is simply to provide safe food to consumers. Another goal is to increase per capita consumption of beef, a goal which is sabotaged by every public recall and sickness due to contaminated meat. This communication would be woefully incomplete if I failed to mention there is a lack of unanimity amongst USDA personnel on the traceback issue, as well as how to effectively prevent e.coli recurrences. My experience has been that all USDA personnel in Washington D.C., as well as District office personnel in Minneapolis fully support existing policies. This is easily understood, as they want to retain their jobs. However, USDA field personnel agree unanimously with my position. If this issue could be publicly discussed, and all the field personnel subpoenaed (and they want to be), and IF they could be granted whistle blower protection and immunity from retaliation from USDA hierarchy, this nation would be shocked by what is occuring within the USDA. HACCP has major problems, much of which is caused by contradictory instructions from Washington D.C., and USDA's inertia in discontinuing improper policies and adopting common sense, scientific policies, as outlined in this communication. I therefore request Senators Baucus and Burns, and Representative Rehberg to consider sponsoring a hearing on this USDA food safety issue, primarily addressing policies relating to the detection and prevention of food-borne illnesses. If such a hearing were held, I would suggest that all the USDA field personnel who have had any part in the fiasco at Montana Quality Foods since January to attend, plus Dr. Clark from the Minneapolis office, and Bill Smith from Washington D.C. As of last Wednesday, May 1 Mrs. Elsa Murano (USDA Under Secretary) is now aware of the existence of this scenario at my plant and her testimony (and presence) may be extremely useful in forcing a change in policies. I would be more than willing to participate, and I'm sure other entities such as the large packers, American Association of Meat Processors et. al. would participate. Prior notification and attendance of both (1) consumer food safety organizations and (2) news media would be paramount. Realizing that the attendance of all the Montana USDA field personnel at a hearing at the same time would briefly decimate their area staff , a Congressional field hearing in Billings would be most convenient for the USDA, and for me. However, if the congressional delegation chose Washington D.C. or another location, I will be there and hopefully the USDA could appropriate the required travel funds for their staff. I will reiterate what I have told numerous people in the past several months: feel free to quote anything I say, to anyone you desire, at any time, without fear for me or my company. Since this evidence has been made available to so many entities, the USDA must realize that it is not operating in a vacuum of informed citizenry, so any future attempted illegal enforcement actions on its part against Montana Quality Foods will not only be fully documented, but also responded to in an appropriate fashion, and will also be presented to the news media. In short, I have nothing to hide, but everything to expose. The real winners will be the American consumer, working people and businesses. Respectfully yours, John Munsell |