December 29, 2009

Another massive beef recall follows suspected E. Coli

by Dane Johnson

AP is reporting another Class I recall of about 248,000 pounds of beef that may be contaminated with E. Coli bacteria. According to National Steak and Poultry, the processor, the recalled meat could be linked to illnesses in six states. The E. Coli strain involved is apparently one that has caused large-scale outbreaks of life-threatening illness via contaminated food and water. A similar recall involving processor Fairbank Farms was issued earlier in 2009

A Class I recall is issued in only the most serious cases of risk of personal injury or death. The U.S. Department of Agriculture Food Safety and Inspection Service (“FSIS”) describes the E. Coli strain that may be contaminating the recalled meat as “a potentially deadly bacterium that can cause bloody diarrhea, dehydration, and in the most severe cases, kidney failure.” FSIS advises all consumers to safely prepare their raw meat products, including fresh and frozen, and only consume ground beef or ground beef patties that have been cooked to a temperature of 160° F. The government agency notes that the only way to be sure ground beef is cooked to a high enough temperature to kill harmful bacteria is to use a food thermometer to measure the internal temperature.

If you have yet adopted a vegan or vegetarian lifestyle, you should be aware that the meat recall includes the following products:

National Steak and Poultry Recalled Meat Products

  • 4-ounce “NATIONAL STEAK AND POULTRY BONELESS BEEF SIRLOIN STEAK,” with an identifying case code of “SC68408.”
  • 6-ounce “NATIONAL STEAK AND POULTRY BONELESS BEEF SIRLOIN STEAK,” with an identifying case code of “SP680608.”
  • 8-ounce “NATIONAL STEAK AND POULTRY BONELESS BEEF SIRLOIN STEAK,” with an identifying case code of “SC68808”
  • 9-ounce “NATIONAL STEAK AND POULTRY BONELESS BEEF SIRLOIN STEAK,” with an identifying case code of “SC68908.”
  • “NATIONAL STEAK AND POULTRY BONELESS BEEF TIPS,” with an identifying case code of “69108.”
  • “NATIONAL STEAK AND POULTRY BONELESS BEEF SIRLOIN STEAK” with an identifying case code of “XXSP68008.”
  • “NATIONAL STEAK AND POULTRY SAVORY SIRLOIN TIPS” with an identifying case code of “XX69008.”
  • 5-ounce “NATIONAL STEAK AND POULTRY BACON WRAPPED BEEF FILLET,” with an identifying case code of “23508.”
  • “NATIONAL STEAK AND POULTRY USDA SELECT BEEF SHOULDER MARINATED TENDER MEDALLIONS” with an identifying case code of “23289.”
  • “NATIONAL STEAK AND POULTRY 75% BONELESS BEEF TRIMMINGS,” with an identifying case code of “33575.”
  • “NATIONAL STEAK AND POULTRY BEEF TRIMMINGS,” with an identifying case code of “36545.”
  • “NATIONAL STEAK AND POULTRY BEEF SIRLOIN PHILLY STEAK,” with an identifying case code of “88008.”
  • 4-ounce “EGN BONELESS BEEF SIRLOIN STEAK,” with an identifying case code of “680425.”
  • 7-ounce “EGN BONELESS BEEF SIRLOIN TRI TIP STEAK,” with an identifying case code of “69725.”
  • 9-ounce “EGN BONELESS BEEF SIRLOIN TRI TIP STEAK,” with an identifying case code of “680925.”
  • 7-ounce “KRM BONELESS BEEF SIRLOIN STEAK,” with an identifying case code of “680715.”
  • 9-ounce “KRM BONELESS BEEF SIRLOIN STEAK,” with an identifying case code of “680915.”
  • 12-ounce “KRM BONELESS BEEF SIRLOIN STEAK,” with an identifying case code of “680215.”
  • 8-ounce “CARINO’S BONELESS BEEF OUTSIDE SKIRT STEAK,” with an identifying case code of “130874.”
  • “CARINO’S BONELESS BEEF OUTSIDE SKIRT STEAK PIECES,” with an identifying case code of “13074.”
  • “MOE’S BEEF STEAK,” with an identifying case code of “78027.”

Each package bears a label with the establishment number “EST. 6010T” inside the USDA mark of inspection, respective case codes cited above, and packaging dates of “10/12/2009,” “10/13/2009,” “10/14/2009,” or “10/21/2009.” These products were shipped to restaurants nationwide.

Fairbank Farms Recalled Meat Products

Trader Joes

  • 1-pound packages of “TRADER JOE’S BUTCHER SHOP FINE QUALITY MEATS GROUND BEEF 85/15.”
  • 1-pound packages of “TRADER JOE’S BUTCHER SHOP FINE QUALITY MEATS GROUND BEEF 80/20.” NOTE: The sell-by dates for the above two products may be October 6 or 7, 2009.
  • 1-pound trays of “TRADER JOE’S BUTCHER SHOP FINE QUALITY MEATS GROUND BEEF PATTIES 96/4 EXTRA LEAN.”
  • 1-pound trays of “TRADER JOE’S BUTCHER SHOP FINE QUALITY MEATS GROUND BEEF PATTIES 85/15.”

Price Chopper

  • 1- and 2.5-pound trays of “PRICE CHOPPER MEATLOAF & MEATBALL MIX.”
  • 1-pound trays of “PRICE CHOPPER EXTRA LEAN GROUND BEEF 96/4.”
  • 1-pound trays of “PRICE CHOPPER FRESH GROUND BEEF CHUCK FOR CHILI 80% LEAN 20% FAT.”

Lancaster and Wild Harvest

  • 1-pound trays of “LANCASTER BRAND 96/4 EXTRA LEAN GROUND BEEF.”
  • 1- and 2-pound trays of “LANCASTER BRAND 90/10 GROUND BEEF.”
  • 1-pound trays of “WILD HARVEST NATURAL 85/15 ANGUS GROUND BEEF.”

Shaw’s

  • 1- and 2-pound trays of “SHAW’S FRESH GROUND BEEF 93/7.”
  • 1-, 2- and 3-pound trays of “SHAW’S FRESH GROUND BEEF 80/20.”
  • 1- and 3-pound trays of “SHAW’S FRESH GROUND BEEF 75/25.”
  • 1.3-pound trays of “SHAW’S FRESH GROUND SIRLOIN BEEF PATTIES 90/10.”
  • 1.3-pound trays of “SHAW’S FRESH GROUND ROUND BEEF PATTIES 85/15.”
  • 1.3-pound trays of “SHAW’S FRESH GROUND BEEF PATTIES 80/20.”
  • 3-pound trays of “SHAW’S FRESH GROUND BEEF PATTIES FAMILY PACK 80/20.”
  • 1-pound trays of “SHAW’S ANGUS GROUND BEEF 85/15.”
  • 1-, 2- and 3-pound trays of “SHAW’S FRESH GROUND ROUND BEEF 85/15.”
  • 1-pound trays of “SHAW’S 90% NATURAL GROUND BEEF.”
  • 1-pound trays of “SHAW’S 85% NATURAL GROUND BEEF.”
  • 1-, 2- and 3-pound trays of “SHAW’S FRESH GROUND SIRLOIN 90/10.”
  • 1-pound trays of “MEATLOAF & MEATBALL MIX.”

BJ’s

  • 5-pound trays of “FRESH GROUND BEEF, CONTAINS 15 % FAT” patties.
  • 3- and 5-pound trays of “LEAN GROUND BEEF, CONTAINS 7% FAT.”
  • 2.5-pound trays of “MEATLOAF & MEATBALL MIX.”

Ford Brothers

  • 3-pound trays of “FRESH GROUND BEEF, CONTAINS 20% FAT” patties.

Giant

  • 1-pound trays of “GIANT EXTRA LEAN GROUND BEEF 96/4.”
  • 1-pound trays of “GIANT MEATLOAF & MEATBALL MIX.”
  • 1-pound trays of “GIANT NATURE’S PROMISE GROUND BEEF.”
  • 1-pound trays of “GIANT NATURE’S PROMISE GROUND BEEF PATTIES.”

Each package bears the establishment number “EST. 492″ inside the USDA mark of inspection or on the nutrition label. These products were packaged on September 15 and 16, 2009, and may have been labeled at the retail stores with a sell-by date from September 19 through 28, 2009, unless otherwise noted above. Consumers should ask at their point of purchase if the products they have are subject to recall.

If you or loved ones have symptoms of E. Coli infection after consuming meat products, Portland Oregon personal injury lawyer and animal law attorney Dane E. Johnson can assess whether you may have a legal claim. We are also happy to provide free information on switching to a vegan diet. Contact us toll free for a no-cost, no-obligation case evaluation at (800) 714-3204 or online.

Related Web Resources
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Press Release, Oklahoma Firm Recalls Beef Products Due To Possible E. Coli O157:H7 Contamination (Dec. 24, 2009).
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Press Release, New York Firm Recalls Fresh Ground Beef Products Due To Possible E. Coli O157:H7 Contamination (Oct. 31, 2009).

November 7, 2009

Oregon animal lawyer: Pet Carousel brand dog treats may be contaminated with Salmonella

by Dane Johnson

The Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) warns that certain dog chews may be contaminated with Salmonella and pose health risks to both dogs and people. Consumers should not use Pig Ears and Beef Hooves pet treats manufactured by Pet Carousel. The affected pig ear products were packaged under the brand names Doggie Delight and Pet Carousel. The affected beef hooves were packaged under the brand names Choo Hooves, Dentley’s, Doggie Delight, and Pet Carousel. All sizes and all lots of these products made by Pet Carousel are included in this alert. The products were distributed nationwide in both bulk and retail packaging for sale in pet food and retail chain stores. Although no illnesses associated with these products have been reported yet, the FDA is advising consumers to avoid handling or feeding them.

According to the FDA, routine testing of the suspect pig ears detected a positive reading for Salmonella. This prompted an FDA inspection of Pet Carousel’s manufacturing facilities. During the inspection, the agency collected additional pet treat samples. Further analysis found Salmonella present in beef hooves, pig ears and in the manufacturing environment.

Salmonella can affect both humans and animals. People handling dry pet food and/or pet treats can become infected with Salmonella, especially if they have not thoroughly washed their hands after having contact with the treats or any surfaces exposed to these products. Consumers should dispose of these products in a safe manner by securing them in a covered trash receptacle.

Salmonella symptoms in humans
Healthy people infected with Salmonella may experience some or all of the following symptoms: nausea, vomiting, diarrhea or bloody diarrhea, abdominal cramping and fever. Although rare, Salmonella can result in more serious ailments including arterial infections, endocarditis (inflammation of the lining of the heart), arthritis, muscle pain, eye irritation, and urinary tract symptoms. Consumers exhibiting these signs after having contact with this product should contact their health care provider immediately.

Salmonella symptoms in dogs
Dogs with Salmonella infections may become lethargic and have diarrhea or bloody diarrhea, fever and vomiting. Some may experience only a decreased appetite, fever, and abdominal pain. Infected dogs can be carriers and infect other animals or humans. If your dog has consumed any of the affected products or is experiencing any of these symptoms, contact your veterinarian immediately.

If you or a loved dog have symptoms of Salmonella infection, Portland Oregon animal law attorney Dane E. Johnson can assess whether you may have a legal claim. Contact us toll free at (800) 714-3204 or in Oregon at (503) 975-8298. You may also contact us with information about your potential case online.

Related Web Resources
Press Release, FDA, Health Alert for Certain Pet Treats Made by Pet Carousel (Nov. 5, 2009).

October 30, 2009

Oregon animal injury prevention: Halloween risks for cats, dogs, and other companion animals

by Dane Johnson

For animals, Halloween can be a frightening and even deadly time. As kids and parents get busy preparing to scare and be scared this October 31, it can be easy to forget that trick-or-treating brings risks to companion animals. Family cats, dogs, birds, and others may be exposed to traumatizing sights and sounds, as well as potentially toxic substances like chocolate.

The ASPCA has a helpful list of pet safety tips. Perhaps most important, common candy ingredients including chocolate and xylitol, a sweetener, may be highly dangerous to animals. Symptoms of chocolate poisoning include seizures, but also less obvious signs of distress like vomiting, diarrhea, hyperactivity, increased thirst, frequent urination, and increased heart rate. Xylitol can cause seizures, as well as lower blood sugar leading to liver failure. Even “healthy” treats like raisins and grapes may cause kidney failure in dogs and cats.

The wrappers containing Halloween candy are also a potential source of injuries to companion animals. Foil and cellophane packaging can cause choking or intestinal blockages.

Other Halloween activities may also turn the night dangerous for pets. Strangers may frighten sensitive animals, who may dart outside and become lost or hit by cars. Pet costumes may also provoke fear and stress. Tails may knock over lit pumpkins or other candles, putting both pets and people at risk of burns or causing property damage. Taking simple precautions like keeping the candy—as well as the cats and dogs—under control can help ensure that the Halloween frights don’t cause real scares.

The Law Office of Dane E. Johnson is an Oregon animal law and personal injury law firm ready to assist with all animal-related legal issues.Please contact us at (503) 975-8298 or visit our website. Portland, Oregon animal lawyer Dane Johnson offers a free case consultation.

Related Web Resources
ASPCA Halloween Safety Tips
Pet Poison Advice and Emergency Helpline

September 20, 2009

Oregon Animal Law: Jane Goodall speaks to students in Portland

by Dane Johnson

Eminent primatologist Dr. Jane Goodall recently addressed students at Portland’s French School, bringing her message of hope for endangered species to the Rose City. Her visit was in conjunction with a keynote speech to the Association of Zoos and Aquariums annual conference at the Oregon Convention Center.

Dr. Goodall praised the work of some conservation programs in zoos. I tend to disagree with her views on the subject, at least with regard to the Oregon Zoo. Her tireless efforts to raise the level of understanding of the animals with whom we share the world, however, are inspiring beyond words.

Her visit adds to what has been a productive year for the study and practice of animal law in Oregon. The recent symposium on toxicology and animal testing was engaging, although the promise of proposed strategies to reduce and eliminate the use of animals in laboratories is a long, long way from the reality. The upcoming animal law conference at Lewis & Clark Law School should offer even more tools for animal attorneys.

Animal law can be a difficult practice for an lawyer because of the magnitude of the problems facing living beings of every species. But more law students are becoming exposed to the field every semester, and younger students inspired Dr. Goodall to do something for animals will have law programs that give them the opportunity. As Jane would certainly agree, that is a reason for hope.

September 12, 2009

Advice for law students and future animal lawyers

by Dane Johnson

Animal Law professor Delcianna Winders of Farm Sanctuary has some helpful advice for law students aspiring to become animal lawyers. If you’re a 1L just finishing up their first couple of weeks of a new academic year, you might be overwhelmed with worrying about whether it’s too soon to start outlining (it is) to think much about your future as an animal advocate. But head over and check out her post anyway.

File it in the back of your mind, and take it out again after you finish your first semester exams. By then, you’ll have conquered the fear that comes with becoming a law student. You’ll be ready to start thinking about what you might like to do during the summer before your 2L year.

As a Portland, Oregon animal law attorney, I can tell you first hand that Animal Law is still a growing practice area. Your law school’s career services office might not know where to send you. But if you came to law school because you can’t stand what people do to animals, you won’t let that stop you. Professor Winders has some great ideas about what you can do in her post. There are internships and other opportunities out there with animal rights and advocacy groups doing important work. And if you’d like more ideas, feel free to contact the Law Office of Dane E. Johnson.

Best of luck for a successful first year. Animals need people like you.

The Law Office of Dane E. Johnson is an Oregon animal law and personal injury law firm ready to assist with all animal-related legal issues. Please contact us at (503) 975-8298 or visit our website.

Related Web Resources
Student Animal Legal Defense Fund

September 9, 2009

Portland Animal Law symposium at Lewis & Clark Law School

by Dane Johnson

Lewis & Clark Law Law School’s Center for Animal Law Studies is hosting a free seminar this Saturday, September 12, 2009, on the Science, Ethics, and Law of Animal Testing in the 21st Century. According to the organizers, the

daylong symposium will explore the scientific, ethical, legal and regulatory challenges and opportunities that are generated by the vision to improve scientific outcomes using alternatives to animal testing contained in the National Academy of Science’s (NAS) National Research Council (NRC) Report on Toxicity Testing in the 21st Century.

As a Portland, Oregon animal lawyer, I’m looking forward to attending. Lewis & Clark Law has been a leader in establishing animal law as a recognized practice area, and the availability of programs like this is one of the great benefits of practicing in this city. Thanks to such programs, as well as journals such as Animal Law, the field is growing every day. Hope to see you there.

Related Web Resources
Lewis & Clark Law School Center for Animal Law Studies
Coalition for Consumer Information on Cosmetics, How Do I Shop Cruelty Free?

August 30, 2009

Oregon animal law: California court rejects emotional distress damages for vet malpractice

by Dane Johnson

In a recent decision, the California Court of Appeals refused to recognize an animal’s “peculiar value” as including anything beyond “characteristics that enhance its economic value . . . .” McMahon v. Craig, No G040324, slip op at 2 (Cal. Ct. App. July 31, 2009). The court also declined to extend the loss of companionship tort to actions involving companion animals. Id. at 19.

Plaintiff Gail McMahon brought emotional distress and loss of companionship claims after her Maltese died of likely aspiration pneumonia under veterinarian Diane Craig’s care. Id. at 4. Ms. McMahon alleged the vet negligently gave food too soon after surgery to correct the dog’s laryngeal paralysis. Id. at 3-4.

The court reasoned that the plaintiff “was neither a witness nor a direct victim of [the] defendants’ negligent acts” and thus could not obtain emotional distress damages for negligence. Id. at 6-13. Finding the vet’s conduct insufficiently outrageous, it struck an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim. Id. at 13-16. Finally, it limited proof of special value to those attributes “evidenced by the original cost, and the quality and condition at the time of the loss.” McMahon, No G040324, slip op at 18.

As in California, negligent infliction of emotional distress in Oregon generally requires physical injury. Hammond v. Central Lane Commc’ns Ctr., 312 Or 17, 25, 816 P2d 593 (1991). The California court’s constrained definition of special value, however, contrasts with that followed in Oregon. As established in McCallister v. Sappingfield, an Oregon plaintiff “may prove [a dog’s] special value to him by showing its qualities, characteristics and pedigree . . . .” 72 Or 422, 427, 144 P 432 (1914).

The McMahon court essentially treated special and market value interchangeably. McMahon, No G040324, slip op at 18-19. It left to the California legislature any changes in the law to reflect that “the love and loyalty a dog provides creates a strong emotional bond” justifying compensation. Id.

As might be expected, the veterinary industry praised the decision. The Animal Health Institute, members of which purportedly “invest hundreds of millions of dollars on the innovations, research and science necessary for advances in pharmaceuticals, biologics, and pesticides for animals,” asserted that a contrary result would actually hurt pets.

But evidence shows that the industry’s argument is without foundation. As author Christopher Green has noted in his excellent article, The Future of Veterinary Malpractice Liability in the Care of Companion Animals, 10 Animal L. 163, 176-77 (2004), “Louisiana, Texas, and Florida each first awarded punitive or emotional damages for companion animal harm in the early 1960s, yet no deluge from ‘opening the floodgates of litigation’ ever materialized in any of those states during the forty years hence.”

The most comprehensive law on damages in companion animal negligence cases appears to be the Humane Care for Animals Act (“HCAA”), passed in Illinois in 2002. Under that statute, “[d]amages may include, but are not limited to, the monetary value of the animal, veterinary expenses incurred on behalf of the animal, any other expenses incurred by the owner in rectifying the effects of the cruelty, pain, and suffering of the animal, and emotional distress suffered by the owner.” 510 Ill. Comp. Stat. 70/16-3 (2002).

Even with such a broad definition of damages, however, Illinois has seen no emotional distress claim deluge. The McMahon court was bound by existing precedent, but unfounded fears of a litigation explosion should not stop the California legislature from enacting a new law akin to the HCAA.

Until then, McMahon clarifies that the distress inflicted on Californians by negligence directed toward their animal companions will go uncompensated. Coupling that decision with a limitation of the measure of an animals’ worth to market value indeed gives the veterinary industry reason to rejoice—and companion animal guardians a reason to exercise extreme caution in choosing a veterinarian.

The Law Office of Dane E. Johnson is an Oregon animal law and personal injury law firm ready to assist with all animal-related legal issues. Please contact us at (503) 975-8298 or visit our website. Animal lawyer Dane Johnson offers a free case consultation.

August 27, 2009

Oregon cougar management: Dogs and big cats?

by Dane Johnson

A trio of reported cougar sightings in Keno offers a chance to comment on the recent efforts of Oregon Republican legislators (with two House Democrats) to further repeal the state’s ban on allowing hunters to deploy dogs against the big cats. The proposed legislation, Senate Bill 792 sought to permit the “use of dogs to hunt cougars during [the] final three months of general cougar hunting season if [the] State Fish and Wildlife Commission determines that [the] harvest quota for [a] particular hunt zone may not be met.” The legislative session ended with the bill still in committee.

The 2007 Oregon legislature previously exempted private hound hunters from Oregon’s ban on hounding cougars and allowed State-appointed agents to join in hounding, trapping, and killing cougars in three target areas. The proposed law would have extended the exemption to anyone with a hunting license, inviting a parade of sportsmen into the designated zones as reinforcements to fire away in an attempt to fill the quota.

The number of cougar tags sold in 2008 was higher than ever, and cougar kills have more than doubled since 1994, when the sport hunting with hounds ban was passed. The Oregon Cougar Management Plan has been criticized heavily. Center for Biological Diversity conservation biologist Noah Greenwald has said there is “absolutely no scientific basis for killing as many as 2,000 cougars in Oregon as proposed by the Oregon Department of Wildlife.” The cougar plan, which calls for killing up to 2,000 animals, reportedly costs taxpayers a some half a million dollars or more a year to implement.

Public education and nonlethal wildlife programs can reduce conflicts with cougars and save money because wildlife agency personnel do not have to respond to frequent complaints of property damage by wildlife. When the current Oregon cougar plan ends in 2011, policy makers should revise their approach based on science, not throw what remains of the hounding ban to the dogs.

The Law Office of Dane E. Johnson is an Oregon animal law and personal injury law firm ready to assist with all animal-related legal issues. Please contact us at (503) 975-8298 or visit our website. Oregon animal lawyer Dane Johnson offers a free case consultation.

November 8, 2008

Oregon animal law: With new bond funds, Oregon Zoo should expand space, not population

by Dane Johnson

Oregon voters this week passed Measure 26-96, authorizing $125 million in new bonds for the Oregon Zoo. The zoo reportedly plans to spend the money on expanding the space available to its seven resident elephants from one and a half to six acres total. It will also make some improvements in conditions for polar bears, hippos, and primates.

Although any new space has to be seen as an improvement on the Zoo’s antiquated facilities, it’s still nowhere near enough. The Association of Sanctuaries’ Guidelines for Captive Elephants specifies a minimum of two acres per elephant. The Elephant Sanctuary in Hohenwald, Tennessee, offers the twenty-three elephants currently living there over 2700 acres.

It’s obvious that the Oregon Zoo can’t come close to that much room. What it can do, however, is stop its breeding programs. Consider the Zoo’s new elephant baby, “Samudra.” As he grows into being an adult bull elephant, he will become both more massive and more demanding than the female elephants sharing a space that will be too small even when fully expanded. Bull elephants are perhaps the most difficult and dangerous of animals to attempt to keep in captivity. If the Zoo will not relocate its elephants to sanctuaries, it should at least remove from its plans any notion that its new space gives it the freedom to add new animals.

The Zoo trumpets its breeding program’s births as evidence of success in elephant conservation. But information gathered by In Defense of Animals indicates that fifteen of the twenty-six elephants born at the Zoo are dead, and three of those still living are in Ringling Brothers Circus, which is currently awaiting trial over allegations of rampant animal cruelty directed toward elephants. Moreover, even if the Zoo breeds elephants successfully, such animals will never be released to the wild. Creating more elephants will thus only undermine whatever value may exist in the marginal space increase made possible by Measure 26-96. New elephants could be sent to other zoos, but at least thirteen of these have closed their elephant exhibits or announced plans to close them once animals die or are relocated to sanctuaries.

As the Oregon Humane Society noted in supporting 26-96, the Zoo must “either fund . . . critical improvements or find a new home for the elephants, polar bears and primates” it now houses under inhumane conditions. If new homes are either unavailable — or an unpopular idea given the Zoo’s status as Oregon’s largest paid tourist attraction — then the Zoo must commit to creating conditions that are as humane as possible. That means drawing the line at increasing the population.

{ 0 comments }

Next Entries →