a meating place critiques frontline's modern meat

[Guest guest]

i luv the fact, that even tho he ka-vetches and whines and name calls, he

doesn't really offer any real arguments...

 

Meating Place, an information provider for the red meat and poultry

industries.

 

COMMENTARY: Frontline's phony 'expose' as fraudulent as it gets

by Dan Murphy on 4/19/02 for www.meatingplace.com

 

I hardly ever turn on the TV without subconsciously reminding myself that

the sitcom or the " based-on-a-true-event " movie I might end up watching

isn't an actual event. The beautiful people, the fabulous houses, the

Baywatch babes -- it's all artificial.

 

Okay the silicone on the latter show is real, but if there were

truth-in-labeling laws for television shows, those beach scenes would have

to be advertised as " 100 percent fact-free programming. "

 

My little reality check came in handy prior to Wednesday's airing of " Modern

Meat, " a Frontline crock-umentary produced by PBS, the non-profit media

outlet owned by about 350 public television stations. Although PBS styles

itself as " a trusted community resource that enriches the lives of all

Americans through quality programs that inform and inspire, " the only

information delivered during what was pretty much an hour-long bitch

slapping of the meat industry was about as intellectually profound as those

alphabet jingles on Sesame Street.

 

At least kids figure out somewhere around age five that show is just make

believe.

 

The producers of Modern Meat, on the other hand, couldn't crow enough about

their show's " credibility, " its " objectivity, " noting that the segment

featured interviews with " current and former USDA officials, meat

inspectors, food-safety experts and industry representatives. "

 

Yeah, sure. And if you fall for that, you probably also believe you got a

great deal when you forked over a hundred bucks during one of the local PBS

station's endless fundraisers, just so you could obtain your very own

videotape of John Tesh's " Live at Red Rocks " concert, available exclusively

to supporters of PBS.

 

Now wait just a minute, a lot of Tesh fans are thinking right now. PBS is

" public " television. They're not in bed with some corporate sponsor. They're

impartial.

 

So how is it I can claim that the show's producers not only started with a

biased take on the industry but then pursued their own " agenda " throughout

production? How is it I can maintain that they ignored credible testimony,

scientific data and expert opinions that were contrary to their preordained

premise? That their " investigation " started with the idea that meatpackers

are deliberately poisoning the public with a vile, contaminated product, all

the while sneering at their victims as they drag huge sacks of cash into a

secret lair at the intersection of Easy Street and Fat Cat Boulevard?

 

Because I've spent two decades covering the business? Because I've been

inside of several dozens of plants of all sizes and structures? Because all

by myself I have at least 10 times the knowledge base about the meat

industry that the entire Frontline staff could muster on a collective basis?

 

Good answer. But incorrect.

 

No, the reason I knew going in that Modern Meat would be an old-fashioned

trashing was because back in October 2001 the producers contacted me, saying

I was one of the " experts " they wanted to interview. They said they wanted

to develop a " thorough understanding " of both the history and the recent

developments in the industry.

 

I told Alexis Bloom, a Frontline producer (her boss Doug Hamilton actually

produced the segment) I'd be happy to meet with her and Hamilton, even if I

had to fly out to their offices in San Francisco.

 

She said that would be great, adding that, " We don't know what shape the

show will take. These things are often decided quite late, once the

interviews are shot and the footage is cut in the editing room. But while

we're setting that up, could you get us into a few meat plants, and maybe

get an interview with Bob Peterson [then the chairman of IBP inc.]? "

 

I replied, " Uh, no. I wouldn't be in a position to ask anyone for access.

Sorry. But let me know when you'd like to talk. "

 

Weeks went by. I didn't hear anything further. After contacting Bloom again,

she e-mailed me back. Here is her verbatim reply:

 

" I've just spoken to my producer [Hamilton]. He's off on the road again and

doesn't know what his exact schedule will be over the next few months. And

he's not sure that a face-to-face meeting would be all that valuable for

both parties. I hope you understand our position. "

 

I replied: " Yes, let me see if I 'understand' your position. If I'm willing

to donate my time on the phone during my working hours at your convenience,

then you'll milk me for whatever you think you can use, right?

 

" But when I propose that we sit down to discuss the meat industry, so I can

be assured you'll hear me out on topics I'd like to see presented from a

neutral angle, then suddenly your producer is 'busy' for the next three

months straight? That pretty much sum it up? "

 

It didn't stop there.

 

Contrary to the " wide-ranging examination " of the meat industry I was

initially told Frontline would pursue, Hamilton and his colleague Steve

Johnson zeroed in on the topic of E. coli O157:H7 contamination in ground

beef. They lined up sources later featured on the show who were all too

ready to spin the party line about " industrial feedlots " and " assembly line

plants " and an impotent USDA inspection corps.

 

" When [fecal] bacteria are spread around huge feedlots, it contributes to

the spread of E. coli, " said Glen Morris, a University of Maryland

microbiologist and a former USDA official.

 

" The new highly industrialized way we produce meat has opened up new

ecological niches for a number of bacteria, " added Dr. Robert Tauxe, head of

the Centers for Disease Control's Foodborne Illness Section.

 

The experts pounded home the notion that these deadly new bacteria are being

spread throughout cattle herds, and that the Hazard Analysis and Critical

Control Point programs USDA began to implement after the 1993 food-borne

outbreak from E. coli O157:H7-tainted, undercooked Jack in the Box

hamburgers were resisted by the industry.

 

Which also resisted microbial testing for E. coli and salmonella, the show

further alleged, citing the saga of Supreme Beef, the company that sued USDA

so it could (allegedly) continue to ship out salmonella-loaded ground beef

after failing the government's testing standards.

 

Did they bother to talk to Steve Spiritas, Supreme's president? Maybe go for

that " balanced point of view " I remember getting mentioned a couple thousand

times in journalism school?

 

Of course not. After the show was wrapped and ready to run without a peep

from the principal actor in the salmonella performance standards story,

Hamilton and Johnson told the National Meat Association they tried to

interview Spiritas but " couldn't locate him in the Dallas phone book. "

 

H-m-m. But packers are supposed to locate every single blessed bacteria in

the truckloads of meat they process daily, now aren't they?

 

The rest of the show touched on the usual list of charges: Cattle are

force-fed a fat-rich diet, pumped full of antibiotics and hormones, then

jammed into filthy feedlots and packing plants where cross contamination is

virtually de rigueur. Hundreds of millions of pounds of ground beef have

been recalled after being contaminated with deadly pathogens. But the poor,

hamstrung inspectors and their white knight bosses at USDA could solve the

whole situation, if only they had the muscle to order mandatory recalls

whenever a lab test came back positive for harmful microbes.

 

Of course, anyone with a month's worth of experience in the business and

half a conscience knows the real story:

 

Microbial pathogens are present sporadically in all raw foods and are

impossible to totally eliminate, any more than mosquitoes or cockroaches

could be wiped out.

 

Industry embraced -- not defied -- HACCP. The only resistance came when USDA

layered HACCP on top of command-and-control.

 

Testing solves nothing and can only be used for verification of

anti-microbial interventions, on which industry has invested billions.

 

Salmonella performance standards were twice declared illegal by federal

judges because they were wrongly being used to measure sanitation

effectiveness.

 

" Modern " meat production has progressed light years from what was acceptable

only a few years ago. But meat or food processors can no more solve all

food-borne illnesses than car makers can prevent all traffic accidents.

That's reality. But when viewers soak up shows such as Frontline's full

facial on the meat industry, one can only hope they reminded themselves that

what they see on TV isn't always accurate.

 

The PBS producers tried to communicate a real fear about the crud they claim

is contaminating cattle in the nation's feedlots.

 

What they should have been worried about is the crap they're broadcasting.

[Guest guest]

How do you know a word like kvetch?! I demand to know!

 

Have you heard NOFX's The Brews? That is the funniest song I have *ever*

heard and it is probably totally lost on people unfamiliar with terms like

meshoogena and shiksas, etc...

 

--jojo

-

<EBbrewpunx

<eco_vegans >; <TFHB >;

<vegan-network >; ;

<veganhumpers >; <veganmania >

Monday, April 22, 2002 4:35 PM

a meating place critiques frontline's " modern meat "

 

 

> i luv the fact, that even tho he ka-vetches and whines and name calls, he

doesn't really offer any real arguments...

>

> Meating Place, an information provider for the red meat and poultry

> industries.

>

> COMMENTARY: Frontline's phony 'expose' as fraudulent as it gets

> by Dan Murphy on 4/19/02 for www.meatingplace.com

>

> I hardly ever turn on the TV without subconsciously reminding myself that

> the sitcom or the " based-on-a-true-event " movie I might end up watching

> isn't an actual event. The beautiful people, the fabulous houses, the

> Baywatch babes -- it's all artificial.

>

> Okay the silicone on the latter show is real, but if there were

> truth-in-labeling laws for television shows, those beach scenes would have

> to be advertised as " 100 percent fact-free programming. "

>

> My little reality check came in handy prior to Wednesday's airing of

" Modern

> Meat, " a Frontline crock-umentary produced by PBS, the non-profit media

> outlet owned by about 350 public television stations. Although PBS styles

> itself as " a trusted community resource that enriches the lives of all

> Americans through quality programs that inform and inspire, " the only

> information delivered during what was pretty much an hour-long bitch

> slapping of the meat industry was about as intellectually profound as

those

> alphabet jingles on Sesame Street.

>

> At least kids figure out somewhere around age five that show is just make

> believe.

>

> The producers of Modern Meat, on the other hand, couldn't crow enough

about

> their show's " credibility, " its " objectivity, " noting that the segment

> featured interviews with " current and former USDA officials, meat

> inspectors, food-safety experts and industry representatives. "

>

> Yeah, sure. And if you fall for that, you probably also believe you got a

> great deal when you forked over a hundred bucks during one of the local

PBS

> station's endless fundraisers, just so you could obtain your very own

> videotape of John Tesh's " Live at Red Rocks " concert, available

exclusively

> to supporters of PBS.

>

> Now wait just a minute, a lot of Tesh fans are thinking right now. PBS is

> " public " television. They're not in bed with some corporate sponsor.

They're

> impartial.

>

> So how is it I can claim that the show's producers not only started with a

> biased take on the industry but then pursued their own " agenda " throughout

> production? How is it I can maintain that they ignored credible testimony,

> scientific data and expert opinions that were contrary to their

preordained

> premise? That their " investigation " started with the idea that meatpackers

> are deliberately poisoning the public with a vile, contaminated product,

all

> the while sneering at their victims as they drag huge sacks of cash into a

> secret lair at the intersection of Easy Street and Fat Cat Boulevard?

>

> Because I've spent two decades covering the business? Because I've been

> inside of several dozens of plants of all sizes and structures? Because

all

> by myself I have at least 10 times the knowledge base about the meat

> industry that the entire Frontline staff could muster on a collective

basis?

>

> Good answer. But incorrect.

>

> No, the reason I knew going in that Modern Meat would be an old-fashioned

> trashing was because back in October 2001 the producers contacted me,

saying

> I was one of the " experts " they wanted to interview. They said they wanted

> to develop a " thorough understanding " of both the history and the recent

> developments in the industry.

>

> I told Alexis Bloom, a Frontline producer (her boss Doug Hamilton actually

> produced the segment) I'd be happy to meet with her and Hamilton, even if

I

> had to fly out to their offices in San Francisco.

>

> She said that would be great, adding that, " We don't know what shape the

> show will take. These things are often decided quite late, once the

> interviews are shot and the footage is cut in the editing room. But while

> we're setting that up, could you get us into a few meat plants, and maybe

> get an interview with Bob Peterson [then the chairman of IBP inc.]? "

>

> I replied, " Uh, no. I wouldn't be in a position to ask anyone for access.

> Sorry. But let me know when you'd like to talk. "

>

> Weeks went by. I didn't hear anything further. After contacting Bloom

again,

> she e-mailed me back. Here is her verbatim reply:

>

> " I've just spoken to my producer [Hamilton]. He's off on the road again

and

> doesn't know what his exact schedule will be over the next few months. And

> he's not sure that a face-to-face meeting would be all that valuable for

> both parties. I hope you understand our position. "

>

> I replied: " Yes, let me see if I 'understand' your position. If I'm

willing

> to donate my time on the phone during my working hours at your

convenience,

> then you'll milk me for whatever you think you can use, right?

>

> " But when I propose that we sit down to discuss the meat industry, so I

can

> be assured you'll hear me out on topics I'd like to see presented from a

> neutral angle, then suddenly your producer is 'busy' for the next three

> months straight? That pretty much sum it up? "

>

> It didn't stop there.

>

> Contrary to the " wide-ranging examination " of the meat industry I was

> initially told Frontline would pursue, Hamilton and his colleague Steve

> Johnson zeroed in on the topic of E. coli O157:H7 contamination in ground

> beef. They lined up sources later featured on the show who were all too

> ready to spin the party line about " industrial feedlots " and " assembly

line

> plants " and an impotent USDA inspection corps.

>

> " When [fecal] bacteria are spread around huge feedlots, it contributes to

> the spread of E. coli, " said Glen Morris, a University of Maryland

> microbiologist and a former USDA official.

>

> " The new highly industrialized way we produce meat has opened up new

> ecological niches for a number of bacteria, " added Dr. Robert Tauxe, head

of

> the Centers for Disease Control's Foodborne Illness Section.

>

> The experts pounded home the notion that these deadly new bacteria are

being

> spread throughout cattle herds, and that the Hazard Analysis and Critical

> Control Point programs USDA began to implement after the 1993 food-borne

> outbreak from E. coli O157:H7-tainted, undercooked Jack in the Box

> hamburgers were resisted by the industry.

>

> Which also resisted microbial testing for E. coli and salmonella, the show

> further alleged, citing the saga of Supreme Beef, the company that sued

USDA

> so it could (allegedly) continue to ship out salmonella-loaded ground beef

> after failing the government's testing standards.

>

> Did they bother to talk to Steve Spiritas, Supreme's president? Maybe go

for

> that " balanced point of view " I remember getting mentioned a couple

thousand

> times in journalism school?

>

> Of course not. After the show was wrapped and ready to run without a peep

> from the principal actor in the salmonella performance standards story,

> Hamilton and Johnson told the National Meat Association they tried to

> interview Spiritas but " couldn't locate him in the Dallas phone book. "

>

> H-m-m. But packers are supposed to locate every single blessed bacteria in

> the truckloads of meat they process daily, now aren't they?

>

> The rest of the show touched on the usual list of charges: Cattle are

> force-fed a fat-rich diet, pumped full of antibiotics and hormones, then

> jammed into filthy feedlots and packing plants where cross contamination

is

> virtually de rigueur. Hundreds of millions of pounds of ground beef have

> been recalled after being contaminated with deadly pathogens. But the

poor,

> hamstrung inspectors and their white knight bosses at USDA could solve the

> whole situation, if only they had the muscle to order mandatory recalls

> whenever a lab test came back positive for harmful microbes.

>

> Of course, anyone with a month's worth of experience in the business and

> half a conscience knows the real story:

>

> Microbial pathogens are present sporadically in all raw foods and are

> impossible to totally eliminate, any more than mosquitoes or cockroaches

> could be wiped out.

>

> Industry embraced -- not defied -- HACCP. The only resistance came when

USDA

> layered HACCP on top of command-and-control.

>

> Testing solves nothing and can only be used for verification of

> anti-microbial interventions, on which industry has invested billions.

>

> Salmonella performance standards were twice declared illegal by federal

> judges because they were wrongly being used to measure sanitation

> effectiveness.

>

> " Modern " meat production has progressed light years from what was

acceptable

> only a few years ago. But meat or food processors can no more solve all

> food-borne illnesses than car makers can prevent all traffic accidents.

> That's reality. But when viewers soak up shows such as Frontline's full

> facial on the meat industry, one can only hope they reminded themselves

that

> what they see on TV isn't always accurate.

>

> The PBS producers tried to communicate a real fear about the crud they

claim

> is contaminating cattle in the nation's feedlots.

>

> What they should have been worried about is the crap they're broadcasting.

>

>

> To send an email to -

>

>