Food Safety News

A food safety scientist has been named the 2026 World Food Prize Laureate for his efforts to build international consensus on food standards and facilitate the safe flow of trade.

Huub Lelieveld, from the Netherlands, was recognized for leading a movement across more than 100 countries to deliver the scientific evidence for modern regulations, legislation and international standards that safeguard the world’s food supply. Lelieveld will receive a $500,000 cash prize. 

Farmers, Québon and Natrel brand milk products are being recalled in Canada because of the possible presence of pieces of glass.

The milk was distributed nationwide, according to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

The recall was triggered by the company.

Products impacted by the recall are as follows:

BrandProductSizeUPCCodesAdditional informationFarmers1% Chocolate Partly Skimmed Milk2 L (carton)0 67997 20400 2BEST BEFORE MR 26 HH:MM 1 3702; AL 01 HH:MM 1 3702; AL 02 HH:MM 1 3702; AL 15 HH:MM 1 3702;Distribution: NS, PEFarmers1% Partly Skimmed Milk2 L (carton)0 67997 03900 0BEST BEFORE MR 24 HH:MM 1 3702; MR 25 HH:MM 1 3702; MR 28 HH:MM 1 3702; MR 31 HH:MM 1 3702; AL 01 HH:MM 1 3702; AL 04 HH:MM 1 3702; AL 07 HH:MM 1 3702; AL 08 HH:MM 1 3702; AL 10 HH:MM 1 3702Distribution: NS, PEFarmers2% Partly Skimmed Milk2 L (carton)0 67997 03200 1BEST BEFORE AL 01 HH:MM 1 3702; AL 09 HH:MM 1 3702Distribution: NS, PEFarmers3.25% Homogenized Milk2 L (carton)0 67997 03100 4BEST BEFORE MR 24 HH:MM 1 3702; MR 25 HH:MM 1 3702; MR 28 HH:MM 1 3702; MR 31 HH:MM 1 3702; AL 04 HH:MM 1 3702; AL 07 HH:MM 1 3702; AL 09 HH:MM 1 3702; AL 10 HH:MM 1 3702Distribution: NS, PENatrel1% Lactose Free Chocolate Partly Skimmed Milk2 L (carton)0 55872 10501 8BEST BEFORE AL 06 HH:MM 1 3702; AL 13 HH:MM 1 3702; AL 20 HH:MM 1 3702; AL 28 HH:MM 1 3702; MA 04 HH:MM 1 3702; MA 08 HH:MM 1 3702; MA 11 HH:MM 1 3702; MA 15 HH:MM 1 3702Distribution: NationalQuébon2% Chocolate Partly Skimmed Milk2 L (carton)0 55872 08502 0BEST BEFORE MR 25 HH:MM 1 3702; AL 01 HH:MM 1 3702; AL 21 HH:MM 1 3702; AL 28 HH:MM 1 3702Distribution: QC

The USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is issuing a public health alert for various raw beef and pork products that were produced without the benefit of federal inspection and may bear a false mark of inspection. 

The action is part of an ongoing investigation.

The FSIS is concerned that some product may be in retailer or consumer freezers. Consumers who have purchased these products are urged not to consume them.

Food produced without inspection may contain undeclared allergens, harmful bacteria, or other contaminants that put consumer health and safety at risk. FSIS is continuing to investigate and may add additional products to this alert as more information is obtained.

The beef and pork items were produced from April 2024 through March 2026. To view labels and product photos, click here. 

The following products subject to the public health alert are:

• 5-lb. box of 8-oz. packages containing a VACUUM-PACKED piece of "BLACKWING ORGANIC MEATS ORGANIC BEEF NEW YORK STRIP STEAK," with "EST. 1996" inside the USDA mark of inspection.
• 10-lb. box of 16-oz. packages containing a VACUUM-PACKED package of "BLACKWING ORGANIC MEATS ORGANIC GROUND BEEF."
• 5-lb. box of 8-oz. packages containing a VACUUM-PACKED package of "BLACKWING ORGANIC MEATS GRASS FED ORGANIC BEEF STEW MEAT," with "EST. 1996" inside the USDA mark of inspection.
• 5-lb. box of 8-oz. packages containing a VACUUM-PACKED piece of "BLACKWING ORGANIC MEATS ORGANIC BEEF STEAK STRIPS," with "EST. 1996" inside the USDA mark of inspection.
• 1-lb. VACUUM-PACKED package of "BLACKWING MEATS BLACKWING BEEF GROUND FROM ORGANIC BEEF," without USDA mark of inspection.
• 12-oz. VACUUM-PACKED package of "BLACKWING MEATS PORK GROUND MADE FROM ORGANIC PORK," without USDA mark of inspection.
• 12-oz. VACUUM-PACKED package of "BLACKWING MEATS Boneless Center Cut Pork Chops 2-6oz Made from Organic Pork," without the USDA mark of inspection.

The first four products include the unauthorized use of establishment number "EST. 1996" inside a false USDA mark of inspection. These items were shipped to wholesale and retail locations nationwide.

There have been no confirmed reports of illness or injury due to consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about an illness or injury should contact a health care provider.

More people are sick in an outbreak of E. coli O157:H7 infections linked to raw cheddar cheese from Raw Farm LLC.

More than half of the nine patients are children younger than 5 years old, according to the Food and Drug Administration. Three of the patients have required hospitalization and one has developed hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS), a serious condition that can cause kidney failure, brain damage and death.

Of eight people for whom epidemiological information is available, seven reported eating Raw Farm brand cheddar cheese made with raw, unpasteurized milk. The eighth patient also reported eating raw milk cheddar cheese, but could not recall what brand. Pasteurization is a heat process that warms milk for 15 seconds to kill harmful bacteria such as E. coli, Salmonella and Listeria.

Whole genome sequencing of bacteria from the outbreak patients shows that they were all infected with the same strain of E. coli, meaning that they share a common source. The FDA reports that raw milk cheese from Raw Farm dairy is the most likely source of the bacteria.

Seven of the sick people live in California, with one each living in Texas and Florida. Illnesses began in September 2025 with two patients identified. The other seven became sick in 2026 with the most recent having illness onset on Feb. 20.

The FDA has requested that the dairy recall its raw milk cheddar cheese, but the dairy owners have refused to do so.

FDA investigators, along with California officials, are inspecting the dairy.

Investigators from the Food and Drug Administration have begun an onsite inspection of Raw Farm LLC dairy because it is the likely source of an E. coli outbreak.

The FDA has requested that the Fresno, CA, dairy recall its block and shredded raw milk cheddar cheese, but the dairy owners have refused to do so.  So far seven people have been infected with the outbreak strain of E. coli O157:H7. They live in California, Texas and Florida. 

Three of the sick people specifically eating Raw Farm raw milk cheddar cheese becoming ill. Four of the patients are children aged 3 and younger. Two of the patients have been hospitalized. The FDA has declared that cheese from the dairy is the most likely cause of the illnesses.

The McAfee family, which owns the dairy, has taken the fight to social media where it is claiming that its products are safe. However, Raw Farm products are not pasteurized — a 15-second heat treatment — to kill harmful bacteria such as E. coli, Salmonella and Listeria.

The congressionalFood Safety Caucus, led by Rep. Rosa DeLauro, has asked the FDA to use its authority to force Raw Farm to recall its products, but the agency has not yet done so

The FDA is housed in the Department of Health and Human Services which is under the command of Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Kennedy is a long-time customer of Raw Farm.

Raw Farm’s products have been linked to several outbreaks in recent years and subject to numerous recalls.

Date

Product

Contaminant

Recall/Illnesses

September 2006

Raw Milk

E. coli O157:H7

Six ill, two with Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome

September 2007

Raw Cream

Listeria monocytogenes

Recall Issued

December 2007

Raw Milk

Campylobacter

Eight Illnesses

September 2008

Raw Cream

Campylobacter

Recall Issued

November 2011

Raw Milk

E. coli O157:H7

Five ill, three with Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome

May 2012

Raw Milk/Cream

Campylobacter

10 Illnesses

October 2015

Raw Milk

Campylobacter

Recall Issued

January 2016

Raw Milk

E. coli O157:H7

Nine ill, two with Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome

May 2023

Raw Milk

Campylobacter

Recall Issued

August 2023

Unpasteurized Cheese

Salmonella

Recall Issued

December 2023

Raw Milk

Salmonella

19 Illnesses

October 2024

Raw Milk

Salmonella

171 Illnesses

December 2024

Unpasteurized Cheese

E. coli O157:H7

11 illnesses

A hotel in Australia has been fined for food hygiene offenses relating to a foodborne outbreak that sickened 76 people.

The Terrigal Plaza Hotel in New South Wales was ordered to pay more than $53,000 (U.S. $37,000) in fines and costs with a guilty conviction recorded for four offenses under the NSW Food Act of 2003 in Gosford Local Court earlier this week.

Scientists have estimated that most Campylobacter cases in an English county are associated with poultry meat, and that many of them are resistant to antibiotics.

Researchers from the Ineos Oxford Institute for antimicrobial research and the Department of Biology said that 80 percent of Campylobacter infections in Oxfordshire can be connected to poultry meat.

-- OPINION --

Mindy Brashears, the new head of food safety at USDA’s FSIS, had a “mouthful” to say about why Salmonella should continue to not be an adulterant.

You Tube – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEBcbxcRt0A&t=1s

Transcript

"Well, maybe I’m even more convinced that Salmonella in general should not be an adulterant just like E.coli, all E.coli shouldn’t be an adulterant. And and I use this example many times when E.coli 0157H7 was declared an adulterant we had a very good test and it just had to be yes or no. It wasn’t quantifying it. So that’s different. And it was very specific E.coli O. We had the O group. We had the H group and we had to have two specific genes STX and EAE. That was the absolute pathogen causing all the 0:51 illnesses. And it was targeted in a very specific product, raw ground beef. We knew that was causing it.

"When we pivot back to chicken and even in the framework it was like all chicken at certain levels in just salmonella that even getting into the stereotypes that is too broad. We have to find the most pathogenic salmonella and we have to have a test for that and there are tests emerging again from our partners in ARS. They’ve developed a highly pathogenic salmonella test and we are evaluating that in our samples now already. You know it’s only been three weeks but we’re already initiating these things and we also we have to find out you know the the the threshold limit."

Here has been my take on Salmonella as an adulterant.
In 2020, Marler Clark submitted its Salmonella Petition on behalf of Rick Schiller, Steven Romes, the Porter family, Food & Water Watch, Consumer Federation of America, and Consumer Reports, requesting that FSIS declare the following “Outbreak Serotypes” to be per se adulterants in meat and poultry products:

Salmonella Agona, Anatum, Berta, Blockely, Braenderup, Derby, Dublin, Enteritidis, Hadar, Heidelberg, I 4,[5],12:i:-, Infantis, Javiana, Litchfield, Mbandaka, Mississippi, Montevideo, Muenchen, Newport, Oranienburg, Panama, Poona, Reading, Saintpaul, Sandiego, Schwarzengrund, Senftenberg, Stanley, Thompson, Typhi, and Typhimurium.[1]

FULL PETITION – https://www.fsis.usda.gov/policy/petitions/petition-interpretive-rule-related-certain-salmonella-serotypes

[1]           Thirty of these 31 serotypes are from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Salmonella Atlas, which contains 42 years of laboratory-confirmed research. See Salmonella Atlas at https://www.cdc.gov/salmonella/reportspubs/salmonella-atlas/serotype-reports.html. The only exception, Salmonella Dublin, was added to Petitioners’ list because it is a serotype of increasing public health concern that was recently involved in a foodborne illness outbreak linked to ground beef.

USDA/FSIS has the authority to deem Salmonella and other pathogens adulterants – they just need to use it.

Everyday Americans will bring a food product (poultry) into their homes that is likely teeming with Salmonella that the manufacturer – by law and with the USDA stamp of approval – knowingly can sell knowing that it may well be tainted with a pathogen that sickens over 1,000,000 yearly.  This is because USDA/FSIS does not consider Salmonella an adulterant.

Personally, as I said to the Los Angeles Times some time ago, “I think that anything that can poison or kill a person should be listed as an adulterant [in food].”

Ignoring Salmonella in meat makes little, if any, sense.

Even after the Court’s twisted opinion in Supreme Beef v. USDA, where it found Salmonella “not an adulterant per se, meaning its presence does not require the USDA to refuse to stamp such meat ‘inspected and passed’, ” our government’s failure to confront the reality of Salmonella, especially antibiotic-resistant Salmonella, is inexcusable.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court in Kriefall v Excel called it as it saw it – at least with respect to E. coli – but the analysis is spot on for Salmonella as well:

The E. coli strain that killed Brianna and made the others sick is a “deleterious substance which may render [meat] injurious to health.” There is no dispute about this. Thus, under the first part of 21 U.S.C. § 601(m)(1), meat that either “bears or contains” E. coli O157:H7 (the “deleterious substance”) is “adulterated.” That E. coli O157:H7 contamination can be rendered non-“injurious to health” by cooking thoroughly, as discussed below, does not negate this; Congress used the phrase “may render,” not “in every circumstance renders.” Moreover, if the E. coli bacteria is not considered to be “an added substance,” because it comes from some of the animals themselves and is not either applied or supplied during the slaughtering process (although we do not decide this), it cannot be said that the E. coli strain “does not ordinarily render [the meat on or in which it appears] injurious to health.” Accordingly, meat contaminated by E. coli O157:H7 is also “adulterated” under the second part of § 601(m)(1).

Now, why would Salmonella be different? According to the CDC, it is estimated that 1.4 million cases of salmonellosis occur each year in the United States. Of those cases, 95 percent are related to foodborne causes. Approximately 220 of each 1,000 cases result in hospitalization, and 8 of every 1,000 cases result in death. About 500 to 1,000 deaths – 31 percent of all food-related deaths – are caused by Salmonella infections each year.

So, where do we stand with the existing USDA/FSIS law on adulteration?

Here is the law:

21 U.S.C. § 601(m)(4) – SUBCHAPTER I – INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS; ADULTERATION AND MISBRANDING – CHAPTER 12 – MEAT INSPECTION – TITLE 21—FOOD AND DRUGS

(m) The term “adulterated” shall apply to any carcass, part thereof, meat or meat food product under one or more of the following circumstances:

(1) if it bears or contains any poisonous or deleterious substance which may render it injurious to health; but in case the substance is not an added substance, such article shall not be considered adulterated under this clause if the quantity of such substance in or on such article does not ordinarily render it injurious to health; …

(3) if it consists in whole or in part of any filthy, putrid, or decomposed substance or is for any other reason unsound, unhealthful, unwholesome, or otherwise unfit for human food;

(4) if it has been prepared, packed, or held under insanitary conditions whereby it may have become contaminated with filth, or whereby it may have been rendered injurious to health; …

Here is the law specifically related to poultry:

Title 21 – FOOD AND DRUGS CHAPTER 10 – POULTRY AND POULTRY PRODUCTS INSPECTION

(g) The term “adulterated” shall apply to any poultry product under one or more of the following circumstances:

(1) if it bears or contains any poisonous or deleterious substance which may render it injurious to health; but in case the substance is not an added substance, such article shall not be considered adulterated under this clause if the quantity of such substance in or on such article does not ordinarily render it injurious to health; …

(3) if it consists in whole or in part of any filthy, putrid, or decomposed substance or is for any other reason unsound, unhealthful, unwholesome, or otherwise unfit for human food;

(4) if it has been prepared, packed, or held under insanitary conditions whereby it may have become contaminated with filth, or whereby it may have been rendered injurious to health;

Hmmm. It is hard to read the above and not think that the words equate to all E. coli as well as Salmonella — frankly, all pathogens in food.

I know, I am just a lawyer, but don’t ya think that when food with animal feces (and a dash of E. coli O157:H7) in it is considered an adulterant, that other animal feces (with dashes of other pathogens, like Salmonella) in them, should be considered adulterated too?  But, hey, that is just me.

Another odd governmental fact is that the FDA does not seem to make a distinction between pathogens it considers adulterants or not.

FDA’s enabling legislation – Sec. 402. [21 USC §342] of the Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act also defines “Adulterated Food” as food that is:

(a) Poisonous, insanitary, or deleterious ingredients.

(1) If it bears or contains any poisonous or deleterious substance which may render it injurious to health; but in case the substance is not an added substance such food shall not be considered adulterated under this clause if the quantity of such substance in such food does not ordinarily render it injurious to health;

(2) If it bears or contains any added poisonous or added deleterious substance … that is unsafe within the meaning of section 406;

(3) if it consists in whole or in part of any filthy, putrid, or decomposed substance, or if it is otherwise unfit for food;

(4) if it has been prepared, packed, or held under insanitary conditions whereby it may have become contaminated with filth, or whereby it may have been rendered injurious to health …

It would be interesting, and perhaps entertaining, to have House and Senate hearings focusing on what should and should not be considered adulterants in our food. I can see panels of scientists from various fields, FDA, USDA and FSIS officials, beef, poultry, fish and produce industry representatives, and consumers discussing this.

I would pay to watch it.

And so now onto some history to ruin your appetite.

In 1971 the American Public Health Association (APHA) sued the USDA on the grounds that its mark of inspection (“USDA inspected for wholesomeness”) was misleading because, even though the USDA had put its stamp of approval on meat—literally—it did not, for example, test the meat for bacteria. Moreover, APHA argued that raw meat was commonly contaminated with Salmonella, which posed a risk to the public health. According to APHA, the USDA should instead require that meat carry both a warning label and cooking instructions. The USDA opposed the APHA, helped ably (and predictably) by the meat industry. As quoted by Marion Nestle in her great book, Safe Food, the USDA’s position was that, given how many foods are contaminated with Salmonella, “it would be unjustified to single out the meat industry and ask that the [USDA] require it to identify its raw products as being hazardous to health.” Nestle at 66. (Note to Reader: No, I am really not making this up.)

In 1974, the Washington D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the position of the USDA and the meat industry, doing so in a way that was as nonsensical as it was sexist. The court stated that: “The presence of salmonellae on meat does not constitute adulteration within this definition [of ‘adulterated,’ provided in 21 U.S.C. § 601 (m)]….As it said in its letter of August 18, 1971 ‘the American consumer knows that raw meat and poultry are not sterile and, if handled improperly, perhaps could cause illness.” In other words, American housewives and cooks normally are not ignorant or stupid and their methods of preparing and cooking of food do not ordinarily result in salmonellosis.’” APHA v. Butz, 511 F.2d 331, 334 (1974).

This remained the position of the USDA and the meat industry until 1994 when, in an act of both common-sense and bravado, Michael Taylor, then FSIS Administrator, announced that E. coli O157:H7 would be deemed an adulterant in raw ground beef. The Agency did not, however, change its tune with regard to any other pathogens, especially Salmonella. Indeed, in 1999, when FSIS announced it inane distinction between E. coli O157:H7 in “intact” meat versus “non-intact” meat, the Agency continued to focus on how a given meat was “customarily cooked” as a chief determinant of whether it must be treated as an adulterant. Thus, for example, because it decided that “intact steaks and roasts are customarily cooked in a manner that ensures that these products are not contaminated with E. coli O157:H7,” there was no need to treat this deadly pathogen as an adulterant on intact cuts of meat. Of course, this FSIS policy is also one that appears to have been silently jettisoned by the Agency of late.

The Agency’s position on Salmonella and meat came back to haunt it in a big way when FSIS tried to shut down Supreme Beef Processors, Inc. for repeatedly failing Salmonella performance standards that, according to the Agency, was proof that the ground beef being made there was being processed under “insanitary conditions.” Supreme Beef sued the USDA and not only won an injunction, but it succeeded in having the Salmonella regulations struck down as being “beyond the authority granted the Secretary [of the USDA] by the Federal Meat Inspection Act.” Supreme Beef v. USDA, 275 F.3d 432, 434 (5th Cir. 2001). Explaining its holding, the Court wrote:

The difficulty in this case arises, in part, because Salmonella, present in a substantial proportion of meat and poultry products, is not an adulterant per se, 21 meaning its presence does not require the USDA to refuse to stamp such meat “inspected and passed.” 22 This is because normal cooking practices for meat and poultry destroy the Salmonella organism, 23 and therefore the presence of Salmonella in meat products does not render them “injurious to health” 24 for purposes of § 601(m)(1). Salmonella-infected beef is thus routinely labeled “inspected and passed” by USDA inspectors and is legal to sell to the consumer.

Supreme Beef, 275 F.2d at 438-39. And, of course, not surprisingly, the court in this case was quick to cite the decision in APHA v. Butz, and to note that even now the “USDA agrees that Salmonella is not an adulterant per se.” Id. at 439 n. 21.

In my view the Supreme Beef decision is poorly reasoned and ill-informed. (For example, could not someone at the Court figure out that it is impossible for meat to be “infected” with Salmonella, and the proper term here is “contaminated”?) But the real lesson of Supreme Beef is that the USDA was, and continues to be, an Agency that is unable to decide whose side it is on. Sometimes it puts on its public safety hat, and sometimes—actually, most often—it puts on its pro-meat industry hat. And, unfortunately, these roles are too often contradictory. That is why USDA policy when it comes to meat safety is also too often contradictory.

Perhaps it is just time for the FSIS to take the the position that all pathogens that can kill you in meat are adulterants.  You have the authority – you just need to use it.

A Salmonella outbreak in Latvia has sickened at least 120 people.

The Center for Disease Prevention and Control (SPKC) initially received information about 40 cases of acute intestinal infection in two preschools in Riga.

An epidemiological investigation was started to find the source, and laboratory examination of stool samples was organized.

The number of registered cases has now reached 120. Efforts are continuing to ensure that stool samples from ill people and their contacts are sent for lab analysis.

Authorities in Riga have asked for an explanation from the catering provider to help identify possible causes of sickness. Safety measures include increased disinfection of the two premises.

Patients include children and adult employees. Recommendations and information have been sent to the relevant authorities and parents of children, as well as the Latvian Food and Veterinary Service (PVD).

Symptoms are mostly characterized as moderate, with fever and diarrhea but local media reported a few children have needed hospital treatment.

Initial results of laboratory examinations show that in most cases Salmonella has been identified as the causative agent. However, other agents have also been detected, including norovirus, rotavirus and yersiniosis.

In all of 2024, Latvia reported 211 salmonellosis cases compared to 101 in 2023.

About Salmonella
Food contaminated with Salmonella bacteria does not usually look, smell, or taste spoiled. Anyone can become sick with a Salmonella infection. Infants, children, seniors, and people with weakened immune systems are at higher risk of serious illness because their immune systems are fragile.

Anyone who has developed symptoms of Salmonella infection should seek medical attention. Sick people should tell their doctors about the possible exposure to Salmonella bacteria because special tests are necessary to diagnose salmonellosis. Salmonella infection symptoms can mimic other illnesses, frequently leading to misdiagnosis.

Symptoms of Salmonella infection can include diarrhea, abdominal cramps, and fever within 12 to 72 hours after eating contaminated food. Otherwise healthy adults are usually sick for four to seven days. In some cases, however, diarrhea may be so severe that patients require hospitalization.

Older adults, children, pregnant women, and people with weakened immune systems, such as cancer patients, are more likely to develop a severe illness and serious, sometimes life-threatening conditions. Some people are infected with Salmonella without getting sick or showing any symptoms. However, they may still spread the infections to others.

The United States and Mexico are reinforcing food safety agreements as agricultural food trade between the countries continues to expand.

Recently, Mexican authorities and U.S. regulators reaffirmed their commitment to ensuring the safety of fresh and minimally processed foods, a move that comes as trade flows and supply chain interdependence deepen.

Food exchange between the two countries has increased from just over $50 billion to more than $73 billion in the past five years. Key Mexican exports to the United States include avocados, tomatoes, berries, peppers and other fresh fruits and vegetables, as well as beef.

It remains unclear how excessively high levels of an additive got into tortillas that made more than 700 people sick in Finland.

In August 2023, 721 individuals became ill with gastrointestinal symptoms in 17 schools in a Finnish municipality. Of these, 323 developed quickly passing symptoms during lunch or under 30 minutes after the meal.

In three samples from tortillas produced during a limited production period, concentrations of the preservative calcium propionate above 24,000 mg/kg were measured, exceeding the regulatory maximum limit of 2,000 mg/kg, according to a study published in the journal Eurosurveillance.

Researchers measured nine times higher concentrations of calcium in tortillas packed within nine minutes in the afternoon compared with products from the same lot and packaged later that day. Calcium propionate was analyzed in three samples with high calcium content, and 10 times higher concentrations were found compared with samples from two tortillas produced later.

The manufacturer did not identify a cause in the production process that could explain the high concentrations of calcium propionate, which can be used in bakery products to inhibit molds and prolong shelf life.

Rapid symptom onset
Finland has a school meal program, offering a daily free lunch to all students from preschool to upper secondary. In many municipalities, meals are prepared in a central kitchen and distributed to satellite kitchens in schools.

In a questionnaire-based retrospective cohort study, consumption of flour tortillas and vegetable filling served at lunch were statistically associated with illness. Of the 721 cases, 683 were students. A vinegar-like odor was noted in five of nine tortilla samples.

In August 2023, officials in the city of Mikkeli in Eastern Finland received information from the central kitchen of 10 to 20 students falling ill with vomiting and nausea 10 minutes after having lunch at five of the municipality’s 19 schools.

An online survey was created and more than 100 people reported gastrointestinal symptoms. The Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare (THL) and the Finnish Food Authority (Ruokavirasto) joined the outbreak investigation.

The most common symptoms were abdominal pain, nausea, and headache, followed by diarrhea, vomiting, and muscle pain. Fifty-eight cases developed symptoms during lunch and 265 less than 30 minutes after lunch. The median duration of illness was 4 to 12 hours. No sick people visited healthcare providers.

Of all cases, 167 mentioned a bad or strange tortilla taste, 24 a bad or strange odor, and 130 said that food tasted of soap or detergent.

Risk from chemical agents
Tortillas were delivered packaged in a modified atmosphere, 18 per package, opened in school kitchens and served unheated as instructed by the manufacturer. Diners filled the tortillas themselves.

Tortillas served at the 16 schools were of two batch numbers with the same best before date. Manufacture and shipping to Finland involved Poland and the Netherlands. They were distributed to several places, including providers of community meals, but no gastrointestinal illnesses were reported.

Inspections of the central kitchen and onsite and satellite kitchens did not reveal any hygiene breaches that could explain the outbreak.

In three tortilla samples, concentrations of calcium propionate and propionic acid exceeded the maximum permitted level. Samples with elevated concentrations were from tortillas packaged between 13:24 and 13:32. 

Although the suspicion regarding tortillas was later limited to one batch and a packaging time window (13:12–16:33), the operator destroyed both batches.

“Our findings remind us of chemical agents as causes of foodborne outbreaks and the need for enhanced surveillance in Europe. Schools should be better prepared for sudden-onset foodborne outbreaks, and guidelines to interrupt school meals for safety reasons should exist,” said scientists.

More than 130 people have been infected by the hepatitis A virus in Italy with authorities linking the illnesses to contaminated shellfish.

Officials in the Campania Region said 133 cases had been reported since the beginning of the year.

The response to try and contain the increase includes more testing, epidemiological surveillance, controls in the food supply chain, as well as offering free vaccinations to those most at risk and contacts of infected individuals. Vulnerable groups include health and social care staff, food supply chain workers, and at risk patients.

Action is based on evidence from epidemiological and laboratory investigations, sampling of bivalve mollusks, environmental monitoring, and other studies.

Bivalve mollusks, such as mussels, clams and oysters, can be affected when they filtered through contaminated water; so raw or undercooked consumption should be avoided.

Health officials said it was essential to only purchase mollusks from authorized retailers, checking the labeling, provenance, and proper storage methods, and to avoid buying products sold outside official channels.

In February, authorities in the Campania Region ordered increased controls across the entire bivalve mollusk supply chain based on evidence from epidemiological investigations and analysis of dietary habits.

A monitoring plan includes checks and sampling of bivalve mollusks in primary production areas, at wholesale distribution channels, and at retail outlets.

Raw seafood sales halted
An emergency network has also been created, involving the Centro di Riferimento Regionale per la Sicurezza Sanitaria del Pescato (CRiSSaP), experts from local health authorities (ASL), Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale del Mezzogiorno (IZSM), and the University of Naples Federico II.

A series of measures have been taken in Napoli (Naples) to address the increase in hepatitis A cases. Epidemiological data shows three cases in January, 19 in February, and 43 in the first 19 days of March.

A ban on the serving and consumption of raw seafood in all public establishments has been put in place. Sale of such products are still permitted but officials have advised people not to consume them raw at home. Measures will remain in effect until health officials reassess the situation.

Violations will be punished with fines ranging from €2,000 ($2,300) to €20,000 ($23,000). Repeat offences will result in suspension of activity for 1 to 30 days and subsequent withdrawal of operating permits.

From January to June 2025, the integrated epidemiological surveillance system of acute viral hepatitis (SEIEVA), coordinated by the Italian National Institute of Health (ISS), recorded 247 cases of hepatitis A. The risk factor most frequently reported by patients was eating seafood. A total of 52 cases were linked to berry consumption.

Hepatitis A attacks the liver and can be spread when someone ingests the virus through close contact with an infected person or by having contaminated food or drinks. Symptoms last a few days to several months and begin 15 to 50 days after becoming infected. They range from mild to severe and include an abrupt onset of fever, fatigue, poor appetite, nausea, stomach pain, dark-colored urine and jaundice (a yellowing of the skin and whites of the eyes).

Oanh Le’s first introduction to USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service may have been by way of her mom and dad, but not as a legacy to follow in their footsteps. As a child, Le’s parents worked at Tyson Foods, her mother on the chicken patty production line and her father in facility maintenance. They admired the FSIS consumer safety inspectors who walked around the plant with authority. She recalls, “They just thought it was so neat and that it would be a good job. That's how the idea came into my head, of course.”

A Salmonella outbreak in Korea that affected more than 300 people was likely caused by cross-contamination during production of bakery products, according to a study.

In May 2025, clusters of salmonellosis were identified in seven cities associated with the consumption of bakery products from one manufacturer.

The USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is issuing a public health alert for a ground beef product that may be contaminated with foreign material, specifically metal. A recall was not requested because the product is no longer available for purchase.

The problem was discovered by the company after receiving two complaints from consumers.

FSIS is concerned that some product may be in consumers' freezers. Consumers who have purchased these products are urged not to consume them.

The ground beef item was produced on Feb 26, 2026. The following product is subject to the public health alert:

• 16oz (1 lb.) PLASTIC, VACUUM-PACKED, packages containing "WHITE OAK PASTURES, RADICALLY TRADITIONAL FARMING, GRASSFED GROUND BEEF.”

The product has the establishment number "EST 34729" printed inside the USDA mark of inspection and is stamped on the back with "105761 Sell by 03/19/26.” 

This item was shipped to a distributor, and Mom's Organic Markets retail locations in Washington D.C., Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Virginia.

There have been no confirmed reports of injury due to consumption of this product. Anyone concerned about an injury should contact a health care provider. 

Representatives Thomas Massie, R-KY, and Chellie Pingree, D-ME, have again introduced a bill prohibiting federal interference with the interstate traffic of unpasteurized milk and raw milk products that are packaged for direct human consumption.

H.R. 7880, the Interstate Milk Freedom Act, would end the federal Food and Drug Administration’s ban on the interstate sale of raw milk in some instances.

"The Interstate Milk Freedom Act would make it easier for families to buy the milk of their choice by reversing the criminalization of specific dairy farmers,” Rep. Masse said. 

"So many people across the country want to make sure their food is fresh and local — including fruits, vegetables, and even their milk," said Rep. Pingree. "Raw milk is currently the only food banned for interstate commerce— an onerous regulation that hurts small farmers for selling milk straight from their cows to the consumer."

If two states have legalized the sale of unpasteurized milk, the Interstate Milk Freedom Act would prevent federal departments, agencies, or courts from taking any action to prohibit or restrict the traffic of milk between those two states. 

Congress has never specifically passed a ban on raw milk, but under authority granted to the  FDA by Congress, a regulation banning the interstate sale of raw milk was enacted in 1986.

The further raw milk is transported from the farm, the greater the risk of harmful bacteria and the potential for severe foodborne illness. Without pasteurization, raw milk products can harbor dangerous germs such as Salmonella, E. coli, Listeria, and Campylobacter. 

The language of the Interstate Milk Freedom Act isn’t new. It was introduced as an amendment to the 2018 Farm Bill and as a standalone bill in 2014, 2015, 2019, 2021, and 2024. 

Cosponsors of H.R. 7880 include Rep. Chellie Pingree, D-ME, Rep. Lauren Boebert, R-CO, Rep. Warren Davidson, R-OH, Rep. Glenn Grothman, R-WI, Rep. Clay Higgins, R-LA, Rep. Nancy Mace, R-SC, Rep. Scott Perry, R-PA, Rep. Chip Roy, R-TX, and Rep. Lloyd Smucker, R-PA.
 

The text of the Interstate Milk Freedom Act is available at this link. 

###

Raw Farm LLC, owned by Mark McAfee, has become all too familiar to food safety officials. The company has been repeatedly linked to foodborne illness outbreaks, and since its 2020 rebrand from Organic Pastures to Raw Farm, the pattern appears to be getting worse, not better. 

Still, even with that history, this latest development is striking.

On March 15, 2026 — just two days before I was scheduled to speak with TV5 Monde about Raw Farm’s troubling track record — the Food and Drug Administration announced yet another outbreak. What makes this one particularly alarming is how familiar it feels.

Once again, Raw Farm’s raw milk cheddar cheese has been identified as the likely source. Once again, the pathogen is E. coli O157:H7. Seven confirmed illnesses, and more than half are in children under the age of three. This isn’t just another outbreak; it’s a repeat.  

A Pattern That’s Hard to Ignore

A quick look at Raw Farm’s outbreak history over just the past three years paints a grim picture—one where serious illnesses are not isolated incidents, but recurring events:

• May 2023: Campylobacter outbreak linked to raw milk
• August 2023: Salmonella outbreak linked to unpasteurized cheese
• October 2023: Major Salmonella outbreak tied to raw milk, largely affecting children
• February 2024: First E. coli O157:H7 outbreak linked to raw cheddar cheese 
• November 2024: Bird flu detected in raw milk (initial recall) 
• December 2024: Expanded bird flu recall; animal deaths linked to consumption 
• March 2026: Second E. coli O157:H7 outbreak, again, linked to raw cheddar cheese  

The 2024 Cheddar Cheese Outbreak

The parallels to the 2024 outbreak are hard to ignore.

In February 2024, the FDA and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) investigated a multistate outbreak of E. coli O157:H7 linked to Raw Farm’s raw cheddar cheese, including both block and shredded varieties. 

Eleven people across five states fell ill. Five were hospitalized. Two developed hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS), a severe and potentially life-threatening complication that can lead to kidney failure.

Raw Farm initiated a recall on February 16, 2024—but then abruptly withdrew it just ten days later, despite federal agencies identifying its cheese as the confirmed source of the outbreak. 

The 2026 Cheddar Cheese Outbreak: Déjà Vu

Now, in 2026, history is repeating itself. 

Federal and state health officials are investigating a new multistate outbreak, again tied to Raw Farm’s raw cheddar cheese. At least seven people across California, Florida, and Texas have been infected with E. coli O157:H7. More than half are children under the age of three.

The FDA has once again identified the cheese as the “likely source” and recommended a voluntary recall. Raw Farm has refused.

Growing Alarm and Calls for Actions

This refusal has not gone unnoticed. 

Members of the Congressional Food Safety Caucus — Rosa DeLauro, CT, Sanford D. Bishop Jr., GA, Jan Schakowsky, IL, Chellie Pingree, ME, André Carson, IN, Alma Adams, NC, Mike Quigley, IL, Seth Moulton, MA, Grace Meng, NY, and Mark Takano, CA — are now urging the FDA to take the rare step of issuing a mandatory recall. Their message is clear: remove the product from store shelves — NOW. 

In a joint statement, they emphasized that multiple people have already been hospitalized, with young children disproportionately affected:

“Two people have been hospitalized because of this outbreak, with several more falling ill. More than half of the illnesses were in children aged 3 or younger. This cannot stand. If Raw Farm refuses to take unsafe products off the market, FDA must use its mandatory recall authority and take them to court. A company should not be able to flatly refuse a recall recommendation. That puts consumers health at risk to protect the profits of a corporation. 

FDA must act so consumers are not subject to the whims of corporations that would put their profits over public health. And if mandatory authority needs to be strengthened, the Food Safety Caucus stands ready to tackle this issue at FDA’s request.

Secretary Kennedy’s connection to Raw Farm and FDA’s lack of action here raise serious questions. At bare minimum, this is a potentially concerning conflict of interest. At worst, Secretary Kennedy is once again playing dangerous games with American’s health.” 

Raw Farm is the largest producer of raw, unpasteurized dairy products in the United States, with a loyal consumer base that includes high-profile figures such as U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. 

This latest outbreak raises uncomfortable questions about enforcement, accountability, and whether existing food safety authorities are being fully utilized. At some point, recurring outbreaks stop looking like bad luck and start looking like a systemic failure.

The same product. The same pathogen. The same consequences, especially for children. How many outbreaks will it take before decisive regulatory action is taken?

Scottish food sampling has revealed overall good compliance but a high failure rate for milk in dairy-alternative lattes.

Food Standards Scotland (FSS) funds annual food sampling, which is done by local authorities and Public Analyst laboratories. In total, £200,000 ($268,000) was spent on the program, which collected samples from retailers, caterers, manufacturers and processors. 

As part of its enforcement activities, the Food and Drug Administration sends warning letters to entities under its jurisdiction. Some letters are not posted for public view until weeks or months after they are sent. Business owners have 15 days to respond to FDA warning letters. Warning letters often are not issued until a company has been given months or years to correct problems. Generally, portions of the letters are redacted from public view.

Here is the Link - https://shop.foodsafetynews.com/collections/all

I got a hoodie for my wife and I - they are great.