Although there are differences between the current E. coli outbreak linked to chopped romaine and outbreaks in the U.S. and Canada in December, there is a sense of déjà vu as product disappears from shelves despite the lack of an official recall tied to a specific product, supplier or brand.
Produce companies experienced varying degrees of difficulty as a result of the December E. coli outbreak in the U.S., which was eventually ascribed to leafy greens.
At the time, romaine in particular received intense scrutiny by U.S. health agencies because the cases appeared related to illnesses in the Canadian outbreak.
Canada named romaine as the common denominator in its cases, but U.S. health officials never determined the specific type of leafy greens involved in the outbreak.
Due to the lack of a substantive conclusion, it remains a mystery what crop was involved and how it was contaminated.
“There was a frustration level because we couldn’t learn anything from it,” said Bob Whitaker, chief science and technology officer for the Produce Marketing Association.
Companies saw different levels of interruption as a result of the December outbreak.
Whitaker said PMA heard reports across the spectrum, from companies that were devastated and lost many orders, to organizations that lost the opportunity to sell romaine but were able to move other leafy items as substitutes.
“It’s a mixed bag, but clearly it was a significant financial impact on the industry as a whole,” Whitaker said.
Romaine found itself in the spotlight again on April 13, when the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration issued an alert on a multistate E. Coli outbreak had been linked to chopped romaine from Arizona.
Statements about commodities rather than specific sources of product are painful for the produce industry and cause confusion in the supply chain, but companies understand that protecting consumers has to be the first priority, Whitaker said.
As the current outbreak unfolds, voluntary withdrawals of romaine items by suppliers and retailers have sometimes been described by those companies as “recalls,” even though product being removed has not been definitively linked to illnesses or the bacteria causing them.
Those communications can cause misunderstandings — “confusion that’s created with the best interests of the public in mind,” Whitaker said.
After the December outbreak, produce industry associations contacted the FDA and CDC to discuss ways to collaborate when issues arise.
For instance, in the early stages of investigations, when health officials identify related illnesses but do not know what is causing them, produce industry groups can fill in gaps about what the supply chain looks like for certain produce items, what product is coming from which areas in a given season, and how different products are handled and processed, Whitaker said.
Another opportunity is for the industry to learn from the investigations done by the CDC and FDA, hearing the insights gained from those processes and examining whether there are patterns that could be instructive.
Whitaker said he was hopeful the FDA would be able to complete its traceback in the current investigation so the industry can understand what happened and improve practices as needed going forward.
