This article was originally published on August 2 by The Midwest Center for Investigative Reporting as part of a series titled “Cracks in the System.”

Salmonella-tainted ground beef could be the biggest challenge facing the industry, said a leading beef researcher.

Scientists have realized they may have misidentified the source of Salmonella in beef cattle. They now realize it may be in the lymphatic system of cattle, making it harder to prevent than E. coli.

As recently as March 2013, Salmonella Typhimurium in ground beef was linked to more than 20 human illnesses in six states.

In September 2012, nearly 50 people in nine states became ill from eating ground beef tainted with Salmonella Enteritidis, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“It was always our working assumption that E. coli interventions should be controlling Salmonella,” said James Marsden, professor of animal science at Kansas State University. “E. coli is transferred from the beef hide to the carcass and works its way through the system. We thought this is what Salmonella did as well.”

Marsden has been writing about the topic for the industry blog, “MeatingPlace.”

“Incidences of E. coli have dropped sharply over the past 10 years, but Salmonella isn’t dropping, which is perplexing,” Marsden added. “And some strains of Salmonella that have been observed in beef are drug-resistant strains, so they pose a public health problem.”

Researchers at Texas Tech University now believe that, unlike E. coli, Salmonella is in the lymphatic system of cattle.

“In 2010, the industry was in a position to start asking questions,” said Guy Loneragan, professor of animal science and lead researcher at Texas Tech University. “We started looking at the lymph nodes, which are internal and exempt from current-prevention techniques.”

USDA standards for Salmonella in ground beef

The rate of Salmonella-positive tests for ground beef increased each year from 2009 to 2011, according to a 2011 report from the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), the food-safety branch of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

The agency has been testing for Salmonella in meat since 1996 when it implemented a plan to test for pathogens and hazards.

The scope and rate of sampling ground-meat products is different than those used for intact products such as whole chickens and turkeys. Any processing plant that produces at least 1,000 pounds of ground beef per day is subject to Salmonella testing.

Processing plants are then prioritized for sampling based on the number of days since its last testing, results of that testing and the product. The groups are then prioritized based on the number of human-health pathogens identified in the sample from prior testing. CDC determines the top 20 human pathogens.

As of May 2013, processors were required to submit 325 grams of ground meat for testing. This is the same amount required for E. coli testing. The amount had previously been lower.

Marsden, the Kansas State expert, said that USDA recalls beef with any level of E. coli because it considers E. coli an adulterant. When the agency finds Salmonella, it doesn’t issue a recall because Salmonella is not classified as an adulterant.

“If USDA decides it is an adulterant, that changes everything,” he said. “That would put this on the front burner and will cause problems for the industry.”

Marsden said there have been citizen requests to USDA to declare Salmonella an adulterant, but the agency has yet to do so.

A new paradigm in Salmonella-beef research

An exploratory study in 2010 found that, during certain times of the year, there was more Salmonella in the lymph nodes of cows. Specifically, the summer and fall and certain Southern regions had higher rates of Salmonella in the lymph nodes. Loneragan, from Texas Tech, believes this could be the avenue by which ground beef is contaminated with Salmonella.

“This is important because lymph nodes are infinitely linked to beef, to ground chuck which is muscle, fat, lymph nodes and veins,” said Loneragan.

Loneragan’s team is looking at what can be done pre-harvest to reduce Salmonella. He said what can be done in a beef packing plant is limited.

“There are many lymph nodes, and it is not practical or achievable to remove them,” said Loneragan. “We have downstream measures and we have upstream measures. Downstream measures would include irradiation or pasteurization. We are focusing upstream, on the live animal.”

Marsden agrees with this view. “It is impossible to remove all the lymph nodes – it isn’t an option,” he said.

Salmonella vaccinations and a diet that includes probiotics or direct-fed microbials are being used to reduce the prevalence of Salmonella in cattle.

Loneragan said that while research is preliminary, the findings are encouraging and warrant further consideration.

Pharmaceutical companies which manufacture animal probiotics are also looking into this topic. One company recently funded a study at Southern Illinois University in Carbondale.

The study was conducted by Amanda Conder, graduate student, and supervised by Rebecca Atkinson, a professor in animal science. Conder was not allowed to share which company funded the research due to a confidentiality agreement.

Conder’s study looked at levels of probiotics fed to cattle in a feedlot environment and the impact on the weight gain of the animal and levels of E. coli, Salmonella and Clostridium perfringens, another pathogen. Specifically, she was trying to determine the cost-effectiveness of using a probiotic for pathogen reduction.

“There are benefits to feeding cattle for 30 days prior to slaughter with direct-fed microbial (probiotic) supplementation at the low- and medium-dose level,” she concluded..

Flies could play a major role in the transmission of Salmonella in beef cattle. Salmonella may live in flies and other insects associated with cattle, swine and poultry operations, Loneragan said.

There are more flies in warmer weather and in warmer locations. This could be the link to a higher rate of Salmonella found in summer and fall seasons and in Southern locations and will continue to be researched.

“Right now, we have a textbook understanding of this, but that is overly simplistic and it is not sufficient to explain the observed ecology,” said Loneragan. “We need to provide a better understanding of Salmonella in livestock populations and this will help us develop more effective controls.”

Beef cattle producers would need to assume responsibility for Salmonella prevention, if Loneragan’s research pans out.

“Producers have to understand that [Salmonella] is already in the animal when it arrives at the feed lot,” said Loneragan. “This cannot be addressed in the slaughter facility; it has to be upstream. The owners may be shipping cattle that have Salmonella in them.”

Atkinson, the animal science professor at Southern Illinois University, said producers could also alter their current transportation methods to reduce stress in cattle. Stress can trigger lymph system activity.

As for vaccines, the costs to a producer have not yet been determined. Probiotic costs could be about $2 per animal for the duration of time it is in a feed lot.

Options for reducing Salmonella

Reduction of Salmonella, not elimination, is the goal, Marsden said, adding that he believes it would be very difficult to get to zero cases of Salmonella or E. coli.

Due to the drug-resistant nature of Salmonella in ground beef, there are few post-slaughter prevention options.

“You would need some form of pasteurization to eliminate it, or irradiation, but I am not a big advocate for it. Consumers are against it. Irradiation has been a dead issue for a few years, but there was discussion about doing it again in a more acceptable manner. It is a possible solution,” Marsden said.

Another possible post-harvest solution would be to treat the ground beef with ammonium hydroxide. This practice of treating ground beef received mostly negative national media attention in 2012.

Ammonium hydroxide is used by Beef Products, Inc., a South Dakota ground-beef processor, in making lean finely textured beef, sometimes referred to as “pink slime.”

“I have done research with BPI for 10 years, and while their main concern was E. coli, we did look at Salmonella as well,” said James Dickson, professor of microbiology and animal science at Iowa State University. “Ammonium hydroxide does control E. coli and Salmonella in ground beef. It doesn’t eliminate it, but it does substantially reduce it.”

Ground beef trimmings were treated with Salmonella, E. coli and other pathogens during Dickson’s research. The ammonium hydroxide-treated beef displayed lower levels of pathogens. Further, when the treated beef was mixed with untreated beef, the new mix also displayed lower levels of pathogens.

Dickson’s research was funded by Beef Products Inc., but he says that didn’t influence the findings.

“Some people have said I have a conflict of interest when reporting what I found since BPI paid for my research,” Dickson said. “I didn’t feel any pressure to say or find anything. In fact, BPI was adamant that I publish the findings no matter what I found. That is unusual in this industry. Most companies want you to sign a confidentiality agreement agreeing not to publish anything.”

Ongoing research and public education

“If meat is prepared properly, Salmonella is neutralized,” Marsden noted. “It can be in steaks and roast, not just in ground beef. But if it is all cooked right, it can be managed.

“We need to continue the pre-harvest research to reduce this in cattle. USDA is looking at this from a public health point of view. If we start to see outbreaks associated with drug-resistant Salmonella, USDA will act,” he added.

“People do eat beef less than well-done. They have done a good job educating the public about Salmonella in chicken and pork, but not in beef,” he said.

Loneragan’s lymph-node research was initially funded as part of a Salmonella working group by the National Cattleman’s Beef Association beef check-off program. The check-off program is a producer-funded marketing and research program.

He later received a grant from the USDA Agricultural Research Service, with additional check-off funding for the 2010 study.

The most recent study was funded by a USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture grant, more beef check-off money and private industry support.

Research on Salmonella in beef is much more recent than E. coli. E. coli was declared an adulterant by USDA in 1993, giving the industry time to study and understand the E. coli transmission and to work on solutions.

“You have to think about where we are at the moment with E. coli, and it is 20 years after a major outbreak,” Loneragan aid. “We are two-and-a-half years into this, and we have already come a long way, but it has been a short time. We have more to learn. We have only just begun to look at the ecology of Salmonella. We need to think about a three-year process to explore this.”

The Midwest Center for Investigative Reporting is an independent, nonprofit newsroom devoted to coverage of agribusiness and related topics such as government programs, environment and energy. Visit them atwww.investigatemidwest.org.

John Miller walks across the lime-covered floor of his chicken barn and steps out a small door into an open field in rural Campbell Hill, IL.

The fenced-in space is about an acre with a small creek and tree line on the other side of the chicken wire. Dozens of his 500 Hy-Line brown laying hens follow him. The temperature is in the low 40s and the wind is gusty, but the hens do not seem to mind.

Miller’s farm just southeast of St. Louis is host to vegetable and strawberry fields and has ample parking set aside for visitors. Miller designed the barn so the chickens could get fresh air and that he would not be embarrassed if people came by to see where their eggs came from.

Two hundred miles north of Miller’s farm, Chet Utterback stands at the end of a row of cages in a windowless, concrete-floored building.

The University of Illinois’ laying barn is home to about 3,000 chickens housed in wire cages. Hens share cages and are allotted 78.8 square inches of space. Each row has three levels of cages with conveyor belts running in front of the pens for food and underneath to collect manure. The bottoms of the pens are slightly angled so that eggs roll out the front of the pens into a collection tray.

The building is one of two that house chickens. Set behind a chain-link fence, both buildings are part of a small, eight-acre complex at the university poultry farm outside of Urbana, IL. Visitors are greeted with signs warning about trespassing and bio-security threats.

One man produces eggs in a free-range and cage-free environment. The other uses a traditional enclosed, caged system. Both men are proud of their operations and believe the egg production practices they use are the best.

There is an ongoing national debate as to which production method is better. Hen housing is the primary focus of proposed federal legislation that would replace current, state-level guidelines for housing and production practices.

Utterback, manager of the University of Illinois poultry farm, thinks cage-free housing could increase the risk of Salmonella Enteritidis.

“With the law that the Humane Society of the United States and United Egg Producers are pushing, for colony enriched housing like they have in Europe, those types of systems cannot be cleaned and can’t be maintained as clean as a conventional cage system,” he said.

Salmonella E. can be transmitted several ways, including through manure. Utterback worries that chickens not housed in conventional cages will scratch through manure and then become infected with Salmonella E.

“People tend to forget the reason we put chickens in cages in the 1950s was not only for the chicken’s welfare but from a human health standpoint,” Utterback says.

But Miller says his cage-free operation is Salmonella-free. As part of a pending contract to supply eggs to Whole Foods in St. Louis, Miller recently conducted voluntary Salmonella E. testing of his free-range, cage-free facility.

“I had to send in five swabs from the barn. I tried to get places like the perch and areas where the birds spend a lot of time,” Miller said. “The test results came back. There was an absence of Salmonella E., so that’s good.”

Miller thinks his eggs are just as safe as any other egg sold today. To him, housing systems are more of an animal-welfare issue.

The Egg Bill

The Egg Bill now in Congress is backed by an odd couple of interests – the Humane Society of the United States and United Egg Producers, the national trade association for the industry.

The egg producers were forced into an alliance with the Humane Society after the latter obtained passage of a series of state laws with strict hen-housing requirements.

The heart of the bill requires transitioning from conventional caged systems to what is called “colony enriched housing.”

“In 2008, the Humane Society of the U.S. got Proposition Two passed in California,” said Chad Gregory, president of United Egg Producers. “Prop Two said that animals should be able to stand up and spread their limbs without touching anything. There are serious implications to the egg industry. If one state has to abide by this and states across the border don’t, producers could move there.”

Enriched colony housing systems provide about twice the space of conventional housing systems. Hens would have a 4-by-12-foot space that offers scratch areas, perches and a nest box. Traditional cages are wire pens with no enrichments. Current guidelines require 72 square inches of space per bird.

“If we can’t pass this bill this year, by January 2015, the California egg industry is out of business,” said Gregory. “If we can’t pass this federal bill, Ohio, the second-largest producing state, and Michigan are out of business by 2020. We want this to pass so we have a future.”

He said the Egg Bill would level the playing field between producers in different states.

“We worked a deal, a partnership, with the Humane Society to stop pushing for state laws. In exchange, we will support going from conventional cages to enriched colony cages within 15 years,” Gregory said.

The 15-year deadline is a negotiated timeline. “We wanted 30 years and they [Humane Society] wanted five. In theory, we settled between the two,” he said.

Utterback repeatedly said that consumers do not understand the ways their food is produced.

“In California, they have ridiculous animal-welfare laws,” he said. “I have worked with poultry for 35 years, and I have never seen a chicken walk around with its wings out, fully extended. You have people passing laws that have no idea what they are doing or the effects of these laws.”

Fighting the compromise

Not all egg producers are backing the compromise.

Egg farmer and pork producer Amon Baer of Minnesota said he decided to set up his own Washington lobbying group to fight the Egg Bill.

Baer hired a D.C. lobbying firm to represent Egg Farmers of America. The firm also represents the National Pork Producers Council, the International Dairy Foods Association, Hormel and many other large agribusiness interests.

Egg Farmers of America issued a statement in February 2013 saying it feels there are both animal and human health concerns associated with enriched colony housing.

One of the group’s press releases cited a report that stated: “Hens in enriched colonies experienced increased leg and wing fractures.” The release also cited a study that indicated Salmonella E. was transmitted at a higher rate in hens not housed in conventional cage systems.

“I read an article that said Americans want a 100-percent full-proof, safe food supply and that is the most ludicrous thing I have ever heard of. There is no such thing,” Utterback said.

However, he acknowledged, “It all boils down to good management practices in any type of housing system.”

The costs of change

Utterback also mentioned his concern about the costs incurred by producers to adopt new housing systems. He worries this would make eggs too expensive for consumers.

But Gregory of United Egg Producers thinks the costs will be manageable.

“The cost to producers would be for the equipment,” he said. “There are 285 million laying hens in the U.S. and 96 percent are in conventional cages. Producers would already be spending around $6 billion in 15 years to maintain the conventional equipment.”

The total cost to the egg industry for the enriched colony housing would be an additional $4 billion. Gregory said if the bill is passed, consumers could expect to pay about 10 cents more per dozen eggs.

But Egg Farmers of America does not agree with that projection. The group cites an economic impact study conducted by the United Soybean Board that indicates a 25-percent increase in consumer cost.

Another aspect of the Egg Bill would be to establish guidelines on induced molting of hens. Hens stop producing eggs and their ovaries “rest” and reset during a molt. Allowing a hen to molt will extend her egg-producing years. The average hen will go through at least one, and probably two, molts while in production.

Producers now use “feed-through” programs designed to reduce stress on the hen and thus reduce colonization of Salmonella E. in the bird. Regulating light exposure is still used. For example, both Utterback and Miller have timers in place to regulate the number of hours of light in their laying barns.

The Egg Bill would ensure the use of molting methods approved by animal-welfare groups such as the Humane Society.

Two approaches to egg production

Animal-welfare issues and views on consumer choice divide producers.

“The birds get more exercise and the air quality is better,” said Miller. “Customers want specialty eggs. I can’t compete with a guy who has 10,000 chickens, and that’s fine. I am here for the people who want a direct connection with where their eggs come from.”

Miller is a new producer. His custom-designed barn was constructed in 2012 for about $25,000. He kept costs down by doing most of the construction with his oldest son.

The barn has several special features to keep the chickens comfortable year-round. The barn is covered with thick, white plastic. Each side can roll up several feet to allow in fresh air. The sides have an inner wire wall to keep chickens in when the sides are up.

The thermostat is set to control the air temperature in the barn. Cooling fans and the adjustable sides automatically engage as the temperature changes.

Miller’s hens started laying at the end of September 2012. He gets more than 450 eggs a day from his cage-free, free-range flock.  He is considering trying to become certified organic, but acknowledged it is a long process.

His hens lay eggs in individual nests that have a plastic flap in front for privacy. Eggs roll out the back into a collection tray. There are perches in front of the nests, covered with chicken manure. This is one of the areas Miller said he made sure to swab as part of his Salmonella testing.

Miller said that his chickens do run for cover when a large bird flies over. His hens usually hide in the barn or another small shed inside the fenced area when this happens.

Using a homemade light box constructed of plywood, Miller candles all eggs as required by law before packaging them. His egg wash and packaging station is set up in his garage between the family’s deep freeze and carriage.

Eggs are stored across the road in a stand-alone refrigeration unit set between his strawberry patch and a field where vegetables grow in the summer. A small building sits next to the cooling unit. Miller uses the building for administrative work when visitors come to the farm to pick berries or buy vegetables.

“I can’t commercially supply eggs to feed the world. Prices would be too high” he said. “But there is a market for this type of egg. I think there is a place for everybody [producers].”

Miller was also open to showing any part of his operation to visitors. He had no concerns about photos being taken anywhere in his barn or of any of his birds. “I have nothing to hide,” he said.

Utterback, however, was quite concerned about photos taken in his University of Illinois facility. He said photos can be taken out of context and, if people don’t understand the industry, they might interpret something as mistreatment.

“The only reason you were allowed in here is because I am a part of a public teaching institution. You would not have been allowed on another farm because of bio-security,” Utterback said.

He later added, “I hate sneaky people. Unscrupulous animal-rights people challenging the food industry have made it hard to trust people and tougher on people to get access to places like this.”

Birds at both farms were missing feathers. Miller and Utterback agreed that is just part of having chickens housed together in any system.

The University of Illinois facility was completed in 2007 with a $3.2-million price tag. In addition to the breeding and laying hens, the farm has a small flock set aside for ovarian cancer research.

Visitors allowed access to the laying barns must cover their shoes with booties so as not to track in foreign substances. If a person had been in contact with other poultry prior to visiting, they would be required to put on a full protective suit.

The primary laying barn has a small area for administrative work and supply storage. Off that room there is a large cooler where eggs are stored. In the cooler, there were several pallets of cased eggs sorted by destination.

Some of the eggs will be sold direct to consumers as part of the University of Illinois fresh egg sells program. Eggs that had been cracked or that did not meet standards would be shipped to a processing plant. “Breaker” plants take shell eggs, break them and then convert them into a processed or pasteurized egg product.

The clucking of 3,000 hens is overwhelming when you enter the room of cages. The area is clean and the floors clear, but there is still a very distinct odor in the air.

A student worker walks through the aisles gathering the eggs out of the collection trays. The poultry farm employees around 10 student workers and two full-time employees.

Utterback demonstrates how food is distributed on the conveyor belt in front of the cages. Hens group to the front of the cage when they hear the belt turned on. Water dispensers run along the back side of each cage.

“A chicken’s brain is the size of its eyeball,” Utterback said. “That isn’t too big. They don’t care they are in cages. They actually feel safer in here. They don’t have to worry about being attacked.”

“A great deal of egg farmers left in the U.S. produce under a variety of systems; it is all about consumer choices,” Gregory said. “Most producers don’t think negatively about any system because they market eggs from all of them.”

Paul Patterson, professor of poultry science at Pennsylvania State University, said there is conflicting data about the safety of colony enriched housing and free-range systems.

“It is a wash,” said Patterson. “It [non-conventional systems] gives the hens more space, but it increases fecal exposure, which cages would keep them out of.”

More production differences

“A lot of times people think big is bad. In this case, it isn’t bad at all,” Gregory added. “The larger producers have the resources and expertise in the area of food safety. Small farms don’t have the resources to do this.”

He also said that, as with most sectors of agriculture, the egg industry has seen a consolidation of farms.

“Larger farms, larger companies with more sophisticated equipment, are in place today. In 1976, there were 10,000 commercial egg producers in the U.S., and now there are less than 200. Producers that had food safety and animal or environmental issues have gone out of business,” he said.

Patterson said the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which has jurisdiction over shell egg inspections, is now challenged with how to handle free-range producers.

“Access to the outdoors is a huge challenge to bio-security and a greater challenge from vermin and other birds,” he said.

Both can be predators of the hens, as well as possible Salmonella carriers.

“There are yuppie consumers who have helped create niche markets for types of eggs,” Patterson said. “There are a lot of options for eggs: cage-free, organic, Omega 3…not all are well-defined. Organic would be the one that is.”

For eggs to be labeled organic, the producer must register with the Agricultural Marketing Service and complete the certification process. This can take as long as three years and requires a great deal of paperwork on the part of the producer.

Utterback has concerns about the safety of eggs produced in any system other than traditional caged systems. He cites the increased access to manure as a main reason and also feels that smaller producers are not as well-regulated.

Suzanne Moss, director of the Egg Inspection Program for the State of Illinois, said that all producers in the state, regardless of production method or number of hens, are licensed and regulated.

Moss said the state does not have its own requirements for organic farms, which are certified by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. However, anyone who produces or distributes eggs in the state must have an Illinois license to do so.

Inspectors from Moss’ office travel to the production and distribution sites to inspect prior to the original licensure and then on an annual basis.

Moss further noted that applications have gone up each year, and there are now more than 1,100 large and small licensed producers in the state.

“More people are dealing in eggs,” said Moss. “Some have backyard flocks, but there are also more full-time producers. That speaks to the growth in the market for eggs.”

The Midwest Center for Investigative Reporting is an independent, nonprofit newsroom devoted to coverage of agribusiness and related topics such as government programs, environment and energy. Visit them atwww.investigatemidwest.org.

This article was originally published on July 31 by The Midwest Center for Investigative Reporting as part of a series titled “Cracks in the System.”

In August 2010, Wright County Egg of Galt, IA, announced a nationwide voluntary recall of shell eggs. Later that month, another Iowa farm owned by Wright County Egg conducted a nationwide recall as well.

Iowa is home to more than 52 million laying hens and is the number-one egg producing state. Wright County Egg and Hillandale Farms were owned by DeCoster Egg Farms, which operated facilities in multiple states at the time. At the time of the recall, DeCoster was the third-largest egg producer in the United States.

After several illnesses had been linked to DeCoster eggs, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration collected multiple environmental samples from the Iowa farms to test for Salmonella strains. Salmonella-positive samples were collected from manure, as well as from traffic areas such as walkways, equipment, other surfaces, and from the feed mill at Wright County Egg.

The feed was provided to pullets (young hens) and older hens raised at the facilities. Pullets were distributed to all premises at Wright County Egg and Hillandale Farms. A positive sample also was collected from egg water wash in a packing facility at Hillandale Farms.

These findings indicated that Wright County Egg and Hillandale Farms were the likely sources of the contaminated shell eggs. FDA did not find that the contaminated feed was distributed to any companies other than Wright County Egg and Hillandale Farms.

Recalled eggs had been distributed to grocery distribution centers, retail grocery stores and food service companies located in 14 states: Arkansas, California, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, Texas and Wisconsin.

Three months later, in November 2010, another recall was announced, this time affecting nearly 290,000 eggs shipped from Ohio Fresh Eggs in Croton, OH, to Cal-Maine Foods Inc., the nation’s largest egg producer and distributor. Ohio is the nation’s number-two egg-producing state, with 28 million layers being housed there.

More than 90 percent of the egg cartons containing the adulterated eggs carried the U.S. Department of Agriculture grade mark for quality.

Agricultural Marketing Service was not notified by either FDA or the egg company about a Salmonella E. positive test. Rather, officials learned of the recall from the FDA Website, according to a 2012 federal audit by the USDA’s Office of Inspector General.

The report said that a federal inspector at one of the egg-laying facilities involved in the recall learned of the positive test after the egg-laying barn had been emptied and was being disinfected. The eggs had been shipped.

At the receiving location, this led to the grade mark being applied without the Agricultural Marketing Service worker there knowing of the positive test or recall at the laying barn.

In the wake of a criminal investigation and civil lawsuits, DeCoster Egg Farms closed its doors in 2011. Centrum Valley Farms has leased the Iowa properties involved in the 2010 recall.

The head of DeCoster Egg Farms, Austin “Jack” DeCoster, and his son Peter, testified before the U.S. House of Representatives Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations in September 2010.

No federal charges have been filed against DeCoster; however, there were more than 100 civil lawsuits filed against the egg company by people who were sickened by the contaminated eggs. The DeCosters said very little during the recall due to the pending litigation.

DeCoster was not a stranger to the courtroom. According to multiple online articles, DeCoster and other company employees were convicted in 2003 for hiring illegal immigrant workers and charged with bribing a USDA inspector in 2010. DeCoster also paid more than $130,000 to settle an animal cruelty case at a Maine farm.

Safety not a factor in inspections for egg quality

The 2010 recall of more than 500 million shell eggs illustrates the lack of communication and coordination among federal agencies involved in the egg-inspection process. It also demonstrates the confusing structure of the system that provides authority and establishes which agencies have oversight when it comes to egg safety.

The three different offices of the U.S. Department of Agriculture – Agricultural Marketing Service, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service and the Food and Safety Inspection Service – were not communicating with each other or the department’s general counsel, a 2012 audit found.

And the Agriculture Department was not communicating well with the independent FDA, which had been given lead authority for egg safety.

Shortly after the August 2010 recall, an Ohio-based producer recalled more than 280,000 eggs – of which 90 percent contained the official USDA grade mark for quality. Likewise, so did most of the half a billion eggs recalled in August 2010.

“We look strictly at the quality of the egg, not the safety,” said Sam Jones, a spokesman for Agricultural Marketing Service. “Safety inspection of the egg is the responsibility of either FDA or FSIS.”

A 2012 federal audit by USDA’s Office of Inspector General – released in December – questioned the standards used by Jones’ office when applying the grade mark for quality to egg cartons. It handles the grading of eggs as “Grade A” or “Jumbo,” for example.

Larger egg producers, about one-third of the industry, pay Agricultural Marketing Service to provide onsite certification personnel. Jones is quick to clarify that the USDA grade mark for quality is just that – for quality.

Quality, according to Jones’ office, is reflected in the size, appearance and condition of the egg. An egg containing Salmonella E. could still be marked as grade AA and certified by quality inspectors.

However, the audit asserts that the grade mark is also an indication that the eggs are “fit for human food” and that Agricultural Marketing Service practices should be updated.

The Midwest Center for Investigative Reporting is an independent, nonprofit newsroom devoted to coverage of agribusiness and related topics such as government programs, environment and energy. Visit them at www.investigatemidwest.org.