Sifting through the hundreds of news reports on the current salmonella outbreak is like flipping the pages of a Sherlock Holmes story. From a mysterious onslaught of sickness and crack investigators following the contamination trail to pinpointing the Peanut Corporation of America as the culprit, this media mega-story gets more interesting with every page.
In November 2008, several reports of Salmonella Typhimurium were recorded across the United States and picked up by the Centers for Disease Control. By the end of month, forty-one cases had been reported. After the past year’s tomato- and jalapeño-related salmonella outbreaks, the media did not hesitate to jump on this story. As U.S. and Canadian authorities traced contaminated products back to Peanut Corp. of America, readers followed along, with articles regularly providing fresh insights to the evolving investigation—the infections, the lab tests (and cover-ups), the recalls, the Congressional hearings, Peanut Corp.’s decision to file for bankruptcy, impacts on food industry sales, soup kitchens and food pantries having to throw out tainted products. The coverage was widespread and gripping.
For all the excellent stories about the epidemiology, politics, and business of food, however, many reporters failed to proceed from whodunnit and where-they-dunnit to how-they-dunnit. Except for the initial news reports three months ago, most stories have omitted any quick, simple explanations about what salmonella is. And, ever since authorities identified Peanut Corp. of America as the source of outbreak, most articles have also failed to explain why the plant’s products are contaminated. As the story progresses, politicians and health groups are calling for better protections and inspection guidelines. The how is central to that effort.
Several articles have reported that inspectors found roaches, mold, and a leaking roof in the Blakely, Georgia and Plainview, Texas plants. A Los Angeles Times piece, published February 7, reported that inspectors at the Georgia plant found “roaches; mold on the walls and ceiling and in the storage cooler; dirty utensils and equipment used in food preparation; and gaps in the roof, allowing for wet conditions that could cause salmonella contamination.” But here’s the thing: salmonella does not come from mold or leaky roofs. Other articles in the Washington Post, Newsday, and the Chicago Tribune either make the wrong assumptions about the correlation between leaking water and salmonella or made no attempts to explain the basic science at all.
A dirty, poorly maintained plant might be disgusting, but dirt and disrepair don’t cause salmonella outbreaks.
Salmonella Typhimurium is an anaerobic bacteria (meaning that it does not live or grow in the presence of oxygen) that exists in the intestinal tracts of humans and animals, including birds. The bacteria can thrive in some animal species without causing any disease symptoms. Once inside humans, it can cause diarrhea, fever, and abdominal cramps. Humans usually become infected when they eat foods contaminated by animal feces.
The main salmonella sources at the Peanut Corp. of America plants were not mold or leaky roofs, but the bird feces littering the roofs, which was being washed into the plant during rainstorms. The press barely made the feces-salmonella connection even after the former Peanut Corp. of America Texas plant manager Kenneth Kendrick told “Good Morning America” that “Water, particularly anything leaking off a roof, and this is where things get a little disgusting, is bird feces washing in.”
As a result of this investigation, government officials and health groups are demanding revamped national and state inspection systems. In a story with such potentially far-reaching impacts, people need to know exactly what happened in the salmonella progression in order to react appropriately.
It is very important for the media to realize that correlation does not always imply causation. Despite Kendrick’s nationally televised explanation of the major contamination source, hundreds of news outlets failed to include the explanation in their articles and readers were left to make the connection. So, take out your freshman year Biology book. Call a scientist. Google salmonella. Make an effort to understand the science behind the subject of your reporting.
Sad to say, I think you fall into the same category as those you would criticize. There is fairly concrete evidence that the roofs leaked. It is supposed, but not proven, that the water coming in contained bird feces. It is supposed, but not proven, that these bird feces somehow got into the peanut butter and other nut products.
However, peanut butter lines are generally fully covered (especially from above) from the roaster (where the peanuts emerge effectively sterile) to the point where the product is packed and sealed. If the plant manager quoted had said "When it rained, I saw water containing feathers drop directly into open bins," that would be a different story.
While the bird feces/leaky roof scenario is possible, there scenarios that are more likely. You are correct that we need to know exactly what happened. But before a text book, or a scientist, journalists might consider talking to somebody who actually knows how peanut butter is made.
#1 Posted by Jeff Koeze, CJR on Thu 19 Feb 2009 at 05:35 PM
Now you've got my attention, Jeff Koeze, because you do seem to know something about how peanut products are made. What are some of the other ways fecal contamination could happen?
#2 Posted by Anne, CJR on Thu 19 Feb 2009 at 07:17 PM
Well, here is my speculation on my blog. If I were a betting man, I'd say floor scrap was the start and it was spread through their system. But without being in the plant and seeing it operate over time it would be almost impossible to figure out what happened after the fact. When this is all wrapped up, I predict we really won't be sure what happened.
Think back to the Peter Pan recall. That, too, was blamed on a roof leak, yet ConAgra spent millions and overhauled their processes entirely. Now perhaps that was a $30 million exercise in brand-building, but my guess is at the end of the day they really weren't convinced of the roof leak explanation themselves. You'd have to do a little searching, but there was at least one interview after the plant was re-started that hints at this.
#3 Posted by Jeff Koeze, CJR on Fri 20 Feb 2009 at 05:49 AM
The ISCT mold inspection network provides on-call mold testing services 7 days a week. Since 1997, they have earned a reputation for honesty, integrity, ethics and premium customer service. Because of this, they have become one of the largest mold inspection companies in the nation. With a network of mold inspector employees and affiliates located throughout the United States, they have the resources, manpower, equipment, and expertise to help you with your mold testing needs and get the job done - quickly and efficiently. You want to get quick results in order to get a plan of action ready, they can steer you in the right direction. So contact with them as soon as possible.
#4 Posted by Robart Thomas, CJR on Thu 2 Dec 2010 at 02:19 AM