Another day, another black eye for
beef, courtesy of forces beyond producers’ control.
As you likely know by now, USDA
recalled 143 million pounds of frozen ground beef February 17,
not because of safety concerns, specifically, but because of the
now dog-eared abundance of caution. In this case, concerns
cattle that had passed ante mortem inspection at a Chino,
California harvest facility later became non-ambulatory and were
not re-inspected.
It all started January 30 with an
undercover video-tape from the Humane Society of the United
States (HSUS), which allegedly showed employees at
Hallmark/Westland Meat Packing Company (HWMP) abusing downer
dairy cattle in a way that would cause producers to pistol whip
anybody they found doing such a thing. That same day, USDA
placed an administrative hold on all HWMP (Hallmark is the
harvest portion of the business) products because of potential
violations of regulatory requirements and contractual terms as a
supplier of products to the Federal food and nutrition programs.
The company voluntarily ceased operations February 1.
“On Feb. 4, the Food Safety and
Inspection Service (FSIS) suspended inspection at
Hallmark/Westland Meat Packing Company based on the
establishment’s clear violation of Federal regulations and the
Humane Methods of Slaughter Act. This Notice of Suspension is a
regulatory course of action available when FSIS finds egregious
violations of humane handling regulations,” said Richard
Raymond, USDA Under Secretary for Food Safety.
On February 17 Agriculture
Secretary Ed Schafer explained, “USDA is announcing additional
actions as a result of the ongoing investigation at
Hallmark/Westland Meat Packing Company. USDA’s Food Safety and
Inspection Service has evidence that Hallmark/Westland did not
consistently contact the FSIS public health veterinarian in
situations in which cattle became non-ambulatory after passing
ante-mortem inspection, which is not compliant with FSIS
regulations. Because the cattle did not receive complete and
proper inspection FSIS has determined them to be unfit for human
food and the company is conducting a recall.” As an additional
safeguard against Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy,
non-ambulatory cattle are prohibited from entering the food
supply.
That recall is for two years
worth of production, most of it likely already consumed. The 143
million tons represents the largest beef recall in history.
According to Ron Vogel with Food Nutrition Services, about 37
million pounds of the 143 million pounds of recalled product was
destined for the School Lunch Program and other domestic
nutrition programs.
“I am dismayed at the in-humane
handling of cattle that has resulted in the violation of food
safety regulations at the Hallmark/Westland Meat Packing
Company. It is extremely unlikely that these animals were at
risk for BSE because of the multiple safeguards; however, this
action is necessary because plant procedures violated USDA
regulations,” said Schafer.
Two days before that the San Bernardino District Attorney filed
felony animal cruelty charges against two employees fired by the
meat company.
While Rome Burns…
That such egregious animal abuse happened is unconscionable.
That some lunk-head decided to put cows on the truck that were
obviously unfit to travel is more than frustrating. That it’s
the latest example of food-related policy and oversight
ineptitude by government and private industry—casting consumer
doubt on the beef industry—demands answers.
For starters, how could this happen if government inspectors are
doing their jobs?
According to Kenneth Petersen,
assistant administrator, Office of Field Operations for the Food
Safety Inspection Service, there are about 7,800 USDA personnel
providing inspections at about 6,200 federally inspected
establishments—about 600 of those beef harvest facilities.
For the record, Petersen says last year 12 establishments were
suspended for egregious humane handling violations that were
witnessed by inspection personnel. In addition, 650 other
inhumane practices were documented.
“Every head of livestock that
comes to slaughter in the United States is inspected prior to
slaughter, what we call ante-mortem, and it’s inspected on
ante-mortem by either one of my public health veterinarians or
one of our inspectors. And what they look for is to make sure
that the animal is suitable to proceed to slaughter. Some
animals we condemn on ante-mortem and most animals upon that
inspection pass ante-mortem inspection and then proceed into
slaughter,” explains Petersen. “Inspectors regularly observe the
handling of animals at any time before, during and after that
ante-mortem inspection, and we take immediate control if we
observe any humane handling violations.”
However, at HMS, a single-shift
plant (eight hours), Petersen also says, “We’re spending about
an hour and a half a day, again randomly throughout the day,
doing these humane handling assessments in addition to our
routine ante-mortem inspection.”
Hmmm…90 minutes doing all of the
ante-mortem inspections, plus assessing humane handling and
treatment throughout the plant, then the rest of the time on
post-mortem inspections. Sure sounds like there’s plenty of
opportunity for initially ambulatory cattle to become
non-ambulatory and slip through the cracks. But that’s not the
point.
Paradoxically, why in the world
would you recall 143 million pounds of beef when the human
health risk seems all but nil, and no sicknesses related to the
product have been reported. Even William Marler, a prominent
personal injury and products liability lawyer who began
litigating foodborne illness cases in 1993 said in his blog
February 23, “Is this massive recall really necessary? Rumor has
it that this massive meat recall will be expanded to food
items—tomato sauce, burritos, pizzas—what else? To date, there
are no ill people. Is this really necessary—especially the
potential for an expanded one?” But that’s not the point,
either.
Time to Quit Passing the Buck
Whether it’s this, BSE, melamine, e. Coli-based recalls of beef
and other agricultural products, whenever a problem crops up
everybody races to be the first to say that it’s a problem and
something needs to be done: they want more supervision, testing,
assurance. But no one is willing to do more than chatter.
Consider a February 19 letter to
Congress from 29 livestock and meat organizations, including
National Cattlemen’s Beef Association and American Meat
Institute (AMI). The letter urges Congress to reject new user
fees for meat poultry and egg products inspection proposed in
the federal 2009 budget.
“We know of no farm or industry
organization that supports imposing a tax to pay for meat,
poultry and egg products inspection,” says the letter. “We urge
Congress to continue to oppose proposals to assess new user
fees, either in whole or in part, to fund federally mandated
meat, poultry or egg products inspection… These “user fees” for
government-mandated food safety inspection programs represent an
additional $96 million tax on consumers, livestock and poultry
producers and the meat, poultry and egg processing industries.”
This particular food tax may very
well need defeating. But why are there no solutions offered as a
substitute by the same organizations?
There’s at least one program I’m
intimately familiar with which would set the wheels in motion
for meat products and other agricultural products to be
certified traceable from the pasture or field forward. The
system includes the ability to apply myriad food safety
intervention on a cost-plus basis. The system has been presented
to a number of the largest packers and retailers over the past
four years. No takers. Maybe it’s because this particular
system, though owned by all users, gives producers the upperhand
in being paid for supplying added value product safety
enhancements, rather than simply giving them away as a condition
of sale made by buyers.
No one beyond the producer seems
willing to take responsibility for their role. A few years back,
you wanted to sell cattle you had to sign an affidavit
guaranteeing you’d never fed mammalian product (meat and bone
meal) to your cattle. It was a condition of sale. Buyers have
tried the same thing with source and age verification at times,
and have more than hinted at the fact that complying with
Country of Origin Labeling will be the producer’s
responsibility, not theirs.
Maybe it’s time, especially in
this age of short cattle supplies and excess feeding and packing
capacity for producers to set some conditions of sale for the
buyer, like: Get off the dime and quit jeopardizing my
livelihood with your illogic and inaction.
Who Knew What and When?
Apparently HSUS had video and information about the animal abuse
violations for an extended period of time before making them
public. The organization had the person who did the video-taping
hire on at HWMP. What sort of culpability exists when you know
something like that and don’t say anything until it fits your
political agenda?
“It is unfortunate that the
Humane Society of the United States did not present this
information to us when these alleged violations occurred in the
fall of 2007. Had we known at the time the alleged violations
occurred, we would have initiated our investigation sooner, and
taken appropriate actions at that time,” explained Schafer.
According to HSUS, “The HSUS
turned over to appropriate California law enforcement officials
extensive videotape evidence once the investigation was
concluded. Local authorities asked for extra time before public
release of the information.”
“The original delay was
unacceptable, prolonged a bad practice and complicated the
federal investigation,” said Mark Dopp, AMI Senior Vice
President of Regulatory Affairs and General Counsel. “This
additional delay in turning over other relevant information is
unconscionable. It has created weeks of uncertainty and needless
concern for school districts nationwide.”
Like others in the beef and cattle industries, Dopp condemned
the handling practices depicted in the undercover video and said
they stand in sharp contrast to typical animal handling practice
in the meat industry. “They also do not comply with the industry
best practices included in the AMI Foundation Animal Handling
Guidelines and Audit Guide, which are widely used by industry
and endorsed by groups like the American Humane Association,” he
said.
By February 23, numerous reports
began to surface, unsurprisingly, that economics would force
HWMP to close its doors permanently.
Nobody wins. |
