Video Reveals Violations of Laws, Abuse of Cows at Slaughter

[flounder]

Video Reveals Violations of Laws, Abuse of Cows at Slaughterhouse

By Rick Weiss

Washington Post Staff Writer

Wednesday, January 30, 2008; A04

Video footage being released today shows workers at a California slaughterhouse delivering repeated electric shocks to cows too sick or weak to stand on their own; drivers using forklifts to roll the "downer" cows on the ground in efforts to get them to stand up for inspection; and even a veterinary version of waterboarding in which high-intensity water sprays are shot up animals' noses -- all violations of state and federal laws designed to prevent animal cruelty and to keep unhealthy animals, such as those with mad cow disease, out of the food supply.

Moreover, the companies where these practices allegedly occurred are major suppliers of meat for the nation's school lunch programs, including in Maryland, according to a company official and federal documents.
The footage was taken by an undercover investigator for an animal welfare group, who wore a customized video camera under his clothes while working at the facility last year. It is evidence that anti-cruelty and food safety rules are inadequate, and that Agriculture Department inspection and enforcement need to be enhanced, said officials with the Humane Society of the United States, which coordinated the project.

"These were not rogue employees secretly doing these things," the investigator said in a telephone interview on the condition of anonymity because he hopes to infiltrate other slaughterhouses. "This is the pen manager and his assistant doing this right in the open."

The investigator and Wayne Pacelle, president of the Humane Society, said the footage was taken at Hallmark Meat Packing in Chino, Calif. Hallmark sells meat for processing to Westland Meat Co. in Chino, according to Westland President Steve Mendell, who is also Hallmark's operations manager.

Over the past five years, Westland has sold about 100 million pounds of frozen beef, valued at $146 million, to the Agriculture Department's commodities program, which supplies food for school lunches and programs for the needy, according to federal documents.

In the 2004-05 school year, the Agriculture Department honored Westland with its Supplier of the Year award for the National School Lunch Program.

In an interview, Mendell expressed disbelief that employees used stun guns to get sick or injured animals on their feet for inspection.

"That's impossible," he said, adding that "electrical prods are not allowed on the property."

Asked whether his employees use fork lifts to get moribund animals off the ground, he said: "I can't imagine that."

Asked whether water was sprayed up animals' noses to get them to stand up, he said: "That's absolutely not true."

"We have a massive humane treatment program here that we follow to the n{+t}{+h} degree, so this doesn't even sound possible," Mendell said. "I don't stand out there all day, but to me it would be next to impossible."

California law and USDA regulations do not allow disabled animals to be dragged by chains, lifted with forklifts, or, with few exceptions, to enter the food supply, all of which happened at Hallmark during the investigator's time there last fall, he said.

Video images show those activities, as well as a trailer with Hallmark's name on it.
One reason that regulations call for keeping downers -- cows that cannot stand up -- out of the food supply is that they may harbor bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or mad cow disease. It is caused by a virus-like infectious particle that can cause a fatal brain disease in people.

Another is because such animals have, in many cases, been wallowing in feces, posing added risks of E. coli and salmonella contamination.

The Humane Society and other groups have for years urged Congress to pass legislation that would tighten oversight at slaughterhouses.

Kenneth Petersen, assistant administrator of the Food Safety and Inspection Service's Office of Field Operations, whose 7,600 inspectors monitor the nation's 6,200 slaughterhouses and meat-processing plants for the Agriculture Department, said he had not seen the video. He added that he would have preferred that the Humane Society contacted the agency directly.

But he said use of a Hot Shot -- a brand-name electric device used to get dawdling cows to move along -- is "not allowed" as a means of getting a downer on its feet.

In the video, handlers repeatedly apply powerful shocks to the heads, necks, spines and rectums of immobile cows.

"That's certainly not a way to have them stand up or a correct way to move them," Petersen said.
Raising a cow on the prongs of a forklift is also not allowed, he said.

"We've made it clear that mechanical means to try to elevate an animal is not considered humane," Petersen said.
If he had evidence that the practices in the video were going on at a slaughterhouse, "I would immediately suspend them as an establishment," he said. "You're done. You're suspended. Everything stops. That's what we call an egregiously inhumane handling violation."

Temple Grandin, a professor of animal science at Colorado State University and an expert in slaughter practices, called the Humane Society footage "one of the worst animal-abuse videos I have ever viewed."
The investigator said a USDA inspector appeared twice a day, at 6:30 a.m. and about 12:30 p.m., to look at each cow to be slaughtered that day. The practices occurred before the inspector's appearance, he said, with the goal of getting the animals on their feet for the short time the inspector was there.

"Every day, I would see downed cattle too sick or injured to stand or walk arriving at the slaughterhouse," he said. "Workers would do anything to get the cows to stand on their feet."

USDA regulations say that if an animal goes down after it is inspected but before it is slaughtered, then it must be reinspected. But that rarely, if ever, happened, according to the Humane Society.

"They wanted to do whatever they could to get them into the kill box, including jabbing them in the eye, slamming into them with a forklift and simulating drowning or waterboarding the animals," Pacelle said -- all practices that can be seen in the video.

Mad cow disease is extremely rare in the United States, but of the 15 cases documented in North America -- most of them in Canada -- the vast majority have been traced to downer cattle. When the United States had its first case a few years ago, 44 nations closed their borders to U.S. beef, Pacelle said, costing the nation billions of dollars.
To sneak downers past inspectors, Pacelle said, is "penny-wise and pound-foolish."


You can watch the footage on how to waterboard a cow here at :cry2:

http://tinyurl.com/yul2lw

The Washington Post story is below.

*******

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 03054.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

9/13/2005

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/Comments ... 5IFA-2.pdf



TSS :help:

 

[flounder]

Release No. 0025.08
Contact:
Office of Communications (202) 720-4623


STATEMENT BY AGRICULTURE SECRETARY ED SCHAFER REGARDING THE HUMANE SOCIETY
OF THE UNITED STATES' HANDLING ALLEGATIONS

January 30, 2008

"I am deeply concerned about the allegations made regarding inhumane
handling of non-ambulatory disabled cattle in a federally inspected
slaughter establishment.

"We are confident in our inspection system and the food safety regulations
that ensure the safety and wholesomeness of the food supply. Among the
federal safeguards in place, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA)
Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) prohibits non-ambulatory disabled
cattle and cattle tissue identified as specified risk materials for use in
human food.

"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. As a result of the investigation, any violations of food
safety or humane handling laws will be immediately acted upon.

"While we are conducting our investigation, today, USDA has indefinitely
suspended Westland Meat Company as a supplier to Federal food and nutrition
programs. 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.

"It is unfortunate that the Humane Society of the United States did not
present this information to us when these alleged violations occurred in the
fall of 2007. Had we known at the time the alleged violations occurred, we
would have initiated our investigation sooner, and taken appropriate actions
at that time."


http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usdahome ... 1/0025.xml


like i said, closing the barn door after the mad cows got loose.

how many more facilities just like this one are around ???

how many of our children and or elderly are now needlessly exposed ???

i know of one slaughter facility in Texas just like it. can't say to much
about it though due to my relations with one of the workers on the kill floor.
he retired last year anyway. but i would bet my last dollar that there are
many more slaughtering facilities out there that are just like this one. ...


TSS

Video Reveals Violations of Laws, Abuse of Cows at Slaughterhouse

By Rick Weiss

Washington Post Staff Writer

Wednesday, January 30, 2008; A04

Video footage being released today shows workers at a California slaughterhouse delivering repeated electric shocks to cows too sick or weak to stand on their own; drivers using forklifts to roll the "downer" cows on the ground in efforts to get them to stand up for inspection; and even a veterinary version of waterboarding in which high-intensity water sprays are shot up animals' noses -- all violations of state and federal laws designed to prevent animal cruelty and to keep unhealthy animals, such as those with mad cow disease, out of the food supply.

Moreover, the companies where these practices allegedly occurred are major suppliers of meat for the nation's school lunch programs, including in Maryland, according to a company official and federal documents.
The footage was taken by an undercover investigator for an animal welfare group, who wore a customized video camera under his clothes while working at the facility last year. It is evidence that anti-cruelty and food safety rules are inadequate, and that Agriculture Department inspection and enforcement need to be enhanced, said officials with the Humane Society of the United States, which coordinated the project.

"These were not rogue employees secretly doing these things," the investigator said in a telephone interview on the condition of anonymity because he hopes to infiltrate other slaughterhouses. "This is the pen manager and his assistant doing this right in the open."

The investigator and Wayne Pacelle, president of the Humane Society, said the footage was taken at Hallmark Meat Packing in Chino, Calif. Hallmark sells meat for processing to Westland Meat Co. in Chino, according to Westland President Steve Mendell, who is also Hallmark's operations manager.

Over the past five years, Westland has sold about 100 million pounds of frozen beef, valued at $146 million, to the Agriculture Department's commodities program, which supplies food for school lunches and programs for the needy, according to federal documents.

In the 2004-05 school year, the Agriculture Department honored Westland with its Supplier of the Year award for the National School Lunch Program.

In an interview, Mendell expressed disbelief that employees used stun guns to get sick or injured animals on their feet for inspection.

"That's impossible," he said, adding that "electrical prods are not allowed on the property."

Asked whether his employees use fork lifts to get moribund animals off the ground, he said: "I can't imagine that."

Asked whether water was sprayed up animals' noses to get them to stand up, he said: "That's absolutely not true."

"We have a massive humane treatment program here that we follow to the n{+t}{+h} degree, so this doesn't even sound possible," Mendell said. "I don't stand out there all day, but to me it would be next to impossible."

California law and USDA regulations do not allow disabled animals to be dragged by chains, lifted with forklifts, or, with few exceptions, to enter the food supply, all of which happened at Hallmark during the investigator's time there last fall, he said.

Video images show those activities, as well as a trailer with Hallmark's name on it.
One reason that regulations call for keeping downers -- cows that cannot stand up -- out of the food supply is that they may harbor bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or mad cow disease. It is caused by a virus-like infectious particle that can cause a fatal brain disease in people.

Another is because such animals have, in many cases, been wallowing in feces, posing added risks of E. coli and salmonella contamination.

The Humane Society and other groups have for years urged Congress to pass legislation that would tighten oversight at slaughterhouses.

Kenneth Petersen, assistant administrator of the Food Safety and Inspection Service's Office of Field Operations, whose 7,600 inspectors monitor the nation's 6,200 slaughterhouses and meat-processing plants for the Agriculture Department, said he had not seen the video. He added that he would have preferred that the Humane Society contacted the agency directly.

But he said use of a Hot Shot -- a brand-name electric device used to get dawdling cows to move along -- is "not allowed" as a means of getting a downer on its feet.

In the video, handlers repeatedly apply powerful shocks to the heads, necks, spines and rectums of immobile cows.

"That's certainly not a way to have them stand up or a correct way to move them," Petersen said.
Raising a cow on the prongs of a forklift is also not allowed, he said.

"We've made it clear that mechanical means to try to elevate an animal is not considered humane," Petersen said.
If he had evidence that the practices in the video were going on at a slaughterhouse, "I would immediately suspend them as an establishment," he said. "You're done. You're suspended. Everything stops. That's what we call an egregiously inhumane handling violation."

Temple Grandin, a professor of animal science at Colorado State University and an expert in slaughter practices, called the Humane Society footage "one of the worst animal-abuse videos I have ever viewed."
The investigator said a USDA inspector appeared twice a day, at 6:30 a.m. and about 12:30 p.m., to look at each cow to be slaughtered that day. The practices occurred before the inspector's appearance, he said, with the goal of getting the animals on their feet for the short time the inspector was there.

"Every day, I would see downed cattle too sick or injured to stand or walk arriving at the slaughterhouse," he said. "Workers would do anything to get the cows to stand on their feet."

USDA regulations say that if an animal goes down after it is inspected but before it is slaughtered, then it must be reinspected. But that rarely, if ever, happened, according to the Humane Society.

"They wanted to do whatever they could to get them into the kill box, including jabbing them in the eye, slamming into them with a forklift and simulating drowning or waterboarding the animals," Pacelle said -- all practices that can be seen in the video.

Mad cow disease is extremely rare in the United States, but of the 15 cases documented in North America -- most of them in Canada -- the vast majority have been traced to downer cattle. When the United States had its first case a few years ago, 44 nations closed their borders to U.S. beef, Pacelle said, costing the nation billions of dollars.
To sneak downers past inspectors, Pacelle said, is "penny-wise and pound-foolish."


You can watch the footage on how to waterboard a cow here at :cry2:

http://tinyurl.com/yul2lw

The Washington Post story is below.

*******

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 03054.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

9/13/2005

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/Comments ... 5IFA-2.pdf



TSS :help:

 

[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/Bo ... /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/ ... rs-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/filelibra ... /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.as ... tid=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/rel ... 321#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/fu ... 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/Comp ... 1.300w.jpg

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

http://blog.erdener.org/archives/images ... 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. ...


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& ... earch+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.co ... chool.html


It's the American way $$$


TSS

 

[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 ... 2/0037.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 ... 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/ ... 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/r ... ?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.cf ... eId=291516

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

http://feinstein.senate.gov/public/inde ... 86c058e043

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


http://216.40.253.202/~usscanf/index.ph ... 8&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_ac ... 13008.html

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

http://www.defazio.house.gov/index.php? ... iew&id=361

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

http://www.hsus.org/web-files/PDF/farm/ ... d-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.co ... chool.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 ... 5IFA-2.pdf


TSS

 

[flounder]

i was going through old documents/files today and ran across a 'untitled' one.
opened it up, and thought it appropriate for today. please note i added to it at
the bottom i.e. addendum II 2008. ...TSS




To the hard working employees of USDA and their untiring efforts to protect our food supply



Little is known and much has been written
Of the deadly disease with which some have been smitten
It is certainly true there have been but a few
But down on the farm there is cause for alarm

It causes great stress to the CNS
T’is a strain on the brain as we shall soon see
The causative agent is anyone’s guess
A transmissible spongiform encephalopathy

Sheep Scrapie somehow in the UK to Mad Cow
Here in the US it is anyone’s guess
It’s not perfectly clear how our elk and our deer
Both the tame and the free got CWD

To the best of our knowledge out west at a college
Where they happened to keep some deer penned with sheep
They didn't know why the deer started to die
Because they did not know they let the rest go

Now from Washington state comes news that’s not great
Ann Veneman tells us how they have found a MAD COW
The Federal Vet said she’s a “down cow” you bet
But Dave Louthan the talker say’s she was a “walker”

She was grist for the mill, she went regular kill
So they started to track when the test did come back
But that was 2 weeks later and people had ate her
The meat was consumed and the recall was doomed

Now we must remember this occurred in December
Ann and Bush have no fears, they’ll have beef for New Years

addendum

There was no proper test In a plant way out west
The old cow was unwell, she staggered and fell
“We don’t want her” said Ronald, “she’s not for McDonald”
The vet made a call and was told not to test after all

Headquarters told Lonestar “we cant send a car”
“It’s too long a trip, you don’t know how to ship”
No brainstem will you tender, just send her to render
We don’t want a section - wait till after election

by the Bard of Bismarck, the Old Curmudgeon
Earl Fairbanks DVM USDA Ret.


addendum II 2008. ...TSS


To the hard working employees of USDA and their untiring efforts to protect our childrens food supply


and who gives a fickle, if the last two were atypical,
more virulent to animals and man, we'll grind em and crush em,
even the stumbling and staggering ones.

those diseased, those sick, the ones injured, be quick.
another shot of antibiotics or hormones, it matters not.
it's profit, it's profit, look at all we got $$$

those downers, those downers, the ones that cannot stand,
oh where, oh where, can they go? with the fork lift at hand,
they chain em and stand, and drag them to where know one goes.
we'll shock em, and poke em, even waterboard em, and then off to
the children they go.

in a long case study, we'll wait and wonder, watching for every
little twitch, which one of these children, will be the first to
succumb, to the monster we know as the mad cow prion.

100% fatal, for those that go clinical, with no therapy there is.
you wait and wonder, as the mind goes, wondering how many others
might have been exposed. there is no test, without any guess,
you don't care to know.

and for those that lay claim, to no one is sick, beware, beware, for
these are the facts. the mad cow prion, can lay dormant before it
attacks. for years and years, and even decades to come, your children,
will incubate, before they might succumb.

while Washington flounders, the mad cows still wanders, the downers
they continue to go, to the cattle feed, to the childrens food and on, nobody knows.
from waxman, to durbin, to bush, to leahy, the lies, and promises abound,
they just seem to go round and round $$$

it's a sad, sad mess i have come to know, but the downers, all the
downers, off to the incinerator they must go. ...TSS 2008



Thursday, May 13, 2004

Food Safety

Failure To Test Staggering Cow May Reflect Wider Problems
Rep. Waxman raises concerns that the recent failure of USDA to test an impaired cow for BSE
may not be an isolated incident, citing the failure of USDA to monitor whether cows condemned
for central nervous system symptoms are actually tested for mad cow disease.

http://reform.democrats.house.gov/docum ... -86912.pdf

http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20 ... -86912.pdf


Statement Of Senator Patrick Leahy
Senate Agriculture Committee Hearing
On Mad Cow Disease
January 27, 2004


For years I have joined with Senator Akaka in attempting to restrict downers from the human food
supply, thus I am pleased the Department reversed course and will now implement the Downed Animal
Protection Act that was contained in the 2002 Farm Bill for cattle.


http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200401/012704.html


CALIFORNIA STATE CAUCUS

Briefing Report: Mad Cow Disease

2/11/2004 - For Immediate Release


Recent Actions


On December 30, 2003, United States Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman announced additional
safeguards to bolster the U.S. protection system against BSE and to further protect public health.
Downer cattle and specified risk material and tissues will immediately be banned from the human food
chain. If people do not eat these dangerous parts of the cow, their risk of acquiring BSE is severely
reduced.


http://republican.sen.ca.gov/opeds/99/o ... _print.asp



2008


USDA CERTIFIED NON-AMBULATORY DOWNER COW SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM


http://downercattle.blogspot.com/2008/0 ... lunch.html


Specified Risk Material SRM


http://madcowspontaneousnot.blogspot.co ... s-srm.html



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


Greetings FSIS,


I would kindly like to submit the following to [Docket No. 03-025IFA] FSIS
Prohibition of the Use of Specified Risk Materials for Human Food and
Requirements for the Disposition of Non-Ambulatory Disabled Cattle

THE BSE/TSE SUB CLINICAL

Non-Ambulatory Disabled Cattle Broken bones and such may be the first signs
of a sub clinical BSE/TSE Non-Ambulatory Disabled Cattle ;

SUB CLINICAL PRION INFECTION MRC-43-00 Issued: Monday, 28 August 2000

NEW EVIDENCE OF SUB-CLINICAL PRION INFECTION: IMPORTANT RESEARCH FINDINGS
RELEVANT TO CJD AND BSE

A team of researchers led by Professor John Collinge at the Medical Research
Council Prion Unit1 report today in the Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences, on new evidence for the existence of a ?sub-clinical? form of
BSE in mice which was unknown until now. The scientists took a closer look
at what is known as the ?species barrier? - the main protective factor which

limits the ability of prions2 to jump from one species to infect another.
They found the mice had a ?sub-clinical? form of disease where they carried
high levels of infectivity but did not develop the clinical disease during
their normal lifespan. The idea that individuals can carry a disease and
show no clinical symptoms is not new. It is commonly seen in conventional
infectious diseases. Researchers tried to infect laboratory mice with
hamster prions3 called Sc237 and found that the mice showed no apparent
signs of disease. However, on closer inspection they found that the mice had
high levels of mouse prions in their brains. This was surprising because it
has always been assumed that hamster prions could not cause the disease in
mice, even when injected directly into the brain. In addition the
researchers showed that this new sub-clinical infection could be easily
passed on when injected into healthy mice and hamsters. The height of the
species barrier varies widely between different combinations of animals and
also varies with the type or strain of prions. While some barriers are quite
small (for instance BSE easily infects mice), other combinations of strain
and species show a seemingly impenetrable barrier. Traditionally, the
particular barrier studied here was assumed to be robust. Professor John
Collinge said: "These results have a number of important implications. They
suggest that we should re-think how we measure species barriers in the
laboratory, and that we should not assume that just because one species
appears resistant to a strain of prions they have been exposed to, that they
do not silently carry the infection.

This research raises the possibility, which has been mentioned before, that
apparently healthy cattle could harbour, but never show signs of, BSE. "This
is a timely and unexpected result, increasing what we know about prion
disease. These new findings have important implications for those
researching prion disease, those responsible for preventing infected
material getting into the food chain and for those considering how best to
safeguard health and reduce the risk that theoretically, prion disease could
be contracted through medical and surgical procedures."

ISSUED FRIDAY 25 AUGUST UNDER EMBARGO. PLEASE NOTE THAT THE EMBARGO IS SET
BY THE JOURNAL.


http://www.mrc.ac.uk/index/public_inter ... -43-00.htm


SNIP...

https://web01.aphis.usda.gov/regpublic. ... enDocument


PNAS | August 29, 2000 | vol. 97 | no. 18 | 10248-10253 Neurobiology

Species-barrier-independent prion replication in apparentlyresistant species


Andrew F. Hill*, Susan Joiner*, Jackie Linehan*, Melanie Desbruslais*, Peter
L. Lantos , and John Collinge*,


SEE FULL TEXT 17 pages ;

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/Comments ... 5IFA-2.pdf



Thursday, February 21, 2008

TRANSCRIPT: Technical Briefing - Hallmark/Westland Meat Packing Company -
(02/21/08)

Release No. 0054.08


http://downercattle.blogspot.com/


http://downercattle.blogspot.com/2008/0 ... efing.html


Sunday, February 17, 2008

Release No. 0046.08 Statement by Secretary of Agriculture Ed Schafer Regarding Hallmark/Westland
Meat Packing Company Two Year Product Recall

Release No. 0046.08

Contact:
USDA Press Office (202) 720-4623

http://cjdmadcowbaseoct2007.blogspot.co ... nt-by.html



Geographical BSE Risk (GBR) assessments covering 2000-2006

Date : 01.08.2006

http://www.efsa.europa.eu/EFSA/Scientif ... 2-2006.pdf



In this context, a word is in order about the US testing program. After the
discovery of the first (imported) cow in 2003, the magnitude of testing was
much increased, reaching a level of >400,000 tests in 2005 (Figure 4).
Neither of the 2 more recently indigenously infected older animals with
nonspecific clinical features would have been detected without such testing,
and neither would have been identified as atypical without confirmatory
Western blots. Despite these facts, surveillance has now been decimated to
40,000 annual tests (USDA news release no. 0255.06, July 20, 2006) and
invites the accusation that the United States will never know the true
status of its involvement with BSE.

http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/EID/vol12no12/06-0965.htm


PAUL BROWN COMMENT TO ME ON THIS ISSUE

Tuesday, September 12, 2006 11:10 AM


"Actually, Terry, I have been critical of the USDA handling of the mad cow
issue for some years, and with Linda Detwiler and others sent lengthy detailed
critiques and recommendations to both the USDA and the Canadian Food
Agency."


http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.ex ... T=0&P=8125


BEEF RECALL - USA (05)
**********************
A ProMED-mail post
<http://www.promedmail.org>
ProMED-mail is a program of the
International Society for Infectious Diseases
<http://www.isid.org>


http://www.promedmail.org/pls/otn/f?p=2 ... 1000,71607



MAD COW TESTING USA

http://madcowtesting.blogspot.com/



TSS

:compute: :tiphat: