October 15, 2019

Salmonella Bareilly Outbreak “Very Strange”, According to Expert

The outbreak of Salmonella Bareilly has now sickened 116 people in 20 states. This particular serotype of Salmonella is quite rare. The last widespread outbreak of this bacteria occurred in the United Kingdom in 2010.

SalmonellaIn fact, according to research published in the Cambridge University Press, this strain was identified for the first time in India in 1928 and remained rare until 1980, with just one outbreak reported at that time. Salmonella is found in the intestinal tracts of animals and birds, both wild and domesticated, and occasionally in humans.

Dr. O Peter Snyder, founder of the Hospitality Institute of Technology and Management in St. Paul, Minnesota, told Food Poisoning Bulletin that this recent outbreak is “a very strange outbreak. Salmonella is really a warm-blooded animal pathogen, so there had to have been massive cross-contamination.”

Dr. Snyder thinks the traceback, or investigation to discover the source of the bacteria, will be very difficult. He stated, “This may have been a one-time incident in a facility handling tuna or a warm-blooded animal. It could be a very small operation.”

Food Poisoning Bulletin asked if there is a reason for concern when a rare bacterial strain causes an outbreak. Dr. Snyder responded, “No, not really, because a rare bacterial strain is probably associated with a particular part of the world.”

“Since the U.S. food system draws from the world,” he added, “we will see unusual strains of Salmonella, E. coli, Listeria, or other pathogens that we are now commonly testing for. So I wouldn’t worry too much about the fact that it is a rare strain, except that it came from an unusual place where we don’t normally look for pathogens.”

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is continuing to work with state and local authorities to determine the outbreak source.

Comments

  1. This is really puzzling. I was one of the two who was sickened in North Carolina last month. I did not eat any sushi. I *may* have eaten a tuna steak, but I can’t recall (I really don’t think I did) and I would have bought it from the grocery store if I did — wouldn’t others have been sickened by the same tuna? Especially if it was a mass contamination? Or perhaps I caught it from someone else? I don’t understand. I was so sick for three days and finally went to the emergency room and that’s how I know I had it, because they tested me, and I found out 3 days later.

Report Your Food Poisoning Case
[contact-form-7 404 "Not Found"]
×
×

Home About Site Map Contact Us Sponsored by Pritzker Hageman, P.A., a Minneapolis, MN law firm that helps food poisoning victims nationally.