Category Archives: Food Safety

Israel – Hermes Fish Ltd. recalls multiple products – Listeria monocytogenes

Click to access rcl_30122021-01.pdf

Australia – Canberra Mrs Kim’s Donuts in Kingston closes amid widespread reports of food poisoning

Riotact

A recently opened Kingston doughnut store has closed amid widespread reports it is the source of dozens of food poisoning complaints across the ACT.

Reports emerged at the weekend on social media of locals experiencing vomiting and nausea after eating food from Mrs Kim’s Donuts.

The doughnut bar opened in July 2021 but has now closed its doors and removed its Facebook and Instagram pages.

The business’s Google search results now have it listed as permanently closed.

ACT Health has not confirmed it is investigating Mrs Kim’s but says it has received around 130 complaints about a single business.

Research -A Severe Gastroenteritis Outbreak of Salmonella enterica Serovar Enteritidis Linked to Contaminated Egg Fried Rice, China, 2021

Frontiers in Microbiology

Salmonella contamination of eggs and egg shells has been identified as a public health problem worldwide. Here, we reported an outbreak of severe gastrointestinal symptoms caused by Salmonella enterica serovar Enteritidis (S. enteritidis) in China. We evaluated the outbreak by using epidemiological surveys, routine laboratory testing methods, and whole genome sequencing (WGS). This outbreak occurred in a canteen in Beijing, during March 9–11, 2021, 225 of the 324 diners who have eaten at the canteen showed gastrointestinal symptoms. The outbreak had characteristical epidemiological and clinical features. It caused a very high attack rate (69.4%) in a short incubation time. All patients developed diarrhea and high fever, accompanied by abdominal pain (62.3%), nausea (50.4%), and vomiting (62.7%). The average frequency of diarrhea was 12.4 times/day, and the highest frequency of diarrhea was as high as 50 times/day. The average fever temperature was 39.4°C, and the highest fever temperature was 42°C. Twenty strains of S. enteritidis were recovered, including 19 from the patients samples, and one from remained egg fried rice. Antibiotic susceptibility test showed that the 20 outbreak strains all had the same resistance pattern. PFGE results demonstrated that all 20 strains bore completely identical bands. Phylogenetic analysis based on WGS revealed that all 20 outbreak strains were tightly clustered together. So the pathogenic source of this food poisoning incident may was contaminated egg fried rice. Resistance gene analysis showed that the outbreak strains are all multi-drug resistant strains. Virulence gene analysis indicated that these outbreak strains carried a large number of virulence genes, including 2 types of Salmonella pathogenicity islands (SPI-1 and SPI-2). Other important virulence genes were also carried by the outbreak strains, such as pefABCD, rck and shdA. And the shdA gene was not in other strains located in the same evolutionary branch as the outbreak strain. We speculated that this is a significant reason for the serious symptoms of gastroenteritis in this outbreak. This outbreak caused by S. enteritidis suggested government should strengthen monitoring of the prevalence of outbreak clone strains, and take measures to mitigate the public health threat posed by contaminated eggs.

Introduction

World Health Organization (WHO) estimated the global burden of foodborne diseases, the results showed that almost 1 in 10 people fall ill every year from eating contaminated food and 420,000 die as a result (Dewey-Mattia et al., 2018). Salmonellosis is one of the most frequently reported foodborne diseases worldwide. In particular, disease caused by non-typhoid Salmonella is a global public health problem, whether in a high-income country or a low-income country (Feasey et al., 2016). Each year, approximately 40,000 Salmonella infections are reported to the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDCs) (Vaughn et al., 2020). Salmonella enterica serovar Enteritidis (S. enteritidis) is the predominant Salmonella serotype accounting for between 40 and 60% of laboratory-confirmed illnesses of salmonellosis in recent years (Quick et al., 2015). Salmonella enteritidis typically cause a self-limiting gastroenteritis with the symptoms of diarrhea, fever, abdominal cramps, and dehydration (Jiang et al., 2020). Salmonellosis is mainly caused by eating eggs and egg products contaminated with S. enteritidis (90%) and has become a serious health problem. It has been attributed to this serovar’s unusual ability to colonize ovarian tissue of hens and to be able to present within the contents of intact shell eggs (Chousalkar et al., 2018).

Here we reported a severe gastroenteritis outbreak of S. enteritidis linked to contaminated egg fried rice. There were 225 cases of diarrhea and fever in a short period of time in a canteen in Beijing within 3 days. Epidemiological investigations and laboratory tests confirmed that the outbreak was caused by S. enteritidis and was related to the undercooked egg fried rice. At present, such a large-scale outbreak with severe clinical symptoms of S. enteritidis caused by undercooked eggs is rarely reported (Li et al., 2020). Therefore, we reported the outbreak and examined its molecular characteristics using whole genome sequencing (WGS).

USA – FDA Warning Letter – Maribel’s Sweets, Inc.

FDA

WARNING LETTER
CMS 616288

October 25, 2021

Ms. Gracia Borjas, Production Manager

Dear Ms. Leiberman and Ms. Borjas:

The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) inspected your food manufacturing facility located at 38 Dobbin Street, Brooklyn, NY 11222, where you manufacture Ready-to-Eat (RTE) chocolate products (including chocolate bars, ganache, hot chocolate, and cookies), and you repack chocolate products (including hot chocolate, brownies, and caramel bonbons), from June 1 through June 17, 2021. During our inspection, FDA investigators found serious violations of the Current Good Manufacturing Practice, Hazard Analysis, and Risk-Based Preventive Controls for Human Food regulation (CGMP & PC rule), Title 21, Code of Federal Regulations, part 117 (21 CFR part 117). At the conclusion of the inspection, FDA issued an FDA Form 483, Inspectional Observations, listing the deviations found at your facility.

Based on FDA’s inspectional findings, we have determined that the RTE chocolate products manufactured in your facility are adulterated within the meaning of section 402(a)(4) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act) [21 U.S.C. § 342(a)(4)] in that they were prepared, packed, or held under insanitary conditions whereby they may have become contaminated with filth or rendered injurious to health. In addition, failure of the owner, operator, or agent in charge of a covered facility to comply with the preventive controls provisions of the CGMP & PC rule (located in subparts A, C, D, E, F, and G of part 117) is prohibited by Section 301(uu) of the Act [21 USC 331(uu)]. You may find the Act and FDA’s regulations through links in FDA’s home page at http://www.fda.gov/.

We received your response, sent via email on July 6, 2021, which included a summary of corrective actions you have taken or plan to take. After reviewing the inspectional findings and your response to the observations listed in the FDA Form 483, we are issuing this letter to advise you of FDA’s concerns and provide detailed information describing the findings at your facility. We address your response below.

Hazard Analysis and Risk-Based Preventive Controls (Subpart C):

1. You did not prepare, or have prepared, and implement a food safety plan as required by 21 CFR § 117.126(a)(1). The food safety plan must be prepared, or its preparation overseen, by a preventive controls qualified individual and must include the following:

1) The written hazard analysis, as required by 21 CFR § 117.130(a)(2);
2) The written preventive controls, as required by 21 CFR § 117.135(b);
3) The written supply-chain program, as required by Subpart G;
4) The written recall plan, as required by 21 CFR § 117.139(a);
5) The written procedures for monitoring the implementation of the preventive controls, as required by 21 CFR § 117.145(a);
6) The written corrective action procedures, as required by 21 CFR § 117.150(a)(1); and
7) The written verification procedures, as required by 21 CFR § 117.165(b).

2. You did not conduct a hazard analysis to identify and evaluate known or reasonably foreseeable hazards for each type of food manufactured, processed, packed, or held at your facility to determine whether there are any hazards requiring a preventive control, as required by 21 CFR § 117.130(a). Specifically,

a. You did not identify and evaluate allergens as a known or reasonably foreseeable hazard to determine whether allergens are a hazard that requires a preventive control. Your facility receives, stores, and manufactures products that contain allergens such as wheat, milk, tree nuts (e.g., hazelnuts, almonds, and pistachios), and soy. Foods containing allergens can cause serious adverse health consequences or death to allergic individuals if they consume a food to which they are allergic. A knowledgeable person manufacturing/processing food in your circumstances would identify allergens as hazards requiring a preventive control.

b. You did not identify and evaluate bacterial pathogens, such as Salmonella, as a known or reasonably foreseeable hazard to determine whether they require a preventive control. Your facility manufactures food with tree nuts (e.g., hazelnuts, almonds, and pistachios) and various chocolates. These ingredients have been associated with pathogens such as Salmonella.

c. You did not identify and evaluate mycotoxins as a known or reasonably foreseeable hazard to determine whether they require a preventive control. Your facility manufactures/processes food with tree nuts (e.g., hazelnuts, almonds, and pistachios). These ingredients have been associated with mycotoxins such as aflatoxin.

d. You did not identify and evaluate contamination with environmental pathogens, such as Salmonella, as a known or reasonably foreseeable hazard to determine whether they require a preventive control as required by 21 CFR § 117.130(c)(1)(ii). Your facility manufactures RTE food which is exposed to the environment prior to packaging. The packaged food does not receive a lethal treatment or otherwise include a control measure (such as a formulation lethal to the pathogen) that would significantly minimize the pathogen. Note that environmental monitoring is required if contamination of an RTE food with an environmental pathogen is a hazard requiring a preventive control (see 21 CFR § 117.165(a)(3)).

3. You did not identify and implement preventive controls for any of your products to provide assurance that any hazards requiring a preventive control will be significantly minimized or prevented and the food manufactured, processed, packed, or held by your facility will not be adulterated under section 402 of the Act or misbranded under section 403(w) of the Act, as required by 21 CFR § 117.135(a)(1). Preventive controls include, as appropriate to the facility and the food, process controls, food allergen controls, sanitation controls, supply-chain controls, and a recall plan (see 21 CFR § 117.135). Preventive controls are subject to preventive control management components as appropriate to ensure the effectiveness of the preventive controls, taking into account the nature of the preventive control and its role in the facility’s food safety system (see 21 CFR § 117.140).

For example, food allergen controls include procedures, practices, and processes employed for labeling to ensure that all food allergens are included on the label and that food is protected against allergen cross-contact (see 21 CFR 117.135(c)(2)). You do not have controls in place to adequately control the hazard of undeclared allergens due to incorrect labeling, as evidenced by the following. On December 1, 2020, your facility recalled Cacao Market Cylinder Dark Chocolate Pearls due to undeclared milk on the product label. The recall was initiated after an inspection by the New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets revealed that the Cacao Market Cylinder Dark Chocolate Pearls that were repacked at your facility contained a milk ingredient but did not declare milk on the finished product label. During our inspection, you explained that you had previously produced the product at your facility without milk; however, when you began outsourcing the product from one of your suppliers and repacking the product at your facility, the outsourced product contained milk. You explained that you continued using the same label that did not declare milk. During our inspection, you stated that you hired an employee to ensure that labels are updated when needed to reflect ingredient changes; however, you have no procedures in place to ensure that any needed revisions are implemented.

Further, your facility manufactures multiple products with different allergen profiles, including products that contain tree nuts (e.g., hazelnuts) and that do not contain tree nuts on the same day and on shared equipment, which can result in allergen cross-contact without appropriate controls. You do not have controls in place to adequately control the hazard of allergen cross-contact.

Your response states that you are “developing a Food Safety Plan, including all required preventative controls” and including “a flow diagram of our process, hazard analysis for all raw materials, ingredients, processing aids, and packaging materials, hazard analysis for our production process, and the identification of any process preventative controls.” Further, you state that you are developing procedures “that outline the monitoring, record keeping, corrective action, verification, and validation of all process preventative controls.” In addition, you state that you are “reevaluating our sanitation procedures and processing schedule to allow us to better control our risk of allergen cross contamination. This will include items such as scheduling allergens to be run at the end of the production schedule and fully defined procedures on when and how to break equipment down for proper cleaning.” You state that “This will include a facility wide environmental monitoring program to verify the effectiveness of our sanitation program.” Your response does not include a timeline as to when you will have these corrective actions completed or supporting information or evidence that your facility is currently conducting these corrective actions.

Current Good Manufacturing Practice (Subpart B):

1. You did not keep buildings, fixtures, and other physical facilities in a clean and sanitary condition and in repair adequate to prevent food from becoming adulterated, as required by 21 CFR § 117.35(a). Specifically,

• The skylight, located above the tempering machine inside the processing room, had apparent loose paint hanging from its metal bars. The tempering machine contained melted dark chocolate and was kept uncovered during the entire inspection.

• The floor inside your processing room exhibited cracked, peeling surfaces.

Your response states that “Loose paint was removed from the metal bars of the skylight,” and “We are evaluating our floor and putting together a plan to repair the areas that need it the most.” However, you did not provide evidence that you have removed the loose paint from the metal bars of the skylight. Additionally, your response does not include a timeline as to when you will have the floor repaired or supporting information to demonstrate that your facility is currently working on conducting corrective actions.

2. You did not clean food contact surfaces as frequently as necessary to protect against allergen cross-contact and against contamination of food, as required by 21 CFR § 117.35(d). Specifically,

• On June 1, 2021, employees were observed transferring ganache coming out of the cooling tunnel onto previously used disposable plastic trays. These trays were not clean, as food residue was observed on the trays.
• On June 2, 2021, after cleaning was performed on the metal grid, chocolate residue was observed adhered to the metal grid extension which was reattached to the cooling tunnel that was ready for the next shift’s production.

3. You did not take adequate precautions to ensure that production procedures do not contribute to allergen cross-contact and to contamination from any source, as required by 21 CFR § 117.80(a)(4). Specifically,

• On June 1, 2021, you filled, repacked, and labeled two types of hot chocolate, one of which contains the allergen hazelnut. These two products were processed simultaneously, side by side, on the same processing table.

• On June 1, 2021, while a fan was used to cool dark chocolate-filled molds, apparent chocolate dust was observed on many surfaces inside the processing room caused by the fan blowing on the dark chocolate. These surfaces included the pipes running across the ceiling and plastic covering unused equipment. You manufacture different types of chocolate products that may contain different allergens in the same room using the same method to cool the chocolate.

• Your typical practice is to store clean chocolate bar molds on a rack protected by plastic wrap. On June 1, 2021, molds that had chocolate residue within their ridges were observed being stored on the clean mold storage rack. An employee explained that these molds were used to make milk chocolate bars and were placed on the clean rack in error. The employee added that the facility has designated molds for milk and dark chocolate bars; however, these molds are identical. The facility does not have a system in place to monitor cleaning and to differentiate between the two molds.

4. You did not take reasonable measures and precautions to ensure that all persons working in direct contact with food wash hands thoroughly (and sanitize if necessary to protect against contamination with undesirable microorganisms) before starting work, after each absence from the work station, and at any other time when the hands may have become soiled or contaminated, as required by 21 CFR § 117.10(b)(3). Specifically, on June 1, 2021, two employees were observed returning to the processing room after taking their break, and they proceeded with processing ganache without washing and sanitizing their hands.

The violations cited in this letter are not intended to be an all-inclusive list of violations that exist at your facility or in connection with your products. You are responsible for investigating and determining the causes of the violations identified above and for preventing their recurrence or the occurrence of other violations. It is your responsibility to ensure your facility complies with all requirements of federal law, including FDA regulations. You should take prompt action to correct or implement corrections to the violations cited in this letter. Failure to do so may result in legal action without further notice, including, without limitation, seizure, injunction, or administrative action for suspension of food facility registration if criteria and conditions warrant.

Please notify FDA in writing, within 15 working days of the receipt of this letter, of the specific steps you have taken to address these violations. Include an explanation of each step being taken to prevent the recurrence of violations, as well as copies of related documentation. If you believe that your products are not in violation of the Act, include your reasoning and any supporting information for our consideration. If you cannot complete addressing these violations within 15 working days, state the reason for the delay and the timeframe within which you will do so.

Section 743 of the FDCA (21 U.S.C. 379j-31) authorizes FDA to assess and collect fees to cover FDA’s costs for certain activities, including re-inspection-related costs. A re-inspection is one or more inspections conducted subsequent to an inspection that identified noncompliance materially related to a food safety requirement of the Act, specifically to determine whether compliance has been achieved. Re-inspection-related costs means all expenses, including administrative expenses, incurred in connection with FDA’s arranging, conducting, and evaluating the results of the re-inspection, assessing and collecting the re-inspection fees [21 U.S.C. 379j-31(a)(2)(B)]. For a domestic facility, FDA will assess and collect fees for re-inspection-related costs from the responsible party for the domestic facility. The inspection noted in this letter identified noncompliance materially related to a food safety requirement of the Act. Accordingly, FDA may assess fees to cover any reinspection-related costs.

Please send your reply to the Food and Drug Administration, Attention: W. Martin Rennells, Compliance Officer, One Winner’s Circle, Suite 140, Albany, NY 12205. If you have questions regarding any issues in this letter, please contact Mr. Rennells at 518-453-2314 x1038 or willliam.rennells@fda.hhs.gov.

Sincerely,
/S/

Ronald M. Pace
Program Division Director
Office of Human and Animal Food Operations –
East Division 1

France – SALTED AND SMOKED HERRING FILLETS IN COLZA OIL – Listeria monocytogenes

Gov france

Identifying information for the recalled product

  • Product category Food
  • Product sub-category Fishery and aquaculture products
  • Product brand name BAR
  • Names of models or references SALTED AND SMOKED HERRING FILLETS IN COLZA OIL 2.5 kg
  • Product identification
    GTIN Lot Dated
    3246993546003 044121/243 Use-by date 12/12/2021
  • Packaging2.5 KG BUCKET
  • Start date / End of marketing From 11/03/2021 to 11/30/2021
  • Storage temperature Product to be stored in the refrigerator
  • Health mark PL 30221802
  • Geographical sales area Whole France
  • Distributors POmona
  • List of points of saleHareng_LB_2.5kg_30.11.21.pdf

Practical information regarding the recall

  • Reason for recall Unsatisfactory analysis, presence of Listeria <10 / g
  • Risks incurred by the consumer Listeria monocytogenes (causative agent of listeriosis)

France – Reblochon Savoie Fruitier PDO – Brucella spp

Gov france

Identifying information for the recalled product

  • Product category Food
  • Product sub-category Milk and dairy products
  • Product brand name COOP VAL D’ARLY
  • Names of models or references REBLOCHON DE SAVOIEE FRUITIER AOP
  • Product identification
    GTIN Lot Dated
    3489450003200 Lots 312013 and 311932 Use-by date 12/07/2021
  • Packaging450grs
  • Start date / End of marketing From 10/21/2021 to 11/18/2021
  • Storage temperature Product to be stored in the refrigerator
  • Geographical sales area Whole France
  • Distributors promocash

Practical information regarding the recall

  • Reason for recall SUSPICION OF CONTAMINATION OF PRODUCTS BY BRUCELLA MELITENSIS
  • Risks incurred by the consumer Brucella spp (causative agent of brucellosis)

France – Butter, Faisselle – Salmonella

Gov france

Identifying information for the recalled product

  • Product category Food
  • Product sub-category Milk and dairy products
  • Product brand name No Brand
  • Names of models or references Thursday 11/18: faisselles DLC 11/25 Friday 11/19: soft butters, salted butters DLC 10/12
  • Product identification
    Lot Dated
    Soft butters, salted butters made on Friday 11/19: DLC 10/12 Use-by date 12/10/2021
    Faisselles manufactured on 25/11: DLC 10/12 Use-by date 25/11/2021
  • Start date / End of marketing From 11/19/2021 to 11/26/2021
  • Storage temperature Product to be stored in the refrigerator
  • Geographical sales area30 km radius
  • Distributors Villeneuve farm – rue de la plaine-41000 Saint Denis sur Loire

Practical information regarding the recall

  • Reason for recall GAEC Daudin Fils is now withdrawing from the sale of the following products following the suspicion of the presence of salmonella.
  • Risks incurred by the consumer Salmonella spp (causative agent of salmonellosis)

Research – Prevalence of Listeria Species and Listeria monocytogenes on Raw Produce Arriving at Frozen Food Manufacturing Facilities

Journal of Food Protection

The ubiquity of Listeria monocytogenes in the environment affects the food industry and presents concerns for frozen food facilities. This study determined the prevalence and numbers of Listeria species and L. monocytogenes on raw produce arriving at frozen food facilities. Raw produce was collected using multilevel blinding protocols to ensure anonymity of participants and avoid traceback. Five raw vegetables were selected: corn, carrots, green beans, peas, and spinach. Raw products were collected after arrival at the facilities but before cleaning or other preprocessing steps that are typically performed inside the facility. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Bacteriological Analytical Manual method for detection of Listeria spp. and L. monocytogenes was followed, with PCR screening followed by selective plating methods. Listeria numbers were estimated from positive samples using the most-probable-number (MPN) methodology. A total of 290 samples were collected, with 96 and 17 samples positive for Listeria spp. (33.1%) and L. monocytogenes (5.9%), respectively. Enumeration data for the 96 Listeria spp. samples indicated 82 samples had greater than 100 MPN of Listeria spp. per g and 14 samples had less than 100 MPN Listeria spp. per g. The prevalence of Listeria spp. varied by commodity: spinach (66.7%), peas (50%), corn (32.2%), green beans (22.2%), and carrots (13%). L. monocytogenes prevalence was determined in corn (13.6%), peas (6.3%), and green beans (4.2%) arriving at processing facilities. Such data were previously unavailable to frozen vegetable processors and are valuable in implementing process control standards. The prevalence and pathogen concentration data from raw commodities found in this study can provide the industry with information to conduct more accurate quantitative risk assessments and a baseline to model and target appropriate pathogen reduction steps during processing.

HIGHLIGHTS
  • Prevalence of Listeria spp. and L. monocytogenes in raw produce was determined.
  • 96 Listeria spp. and 17 L. monocytogenes samples were found from 290 produce samples.
  • 82 produce samples had >100 MPN/g and 14 samples had <100 MPN/g for Listeria spp.

USA – International Golden Foods, Inc (IGF) Recalls Tahini Because of Possible Health Risk – Salmonella

FDA

Photo – Labeling, Al Kanater brand tahini

Summary

Company Announcement Date:
FDA Publish Date:
Product Type:
Food & Beverages
Reason for Announcement:
Salmonella
Company Name:
International Golden Foods, Inc.
Brand Name:
Al Kanater
Product Description:
Tahini

Company Announcement

International Golden Foods, Inc (IGF) of Bensenville, IL is voluntarily recalling certain lot codes of the Al kanater brand tahini because it has the potential to be contaminated with Salmonella, an organism which can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people and others with weakened immune system. Healthy persons infected with Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea (which may be bloody), nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain. In rare circumstances, infection with Salmonella can result in the organism getting into the bloodstream and producing more severe illnesses such as arterial infections (i.e., infected aneurysms), endocarditis and arthritis.

The product was distributed nationwide and is sold in 16 Oz. jars. The jars are labelled “Al kanater Tahini.” Lot codes are printed on the jar. Product code, description, lot code, and UPC information are noted below.

Product Code Product Description & Size Lot # UPC
AT1LB Al kanater Tahini Sesame Paste 1 lb. (454 gr) TT4N‐201127 6‐92551‐00002‐0

No illnesses have been reported to-date in connection with the Al Kanater Brand Tahini.

This problem was revealed as a result of a random sampling by the Michigan Department of Agriculture. Although we have not received the final laboratory reports, IGF is recalling product with the lot codes listed above. Consumers who have purchased Al kanater Tahini with these lot codes should discontinue use and return it to the store of purchase for a full refund. Retailers that may have further distributed the recalled lot codes should share this notice with their customers. Retailers or consumers with questions may contact IGF at 630-860-5552. Please see attached a sample product picture. Company Contact Information: ‐630‐860‐5552, 800‐343‐7423., info@goldenfood.com,

Please return all product back to us.

Mansour Amiran 11/29/21
International Golden Foods, Inc.
819 Industrial Dr.
Bensenville, IL 60106.


Company Contact Information

Consumers:
IGF
 630-860-5552
 info@goldenfood.com
 

Ireland – Lidl Recalls a Batch of Deluxe Stuffed Dates Due to the Presence of Salmonella

FSAI

Lidl Dates

Tuesday, 30 November 2021

Summary
Category 1: For Action
Alert Notification: 2021.100
Product: Deluxe Stuffed Dates; pack size: 240g
Batch Code: 21301/196, best before date: 21/01/2022
Country Of Origin: uk

Message:

Lidl is recalling the above batch of Deluxe Stuffed Dates due to the presence of Salmonella.  Point-of-sale recall notices will be displayed in Lidl stores supplied with the implicated batch.

Nature Of Danger:

People infected with Salmonella typically develop symptoms between 12 and 36 hours after infection, but this can range between 6 and 72 hours. The most common symptom is diarrhoea, which can sometimes be bloody.  Other symptoms may include fever, headache and abdominal cramps. The illness usually lasts 4 to 7 days. Diarrhoea can occasionally be severe enough to require hospital admission. The elderly, infants, and those with impaired immune systems are more likely to have a severe illness.

Action Required:

Consumers:

Consumers are advised not to eat the implicated batch.