Fact is that in Western Society, money talks and always has. Do you really think the English and French royal families hated each other enough to continue the 100 Years War? Or any of the others? England's naval might was built to sustain traders. Period. And today's wars, against Axes of Evil, against poverty, against drugs, against religious zealots, are ALL about money, control of money, and the power of money. The collateral damage to ordinary people, be they soldiers or sailors in service of "their country" or simply children eating hamburgers, is irrelevant to money.

A President, a Senator, all 100 of them even, or the President and complete population of both Houses combined cannot run the country without the "civil service" and huge parts of the civil service, like it or not, are moved by money, the promise of money, influence and the promise of influence, power and the promise of power.

We are all responsible. Look at how many agreed that GM should not simply die, regardless of how deeply the cancer of greed had spread within it.

As long as money is unaccountable - Swift & Co executives should be jailed for the problems here, just as Maple Leaf executives should be jailed for killing more than 20 Canadians - this will continue. And money is permanently unaccountable.

John, I am curious as to your statement as noted above, is their an alternative program to HACCP that you would support, would you be comfortable with eliminating the need for the implementation of HACCP programs for processing plants/restaurants; etc?

I have worked in several food processing plants, based on my experience, HACCP is a great tool but cannot function on its own....HACCP must be based on solid scientific validation and a thorough hazard analysis of the process flow (no short cuts) indicating appropriate corrective actions, and of course be supported by a responsible/trained workforce with the unequivocal support of management. The HACCP program relies on prerequisite support programs such as, sanitation, allergen control etc.

If I were to choose between eating food from a non HACCP and a HACCP approved establishment I would choose the latter

Jack in the Box was the first quick-service chain to adopt HACCP, many other processing plants/restaurants have adopted the HACCP program, I wonder how many more recalls would have been initiated had we not had a program called HACCP?

I believe that HACCP should be kept, but only as a portion of the overall meat inspection continuum. It must not be considered as the all-in-all, but as one valuable component. Currently, HACCP is THE god USDA serves, and as such, is sacrosanct. USDA avoids challenging, or "validating" the overall HACCP concept, because HACCP allegedly is science-based, and we dare not challenge "science" or we will be labeled as Luddites. HACCP provides management a valuable tool, but only if it is operated in a meaningful scientific fashion.

USDA stated in the mid-90's that the two foundational precepts on which HACCP was built were (a) Prevention, and (b) Corrective Actions to prevent recurrences. Well, our ongoing outbreaks and recalls reveal that we are not doing well for either (a) or (b) above. My perception is that USDA/FSIS, bowing to pressure from the largest meat companies, prefers to place all emphasis at downline further processing plants who are now expected to (1) identify pathogens arriving at their facilities in previously-contaminated meat purchased from originating slaughterhouse suppliers, and then (2) sanitize the meat of all invisible pathogens. Period. USDA takes virtually no actions at the originating slaughter establishments, but requires corrective actions at the victimized downstream establishments. No wonder outbreaks and recalls occur, because no corrective actions are taken at the SOURCE. Why not? Because, and this is imperative to realize, HACCP deregulated the industry. Well, it deregulated the largest slaughter establishments, while the agency at the same time greatly increased its scrutiny, oversight and enforcement actions at the relatively helpless downstream plants which lack the political clout and economic wherewithal enjoyed by the multinational meat giants. You may be surprised that after I spent 34 years owning a plant, that I am suggesting that we require USDA to regulate the industry, but that is precisely what I am saying.

When the large slaughter plants produce contaminated meat caused by sloppy kill floor dressing procedures, USDA requires the Destination plants to implement corrective actions....but not the Source plants. And, how can the agency implement enforcement actions against the huge plants when USDA publicly stated in the mid-90's that it would maintain a "Hands Off" non-involvement role in this now-deregulated industry? And, the agency also promised that under the HACCP umbrella, USDA would no longer police the industry, but that the industry would police itself. The agency also stated that it would disband its previous command and control upon HACCP's advent. These promises effectively deregulated the industry..........but only the biggest packers! Yes, I am suggesting that humans in 2009 are exactly the same as humans depicted in Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle" in 1906. As such, we humans, including all of us "scientific experts" in the meat industry require government oversight. USDA disagrees, shown by its proactive adoption of deregulated HACCP, which by the way, has allowed the agency to enjoy a semi-retirement status at the big plants. Challenging the biggest plants when pathogens are discovered is a daunting, delicate, and extemely uncomfortable task for any government employee. The tool which alleviates such discomfort is, voila.....HACCP!

While both the agency and the industry's biggest playes downplay the value of testing, I counter that testing will prove (validate) the success or failure of individual plant's HACCP Plans. However, both the agency and the industry's biggest players oppose increased microbial testing, or giving credibility to testing, because increased testing will quickly prove two facts: (1) USDA is asleep at the wheel at the big packers, and (2) the big packers continue to ship sizeable amounts of pathogen-laced meat into commerce.

As an example, when a USDA inspector collects a ground beef sample at downsteam further processing plantss for analysis at USDA labs, the inspector is not allowed to document the ORIGIN of the meat at the time of sample collection! I know you don't believe me, so contact the USDA to confirm or deny this statement. Can you imagine any other scientific experiement which prevents full accumulation of evidence in real time as scientifi lab experiments are conducted? Think of how the Manhattan Project would have fared if its scientists were faced with artificial restrictions allowing unrestricted evidence gathering during research. Or, the pharmaceutical industry. Or NASA.

As such, USDA's method of HACCP implementation is not scientific, but a biased interloper which was designed from day one to allow the agency to relax in a semi-retirement role at the big packers, and to insulate the big packers from meaningful government oversight. We must remember that the Federal Meat Inspection Act was written to promote public health, not USDA comfort.

Yes, HACCP can be valuable, but not in the fashion in which USDA inappropriately implemented it. The mere fact that USDA classifies HACCP is being "scientific" reveals the deplorable depths to which our government's meat non-inspection service has fallen.

John Munsell

ps My supporters include USDA inspectors, veterinarians, and small plant owners. My opponents are the big packers and top USDA officials, both of whom would be forced to accept accountability if HACCP would be greatly changed, or replaced.

Fabulous story; I am looking for an update on Mr. Munsell still.

I am a college educator with students doing research on American Food Industry. This will be the 3rd semester they have focused on food issues: obesity, children and ads, meat industry. etc.

I would like to have someone visit our college campus during spring semester (January - April) to speak about the problem of food safety, particularly meat.

Would John Munsell be available or could he refer me to someone in southern California who would be willing to help enlighten students. There is no honorarium available for this; I am just hoping for a voluntary visit ???

Ventura Community College District is located about an hour north of LA and less than an hour south of Santa Barbara.

Thanks for your time and assistance,
Margaret de la M
Oxnard College
Professor of English
805.488.2121 (home)