Salinas-based produce supplier Taylor Fresh Foods faces lawsuits from nine casualties in the November E. coli outbreak, which has not been made public.
The outbreak that killed at least one person and made at least 88 sick was linked to romaine lettuce and spanned at least 15 states, including Missouri and Indiana.
Federal agents chased the case to a single grower, but the Food and Drug Administration did not reveal their names.
Details of the investigation came to light only after several affected parties, including the parents of the 10-year-old victim, filed a lawsuit earlier this month claiming Taylor’s fresh food and Taylor Farm California.
In a Times statement Thursday, Taylor Farm denied it was the source of the E. coli outbreak and said it “is taking all legal action into consideration to protect itself.”
“We performed extensive raw and finished product tests on all our products and there was no evidence of contamination,” the supplier said, adding that their produce will be processed using a USDA verification cleaning system.
In a federal lawsuit filed last week against Taylor Fresh Foods and Taylor Farms California, Indiana residents Amber and Chris George alleged that their nine-year-old son Colton George became seriously ill and was hospitalized after eating romaine lettuce by a California producer.
He was later diagnosed with hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS), a life-threatening kidney condition, from an E. coli strain confirmed by genetic testing to match other cases in the development.
The boy’s condition forced him to undergo dialysis for two weeks, including his 10th birthday, the complaint said.
Georges demanded that Taylor Farm be paid medical costs for his son amid other damages, such as “loss of enjoyment of life” and “mental distress.”
Taylor Farms products were previously linked to another E. coli outbreak in October. The supplier voluntarily remembered the onion product breakdown, and the FDA warned the public about the contaminated yellow onions served at McDonald’s burgers.
This time, the FDA said “there was no public communication related to this outbreak,” according to an internal report obtained by NBC.
The FDA also said in a statement to NBC that it “names businesses only if there is sufficient evidence to link out the outbreak to the company and there is no legal ban on naming the company, and there is only practical advice to consumers.
“By the time investigators confirmed possible sources, the outbreak was already over and there was no practical advice for consumers,” the agency said.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention wrote in a letter from the previous month that the outbreak had ended.
Representatives from the FDA and CDC did not respond to requests for comment.
Bill Mahler, an attorney representing the nine victims suing Taylor Farm, said he has revealed extensive evidence pointing to suppliers as the outbreak. Mahler said he got the bill from St. Louis Cataler, who lists Taylor Farms as a seller.
“If FDA does what’s normal, everything can be very cleared. This gives an entity a name when it’s glued to it.
Mahler said that E. coli O157:H7, a particular strain of E. coli that caused it, was particularly hindered by the FDA’s decision not to publish this occurrence or its source, as it was associated with some prior occurrences.
“It tells you that there is some kind of systematic problem in the growing environment,” the lawyer said.
“If you ignore that and say, ‘Well, the outbreak is over, we don’t need to say anything,’ he said, ‘What incentives do companies stop growing there?”
Gerold Mande, an adjunct professor of nutrition at Harvard School of Public Health and a former senior adviser to the FDA Commissioner, said that even if contaminated products are out of circulation by the time the source is identified, consumers still have the right to know about contamination.
“Previous companies’ records show what people might expect in the future, so consumers should have that information,” Mande said.
Mande said the FDA has historically not been transparent and he fears that recent cuts in communications staff at the agency will exacerbate the issue.
“The current administration, which has been stressing about radical transparency over and over again, should certainly do more to let consumers know what’s going on in these cases,” he said.
Darrin Detwiler, a food safety expert and associate professor at Northeastern University’s Specialist Research University, said it’s important for consumers as well as other companies to know when contamination will occur.
Under the Food Safety Modernization Act, food facilities should have food safety plans that outline how they can counter pollution risks and other food safety hazards. Detwiler said these plans usually include a latent-radical model, measuring the likelihood of potential outcomes.
“If a company is supposed to put together a plan to strengthen likelihoods and you don’t know that your competitors (products, industries) have these issues, how are you supposed to get a good grasp of this idea of likelihood and severity and act on it?” Detwiler said.
Source link
