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

Food System Broken?

Mike

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
28,480
Location
Montgomery, Al
WHAT THE PRESS IS SAYING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

********************************************************
CAN WE TRUST WHAT WE EAT?
Our faulty food system
Elisa Odabashian

Friday, October 5, 2007



This week, New Jersey-based Topps Meat Company recalled 21.7 million pounds of frozen ground beef that has reportedly sickened 27 people across eight states with E. coli poisoning. Recent recalls of E. coli-contaminated Dole Hearts Delight bagged salad mix and salmonella-contaminated spinach produced by California grower Metz Fresh are among the latest in a string of tainted food reaching the marketplace in what is one of the worst years for food safety in U.S. history. It was one year ago that spinach tainted with a particularly virulent form of E. coli ended up sickening more than 200 people and killing three across 26 states. From tainted produce to chili sauce, from ground beef to peanut butter, from snack food to pet food to seafood, examples of the Food and Drug Administration's and U.S. Department of Agriculture's inability to protect the food supply - due to lack of funding, staff and political leadership - have left consumers reeling.

The failure of government to safeguard the food supply is particularly evident when it comes to fresh-cut produce, most of which is grown in California. After nearly two dozen outbreaks of microbial contamination in leafy greens over the last decade, consumers are shocked to learn that FDA's safety standards for the growth and production of the nation's salad bowl are completely voluntary. They shake their heads to learn that FDA inspects companies growing and processing salad greens on average only once every 3.9 years, and inspects only 1 percent of the foods that are imported from other countries. Most disturbing is that FDA has no authority to recall contaminated foods.

Because of these colossal failures by FDA to ensure the safety of fresh produce, consumers are forced to rely on the food industry to police itself. Industry self-regulation rarely protects consumers and self-regulating is exactly what California's leafy green industry is doing. Because of plummeting consumer confidence, the leafy green industry lost as much as $100 million in last year's deadly spinach E.coli outbreak. To plug this leak, and to avoid being regulated from outside, the industry - heavily influenced by Dole and other major players - developed its own safety standards, behind closed doors and without public comment. The industry appointed itself as the safety oversight board, including some of the very companies, such as Dole, which have been accused of marketing contaminated leafy greens. The resulting California Leafy Green Marketing Agreement, which is voluntary, was presented last October as the panacea for the safety of leafy greens. But if not all leafy greens in the marketplace are subject to the same safety standards, the door remains open for contaminated produce to reach consumers, as we have seen over the last few weeks.

While our salad was being recalled, people began to get sick from Topps beef. It took 18 days for the USDA to issue a recall after Topps found the E. coli contamination. After USDA inspectors discovered inadequate safety controls at the Topps plant, the recall was expanded back a full year of production. A recall that is retroactive a year means that consumers might have already eaten much of the tainted hamburger.

At a time when public confidence in the safety of the food supply is extremely low, Congress is considering legislation as part of the Farm Bill that would provide potentially weaker safety oversight of the meat industry. The measure would allow small producers that ship their products out of state to forgo the federal inspection program in favor of state inspection programs. Moving to state inspections has the potential to result in more contamination problems, if state inspections turn out to be less rigorous, in practice, than the federal meat inspection.

Furthermore, no state has the authority to institute a recall of adulterated meat that has been shipped to another state. Congress is holding a number of hearings focusing on food safety. New legislation aimed at securing the safety of the food supply could well take the path of other food safety proposals of late, languishing from lack of political traction. Lawmakers should change this trend and act decisively and immediately to give the FDA and the USDA mandatory recall authority to remove tainted food from the marketplace. Furthermore, Congress should establish a single food safety agency to ensure better safety of our nation's food supply, with substantial resources to hire more inspectors and enforce Good Agricultural Practices (GAPS) and Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) programs at every farm and every processing facility. GAPs and HACCPs are generally recognized food safety

procedures and principles developed by academia, industry or government that are not universally enforced.

Until the highest safety standards are rigorously enforced by a single agency that has robust, mandatory authority to inspect food, farms and processors, and to recall contaminated foods from the marketplace, consumers should not stop worrying about the safety of their meal.

Elisa Odabashian is the director of the West Coast Office of Consumers Union, the nonprofit publisher of Consumer Reports.
 
NOW Sam's Club stores in Eagan, Maple Grove and White Bear Lake Minnesota are recalling hamburger .The brand name of the implicated frozen ground beef patties was "American Chef's Selection Angus Beef Patties."
 
Galena School E. coli outbreak tops 10 with 7 developing Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome
Posted on October 4, 2007 by Food Poisoning Attorney

Source of Article: http://www.marlerblog.com/

As the U.S. media generally is focused on the Topps E. coli recall, Dick Kaukas, reporter for the Courier Journal has become "Mr. E. coli" over the last week covering what is arguably a far more tragic story.

Floyd County confirms two more E. coli cases - 10 now linked to outbreak at school

As Mr. Kaukas reported this morning:

The number of confirmed cases of the most serious form of E. coli climbed to 10 yesterday in Floyd County, with the two latest cases being ones that had been considered probable or suspected, the county Health Department said.

What is most concerning is the attack rate of HUS:

The number of people infected with E. coli in Floyd County has jumped to 10, including seven schoolchildren who suffered kidney failure and required dialysis machines [Developed HUS], health officials said Tuesday.

To put this in context, in most E. coli outbreaks you would expect to see 1 person with HUS for every 10 sick – not 7 out of 10. In the dozens of E. coli outbreaks that we have been involve with since 1993, I have not see the attack rate fro HUS that high. In the Finley School E. coli outbreak, only one child developed severe HUS.
 
Can we trust what we eat in the US. Russia Can't !!!

Russia imposes ban on 30 U.S. poultry, pork facilities

(MEATPOULTRY.com, October 19, 2007)
by Bryan Salvage
KANSAS CITY ― In the midst of rising political tensions between the United States and Russia, Russia imposed a ban Oct. 18 on pork and poultry imports from 30 U.S. facilities (a combination of processing plants and storage facilities) effective Nov. 1, reported Reuters. Russia is the top export market for U.S. chicken and a major customer of U.S. pork.

The decertification followed a series of inspections conducted by Russian officials this past summer. Facilities certified to export poultry and owned by the following companies now are included on the ineligible list, according to the Food Safety and Inspection Service (F.S.I.S.): Americold Logistics; Choctaw Maid Farms; Millard Refrigerated Service; Mountaire Farms; Nordic; Peco Foods; Sanderson Farms; Simmons Foods; Stanford Refrigerated Warehouses; Sylvest Farms; and Tyson Foods.

Facilities owned by pork processors Albert Lea Select Foods; Amity Packing Co.; Fulton Market; Hormel Foods Corp.; Quality Pork Processors; Rupari Food Service; Sioux-Preme Pork Products; and Swift & Co. are on the list, according to the F.S.I.S.

Russia is the largest export market for U.S. chicken. In August it purchased 211.2 million lbs, or 40% of all U.S. chicken exports that month, according to Reuters. Although troubling news, one economist said the action should not affect U.S. chicken exports drastically.

U.S. pork exports gained a significant share of the Russian import market in 2006 as Russia's main supplier, Brazil, had limited market access due to an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in major producing regions, according to the U.S. Meat Export Federation. As a result, U.S. pork and pork variety meat exports to Russia reached a new record in 2006, up 105% in volume from 2005 to 82,677 metric tons and 127% in value to $164 million. This marked the first year market conditions in Russia made it possible for the United States to exceed its tariff rate quota and ship pork muscle cuts to Russia at the full duty.

As far as resolving the decertification issue, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has the authority to approve the facilities for Russia once the problems are identified and fixed.
 
Ben H said:
Ok, I don't have time to read all that, it's a simple solution, two words...

BUY LOCAL

Really Ben, that is far too simple a concept for most to understand. :?

I am finishing up a program at college where the majority of the students are, of course, the same age as my kids. They have some pretty weird and idyllic ideas about how food is produced and how it should be done.

Although I occasionally try to bring a "real world" perspective to the discussion, a lot of the time, I just have to bite my tongue or I will constantly come accross as the "grumpy old man"! :lol:

It is not that I like the present day food system. But I HATE when those who criticize it have no clue what happens in the real world and don't know what it takes to get the food they eat and need onto their plates.

So when one fellow student was criticizing the way lettuce is produced, for example, I asked him why he does not grow his own. The reply was a blank stare. The thought had never occurred to him berfore.

The prof "rescued" him by saying, "because the rabbits would chew it all off!" and we all laughed. BUt that is one opf the realities of growing your own food. I could go on and on . . . .
 
Maple Leaf Angus said:
Ben H said:
Ok, I don't have time to read all that, it's a simple solution, two words...

BUY LOCAL

Really Ben, that is far too simple a concept for most to understand. :?

I am finishing up a program at college where the majority of the students are, of course, the same age as my kids. They have some pretty weird and idyllic ideas about how food is produced and how it should be done.

Although I occasionally try to bring a "real world" perspective to the discussion, a lot of the time, I just have to bite my tongue or I will constantly come accross as the "grumpy old man"! :lol:

It is not that I like the present day food system. But I HATE when those who criticize it have no clue what happens in the real world and don't know what it takes to get the food they eat and need onto their plates.

So when one fellow student was criticizing the way lettuce is produced, for example, I asked him why he does not grow his own. The reply was a blank stare. The thought had never occurred to him berfore.

The prof "rescued" him by saying, "because the rabbits would chew it all off!" and we all laughed. BUt that is one opf the realities of growing your own food. I could go on and on . . . .


Maple Leaf, I agree with what you say. There are risks in food production systems. We should have regulatory agencies who identify these risks and (like having a program for hand harvesters to use a little alcohol germ hand soap) have suggestions on minimizing the risks. If companies do not do these things to minimize food safety issues just because they want to compete on price, their actions merit civil litigation. This civil litigation should be a deterrence to food companies who want to compete in the market on food safety shortcuts. These penalties should be over and above the costs companies occur in lost market share or sales.

I also think the higher the market share, the larger the penalties should be. They should be relative to the gross sales. This in itself would help increase competition in the market place.

The FDA/USDA should require food production managers to be educated in the types safety issues that are most important (at the food handling management level) so that they can be headed off before they become a problem. If an FDA/USDA inspector does see food safety issues that are not being addressed in good faith, they should have the right to shut the operation down. That is the only way to get the respect of the bean counters in upper management. Most intentional short cuts to food safety could be eliminated.

All companies who are regulated should have all communications in writing so it is unambiguous. This would be a good record for future compliance or future accountability. Just like health scores for restaurants, health scores for food safety should be public knowledge easily accessible.

These inspectors should be protected from undue influence of a politically run agency. Whistle blower laws should protect the economic interests of inspectors and any successful claims should result in reduction of benefits in the chain of command in the agency that allowed the interference in the first place. This information should be made public. If there are policy makers who are using the agency's power for self serving interests, they should be held accountable and that information should also be made public.

There will always be little food safety issues that get through just as restaurant scores are not always 100%. Management that shows a propensity to compete on food safety issues should be held accountable to the public.
 
Maple Leaf Angus said:
Ben H said:
Ok, I don't have time to read all that, it's a simple solution, two words...

BUY LOCAL

Really Ben, that is far too simple a concept for most to understand. :?

I am finishing up a program at college where the majority of the students are, of course, the same age as my kids. They have some pretty weird and idyllic ideas about how food is produced and how it should be done.

Although I occasionally try to bring a "real world" perspective to the discussion, a lot of the time, I just have to bite my tongue or I will constantly come accross as the "grumpy old man"! :lol:

It is not that I like the present day food system. But I HATE when those who criticize it have no clue what happens in the real world and don't know what it takes to get the food they eat and need onto their plates.

So when one fellow student was criticizing the way lettuce is produced, for example, I asked him why he does not grow his own. The reply was a blank stare. The thought had never occurred to him berfore.

The prof "rescued" him by saying, "because the rabbits would chew it all off!" and we all laughed. BUt that is one opf the realities of growing your own food. I could go on and on . . . .


Maple Leaf, I agree with what you say. There are risks in food production systems. We should have regulatory agencies who identify these risks and (like having a program for hand harvesters to use a little alcohol germ hand soap) have suggestions on minimizing the risks. If companies do not do these things to minimize food safety issues just because they want to compete on price, their actions merit civil litigation. This civil litigation should be a deterrence to food companies who want to compete in the market on food safety shortcuts. These penalties should be over and above the costs companies occur in lost market share or sales.

I also think the higher the market share, the larger the penalties should be. They should be relative to the gross sales. This in itself would help increase competition in the market place.

The FDA/USDA should require food production managers to be educated in the types safety issues that are most important (at the food handling management level) so that they can be headed off before they become a problem. If an FDA/USDA inspector does see food safety issues that are not being addressed in good faith, they should have the right to shut the operation down. That is the only way to get the respect of the bean counters in upper management. Most intentional short cuts to food safety could be eliminated.

All companies who are regulated should have all communications in writing so it is unambiguous. This would be a good record for future compliance or future accountability. Just like health scores for restaurants, health scores for food safety should be public knowledge easily accessible.

These inspectors should be protected from undue influence of a politically run agency. Whistle blower laws should protect the economic interests of inspectors and any successful claims should result in reduction of benefits in the chain of command in the agency that allowed the interference in the first place. This information should be made public. If there are policy makers who are using the agency's power for self serving interests, they should be held accountable and that information should also be made public. Top regulatory officials should be able to contact anyone in the legislative branch or the executive branch and document any undue influence they happen to see. These should be traceable to find out just where in the process the regulatory process failed.

There will always be little food safety issues that get through just as restaurant scores are not always 100%. Management/investors who show a propensity to compete on food safety issues should be held accountable to the public. Just like people are barred from Wall Street when they are convicted of fraud, the same should hold true in the food industry--like a probationary measure. Investors and upper management should not be able to use unscrupulous employees who will break the law to make them money.

One of the oversight reports I saw suggested that employees in our regulatory agencies be moved around so that there is never enough time to establish a fraudulent structures. I haven't seen that happen to the extent it should have.

Just a few thoughts there, Maple Leaf.
 
It's Better TODAY

NFU: Interstate Shipment Of Meat Agreement In Senate Farm Bill

Source of Article: http://www.cattlenetwork.com/content.asp?contentid=170595

WASHINGTON (Oct. 23, 2007) - National Farmers Union, along with Consumer Federation of America, National Association of State Departments of Agriculture, American Federation of Government Employees, Food & Water Watch, Center for Science in the Public Interest, National Consumers League, Center for Foodborne Illness Research and Prevention, Government Accountability Project, and United Food and Commercial Workers, announced today they have come to an agreement on the interstate shipment of meat and poultry products. The compromise legislation will be made part of the U.S. Senate farm bill.

The consumer, labor and farm group compromise will create a program for interstate sales and shipment of meat and poultry products from certain small plants. The plants will operate under the requirements of the Federal Meat and Poultry Inspection Acts. The resulting products will bear the USDA inspection seal and can be sold in interstate commerce.
"It has taken many years to reach this compromise and I am pleased smaller producers will finally have the opportunity to compete on a level playing field. For too long, small producers have been shut out of markets but will now be able to ship their high-quality products across state lines," NFU President Tom Buis said.

"The first priority of meat and poultry inspection is protecting us and our families from foodborne illness. This bill safeguards public health by continuing the requirement that all products shipped in interstate commerce are subject to the federal meat and poultry inspection acts. Tough safety standards protect those who produce food as well as those who consume it," Consumer Federation of America Distinguished Fellow Carol Tucker Foreman said.

"Our state-inspected, locally-produced meats are some of the best, safest and high quality specialty products in this country. American consumers deserve greater access to safe, nutritious products from state-inspected meat and poultry processors. And American livestock producers, processors and small businesses deserve to compete in the national marketplace. It's just common sense and it's the right thing to do," National Association of State Departments of Agriculture President Roger Johnson said.

"We are extremely pleased with this agreement since it will ensure strong food safety standards for meat and poultry products that enter into interstate commerce while at the same time it opens up new opportunities to small processors whose markets have been restricted by the limitations placed on state inspection," Food & Water Watch Executive Director Wenonah Hauter said.

"On behalf of the 6,500 federal meat and poultry inspectors, we at AFGE support this new agreement because it will improve food safety by strengthening federal inspection. The new agreement requires that small meat and poultry plants that want to sell in interstate commerce must comply with federal meat and poultry inspection laws and operate under the close supervision of the U.S. Department of Agriculture," AFGE Legislative Director Beth Moten said.

The Act would:
-Create a new, optional program for companies previously operating under state inspection laws that want to sell in interstate commerce;

-Require companies to operate under the federal meat and poultry inspection laws and provide federal oversight of operations in these plants;
-Encourage states to increase food safety testing by having USDA reimburse states for 100 percent of the costs for testing that exceeds the testing frequency of the federal government;
-Covers establishments with up to 25 employees;
-Direct USDA to develop a procedure for establishments that employ more than 25 employees and want to ship in interstate commerce to help those companies transition to federal inspection;
-Provide for companies in the program to use a federal mark, stamp, tag or label of inspection;
-Reimburse states for not less than 60 percent of the costs of operating the Title V program;
-Establish the position of State Coordinator, a federal employee, who will provide oversight and enforcement; oversee training and inspection activities; assure that plants are in full compliance of the Federal Meat Inspection Act and this Title; and report to the Secretary of USDA on status of the plant operations;

-Establish an inspection training division within the Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS) to coordinate initiatives to provide outreach, education, and training to small or very small establishments;


-Require USDA's Office of Inspector General to conduct periodic audits to assure plants operating under Title V are complying with federal requirements; and

-Offer states an optional inspection tool. States will continue to maintain their current Title III cooperative agreements with USDA which require state inspection programs to be at least "equal to" federal requirements. USDA will continue their oversight of these programs, which includes an annual review of nine detailed components. States will still be required to implement any regulations, directives, and guidance issued by USDA, including all federal food safety and consumer protection requirements.
 
PORKER said:
NOW Sam's Club stores in Eagan, Maple Grove and White Bear Lake Minnesota are recalling hamburger .The brand name of the implicated frozen ground beef patties was "American Chef's Selection Angus Beef Patties."

Should be easy to track this beef back to the place of contamination - unless it really isn't Angus....
 
National Farmers Union, along with Consumer Federation of America, National Association of State Departments of Agriculture, American Federation of Government Employees, Food & Water Watch, Center for Science in the Public Interest, National Consumers League, Center for Foodborne Illness Research and Prevention, Government Accountability Project, and United Food and Commercial Workers, announced today they have come to an agreement on the interstate shipment of meat and poultry products. The compromise legislation will be made part of the U.S. Senate farm bill.

Where was NCBA on this ??????????????????
 
PORKER said:
National Farmers Union, along with Consumer Federation of America, National Association of State Departments of Agriculture, American Federation of Government Employees, Food & Water Watch, Center for Science in the Public Interest, National Consumers League, Center for Foodborne Illness Research and Prevention, Government Accountability Project, and United Food and Commercial Workers, announced today they have come to an agreement on the interstate shipment of meat and poultry products. The compromise legislation will be made part of the U.S. Senate farm bill.

Where was NCBA on this ??????????????????


mrj, this is where the bank robber analogy comes in. Perhaps you and Brad could get together and talk to Jan Lyons, was it?
 
PORKER said:
National Farmers Union, along with Consumer Federation of America, National Association of State Departments of Agriculture, American Federation of Government Employees, Food & Water Watch, Center for Science in the Public Interest, National Consumers League, Center for Foodborne Illness Research and Prevention, Government Accountability Project, and United Food and Commercial Workers, announced today they have come to an agreement on the interstate shipment of meat and poultry products. The compromise legislation will be made part of the U.S. Senate farm bill.

Where was NCBA on this ??????????????????

Actually this is one of the ones that NCBA has taken a positive stand on....Anyway publicly :???:


10/5/2007 7:33:00 AM


Cattlemen's Capitol Concerns: Interstate Meat Shipping, Tax Relief, Peru Trade



Interstate Meat Shipping Becomes Political Football:

Whether or not state-inspected meat plants are able to ship across state lines has been a hot topic of debate this week. Provisions included in the House Farm Bill would allow state-inspected meat to be shipped to other states. Partially due to increased media scrutiny surrounding a recent ground beef recall, some Senators appear poised to strike that provision when they consider the Farm Bill.



Currently, a stand-alone bill in the Senate, the New Markets for State-Inspected Meat and Poultry Act of 2007 (S. 1150) would overturn an outdated provision which prevents interstate shipment of state-inspected meat. The measure is being championed by Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah).



Federal law requires USDA to inspect all meat products. In the 1960s Congress created state inspection programs that are mandated to be "at least equal to" the federal inspection program. Perishable products – including milk and other dairy items, fruit, vegetables, and fish – are freely shipped across state lines after state inspection. But standard meat products, like poultry, beef, and pork, are prohibited from interstate commerce, despite decades of meeting or surpassing the federal inspection standards. This legislation would remove that prohibition.



"State inspection programs are proven to be as thorough as Federal programs, yet state-inspected meat can't be shipped even from Utah to Colorado," says Hatch. "We need to update this unnecessary, unjust ban that puts our small businesses at such a disadvantage."



NCBA policy supports the legislation as a way for state-regulated businesses to compete in interstate commerce and sees it as a great opportunity for cattle producers and small local businesses to market branded beef products. "We see this as an opportunity to foster entrepreneurship and add new competition in the processing sector," says Jay Truitt, NCBA's Vice President of Government Affairs. "In addition, this would create more access for consumers to get the kinds of meat products they want."
 
Actually this is one of the ones that NCBA has taken a positive stand on....Anyway publicly Say what?

You got the last part right.
 
Somebody smarter than me is going to have to tell me what good this law would be????????

-Require companies to operate under the federal meat and poultry inspection laws and provide federal oversight of operations in these plants;

To me, what this says is that if a state inspected plant does everything that is required of a federally inspected plant, the government will grant them the privileges of being 'equal to' federally inspected! :???:

Why not let state inspected plants "CLAIM USDA EQUIVALENCY" and let them ship meat throughout the USA and the world?!?!? That's all that is required of importers of foreign meat!!!!!!!!!!!!! :mad: :mad:
 
RobertMac said:
Somebody smarter than me is going to have to tell me what good this law would be????????

-Require companies to operate under the federal meat and poultry inspection laws and provide federal oversight of operations in these plants;

To me, what this says is that if a state inspected plant does everything that is required of a federally inspected plant, the government will grant them the privileges of being 'equal to' federally inspected! :???:

Why not let state inspected plants "CLAIM USDA EQUIVALENCY" and let them ship meat throughout the USA and the world?!?!? That's all that is required of importers of foreign meat!!!!!!!!!!!!! :mad: :mad:

Robertmac, Here's the holdup with that:

Unions!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

WASHINGTON ― The American Federation of Government Employees (A.F.G.E.) voiced strong opposition to provisions in the House version of the Farm Bill, stating that it would end federal meat inspection.

The bill, which recently passed the House, lowers food safety standards by encouraging meat and poultry producers to forgo safety enforcement and opt for less stringent state guidelines, the A.F.G.E. charged. The group further stated the provisions, which amend the Federal Meat Inspection Act and the Poultry Products Inspection Act, were buried in the Farm Bill ― which is due to be taken up by the Senate in the next few weeks.

"As Americans are being assaulted by contaminated products and foods such as spinach, this new law could make things worse by trying to lower food safety standards for meat and poultry sold in the U.S.," said John Gage, president of the A.F.G.E.

The Farm Bill would also remove the current ban on shipping state-inspected meat to other states. This would have a serious impact on consumers if products processed in a particular state are found to have been tainted and must be recalled, according to the A.F.G.E.

"Individual states do not have the full capacity to track recalled meat and poultry in other states," said Mr. Gage. "The federal government, on the other hand, has the capability to ensure that contaminated and recalled products would be removed from store shelves."

The legislation is not advocated by the American Meat Institute (A.M.I.) or its members, said Janet Riley, A.M.I. senior vice-president of public affairs.

"The National Association of State Departments of Agriculture (N.A.S.D.A.) and some in Congress have been exploring ways to allow state-inspected meat products to be shipped interstate for years," she said. "A.M.I. and our members have historically opposed such legislative attempts.

"A.M.I. chose not to oppose the current language in the Farm Bill, not because we want the packers and processors to move to state inspection, rather because it raises the food safety bar and competition to one level playing field. Currently, there are 27 state programs and one federal inspection program. We cannot argue with legislation that would raise food safety to the highest standard in the world ― the U.S.D.A. standard.

"However, we are not advocating passage of the bill and firmly believe meat and poultry products that do not meet identical standards as federal inspection should not be shipped in interstate commerce."
 

"Individual states do not have the full capacity to track recalled meat and poultry in other states," said Mr. Gage. "The federal government, on the other hand, has the capability to ensure that contaminated and recalled products would be removed from store shelves."



THIS IS A LIE! WHERE IS THEIR RECALL AUTHORITY?

The meat industry wants to retain control of the regulatory agency---the USDA---and not allow states to ok the same standards. By doing this, they retain control of inspections through the federal system. If states were allowed to have the same standards with enforcement, the packers would have to deal with a bunch of state competitors instead of influencing one agency -- the USDA-- through their bribes in Washington D.C.

THEY DON'T WANT THE COMPETITION!!!
 
"As Americans are being assaulted by contaminated products and foods such as spinach, this new law could make things worse by trying to lower food safety standards for meat and poultry sold in the U.S.," said John Gage, president of the A.F.G.E.

That's funny, considering the RECORD RECALL YEAR from federally inspected plants!!!! :lol: :lol: :? :( :mad:
Mr. Gage, you live in a glass house...PUT DOWN THE STONE!
 
RobertMac said:
"As Americans are being assaulted by contaminated products and foods such as spinach, this new law could make things worse by trying to lower food safety standards for meat and poultry sold in the U.S.," said John Gage, president of the A.F.G.E.

That's funny, considering the RECORD RECALL YEAR from federally inspected plants!!!! :lol: :lol: :? :( :mad:
Mr. Gage, you live in a glass house...PUT DOWN THE STONE!

(suggested recalls, RM, not required recalls)
 
"Individual states do not have the full capacity to track recalled meat and poultry in other states," said Mr. Gage. But MR.G ScoringAg already does this for some states.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top