Quoted from the Article:

ConAgra said it is recalling all Peter Pan and Great Value peanut butter beginning with product code 2111.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/02/14....ap/index.html

[ 02-15-2007, 08:55 AM: Message edited by: Larry_OHF ]

Ok, stupid question of the day award:
If there are 40,000 cases annually, how are these 600 cases being called an outbreak?

From the article:

It hasn't even reached the posted number of people killed each year by the disease. What separates these cases out?

Probably a typo...

lol, I just checked our Peter Pan, and BOTH jars have the 2111 batch number!!

Both are half empty.. Hell, I made some butterscotch/peanutbutter/marshmellow/chinese noodle cookies a few weeks ago, but nothing happened when I ate em...

I'm sure it's not hitting every jar, but we threw it out just in case.
*Thanks Larry for posting this, I was about to--just saw this on CNN* :D

[ 02-15-2007, 11:35 AM: Message edited by: Ziroc ]

Lol, I hope so, because to make the numbers posted in the article, there are 3,333.33333333333 cases a month in the US alone. I think my calculator carried it a bit further than that, but you see my point. With that many cases a month, singling out 600 cases seems a bit strange to me.

Edit: Although, now you understand why choosey Bards choose Jif...

[ 02-15-2007, 10:55 AM: Message edited by: robertthebard ]

Don't believe the hype!! A little salmonella is good everyone. It toughens up your immune system. If you live in a sterile world then every little germ will make you sick as a dog.

Well it's better to be safe than sorry with salmonella, especially with children and people with low immune systems, so I'm glad that article was posted. Thanks Larry! And bye-bye Peter Pan, I always thought Tinkerbell had more nuts anyway. [img]graemlins/hehe.gif[/img]

<font color=skyblue>The article does mention that this is the first ever case of Salmonella found in Peanut Butter, a place that it is not supposed to be and since the Peanut Butter is eaten raw out of the package, there is no chance of cooking it to kill the bacteria. (unless you make cookies like Ziroc did, or a nice thai sauce for stir fry that I use sometimes...)</font>

Quote: Improperly handled or undercooked poultry and eggs are the foods which most frequently cause Salmonella food poisoning. Chickens are a major carrier of Salmonella bacteria, which accounts for its prominence in poultry products...Anyone may contract Salmonella food poisoning, but the disease is most serious in infants, the elderly, and individuals with weakened immune systems. In these individuals, the infection may spread from the intestines to the blood stream, and then to other body sites, causing death unless the person is treated promptly with antibiotics. In addition, people who have had part or all of their stomach or their spleens removed, or who have sickle cell anemia, cirrhosis of the liver, leukemia, lymphoma, malaria, louse-borne relapsing fever, or Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome (AIDS) are particularly susceptible to Salmonella food poisoning.

http://www.healthline.com/galeconten...od-poisoning-1

<font color=skyblue>Sounds a little more serious now, doesn't it? I know somebody who has had part of their stomach removed in order to lose weight and the doctors told her that her only source of protein for several months has to be Peanut Butter! Every old person I know loves Peanut Butter and Crackers for lunch.

Please don't dismiss warnings like this. It will make you feel that much worse when somebody you know actually gets sick and you could have warned them. But you'll never tell them that you thought it was a joke, will you?</font>

[ 02-15-2007, 12:12 PM: Message edited by: Larry_OHF ]

<font color=skyblue>By the way, I just came from the grocery store where I saw that all of the Peter Pan jars were removed before they opened this morning. </font>

I'm not trying to say this is a joke, Larry, I'm just curious as to what tipped the scales/sounded the alarm on this particular outbreak, since it's not like it just came out of nowhere. With the statistics that are listed, I wouldn't even think the CDC would have been alerted to draw attention to the peanut butter angle. 300 cases since August are well within the norm, if that's an appropriate term. The article doesn't say what tipped them to peanut butter, just that 80% of those cases said they ate it. Does that mean that we can cut 20% off what they used for figures? Or is there something else that's not reported? See what I'm getting at now?

Edit:

Apparently, everybody is using the same source for story, as the Washington Post has the exact same story listed. However, in my search for other stories about it, I found several mentions of an outbreak earlier in 2006 that were linked to lettuce/tomatoes.

[ 02-15-2007, 12:30 PM: Message edited by: robertthebard ]

<font color=skyblue>There was an outbreak of bacteria that came out of California weeks after the Spinach outbreak, and I think it was lettuce, but I don't think I knew of the tomato one.

The reason I think they are taking care of this outbreak in Peanut Butter is that the expiration date on those jars go up to like 2 years from now, and as I said most people do not usually use the stuff in cooking, and eat it raw, which means that the risk of contamination is higher and will be so as long as the jars are on the shelves.</font>

http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/2007/NEW01563.html

Here is the FDA's website link on the news, and a phone numer to call for questions.

<font color=skyblue>My wife (she works for the Health Dept.) has scolded me on not explaining the reason for the term "outbreak" in the article.

Allow me to repent and explain what I have learned.

An outbreak is a localized epidemic. FDA regulations call for them to issue warnings to the public when 2 people (or more) are made sick from the same publically accessible source.

The Peanut Butter is on sale to the public, and the batch that begins with #2111 is the isolated single source of a bacteria that is not normally expected to be found in connection with the ingredients of the packaging. Thus the cause for special public awareness. </font>

[ 02-15-2007, 06:16 PM: Message edited by: Larry_OHF ]

peanut butter and jam on toast is good [img]tongue.gif[/img]

<font color=skyblue>Then try them on a toasted bagel and you'll thank me.

Freaking Spammer. [img]tongue.gif[/img] </font>

This has to be a hoax right? Every single jar at the NEX here in Gtmo had 2111 on it as did the 4 jars in my kitchen cabinet. I haven't gotten sick either but i am going to throw them out just in case.

It'd be horrible if it turns out the 2111 thing was a hoax though and that most peanut butter jars actually start with 2111 and somebody made a note of that and decided to exploit it...

<font color=skyblue>Here's an updated report.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/02/16....ap/index.html

The plant is shut down and it is being investigated how this germ infected the food. The last time something like this happened, it was in Australia in the 1990s, and was blamed on unsanitary conditions within the factory. </font>

[ 02-18-2007, 12:36 AM: Message edited by: Larry_OHF ]

I had two jars also with the code on it.
Brand new, never opened. Sucks to throw away, but I did it. Better safe then sorry. And I LOVE peanut butter too!!

I also have a garden most year 'round, so don't buy produce from the stores either...

That spinach scare was enough for me... :D

Methinks it's a recall, so you can return them... if the trash hasn't been picked up, that is.

We didn't have any, fortunately. Now to wait for the next scare...

http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/condi....ap/index.html
<font color=skyblue>
The case has been solved as to how the peanut butter was contaminated. </font>

Quote:
• Leaky roof, sprinkler source of salmonella in peanut butter plant, maker says
• Moisture mixed with dormant salmonella probably from raw peanuts, peanut dust.