Personal Injury Law

The ongoing battle against non-O157 E. coli

By Bill Marler, Esq.

Dina ElBoghdady from the Washington Post wrote again on the ongoing process to list pathogens that sicken over 100,000 a year in the U.S. as adulterants – 'USDA to test beef for more strains of E. coli.'

For those readers of my blog (thanks mom), I have taken up much space – even more than raw milk – on these pages in an effort to get certain additional E. coli's deemed adulterants in the eyes of the USDA/FSIS.  If you type in the word 'Petition' into the search bar above you can track my history on the issue or read – 'It is past time for the USDA/FSIS to deem "the Big Six" E. coli as adulterants' and all the attached links.  So, it likely comes as no surprise that I found myself in the Washington Post this morning:

Bill Marler, a Seattle lawyer who had represented victims of the Jack in the Box outbreak, was not satisfied. He petitioned the USDA to ban dozens of E. coli strains from the food supply. In support, he detailed the case of Maryland woman who died after eating bagged baby spinach, a Utah woman who suffered permanent kidney damage after eating a fast-food meal, and an Oklahoma woman who also suffered kidney failure. Marler said each victim had been infected by a different E. coli strain.

However, where this issue is did not come about because of my petition.  There were good scientists at the CDC and at FSIS - Dr. Hagen and Dr. Raymond - consumer groups like CSPI, STOP, CFI, Consumer Federation, PEW, and yes, industry leaders like BPI (of 'pink slime' fame), Costco - and many unnamed – who stepped up and said the time had come.

Now, let's make sure that the June 8, 2012 start date stays.  OMB, we are watching.

As the mother of one child said. 'If these tests save just one life, isn't it worth it?'

Full post as published by Marler Blog on May 12, 2012 (boomark / email).