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

What is in School Lunch Programs?

Tex

Well-known member
Huh?

Above, the headline of yesterday's Richmond Times-Dispatch story by Stephen J. Hedges of the Chicago Tribune about what one federal inspector calls the "E. coli loophole."

Another inspector told Hedges, "Nobody would buy it if they knew."

Well, now you know.

Here's the article.

E. coli loophole cited in recalls

Tainted meat can be sold if cooked

One federal inspector calls it the "E. coli loophole." Another says, "Nobody would buy it if they knew."

The officials are referring to the little-discussed fact that the U.S. Department of Agriculture has deemed it acceptable for meat companies to cook and sell meat on which E. coli, a bacterium that can sicken and even kill humans, is found during processing.

The "E. coli loophole" affects millions of pounds of beef each year that tests positive for the presence of E. coli O157:H7, a particularly virulent strain of the bacterium.

The agency allows companies to put this E. coli-positive meat in a special category -- "cook only." Cooking the meat, the USDA and producers say, destroys the bacteria and makes it safe to eat as precooked hamburgers, meat loaf, crumbled taco meat and other products.

But some USDA inspectors say the "cook only" practice means that higher-than-appropriate levels of E. coli are tolerated in packing plants, raising the chance that clean meat will become contaminated. They say the "cook only" practice is part of the reason for this year's sudden rise in incidents of E. coli contamination.

"All the product that is E. coli positive, they put a 'cooking only' tag on it," said one inspector, who like other federal inspectors interviewed asked to remain anonymous for fear of losing their jobs. "They [companies] will test, and everything that's positive, they slap that label on."

There is no evidence that "cook only" meat has directly sickened consumers. But some inspectors contend that the practice conceals significantly higher levels of E. coli bacteria in packing plants than the companies admit to. That's because companies that find E. coli are allowed to shift that meat immediately into "cook only" lines, without reporting it to the USDA.

USDA regularly tests for E. coli in slaughtering plants, but only on meat that packing companies have already deemed free of E. coli, the agency inspectors say. USDA officials say they do not track how much meat is put into "cook only" categories, but interviews with a half-dozen inspectors suggested it is a significant amount.

"The government keeps putting out that we've reduced E. coli by 50 percent and all of that," said an inspector. "And we haven't done nothing. We've just covered it up."

USDA denied this. In answers to written questions from the Tribune, department officials said USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service "collects its own random samples without waiting for test results from the plant."

Meat industry representatives and the USDA also said there is no risk from beef that is fully cooked, because cooking meat above 160 degrees Fahrenheit kills pathogens such as E. coli. Meat companies also said they have taken significant steps to eliminate E. coli in meat during the slaughtering process, including lactic acid washes of carcasses and steam treatments in which carcasses are heated to kill the bacteria.

Meat found with E. coli, they said, isn't worth as much.

"If raw ground beef has to go into a 'cook only' category, it loses value," said Randall Huffman, senior vice president for scientific affairs at the American Meat Institute, an industry group. "There's not as big a market for that."

Most of the major meatpacking companies offer their own cooked meat products, such as meat loaf, precooked hamburgers and taco meat crumbles. They also sell "cook only" meat to food processing companies.

Some cooked beef products end up in the National School Lunch Program, which is administered by the USDA.

The agency bought 2.8 million pounds of cooked beef in 2006, according to USDA records.

USDA said in a statement that "procurement of ground beef and certain other products for distribution through the National School Lunch Program is governed by additional quality requirements," such as mandatory microbiological testing.

School lunch programs have increased the use of cooked beef in recent years, especially hamburger patties and taco meat, as a way to prevent E. coli poisoning from undercooked beef, according to Jeannie Sneed, a food service consultant formerly at Iowa State University.

But Sneed said she and most school lunch program managers did not know that the cooked beef they use in school lunches could have come from cattle contaminated with E. coli.


"I did not know that's a common practice," she said. "Most people are probably not aware that it occurs. But it probably does not create a great amount of concern because if meat is cooked at a little less than 155 degrees, the E. coli is killed."

Regarding the safety of cooked beef, USDA said it "does collect and sample some cooked, ready-to-eat products for E. coli O157:H7."

E. coli can be difficult to detect and prevent. The bacterium lives in intestines of cattle, which tolerate it. It can contaminate meat during the slaughter process if fecal matter comes in contact with the meat portions of a carcass. That can happen in several ways, such as when workers accidentally puncture the digestive tract during removal, or when a cow's hide, which might carry fecal dust, is taken off.

In humans, E. coli poisoning can cause severe stomach cramps, bloody urine and diarrhea, kidney failure and even death.

The American meat industry is bewildered by this year's increased findings of E. coli contamination. Theories about the causes range from dry conditions in cattle feedlots, where cattle stand in manure, to changes in feed caused by high corn prices.

Whatever the reason, the result has been sick consumers. The largest recall so far this year involved the Topps Meat Co. of Elizabeth, N.J., which went out of business after it recalled 21.7 million pounds of ground beef due to E. coli contamination. About 40 people fell ill from Topps meat.

More recently, Cargill, the Minneapolis-based grain and foods giant, has recalled nearly 2 million pounds of ground beef due to E. coli concerns. And more than 3 million pounds of General Mills' Totino's and Jeno's pizzas have been recalled because of E. coli in pepperoni.

The inspectors interviewed for this story contended that the E. coli increase is due to the methods used to slaughter cattle, as well as the practice of designating affected meat "cook only."

That practice means companies can profit from meat that they would otherwise lose. But while the practice is clearly spelled out in USDA regulations, it is not widely publicized. "If you knew this was all E. coli positive, would you buy that product?" asked one inspector. "That's very hush-hush."

The U.S. meat industry produced 26.3 billion pounds of beef in 2006, from 33.7 million cattle. Meat companies summarily reject the inspectors' charges that corners are being cut in preventing E. coli contamination.

Gary Mickelson, a spokesman for Tyson Foods, one of the nation's largest beef producers, said his company has developed a special testing program, called Tyson Total N60, to detect E. coli. The program is so effective, Mickelson said, that other companies now use it.

"Tyson tests all raw beef components we know are destined for ground beef production," Mickelson said, adding that the program provides a 95 percent or greater assurance of finding E. coli.

Mickelson also said USDA inspectors have access to Tyson's records on its E. coli tests.

Cargill declined to comment for this story. Another large meatpacking firm, Swift Foods Co., did not return phone calls seeking comment.

Some inspectors said that USDA should eliminate the "cook only" category to force companies to work harder to eliminate E. coli or face the prospect of destroying beef that can't pass inspection.

But the American Meat Institute's Huffman said that would be a waste of food.

"You're talking about throwing away a significant volume of product, which to any food safety person, that doesn't make sense because the product can still be put through a validated cooking process and be made safe," Huffman said. "A lot of food products right now are cooked."

USDA performed nearly 11,000 E. coli tests at 1,653 meat plants in 2005, according to the agency's inspector general. From 2004 through 2006, the agency says, 0.17 percent of ground beef samples tested positive for E. coli.

Inspectors interviewed for this story, however, challenged the suggestion that it's a small problem. One USDA inspector said a large meatpacking plant where he worked produced a half-million pounds a week of E. coli-positive beef that was tagged "cook only."

"It's a smoke screen," the inspector said. "The agency says, 'Look at all this testing.' They [the meat companies] are still producing a half-million pounds a week of E. coli product, and we're patting them on their back."
 

Tex

Well-known member
The packers are competing on food safety issues and selling the tainted meat to school lunch programs. The USDA is facilitating this.
 
that almost makes a person sick just thinking about that. i have two kids in school right now. i think i just quit buying food i didn't cook. almost need to send this article to every mother in the states. the slaughter houses need to clean their plants up and do this right. we have butchered our own and never been sick. if a little ol arkansas girl can do it then the big educated officals can too.
 

Ben Roberts

Well-known member
What is in School Lunch Programs?


Millions and millions of $$$$$$$$$ for the multi-national corporations!

And R-CALF believes that by going to Washington DC, that some-how they are going to get legislation changed, that will help the producers.

The School Lunch Program is small, compared to provisions for the military. The multi-nationals are not going to give up that gold mine.

Best Regards
Ben Roberts
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Ben Roberts said:
What is in School Lunch Programs?


Millions and millions of $$$$$$$$$ for the multi-national corporations!

And R-CALF believes that by going to Washington DC, that some-how they are going to get legislation changed, that will help the producers.

The School Lunch Program is small, compared to provisions for the military. The multi-nationals are not going to give up that gold mine.

Best Regards
Ben Roberts

There is no way thing will change, no way, unless changes are made in Washington. You can't win ANY game when your opponent makes the rules.
 

Ben Roberts

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
Ben Roberts said:
What is in School Lunch Programs?


Millions and millions of $$$$$$$$$ for the multi-national corporations!

And R-CALF believes that by going to Washington DC, that some-how they are going to get legislation changed, that will help the producers.

The School Lunch Program is small, compared to provisions for the military. The multi-nationals are not going to give up that gold mine.

Best Regards
Ben Roberts




There is no way thing will change, no way, unless changes are made in Washington. You can't win ANY game when your opponent makes the rules.


To bad you were not around Sandhusker, to tell that to the founders of this nation, but I guess that is the difference, between an optimist and a pessimist!

Best Regards
Ben Roberts
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
I'm an optimist but I'm also a realist.

The packers have accumulated their power over generations. They're not going to simply let you take the industry back. They'll use all they have to stop you, and their biggest most effective club is the USDA. Until you take that weapon away from them, they'll kill you with it as they have in the past.

They saw Creekstone's plan as a threat to them and they just whistled to their boys in Washington and said, "That's not going to happen", and it didn't happen.

Look at how the USDA handled the Creekstone deal and look at your plan. You could get every producer in the country in a deal, have a sound business plan and all that, and the USDA could say "No" - just like they did with Creekstone. Their reasons don't have to make sense, they can exceed their authority, and they can even violate established policy - just like they did with Creekstone. Then what are you going to do?

This nation today is not what our forefathers envisioned.
 

Tex

Well-known member
Ben Roberts said:
Sandhusker said:
Ben Roberts said:
What is in School Lunch Programs?


Millions and millions of $$$$$$$$$ for the multi-national corporations!

And R-CALF believes that by going to Washington DC, that some-how they are going to get legislation changed, that will help the producers.

The School Lunch Program is small, compared to provisions for the military. The multi-nationals are not going to give up that gold mine.

Best Regards
Ben Roberts




There is no way thing will change, no way, unless changes are made in Washington. You can't win ANY game when your opponent makes the rules.


To bad you were not around Sandhusker, to tell that to the founders of this nation, but I guess that is the difference, between an optimist and a pessimist!

Best Regards
Ben Roberts

I think Sandhusker is trying to change the rules, there, BR. It is one of the ways to make the game fair.

You have just given up on representative government. It is the difference between an optimist and a pessimist.

When things really need to change, they usually get real bad first. It makes change inevitable.
 

Ben Roberts

Well-known member
Tex said:
Ben Roberts said:
Sandhusker said:
There is no way thing will change, no way, unless changes are made in Washington. You can't win ANY game when your opponent makes the rules.


To bad you were not around Sandhusker, to tell that to the founders of this nation, but I guess that is the difference, between an optimist and a pessimist!

Best Regards
Ben Roberts

I think Sandhusker is trying to change the rules, there, BR. It is one of the ways to make the game fair.

You have just given up on representative government. It is the difference between an optimist and a pessimist.

When things really need to change, they usually get real bad first. It makes change inevitable.


No, I haven't given up on representative government! And i'm also a realist, that has seen cattle producers in the United States, Canada and Australia go broke waiting for producer organizations and government to make changes.

If you want a representative government, you have to have a strong organization with membership numbers that can demand authority. That is the only way the cattle producers will ever have a representative government, because we don't have the financial means to buy representation like the multi-national corporations. We, do have two things though, that could bring about changes that we need, we have the cattle and the producer numbers.

How many cattle producers are no longer in business in the sandhills Sandhusker? How many poultry producers are no longer in business Tex, that are waiting for that representative government you dream of! It's time the cattle producers in the United States and Canada stand together, and say no more! Then we could demand, to have that representative government we all dream of, on both sides of the 49th.


Best Regards
Ben Roberts
 

Tex

Well-known member
You do have a compelling point there, Ben.

To win a war, you have to put pressure on all fronts.

You never know which flank will fold in battle, but none will if you don't do this.
 

Ben Roberts

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
Look at how the USDA handled the Creekstone deal and look at your plan. You could get every producer in the country in a deal, have a sound business plan and all that, and the USDA could say "No" - just like they did with Creekstone.


Because Creekstone falls under the jurisdiction of the USDA, the USDA does have some control, of what Creekstone would be allowed to do.

Now I'll ask you this question Sandhusker, does R-CALF come under the jurisdiction, of the USDA?

Best Regards
Ben Roberts
 

Ben Roberts

Well-known member
Tex said:
You do have a compelling point there, Ben.

To win a war, you have to put pressure on all fronts.

You never know which flank will fold in battle, but none will if you don't do this.
:agree: But it has to first be well organized!
 

rkaiser

Well-known member
Do you mean something like Rcalf, NCBA, and maybe three or four other producer groups sitting at a around table discussing how to correct the problems associated with handing over animals to less and less corporate packing players all the time.

Maybe it will take a little more bleeding in the USA. Cause believe me boys this process is happening in Alberta, and happening fast with more groups wanting to be part of it every day. Some of you other Canucks might say ----Alberta - why not Canada. Beef business and especially export beef business is based in Alberta. And one of the groups at this round table is, at the very least Western Canadian based. We already have folks working in Saskatchewan and the word has spread to Ottawa.

No matter how much we wanted to avoid government; we now know that we can not inspire change without them.

CCA is choking in our dust these days and not even sure what to do. And we are not planning to slow down and wait for them to catch up.

I never imagined how much work --- nor how much fun this would be Ben.
No date yet - but working on one again today for a summit to create a major new entity. Hoping to personally write an invitation to a Washington author to attend--------------

Randy Kaiser ----- Beef Initiative Group Canada -----------------
 

Tex

Well-known member
Ben Roberts said:
Tex said:
You do have a compelling point there, Ben.

To win a war, you have to put pressure on all fronts.

You never know which flank will fold in battle, but none will if you don't do this.
:agree: But it has to first be well organized!

It doesn't help when you work on not organizing them.

rkaiser is right. The producers in Canada are feeling enough pain to give the rkaisers in the industry a voice in change

While rcalf is arguing the bse case in the courts, due to the packer's control of Canada's (and any other foreign sources of beef) supply and its effects on the U.S. market (their argument is captive supply by packers), I think they have a broader agenda of promoting fair markets -- markets without the price manipulation found in the Pickett case.

As the fall in the dollar is showing Canadians because they view the U.S. market as THE global market for their beef exports, factors other than arguments with rcalf can have much broader consequences for producers-- such as currency exchange. Unfortunately, the big packers went to Canada to take advantage of this reality and garnered a ton of money by controlling most of Canada's supply and Canadian imports into the U.S. -- at the same time, they created the bse problem by feeding bse byproducts back to cattle. They also worked against solving the bse problem by not supporting private testing for bse in the cattle industry groups like NCBA and Canada's equivalent.

I think we all need to wake up to what is happening.
 

rkaiser

Well-known member
Just a reminder Tex - the biggest difference between rkaiser and rcalf are the views on BSE.

"They" created the BSE problem in Canada. Give me a break. Same problem in the US of A except for the number of backhoes ----and feed is not the only problem with BSE............................
 

Mrs.Greg

Well-known member
Randy,your talk about getting government involved gave me a thought. If you haven't already done it,go down to Camrose and give Kevin Sorenson a visit. It sure wouldn't hurt to have him in your ballpark.He raises cattle and is one of the only politians I would FULLY trust.....Darn GOOD guy.I believe your friend Darcy will verify this :)
 

Tex

Well-known member
rkaiser said:
Just a reminder Tex - the biggest difference between rkaiser and rcalf are the views on BSE.

"They" created the BSE problem in Canada. Give me a break. Same problem in the US of A except for the number of backhoes ----and feed is not the only problem with BSE............................

A $15 test would solve this bse bs. How much more would Canadian producer receive for their cattle if they had this $15 test, regardless of all the bse transmission theories?

Did packers support this testing or did they use bse for the salmon run. I know you know the answer.

The other issue, packer concentration and control of the meats industry, is a problem both Canada and the U.S. producers face. Without real competition by packers (the other lawsuits following Pickett were on the packers who participated in that market fraud), and that means there have to be enough of them to compete for your cattle, producers will be on the short end of the stick. Packers will continue the type of frauds they are successful in executing, whether it be carbon monoxide coloring meat, running their lines so fast that there are high contamination rates and selling those contaminated products to school lunch programs, or the market type frauds.

I would say that bse testing might be the best bet for Canadian producers to get out of their dependence on the U.S. market only. I hope it is done by a company not controlled by the big packers so they have a chance at being successful and competing with the big boys.

Down here, Creekstone (and I am for ANY company, not just Creekstone in this regard), was not successful in being able to test and get out of the bse bs because of big packer interests controlling government policy.
 

rkaiser

Well-known member
Then you guys should be dealing with the American Policy Tex and not worrying about us Canuck. We got it through our heads when the blood ran and you need to do the same. Rcalf is wasting a lot of time worrying about Canadian BSE - Canadian testing etc. The fight should be for your own. Canada is not causing your captive supply problems as much as rcalf would have you believe.

Mrs. Greg. The time is now to be vigilant yourself. We can talk to only so many politicians each day. Look in to the process we are undertaking and make that call to Kevin. We are going to need all of your help to make this happen.
 

Mrs.Greg

Well-known member
rkaiser said:
Then you guys should be dealing with the American Policy Tex and not worrying about us Canuck. We got it through our heads when the blood ran and you need to do the same. Rcalf is wasting a lot of time worrying about Canadian BSE - Canadian testing etc. The fight should be for your own. Canada is not causing your captive supply problems as much as rcalf would have you believe.

Mrs. Greg. The time is now to be vigilant yourself. We can talk to only so many politicians each day. Look in to the process we are undertaking and make that call to Kevin. We are going to need all of your help to make this happen.
I will for sure give it a try, although I'm sure your a much better saleman then I am but I'm positive Kevin would be more then a little interested in your adventure :) Good Luck
 

Tex

Well-known member
rkaiser said:
Then you guys should be dealing with the American Policy Tex and not worrying about us Canuck. We got it through our heads when the blood ran and you need to do the same. Rcalf is wasting a lot of time worrying about Canadian BSE - Canadian testing etc. The fight should be for your own. Canada is not causing your captive supply problems as much as rcalf would have you believe.

Mrs. Greg. The time is now to be vigilant yourself. We can talk to only so many politicians each day. Look in to the process we are undertaking and make that call to Kevin. We are going to need all of your help to make this happen.

Oh, I agree. Rcalf needs to push a bse testing policy too. It allows for consumers to make the choice. I think the bse issue is easier to push against Canadians in the courts right now. It also puts responsibility on those who challenge the idea of food safety on the spot and on the record.

I do think that the U.S., Japan, Korea, or any other nation has the right to make sure products coming into their countries have standards they must meet.

As far as captive supply, I really don't give the Canadian market that much weight at this point. I was worried more about the big profits Tyson was able to capture due to the bse issue and its owning of the salmon run in Canada than captive supply and U.S. market manipulation. The captive supply in that case had less to do with manipulating the market in the U.S. and more to do with the captive supply by the big packers over producers in Canada hence Tyson's ability to make out like a bandit with Canadian producer's product. In that case, Tyson et al had the supplies from Canada captive against the producers of Canada because big packers controlled the selling of those supplies into the U.S. As Tyson earns excess profits by globalism, it makes them harder to compete with. As you have inkled, the bse problem and the Tyson ability to sell Canadian beef in U.S. markets by putting it in a box without any type of testing created enormous wealth for them. It didn't look very good when your govt. subsidized them along with domestic producers (corporate welfare disguised as help to producers).

You can blame that on rcalf if you like, but the problem did not originate from rcalf. It originated largely by packer actions-- you have attempted to correct that with feed ban policies. I would submit that a bse test would solve many more problems in the long run.

Producers have fallen for this idea that if they don't go to the doctor(bse test), they won't find out they have a problem. Of course that logic also prevents you from taking the precautions necessary to stop the problem and employing the cure. Instead, they have opted for taking herbal supplements (feed ban) which has an unknown outcome. They do this only because they fear the disease so much. Circular logic.
 
Top