E. coli O157:H7 Outbreak Researchers Study Effect of Distiller's Grains

E. coli O157:H7 outbreak researchers in Nebraska are continuing their study of cattle fed a percentage of wet distillers' grains -- an ingredient already known to lead to greater prevalance of E. coli O157:H7 in manure.

The USDA studies at the agency's Clay Center animal research station are important because the wet distillers' grains are being used as a relatively inexpensive feed supplement in the beef cattle "finishing phase" -- the last 120 to 140 days before slaughter. The grains are a byproduct of corn ethanol manufacturing.

From a food safety perspective, higher levels of E. coli O157:H7 in cattle manure is problematic. It raises the threat that potentially deadly human pathogens will enter the food supply and make people sick with life-threatening hemoloytic uremic syndrome (HUS).  National E. coli lawyers at PritzkerOlsen, P.A., represents victims of E. coli O157:H7 outbreaks and are actively following the study results in hopes that more prevention measures can be developed.

In early experiments with 608 steers, the Clay Center researchers showed that the incidence and prevalence of E. coli O157:H7 in manure, and the incidence on hides, was significantly higher for cattle whose corn-based feed included 40 percent wet distrillers' grains than those whose feed did not include them In follow-up studies, the researches want to determine what causes the difference in E. coli levels, and what can be done to reduce them.

 There's a working hypothesis that the fiber component of hay may scrape the 
gut wall, physically removing the organism and contributing to reduced colonization of E. coli in the intestinal tract. In general, research supports that cattle on grain-based diets shed higher 
levels of generic E. coli in their feces than cattle on a high-forage diet.
E. coli O157:H7 grows harmlessly in the guts of beef cattle and can contaminate cuts of beef during slaughter when manure flakes off hides or knives nick the animals' intestinal tracts. Sample testing for E. coli O157:H7 is mandatory and the U.S. banned the pathogen from ground beef in 1994 because the micro-bugs can survive in under-cooked hamburgers and meatballs, injuring people who eat them..

Lawyer Wins Water E. coli Settlement Just as Fitness Center Outbreak Occurs

E. coli lawyer Elliot Olsen has reached a confidential six-figure settlement for a two-year-old E. coli victim who was sickened by E. coli in well water at her family's rented home in rural Iowa.

For Olsen, the case highlights the need for well owners to frequently test for dangerous pathogens, especially when providing water to others.

The water E. coli settlement in Iowa coincides with a water E. coli outbreak at a fitness center in Jackson, Missouri. 

According to Cape Girardeau County Public Health, there are 7 laboratory-confirmed cases of E. coli O157:H7, all children. In addition, there are 11 other probable infections. The gym in question is the Class Act Family Fitness Center, 2336 County Road 307 in Jackson, which has agreed to cease providing water to its users.
 
Water from the well used by Class Act Family Fitness has tested positive for E. coli, and further testing is being done to determine if it is E. coli O157:H7.
 
In the Iowa case, the little girl developed classic E. coli symptoms and tested positive for E. coli 0157:H7. Health officials confirmed that the tap water at the home contained E. coli but could not confirm that it was the E. coli O157:H7 strain.
The child was hospitalized for a month and put on kidney dialysis as part of the treatment she received for hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS). Although her condition has improved she will have lifelong kidney damage and is at risk for needing a kidney transplant in the future.

HUS can develop in any person with an E. coli O157:H7 infection, but children are the most prone to this life-threatening disease. In Missouri, at least four of the well water E. coli victims were hospitalized.
The owner of the well in the Iowa case denied that his well was contaminated and argued that the girl contracted the bacteria directly from nearby cattle.
 
Mr. Olsen retained world-class expert witnesses, including an environmental engineer and a microbiologist, both from major universities, to examine the terrain, water flow and bacterial testing. They concluded that the bacteria seeped into the well through rainwater runoff contaminated by cattle manure. 

In Iowa and Missouri, Olsen says the well water E. coli illnesses were preventable. He recommends the following testing requirements for well owners who supply water for a business or rental property.

  • Mandatory yearly testing of water for E. coli and other pathogens.
  • Mandatory testing of water if the well has been overtopped by flood water or compromised.
  • Required posting of well water risks near water fountains and water taps.
Attorney Elliot Olsen represents E. coli victims nationwide. He can be reached at 1-888-377-8900 (TOLL FREE) or by completing the contact form on the side of this Web page.

A Modest Proposal: Enough Insurance for Victims

By FRED PRITZKER

Late last summer there was a devastating outbreak of E. coli O111 traced back to the Country Cottage restaurant in Locust Grove, Oklahoma. 341 people were sickened and one person died.

While the source of the outbreak – the restaurant – was quickly identified, the disease-causing organism was not isolated on the restaurant premises or in the food and water served there. Thus, thefinal outbreak report (just released by the Oklahoma State Department of Health) concluded:

"In the absence of isolating the outbreak organism from any environmental specimen, including restaurant surfaces, food, well water and animal feces, or from a restaurant employee who reported diarrheal illness, the original vehicle of contamination could not be determined. The exact mode of spread within the restaurant was not established, however, the epidemic curve and exposure analyses suggests there was ongoing foodborne transmission of E. coli O111:NM to Country Cottage restaurant patrons between August 15 and August 24, 2008."

Not surprisingly, this outbreak created some political fallout in the Sooner state. The state’s attorney general was quoted as saying “they [OSDH] botched the investigation and are very reluctant to admit they botched the investigation.”  He said his own office determined the likely cause of the outbreak was poultry litter that contaminated the restaurant’s well water.  Local politicians and, of course, the poultry industry vigorously dispute the attorney general’s accusations.

What is not in dispute, however, is the fact that E. coli O111 is a virulent pathogen that causes severe illness and death. Also not in dispute is the fact that most of the restaurant patrons will never be fully compensated for the losses they suffered. That’s because although the restaurant had insurance, the amount of the coverage is woefully insufficient to cover the harms and losses sustained by the victims. Do the math: even assuming a liability policy of $1,000,000, the average recovery for an outbreak victim would be under $3,000.

Within a few months of this massive outbreak, the restaurant reopened its doors and presumably is well on the way to building back up its business. That’s probably a good thing, assuming the restaurant owners utilize this tragedy to review and revamp the restaurant’s food safety and sanitation practices.

Of course, the outbreak victims, especially the person who died, don’t have that luxury. Many of them will never recover and even those who do face financial and physical hardship for years to come.

 So the restaurant re-opens, the disease spreading vector is never identified, nobody is held accountable and politicians try to advance their careers. What about the victims?

The Locust Grove tragedy illustrates a number of problems – some insoluble, but some fairly easy to remedy. For example, let’s start requiring food purveyors to carry enough insurance to fairly compensate their customers when the food they sell is adulterated with deadly pathogens.  This should not be hard or prohibitively expensive.

 If the coverage is not available at a fair price in the private sector, let the government underwrite risk pools and excess coverage. There are a plenty of existing programs to model on including flood insurance, crop insurance, vaccine compensation programs, etc.

 Insurance is risk spreading when the risk of harm cannot be eliminated. So why should foodborne illness survivors have to go it alone, especially when they are absolutely blameless for the damage they suffer. If we write off toxic assets, can’t we at least underwrite insurance for victims of toxic food?

Fred Pritzker is founder and president of PritzkerOlsen, P.A., a national food safety law firm that represents victims of all major outbreaks of foodborne illness, including the Country Cottage E. coli 0111 event.  Mr. Pritzker and members of his firm are frequent guests and commentators about food safety issues and have been interviewed by and profiled in a number of media sources including The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, CNN, The Associated Press and CBS News. The firm's telephone number is 1-888-377-8900.