Phoenix Personal Injury Lawyer - Defective & Dangerous Products

Peanut Butter Recalled For Salmonella Contamination

Chrissie Cole — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 13:13:00 GMT

King Nut Companies recently announced a recall of peanut butter distributed under the King Nut label, made for the company by Peanut Corporation of America (PCA).

The recall was issued after salmonella was discovered in an open five-pound tub of King Nut peanut butter. The products are not sold directly to consumers; they are distributed through food services accounts to hospitals, prisons and more.

The FDA, CDC and health departments in Minnesota and Connecticut, have now confirmed that the sources of the outbreak of illnesses caused by Salmonella Typhimurium are peanut butter and peanut paste produced by PCA.

Companies nationwide that received product made by PCA, have issued voluntary recalls of their products. As FDA gathers additional information about these products, the list of recalled products is expected to expand.

The salmonella outbreak has sickened 550 people in 43 states, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The CDC updates information regularly.

Consumers can refer to the FDA’s online database to determine which products are included in the recall. To date there are nearly 900 products and the list is expected to grow.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Chrissie Cole

FDA Warns of Salmonella Risk in Cantaloupes

Jenny Albano — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 14:38:19 GMT

The FDA has put an import alert on cantaloupes from Agropecuaria Montelibano, a Honduran grower and packer, because the fruit may be associated with a Salmonella Litchfield outbreak in the United States and Canada. Cantaloupes shipped to the United States from this company are to be detained. Also, grocers and food providers are to remove the cantaloupes from this company from their stock.

Consumers who have recently purchased cantaloupes should check to see who the grower and packer are. if the cantaloupes are from Agropecuaria Montelibano then they should be thrown away.

So far there have been 50 reports of illness in 16 different states and 9 confirmed illnesses in Canada that have been linked to the consumption of cantaloupes. There have not been any deaths but 14 people have had to be hospitalized.

The FDA is taking this preventive measure while the agency continues to investigate this outbreak in cooperation with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and state partners. Such intervention is a key component of FDA's Food Protection Plan.

To learn more about Salmonella and its symptoms click here.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jenny Albano

FDA Sued for Stronger Warnings on Certain Antibiotics

Jenny Albano — Sun, 06 Jan 2008 00:36:04 GMT

On Thursday, December 3, a consumer group called Public Citizen sued the FDA, saying that the agency has ignored pleas for stronger warnings on antibiotics that can cause tendon injuries.

The labels on drugs such as Cipro and Levaquin, drugs in the fluoroquinolone family of antibiotics, do have warnings for tendon injuries, but they are listed among many other side effects are not emphasized. Public Citizen wants the tendon injury warnings to be upgraded to a black-box warning, the FDA's most severe warning. Also the consumer group wants patients who take this drug to recieve a pamphlet with their medication that explains the risks.

Public Citizen thinks that not very many patients who take this family of antibiotics knows they are supposed to discontinue use of their the medication if they experience pain or inflammation, before the tendon actually ruptures.

Public Citizen filed a petition seeking the stronger warning in August 2006. The state of Illinois had filed a similar petition the previous year. The FDA is violating its own statutes and putting patients at risk in taking so long to settle the issue, Public Citizen said in the suit filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

When Public Citizen first filed this petition there were 262 reported incidents of ruptured tendons from November 1997 to December 2005, and there were a few hundred reports of other tendon problems in patients who took these kind of antibiotics. Since the end of 2005 the FDA has recieved 74 more reports of tendon ruptures. These numbers probably do not account for most of the tendon problems because only a fraction of drug side effects are typically reported to the FDA.

For more information on this subject, please refer to our section on FDA and Prescription Drugs.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jenny Albano

Collins International Co. Recalls Oscillating Ceramic Heaters Sold at Menards Retail Stores

Jenny Albano — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 15:20:30 GMT

Collins International Co., in conjunction with the CPSC, is recalling about 20,000 oscillating ceramic heaters because the heaters can overheat, smoke, or may ignite which poses a fire hazard to consumers.

This recall involves 1500 watt oscillating ceramic heaters model EB38005. The heater has a white plastic housing with the name "Heat-Wave" in black on its top. A label on the bottom of the product contains the model and the control number "ETL 3090262."

So far the company has not received any reports of injury, but they have received seven reports of the heaters overheating, smoking, or igniting, which includes four reports of property damage to consumer's carpets and floors.

The product was available Menards' stores across the country from September 2006 to March 2007. The heaters were manufactured in China.

For more information on this subject, please refer to our section on Defective and Dangerous Products.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jenny Albano

Recent Safety Recalls Highlight Continuing Fight for Accountability

Staff Writer — Tue, 21 Aug 2007 10:05:27 GMT

Have you heard about recent recalls of tainted pet food involving food safety? How about toy recalls involving possible lead paint exposure? Have you heard about even more toy recalls involving choking hazards for small children? How about laptop computer batteries recalled due to a fire hazards? After hearing about all of these recalls, do you believe that consumer products are safer or more dangerous today when compared to years past?

I hear two different perspectives about product safety. First, I hear that litigation risks have forced companies to voluntarily recall products which would not have been recalled in past years. I hear people argue that safety risks involving a small percentage of consumers should not form a basis for product recall decisions. Alternatively, I hear that consumer products are increasingly becoming more dangerous as manufacturers outsource product design and assembly to locations which do not prioritize product safety.

What do you think? Do you believe products are safer today than they were twenty years ago? Do you believe that the dangers have not changed but that companies simply disclose more information today than twenty years ago? Should information disclosure and product recalls continue or should we simply make our own decisions to buy products instead relying on sellers and manufacturers to design and manufacture them safely? Do you trust that product manufacturers and sellers in business to make a profit will always design and market safe products? When confronted with less costly yet less safe design alternatives, absent some form of accountability, will sellers and manufacturers always choose safety over the bottom line? I'd like to hear your thoughts.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Staff Writer

Pharmaceutical Company Threatened Legal Action Against Physician Who Questioned the Safety of Diabetes Medication Avandia

Staff Writer — Thu, 07 Jun 2007 13:49:18 GMT

GlaxoSmithKline operates as the world's second largest pharmaceutical company behind Pfizer. It markets a vast assortment of medication to treat patients with health problems and, according to its annual report for 2006, the diabetes medication Avandia is one of the top six pharmaceutical products it markets throughout the world,

At 30th September 2006, GSK held second position in the world pharmaceutical market with a market share of 6.3%, behind Pfizer with a market share of 8%. GSK had six of the world's top 60 pharmaceutical products. These were Avandia, Lamictal, Seretide/Advair, Valtrex, Wellbutrin and Zofran.

In May, 2007, the Food and Drug Administration issued a medication safety alert claiming:

Safety data from controlled clinical trials have shown that there is a potentially significant increase in the risk of heart attack and heart-related deaths in patients taking Avandia. However, other published and unpublished data from long-term clinical trials of Avandia, including an interim analysis of data from the RECORD trial (a large, ongoing, randomized open label trial) and unpublished reanalyses of data from DREAM (a previously conducted placebo-controlled, randomized trial) provide contradictory evidence about the risks in patients treated with Avandia.

According to the FDA, based upon the data concerning possible heart related problems experienced after taking this medication, it advised patients to consult with their physicians about any heart-related concerns.

Its 2006 annual report mentions that Avandia accounted for approximately $2.4 billion dollars in sales in the United States alone:

GSK launched Avandia for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in 1999 and a combination product, Avandamet, for blood sugar control in 2002. The product group was expanded further in February 2006 with the launch in the USA of a fixed-dose combination treatment, Avandaryl, which combines Avandia with a sulfonylurea.
In 2006, sales of the Avandia product group grew 24% to Â£1.2 billion in the USA. In Europe, sales grew 39% to Â£217 million driven by the increasing use of Avandamet. Sales in International markets rose 17% to Â£234 million. The Avandia product group achieved in 2006 a market share by value in oral anti-diabetics of 37% in the USA and 19% in Europe, up 2 and 5 percentage points, respectively. In the USA, Avandamet prescription volume growth was adversely impacted by product supply issues during the year which have now been resolved.
In December, GSK presented data from the landmark ADOPT study, which demonstrated that Avandia is more effective than metformin, or a sulphonylurea, in long-term blood sugar control in type 2 diabetes. These data are in addition to those recently presented from the DREAM study, which showed that Avandia can reduce the risk of progression to type 2 diabetes. Data from both these studies are expected to be filed with regulatory agencies during the first half of 2007.

Based upon the sales volume alone, sales of this medication account for a huge source of profit for GlaxoSmithKline. In 1999, apparently after a medical researcher attempted to inform the pharmaceutical company about increased heart risks which have recently been disclosed publicly, company officers allegedly threatened litigation and:

warned him that some executives wanted to hold him accountable for a $4 billion drop in the company's stock.

The medical researcher testified in a congressional hearing this week that he wrote to the company and:

In a letter to SmithKline distributed at the hearing, Buse wrote: "Please call off the dogs. I cannot remain civilized much longer under this kind of heat."

In 2000, the researcher apparently outlined his concerns about increased heart risks to the FDA yet only recently did the oversight agency issue a safety alert about this medication.

If these reports present a true picture about conduct that occurred and safety concerns about the medication around since its release in 1999, do you believe that the Food and Drug Administration should have required a safety alert sooner? Should a pharmaceutical company properly threaten to sue a medical researcher who attempts to present safety concerns about a particular product? If you suffer from diabetes and have taken the medication Avandia, what medication safety information would you want to review with your doctor before making a decision to take this medicine? If you have heart disease and diabetes, would you want medication information concerning the possible risk of heart problems associated with Avandia?

In all fairness, the company continues to dispute whether the medication increases risk of heart problems. However, in my opinion, I would err on the side of disclosure of all research including increased heart risks and leave the decision about interpretation of study findings and whether to take the medicine in the capable hands of the treating physician and patient. I believe that the patient and doctor should have all tools and information available to them to properly evaluate risk and make proper decisions. If these public accusations are true, in my opinion, I am not sure patients were provided such an opportunity. What do you think?

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Staff Writer

Pharmacutical Company Pleads Guilty to Fraud involving Marketing Drug OxyContin

Staff Writer — Mon, 21 May 2007 16:05:51 GMT

Recently Purdue Pharma, together with three company executives, agreed to plead guilty to misleading the public in its marketing approach for the narcotic drug OxyContin. The company also agreed to pay fines and other assessments totalling $600 million dollars in one of the largest criminal penalties ever assessed against a company. According to the New York Times, Purdue Pharma mislead the public into believing that because the narcotic drug OxyContin involved a time release formulation, it involved less risks of addiction than other narcotic drugs. OxyContin is a powerful pain narcotic which lasts up to twelve hours. The drug is highly addictive and must be carefully monitored as a result. Unfortunately at the same time as Purdue Pharma's extremely aggressive marketing campaign began generating over one billion dollars in sales since the introduction of the drug in 1996, criminal activity involving OxyContin increased.

[B]oth experienced drug abusers and novices, including teenagers, soon discovered that chewing an OxyContin tablet or crushing one and then snorting the powder or injecting it with a needle produced a high as powerful as heroin. By 2000, parts of the United States, particularly rural areas, began to see skyrocketing rates of addiction and crime related to use of the drug.

Even though the company represented to the public that OxyContin was less addictive than other narcotics, internal company documents rejected this assertion.

Federal officials said that internal Purdue Pharma documents show that company officials recognized even before the drug was marketed that they would face stiff resistance from doctors who were concerned about the potential of a high-powered narcotic like OxyContin to be abused by patients or cause addiction.
As a result, company officials developed a fraudulent marketing campaign designed to promote OxyContin as a time-released drug that was less prone to such problems. The crucial ingredient in OxyContin is oxycodone, a narcotic that has been used for many years. But unlike other medications like Percocet that contain oxycodone along with other ingredients, OxyContin is pure oxycodone, with a large amount in each tablet because of the time-release design.

Following a four year thorough investigation by the United State's Attorney's office, Purdue Pharma admitted its criminal conduct and concluded that:

"Nearly six years and longer ago, some employees made, or told other employees to make, certain statements about OxyContin to some healthcare professionals that were inconsistent with the FDA-approved prescribing information for OxyContin and the express warnings it contained about risks associated with the medicine. The statements also violated written Company policies requiring adherence to the prescribing information. The misstatements were made prior to July 2001 and related to the risks of addiction, abuse, withdrawal, and tolerance compared to other pain medications. We accept responsibility for those past misstatements and regret that they were made.

In my opinion, this pharmaceutical company's conduct reaffirms the dangers of tort reform and corporate secrecy. Assume that somebody ingested and became addicted to OxyContin believing that its timed release formula involved less risk of addiction than other narcotics. Should the consumer have the right to demand accountability for an addiction or damages directly resulting from the pharmaceutical company's misrepresentations about OxyContin's timed release formulation? Probably so.

I can only imagine that this company's marketing strategy never would have been disclosed had it not been for a pending criminal investigation. In the course of civil litigation, shouldn't consumers have the right to know whether a corporation lied to them? Based upon the facts set out in the New York Times article, I believe so.

Most corporations act and behave professionally. However, Purdue Pharma's conduct shows all of us why we simply cannot assume that all companies will act fairly and responsibly toward consumers and shareholders. I hope consumers use this case as an important example about why we should reject tort reform and corporate secrecy. What do you think?

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Staff Writer

Consumer Product Safety Commission and Product Recalls

Staff Writer — Tue, 03 Apr 2007 11:19:33 GMT

Have you ever been concerned that a product you have been using may be defective? Does an appliance seem to run hotter than it should? Does a baby carrier you purchased contain loose straps? Have you ever been concerned that a bike you purchased seems flimsy? Well the Consumer Product Safety Commission provides information about product defects and safety recalls.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission contains a wealth of information on a variety of topics. According to the Commission,

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission is charged with protecting the public from unreasonable risks of serious injury or death from more than 15,000 types of consumer products. You can find information on over 4,000 product recalls and recall alerts using the various searches on this page.

Regularly checking on the Commission defective product recall pages can alert you to dangerous products and help keep your family safe from harm. Take a look at this web site and you may find that it contains valuable product safety information.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Staff Writer

Carnival Safety in Arizona

Staff Writer — Sat, 31 Mar 2007 14:42:29 GMT

Have you been to the State Fair? The Renaissance Festival in Casa Grande? Have you ever gone to any makeshift carnivals anywhere throughout the valley? If you have, then chances are great that you saw and rode on some temporary carnival rides. Have you ever wondered about the safety of these rides? Well you are not alone. According to a recent article discussing carnival ride safety in the Arizona Republic,

Arizona is one of the few states that does not require temporary amusement rides to be inspected or carry insurance, which leaves cities to decide how much or how little carnivals are regulated.

A bill pending before the Arizona legislature standardizes requirements that temporary carnival operators carry minimum liability insurance and subjects all carnival rides to periodic inspections.

At stake is whether Arizonans can count on the safety of the rides when regulations vary from city to city. Rides that continually are reassembled need to be scrutinized by inspectors who can head off accidents, industry standards recommend.

The bill has not yet passed the legislature but could serve a useful purpose by standardizing minimum safety and insurance requirements for carnival operators. What are your thoughts?

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Staff Writer

Would You Feed Your Dog or Cat Rat Poison?

Staff Writer — Fri, 23 Mar 2007 15:41:20 GMT

According to the Associated Press, scientists have found rat poison in recalled dog and cat pet food manufactured by the Menu Foods Corporation. Recently, the Menu Foods Corporation issued a product recall of certain dog and cat food because something in the pet food had been causing kidney failure or worse. Now we have been informed that a derivative of rat poison has been found in these recalled pet foods.

Menu Foods last week recalled "cuts and gravy" style dog and cat food. The recall sparked concern among pet owners across North America. It includes food sold under store brands carried by Wal-Mart, Kroger, Safeway and other large retailers, as well as private labels such as Iams, Nutro and Eukanuba.

Apparently some pets have been getting sick after eating this pet food because it contains aminopterin, a toxin used to kill rats in some countries.

I would guess that you would never feed poison to your pet cat or dog so please pay careful attention to the details about the pet food recall and demand that the Menu Foods company provide timely updates as it discovers new information. Check here to access the company's web site which contains further information about the product recall and other details about which specific products have been pulled from stores.

The pet deaths led to a recall of 60 million cans and pouches of pet food produced by Menu Foods and sold throughout North America under 95 brand names. There have been several reports of kidney failure in pets that ate the recalled brands, and the company has confirmed the deaths of 15 cats and one dog.

If you own a pet, do you think that a company which included poison in its pet-friendly food products should be held to account for the loss of a pet? Alternatively, would you consider this story as yet another example of a frivolous lawsuit in the making?

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Staff Writer