From today's NY Times: Court Lessens Federal Power to Shut Down M eat Plants

[Guest guest]

Dear Friends,

 

This is shocking news from today's New York Times. Although none of us is

so naive as to think that the USDA acts in the interest of the public's

health, the decision taken by the USDA certainly shatters any remnant

illusions that people may have had.

 

More importantly, this is an excellent opportunity for all of us to write

into the New York Times (letters), reminding readers that while

the USDA, the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, and the processors

argue over which tests are necessary and which need to be enforced,

consumers can take matters into their own hands by kicking the meat habit

entirely. By going vegetarian, consumers will markedly reduce their chances

of being exposed, not only to salmonella, but a full smorgasbord of new,

virulent pathogens being spread in today's meat supply, including the

notorious E-coli 00157:H7. You may also wish to remind readers that a diet

based around fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and legumes (the new four

food groups, as recommended by the Physicians' Committee for Responsible

Medicine) is naturally low in saturated fat, contains zero cholesterol,

offers sensible quantities of high-quality plant protein, is rich in fiber,

and protects the body with an arsenal of cancer-fighting phytochemicals. So

ideal is the nutrient profile of a vegan diet, that it is much easier to

maintain a healthy body weight on such a diet, and people live longer lives

with greater energy, greater vitality, and less illness.

 

It may also be useful to refer to the work of Gail Eisnitz, author of

, " Slaughterhouse: The Shocking Story of Greed, Neglect, and Inhumane

Treatment Inside the U.S. Meat Industry " , who documents that with fewer

slaughterhouses killing an ever-growing number of animals, line speeds at

slaughterhouses have skyrocketed. This has resulted in greater

contamination of the meat, dangerous working conditions for the workers, and

unspeakable cruelty suffered by the animals. Some of these issues are also

documented in Eric Schlosser's, " Fast Food Nation. "

 

On the issue of public health, I've appended a few facts, taken from

Schlosser's book (and summarized in a brochure prepared by the Food & Social

Justice Project), which you may wish to include in your letter (it's fairly

damning stuff, so please do take a few minutes to quickly type and fire off

a letter).

 

Thanks so much.

 

Best regards,

Alka

 

Number of people who are sickened every day in the United States by a

foodborne disease: 200,000

 

Number of people who are hospitalized daily by a foodborne disease: 900

 

Number of people who die every day as a result of a foodborne disease: 14

 

One newly emerged pathogen whose spread has been facilitated by recent

social and technological changes: E. coli 0157:H7

 

Symptoms accompanying ingestion of E. coli 0157:H7: severe abdominal cramps,

bloody diarrhea, vomiting, fever

 

Percentage of cases of E. coli 0157:H7 cases resulting in hemolytic uremic

syndrome (HUS): 4

 

Possible consequences of HUS: kidney failure, anemia, internal bleeding, and

destruction of vital organs

 

Leading cause of kidney failure among children in the United States: E. coli

0157:H7

 

Effectiveness of antibiotics in treating illnesses caused by E. coli

0157:H7: nil

 

Pounds of hamburger produced in one day by a modern processing plant:

800,000

 

Number of pounds of that ground beef that can be contaminated by a single

animal infected with E. coli 0157:H7: 32,000

 

Source of one-quarter of nation's ground beef: worn-out dairy cattle (the

animals most likely to be diseased and riddled with antibiotic residues)

 

Number of animals from which the meat in a single fast food hamburger

originates: dozens or even hundreds

 

 

December 17, 2001

Court Lessens Federal Power to Shut Down Meat Plants

By MARIAN BURROS

WASHINGTON, Dec. 16 - After a decision by a federal court, the Agriculture

Department has decided it will no longer shut down meat processing plants

that repeatedly fail to control the salmonella bacteria.

Although the move has been applauded by the processors, the cattlemen's

trade association says the Agriculture Department must continue to enforce

the salmonella standards in the slaughtering plants.

Gary Weber, the executive director of regulatory affairs for the National

Cattlemen's Beef Association, said the trade association has made its views

known to the secretary of agriculture, Ann M. Veneman. " We have told her

that U.S.D.A. has full authority to regulate the standards, " Mr. Weber said.

In its decision, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit,

in New Orleans, sided with federal District Judge A. Joe Fish in Texas, who

ruled last year that the Agriculture Department could not close Supreme Beef

Processors Inc., which is based in Dallas, because it failed three series of

tests for salmonella. The appeals court said salmonella was not an

adulterant because it was not harmful since normal cooking practices for

meat and poultry destroyed the bacteria.

Despite the ruling, the Agriculture Department says it will continue to test

for salmonella in processing plants according to its 1996 regulation that

for the first time in the 94- year history of meat inspection based the

safety of the products on a scientific standard. The Hazard Analysis

Critical Control Points inspection method requires companies to identify

points in production where contamination is likely to occur and come up with

plans to prevent it. Until the court decision, microbial testing was

considered essential to enforcement of the plan.

Dr. Elsa Murano, under secretary of agriculture for food safety, said the

department would not rely solely on salmonella findings to close plants. But

Dr. Murano insisted that the decision did " not take away our ability to shut

down a plant. "

" There are some people who think the salmonella standards are the only way

to enforce the pathogen reduction rule, and they are not, " she said.

" Salmonella testing alerts us that something is wrong. "

Dr. Murano said the Agriculture Department could still go into a plant and

check records and look at the monitoring system, and if it was not effective

and the plant did not fix the problems the department could still shut the

plant.

Carol Tucker Foreman, director of the food policy institute at Consumer

Federation of America, said Dr. Murano was trying to play down the impact of

the court's decision. " It is disingenuous to say that this is a minor

change, " Ms. Foreman said. " The court has blown a huge hole in consumer

protection and the U.S.D.A. wants to fix it with a tiny Band-Aid. "

On Wednesday, several consumer groups, including the Consumer Federation and

the Center for Science in the Public Interest, will hold a news conference

to demand that the administration ask Congress for authority to enforce

standards for harmful bacteria. Until it does, Ms. Foreman said, the

Agriculture Department should make public the names of the companies that

fail the salmonella tests.

Earlier this year, Congress defeated an amendment that would have permitted

the Department to continue enforcing the salmonella standard regardless of

the court's decision. Industry officials have argued that the salmonella

testing standards are not based on science.

" We are looking for ways to test to find pathogens, not test to punish the

plant, " said Rosemary Mucklowe, executive director of the National Meat

Association.

The majority of meat and poultry processing plants passed the salmonella

tests. Levels of salmonella have decreased substantially since the hazard

analysis program was begun. From 1996 to 2000 the rate of salmonella cases

per 100,000 dropped to 12 from 14.5. The Agriculture Department credits the

testing and tough enforcement; the industry credits improvements in the

plants.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report 1.3 million cases of

salmonellosis a year, including 550 deaths. The appeals court decision

transfers the responsibility for safe meat from the processing plants to

consumers. A footnote to the decision says, " American housewives and cooks

normally are not ignorant or stupid and their methods of preparing and

cooking food do not ordinarily result in salmonellosis. "

Dan Glickman, the agriculture secretary responsible for the 1996 regulation,

said that such reasoning was " obtuse " and that " consumers should accept some

responsibility but not all. "

The consumer organizations said that at their news conference they would

tell people who are at high risk from salmonellosis that they might want to

re-evaluate their use of ground beef.