New Recall of meat

[Tex]

I think Porker brings up some good points.

Tracing e-coli back via DNA mapping is something that can be done and is done.

As a matter of fact, Rep. Stupak, in the oversight hearing I wrote about in the other topic, asked the FDA chief of food safety, Dr. Acheson, the same question regarding tracing e-coli back to its source. Acheson said the FDA did not do this research.

It is about time people like Porker started asking the questions our regulatory agencies should answer and are not. I am glad that Rep. Stupak did. It showed just how inept the FDA is doing at its most important job.

Your post back to porker reminds me of the reply that Rep. Burgess gave to Stupak, Texan.

I think you are just jealous that you were not smart enough to point out the connections and the answers that would matter on this subject, Texan.

Whether or not Porker is correct in his possible connections is less important than that he (or she) was smart enough to ask the most prescient questions that would help find the problem and solve it. The FDA management doesn't seem to think the answers to these questions are as important as finding the administration's policy regarding the matter.

I bet Rep. Stupak wishes Dr. Acheson of the FDA was as competent and had the answers to his questions regarding the ecoli tracing.

My question is why does the present administration put someone half as smart as Porker seems to be as head of an agency that has such an important role in food safety?

I think we can all follow Porker's line of thinking and come closer to the truth than the best and the brightest the administration has to offer in the form of Dr. Acheson.

 

[Anonymous]

I agree Tex--- the fact that 3 unique, new to the US, DNA patterns have appeared should be raising concerns to everyone in the food safety chain--especially those at the top that are supposed to be charged with guaranteeing the safety of food products to a half a million people....

It would appear as tho either this has been introduced-- accidentally or purposely thru an import- or the bacteria is mutating....

Both should be a matter of big concern to FDA/USDA and their lacksadasical attitude and apparent ineptness is not setting well with anyone in Congress or the US public......

Lou Dobbs has been tearing both the USDA and FDA a new rear end almost nightly on his news show....

 

[Texan]

Your post back to porker reminds me of the reply that Rep. Burgess gave to Stupak, Texan.

I think you are just jealous that you were not smart enough to point out the connections and the answers that would matter on this subject, Texan.

:lol2: "Tex"? Well....welcome, Tex - long time, no see. :lol:

 

[Texan]

It would appear as tho either this has been introduced-- accidentally or purposely thru an import- or the bacteria is mutating....

Exactly right, OT. Either it has been introduced through an import OR the bacteria is mutating. We're a long way from having any conclusive proof that "It was OVERSEAS BEEF..." as PORKER stated.

Don't you think we should investigate before trying to fix blame? Never mind - I know YOU think that. :wink:

 

[Ben Roberts]

Porker, you will get a A for your comprehenson, from professor Hay Maker, you both seem to have the ability to, add-to-or-take-away-from, to make things more sensational. Did you both graduate with a four-year degree from the University of R-CALF.


Best Regards
Ben Roberts

 

[Ben Roberts]

Lou Dobbs has been tearing both the USDA and FDA a new rear end almost nightly on his news show....

Oldtimer, you never cease to amaze me, Lou Dobbs, 20/20, 60 minutes and shows like them are listed as entertainment, rating numbers are what keep these shows on the air. Lou Dobbs is not going to miss a chance at better ratings, with all of the news about E-coli and Salmonella.

Remember when 60 minutes, did a show 20 years ago about Salmonella bacteria in apple juice, that show put several orchards out of business in my state, for entertainment. Lou Dobbs, may put several cattle producers out of business, in the name of entertainment, and you applaud him for doing so.

Best Regards
Ben Roberts

 

[Ben Roberts]

I think Porker brings up some good points.

Tracing e-coli back via DNA mapping is something that can be done and is done.

As a matter of fact, Rep. Stupak, in the oversight hearing I wrote about in the other topic, asked the FDA chief of food safety, Dr. Acheson, the same question regarding tracing e-coli back to its source. Acheson said the FDA did not do this research.

It is about time people like Porker started asking the questions our regulatory agencies should answer and are not. I am glad that Rep. Stupak did. It showed just how inept the FDA is doing at its most important job.

Your post back to porker reminds me of the reply that Rep. Burgess gave to Stupak, Texan.

I think you are just jealous that you were not smart enough to point out the connections and the answers that would matter on this subject, Texan.

Whether or not Porker is correct in his possible connections is less important than that he (or she) was smart enough to ask the most prescient questions that would help find the problem and solve it. The FDA management doesn't seem to think the answers to these questions are as important as finding the administration's policy regarding the matter.

I bet Rep. Stupak wishes Dr. Acheson of the FDA was as competent and had the answers to his questions regarding the ecoli tracing.

My question is why does the present administration put someone half as smart as Porker seems to be as head of an agency that has such an important role in food safety?

I think we can all follow Porker's line of thinking and come closer to the truth than the best and the brightest the administration has to offer in the form of Dr. Acheson.

Tex, you are living in a, illusion, if you believe we should have this line of thought.

Best Regards
Ben Roberts

 

[Tex]

It would appear as tho either this has been introduced-- accidentally or purposely thru an import- or the bacteria is mutating....

Exactly right, OT. Either it has been introduced through an import OR the bacteria is mutating. We're a long way from having any conclusive proof that "It was OVERSEAS BEEF..." as PORKER stated.

Don't you think we should investigate before trying to fix blame? Never mind - I know YOU think that. :wink:

I am not OT, but I will answer that question.

Rep. Stupak's questioning of the FDA showed that the FDA has more of an interest in making sure of what the "policy" of the administration is rather than finding answers to the questions that would allow the FDA to follow the source of ecoli. You can't find a solution if you can't even find the source, was Rep. Stupak's point. The FDA had no interest in following things far enough back to know and then to solve the food safety problems. Instead it hid behind "lack of authority" even when it was grossly negligent in not asking for that authority or recommending that they don't need the particular authority (like recall authority).

Porker's response was one the FDA should have. It is the response that every good investigator should have----how do you find out the information you need to see the problem and then to fix it?

Ben, a real investigation would have already answered the questions porker brought up. He has every right, just as Rep. Stupak did, to question why the investigations into the previous ecoli problems were not already investigated and why the investigations are so incompetent. It is becoming a common theme for agencies run for political purposes instead of regulatory purposes.

In the Topps recall, I would bet the AMI knows the answers and the lead US investigators know the probable if not the definite answers. Those answers might uncover some of the problems with food safety big business doesn't want us to know, just as the USDA has refused to let some processors of meat the ability to test for pathogens from the big slaughter houses or why they don't want private testing for bse. The answers might not sit well with those pulling the strings.

I think if Rep. Stupak had not used its own committee investigators, they would have had a much harder time showing the incompetence and gaping holes in food security and investigatory reports by the FDA and Homeland Security in carrying out their missions.

As it was, the investigators for the committee were able to show how much lower in standards the United States FDA had than Japan, Hong Kong, and other importers that imported goods from China. The investigators for the committee pointed out huge holes in food security that were a result of years of reacting to problems instead of trying to solve problems. Mexico and India had similar poor food safety records.

By the way, Stupak had to correct the FDA (Dr. Acheson) about the uncovering and the response time of the FDA on the melamine problem, as well as having to correct him on a few other things he said. These corrections would not have happened with a less informed chair person (Stupak) or with no committee hearings at all (which was a real problem when the republicans ran the show.

We should not have an economy that is based purely on the cheapest cost. The committee members used the example of a cheaper $8 bucket of chicken that had food safety issues and a $9 bucket of chicken that was safe to eat. If the only thing you know is the price and that is the only thing you care about, you may be feeding your family suspect food.

On another committee hearing on food safety, a different chairman introduced a witness to the committee, a former representative in Congress, who was now head of the Grocer Manufacturing lobby. It was the Grocer's lobby that suggested self regulation as an answer and talked about the perils of grocers not cooperating if they were possibly going to be held accountable.

Had the Grocer's lobby self regulated in the beginning instead of trying to compete with each other by buying the cheapest products (Hello Walmart!), there wouldn't even be an issue.

The revolving door of politicians at work again!

 

[PORKER]

Ben , Whats your comprehenson ? When a person of politicial influence wants to not tell the truth but still needs to display the correct facts , his text looks just like AMI Foundation's Jim Hodges , evasive facts.

Just like the same question regarding tracing e-coli back to its source. Acheson said the FDA did not do this research. Carefully thinking to not expose the correct facts of traceback because thats what FDA does to find a problem, research and test the facts ,then trace it back to the source.

 

[Anonymous]

Lou Dobbs has been tearing both the USDA and FDA a new rear end almost nightly on his news show....

Oldtimer, you never cease to amaze me, Lou Dobbs, 20/20, 60 minutes and shows like them are listed as entertainment, rating numbers are what keep these shows on the air. Lou Dobbs is not going to miss a chance at better ratings, with all of the news about E-coli and Salmonella.

Remember when 60 minutes, did a show 20 years ago about Salmonella bacteria in apple juice, that show put several orchards out of business in my state, for entertainment. Lou Dobbs, may put several cattle producers out of business, in the name of entertainment, and you applaud him for doing so.

Best Regards
Ben Roberts

Ben-- Since I recognize the sensationalism used by most media now, and their investigative reports- I usually try to read and watch several sources to even it out...Dobbs' reports have been quite consistent with the same news articles that we see posted on here-- about the recalls, tainted foods found, uninspected imports, and Congressional hearings... The thing he is doing tho is educating a very large cross section of the nation now to some things that we have been aware of for years...

And remember- it was a sensationalist investigative reporter media that brought down a corrupt "I'm not a crook" President and Administration.....

 

[PORKER]

BEN,If Topps and Cargill had installed the SA database , the answer wouldn't need research as it would had only taken 3 seconds to display traceback in real time.

 

[Ben Roberts]

[
Ben, a real investigation would have already answered the questions porker brought up. He has every right, just as Rep. Stupak did, to question why the investigations into the previous ecoli problems were not already investigated and why the investigations are so incompetent."


Tex, I agree Porker has every right to question why the investigations into the previous E-coli problems were not already investigated.

He dosen't have the right though, to take another persons statement, add his own perception, and quote it as part of the other persons statement. If Porker wants to make his perceptions, his opinions, I could care less.

Best Regards
Ben Roberts

 

[Ben Roberts]

BEN,If Topps and Cargill had installed the SA database , the answer wouldn't need research as it would had only taken 3 seconds to display traceback in real time.

Traceback to what, an intestinal tract of a black baldy steer, we know where E-coli bacteria lives.

 

[PORKER]

Traceback to what,Ben, The Food handler source ,every bin of trim has a source site,but we already know that the bins of trim didn't come from US>CA>MX as the ecoli DNA has never been seen here before. Hey BEN, maybe its from the EU? or worse yet some of that donkey beef from Algeria in 2003.

 

[RobertMac]

If Porker wants to make his perceptions, his opinions, I could care less.

Ben, I think that is what Porker is doing.

Porker, E.coli 0157:H7 is a mutant form of E.coli...there is also the possibility that a NEW mutant form of E.coli could originate in the USA.

And we don't need a system to trace E.coli back to a black baldy steer that came from a Cactus feedlot that came from OldTimer's ranch in Montana...we already know that ALL cattle have E.coli and it does not accrue in the meat of cattle in the feedlot or on the ranch!!! I'm sure I'll lose some USDA investigators here, but the most likely place to look for a source of contamination is where E.coli and beef is in close proximity to each other....ON THE KILL FLOOR OF A SLAUGHTER PLANT!!!!!! That's also the best place to prevent contamination! Then monitor the meat coming out of those plants (as in testing that meat for E.coli) as the first step in preventing its spread.

Topps bought their E.coli problem, and I agree with Porker...from where is the question that needs to be answered!

 

[Ben Roberts]

Traceback to what,Ben, The Food handler source ,every bin of trim has a source site,but we already know that the bins of trim didn't come from US>CA>MX as the ecoli DNA has never been seen here before. Hey BEN, maybe its from the EU? or worse yet some of that donkey beef from Algeria in 2003.

Porker, we don't know that the trim came from a foreign source, that is pure speculation on your part.

What we do know is that E-coli, has in the past mutated, until we are positive that the DNA is not from a mutated form of E-coli, we can't conclude that the trim came from a foreign source.

For a person that claims ScoringAg is so definite, you are way out on a limb here. In less time, that it has taken for us to argue back and forth, the USDA could have gone to the grinder, and verified every shipment of trim, they have received in the last five years, and i'm sure they have.


Best Regards
Ben Roberts

 

[Anonymous]

Jolley: Talking About…Food Safety



"We've been short the whole time I've been in," said one veteran inspector who asked to not be named. "We don't have enough inspectors, but we have too much management. The inspectors are short all the time and getting spread thinner and thinner."

(Source: Houston Chronicle, October 13, 2007)

Unnamed veteran FSIS inspector, suggesting the reason behind the recent spate of recalls.



>PS: More people, more inspections, better safety record? Make sense to me.

"End-product testing is a very expensive and unsure way to ensure that there is a safe product. You have to do a heck of a lot of it."…"putting the resources and the actions where the risk is better."

(Source: Washington Post, October 12, 2007)

David Acheson, the Food and Drug Administration's food safety director, suggesting that Canada's program of increased testing of suspect foods isn't the answer to food safety.



>PS: Canada says if there is a suspected problem with a food source, increased testing will help weed out the bad stuff. Acheson says no? David? Would you like to borrow my calculator? Want to discuss logic?

 

[Anonymous]

"We don't have enough inspectors, but we have too much management.

This FSIS inspectors quote seems to sum up our current Administration to a T- thruout the whole of government.....Too many Chiefs- mostly inept because of cronyism appointments- and no Indians to do the job...

The largest expansion of bureacracy since FDR- and they're going backwards on their capability to do anything...

 

[Tex]

"We don't have enough inspectors, but we have too much management.

This FSIS inspectors quote seems to sum up our current Administration to a T- thruout the whole of government.....Too many Chiefs- mostly inept because of cronyism appointments- and no Indians to do the job...

The largest expansion of bureacracy since FDR- and they're going backwards on their capability to do anything...

There are remedies an active Congress could have to correct the problem. Impeachment is not just for presidents. Our constitution allows for impeachment of all kinds of public servants. Instead of carrying out this important task of government, the Dems. and the Repubs. have decided not to pursue this remedy.

I would venture to say that it would make for a lot more effective bureaucracy if some upper management like Acheson were impeached (hopefully losing pay and benefits) than the Congress voting on whether or not Move-On should be condemned for voicing their opinion on the how the military is being politicized. General Sanchez's recent comments on the war suggest the that Move-On had it right.

No wonder Americans hold their Congress in such low esteem.

 

[PORKER]

Ben, think for once, why were all of the ecoli DNA tests not in the CDC database,one mutant maybe , But Not All THREE .

BEN,we don't know that some of the trim came from a US source, that is pure speculation on your part.