A
Anonymous
Guest
SPECIAL FEATURE
Commentary: Murphy's Creekstone column misses the mark
by John Munsell on 4/17/2006 for Meatingplace.com
I respectfully disagree with Dan Murphy's eloquent conclusion that USDA should maintain its denial of Creekstone's request to perform 100 percent BSE testing. (See "THE VOCAL POINT: Creekstone's BSE testing suit one tough case to call," Meatingplace.com, April 14, 2006.)
A primary allegation made against 100 percent testing is that consumers would then question the wholesomeness of meat not tested for BSE. Balderdash! Consumers in America and other countries will continue to eat meat not tested for BSE, since we are comfortable with current protocol and trust our meat as being safe. Our attitude is that if any country requires additional testing (whether scientifically justified or not), we could care less. We simultaneously shake our heads and wonder why people are willing to pay the extra cost involved with additional and unnecessary testing.
If my neighbor demands that his meat be natural, or grass fed, or hormone free, certified Black Angus, certified Hereford, ad infinitum, my personal preferences remain unchanged and I will continue to purchase from traditional sources undeterred by others' purchasing requirements.
I may wonder why my neighbor pays an additional $20,000 for a high-end auto, but I realize that's his privilege as a consumer. The customer is always right. Purchasing decisions are often times not predicated on scientific rationale, but merely on personal consumer preferences.
Mr. Murphy reported that Creekstone may also perform 100% testing for other customers as well. This is great news! If other customers are willing to pay the premium involved to purchase a product they perceive to be better, our entire industry (including producers) have just gained another buyer, to everyone's benefit. Our capitalistic, free-enterprise system should allow a willing producer to join with a willing buyer in the absence of a government bureaucracy which attempts to impose artificial constraints barring legal trade of a legal commodity. USDA's continued opposition to Creekstone's request (and gateway cooperative) is rightly construed as an illegal restraint of legal trade.
Mr. Murphy points out the truth that if BSE testing were privately performed by plant personnel, the opportunity to hide positive incidents could occur. He is correct. However, the same situation has always existed within meat production plants, and has not prevented USDA endorsement of the plants' continued operations. As an example, plants conduct pathogen testing of various types. The results of these tests can be unilaterally and unethically changed or destroyed if plant management so desires. Or, positive pathogen results can be filed away and ignored. Worse things have happened in our colorful industry! The OIG report in 2003 which investigated the ConAgra recall in July 2002 revealed that prior to the recall ConAgra was experiencing continuous E. coli contamination incidents. Although both ConAgra and FSIS were aware of this problem, corrective actions were not required nor performed. Two statements from the OIG report include: "Data was available to both ConAgra and USDA in the period prior to the recall that indicated that E. coli contamination was becoming a continuous problem at ConAgra". Also, "Although animal feces on product was repeatedly observed during production at ConAgra, USDA took no enforcement action".
Unfortunately, historical evidence exposes the fact that even when USDA is confronted with ugly facts, it sometimes declines to implement enforcement actions at the source of contamination. Therefore, it can be easily understood why the agency does not want to face the prospect of responding to future detection of BSE positives. The agency concludes that reducing the frequency of BSE testing will best serve its purposes in our deregulated industry, although the fallout is continued closure of export markets.
Simply put, USDA wants to reopen all international markets with its own rules, and demands that our foreign trading customers relinquish the right to establish personalized purchasing specifications. After all, America's science is better than anyone else's definition of "science". Correspondingly, USDA demands that its definition of "consumer preferences" trumps all other definitions.
John W. Munsell, president, Montana Quality Foods & Processing;
manager, Foundation for Accountability in Regulatory Enforcement (FARE)
Miles City, Mont.
Commentary: Murphy's Creekstone column misses the mark
by John Munsell on 4/17/2006 for Meatingplace.com
I respectfully disagree with Dan Murphy's eloquent conclusion that USDA should maintain its denial of Creekstone's request to perform 100 percent BSE testing. (See "THE VOCAL POINT: Creekstone's BSE testing suit one tough case to call," Meatingplace.com, April 14, 2006.)
A primary allegation made against 100 percent testing is that consumers would then question the wholesomeness of meat not tested for BSE. Balderdash! Consumers in America and other countries will continue to eat meat not tested for BSE, since we are comfortable with current protocol and trust our meat as being safe. Our attitude is that if any country requires additional testing (whether scientifically justified or not), we could care less. We simultaneously shake our heads and wonder why people are willing to pay the extra cost involved with additional and unnecessary testing.
If my neighbor demands that his meat be natural, or grass fed, or hormone free, certified Black Angus, certified Hereford, ad infinitum, my personal preferences remain unchanged and I will continue to purchase from traditional sources undeterred by others' purchasing requirements.
I may wonder why my neighbor pays an additional $20,000 for a high-end auto, but I realize that's his privilege as a consumer. The customer is always right. Purchasing decisions are often times not predicated on scientific rationale, but merely on personal consumer preferences.
Mr. Murphy reported that Creekstone may also perform 100% testing for other customers as well. This is great news! If other customers are willing to pay the premium involved to purchase a product they perceive to be better, our entire industry (including producers) have just gained another buyer, to everyone's benefit. Our capitalistic, free-enterprise system should allow a willing producer to join with a willing buyer in the absence of a government bureaucracy which attempts to impose artificial constraints barring legal trade of a legal commodity. USDA's continued opposition to Creekstone's request (and gateway cooperative) is rightly construed as an illegal restraint of legal trade.
Mr. Murphy points out the truth that if BSE testing were privately performed by plant personnel, the opportunity to hide positive incidents could occur. He is correct. However, the same situation has always existed within meat production plants, and has not prevented USDA endorsement of the plants' continued operations. As an example, plants conduct pathogen testing of various types. The results of these tests can be unilaterally and unethically changed or destroyed if plant management so desires. Or, positive pathogen results can be filed away and ignored. Worse things have happened in our colorful industry! The OIG report in 2003 which investigated the ConAgra recall in July 2002 revealed that prior to the recall ConAgra was experiencing continuous E. coli contamination incidents. Although both ConAgra and FSIS were aware of this problem, corrective actions were not required nor performed. Two statements from the OIG report include: "Data was available to both ConAgra and USDA in the period prior to the recall that indicated that E. coli contamination was becoming a continuous problem at ConAgra". Also, "Although animal feces on product was repeatedly observed during production at ConAgra, USDA took no enforcement action".
Unfortunately, historical evidence exposes the fact that even when USDA is confronted with ugly facts, it sometimes declines to implement enforcement actions at the source of contamination. Therefore, it can be easily understood why the agency does not want to face the prospect of responding to future detection of BSE positives. The agency concludes that reducing the frequency of BSE testing will best serve its purposes in our deregulated industry, although the fallout is continued closure of export markets.
Simply put, USDA wants to reopen all international markets with its own rules, and demands that our foreign trading customers relinquish the right to establish personalized purchasing specifications. After all, America's science is better than anyone else's definition of "science". Correspondingly, USDA demands that its definition of "consumer preferences" trumps all other definitions.
John W. Munsell, president, Montana Quality Foods & Processing;
manager, Foundation for Accountability in Regulatory Enforcement (FARE)
Miles City, Mont.
