Guv Still Slamming USDA

[Oldtimer]

An excerpt out of a Jan 25, 2006 Missoulian article:


On another issue affecting Montana, Schweitzer lashed out again at the U.S. Department of Agriculture over the most recent mad cow disease case in Canada. In the past the governor has referred to the department as "a bunch of stooges working for the multinational meat companies," and he said this week the USDA still does not represent the interests of Montana consumers and producers.

"I'm very proud of our legislature for proactively passing the country-of-origin labeling," Schweitzer said. "Congress has passed it for the last five, six years, then they refuse to enforce it."

Schweitzer said if the federal government isn't enforcing national country-of-origin labeling by the end of 2006, "we will in Montana," something he says will give the state a competitive advantage.

"We have safe beef in Montana, vegetarian beef," Schweitzer pointed out. "We're not feeding bone meal, we are very low risk of having BSE (bovine spongiform encephalopathy) in our herds in Montana, so when people are looking at a safe, wholesome beef product the ability of putting 'Made in Montana,' 'Made in the USA' on our beef products will give us a leg up in the market."

Schweitzer said the USDA never got to the bottom of the problem with Canadian beef when it suspended imports from that country in May 2003.

Saying the feeding of bone meal to cattle is one root of the BSE problem, Schweitzer said Canada has suspended the use of those kinds of feeds for seven years.

"This cow was 6 years old, so it is clear they are not enforcing their own rules," Schweitzer added. "They still have operators that are cutting corners in the feed business and using cheap protein and calcium sources.

"So I think we need to put the hammer down," Schweitzer said, "and say, 'Look, if you're not enforcing your rule - and you clearly aren't' - then we need to step in and stop this importation of these cattle because we have a wholesome product, we have a quality product, and we're losing our market share all over the world because of some bad actors in Canada."

 

[frenchie]

.
market share all over the world because of some bad actors in Canada."

Yep protectnism rears its head again . I wonder how cows ever got tested in Montana for B.S.E ;-)

 

[Oldtimer]

For those of you who are not familiar with Montanas COOL law- here is a copy from the M.C.A..What it does is end the FRAUD of the Packer/retailer cutting off the origin markings on imported meat and passing it off as a US product....This law goes into effect October 1, 2006, unless the National M-COOL law does...

30-12-701. (Temporary--effective October 1, 2006) Short title. This part may be cited as the "Country of Origin Placarding Act". (Void on occurrence of contingency--sec. 8, Ch. 279, L. 2005--see part compiler's comment.)

History: En. Sec. 1, Ch. 279, L. 2005.

30-12-702. (Effective October 1, 2006) Definitions. As used in this part, the following definitions apply:
(1) "Department" means the department of labor and industry provided for in Title 2, chapter 15, part 17.
(2) "Label" has the meaning provided in 50-31-103.
(3) "Labeling" has the meaning provided in 50-31-103.
(4) "Package" has the meaning provided in 50-31-103.
(5) "Person" means an individual, partnership, corporation, company, society, or association.
(6) "Placard" has the meaning provided in 50-31-103. (Subsections (1), (3), (5), and (6) void on occurrence of contingency--sec. 8, Ch. 279, L. 2005--see part compiler's comment.)

30-12-703. Labeling permitted. All producers, growers, and shippers of beef, pork, poultry, or lamb in this state are permitted to label each individual portion, piece, or package of beef, pork, poultry, or lamb in a conspicuous place as legibly, indelibly, and permanently as the nature of the commodity will permit, in a manner that indicates to an ultimate purchaser that the product was produced in Montana.

30-12-704. (Temporary--effective October 1, 2006) When placarding required -- removal of label prohibited -- exception. (1) Muscle cuts and ground beef, pork, poultry, or lamb, including any package that contains any blending of foreign and domestic product, that is produced in any country other than the United States and offered for retail sale in Montana must be labeled with a placard in a manner that indicates to an ultimate purchaser the country of origin.
(2) If one of the products enumerated in subsection (1) is unlabeled and the retail vendor is unable to determine its country of origin, the product must be labeled with a placard as "country of origin unknown".
(3) All retail vendors engaged in the business of selling products that are labeled or identified as to country of origin are prohibited from willfully or knowingly removing the labels or identifying marks.
(4) A placard is not required for prepared foods for immediate sale or ready to eat. (Void on occurrence of contingency--sec. 8, Ch. 279, L. 2005--see part compiler's comment.)

30-12-705. (Temporary--effective October 1, 2006) Penalties. (1) A person engaged in the business of retail vending of muscle cuts and ground beef, pork, poultry, or lamb who knowingly or purposely offers those products for sale without ensuring that the products are clearly labeled as to the country of origin, as provided in 30-12-704, is subject to the following penalties:
(a) for a first offense, a vendor shall be fined an amount not to exceed $100;
(b) for a second offense, a vendor shall be fined an amount not to exceed $250; and
(c) for a third or subsequent offense, a vendor shall be fined an amount not to exceed $500.
(2) A person engaged in the business of retail vending of beef, pork, poultry, or lamb who knowingly removes any labels or identifying marks from beef, pork, poultry, or lamb that is labeled as to the country of origin is guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction shall be fined an amount not to exceed $500 or be imprisoned in the county jail for a term not to exceed 6 months, or both.
(3) As used in this section, "knowingly" and "purposely" have the meanings provided in 45-2-101. (Void on occurrence of contingency--sec. 8, Ch. 279, L. 2005--see part compiler's comment.)

30-12-706. (Temporary--effective October 1, 2006) Department authorized to adopt rules. (1) The department may develop, adopt, and administer rules for the efficient enforcement of this part. The rules adopted by the department may include but are not limited to:
(a) statements that delineate the difference between imported and unimported raw agricultural commodities for the purpose of this part;
(b) the preferred labeling or placarding method for each commodity type identified in this part; and
(c) other rules that the department considers necessary to enforce this part.
(2) The rules adopted to implement this part may not unduly restrict a person from conducting business. (Void on occurrence of contingency--sec. 8, Ch. 279, L. 2005--see part compiler's comment.)

 

[frenchie]

Saying the feeding of bone meal to cattle is one root of the BSE problem, Schweitzer said Canada has suspended the use of those kinds of feeds for seven years.

"This cow was 6 years old, so it is clear they are not enforcing their own rules," Schweitzer added. "They still have operators that are cutting corners in the feed business and using cheap protein and calcium sources.

"So I think we need to put the hammer down," Schweitzer said, "and say, 'Look, if you're not enforcing your rule - and

Mad-Cow Rule Breaches
By Meat Packers Are Noted

By BILL TOMSON
DOW JONES NEWSWIRES
August 19, 2005

WASHINGTON -- Federal documents show U.S. meat packers sometimes failed to follow procedures to prevent the spread of mad-cow disease, including leaving spinal cords in cattle, miscalculating cattle ages and not sanitizing equipment.

Most of the 1,036 "noncompliance records" released by the Department of Agriculture appear to show record-keeping or other paperwork infractions.

And a violation recorded Aug. 3, 2004, said a USDA inspector stopped plant operations after watching employees fail to remove spinal cords from carcasses. Spinal cords are thought to carry the mad-cow disease, or bovine spongiform encephalopathy. The inspector said as a result the facility pledged to retain more than 500 carcasses and inspect them. A "similar" violation for the same establishment had been written up about three months earlier, the report said.

No company's name could be seen on the document that had sections blacked out, but it was accompanied by a letter from Tyson Fresh Meats Inc., a unit of Tyson Foods Inc. Tyson wrote that employees who should have been removing spinal cords were chastised for "poor work performance." Gary Mickelson, a Tyson spokesman, said, "We view this particular incident as more of a procedural issue than a food-safety concern because of the additional measures we take after this point in the production process to make sure nervous-system materials don't enter the food supply."

An unrelated violation said a factory wasn't correctly determining cattle ages. An inspector said when he tried to verify records that four cattle were younger than 30 months, he found three of the animals were older.

USDA maintains that, for the most part, mad-cow infection can only be found in cattle 30 months and older so most tissue capable of carrying the disease -- called specified risk material, or SRM -- only needs to be removed from older animals. If an animal is younger, those parts don't need to be removed. Some parts, such as tonsils and distal ileum, are considered SRM in cattle of all ages and must be removed. .

After the first case of mad-cow disease was found in the U.S. in December 2003, USDA began requiring the removal of spinal-cord, brain and other tissues from older cattle. Several other food-safety rules were implemented, including a ban on "downer" or dead animals from the food supply. Humans are believed to be susceptible to the disease through consumption of some beef products if they contain infected tissue.

A slaughterhouse, owned by Smithfield Foods Inc. subsidiary Moyer Packing Co., was written up July 15, 2004, for mishandling an animal that was dead-on-arrival and slated to be tested in USDA's federal BSE surveillance program. The program focuses on downer cattle that are too sick or injured to walk or cattle that died before slaughter. USDA considers those cattle more likely to be infected. The USDA inspector said he observed "abdominal fluids and tissues" from the dead animals "scattered throughout the unloading and livestock scale areas."

Moyer said in a response letter to USDA that the "entire affected area ... was hosed with high-pressure water and debris were removed." Smithfield spokesman Jerry Hostetter said: "The dead animal in question was nowhere near a food-production or processing area. It was in the cattle receiving yards ... prior to being taken into the plant. No parts of the animal got anywhere near the food supply."

Write to Bill Tomson at [email protected]

.The reality is that it is not uncommon for countries to report BSE cases arising even after a feed ban was instituted. Scotland is recent example.

Such cases don't necessarily mean that a country's firewalls are ineffective, however. No ban is airtight at the beginning, and few farmers or feeders are in a position to destroy feed stocks without compensation. Thus, some "tainted" ingredients are likely to leak into the feed chain in the early years following imposition of a feeding ban on ruminant proteins..

 

[Oldtimer]

frenchie- I pretty much agree with all your cut and pastes that point out the ineptness of the USDA...That is why I question their failure to close the feedban loopholes before they begin importing OTM cattle and/or beef from countries with much higher rates of BSE and post feed ban positive cattle.......

 

[frenchie]

frenchie- I pretty much agree with all your cut and pastes that point out the ineptness of the USDA...That is why I question their failure to close the feedban loopholes before they begin importing OTM cattle and/or beef from countries with much higher rates of BSE and post feed ban positive cattle.......

How would the U.S know what your incidence of disease is with the testing flaws that were uncovered.

plus you stated........

.The reality is that it is not uncommon for countries to report BSE cases arising even after a feed ban was instituted. Scotland is recent example.

Such cases don't necessarily mean that a country's firewalls are ineffective, however. No ban is airtight at the beginning, and few farmers or feeders are in a position to destroy feed stocks without compensation. Thus, some "tainted" ingredients are likely to leak into the feed chain in the early years following imposition of a feeding ban on ruminant proteins..