Video Reveals Violations of Laws, Abuse of Cows at Slaughter

[QUESTION]

LA , OT posted mexican plants why i do not know, read his post but the fact is that this incedent was caught on tape. As for the wait on the videos release, the animal rights people are very organized and waited to make sure they could not be sued. Also they usally do this sort of thing to get maximum exposure super bowl weekend and primaries . Gee i wonder if that is a coincedence?
Fed yes the US division of A&W promoted being american and 100% US beef which is an easy claim before cool comes in. If they are like the canadian division they get their burgers from cargill. Please note under current rules the canadian steers that went to the US this fall will be processed before cool will be called US beef. Please also notice they do mention if the bacon is from the USA. Gee i wonder why? My question is the burgers have mustard on them, the canadian prairies supply 96% of the mustard processed to be eaten in the US ( sorce - western canadian mustard growers association) Oh well the so much for the great american buger made with US beef (?) :lol: , canadian mustard, mexican pickles, mexican lettuce a good old all american product. :shock: Boy i would hate to see the COOL label if it applied to commercial food.

 

[Bill]

You can have your local Montana market and we"ll even throw in SD, ND and Wyoming. We will focus on California and states where there is abtually population and far removed from rural roots. You know the folks and their kids driving the Beemers, Jags, Hondas, Toyotas, Mercedes, etc. They seem more concened about quality and value than what country it came from.

Its a damned shame what happened at that plant and again raises the question of what is the US really hiding.

Well, really those areas are the ones I'm most concerned about- as thats where my kids and grandkids live...I want to give them the ability to eat Product of USA Beef- and not have to worry about them eating product from a higher risk country.....And I'm pretty sure most good eating establishments in most those areas will have to provide USA beef if they want to stay open....

One thing to keep in mind tho-- with the recession we are in/going into- money is getting a lot tighter- and the first thing that goes when money gets tight is eating out.....We won't need as much of those cheap unlabeled products....

And I agree with you its a shame whats happening in that plant-and some folks should get strung up--- altho like I said I believe it must be a rogue incident, because all the buyers I've dealt with don't even want anything that looks the slight bit unhealthy or crippled...Truckers won't even take them....

But this incident comes nowhere near the undercover investigation and films that MSNBC did in 'several" of the Mexican slaughter plants- and that meat is still being shipped north and passed off as US with a USDA label...The reason both the US and Canada need M-COOL now.....

I understand that Westland was the second largest supplier of the school lunch program in the US and you can believe all you want OT but don't you wonder how many downers they sent to schools your way. It's unfortunate that your wish for US only product may blowing up right in your face there OT.

Then in typical OT fashion you try to once again deflect a glaring disgrace IN AN AMERICAN PLANT by dragging the Mexicans into it. Was that plant in MEXICO?? For God's sake man get over it and start admitting to and cleaning up your own mess. You can start by asking why downers are still entering your food supply.

 

[Sandhusker]

Nothing's blowing up. It was one plant out of how many with a problem that can be fixed in 5 minutes.

 

[Anonymous]

Bill- Are you saying that nothing like this can happen or has happened in Canada ?

Do you want me to go back and find the news articles of the eastern Canada plant cuaght dragging in and butchering dead cows.... :???:

Like I said-- this is a rogue plant- probably the same as your eastern Canada plant was...The investigation into the Mexican plants indicated that was an everyday happening- at many plants....Lot of difference...

 

[Bill]

Bill- Are you saying that nothing like this can happen or has happened in Canada ?

Do you want me to go back and find the news articles of the eastern Canada plant cuaght dragging in and butchering dead cows.... :???:
Like I said-- this is a rogue plant- probably the same as your eastern Canada plant was...The investigation into the Mexican plants indicated that was an everyday happening- at many plants....Lot of difference...

No need to I remember you rantng and carrying on about the Aylmer plant but that was nothing near these proportions. The plant being discussed is controlled by the 2ND biggest supplier of the US school lunch program and all you can do is try to turn it into a Canadian or Mexican issue????????????



Keep repeating it Oldtimer:

as thats where my kids and grandkids live...I want to give them the ability to eat Product of USA Beef- and not have to worry about them eating product from a higher risk country

 

[PORKER]

Schools, burger chains ban targeted beef
By ROBERT JABLON

LOS ANGELES

The hamburger chains Jack-In-the-Box and In-N-Out as well more than 150 school districts around the nation have banned meat from a Chino slaughterhouse after a video showed workers brutalizing sick and crippled cows, officials said Friday.

The New York City public school system -- the nation's largest with 1.1 million students -- pulled all hamburgers from its menus.

School districts in at least 11 states have stopped using ground beef from Hallmark Meat Packing Co. and its associated Westland Meat Co. until a federal investigation is complete.

Inspectors were at the packing plant on Friday, USDA spokeswoman Angela Harless said.

No illnesses linked to the beef have been reported.

Jack in the Box, which has restaurants in 18 states, told its meat suppliers not to use Hallmark until further notice, spokeswoman Kathleen Anthony said.

"We definitely have very strict animal welfare guidelines that we expect our suppliers to follow," she said.

The San Diego-based company does not purchase meat directly from slaughterhouses, so it was unclear whether it had used any Hallmark meat, she said.

In-N-Out, an Irvine-based chain, also halted use of the beef, saying it would never condone the inhumane treatment of animals.

Hallmark did not immediately return a call seeking comment Friday. Westland President Steve Mendell said earlier in the week that the company was "shocked, saddened and sickened" by the video, had fired two workers shown in it and suspended their supervisor.

Westland sold more than 27 million pounds of beef last year for use in school lunch and other federal nutrition programs.

McDonald's Corp., the world's largest fast-food chain, said it does not do business with the slaughterhouse. Burger King, based in Miami, said it does not buy beef from the packing house and has "no connection to the supplier."

The videotape released Wednesday by The Humane Society of the United States showed slaughterhouse employees kicking, shocking, dragging and otherwise abusing "downer" cows -- those believed too sick or injured to walk.

The group urged Congress to pass bills requiring downed animals to be killed humanely and barred from being slaughtered for human consumption.

USDA regulations already prohibit use of disabled cows for human food because they may pose a higher risk of illnesses such as mad cow disease.

However, regulators said they were not immediately able to determine whether the workers were forcing downer cows into the slaughterhouse or dragging them out of the line.

Agriculture Secretary Ed Schafer has said there was "no immediate health risk" from the meat but added his department had barred any more purchases or use of the slaughterhouse meat for federal programs until the probe was completed.

Kenneth Petersen, assistant administrator in Office of Field Operations for Food Safety Inspection Service, said there is no evidence any of the animals, particularly downers, entered the food supply.

"This is a facility that slaughters old dairy cows, so certainly these are animals that obviously have left their milk production life. And so some are certainly injured and that's why they're coming to slaughter," he said.

USDA testing has had only one positive result for salmonella since January 2007 and that sample was excluded from delivery to the Agricultural Marketing Service of the USDA.

 

[Bill]

Not ready to blow apart Sadhusker?

What will happen if another US positive is announced in the next month or two or Oprah decides to do a show on the Hallmark Meats incident?

Nothing's blowing up. It was one plant out of how many with a problem that can be fixed in 5 minutes.

It looks like that according to the New York school system, 5 minutes is up.

 

[Sandhusker]

What if a US positive isn't announced in a month or two? What if another Canadian positive or five is announced? I realize you and the USDA have been ho-humming each additional case, but what if Oprah decides to have a show on Canadian BSE?

 

[don]

if oprah decides to do a show on canadian bse she'll have to conclude it isn't a threat to americans because you can't find any evidence of it down there with your comprehensive (!) testing program. you have special bse so that sourced from canada should really stand out, right? but it seems you can't find any of ours or yours.

 

[Sandhusker]

if oprah decides to do a show on canadian bse she'll have to conclude it isn't a threat to americans because you can't find any evidence of it down there with your comprehensive (!) testing program. you have special bse so that sourced from canada should really stand out, right? but it seems you can't find any of ours or yours.

Show me where the USDA is looking for it, don. It's generally hard to find something if no effort is expended to look.

 

[don]

exactly but you're always happy to claim it isn't found down there when it comes to american animals. with every argument you make you expose more of your own hypocrisy. it seems you're always setting traps for yourself to stumble into.

 

[Sandhusker]

exactly but you're always happy to claim it isn't found down there when it comes to american animals. with every argument you make you expose more of your own hypocrisy. it seems you're always setting traps for yourself to stumble into.

The truth is that it hasn't been found down here. However, I've also called for increased testing to find exactly what we do have and have been critical of the USDA's testing. I've been truthful and consistent.

 

[PORKER]

Schools Drop Burgers From Menu After Downer Cow Scare
Humane Society video sparks mad cow fears

February 4, 2008

Source of Article: http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2008/02/downer_cow.html

School districts coast to coast and some franchise restaurants are on full alert this week for suspect beef from a California slaughter house, where the Humane Society of the U.S. videotaped what appeared to be the slaughter of so-called "downer" cows.

"We're in contact with our suppliers, and they're in contact with their suppliers. It's a huge chain of activity," Joanne Tucker, a food services marketing coordinator for the San Diego Unified School District, told the Los Angeles Times.

Cows that cannot stand up are banned from the food supply because it is a primary characteristic of an animal with Mad Cow disease.

The Humane Society says it obtained video evidence that workers at the Hallmark Meat Packing Co. of Chino, California, repeatedly attempted to force "downed" animals onto their feet and into the human food chain.

In the video, workers are seen kicking cows, ramming them with the blades of a forklift, jabbing them in the eyes, and applying painful electrical shocks in attempts to force sick or injured animals to walk to slaughter.

"To see the extreme cruelties shown in The HSUS video challenges comprehension," said Wayne Pacelle, president and CEO of The HSUS. "Our government simply must act quickly both to guarantee the most basic level of humane treatment for farm animals and to protect America's most vulnerable people, our children, needy families and the elderly from potentially dangerous food."

According to a HSUS release, Hallmark's Chino slaughter plant supplies the Westland Meat Co., which processes the carcasses. The facility is the second-largest supplier of beef to USDA's Commodity Procurement Branch, which distributes the beef to needy families, the elderly and also to schools through the National School Lunch Program.

Westland was named a USDA "supplier of the year" for 2004-2005 and has delivered beef to schools in 36 states. More than 100,000 schools and child-care facilities nationwide receive meat through the lunch program, according to HSUS.

"I have called on the Office of the Inspector General to work with FSIS and the USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) to conduct an investigation into this matter," said Agriculture Secretary Ed Schafer. "As a result of the investigation, any violations of food safety or humane handling laws will be immediately acted upon."

USDA has indefinitely suspended Westland Meat Company as a supplier to federal food and nutrition programs, pending the outcome of the investigation. Schafer said Westland Meat Company will not be permitted to produce or deliver any products currently under contract.

Under the suspension, no further contracts will be awarded to Westland Meat Company. The suspension will remain in effect until all investigations are complete and appropriate action is taken by the department. An administrative hold has been placed on all Westland Meat Products that are in, or destined for federal food and nutrition programs.

 

[flounder]

if oprah decides to do a show on canadian bse she'll have to conclude it isn't a threat to americans because you can't find any evidence of it down there with your comprehensive (!) testing program. you have special bse so that sourced from canada should really stand out, right? but it seems you can't find any of ours or yours.

:lol: :lol2: :nod: :clap: :agree:


Audit Report Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Bovine Spongiform
Encephalopathy (BSE) Surveillance Program – Phase II and Food Safety and
Inspection Service Controls Over BSE Sampling, Specified Risk Materials, and
Advanced Meat Recovery Products - Phase III

Inherent Limitations in Identifying and Testing High-Risk Cattle APHIS
obtained significantly more samples for testing than they originally
anticipated would be needed to achieve its stated level of confidence in
estimating the prevalence of BSE in the U.S. herd. Because of the voluntary
nature of its program, however, we could not determine how successful APHIS
was in obtaining a representative proportion of high-risk cattle for
testing. Our prior report recognized the significant challenges for APHIS to
obtain samples from the high-risk population because of the inherent
problems with obtaining voluntary compliance and transporting carcasses for
testing. APHIS took steps to obtain facilitated pathways, by entering into
over 100 agreements, to collect and test brain samples for BSE. However,
using USDA published data that estimates the distribution of the cattle
population, as well as those that died or became nonambulatory, we could not
determine whether APHIS achieved either geographical representation or
representation of the desired surveillance stream (clinical suspects, fallen
stock, casualty slaughter fallen stock, and routine slaughter). Findings 1
and 2 present the conditions noted that impact this evaluation.


snip...




full text 130 pages ;


http://www.usda.gov/oig/webdocs/50601-10-KC.pdf



> Because of the voluntary nature of its program, however, we could not
determine how successful

> APHIS was in obtaining a representative proportion of high-risk cattle for
testing.


Owner and Corporation Plead Guilty
to Defrauding Bovine Spongiform
Encephalopathy (BSE) Surveillance Program


An Arizona meat processing company and its owner pled
guilty in February 2007 to charges of theft of Government
funds, mail fraud, and wire fraud. The owner and his
company defrauded the BSE Surveillance Program when
they falsified BSE Surveillance Data Collection Forms and
then submitted payment requests to USDA for the services.
In addition to the targeted sample population (those cattle
that were more than 30 months old or had other risk factors
for BSE), the owner submitted to USDA, or caused to be
submitted, BSE obex (brain stem) samples from healthy
USDA-inspected cattle. As a result, the owner fraudulently
received approximately $390,000. Sentencing is scheduled
for May 2007.


snip...


Topics that will be covered in ongoing or planned reviews under Goal 1
include:

soundness of BSE maintenance sampling (APHIS),


implementation of Performance-Based Inspection System
enhancements for specified risk material (SRM) violations and
improved inspection controls over SRMs (FSIS and APHIS),


snip...


The findings and recommendations from these efforts will be covered in
future semiannual reports as the relevant audits and
investigations are completed.


4 USDA OIG SEMIANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS FY 2007 1st Half


http://www.usda.gov/oig/webdocs/sarc070619.pdf


suppressed peer review of Harvard study October 31, 2002

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/oa/topics/BSE_Peer_Review.pdf



Release No. 0028.08
Contact:
Office of Communications (202) 720-4623


TRANSCRIPT: USDA Officials Hold Technical Briefing Regarding Inhumane
Handling Allegations

Washington January 31, 2008

snip...


http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/!ut/p/_s.7_0_A/7_0_1OB?contentidonly=true&contentid=2008/02/0028.xml



> TRANSCRIPT: USDA Officials Hold Technical Briefing Regarding Inhumane

> Handling Allegations



THE title is very misleading. A better title in my opinion would have read ;


HIGHLY SUSPECT BSE, H-BASE, MAD COW BEEF DISTRIBUTED NATIONALLY (35 states
to date), to CHILDREN AND THE ELDERLY


USDA CERTIFIED H-BASE MAD COW SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM


http://cjdmadcowbaseoct2007.blogspot.com/2008/02/usda-certified-h-base-mad-cow-school.html


It's the American way $$$



TSS

 

[Yanuck]

Lunch today at school was supposed to be Sloppy Joes... they served chicken burgers instead.... my 6 year old was not impressed! how many people do you think passed over the beef section and onto the chicken today while shopping because of this whole mess?

 

[PORKER]

Talk about millions of pounds of beef not being served, first it WAS TOPPS and Now its WESTLAND ! IS this the reason for dropping inspectors.

 

[flounder]

FSIS STATES ;


Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy - "Mad Cow Disease"


In addition, on December 30, 2003, Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman announced new policies that would further strengthen an existing solid food safety system against BSE. On that date, an immediate ban was enacted to prevent all non-ambulatory disabled cattle from being used in the human food supply. This group contains the HIGHEST risk population of cattle that could possibly have BSE. However, even before this ban, FSIS inspectors at slaughterhouses were condemning all cattle they suspected of showing central nervous system disorders.


snip...

Are meats used in the National School Lunch Program safe?

Yes. USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), by specification, does not allow beef that is mechanically separated from bone with automatic deboning systems, advanced lean (meat) recovery (AMR) systems, or powered knives for any commodity programs. USDA procurement specifications for beef specifically prohibit the use of meat from downer animals - animals too sick or injured to walk.



http://www.fsis.usda.gov/Fact_Sheets/Bovine_Spongiform_Encephalopathy_Mad_Cow_Disease/index.asp



In December 2003, USDA announced the
first confirmed case in the United States of
bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE).
On January 12, 2004, FSIS published interim
rules, effective immediately, banning HIGH
BSE-risk, non-ambulatory ("downer") cattle
from slaughtering facilities; imposing new
disposal requirements for certain potentially
hazardous animal parts and organs; prohibiting
the labeling as "meat" of mechanically
removed muscle tissue; and banning a form of
pre-slaughter stunning that can potentially
spread infective brain and nervous system
tissue into the meat.


http://digital.library.unt.edu/govdocs/crs/permalink/meta-crs-10052:1



Emergency Management and Information NetworkPennsylvania Department of Agriculture Bureau of Animal Health and Diagnostic Services John I. Enck, Jr., V.M.D., Director [email protected] Telephone No: 717-783-6677 Fax No: 717-787-1868 BSE Talking Points January 2, 2004


United States for signs of central nervous system impairment. All animals exhibiting neurological signs during this inspection are condemned, and the meat is not permitted for use as human food. The brains from these animals are submitted to USDA's National Veterinary Services Laboratories for analysis. (The cow implicated in the recent case was not considered to be showing signs consistent with neurological disease, but was originally diagnosed with a traumatic injury as a result of a difficult calving). • In fiscal year 2002, USDA tested 19,990 cattle for BSE using a targeted surveillance approach designed to test the highest risk animals, including downer animals (animals that are non-ambulatory at slaughter), animals that die on the farm, older animals and animals exhibiting signs of neurological distress.


http://ucce.ucdavis.edu/files/filelibrary/1808/12778.pdf



USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service generally prohibits such abuse as well as the use of downer cattle, or non-ambulatory cattle, which pose a higher risk of carrying bovine spongiform encephalopathy and other diseases, and their tissue in human food.

http://www.cattlenetwork.com/content.asp?contentid=194502


Cattle with central nervous system symptoms are of particular interest because cattle with bovine spongiform encephalopathy or BSE, also known as "mad cow disease," can exhibit such symptoms. In this case, there is no way now to test for BSE. But even if the cow had BSE, FDA's animal feed rule would prohibit the feeding of its rendered protein to other ruminant animals (e.g., cows, goats, sheep, bison).

http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/news/2004/NEW01061.html



Audit Report

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) Surveillance Program - Phase II

and

Food Safety and Inspection Service

Controls Over BSE Sampling, Specified Risk Materials, and Advanced Meat
Recovery Products - Phase III

Report No. 50601-10-KC January 2006

Finding 2 Inherent Challenges in Identifying and Testing High-Risk Cattle
Still Remain

Our prior report identified a number of inherent problems in identifying and
testing high-risk cattle. We reported that the challenges in identifying the
universe of high-risk cattle, as well as the need to design procedures to
obtain an appropriate representation of samples, was critical to the success
of the BSE surveillance program. The surveillance program was designed to
target nonambulatory cattle, cattle showing signs of CNS disease (including
cattle testing negative for rabies), cattle showing signs not inconsistent
with BSE, and dead cattle. Although APHIS designed procedures to ensure FSIS
condemned cattle were sampled and made a concerted effort for outreach to
obtain targeted samples, industry practices not considered in the design of
the surveillance program reduced assurance that targeted animals were tested
for BSE.




USDA/OIG-A/50601-10-KC Page 27

observe these animals ante mortem when possible to assure the animals from
the target population are ultimately sampled and the clinical signs
evaluated.



snip...



http://www.usda.gov/oig/webdocs/50601-10-KC.pdf



The figure below illustrates this point. Based on the USDA's data on the number of animals in the downer/high-risk population, we have constructed a curve that demonstrates how the fraction of total BSE risk that exists among downer/high-risk cattle varies according to how many times more risky such cattle are than normal-appearing cattle. If, for example, downer/high-risk cattle are 500 times more at risk for BSE than normal-appearing cattle, 83% of all BSE cases would be expected among downer/high-risk cattle and a policy of excluding all downer/high-risk cattle would have a significant impact in reducing BSE risk to humans. On the other hand, if downers and other high-risk animals were only five times more risky, only 5% of the risk would be among those animals. Actual testing data from Europe,6 not adjusted for animal age, suggest that we are closer to the latter than the former: cattle populations analogous to what are termed downer cattle in the United States have a BSE prevalence 31 times higher than non-downer cattle.* If this ratio is applied (rather than the USDA's assumption that there is no risk whatsoever among normal-appearing animals and that the ratio is therefore infinite), we can see from the figure (indicated by the arrow) that only an estimated 24% of the total U.S. risk occurs among downer/high-risk animals, with the remaining 76% occurring among the normal-appearing cattle that, until recently, were not being tested in the United States.


http://www.citizen.org/publications/release.cfm?ID=7321#figure


Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy in a Dairy Cow—Washington State, 2003

JAMA. 2004;291:553-555.

MMWR. 2004;52:1280-1285

1 figure omitted

On December 23, 2003, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) made a preliminary diagnosis of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in a single "downer" (i.e., nonambulatory disabled) dairy cow in Washington state. On December 25, this diagnosis was confirmed by the BSE international reference laboratory in Weybridge, England. This report summarizes the findings of the initial investigation of this case and describes the public health prevention measures adopted by USDA to protect the human food supply. The occurrence of BSE in the United States reinforces the need for physicians to be aware of the clinical features of variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (vCJD) and to arrange for brain autopsies in all decedents with suspected or probable CJD to assess the neuropathology of these patients.

The BSE-positive cow was aged 6.5 years when it was slaughtered on December 9. Before slaughter, the cow was nonambulatory; its condition was attributed to complications from calving. The animal was examined by a USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) veterinary medical officer both before and after slaughter. After examination, the carcass was released for use as food for human consumption. Tissues (e.g., brain, spinal cord, and small intestine) considered to be at high risk for the transmission of the BSE agent were removed from the cow during slaughter and sent for inedible rendering (often used for nonruminant animal feed). Because the cow was nonambulatory at slaughter, brain tissue samples were taken by USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) as part of its targeted surveillance for BSE. On December 23, a presumptive diagnosis of BSE was made, and the herd to which this cow belonged was placed under a state hold order. USDA, in collaboration with state and other federal animal and public health agencies, industry representatives, and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA), initiated investigations of potentially exposed cattle and regulated products.

On December 24, FSIS recalled beef from cattle slaughtered in the same plant on the same day as the BSE-positive cow. Some of the beef subject to the recall had been shipped to several establishments, which processed it further. Meat products manufactured from the recalled meat were distributed primarily to locations in Oregon and Washington, with smaller quantities distributed to locations in California, Idaho, Montana, and Nevada. FSIS continues to verify the distribution and control of all recalled products.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and inspectors from Oregon and Washington have located all known potentially infectious rendered products from the BSE-positive cow. The rendering plants that processed this material have placed a voluntary hold on all known potentially infectious products, none of which had left the control of the companies or entered commercial distribution as of January 7, 2004. FDA continues its investigation of all regulated products related to the BSE-positive cow.

APHIS, in collaboration with CFIA, traced the birth of the BSE-positive cow to a farm in Alberta, Canada. On January 6, USDA and CFIA announced that DNA evidence had confirmed this traceback to Canada with a high degree of certainty. This line of investigation indicates that the BSE-positive cow was one of 82 animals from a Canadian herd cleared for shipment to the United States; 81 of the cattle listed on the Canadian animal health certificate entered the United States on September 4, 2001, through Oroville, Washington. These cattle are being traced to determine their disposition or current location. The BSE-positive cow gave birth to two live calves while in the United States. The first is a yearling heifer on the same farm as the BSE-positive cow. The second, a bull calf, was in a group of calves at another location, a calf-feeding operation that also was under a state hold order. Because the bull calf could not be identified definitively, APHIS completed the elimination of all calves at this site on January 6. Since the epidemiologic investigation began, APHIS has developed criteria for determining additional cattle at risk for BSE that should be eliminated.

On December 30, USDA announced additional safeguards to further minimize the risk for human exposure to BSE in the United States (see box). Beginning immediately, FSIS has prohibited the use of downer cattle for food for human consumption. Through its emergency rule-making powers, FSIS will take additional actions that will become effective on their publication. Planned actions include the required removal of "specified risk materials" (i.e., high-risk materials) from animals aged >30 months at the time of slaughter and withholding the USDA "inspected and passed" mark until negative BSE test results are received for any animal tested. To enhance the speed and accuracy of the response to animal health threats such as BSE, APHIS is working to implement a national identification system to track animals of various species through the livestock marketing chain. USDA also will appoint an international panel of scientists with BSE expertise to provide an objective review of the response to the identification of the BSE-positive cow described in this report and to identify areas for potential improvement of current BSE safeguards. .......

see full text ;

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/291/5/553?etoc


SEE VIDEO AGAIN OF HIGHLY SUSPECT MAD COW BEEF FOR THAT SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM IN 35+ STATES,

http://tinyurl.com/yul2lw


kinda reminds you of these mad cows ;

http://msnbcmedia2.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Video/031231/nn_baz_madcow_031231.300w.jpg

http://www.cbc.ca/gfx/pix/mad_cow_usda_file.jpg

http://blog.erdener.org/archives/images/20031223-madcow.jpg


Suspect beef: In your child's school lunch?
Atlanta Journal Constitution, USA - 1 hour ago
School officials are searching for the beef, distributed here between October 2007 and January 2008. So far in Georgia, just Fannin County has found some of ...

Where's the beef? Not in school lunches
Federal Way Mirror, WA - 21 hours ago
Only middle and high schools were affected by the menu change, Turner said. Elementary schools did not have beef products on their menu. ...

Corvallis district contracts with new beef supplier
Corvallis Gazette Times, OR - Feb 4, 2008
The school district was told on Thursday to stop serving beef from Westland Meat Co./Hallmark Meat Packing. Just a day earlier, local high school students ...

Schools scramble to find questionable meat
Los Angeles Times, CA - Feb 3, 2008
... Chino-based slaughterhouse accused of distributing ground beef from at-risk cattle. This is not the first recall to affect California schools -- tainted ...

Brainerd School District pulls box of ground beef
Brainerd Daily Dispatch, United States - Feb 2, 2008
The schools that make their meals from scratch and would work with these types of raw meat products are Baxter, Nisswa, Riverside, Brainerd High School, ...

Beef on school menus goes on hold
TheNewsTribune.com, WA - Feb 2, 2008
Won't serve beef in elementary schools until further notice; might serve beef bought from other sources at the high schools. Bethel: Pulled all beef off ...

State wary of company's beef
Billings Gazette, USA - Feb 2, 2008
Westland is the only provider of ground beef for Montana's school food program. The Humane Society released a video Wednesday that showed plant workers ...

School districts stop serving beef amid cruelty concerns
Ventura County Star, CA - Feb 2, 2008
School districts around the nation have banned beef from the Chino slaughterhouse after a video showed workers brutalizing sick and crippled cows, ...

Schools keep beef off menus
Seattle Post Intelligencer - Feb 1, 2008
Seattle public middle and high schools stopped serving beef products Thursday. Elementary-school cafeterias served beef teriyaki dippers for lunch Thursday ...

School districts pull beef after federal ban
North County Times, CA - Feb 1, 2008
Hamburgers are served at Temecula's middle and high schools once or twice per week, Craig said, and elementary schools have beef on their menus about three ...

Schools stop serving beef due to meatpacking scandal in Chino
North County Times, CA - Feb 1, 2008
Cafeterias in the district's 17 elementary schools sell about 10000 hamburgers a week, he said. Escondido Union High School District officials said they are ...

Restaurants, Schools Ban SoCal Meat After Graphic Cow Video
KNBC.com, CA - Feb 1, 2008
Two major fast-food chains, Jack-In-the-Box and In-N-Out, said they would not use beef from the Chino slaughterhouse. Jack in the Box, a San Diego-based ...

State tells Iowa school districts to stop using beef from company ...

Waterloo Cedar Falls Courier, IA - Feb 1, 2008
However, the district has ordered some ground beef from the companies for its family and consumer sciences classes at the junior high schools and the high ...

100 state school districts told to stop serving beef
KOMO, WA - Feb 1, 2008
More than 100 of the state's nearly 300 school districts also are setting aside beef originating from Hallmark. The slaughterhouse also supplied schools in ...

100 state school districts told to stop serving beef
KOMO, WA - Feb 1, 2008
In the meantime, USDA has barred any use of meat coming from the slaughterhouse in federal food and nutrition programs. "There is no immediate health risk ...

Area schools trim beef from menus
San Bernardino Sun, CA - Feb 1, 2008
Beef is off the menu as public schools await the results of a federal investigation into a Chino slaughterhouse accused of abusing sick or injured cows. ...

Area schools trim beef from menus
Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, CA - Feb 1, 2008
Beef is off the menu as public schools await the results of a federal investigation into a Chino slaughterhouse accused of abusing sick or injured cows. ...

State tells schools to not use Westland beef
Press-Enterprise, CA - Jan 31, 2008
Beef purchased for the district's middle schools and high schools came from another supplier and is not affected by the warning, Taylor said. ...

Hawaii schools to stop using beef suppliers accused of abuse
Honolulu Advertiser, HI - Jan 31, 2008
Westland was named a USDA "supplier of the year" for 2004-2005 and has delivered beef to schools in 36 states. Newly installed Agriculture Secretary Ed ...

Local Schools Pull Beef From Plant Accused Of Cow Abuse
NBC Sandiego.com, CA - Jan 31, 2008
Not all beef products were affected. Other beef products, such as grilled hamburgers at middle and high schools, come from a different supplier and are not ...


http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&um=1&tab=wn&scoring=d&q=HIGH+RISK+BEEF+SCHOOLS+SLAUGHTERHOUSE&btnG=Search+News



THE title is very misleading. A better title in my opinion would have read ;


HIGHLY SUSPECT BSE, H-BASE, MAD COW BEEF DISTRIBUTED NATIONALLY (35 states
to date), to CHILDREN AND THE ELDERLY


USDA CERTIFIED H-BASE MAD COW SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM


http://cjdmadcowbaseoct2007.blogspot.com/2008/02/usda-certified-h-base-mad-cow-school.html


It's the American way $$$


TSS

 

[katrina]

USDA has suspended meat inspections at Hallmark/Westland Meat Company due to what USDA said was a "clear violation: of federal regulations covering slaughter plants.

The matter arose from the release last week of a video showing workers at the Chino, Calif., plant using electronic prods and forklifts to move "downer" cattle to slaughter. Federal rules prevent downer animals from entering the food supply.

Following is the statement released by USDA Under Secretary for Food Safety Dr. Richard Raymond on the matter:

"On Feb. 4, the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) suspended inspection at Hallmark/Westland Meat Packing Company based on the establishment's clear violation of Federal regulations and the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act. This Notice of Suspension is a regulatory course of action available when FSIS finds egregious violations of humane handling regulations.

"At the time allegations were revealed on Jan. 30, the Hallmark/Westland Meat Packing Company voluntarily stopped operations on Feb. 1. The USDA suspension will remain in effect and the Hallmark/Westland Meat Packing Company will not be allowed to operate until written corrective actions are submitted and verified by FSIS to ensure that animals are humanely handled

"An important point needs the public's attention: On Jan. 30, USDA placed an administrative hold on all Westland Meat products because of potential violations of regulatory requirements and contractual terms as a supplier of products to the Federal food and nutrition programs. USDA at the time of the hold also indefinitely suspended the eligibility of Westland Meat Company to participate as a supplier to Federal food and nutrition programs, specifically the National School Lunch Program, the Emergency Food Assistance Program and the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations.

"On Jan. 30, Agriculture Secretary Ed Schafer called upon the Office of the Inspector General to work with FSIS and the USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service to conduct an investigation into allegations of inhumane handling of non-ambulatory disabled cattle at Westland Meat Company. These allegations were made by the Humane Society of the United States against Westland Meat Company.

"We maintain an inspection system that safeguards the safety and wholesomeness of our food supply. USDA will take appropriate action based on the findings of the investigation."

:roll:

 

[mrj]

It is bad for all in the cattle/beef industry when something like this happens.

And worse when an activist outfit sits on the information for months!

Now, to see what the punishment will be for the guilty parties. Hopefully it will be as severe as possible, and ALL who 'played' will pay dearly, for all of us in this industry will suffer for their actions to some degree.

Then there are those regarding the breed of cattle involved, and the producers who sent them to market in that condition. Not flattering, nor should they be!

Those are my own thoughts, and those of many people I've heard on the subject here at the convention in Reno.

mrj

 

[flounder]

Release No. 0037.08
Contact:
Office of Communications (202)720-4623

Printable version
Email this page

Transcript of Press Briefing on Humane Handling Procedures of
Hallmark/Westfield Company

February 8, 2008

AUDIO Link

MODERATOR: Hello, everyone. I hope you are all here for the USDA update
regarding Hallmark/Westland Meat Packing Company. Again today we have Dr.
Kenneth Petersen, assistant administrator in the Office of Field Operations
for FSIS here at USDA; Bill Sessions, associate deputy administrator for
Livestock and Feed Programs for USDA Agriculture Marketing Service; and Eric
Steiner, associate administrator for Special Nutrition Programs for USDA's
Food and Nutrition Service.

Again, this is a media briefing. I know that we have others listening in,
but when we do get to the question and answer portion of this call, please
make sure that only members of the media queue in to ask a question. And
with that we'll get started with Dr. Kenneth Petersen. Thanks.

DR. KENNETH PETERSEN: Okay, thank you and good afternoon everybody. Thanks
again for joining us. We thought it would be helpful to give you some
updated information to where we are with our activities regarding
Hallmark/Westland Meat Company.

Since last week, FSIS has been quite diligently working with our partners in
USDA, including the Office of the Inspector General, to put facts to the
allegations that were made regarding Hallmark/Westland Meat Company. On
February 4, this past Monday, FSIS issued a Notice of Suspension based on
our findings that the establishment's humane handling procedures and
programs were insufficient to ensure that all animals were humanely handled
at that facility.

Accordingly, the plant cannot operate because we have suspended inspection.
Before they can resume operation, they will have to respond to the
deficiencies identified in their humane handling programs in a way that
ensures animals will be handled and slaughtered humanely.

To date there is no evidence to substantiate the allegations that downer
cattle entered the food supply. As you will recall from last week's
discussion, that was one of the pieces of information we wanted to look at
very carefully. We've looked at a lot of records, confirmed a lot of
information, and to date again there's no information to substantiate those
allegations. Nevertheless, we will continue to pursue any information to
make sure that that remains the case.

I'd like to briefly revisit what we in the department and really in the U.S.
government are doing regarding BSE controls in the food supply. The
prohibition of downer cattle from entering the food supply is only one
measure in an interlocking system of controls that the federal government
has in place to protect the safety of the public. Other BSE measures include
the feed ban that was put in place in 1997 by the Food and Drug
Administration that prevents feeding ruminant protein to other ruminants. In
addition, there's been ongoing surveillance for BSE in the cattle population
in the U.S. That began in 1990 and really in earnest since June 1, 2004.
USDA has sampled over 759,000 animals for BSE. These were largely high-risk
animals. Only 2 tested positive for BSE under that surveillance program.
Both animals were born prior to the feed ban being put in place in the U.S.,
and neither of those animals entered the food supply.

Then at slaughter plants of course we have a ban on nonambulatory disabled
cattle being allowed for slaughter, and that at slaughter plants really the
final strategy which as far as all of these interlocking strategies is
really the key one as far as the risk assessment tells us, the control and
removal of specified risk materials from entering the food supply. These
would be things such as spinal cord and other materials that plants
carefully look for and remove and inspection personnel ensure that they do
not enter the food supply.

So that's the over-arching strategy for control of BSE in the United States.

Finally, OIG, the Office of Inspector General, has now opened a case in this
matter and has taken the lead in the investigation; and FSIS and AMS,
Agricultural Marketing Service, will be assisting them as necessary. OIG
special agents have been assigned to the case and will examine pertinent
information, gather evidence, and conduct interviews as necessary. If
evidence of criminal conduct is found, the OIG will work with the Department
of Justice and U.S. Attorneys Office to pursue the matter.

And with that, we'll turn it over to Mr. Sessions.

MR. BILL SESSIONS: Good afternoon. This is Bill Sessions with the
Agricultural Marketing Service. As most of you may know, my agency is
responsible for developing the contractual specification requirements for
beef products purchased in federal Food and Nutrition Programs. We also
administer the contracting activity. The action taken by USDA to suspend
Westland Meat Company from producing and shipping products and receiving
further contracts for federal Food and Nutrition programs remains in effect.
The Agricultural Marketing Service is continuing to cooperate in the ongoing
investigation.

With that, I'll turn it over to my colleague, Eric Steiner.

MR. ERIC STEINER: This is Eric Steiner with the Food and Nutrition Service.
USDA has extended the administrative hold on Hallmark/Westland Meat Company
products for up to an additional 10 calendar days. The original hold will
expire at midnight Saturday, February 9. The extended hold for up to an
additional 10 days will expire at midnight Tuesday, February 19. With that,
I turn it back to Corry.

MODERATOR: Great. Thank you all, and we will go to questions now.

OPERATOR: Thank you. Jennifer Kelligher, you may ask your question, and
please state your media name.

REPORTER: Agatha Jennifer Kelligher (sp) with Newsday in New York. Are there
any states being told to stop serving Westland products in their schools?

MR. ERIC STEINER: At this time, USDA has asked all schools at this time to
suspend the use of the Hallmark/Westland meat packing company products.

REPORTER: And how do schools know or how do people know if their schools are
using Westland products, or have used Westland products?

MR. BILL SESSIONS: That information is given out through the electronic
information distribution system by FNS, and I would assume that that
information would then be transmitted down to local school districts who
would in turn notify the participants in the School Lunch Program.

OPERATOR: Thank you. The next question comes from Janet Zimmerman. You may
ask your question, and please state your media.

REPORTER: Yes. This is Janet Zimmerman with the Press Enterprise. There's
been evidence that there were past violations of humane handling regulations
before at this plant. Can I get Dr. Petersen to address that?

DR. PETERSEN: Sure. Well, we of course looked into the record of the plant
which we do as part of any investigation. We'd look at what's been going on
in the recent past. Back in December of 2005, I had, from time to time I
schedule our own humane handling audit in these facilities. And that's done
by a humane handling expert in each one of my 15 district offices. And that
individual did a humane handling audit in December, and as a result of that,
she found several things. We would not characterize them as egregious in
nature, and so the appropriate action at that time was to put the plant on
notice that they had some regulatory violations.

And in that particular case that's what we call a noncompliance record or an
"NR." It's a written communication to the plant telling them what it is we
found and really in that particular "NR" the key finding-there were several,
but I think really one of the key ones was being overly aggressive on the
use of electrical prods to move cattle. If the facility is correctly
designed, generally cattle should be freely moving with minimal
encouragement.

And so what the driver was doing was just over what we call "hotshotting"
them, which is an electric prod, telling us a couple things: One, we would
have some questions about their layout, their design, but also some
questions about that individual's training.

And then the plant has some obligations to respond to our communication to
them, which they did promptly; and with how they are going to correct that
and prevent that from happening, you know, in the future.

Then we also had some facility concerns in that particular "NR", some,
basically, maintenance housekeeping issues that they also addressed.

And then they tell us what they're going to do, they put it in place, and
then we verify that it happens over time. So something two years ago that
was, as I said, a nonegregious finding. Jumpstart to where we are now two
years later, and we would consider that a substantial period of compliance,
a two-year period. And in fact that's what they did.

And then we have the recent findings where again we call into question what
they were doing. And what happened in this case is not inconsistent with
what we have happen elsewhere, where we do what we call progressive
enforcement.

We've given you some information before. Two years ago we had some concerns;
now we have some other recent concerns. And so the sanction in this case,
being a suspension of operations, is more severe.

So that's what happened then, and that's kind of how we followed up in
concert with the other information that we have now.

REPORTER: And that violation, the noncompliance in 2005, was that all they
had in their past? Because they are on the Quarterly Enforcement Report from
late 2002.

DR. PETERSEN: Yes. Okay. Now in 2002, as other agency activities we had some
activities related to E.coli 0157H7 food safety related issues, some
strategies that we pushed out nationwide, telling plants what we expect for
them to do as far as control of that pathogen. And we looked closely at
virtually every plant associated that would have any relationship to E.coli.
That was over 2,500 of them at the time. And they were put on notice for
some questions we had regarding their food safety system at that time.

They were one of many who had similar questions. That was related to some
recalls in other events we had associated with E.coli in the summer of 2002.
So that's really distinct from this. Again, that would be, in our view, from
an enforcement perspective, 2002 would be quite a while ago.

And then we look at, was there a substantial period of compliance? And
certainly on the E.coli front, as I think we suggested a little bit last
week, their recent history from both FSIS testing and really from AMS
testing, whether it be E.coli or Salmonella, they did have a substantial
positive track record as far as effective control for pathogens associated
with the food safety system.

REPORTER: Are you saying that they did test positive for E.coli in 2002?

MODERATOR: Excuse me. We need to go on to the next question. We have quite a
few in line waiting, so let's go on to the next one.

OPERATOR: Our next one comes from Bill Tomson. You may ask your question.

REPORTER: Hi. This is Bill Tomson with Dow Jones. I suppose this question is
for Dr. Petersen. But what would be the purpose of the inhumane handling of
the cattle? In other words, is there any possible other purpose for forcing
a fallen cow to their feet other than, say, bypassing the downer
prohibition? I mean is there absolutely anything that could be the reason
behind this except for that?

DR. PETERSEN: Well, I can't, you know, muse on people's thinking other than
to say it's not necessary in a plant that operates effectively, and it's
certainly not appropriate. And so perhaps they have some animals that they
thought they could get up to move. That's not the appropriate way to do
that. So I can't speculate on kind of what their thought process was. They
should have procedures in place that positions them so that that's not
necessary.

MODERATOR: Before we go to the next question though, Eric Steiner wanted to
follow up on one of the earlier questions. Eric?

MR. ERIC STEINER: Thank you, Corry. As Mr. Sessions correctly noted before,
the Food Nutrition Service notifies the states, who then in turn notify
schools and other recipient agencies regarding the Westland Meat Company
products. When our first advisory went out, we let our state agencies and
schools know that they can identify the products that originate from this
company by either the company name or their establishment number. And those
are either/or or both are both on the products. And that's how those
products can be identified.

MODERATOR: Thanks. So we can go to the next question. Thank you.

OPERATOR: Thank you. Our next question comes from Rick Weiss. You may ask
your question, and please state your company name.

REPORTER: Hi. Thank you. Rick Weiss, Washington Post. With regard to the
substantial period of compliance after the 2005 humane handling violations,
when you say there was a substantial period of compliance, were there any
audits or inspections looking at this between then and now? Or is it just
that this is the first thing that's come up since then?

DR. PETERSEN: Okay. Yes. There were both audits and inspections. As we
mentioned last week, we have ongoing daily activities where we verify that
various humane handling procedures are being adhered to, which my in-plant
inspectors do as I said every day. In this plant we were documenting that
roughly an hour, really more like an hour and a half every day. Moving
cattle, effective stunning of cattle, you know water in the pens, that's the
kind of thing they look for. Then in May of 2007 this past year, we had
another random audit, really actually by the same individual who did the one
in December of 2005. And her findings at that time were unremarkable.

The facility concerns we had, had been significantly corrected, and she
observed none of the similar behavior as far as overuse of electric prodding
of cattle and that kind of thing.

So that report was on balance, acceptable.

OPERATOR: Thank you. Our next question comes from Jeanine Otto. You may ask
your question, and please state your company name.

REPORTER: Thank you. This is Jeanine Otto from Illinois AgriNews. Dr.
Petersen, in the last teleconference there was some question about why HSUS
went first to local police authorities, as they're claiming they did, and
waited so long to get this video into the hands of the USDA. Have they been
any more forthcoming about what that gap in time was or why they went first
to local authorities instead of coming directly to the USDA?

DR. PETERSEN: Well, I haven't, you know, personally queried them on it. You
know, I think we expressed our view on that last week. And now that we have
the information we've kind of moved forward. Perhaps that's a question you
might offer up to them.

OPERATOR: Thank you. Our next question comes from Joe Ascenzi. You may ask
your question and please state your company name.

REPORTER: Yes. Joe Ascenzi with the Business Press, San Reno, California.
What are the maximum penalties they might be looking at, and how long is
this likely to take to resolve?

DR. PETERSEN: They are currently subject to a rather significant penalty,
which is the inability to operate, and so it's up to them as far as when
they want to put forward a response to the issues that we put before them.
No doubt they are carefully considering what we've outlined. And what the
typical process is: They identify the issues, they tell us how they are
corrected, and then usually there's some back and forth discussion that may
take a few days. And again, it kind of depends on the credibility of what
they put forward and the likelihood that they think they will have for
success, not just immediately, but success on an ongoing basis.

And so we're going to be looking rather carefully for that.

OPERATOR: Thank you. Our next question comes from Erica Warner. You may ask
your question. Please state your company name.

REPORTER: This is Erica Warner with the Associated Press. A couple
questions: One is that the company has said that only two employees broke
the rules, and both have been fired. I'm wondering if the company has
formally presented that action or that conclusion to USDA, and is that part
of their plan? Or have you all responded to that or considered that in any
way?

DR. PETERSEN: Well, they have not formally responded. And so I can't really
speculate. If it's their position that it's only two people, I would want to
understand how they came to that conclusion, because any facility has both
employees and supervisors and a program that's supposed to be understood by
all and implemented by all.

And so I haven't seen that, that that's their position. So I couldn't
speculate that that's their conclusion.

OPERATOR: Next question comes from Victoria Kim. You may ask your question,
and please state your company name.

REPORTER: Hello. This is Victoria Kim with the LA Times. I have two
questions. One, I wanted to ask whether you were looking at all into how
these activities went undetected by the USDA inspectors, and if you're
looking into that at all in your investigation. And second, if you're
looking into whether this kind of action is also at other slaughterhouses in
the country. Thanks.

DR. PETERSEN: Okay. Well, how it went undetected is certainly going to be
part of the investigation. And as I think we very briefly touched on last
week, that kind of information, if it comes to light, I would expect would
come to light through the interview process: Interviewing various folks and
then reconciling statements, as you would expect in any investigation.

So yes, we are interested: When did it occur? Did they have knowledge of
perhaps when my inspectors would be around? Obviously that's something we'd
be interested in. As I said, I know the inspectors were coming and going at
random times, so how is it that if this was occurring on an ongoing basis
they were not aware of it? So that's certainly part of the investigation.

Then your second question was? Oh, yeah. Again, I have, the second question:
Is this happening elsewhere? The preponderance of plants in the U.S., of
which plants that slaughter cattle - there's at least 600 of them in the
federal system - have effective programs. They track them on an ongoing
basis, they take corrective action should anything become awry, and they
make corrections over time. And so that's really the norm. And I have
inspectors in every single one of those plants that are quite attentive to
any of that kind of activity going on.

So no, I don't believe that this is evidence of something that's pervasive.
I think it's more symptomatic of a localized problem. Now that said,
obviously we, as with any investigation, want to learn things that we
perhaps can do better. And we've already got some ideas on how we want to
revise some of our procedures, frequency of procedures, data tracking kind
of inside baseball like that. But as the investigation facts kind of come to
light, we'll be going out with that kind of information to the workforce to
make sure any lessons learned here are aware of for everybody.

OPERATOR: Our next question comes from Carmen Corsi. Ask your question and
please state your company name.

REPORTER: Yes. My name is Carmen Corsi. And I'm a reporter with WSPA; that's
the CBS affiliate in the Greenville Spartanburg market of South Carolina. I
was just calling, and this alludes to the first question that was asked
again. I know that Mr. Steiner said that these agencies will notify the
different states, which will notify the schools, and then they are in charge
of notifying the people in that area. But I was wondering if there was any
sort of list that we could access that had it broken down of which states
were immediately affected by this, where that meat went, so we can ensure
that people are coming forward and saying, "Hey, we have some of this meat
but we have pulled it."

MR. ERIC STEINER: At this point, all of our states have been notified that
they need to suspend using for the time being all meat products derived from
the company. That's all 50 states, District of Columbia, and that's
everybody. I mean some of the products are given through the different
programs, including the National School Lunch Program, as mentioned before
on last week's call; also the Emergency Food Assistance Program and the Food
Distribution Program on Indian reservations.

So everyone has been contacted, and everyone should be diligent in
suspending the use of these products.

OPERATOR: Our next question comes from Robert Wilson. You may ask your
question, and please state your company name.

REPORTER: Robert Wilson with KSFY Television. We're the ABC affiliate in
Sioux Falls, South Dakota. You said off the top that you had found no
evidence that downer cattle had entered the food supply. Can you say you're
confident that that did not happen, or is that still a part of your ongoing
investigation?

DR. PETERSEN: Well, I mean when we brought up this subject last week, of
course we had that before us with really no information either way. In the
last week I've obviously looked at a lot of information that's available to
us and information from at least some of the initial interviews as well as
records that I generate in the plant through our inspection activity,
records of activities we do on ante mortem, condemnations that we may do for
nonambulatory animals.

And so I think the statement is what I said to date, and I have better
information than I did last week. But I'm always looking for complete
information to the extent I can get it. So I have better information today.
I have no evidence that any nonambulatory animals enter the food supply.
That's better information than I had last week. But I still have additional
investigation that I'm going to do to make sure that every rock we can look
under is looked under before we can be in a position to make a final
statement.

OPERATOR: Our next question comes from Steven Quevas (sp). Please ask your
question and please state your company name.

REPORTER: Hi. Steven Quivas from KPCC in Los Angeles, a National Public
Radio affiliate. Dr. Petersen, we know what the Humane Society say they saw,
but what specific deficiencies has the USDA identified in its current
investigation? And also what parts of the Humane Society investigation can
you confirm as being accurate?

DR. PETERSEN: Well, part of what we were looking at over the last week was,
you know, I had some, obviously, some video; and so how factual can I make
that video? Then we had some statements from the plant basically
acknowledging at least at some level that some of their employees were
engaged in the behaviors that they observed on the tape. So those two things
go together.

Then when I'm in the plant and I look at their layout: Kind of where some of
these things may have occurred, that helps me put more context to what I saw
in the video.

Then when we look at their program, things such as: Well what did they say
they were going to do as far as receiving animals, moving animals throughout
the facility? Did they have the right equipment to move injured animals
around the facility? What we saw in the tape certainly suggests not.

So, much of what I just said I then translate into the regulatory context.
And, we have regulatory prohibitions against things such as dragging live
animals. That's not acceptable. We have regulatory provisions against
overstunning aggressively driving animals. That's not acceptable.

And so we put some context to what we saw in the video, and then we split
that into a regulatory context, and that was really the basis for the
suspension.

I would say, kind of circling back to one of the earlier calls and this is
kind of on the same theme: The suspension of the plant is an administrative
action that certainly we have the authority to execute. That is separate and
apart from what an OIG is and will be doing. And so I've taken the action I
think is appropriate, which is obviously suspending operations. OIG has
opened their case. They are going to certainly continue their investigation
and work with all the appropriate parties. Anything addition they may work
on or find on is going to be for them to determine.

The suspension is something that FSIS took under our existing regulatory
rules.

OPERATOR: Thank you. Our next question comes from Steve Kay. You may ask
your question, and please state your company name.

REPORTER: Steve Kay, Cattle Buyers Weekly. Dr. Petersen, have investigators
interviewed the two dismissed employees and their supervisor? And my second
question is, what kind of details are FSIS and USDA looking for in the
company's plans for corrective action?

DR. PETERSEN: Well, the first question, you know, who's been interviewed is
obviously part of the investigation, so I wouldn't be in a position to
comment on that. Details-that is for the plant to tell me. I have some kind
of general view of having had knowledge of other plants and programs that we
have found acceptable and of things that might be acceptable. But it's for
them first to figure out what happened, why did it happen, how was it
allowed to happen over at least some period of time, and then what does that
tell us about our program that we need to fix?

And obviously simply firing employees is not going to be - it may be part of
the story, but I'm certain they will come forward with more than just that.
And I would expect it to be comprehensive, meaning on the training side, the
ongoing supervision side, practices as far as moving animals around the
facility, ongoing correlation with people - perhaps ongoing surveillance of
what occurs in their pens. So that kind of overarching, comprehensive way to
address those various regulatory concerns I suggested earlier is certainly
the kind of thing we're going to be looking for.

OPERATOR: Thank you. The next question comes from Lisa Keefe. You may ask
your question, and please state your company name.

REPORTER: Yes, hi. This is Lisa Keefe with Meeting Place Magazine in
Chicago. As I understand it, the company even as it's not operating is going
through extensive, doing a lot of extensive work at the facility, presumably
to plan for ongoing operations in the future including perhaps the
installation of video cameras at locations to enhance the surveillance of
the employees and such. Do you have any knowledge of any of these actions?
Can you comment on them at all?

DR. PETERSEN: Well, some knowledge. Obviously there's been a lot of other
activity at the plant as I'm told. You know, this kind of circles back to
the earlier question. It's not for me to tell them what I want because they
will likely give me what I want. I want them to figure out what happened and
something that they can implement, something that they can embrace and
something that they can track over time. And so if video camera is something
they're considering or something they're putting in place, I haven't been
officially notified of that, so to me it would just be an interesting fact.

I think, likely if anything, I would guess they're trying to position
themselves to tell me what they have done. Generally if somebody tells me
what they're going to do, that's going to be a little less satisfactory than
somebody to tell me, "Here's what I've done, and you don't have to wait for
me to do something down the road." So it's conjecture, but perhaps that's
what they're trying to strive for.

OPERATOR: Thank you. Our next question comes from Erica Warner. You may ask
your question and please state your company name.

REPORTER: Oh, hi. This is Erica Warner with AP. On the question of the
suspension of use of the product from Westland, just to be clear, are these
products going to be destroyed or is there a point in time when you
determined for sure that no downer cattle entered the food supply, that they
would be allowed to take these products out of the freezer and serve them up
again?

MR. BILL SESSIONS: The products are going to remain on hold until such time
as we have information from the investigative process where we can make an
appropriate decision, and at that time when we have the facts in hand we
will then make a timely and appropriate decision relative to the disposition
of these products.

OPERATOR: Thank you. Our next question comes from Kim Piersol (sp). You may
ask your question. Please state your company name.

REPORTER: Hi. Kim with the Riverside Press Enterprise. I had a quick
question, just trying to clearly understand what the investigative process
is involving the agencies. FSIS suspended operations. What's the next step
for FSIS? And does the entire investigation now go to OIG?

DR. PETERSEN: Well, the plant, as we've mentioned on this call, needs to
decide if and when they want to respond to the suspension. And so we simply
wait for that. I'm on no timeline. It's their timeline.

Anything that OIG is doing - decisions I'll make down the road regarding
their suspension. You never say never. But the suspension is really on a
separate track that's an administrative enforcement action. As I said on the
last call, we did about 12 humane handling suspensions last year. So it's
not common, but it's not as low as we want to see it.

Then OIG does have the lead, and we'll pursue other information no doubt in
concert with a variety of parties to pursue other information. And I'm
really not in a position to speak to what they're going to be interested in.

So, (about) the suspension: If the plant wants to respond, I'll assess the
response, and then we'll make a decision on whether they could operate based
on the facts we put before them in the letter of suspension. OIG will
continue to pursue any additional activities that they are doing.

OPERATOR: Thank you. Our next question comes from Tanya Allen. You may ask
your question. One moment, please. We'll go on to the next.

REPORTER: Hi. Rick Weiss, Washington Post. Again, to try to clarify in the
OIG aspect of the investigation, I know you can't say much about it, but can
you make clear for us whether within the purview of that investigation is an
investigation into whether the USDA inspector who was doing the daily
inspections there was fulfilling his duties appropriately?

DR. PETERSEN: I just can't speculate on what OIG is going to be looking at.

REPORTER: Have you looked at that yourself and come to a conclusion yet?

DR. PETERSEN: Even if I had I wouldn't be in a position to articulate what
it is we found or didn't find regarding inspection personnel.

OPERATOR: Thank you. Our next question comes from Tanya Allen. You may ask
your question and please give your company name.

REPORTER: This is Tanya Allen with AMIS Newsletter. First, there appear to
be some provisions for cost reimbursement for those in the commodity chain.
But it's unclear to me how these work. I guess my question is, what are
USDA's plans for covering costs incurred by schools, distributors,
manufacturers, etcetera, during this hold?

MR. BILL SESSIONS: To answer your question, we do have specific hold and
recall procedures that we will follow in this matter. Not to say exactly
what we will reimburse and won't reimburse and that sort of thing; it would
be speculative on my part. We really need the facts, and as soon as we have
the facts, either through the investigative process, again we'll take the
appropriate action at that time.

OPERATOR: Thank you. Our next question comes from Victoria Kim. You may ask
your question.

REPORTER: Just following up on the question on whether you're looking at the
inspectors. I'm confused - so you will never give us the conclusion you've
reached on the USDA inspector's part? And why is that? And I was also
wondering if it is indeed found that these inspectors were aware of the
process and did not do anything about it, what are possible actions that
will be taken?

DR. PETERSEN: Well, just broadly, not in this case but of course anything
that occurs, of course not just in this agency but anywhere, we look at our
employees. And, did they have the right information? And if they did, were
they taking the appropriate action?

And so I do investigations all the time looking into employee conduct. And I
think we kind of touched on this last week; we put in place last week an
aggressive, multifaceted investigation. And anybody who knows, certainly,
me, knows that I'm interested in all the facts. And when we get the facts,
we take the appropriate action or we don't take an appropriate action, based
on the facts. And so we're interested in knowing everything about
everything. And certainly FSIS and AMS and FNS have their piece of it, and
OIG has started to focus on their piece of it.

So I can never say never what we may share down the road, but today we're
still in the middle of some of this. And so I'm not in a position to tell
you any actions we are taking or contemplating or haven't taken.

MODERATOR: Thank you. At this time unfortunately, that's going to have to
have been the last question. But thank you for joining, and call us at USDA
Office of Communications if you have any further questions. And that number
is 202-720-4623. Thank you.


http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usdahome?contentidonly=true&contentid=2008/02/0037.xml


Hallmark/Westland had been cited in the past for animal handling

By Lisa Keefe on 2/7/2008 for Meatingplace.com


The Hallmark/Westland Meat Packing Co. in Chino, Calif. had a record of lesser animal handling violations with the USDA dating back to 2005 and an animal rights organization had recorded the use of forklifts at the facility in 1993.

USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service spokeswoman Amanda Eamich confirmed a report in The Washington Post that the plant had citations dating from about 2005 for violations such as "too much electric prodding," but noted that these earlier citations were in a category of transgression that did not constitute "egregious violations."

FSIS suspended its inspection of the facility earlier this week "based on the establishment's clear violation of Federal Regulations and the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act" and its "egregious violations" of humane handling regulations. (See USDA suspends inspection of Hallmark for humane violations on Meatingplace.com, February 6, 2008.)

USDA's Office of the Inspector General is investigating the allegations, and has the power to subpoena evidence and report its findings to the Justice Department to consider criminal prosecution, the Washington Post reported.

Meanwhile, Farm Sanctuary, based in Watkins Glen, N.Y., confirmed to Meatingplace.com that it filmed the use of forklifts on livestock at Hallmark in 1993. At the time, it was researching allegations of animal abuse under state animal cruelty statutes. Current statutes specifically addressing the slaughter of downer cattle had not yet been written.

http://www.meatingplace.com/MembersOnly/webNews/details.aspx?item=19778


February 1, 2008

©The HSUS

Undercover video [WARNING: extremely graphic images] shows cows unable to walk being pushed and run over with a forklift at Hallmark.

Members of Congress are outraged at the shocking animal abuse and disregard for public health documented in The Humane Society of the United States' undercover investigation at Hallmark Meat Packing Co., of Chino, Calif.

Below are some of their statements and calls for action.



Senate

Senator Daniel Akaka's (D-Hawaii) statement on the safety of slaughter facilities [PDF]

http://www.hsus.org/web-files/PDF/farm/senator-akaka-statement-on-hallmark-downers-013008.pdf

Senator Barbara Boxer's (D-Calif.) press release, letter to USDA Secretary Ed Schafer and letter to Calif. Attorney General Jerry Brown

http://boxer.senate.gov/news/releases/record.cfm?id=291488

Senator Dick Durbin's (D-Ill.) press release, letter to USDA Secretary Ed Schafer and letter to Richard Raymond of the Food Safety Inspection Service

http://durbin.senate.gov/showRelease.cfm?releaseId=291516

Senator Diane Feinstein's (D-Calif.) press release on the "appalling" Westland Meat Packing case

http://feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=NewsRoom.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=d22ebdfa-9f47-598e-915c-d986c058e043

Senator Tom Harkin's (D-Iowa) press release on Westland Meat Packing allegations


http://216.40.253.202/~usscanf/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1668&Itemid=2

House of Representatives

Congressman Gary Ackerman's (D-N.Y.) press release on the Hallmark investigation and letter to USDA Secretary Ed Schafer

http://www.house.gov/list/press/ny05_ackerman/PR_013008.html

Congressman Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) praises The HSUS's Hallmark cruelty investigation

http://www.defazio.house.gov/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=361

Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro's (D-Conn.) press release on tainted meat in the school

http://www.hsus.org/web-files/PDF/farm/rosa-delauro-on-school-lunch-program-and-tainted-meat.pdf



HIGHLY SUSPECT BSE, H-BASE, MAD COW BEEF DISTRIBUTED NATIONALLY (35 states
to date), to CHILDREN AND THE ELDERLY


USDA CERTIFIED H-BASE MAD COW SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM


http://cjdmadcowbaseoct2007.blogspot.com/2008/02/usda-certified-h-base-mad-cow-school.html


[Docket No. 03-025IFA] FSIS Prohibition of the Use of Specified Risk
Materials for Human Food and Requirement for the Disposition of
Non-Ambulatory Disabled Cattle

03-025IFA
03-025IFA-2
Terry S. Singeltary


9/13/2005

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/Comments/03-025IFA/03-025IFA-2.pdf


TSS