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

Schumer: USDA Shut Down Packers?

Mike

Well-known member
October 15, 2007

Senator Charles Schumer has a plan to give the Department of Agriculture more power to keep consumers safe.

Following a wave of recent beef recalls, Schumer says he plans to introduce legislation that would give the USDA the authority to temporarily shut down contaminated processing plants. Right now, the USDA only has the power to recommend a shut down or recalls to a plant.

"The USDA, in recent years, has become a toothless tiger when it comes to keeping our meat safe and keeping our meat clean,” said Schumer. “The wave of recent recalls has to be a wakeup call to keep our safety house in order, once and for all."

A recent e-coli scare dealt such a blow to Topps Beef that it closed its door entirely after a big recall.
 

Ben Roberts

Well-known member
Mike said:
October 15, 2007

Senator Charles Schumer has a plan to give the Department of Agriculture more power to keep consumers safe.

Following a wave of recent beef recalls, Schumer says he plans to introduce legislation that would give the USDA the authority to temporarily shut down contaminated processing plants. Right now, the USDA only has the power to recommend a shut down or recalls to a plant.

"The USDA, in recent years, has become a toothless tiger when it comes to keeping our meat safe and keeping our meat clean,” said Schumer. “The wave of recent recalls has to be a wakeup call to keep our safety house in order, once and for all."

A recent e-coli scare dealt such a blow to Topps Beef that it closed its door entirely after a big recall.


In January 2002, a new ruling was passed that forbid the USDA from closing down meat plants that failed USDA inspections. Previously, the USDA could close down packing plants seriously infected with contaminants.

Best Regards
Ben Roberts
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Ben Roberts said:
Mike said:
October 15, 2007

Senator Charles Schumer has a plan to give the Department of Agriculture more power to keep consumers safe.

Following a wave of recent beef recalls, Schumer says he plans to introduce legislation that would give the USDA the authority to temporarily shut down contaminated processing plants. Right now, the USDA only has the power to recommend a shut down or recalls to a plant.

"The USDA, in recent years, has become a toothless tiger when it comes to keeping our meat safe and keeping our meat clean,” said Schumer. “The wave of recent recalls has to be a wakeup call to keep our safety house in order, once and for all."

A recent e-coli scare dealt such a blow to Topps Beef that it closed its door entirely after a big recall.


In January 2002, a new ruling was passed that forbid the USDA from closing down meat plants that failed USDA inspections. Previously, the USDA could close down packing plants seriously infected with contaminants.

Best Regards
Ben Roberts

Do you remember what the reasoning was, Ben?
 

PPRM

Well-known member
OMG........

You know, the more I read the more I am starting to believe some of the consumer groups hold views closer to the producer than the USDA.....We both want and benefit from a safe food supply....

The arguements can be made that we have the safest food supply in the World and likely that is true. But to want to do better is not a bad thing....

I simply shake my head.....The USDA can't shut a plant down? I knew I didn't know everything, but never thought I didn't know some things, LOL,

PPRM
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
First the USDA has to look in the right places before having the power to shut down a plant will accomplish anything. Shutting down Topps would have been meaningless...shutting down who sold Topps the E.coli would start to get to the problem.
 

PORKER

Well-known member
shutting down who sold Topps the E.coli would start to get to the problem.

Thats why the Grocery and Fabrication/Packing isn't interested in traceback ,except a daily or weekly lot number.
 

PPRM

Well-known member
RobertMac said:
First the USDA has to look in the right places before having the power to shut down a plant will accomplish anything. Shutting down Topps would have been meaningless...shutting down who sold Topps the E.coli would start to get to the problem.


Robert Mac.....It has been nearly ten years since I was in a management position in food processing......We had internal recall procedures that ensured everything would be wrapped up by the time the USDA got there. By that, we would have identified the problem and already contacted our customers with the resolution and steps we took...We basically felt we needed to be beyond what the govenment wanted or risk loosing customers. It would have never occured to me that a Government agent couldn't shut is down, but maybe........All I know is the procedures were aimed at Identifying the pronblem quickly.....

I started my carrer right when a Metal Contamination problem was found at a French Fry plant I worked at. It was not resolved correctly nor quickly enough....A lot of people were fired.....

So, food safety was instilled/ingrained in me,

PPRM
 

Tex

Well-known member
If we had courts that were worth a darn we wouldn't have this problem. People could sue the grocers as they were the ones who sold the defective product and it would go back from there. Grocers could go back to Topps and Topps could go after its vendors. The grocers lobby wouldn't be so insistent on being able to compete with each other on the lowest possible cost items regardless of safety. The SAFEST lowest cost items would rule the day. If the grocers were insured, the insurance companies would make sure the system was fixed so that they wouldn't lose any money.


In this way, the free market would take care of food safety issues and we wouldn't have to rely on a politically influenced regulatory agency as much.

When we have these interest groups using politicians to protect themselves, it messes up everything.

Democrats are always being accused of wanting more regulations that hinder business and Republicans are accused of wanting less regulations. If our legal system was efficient and run off of the rule of law instead of corrupt judges, we could satisfy both the democrats and republicans----but then they wouldn't be able to sell this governmental responsibility.
 

Ben Roberts

Well-known member
Sandhusker "Do you remember what the reasoning was said:
Inspectors, were shuting down chains daily for contaminants and other violations. When you shut down the chain in a 4000/5000 head per day plant, for 20 minutes three or four times a day, the cost of those shut-downs is realy getting into your bottom line.

I can remember once a chain was shut down, because they had 25 head of Holstein steers that hung too long on the chain, and their necks were dragging on the floor, the chain was stoped until all 25 were hooked up, and even then it ran slower until they were processed. That day, the buyers had instructions to never buy anymore Holsteins, for that plant, regardless of cost. That had to be 25 of the highest priced cattle they ever killed.


Best Regards
Ben Roberts
 

Ben Roberts

Well-known member
PPRM said:
The arguements can be made that we have the safest food supply in the World and likely that is true. PPRM


PPRM, go to a health food store the next time you have a chance, pick up a bottle of liver extract, read the label where it comes from and why. Then tell me, we produce the safest food supply in the world.


Best Regards
Ben Roberts
 

PPRM

Well-known member
Ben Roberts said:
PPRM said:
The arguements can be made that we have the safest food supply in the World and likely that is true. PPRM


PPRM, go to a health food store the next time you have a chance, pick up a bottle of liver extract, read the label where it comes from and why. Then tell me, we produce the safest food supply in the world.


Best Regards
Ben Roberts

Ben,

You have made the point of what I am trying to say here....For my ten year carreer in Food Processing, we were bold in stating we had the safest food supply in the world. We could back it up. But that was about ten years ago and a lot has since changed. Even the labor force in the US....

WE may still be able to argue the point and be correct, but I am not convinced we would be as right as we were ten years ago,

The next step in my mind is going beyond government to state how safe our product is. Private label with third party evaluations? But, i look at the creekstone deal and some of the organic stuff and am not sure the USDA would allow a certification of beter than the rest nor that we have a good model,

PPRM
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Ben Roberts said:
Sandhusker "Do you remember what the reasoning was said:
Inspectors, were shuting down chains daily for contaminants and other violations. When you shut down the chain in a 4000/5000 head per day plant, for 20 minutes three or four times a day, the cost of those shut-downs is realy getting into your bottom line.

I can remember once a chain was shut down, because they had 25 head of Holstein steers that hung too long on the chain, and their necks were dragging on the floor, the chain was stoped until all 25 were hooked up, and even then it ran slower until they were processed. That day, the buyers had instructions to never buy anymore Holsteins, for that plant, regardless of cost. That had to be 25 of the highest priced cattle they ever killed.


Best Regards
Ben Roberts

So basically, it cost money to be safe so safety was compromised. Typical USDA move; if the bar is too high, lower it.

I don't know where I read this, but when the Japanese first opened up an auto mfg. plant in the US, the American manager was depressed after one day the line had to be stopped three times because of problems. He was bummed out and when his Japanese boss asked him why, he said because the of the three work stoppages. The Japanese told him he was looking at it wrong, that three problems were fixed that would't happen again. Isn't that refreshing.
 

Tex

Well-known member
Ben, I think you bring up an excellent point.

Big packers have been able to out compete with respect to the other smaller processors because of "efficiencies" in their slaughter speeds and processes.

Protecting this "comparative advantage" in the market place has come at the cost of food safety. They have insulated themselves from oversight by regulatory agencies by ensuring that they do not have regulators slowing their processes down through political interference. Protecting these processes is instrumental in making sure that they hold the dominant position in the industry. That dominance is worth so much to them, that they will pay off as many politicians as possible to keep it. It is an economic advantage in the market place that makes them the low cost producer.

These were exactly the points I believe Stupak was finding out in his oversight hearings.

It really makes you laugh when the AMI says that they will not compete with each other based on food safety. While they may make that statement, in reality, they do it. They use the USDA regulatory agencies to keep them masters of the industry and reduce competition. Reducing Topp's, Munsel's (sp?) and other processors from following crap (ecoli) back to its source will keep them from being held accountable. This is the source of the mothers milk that creates the incentives for political interference in governmental regulatory agencies who are assigned the task of food safety.

Stupak's questioning of the FDA in its oversight hearings shows this corrupt connection that the executive branch so benefits from.

I didn't see the questioning Stupak's committee was to do with respect to the USDA (who has the responsibility of food safety at these plants). This is the link that would show the corruption and provide the remedies. This needs to be pursued.

We have seen former bureaucrats (regulatory agents) who were stifled by "policy makers" who are more interested in protecting politician's bribes by the industry than in food safety.

We are all paying for it.

I agree PPRM that the consumer groups are more on the side of regular producers. It has been a big strategy by big boys to keep regular producers who want to produce a high quality safe product at odds with those consumer groups who want food safety to be a factor in food production. It will destroy the big boy's competitive advantage over smaller producers.

It was interesting to me that on the other night's presidential debate, Senator Brownback, when asked about economic policy, pointed to Senator Phil Gramm, who is an economists and understands the meaning of comparative advantage, one of the best economists he could ask advice from. Too bad Phil Gramm is tainted with his wife's work at the commodity board, IBP, and Enron.

Economists know the real reasons some companies come out ahead in our economy. Protecting those methods for industry garnishes support for republicans (and I hate to say it, some democrats too, notably the House's Agriculture Committee chair, Collin Peterson), will result in industry payoffs to those powers.

We have the best government money can buy and this corruption is easily traced.
 

mrj

Well-known member
Sandusker, don't we the people, and the government officials all need to consider costs? How high can we raise the cost of inspections until the most minute smidgen of anything is removed from every molecule of food and still be able to afford to eat?

Look at the photo's on another heading on this site and see the great looking picnic food on plates on a makeshift table right by a corral. Would that even be allowed if we were required to serve only the most pristine food possible?

It is irresponsible to push for too little attention to health and safety.......and it is equally irresponsible to use inspections to run up the costs to break up 'big corporate packers', and/or the food costs to consumers. There HAS to be a point of diminishing returns: ADEQUATE food safety on one side and BEARABLE costs for that food on the other.

Of course, there would be no problem with e coli if the meat were irradiated.....OR cooked to the proper temperature.

mrj
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Do you actually think the line stoppages by inspectors was to "to run up the costs to break up 'big corporate packers', and/or the food costs to consumers"?

Do you think we are getting "adequate" food safety?
 

Mike

Well-known member
How high can we raise the cost of inspections until the most minute smidgen of anything is removed from every molecule of food and still be able to afford to eat?

HACCP was installed to cut the high costs of inspections but as has been said before, it is like letting the foxes watch the henhouse. :lol:
 

PPRM

Well-known member
mrj said:
Sandusker, don't we the people, and the government officials all need to consider costs? How high can we raise the cost of inspections until the most minute smidgen of anything is removed from every molecule of food and still be able to afford to eat?

Look at the photo's on another heading on this site and see the great looking picnic food on plates on a makeshift table right by a corral. Would that even be allowed if we were required to serve only the most pristine food possible?

It is irresponsible to push for too little attention to health and safety.......and it is equally irresponsible to use inspections to run up the costs to break up 'big corporate packers', and/or the food costs to consumers. There HAS to be a point of diminishing returns: ADEQUATE food safety on one side and BEARABLE costs for that food on the other.

Of course, there would be no problem with e coli if the meat were irradiated.....OR cooked to the proper temperature.

mrj

The Processor I use has been in Business for 40 years..never a single E-coli recall........By the time I pay him, I am still competitve with Walmart pricing and making some good money....

Improvements are kinda like culling cows......You can make excuses all day long, but as long as you keep the problems and excuse them, they still exist to bite you in the Butt again,



PPRM
 

PPRM

Well-known member
mrj said:
Sandusker, don't we the people, and the government officials all need to consider costs? How high can we raise the cost of inspections until the most minute smidgen of anything is removed from every molecule of food and still be able to afford to eat?


mrj

mrj,

Tell it to the parents of hospitilized children............Thier response, and mine would be, "If you can't do better, maybe I should eat something else"...Why in the world do we think they owe us a living? We either supply a safe product or don't. I worked in Food processing for 10 years as a QA manager for most of it. I would have been fired for the attitude that "Well, it costs too much to do it right, so they need to accept irradiating it or cooking it longer"


PPRM
 

Tex

Well-known member
mrj said:
Sandusker, don't we the people, and the government officials all need to consider costs? How high can we raise the cost of inspections until the most minute smidgen of anything is removed from every molecule of food and still be able to afford to eat?

Look at the photo's on another heading on this site and see the great looking picnic food on plates on a makeshift table right by a corral. Would that even be allowed if we were required to serve only the most pristine food possible?

It is irresponsible to push for too little attention to health and safety.......and it is equally irresponsible to use inspections to run up the costs to break up 'big corporate packers', and/or the food costs to consumers. There HAS to be a point of diminishing returns: ADEQUATE food safety on one side and BEARABLE costs for that food on the other.

Of course, there would be no problem with e coli if the meat were irradiated.....OR cooked to the proper temperature.

mrj


mrj,

I don't believe anyone can expect complete food safety. In the Stupak hearing, it was obvious that the U.S. was below Hong Kong's standards (who test 15 % and have real ramnifications when there is a problem--notably decertifying the offending importer from importing), Japan, and others.


The investigator for the committee was asked the question you bring up by Stupak. As an economist, he said that he had to know what the value was that we would put on food safety to be able to ascertain the appropriate inspection and regulatory system.

Is it your point that we should go to the lowest cost and that we should forgo food safety?

I am sure the people who had loved ones die would have paid a dollar a plate more for their food to remain alive.

The real answer is to let those who are harmed sue for the harm that was done to them. Our regulatory agencies should be able to help in those efforts by helping trace back the food safety issue to its source. Then economics would dictate how much we spend on food safety according to the society's values. Companies would find that "magic" combination between what they spend on food safety and making competitive products. As it is, these regulatory agencies seem to protect the sources of the food safety problems and allow them to buy off politicians into not having any rules for food safety enforced and not tracing back the problem to the source.

It is disingenuous, however, for the USDA to tout that we have the safest food supply in the world when that case is empty and false rhetoric, especially when the recalls they do encourage are 15 days after the incidents are found and all the food that is contaminated has been bought by consumers.

Road kill might be the cheapest meat you can buy but would you defend companies who used road kill by saying that we need to keep food cheap?

By the way, per capita, the Europeans spend a lot more on food than the U.S. does. They also have a safer food supply. More money goes to producers as a percent of GDP and more money goes to processors. If this is what it takes to have a safe and consistent food supply, would it upset you?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
But apparently we (the taxpayer) are paying these idiots bonus's for the good work they are doing :shock: :shock: :roll: ....Dobbs reported tonight that GW's administration awarded over $8 million dollars on 'retention bonus's" to top FDA officials last year...

Stupak and Dorgan are now calling for OIG investigations......

Like Dobbs said-- good old GW paying these folks bonus's for doing a good job-- which to GW means, do nothing and not enforce the law... :( :mad:

I never even knew the government could/did give "bonus's".....I wonder what kind of "bonus's" the USDA handed out for doing nothing..... :???: :( They did it as good as FDA :( :( :mad:

FDA's Retention Bonuses Rise to the Top
Critics Say Money Goes to Managers, Not Scientists Coveted by Drug Firms

By John Solomon and Marc Kaufman
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, August 2, 2007; A01



Before paying $48,823 in cash bonuses to its chief of regulatory affairs in 2005, the Food and Drug Administration asked her to sign a simple declaration: "If I am unable to receive a retention allowance, I am likely to leave the federal government for a higher paying position in the private sector," wrote Margaret O'K. Glavin.

Glavin's statement did not detail a specific job offer, but that did not impede the payment. Over the past 4 1/2 years, she has collected more than $178,000 in cash bonuses -- on top of her $159,840 annual salary.

FDA officials justified Glavin's bonuses by saying her pay should be close to the salaries of those employed by companies she regulates, namely Washington lobbyists. The private-sector comparison has prompted large cash bonuses for top agency officials to quadruple since 2002, to $13.6 million in 2005, according to FDA officials and salary information provided to Congress.

The bonuses were paid during a rough patch at the FDA, encompassing a shortage of flu vaccine and embarrassing recalls of the pain-relieving drug Vioxx and malfunctioning heart defibrillators. Throughout, the agency repeatedly insisted that it lacked the resources to conduct adequate food and drug inspections.

The payments, which have attracted bipartisan criticism from lawmakers, offer an unusually detailed look at how the administration has implemented a cash bonus program that Congress expanded in 2004 to attract and retain talented federal employees.

Lawmakers say that at the FDA, many of the bonuses went to the highest-paid officials rather than the scientists, inspectors and doctors most at risk of jumping to the private sector. To critics, the payments bore little relationship to the agency's performance and reputation or to the likelihood that someone might depart. Agency officials disagree and call the program a success.

Federal workers in Washington make an average of about $88,000 a year. As a result of the bonuses, scores of FDA managers and employees earn double that and more -- pay in some cases greater than that of members of Congress, federal judges and Cabinet secretaries, according to the data shared with Congress.

The bonuses appear to have spiked in 2005 -- to $13.6 million, from $7.2 million in 2004 -- when the embattled Lester M. Crawford was fighting to win and then keep his job as FDA commissioner. One program aimed at physicians accounted for $4 million of the increase, the FDA records show.

The commissioner's office -- which mostly includes policy officials and not practicing scientists -- nearly doubled the amount of its retention bonuses, from about $415,000 in 2002 to nearly $800,000 last year, the data also show.

Glavin, an English major who rose through the ranks of the Agriculture Department's Food Safety and Inspection Service before joining the FDA in 2003 as assistant commissioner for counterterrorism policy, collected $44,614 in bonuses in 2006 alone, according to the records. That accounts for 11.1 percent of all the cash bonuses exceeding $5,000 that were awarded to her entire 3,500-employee Office of Regulatory Affairs.

In contrast, the FDA investigator who won the agency's top national award last year received a much smaller bonus. "I was nominated for a cash award for $2,500, but after taxes I got just $1,400," said Rebecca Parrilla, a chemical engineer who said she has worked at the FDA for more than eight years and was unaware how much her bosses in Washington were collecting in bonuses.

John R. Dyer, FDA's chief operating officer, said yesterday that while the FDA provided the raw data to the House Energy and Commerce Committee, he cannot verify that the tallies made by committee aides are accurate or complete. He said the cash-bonus policy has largely succeeded.

"With these programs, we've been able to recruit better and keep more of the people we need," Dyer said. In 2002, the FDA lost 12 to 13 percent of its employees, while in 2006, with the bonus program in place, it lost 5 percent. Even a few high-profile agency whistle-blowers have received substantial retention bonuses in recent years.

Rep. John D. Dingell (D-Mich.), who as chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee is investigating the bonuses, disagreed with the FDA's assessment of its bonuses.

"FDA officials have raided the U.S. Treasury of $10 million a year, not to hire more inspectors or better compensate the field personnel working to protect us from botulism and E. coli, but to award each other $50,000 bonuses," Dingell said. "Given their recent performance, I doubt the taxpayers would agree that FDA management officials deserve an extra dime, much less tens of thousands of dollars."

Some Republicans also expressed concern. "Somehow the FDA has institutionalized the open till, and some of their least distinguished bureaucrats seem to be grabbing as much as they can. When all you have to do for $30,000 or $40,000 is send in a note saying 'Pay up,' something's rotten," said Rep. Joe L. Barton of Texas, the ranking Republican on Dingell's committee.

Glavin's tenure at the FDA has been marked by controversy. Her office angered lawmakers by proposing to close seven of the agency's 13 food-safety labs -- although the FDA suspended the plan yesterday -- and she personally wrote an internal memo critical of FDA employees who told a congressional hearing last month that the FDA had performed poorly in protecting the safety of the food supply. Dingell and Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) accused Glavin of sending the memo as part of a "campaign of intimidation and retaliation."

Glavin did not respond to a request for comment.

The FDA also caught congressional fire in 2004 over its slow response to evidence that Merck's pain reliever Vioxx was linked to fatal heart attacks and strokes. The agency was caught by surprise that year when British authorities shut down Chiron, a major producer of the nation's flu vaccine. In 2005, after a long controversy, at least seven deaths caused the FDA to suggest that thousands of heart patients should have their defibrillators, made by Guidant, removed because of defects.

The agency's cash awards were parceled out in more than half a dozen categories: meritorious work rewards, Senior Executive Service bonuses, relocation assistance, student loan payoffs, recruitment awards for employees lured from the private sector, physician services bonuses and retention awards. It is the category in which all recipients were required to sign statements similar to Glavin's that ballooned under the Bush administration, from $2.7 million in 2003 to $8.3 million last year.

The rules for retention bonuses state that employees can be awarded up to 25 percent of their base salary if it is likely that they would leave government and if their retention is "essential" for the agency. "Generally, a retention bonus is used when necessary to match a current competing offer from a non-federal employer," the rules state, requiring a written justification.

But in arguing that entire categories of workers -- such as experienced drug reviewers -- should receive additional pay to remain at the agency, the FDA effectively converted many retention bonuses into automatic annual payments. Dyer said that the agency took up the issue with the Office of Personnel Management, and that it approved the policy. He said the FDA bonuses mirror those at some other federal agencies.

The bonuses have disproportionately gone to those who already have large salaries. The House committee's analysis of FDA bonus data shows that 33 of the most senior career managers -- who earn more than $165,000 a year because of their special talents and experience -- received a total of $900,000 in bonuses last year.

The bonuses -- which are funded in part with fees paid by industry for product reviews -- bring no guarantee of retention. FDA officials acknowledge that employees are free to leave the agency even if they receive the awards.

One of the biggest winners has been Terrell L. Vermillion, a retired Secret Service agent who now heads the FDA's Office of Criminal Investigations. He has received nearly $129,000 in retention bonuses and cash merit awards in the past four years on top of his base salary of about $160,000. Last year, the bonuses pushed Vermillion's total FDA compensation to $198,389, putting him above the $194,200 salary of an associate Supreme Court justice or the $165,200 salary of a member of Congress.

Vermillion founded the FDA investigations office and in supporting his bonuses, his bosses listed his successes and said that "based on our experience, it is impossible to recruit someone of Mr. Vermillion's stature." His "loss to FDA at this critical juncture with increasing criminal activity and terrorism threats would be devastating to agency effectiveness."

Vermillion has worked in government for more than three decades, including 14 years as head of the investigative office. Still, he signed a declaration in 2004 to support his bonus that stated: "Reference our past conversations and after due consideration, I am likely to leave the federal government for a higher paying private sector position if the retention allowance is not approved."

Vermillion did not respond to requests for comment.
 
Top