Salmonella outbreak traced to DeCoster company

The name behind the recent salmonella outbreak that has sickened hundreds is a familiar one in western Maine.

Iowa's Wright County Egg, the source of the outbreak, is owned by Jack DeCoster, who has been cited for numerous health, safety and employment violations in the past.

Hundreds of millions of eggs have already been recalled from Wright County Egg as federal health officials try to curb the outbreak. But experts fear the worst may be yet to come – illnesses occurring after mid-July may not be reported yet, said Dr. Christopher Braden, an epidemiologist with the federal Centers for Disease Control.

The recall of 380 million eggs from Wright County Egg is one of the largest shell egg recalls in recent history. The company is already facing at least two lawsuits related to the recall. One is from food distributor Dutch Farms, which says the company used unauthorized cartons to package and sell eggs under its brand name without its knowledge. The other is from a person who said they became ill after eating tainted eggs in a salad at a restaurant in Kenosha, Wis.

What further troubles the outbreak might cause for DeCoster remains to be seen.

In 1997, his DeCoster Egg Farms agreed to pay $2 million in fines to settle citations brought in 1996 for health and safety violations at DeCoster's farm in Turner. He has also been disciplined over allegations of unsafe working conditions, environmental violations, the harassment of workers and the hiring of illegal immigrants.

Almost 2,000 illnesses from the strain of salmonella linked to the eggs were reported between May and July, about 1,300 more than usual, he said. No deaths have been reported. The CDC is continuing to receive information from state health departments as people report their illnesses.

"I would anticipate that we will be seeing more illnesses reported likely as a result of this outbreak," said Braden.

The outbreak could have been prevented if new rules to ensure egg safety had been in place a few months earlier, an FDA spokeswoman said.

The rules, which require producers to do more testing for salmonella and take other precautions, went into effect in July. They had languished for more than a decade after President Bill Clinton first proposed that egg standards be toughened. The FDA said in July that the new safeguards could reduce the number of salmonella cases by nearly 60 percent.

"There are preventive measures that would have been in place that could have prevented this," said Sherri McGarry of the FDA's Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition.

She and other officials declined to say what specific measures would have prevented this particular outbreak, citing an ongoing FDA investigation.

Hinda Mitchell, a spokeswoman for the company, said it abided by guidance issued by the United Egg Producers, an industry group. Those procedures mirror several aspects of the federal egg safety rule.

FDA's McGarry said illnesses were traced back to eggs produced on three of five farms the Iowa company owns. The investigation, which includes sampling, records review and sanitation assessments, is focusing on those three farms.

Salmonella is the most common form of food poisoning from bacteria, and the strain involved in the outbreak is the most common kind of salmonella — accounting for roughly 20 percent of all such food poisonings.

Minnesota, a state with some of the best food-borne illness investigators in the country, has tied at least seven salmonella illnesses to the eggs. California has reported 266 illnesses since June and believes many are related to the eggs. Colorado saw 28 cases in June and July, about four times the usual number.

Other states have seen a jump in reports of the same type of salmonella. Spikes or clusters of suspicious cases have also been reported in Arizona, Illinois, Nevada, North Carolina, Texas and Wisconsin.

The CDC said investigations by 10 states since April have identified 25 cases in restaurants where more than one person became ill. Preliminary information showed that Wright was the supplier in at least 15 of those.

Much of the investigation so far has been centered on restaurants in California, Colorado, Minnesota and North Carolina.

The eggs were distributed around the country and packaged under the names Lucerne, Albertson, Mountain Dairy, Ralph's, Boomsma's, Sunshine, Hillandale, Trafficanda, Farm Fresh, Shoreland, Lund, Dutch Farms and Kemp.

The outbreak also raised new questions about which federal agency is responsible for inspecting egg farms.

FDA's McGarry told reporters Thursday that the agency "does not have an inspectional history with this firm," citing jurisdictional issues. When asked who does have jurisdiction, McGarry pointed to the Agriculture Department. Yet USDA oversees voluntary grading inspections, but does not test for salmonella in shell eggs.

McGarry did not elaborate on why FDA does not have jurisdiction to inspect the farms even though it is supposed to oversee shell eggs. FDA did not return calls and emails asking for clarification on the matter.

Caroline Smith DeWaal, food safety director for the Center for Science in the Public Interest, said the egg recall shows that stronger authority is needed on the farm.

"Jurisdiction over eggs has been scrambled between numerous government agencies for the last 20 years, resulting in enormous delays in addressing the hazard posed by salmonella," she said.

Legislation that would increase the frequency of FDA inspections has stalled in the Senate after the House passed it a year ago.

The most common symptoms of salmonella are diarrhea, abdominal cramps and fever within eight hours to 72 hours of eating a contaminated product. It can be life-threatening, especially to those with weakened immune systems.

The form of salmonella tied to the outbreak can be passed from chickens that appear healthy. And it grows inside eggs, not just on the shell, Braden noted.

Thoroughly cooking eggs can kill the bacteria. But health officials are recommending people throw away or return the recalled eggs.

————

Stay informed — Get the news delivered for free in your inbox.

I'm interested in ...

In order to make comments, you must verify your account.

In order to comment on SunJournal.com, you must use your real name and include the town in which you live in your profile. A member of our staff will call you to verify this information. To join in, fill out your user profile completely and check the box "please verify my status." We'll get back to you within one business day to verify your account.

Login or create an account here.

Our policy prohibits comments that are:

  • Defamatory, abusive, obscene, racist, or otherwise hateful
  • Excessively foul and/or vulgar
  • Inappropriately sexual
  • Baseless personal attacks or otherwise threatening
  • Contain illegal material, or material that infringes on the rights of others
  • Commercial postings attempting to sell a product/item
If you violate this policy, your comment will be removed and your account may be banned.

Advertisement

Displaying comments, from newest to oldest

Robert OReilly's picture

"Jurisdiction over eggs has

"Jurisdiction over eggs has been scrambled"

+10 points for awesome pun

G.'s picture
verified

The best way to put this

The best way to put this company out of business is to simply stop buying products from him but I fear that would be a major undertaking considering how many different companies this guy is affiliated with.

Still, that's how it should be done; this talk of having the government shut him down sickens me and it should do the same to every American.

We have drifted so far from our founding father's beliefs that it's no surprise that people would want the government to step in.

Remember we reap what we sew!

seekingthetruth's picture

Thank you G.

That's exactly what I was trying to get across.

I don't approve of Decoster any more than anybody else, but I do believe he has a right to own and operate a business no matter how much we dislike him.

WideStanceRepublican's picture

Time to go

A few mistakes running a business of that scale is understandable, but willful breaking of the law means DeCoster should be chained inside one of his chickenhouses for a year or until he agrees to no longer break the law. He is a bastard and is getting his comeuppance.

seekingthetruth's picture

Chained in a chicken house?

What statute would you charge him with that would allow a sentence of being "chained inside one of his chickenpoxes for a year"? I have never heard of that law.

Do you think that being emotional and irrational really help this situation?

WideStanceRepublican's picture

Chickenhouse

He should get treated the way he treats his workers.

seekingthetruth's picture

Decoster's workers have a choice

They are not forced to work there. They are there by choice.

"He should get treated the way he treats his workers"

OK, now tell me how you would go about doing that. Like I said, show me a law that he is breaking where the punishment is either being "chained up in one of his chickenhouses for a year" or "He should get treated the way he treats his workers"

I am really interested in the sources for you reasoning, especially the statutes that allow the feds to "confiscate" all of his property.

Please provide the statutes/legislation to support your statements.

cynthia's picture
verified

DeCoster

Why is this man allowed to stay in business!

seekingthetruth's picture

Free Enterprise

Who can close him? Can the government just say "we don't like how you do business so we are going to close you down"? No, they can't.

They can keep on fining him for illegal business practices but they can't close him down. Decoster will stay in business, and keep paying fines as long as people buy his products. When people stop buying his products and he can no longer afford to operate his business, then he will close it down. This is free enterprise and he has the right to stay in business as long as he wants to.

This is not the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany, and our government cannot just close him down just because we don't like the way he does business.

I am not defending Decoster, (I don't like his operation either), all I am defending is his right to have a business whether we like it or not.

I ask you, if you believe that he shouldn't be "allowed to stay in business", just how would you close him down?

WideStanceRepublican's picture

Easy answer to easy question

"if you believe that he shouldn't be "allowed to stay in business", just how would you close him down?"

Easy have the Feds confiscate all his properties for his multiple infractions of the law. Sell each operation off to a company/farmer who has some morals.

seekingthetruth's picture

Confiscate?

What law on the books allows the feds to do this? And what law would Decoster have to violate to warrant such a confiscation?

Be specific, I want to know what statue gives the feds the right to do this?

You folks are willing to ignore the rights we have in this country in order to punish those we don't like. What happens when your rights get ignored?

Again, show me the statutes that give the feds or the courts the right to do this.

tron's picture

he has the support of the

wacko right wing christians, isn't it obvious?

Advertisement