R-CALF Proven Right

Oldtimer

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 19, 2004
Messages
3,922
City & State/Province
Northeast Montana
Beef News
Inspector General's report slams USDA, APHIS on Canadian beef

by Pete Hisey on 2/18/05 for Meatingplace.com



The USDA's Office of the Inspector General, Northeast Region, has completed a nearly yearlong investigation of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's oversight of imported beef products from Canada after the border was closed to live cattle in May 2003.

The 50-page audit report finds that due to weak control processes, vague language as to what was and was not allowed into the United States, inconsistent and rapidly shifting definitions of terms, sometimes capricious decision-making and failure to enforce its own and others' rules, APHIS in effect let enormous amounts of "questionable" meat into the country.

The basic problem, OIG says, is that the agency never truly developed a science-based definition of what it meant by "low-risk" products in June 2003. At that time, the agency's TSE working group provided recommendations as to what beef products should be allowed to cross the border. Then-Secretary of Agriculture Ann Veneman released a list of approved products, which included "boneless bovine meat from cattle under 30 years of age" and "fresh or frozen bovine liver," along with recommendations for veal, goat, sheep and other meat products.

The list specifically excluded "manufacturing trim derived from bone, advanced meat recovery, mechanically separated meat or low-temperature rendered product."

What happened next is referred to by OIG as "permit creep." In August 2003, somewhat mysteriously, beef tongue was classified as low-risk, even though the TSE Working Group had specifically classified it as moderate-risk. By October, it had expanded the list to include processed products containing beef — including ground beef, roast beef, and other products — but never made the changes public. In April 2004, APHIS announced that bone-in beef, ground meat and further processed beef products would all be eligible for import as low-risk. R-CALF USA, a cattle rancher advocacy group, immediately sued, and several senators demanded an investigation a month later.

Canadian plants failed to meet requirements

The resulting audit makes several charges and recommendations. Among the former, a serious one is that while APHIS demanded that all meat imported from Canada come from plants either dedicated only to cattle under 30 months of age or one that had a strict segregation plan that had been approved by APHIS in place, the OIG found that only one Canadian plant had filed such a plan, and it was rejected.

"Not a single Canadian facility met the minimum requirement, set forth in the administrator's decision memorandum, of having a product segregation plant that had been reviewed and approved by APHIS," the report says. It adds that nevertheless, at least 55 permits allowed the import of such processed products as ground beef, sausage, meatballs, pot pies, pepperoni, frankfurters and the like, where products from cattle under and over 30 months could have easily been combined. Over 5.6 million pounds of processed products containing beef entered the United States between Sept.1, 2003, and April 30, 2004.

An internal APHIS memorandum allowing processed products from plants that used both young and old cattle noted that among the policy change's drawbacks was the lack of opportunity for public comment and an increased possibility that high-risk product, such as mechanically separated meat, could be imported into the United States due to mislabeling. The decision to allow facilities handling both kinds of products was never communicated to the public, OIG says. That might be because of the 300 permits issued between Aug. 28, 2003, and April 5, 2004, only one was from a facility dedicated to animals under 30 months. Under the original plan, 299 of 300 requests would have been turned down.

Definitions questioned

Another major area of criticism was the inclusion of beef cheeks under the definition of boneless beef. The Harvard Risk Assessment USDA commissioned in 2001 had clearly warned about potential contamination of cheek meat by brain tissue or other tissues during the slaughter process, yet USDA allowed it to be imported, even though in its own documents it had called cheek meat ineligible. USDA says the report calling the meat ineligible had been superseded by a later memorandum, but OIG's audit showed that exactly the opposite had happened. In all, at least 63,000 pounds of cheek meat, all from the same source, entered the United States. Cheek meat is now once again ineligible.

Under terms of the May 4, 2003, preliminary injunction agreed to by USDA and R-CALF USA, the only beef products allowed from that point on were liver, provided no air-injected stunning was used at slaughter, and boneless fresh or frozen beef from cattle proven to be under 30 months of age and not known to have been fed prohibited products. The agreement specifically bans ground meat of any sort, mechanically separated meat and advanced meat recovery. Brains and spinal cords must be removed before shipping.

OIG's suggestions

OIG makes a series of suggestions, including better communication with constituents and the public, immediate cancellation of all import permits that allow questionable products like tongue and meat cheeks, development of consistent terminology to be used in import situations and development of better systems of control and enforcement.

Testifying in front of a House subcommittee Thursday, Inspector General Phyllis K. Fong explained some of the findings in general. "We found that while APHIS allowed the import of beef products they considered low-risk in an attempt to further trade, they did not publicly communicate or explain their actions to all interested parties. APHIS changed its policies relating to required risk-mitigation measures to allow the import of low-risk product produced at plants that also handled higher-risk product."

R-CALF spokeswoman Shae Dodson says the report vindicates the organization. During its investigation, R-CALF found that 37 million pounds of unauthorized beef, mainly ground beef, came across the border from August 2003 to March 2004. "The investigation indicates that USDA does not have a handle on its processes," Dodson said.

USDA did not return calls for comment.
 
Inspectors Say U.S. Meat Plants Are Violating Mad Cow Rules

http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory ... /story.htm

US Meat Plants Violating Mad Cow Rules
USA: December 21, 2004

WASHINGTON - US meat plants are allowing brains and spinal cord from older
cattle to enter the food supply, violating strict government regulations
aimed at preventing the spread of mad cow disease, a federal meat inspectors
union said on Monday.

Nearly a year after the first US case of mad cow disease, meat plants have
yet to implement measures required by the US Agriculture Department to
protect consumers, said the National Joint Council of Food Inspection
Locals.

"We are seeing little to no change at these plants," said Stan Painter, the
union's chairman.

The USDA has said its ban on brains, spinal cord, eyes and other so-called
specific risk material (SRMs) was the most important action it has taken
since the discovery of mad cow disease in the United States.

The deadly disease is carried within the infected animal's brain and
nervous system and can be spread to humans when eaten. Older cattle, over
30-months of age, are thought to be at higher risk for mad cow disease than
younger animals.

We know USDA's zero tolerance is not being met," Painter said. "We believe
this is a widespread problem." He declined to say how many plants were in
violation


The USDA disagreed with the union, saying no prohibited cattle parts were
slipping into the food supply.

"Parts that are defined as SRMs are being removed and being disposed of
according to regulations implemented in January 2004," said Steve Cohen,
spokesman for USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service.

The American Meat Institute, a trade group representing US meatpackers,
said it was unaware of any plants in violation of the regulations.

The labor union's allegations come as the United States tries to convince
Japan and South Korea, previously its top buyers, to ease their bans on US
beef.

Japan, the No. 1 market for US beef in 2003, said it would reopen its
borders once Washington could assure that only beef from cattle 20 months or
younger would be shipped.

"I would think (Japan) will definitely have a concern about this," Painter
said.

SLIPPING THROUGH

In October, US meat inspectors began alerting the union that plant
employees were incorrectly identifying carcasses of animals over 30 months
old, Painter said. Under USDA procedures, plant employees are responsible
for identifying older cattle by examining their teeth.

Painter said these violations allowed prohibited parts to slip by
inspectors and enter the food supply.


Inspectors said plants were also violating a trade agreement with Mexico by
shipping kidneys from cattle over 30 months old.

The union said inspectors were being told by their supervisors not to
intervene when they noticed export requirements of Mexico were not being
followed.


We have seen cattle that have been over 30 months ... and the kidneys were
shipped to Mexico," Painter said.

Painter said slaughter plants needed to segregate their production lines by
age. The union also urged the USDA to give inspectors more authority to
enforce regulations.



The union told the USDA about its concerns in a Dec. 8 letter. The USDA said
it had received the letter and would soon respond


You should know by now Oldtimer people living in glass houses should not throw stones
 
frenchie- this report pretty well justify's R-CALF's court filing and the judges previous ruling-- I'm sure it will have quite an effect on the decision he now has to make on issuing an injuction to stop the proposed USDA border opening until they have a full trial.....USDA played loose with the rules and in doing so has lost a lot of credibility and standing with not only the judge, but the public in general....

Its sad when government gets so powerful they believe they don't have to follow the law......

We're from the government- we're here to help you- trust us :lol:
 
Oldtimer
You talking about those ''brand inspectors'' that are going to help run the new national ID program :P
 
mwj":3c1bzmpt said:
Oldtimer
You talking about those ''brand inspectors'' that are going to help run the new national ID program :P

mwj- I guess I don't understand what you are talking about- are you saying that the USDA are brand inspectors?

USDA has nothing to do with brand inspection in this state or any I know of...As far as mandatory ID, I think its still the USDA plan to have each state implement and run their own program as long as its compatible with the national plan..........
 
I know one of the APHIS people who is in charge of implementing the ID program in another state. If he is an example of the people in charge of this program.... it might happen in my life time. On the other hand I am 53 now, that doesn't give them that much time.....
Dave
 
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases. Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change.
Oldtimer":gwqz78m6 said:
mwj":gwqz78m6 said:
Oldtimer
You talking about those ''brand inspectors'' that are going to help run the new national ID program :P

mwj- I guess I don't understand what you are talking about- are you saying that the USDA are brand inspectors?

USDA has nothing to do with brand inspection in this state or any I know of...As far as mandatory ID, I think its still the USDA plan to have each state implement and run their own program as long as its compatible with the national plan..........

From what I understand aphis is going to recognise brands as id from states with brand laws in place. If this is true, the local brand inspector would be in the mix with all the rest of them.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top