USDA says newfangled technology not required, slaughterhouses are fine
Dr. Raymond has spoken: the U.S. Department of Agriculture needs neither videocameras nor more inspectors to police slaughterhouses after the country's largest beef recall earlier this year.
Everything is just fine.
Raymond, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's undersecretary for food safety (right, on the left, at Marler's food safety bash last week), told a House subcommittee that USDA has enough food inspectors after hiring more than 190 last year and videotaping meat plant operations would be costly and practically difficult to implement, adding, "It's not as simple as a camera," and that the agency was "not stretched too thin."
Raymond's response angered House members, who said the recall of beef slaughtered in the Hallmark/Westland plant in Chino, Calif., showed a need for improvements.
The beef was recalled after the Humane Society of the United States released an undercover video showing the mistreatment of sick cows at the Westland/Hallmark plant in Chino, Calif.
As I've said before, USDA may need to adopt some new inspection and investigative techniques if the HSUS can so easily document such grotesquely poor treatment of animals.
And unlike 12th century France, USDA has access to the same video technology that a single undercover worker -- not the five USDA inspectors on-site -- was able to use to bring down a large corporation. Producers and processors who say their food is safe should be able to prove it. Producers and processors who say they treat animals humanely should be able to prove it.
Everything is just fine.
Raymond, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's undersecretary for food safety (right, on the left, at Marler's food safety bash last week), told a House subcommittee that USDA has enough food inspectors after hiring more than 190 last year and videotaping meat plant operations would be costly and practically difficult to implement, adding, "It's not as simple as a camera," and that the agency was "not stretched too thin."Raymond's response angered House members, who said the recall of beef slaughtered in the Hallmark/Westland plant in Chino, Calif., showed a need for improvements.
The beef was recalled after the Humane Society of the United States released an undercover video showing the mistreatment of sick cows at the Westland/Hallmark plant in Chino, Calif.
As I've said before, USDA may need to adopt some new inspection and investigative techniques if the HSUS can so easily document such grotesquely poor treatment of animals.
And unlike 12th century France, USDA has access to the same video technology that a single undercover worker -- not the five USDA inspectors on-site -- was able to use to bring down a large corporation. Producers and processors who say their food is safe should be able to prove it. Producers and processors who say they treat animals humanely should be able to prove it.
Trackbacks (1)
Links to blogs that reference this article
Trackback URL
http://barfblog.foodsafety.ksu.edu/admin/trackback/68679
http://barfblog.foodsafety.ksu.edu/admin/trackback/68679
BarfBlog -
April 17, 2008 9:20 PM
Three high school students who thought they were being funny by sticking a bag of poop in a Sandy, Utah 7-Eleven microwave and cooking it for 10 minutes have been arrested. Earlier this week, police released surveillance video of three...
Post A Comment / Question
Use this form to add a comment to this entry.
Send To A Friend
Use this form to send this entry to a friend via email.
On 20-Apr-08, at 4:12 PM, Steve Stoops wrote:
> Dr. Powell,
>
> I have provided below my comments on the edition of FSNET below, as
> you suggested. I have had the privilege of subscribing to FSNET for many years. I am a veterinarian TAMU 1969. My background consist of many ventures, veterinary practice, FSIS 21 years (in-plant veterinarian, Instructor FSIS National Training Center to FSIS Veterinarians, Food Inspectors and Foreign meat and poultry Government Officials 1989-2001. I have masters training in veterinary pathology, and am Diplomate ACVPM and member ISID. I am retired.
>
> FSnet April 17/08 - - ll
> 1. US: Food safety officials says no more oversight of
> slaughterhouses needed
> FSIS, like other federal agencies, is political but in my opinion,
> too political. The US Congress demands improvement in this
> situation, but, the only remedies it can envision are new laws or
> new agencies or new technologies or more people, or a
> reorganization of the existing FSIS. The solution I’m afraid is
> far more economical but more difficult for the Congress to accept
> because in using that solution, Congress will not have the
> documented accomplishments (new laws, agencies, technologies,
> people, or reorganization) that Congress must have to demonstrate
> that they have truly addressed such issues.
> The real improvement that is necessary is for Congress to demand
> adequate and strict enforcement of existing regulations. It needs
> to provide teeth in the law by demanding that existing regulations
> can not be diluted or or negotiated into meaningless exercises and
> paperwork. Unless Congress has the fortitude to do this, then
> whatever remedy they arrive at-no matter how costly, will
> ultimately falter or fail down the line when real life issues such
> as food-borne disease or inhumane handling of food animal issues
> publically emerge. Unless FSIS employees can do their in-plant jobs
> as they are trained and realize that their efforts ultimately will
> have a favorable impact on the food that we all eat, these issues
> will continually emerge.
> 2. US: Union head claims USDA tried to intimidate employees
> There exists a power struggle between FSIS and the recognized FSIS
> bargaining unit. I guess that is the nature of such things. I feel
> that both entities are conversely right and wrong on various issues
> that might be pertinent to some specific issue, whereas
> acknowledgement by either as having a legitimate position on such
> issue would likely affect their future deliberations on other,
> unrelated issues.
> Here a third party (such as the Humane Society of the United
> States) has presented incontrovertible evidence (such as documented
> video segments) which places great credibility on the occurrence of
> the actual event, however HSUS is interested in only one thing-
> animal mistreatment.
> Regulations were created because the government decided that
> industry needed certain checks on its actions. There are
> regulations to prevent animal abuse. Plant personnel have the
> responsibility to prevent such incidents on a 24 hour basis. Should
> any incidents occur while FSIS employees are on-premises then they
> should immediately preclude any further plant activity until
> responsible plant authorities stop such abuse and guarantee no
> recurrence. If this is ineffective, then local FSIS personnel can
> withhold inspection, indefinitely, until such remedy is made
> available by the plant. This effectively stops virtually everything
> at the plant. It is surprising how readily the cooperation that is
> provided when a slaughter plant can’t slaughter animals. In the
> best scenario, plant personnel fulfill their resonsibilities and
> local FSIS inspection fulfills theirs. Where the plant doesn’t
> fulfill their responsibilities-FSIS assures that they do, where
> FSIS may be overzealous, the plant can appeal their actions to
> higher FSIS authorities, where FSIS may be lax, infraction of the
> regulations is allowed and a food-borne outbreak or inhumane animal
> handling might occur. Again, I refer you to my bottom line comment
> on item 1, above. The Congress as a body is one entity, however,
> every person (or business or industry group) can appeal to their
> duly installed representative (member of Congress) for their
> individual action on a specific issue that they consider important.
> I have experienced this more than once, however, I can document no
> incident.
> 3. US: HSUS President testifies at congressional hearing on food
> safety and humane handling compliance by meat industry
> While I think that HSUS has a wider agenda than the documentation
> of the inhumane handling that it provided, this documentation is,
> in fact, hard evidence of FSIS and industry problems. That seems to
> be something that the Congress can’t make go away easily. And HSUS
> will be on high alert to use videos and other forms of
> documentation in the future to publish recurrences of this and
> other problems.
> My comments in items 1 and 2 I think are also appropriate here.
> I am retired now 7 years due to physical incapacitation, new events
> have occurred and things seem to have changed, but surprisingly,
> things still seem to be the same.
> Thank you,
> Steven G. Stoops, D.V.M., M.S., DACVPM
>
Here at NECI I have the opportunity to interact with our State (Vermont) meat inspectors and their boss on a daily basis. We have developed a great working relationship in which all of us can have open, honest communication concerning operations in the kitchen. After 2 years of this arrangement I have to say that these guys are stretched very thinly, covering all of the slaughter and processing facilities in the state, (which is small). It’s got to be worse in a large state like CA, and in the FSIS itself, as there is a cash crunch nationwide. While I agree with Dr Stoops when he mentions enforcing existing statutes, both the Federal and State inspection agencies are understaffed to cover that increased vigilance. More people are needed.
The big change needs to come from Dr Raymond, as creating a “Culture of Food Safety” starts at the top. The top administrators at FSIS need to hold the agency employees accountable and take responsibility overall, instead of putting on the blinders and acting like all is well. The numbers of large recalls over the last year show an alarming trend of situations that should have been caught by inspectors but were not.