• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Bill would halt meat secrecy

Econ101

Well-known member
Bill would halt meat secrecy

Counties' health officials want consumers told about risks



By Jim Downing -- Bee Staff Writer

Sacramento Bee

Monday, May 8, 2006

California, US



County health officials want Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to untie the gag that prevents them from telling consumers which stores and restaurants sold meat and poultry that was recalled by distributors.



Federal law prohibits the release of such information without permission from businesses.



For a second time, state legislators are trying to change that with a bill requested by local public health officers. It would require distributors to provide the state with spreadsheets detailing deliveries of meat tainted by E. coli or other contaminants. Local public health officials could then decide whether to publicize the information.

Schwarzenegger vetoed a similar bill in September 2004, calling for the state Department of Health Services to work with the federal government to give more recall information to local officials.



The U.S. Department of Agriculture subsequently proposed releasing information about deliveries of contaminated products to groceries and other stores, but not to restaurants.



Sen. Jackie Speier, a Hillsborough Democrat who sponsored the California bill, SB 611, called the federal action a "smokescreen" and said that state legislative action could force the USDA's hand.



"They really react when California takes action, because they don't want to have 50 states taking action on their own," she said.



The Schwarzenegger administration has not yet taken a position on the bill, said Kevin Reilly, DHS deputy director for prevention services. Reilly said that DHS favors national over state level action on the question of public access to recall information.



The bill has passed in the Senate and Assembly, and has returned to the Senate for amendment approval. Since there were no controversial amendments, Speier plans to call Thursday for a concurrence vote on her bill, which is likely just a formality. Schwarzenegger would then have 12 days to either sign or veto it.



Distribution lists for recalled meat and poultry were held closely by the USDA until 2002, when a tug-of-war erupted over access to detailed information about shipments of tainted food.



That year, the agency refused to share information with the state Department of Health during a large recall associated with E. coli contamination, so the state negotiated for access to the distribution lists.



Twelve other states have signed similar agreements with the USDA. In California, the agreement gave state and local inspectors the ability to check for themselves whether recalls are actually being carried out. To get the deal, though, state leaders had to promise not to make the information public.



That restriction angered consumer advocates and many local health officials during the beef recall that followed the discovery in December 2003 of the nation's first known case of mad cow disease.



"A lot of people ... wanted to know whether they had bought the beef, and the local health officers were forbidden by the secrecy agreement from telling them," said Elisa Odabashian, spokeswoman for the nonprofit consumer advocacy group Consumers Union.



In that case, the USDA recalled more than 38,000 pounds of beef distributed over six states, even though the risk to public health was considered small. Some of the recalled beef reached California, including six restaurants in the Tahoe-Truckee area that unwittingly served the meat to customers during the holiday season. Grocery stores in five Northern California counties, including Sacramento, also received and sold some of the meat.



While stores posted signs about the recall and pulled beef from shelves, the public did not have access to a complete list of where the beef had been sent.



Compliance with USDA-ordered recalls of meat and poultry is technically voluntary, but no company has ever refused to cooperate, according to agency spokesman Steven Cohen.



During a recall, meat and poultry distributors are responsible for contacting their customers and keeping recalled products from reaching consumers, Cohen said.



The National Meat Association, a meatpacking group, opposes both the California bill and the proposed USDA rule change.



"Rather than making recalls more efficient, it is highly likely that the release of this information will cause more confusion and uncertainty with consumers ... and result in consumers returning more product that is not covered by the recall," wrote Rosemary Mucklow, the group's executive director, in a letter to the USDA submitted Friday.



The California Restaurant Association is taking a neutral position on the bill, according to spokeswoman Kearsten Shepherd.





sacbee.com
 

PORKER

Well-known member
It would require distributors to provide the state with spreadsheets detailing deliveries of meat tainted by E. coli or other contaminants. Local public health officials could then decide whether to publicize the information.

You would think that public HEALTH would be First !
 

Econ101

Well-known member
PORKER said:
It would require distributors to provide the state with spreadsheets detailing deliveries of meat tainted by E. coli or other contaminants. Local public health officials could then decide whether to publicize the information.

You would think that public HEALTH would be First !

I don't think they think anymore up there in D.C. They are just so full of themselves. Its the "if you don't get caught, you got away with it" symptom of Potomac fever.
 

Latest posts

Top