Marler Blog - Who Poisoned the Cookie Dough? - Comments

Robyn O'Brien

bmarler@marlerclark.com (Bill Marler) — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 05:55:00 -0800

As we allocate $600 billion to the Pentagon and only $2.4 billion to the FDA, perhaps, as a nation of 300 million eaters, we should consider the impact of this budget allocation and its far reaching implications.

Bill Marler

bmarler@marlerclark.com (Bill Marler) — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 05:55:00 -0800

From and email from Chuck:

Interesting blog but I think food terrorism at the plant level is unlikely (could happen but not likely). Drive through the Midwest and look at the unguarded grain silos, miles from nowhere and easily accessible. Doctoring one silo containing tons of corn or wheat that will soon be shipped to several locations for further processing could result in an outbreak of food borne illness that would be almost completely untraceable. The flour or processed corn from those mills might be shipped to dozens of food processing facilities, producing hundreds of products.

For a terrorist attack on the American food supply, silos are an easier target and a much more effective use of a bad guy's resources.

Roy Costa

bmarler@marlerclark.com (Bill Marler) — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 05:55:00 -0800

While industrial sabotage on a wide scale is possible, the fact is local intentional food contamination events occur regularly. We know through surveys that about 30% of food service employees have witnessed or particpated in small scale malicious contamination events, or have not cated when unintentional contamination was noted. I have devised a risk assessment model for food security (part of a national food defense strategy). Any food service operator interested is free to contact me to get the questionnaire and formulae.

John Munsell

bmarler@marlerclark.com (Bill Marler) — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 05:55:00 -0800

Mr. Marler stated above "Secretary Thompson said more inspectors and more traceability are keys to our food defense and safety". While his statement is erudite, it also runs contrary to the current HACCP method of government oversight of the food industry. Under HACCP, the government is to embrace a "Hands Off" role in meat inspection, by its own admission in multiple public hearings in the mid-late 90's. USDA also stated that under HACCP, the industry is to police itself, and the government will no longer police the industry. And, USDA stated that under HACCP, the agency would disband its previous command and control authority. Realizing these government promises, it makes no sense to hire more inspectors. It makes sense to anyone who endorses the ideas of safe food and public health, but it is anathema to government regulatory authorities and the multi-national food companies. How about traceback? Well, USDA has been providing lip service to this idea since 1999, but its policies have been constructed to artificially prevent tracebacks to the true origin of contamination. Why? Because tracebacks to the "enteric" origin of E.coli and Salmonella outbreaks by necessity will end up at slaughter establishments, since these bacteria emanate from animals' intestines, and from manure-covered hides. So, if USDA successfully accomplished tracebacks to the slaughter house of origin, these tracebacks would be greatly embarrassing to the agency because (1) they would reveal that USDA is asleep at the wheel (by its own design), and (2) it would reveal that the large multinational slaughter plants continue to ship large amounts of pathogen-laced meat into commerce, proudly bearing the official USDA Mark of Inspection which states "USDA Inspected and Passed". Well, passed indeed, but frequently NOT inspected. How can USDA closely inspect meat operations when it has aggressively embraced a "Hands Off" role, while jettisoning its previous command and control authority. USDA however does stay EXTREMELY busy while greatly intensifying its scrutiny at small plants. Huh? Yup, because small plants are much easier enforcement prey than the big plants. Small plants lack the political clout and financial wherewithal (enjoyed by the big plants) to engage the agency in protracted litigation when USDA implements its unethical actions, which are an everyday occurrence at these hapless small plants. Suffice it to say, USDA revels in its new-found semi-retirement role at the big plants, gratis the HACCP Hoax sales job. The big packers also love HACCP, because it has resulted in reduced government oversight, and fewer hassles. If you were a USDA inspector, would you feel comfortable challenging one of those powerful multinational conglomerates when you observe ongoing pathogen problems? Nope! Let the big boys police themself, because according to USDA, this is part and parcel of a "science based" meat inspection system. Reminds me of the tried and failed "science based" new math which was foisted upon America a few decades ago. John Munsell