SH Said this on another post:
"Kiker was right. Bill Bullard is a liar. He stood in front of the US consumers and said that "USDA doesn't care about food safety" when USDA is taxed with the responsibility of food safety. Bill Bullard couldn't tell the truth if his life depended on it."
But then I found this, that states what Bullard is saying. USDA doesn't care about preventing food problems. They would rather recall food that has already been a problem. USDA does NOT want to upset the packers and are thus less interested in food safety than SOME people think they are. Enjoy SHead.
Dear Editors:
The headline article below entitled "COOL Implementation Could Mean Recalls" presents an interesting scenario. Let me explain.
Under current FSIS regulations, when an inspector collects a ground beef sample for E.Coli microbial analysis at USDA labs, the inspector is prohibited from documenting the origin of meat being sampled. Instead, if the sample is eventually deemed to be positive for E.coli (a minimum of 4 days later), only then does the agency require source information from the plant involved. By that time, the trail of evidence has turned cold, and the agency has no method to independently validate the "evidence" provided to it by the plant at that late date. Human nature would tempt plant management to present falsified "evidence" to the agency in order to insulate the plant from liability.
FSIS steadfastly refuses to authorize its inspectors to document all source origination details at the time of sample collection. The lack of such evidence does not prevent recalls, which will automatically transpire. However, the lack of evidence prevents tracebacks to the true origin of contamination. USDA doesn't object to recalls, but abhors tracebacks to the origin.
Conversely, USDA has endorsed animal ID programs as necessary to perform tracebacks to an animal's origin as a necessary prerequisite for BSE mitigation purposes while promoting international trade. While the agency claims that thorough documentation of an animal's movement throughout its life is possible, it prevents thorough documentation of the origin of meat being tested for microbial analysis. We have to question why the agency is opposed to the traceback to the origin of contaminated meat, while it wholeheartedly endorses tracebacks of live animals.
While similar, COOL presents another set of distinct challenges to the USDA. In June of 2006, agency spokesman Ed Loyd said that South Korea does not want to receive Canadian beef mixed in with U.S. imports. Mr. Loyd described the separation as a "pretty minor" issue that can be easily remedied, and he is correct. Sophisticated tracking systems employed at the large slaughter houses are fully capable of separating and distinguishing meat from domestic animals versus imported animals. Therefore, tracebacks to the originating country are easily accomplished, IF the USDA and the large slaughter houses agree to comply. But they don't. Why not?
From the agency standpoint, the goal of a seamless international meat trade has been fully embraced, requiring the removal of all trade restraints. Unfortunately, such liberalized trade prevents consumers from knowing if their supper emanated from Canada, Brazil, Australia, Chile, China, or the US. This has spawned the term "mystery meat". Apparently what we don't know won't kill us. From the industry standpoint, profits will be maximized if packers have unfettered access to meat from across the globe, all of which can be blended together into an amorphous protein soup lacking source identification. In this case, USDA wants no paperwork trail, resulting in the prevention of tracebacks to the source country.
COOL may very well increase the number of recalls, as your article suggests. However, if the agency and the industry would embrace the same attention to detail in COOL as it does in Animal ID and BSE documentation, COOL protocol is easily accomplished and COOL recalls would be prevented. While USDA claims that copious documentation is possible in some areas, it simultaneously claims that documentation is either impossible or unnecessarily difficult in other industry trade situations. Disparity in agency methodologies is obvious.
Bottom line: if paperflow adversely impacts international trade, causes major packers to accept responsibility for problems for which they are responsible, or forces the agency to challenge the multinational packers for noncompliance with regulations, the USDA and the large packers oppose such measures in a unified chorus.
We cannot assume that foreign countries produce meat and poultry utilizing "equal to" food production/inspection systems. Environmental factors such as use of pesticides, herbicides, child labor, steam degradation and destruction of rain forests to increase cropland acreage not only discredit the legitimacy of other countries' claim to safe food, but also allow other countries to produce protein at a cheaper cost than domestic producers who face additional environmental as well as labor and OSHA laws. Liberalization of trade protocol has provided a less-than-level playing field, and our domestic producers are being victimized. Simultaneously, we increase our negative balance of trade, while becoming more dependent on imported protein. All in the name of maximizing corporate profit, and giving Americans the cheapest (but not necessarily the safest) food possible.
Americans want to know where their meat is coming from. Will they be willing to pay a premium price for domestically-raised protein? We need to allow natural market forces to answer that question without surrendering our agricultural sector to foreign producers who are insulated from regulations imposed on domestic producers. If domestic consumers are not willing to pay higher prices for domestic products, the only option, (and it will be legitimately legal) will be to open the floodgates to cheaper imported meat and poultry. If Brazilian chicken is 25 cents per lb cheaper, OK. Just tell us it is Brazilian. And we will have only ourselves to blame when our livestock producers bite the dust.
USDA is NOT concerned with COOL-related recalls. Rather, it desires to circumvent paperwork documentation which could cause discomfort to either the agency or the large packers. When President Lincoln formed the USDA, and when the Wholesome Meat Act was passed, it wasn't to promote agency comfort.
Congress already passed COOL legislation. It's time to fully fund it, whether USDA experiences discomfort or not.
John W. Munsell
President, Montana Quality Foods & Processing
Manager, Foundation for Accountability in Regulatory Enforcement (FARE)
Miles City, MT[/b]
"Kiker was right. Bill Bullard is a liar. He stood in front of the US consumers and said that "USDA doesn't care about food safety" when USDA is taxed with the responsibility of food safety. Bill Bullard couldn't tell the truth if his life depended on it."
But then I found this, that states what Bullard is saying. USDA doesn't care about preventing food problems. They would rather recall food that has already been a problem. USDA does NOT want to upset the packers and are thus less interested in food safety than SOME people think they are. Enjoy SHead.
Dear Editors:
The headline article below entitled "COOL Implementation Could Mean Recalls" presents an interesting scenario. Let me explain.
Under current FSIS regulations, when an inspector collects a ground beef sample for E.Coli microbial analysis at USDA labs, the inspector is prohibited from documenting the origin of meat being sampled. Instead, if the sample is eventually deemed to be positive for E.coli (a minimum of 4 days later), only then does the agency require source information from the plant involved. By that time, the trail of evidence has turned cold, and the agency has no method to independently validate the "evidence" provided to it by the plant at that late date. Human nature would tempt plant management to present falsified "evidence" to the agency in order to insulate the plant from liability.
FSIS steadfastly refuses to authorize its inspectors to document all source origination details at the time of sample collection. The lack of such evidence does not prevent recalls, which will automatically transpire. However, the lack of evidence prevents tracebacks to the true origin of contamination. USDA doesn't object to recalls, but abhors tracebacks to the origin.
Conversely, USDA has endorsed animal ID programs as necessary to perform tracebacks to an animal's origin as a necessary prerequisite for BSE mitigation purposes while promoting international trade. While the agency claims that thorough documentation of an animal's movement throughout its life is possible, it prevents thorough documentation of the origin of meat being tested for microbial analysis. We have to question why the agency is opposed to the traceback to the origin of contaminated meat, while it wholeheartedly endorses tracebacks of live animals.
While similar, COOL presents another set of distinct challenges to the USDA. In June of 2006, agency spokesman Ed Loyd said that South Korea does not want to receive Canadian beef mixed in with U.S. imports. Mr. Loyd described the separation as a "pretty minor" issue that can be easily remedied, and he is correct. Sophisticated tracking systems employed at the large slaughter houses are fully capable of separating and distinguishing meat from domestic animals versus imported animals. Therefore, tracebacks to the originating country are easily accomplished, IF the USDA and the large slaughter houses agree to comply. But they don't. Why not?
From the agency standpoint, the goal of a seamless international meat trade has been fully embraced, requiring the removal of all trade restraints. Unfortunately, such liberalized trade prevents consumers from knowing if their supper emanated from Canada, Brazil, Australia, Chile, China, or the US. This has spawned the term "mystery meat". Apparently what we don't know won't kill us. From the industry standpoint, profits will be maximized if packers have unfettered access to meat from across the globe, all of which can be blended together into an amorphous protein soup lacking source identification. In this case, USDA wants no paperwork trail, resulting in the prevention of tracebacks to the source country.
COOL may very well increase the number of recalls, as your article suggests. However, if the agency and the industry would embrace the same attention to detail in COOL as it does in Animal ID and BSE documentation, COOL protocol is easily accomplished and COOL recalls would be prevented. While USDA claims that copious documentation is possible in some areas, it simultaneously claims that documentation is either impossible or unnecessarily difficult in other industry trade situations. Disparity in agency methodologies is obvious.
Bottom line: if paperflow adversely impacts international trade, causes major packers to accept responsibility for problems for which they are responsible, or forces the agency to challenge the multinational packers for noncompliance with regulations, the USDA and the large packers oppose such measures in a unified chorus.
We cannot assume that foreign countries produce meat and poultry utilizing "equal to" food production/inspection systems. Environmental factors such as use of pesticides, herbicides, child labor, steam degradation and destruction of rain forests to increase cropland acreage not only discredit the legitimacy of other countries' claim to safe food, but also allow other countries to produce protein at a cheaper cost than domestic producers who face additional environmental as well as labor and OSHA laws. Liberalization of trade protocol has provided a less-than-level playing field, and our domestic producers are being victimized. Simultaneously, we increase our negative balance of trade, while becoming more dependent on imported protein. All in the name of maximizing corporate profit, and giving Americans the cheapest (but not necessarily the safest) food possible.
Americans want to know where their meat is coming from. Will they be willing to pay a premium price for domestically-raised protein? We need to allow natural market forces to answer that question without surrendering our agricultural sector to foreign producers who are insulated from regulations imposed on domestic producers. If domestic consumers are not willing to pay higher prices for domestic products, the only option, (and it will be legitimately legal) will be to open the floodgates to cheaper imported meat and poultry. If Brazilian chicken is 25 cents per lb cheaper, OK. Just tell us it is Brazilian. And we will have only ourselves to blame when our livestock producers bite the dust.
USDA is NOT concerned with COOL-related recalls. Rather, it desires to circumvent paperwork documentation which could cause discomfort to either the agency or the large packers. When President Lincoln formed the USDA, and when the Wholesome Meat Act was passed, it wasn't to promote agency comfort.
Congress already passed COOL legislation. It's time to fully fund it, whether USDA experiences discomfort or not.
John W. Munsell
President, Montana Quality Foods & Processing
Manager, Foundation for Accountability in Regulatory Enforcement (FARE)
Miles City, MT[/b]
