Charlottesville Personal Injury Lawyer - Health

Popular Contraceptives Raise Health Concerns

Greg Webb — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 07:00:00 GMT

Oral contraceptives Yaz and Yasmin are the top-selling pharmaceutical line for Bayer Healthcare, largely because the products’ marketing presents them as much more than just pregnancy prevention. In fact, the franchise had worldwide sales of $1.8 billion last year, based on Bayer successfully positioning the brands as the go-to medication for women under the age of thirty-five. Yaz, which contains less estrogen than Yasmin, is the top-selling birth control pill in the U.S., garnering much of its popularity from a multi-million dollar ad campaign that promotes the drug as one that combats acne and severe pre-menstrual depression.

Recently, however, the Yaz franchise has faced criticism from several researchers, trial lawyers and health advocates who fear the drugs place women at a higher risk for developing blood clots, strokes and other health problems, as opposed to other birth control medications; because the drug contains drospirenone, which can increase potassium levels in the body, it may put women who have liver or kidney problems at risk for serious heart problems. The critics of Yaz are up against a recent European study, sponsored by Bayer, which reported the opposite conclusion. This study claims the cardiovascular risks in women taking Bayer products that contain drospirenone were the same as those taking an older formula of birth control pills that contain levonorgestrel. One doctor, who is a paid consultant for Bayer, claims the risk of developing blood clots is far less in taking birth control pills than being pregnant and having a baby.

Despite Bayer’s report, regulators and other scientists are finding other problems with the company. For example, two other studies on Danish and Dutch women did find a higher risk of venous blood clots for women taking newer progestins, including drospirenone. One of the doctors who authored the Dutch study says the reports of an increased risk were worth acting on by switching the pills from drospirenone to levonorgestrel; he said, "Even if the risk of thrombosis is low, why not choose the lowest risk, just in case?" Earlier this year, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) also asked Bayer to correct misleading television commercials that overstated the drug’s efficacy, promoted it for conditions for which the drug is not approved and minimized serious risks associated with the drug. In September, the FDA also cited the company for failing to follow proper quality control procedures at a German plant that makes drospirenone and other hormone ingredients

Attorneys suing Bayer on behalf of patients who claim they developed blood clots and other health problems due to the drugs are arguing the company knew or should have known the pills created a higher risk. One such patient has lost partial function in her right lung after developing a blood clot from the birth control pill; she claims to have not known there was a higher risk using Yaz than any other birth control pill. Because Yaz and Yasmin contain warnings on their packages about the risk of side effects like blood clots and strokes, it may be hard for plaintiffs to win lawsuits. The one ray of hope may be the argument that due to misleading Yaz commercials, women were enticed to take the drug, thereby becoming exposed to health risks they may not have otherwise incurred.

In response to a reporter’s inquiries, Bayer stated its birth-control pills had been and continue to be studied extensively and the company stands behind their safety. The drugmaker also claims to have responded to the FDA’s inquiry into its manufacturing practices. Even if Bayer can adequately respond to the safety and other concerns, some industry analysts believe the outpouring of criticism may tarnish Yaz’s line image. Bayer said it has been served with seventy-four lawsuits brought by women who claim to have developed problems after taking Yaz or Yasmin; the company says it will defend itself vigorously against the allegations. While the lawsuits may rattle some consumer confidence, the warnings from federal health authorities concerning quality control and advertising raise larger questions regarding Bayer’s compliance with government rules.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Greg Webb

Toxic Water Is Major Problem In US Cities

Greg Webb — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 21:32:54 GMT

Residents in an area near Charleston, West Virginia have started to avoid contact with tap water after scabs began developing on their arms, legs and chests where the bathwater, which is polluted with lead, nickel and other heavy metals, caused painful rashes. The residents also began complaining of increased health problems, such as losing the enamel on their teeth, gall bladder diseases, fertility problems, miscarriages and kidney and thyroid issues. Tests have shown tap water contains arsenic, lead, magnesium, barium and other chemicals at concentrations that federal regulators say could contribute to cancer and damage to the kidneys and nervous system. A survey of more than 100 residents conducted by a nurse, who was hired by a lawyer representing a resident in a lawsuit regarding the dangerous water quality, indicated that as many as thirty percent of people in this area have had their gallbladders removed, and as many as half the residents have significant tooth enamel damage, chronic stomach problems and other illnesses.

The contamination began when nearby coal companies began pumping sludge, or leftover liquid used to wash coal of its impurities, into the ground, contaminating ground water. According to state reports, the companies injected about 1.9 billion gallons of waste into the ground since 2004; millions of gallons were also dumped into lagoons. These injections have contained chemicals at concentrations that pose serious health risks and break not only the federal law but state laws as well. Sometimes these amounts exceeded the imposed limit by as much as one thousand percent. Due to the dangers posed by the water, two hundred and sixty people sued nine nearby coal companies, accusing them of putting dangerous waste in local water supplies. It is very hard to hold a company responsible, however, since it is hard to tell what company put which contaminants in the ground and caused the most problems. As required by state law, some of the coal companies had disclosed in reports to regulators that they were pumping illegal concentrations of chemicals, the same pollutants that flowed from residents’ taps, into the ground; state regulators did not punish the companies, however, for breaking these pollution laws, nor were they warned that their activities had been noticed. When asked why the illegal activity had been ignored, West Virginia officials said the issue was accidently overlooked but their studies suggest the contamination would not have affected drinking water in the area.

This pattern is unfortunately not limited to West Virginia. According to a study in the scientific journal Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, an estimated 19.5 million Americans become ill each year from drinking water that contains parasites, bacteria or viruses. This figure does not include illnesses caused by contaminants or toxins. About forty years ago, Congress passed the Clean Water Act as a way to force polluters to disclose the toxins they dump into bodies of water and to give regulators the power to fine or jail offenders. Many states also passed their own versions of the law, though an extensive report by the New York Times showed violations of the act have risen steadily across the nation. For example, since 2004, manufacturing plants, chemical factories and other workplaces have violated water pollution laws more than half a million times. This number only accounts for violations reported by the companies themselves; illegal violations would increase the figure dramatically. These violations include failure to report emissions to dumping toxins that regulators fear may cause birth defects, cancer and other illnesses. Though some of the violations were minor, about sixty percent of the polluters were deemed in “significant non-compliance”, meaning their violations were the most serious kind, for example dumping cancer-causing materials into the water. The report also showed that only three percent of the polluters have faced punishment from either the state or the Environment Protection Agency (EPA), which can prosecute polluters when states fail to act. The EPA has faced scrutiny following the dissemination, through leaks and the Freedom of Information Act, of memos labeled “DO NOT DISTRIBUTE”, which showed federal regulators were aware that more than thirty states had companies that were violating pollution laws. Another memo showed the EPA was aware that the “states’ personnel lack direction, ability or training” to levy fines large enough to deter and punish polluters. Still, other memos explained that the agency was not going to correct the problems out of fear that it would risk its relationships with the states.

Many state and federal legislators claim they had no idea the pollution was so widespread and have vowed to make appropriate changes. In one controversial case in West Virginia, however, a state official attempted to close polluted mines and was then fired from his job, creating a bureaucracy clambering for job security. Since this time, hundreds of workplaces in West Virginia have violated pollution legislation without paying fines. Six current and former employees said their enforcement efforts had been undermined by bureaucratic disorganization, a departmental preference allowing polluters to escape punishment if they promise to try harder, and a revolving door of regulators who leave for higher-paying jobs at the companies they once regulated. Many state officials are defending their efforts, pointing out that there has been a ten percent increase in the number of cease-operation orders issued by regulators from 2006 to 2008.

Since it is difficult to determine what pollutants cause diseases like cancer, it is impossible to know how many illnesses are caused by water pollution or the contaminants’ role in the health problems of specific individuals. However, concern over contaminants are great enough that the EPA and Congress regulate more than one hundred pollutants through the Clean Water Act and strictly limit ninety-one chemicals or contaminants in drinking water through the Safe Drinking Water Act. Lisa P. Jackson, the new EPA administrator, has acknowledged the fact that despite the Clean Water Act’s many successes, the nation’s water does not currently meet public health goals. She also recognizes the enforcement of water pollution is very low, but has made it one of her top priorities to strengthen water protections and pressure states to enforce the law; state officials claim they are doing all they can with the limited resources provided.

Though the number of regulated facilities has more than doubled in the last ten years, many state enforcement budgets have remained basically flat when adjusted for inflation. For example, in New York, the number of regulated polluters has almost doubled to 19,000 in the last ten years, but the number of annual inspections has remained about the same. Limited state budgets are only part of the problem. The New York Time’s investigation also found that in states, such as West Virginia, with powerful industries, the companies lobby for and are awarded relaxed regulation. State officials also point out that water pollution statistics include minor, non-life threatening infractions, such as failing to file reports.

The New York Times research was turned into a database, and can be accessed at http://www.nytimes.com/toxicwaters. That research showed an estimated one in ten Americans have been exposed to drinking water that contains hazardous chemicals, including carcinogens, or fails to meet a federal health benchmark in other ways; wells, which are not typically regulated by the Safe Drinking Water Act, are more likely to contain dangerous contaminants than municipal water systems. The research also showed that last year, forty percent of the nation’s community water systems violated the Safe Drinking Water Act once. The violations ranged from failing to maintain proper paperwork to allowing carcinogens into tap water. Therefore, more than 23 million people received drinking water from municipal systems that violated a health-based standard. Following this study by the Times, West Virginia officials have declared a statewide moratorium on issuing injection permits and told some companies that regulators were investigating their injections.

Lawmakers and environmental activists claim the best solution to the problem is for Congress to hold the EPA and states accountable for their failures. They also believe the Clean Water Act should be expanded to police other types of pollution, such as farm and livestock runoff, since they are largely unregulated and the government should give state agencies more resources. Many experts do not believe major change will happen, however, until there is a large public outcry.

Unfortunately, the people usually affected by these polluters, these large, powerful, corporate interests, are people who do not have the means to combat the power and money arrayed against them. That is precisely why, in many instances, the polluters located and dumped in the locations they did - because they believed they could get away with the behavior. And, in many cases, they have gotten away with it, with the exception of a slap on the wrist - a fine that amounts to little more than lunch money for many of these corporations.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Greg Webb

Feds Seek to Change Drugmakers' Practices With Pfizer Settlement

Greg Webb — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 14:41:06 GMT

A record $2.3 billion settlement with Pfizer has reinforced the Obama administration’s stance on health-care fraud. Recently, “Pfizer unit Pharmacia & Upjohn pleaded guilty to a single felony charge that accused the company of marketing its anti-inflammatory drug Bextra for broader uses and higher dosages than those approved by the Food and Drug Administration.”

The investigation of Pfizer began four years ago when corporate insiders began to question the marketing practices that were being employed by the company in order to turn a profit. The methods used by Pfizer meant that employees were expected to “increase profits at all costs, even when sales meant endangering lives,” said John Kopchinksi, a Pfizer salesman from Florida. It was a group of employees, including Kopchinski, who called attention to the company’s illegal activity, which included bribing doctors into prescribing Bextra for conditions that it was not designed for, “[creating] sham requests for medical information as an excuse to send unsolicited advertising materials to physicians,” as well as writing articles to promote their product without disclosing the fact that they had a hand in preparing the promotional materials.

Pharmacia and Upjohn will pay $1.3 billion in fines and forfeiture and an additional $1 billion to state and federal authorities to “resolve civil allegations of improper marketing over Bextra and three more drugs,” with the former payment being the largest criminal penalty ever imposed in the U.S., according to prosecutors. The other drugs in question were: “Geodon, an antipsychotic medicine; Zyvox, an antibiotic; and Lyrica, an epilepsy medicine.”

The Pfizer settlement is one step in a long-term goal, with federal agencies more focused than ever on targeting and taking action against wrongdoing drugmakers in the health-care industry. In addition to the Pfizer settlement, the “task force” deployed by the Justice and Health and Human Services departments have been issuing indictments on smaller companies over the past several months for “[bilking] Medicare and Medicaid out of hundreds of millions of dollars through schemes involving wheelchairs, medical equipment and costly HIV/AIDS treatments.” With the Pfizer settlement, “the Justice Department’s civil division…has pledged to devote more attention to whistleblowers at drug companies and insurance firms who flag improper payments and marketing schemes.”

According to the acting U.S. attorney in Massachusetts, Mike Loucks, Pfizer, the world’s largest drugmaker, “has entered into four settlements with the Justice Department over the last decade.” With Bextra being voluntarily removed from the market in 2005 over its role in “strokes, heart attacks and blood clots in the lungs,” Health and Human services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said scrutiny on the company will be heightened.

Despite the settlement, concerns grow that it will not be enough to sway drug companies from their “bad behavior.” With the pharmaceutical industry being one of the most profitable in the country (raking in close to $50 billion last year), Sidney Wolfe, director of Public Citizen’s Health Research Group notes: “The ever-escalating fines are unlikely to stop drug companies from continuing to bribe doctors because they represent just a fraction of drug company profits and no one has gone to jail.”

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Greg Webb

Former Insurance Executive Outs Insurance Companies in Healthcare Debate

Greg Webb — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 21:34:28 GMT

Wendell Potter, the former head of communications for health insurance giant Cigna, understands why many people across the country are showing up to town hall meetings extremely upset when members of Congress try to explain why the government needs to expand its role in the health care system. He admits to having many conservative friends who are worried about a government takeover of healthcare. Both the people in the town hall meetings and Potter’s conservative friends have the same ideology: the less government control in our lives, the better. Potter further illustrates his point by providing the example of a man standing in line to get free healthcare at Remote Area Medical’s recent health care endeavor at the fairgrounds in Wise County, Virginia. Although the man knew firsthand the desperation many Americans feel every day for affordable health care, he told reporters he was dead set against President Obama’s health care reform proposal because he was worried about the increase in taxes; he would rather wait in a long line to see volunteer doctors in animal stalls than pay more taxes. Potter does, however, feel that there needs to be reform in order to ensure the safety and prosperity of the American people and wants the American public to realize that a lot of the information against Obama’s healthcare reforms was started by the healthcare industry itself.

In a recent press conference, which was later reported about on the radio, Potter claimed insurance companies funded many of the protestors against President Obama’s healthcare plan. What the radio report failed to include, however, was how health insurance companies and their public relations team influence everyone’s opinions without us even knowing it; after all, before Potter quit his job last year he was one of the leaders of this PR army. It was Potter’s job to “promote and defend” the company’s reputation by trying to persuade journalists to write positive stories about the industry’s reform ideas. During the last few years of his career, however, Potter became concerned about the American people. He was scared the high deductible plans insurers were now pushing would force more and more people into bankruptcy; he also saw how the insurance companies would drop people after they became sick in order to increase profits and reward Wall Street investors. In response, Potter decided he could not be an industry mouthpiece and kill much needed reform, so he quit.

Potter further explains how the healthcare industry funnels millions of its policyholder premiums to PR firms. In return, the firms will use their close connections with the conservative media in order to scare people away from industry reform. He wants to inform Americans that the healthcare horror stories, such as Canadians waiting in lines for hours to see doctors, is part of a script written by the insurance industry; the industry has been using these scare-tactics since they campaigned to kill President Clinton’s reform plan. Potter says the “death panel” rumor is a prime example of the health care industry sponsored rumors. Potter concludes his commentary by saying that whenever you hear someone warning against a “government takeover” of healthcare, or that the healthcare reform is down a “slippery slope to toward socialism,” know that one of his former colleagues wrote those terms.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Greg Webb

Many College Athletes Have Insufficient Health Insurance

Greg Webb — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 19:58:05 GMT

In 2005, the National College Athletic Association (NCAA) began requiring universities guarantee their athletes have adequate health insurance due to many years of concerns that college athletes had insufficient health coverage. The association did not, however, establish clear standards for this coverage, which allowed colleges to decide for themselves what was adequate. Although some colleges assume almost all medical expenses, many others accept almost none. In order to turn this problem around, the National College Player’s Association is lobbying for legislation to protect college athletes; the Association believes the NCAA is too focused on doing “right” by the schools themselves, not the players.

Many people claim medical insurance should be required as a cost of having an athletic program. Middlebury College, for instance, ensures all of their varsity athletes and students in club sports have accident insurance paid for by the college. Spalding College pays for secondary coverage for their athletes, pointing out the fact that student athletes represent the school and insurance is ethically the right thing to do. Large universities such as Michigan State and the University of Iowa also give their athletes comprehensive medical insurance.

Many athletes are unfortunately not this lucky. While the colleges that do not insure their athletes claim they go out of their way to inform athletes about their limits of insurance, many students and their parents still find themselves in horrible situations, having to shoulder large and expensive medical bills. An athlete from Colgate University, for example, piled up about $80,000 in medical expenses after injuring her back and legs while in training with the crew team; insurance only covered about a third of the expenses because of the way her condition was diagnosed, a sickness as opposed to an injury. Also, because many students are insured by their parents, the plan they are under excludes varsity sport injuries, limits out-of-state treatment or does not cover the entire bill. Some colleges buy secondary plans to fill in these gaps, however, these plans have holes as well. Additionally, only players that are hurt enough to require extensive care can turn to the NCAA for coverage; its catastrophic insurance deductible is currently $75,000, but will change to $90,000 next year.

Another problem with health insurance for athletes is how difficult it is to attribute every symptom to a sports injury that the plan will cover and a virus that the plan will not cover; there is an ambiguity in paying for care and treating an athlete who has more than one health concern. Sustaining an injury while sick would be a bad situation, and in the case of an athlete having a disease intermingled with an injury, it is unclear where one stops and the other begins. Within a single state university system, such as the University of Wisconsin, health coverage can vary widely. While at the university’s main campus at Madison, all varsity athletes fall under secondary sports coverage, at the university’s Division III campuses, only treatment for minor sports injuries that can be fixed in the training room is covered. Because it would be too expensive for universities to insure all athletes in the current economic times, it is unlikely the NCAA will require they provide more insurance anytime soon. Many believe health-care reform is the only answer.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Greg Webb

Mattel and Fisher-Price Fined $2.3 Million for Lead Toy Hazard

Greg Webb — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 17:09:25 GMT

Mattel Inc. and its subsidiary, Fisher-Price, have agreed to pay $2.3 million in civil penalties to the United States for importing and selling toys with excessive levels of lead, and for violations of the federal lead paint ban. The CPSC (Consumer Product Safety Commission) has provisionally accepted the penalty settlement. The CPSC announced on June 5, 2009, that the toymakers had knowingly violated a 30 year-old ban on lead paint in toys. Both Mattel and Fisher-Price deny knowingly violating the ban.

In 2007, approximately 95 different Fisher-Price and Mattel toys were found to have excessivle levels of lead. Lead that is ingested by young children can result in lead-related illnesses.

Mattel reportedly imported as many as 900,000 toys in 2006 and 2007 that had excessive lead, including the "Sarge" toy car and Barbie accessories.

Fisher-Price is alleged to have imported up to 1.1 million such toys in the same years, including the Bongo Band, GEOTRAX locomotive, and Go Diego Go Rescue Boat toys.

The civil penalty agreed to by the toymakers is the highest ever for the "importation or distribution in commerce of a regulated product".

Unfortunately, in this writer's opinion, this civil penalty, while a step in the right direction by the CPSC, and encouraging in that regard, is little more than a light slap on the wrist for Mattel and Fisher-Price. It is almost like paying a toll to proceed down the highway of profits over safety. This is further evidence for the argument to strengthen the CPSC's enforcement arm, and against preemption of any sort for state tort claims made by those legitimately injured by these defective toys.

For more information on this issue, please visit: www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml09/09237.html

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Greg Webb

FDA Warns Consumers About Contamination In Procter & Gamble Plant

Greg Webb — Mon, 18 May 2009 21:02:24 GMT

In a letter released last Tuesday, U.S. regulators claimed Procter & Gamble failed to sufficiently address manufacturing and contamination problems at a plant in Puerto Rico that produces over-the-counter drugs, as well as Olay cosmetics. Procter & Gamble has since said none of the issues compromised the safety of products manufactured at its plant in Cayey, Puerto Rico.

Inspections last year found many of the products had been prepared, packaged, or held under unsanitary conditions. This could cause the products to become contaminated with filth or otherwise be made injurious to consumers’ health. One inspection showed the machines that made the over-the-counter drugs were contaminated. Products manufactured at the plant include, Vicks Sinex nasal spray, along with skin and hair care products like Olay Total Effects Revitalizing Daily Foam and Olay Moisture Foaming Face Wash.

While the FDA asked Procter & Gamble to correct the problem and prevent this from happening again, Procter & Gamble insists it is confident in the products it places out in the marketplace. It claims its products are safe because they undergo extensive tests before being released for public consumption.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Greg Webb

Obama Advocates Food-Safety Overhaul

Greg Webb — Sun, 05 Apr 2009 17:48:59 GMT

President Obama has promised to strengthen and reorganize the nation’s food-safety system after declaring the government’s failure to inspect ninety-five percent of processing plants a “hazard to public health”. Obama has since announced the creation of a Food Safety Working Group, which includes the secretaries of agriculture and health, to generate coordination across federal agencies, advise him on which regulations and laws need to be changed, and ensure laws are enforced. Powerful members of Congress are additionally pushing to enact changes in the food-safety system.

Tom Vilsack, the agriculture secretary, also announced cattle that cannot walk, also called “downer cattle”, will be banned from slaughter. This system allowed the cattle that passed a pre-slaughter inspection, but were later injured, to be sold into the food system if a food inspector deemed the meat safe. Last year, only about 1,000 cattle out of the 34 million that were slaughtered got into the food supply with the exceptions. This case-by-case system is now eliminated.

About a dozen federal agencies share the responsibilities of ensuring the safety of the nation’s food supply. Critics and government investigators have said for years that this system needs major revisions. A debate on Capitol Hill has developed asking whether to boost food oversight at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) or give these responsibilities to a single agency that would eventually compound the food-oversight duties of the other eleven agencies. Vilsack has seemed to support the idea of this joint agency to oversee everything, however President Obama’s position is unknown.

Last year the FDA only inspected 7,000 of the nearly 150,000 domestic food facilities and its oversight of foreign plants was even worse. For many years, experts have debated whether or not the FDA should attempt to increase the amount of inspections or rely on more detailed safety regulations and private auditors. Obama appears to believe government inspections should be increased. Public health experts estimate that every year about 76 million people in the U.S. become ill due to contaminated food; hundreds of thousands are hospitalized and about five thousand die.

Let us hope that this initiative is completed. Food safety has exteme importance beyond the most obvious reasons. It is also a matter of national security, and this should not be ignored. Moreover, we do not need any more ecoli or salmonella outbreaks, or worse. This initiative should not be relegated to a backburner, where the previous administration placed it.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Greg Webb

Judge Rules CPSC Must Correct Loophole Regarding Hazardous Chemical

Greg Webb — Sun, 22 Feb 2009 19:59:16 GMT

A judge has recently ruled that the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) may not allow toys containing toxic manufacturing chemicals to remain on shelves after a ban goes into effect on February 10, 2009. The judge said the commission, whose purpose is to protect the American public, must correct a loophole that allows substances to remain in toys made before the ban. The ban relates to phthalates, which are dangerous chemicals used in soft plastics that when absorbed through the skin or mouth can interfere with reproductive hormones. A federal law passed last summer banned the chemical from being used in toys.

This decision has been considered a victory for children’s health. Had this decision not been made, consumers would have no idea whether or not their products contain hazardous chemicals or not. This ruling came much to the dismay of manufacturers who claim they would have to pull millions of dollars worth of products off of store shelves to comply. The CPSC plans not to appeal the decision.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Greg Webb

Peanut Salmonella Outbreak Reveals Inspection and Regulatory Problems

Greg Webb — Sun, 15 Feb 2009 18:20:58 GMT

The salmonella outbreak which occurred at the Georgia peanut plant Peanut Corporation of America (PCA) has caused eight deaths and sickened almost 19,000 people in 43 states. While the company, based in Lynchburg, Va., is under criminal investigation, the outbreak identifies a broader problem with thestate and federal regulatory system currently in place.

The plant had a number of health and safety issues, which would have been enough to alert inspectors to problems. Those issues included raw peanuts being stored next to the finished peanut butter, the roaster not being calibrated to kill deadly germs, workers donning their uniforms at home, potentially bringing contaminants into the plant, and rodents in the plant. The roof of the Georgia plant also leaked, giving salmonella water in which to thrive.

In addition to the obvious physical conditions of the plant, PCA’s own tests had found salmonella 12 times since 2007. The FDA accused the company of repeatedly shipping peanut butter and other products right after discovering salmonella; the agency had previously stated that PCA held the shipments until a second test for salmonella came back negative.

State and federal inspectors do not require the peanut industry to report salmonella contaminations to the public or the government.

Georgia was responsible for inspecting the plant, however state inspectors said their duties were hampered by budget cuts and rising needs. The state ran tests for salmonella on three samples from the plant in 2007, and none in 2006 or 2008. The last state inspection in October 2008 found two problems: mildew and dust in a storage room and the reuse of shipping bags.

While state inspectors did not find many problems, federal investigators last month found many, including salmonella living on the plant floors. A federal report shows that plant managers had not decontaminated the peanut butter processing line after detecting salmonella.

Georgia regulators said they will try to change state laws to require more disclosure of food safety tests. But Dr. Steven M. Solomon, an official in the federal agency’s Office of Regulatory Affairs, said such disclosures may be a "double-edged sword" that might prevent companies from testing in the first place.

Some people are questioning why stricter regulations weren’t put in place after a salmonella outbreak in ConAgra Foods’ Peter Pan peanut butter in 2007. A whistleblower reported that the company had found salmonella in its peanut butter produced at its plant in Sylvester, Ga. back in 2004, but the FDA did not pursue records after the plant refused to release the tests. After hundreds of people were sickened three years later, the FDA finally demanded the records. ConAgra spent $33 million to clean and improve its Georgia plant conditions and implement 80 rules employees must follow before beginning work. It has not, however, stated that it would notify the FDA if it found salmonella again.

David Marshall’s mother was one of those sickened by Peter Pan peanut butter back in 2007, and his wife testified before Congress. After hearing a congresswoman recently state that laws need to be enacted to prevent another salmonella outbreak, he thought "You idiot. What have you all been doing? The law should have been enacted years ago, and this made us wonder, what does the FDA even do?"

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Greg Webb