John Munsell

marler@marlerclark.com (E. coli Attorney) — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 19:05:32 -0800

In the summer of 2008, Excel Meat Co (part of Cargill Meat Solutions with 35,000 employees, 26 plants, and annual sales of $ 15 billion) lost a law suit in which it was forced to pay two multi-million dollar settlements, stemming from the death of a 6-year old girl sickened by E.coli emanating from intact muscle meat which cross contaminated watermelon, which the victim ate. Neither USDA nor the meat industry is paying any attention to these settlements, and go on their merry way allowing intact beef cuts to be legally shipped into commerce although they are surface contaminated with E.coli. And, to be shipped in containers proudly bearing the official USDA Mark of Inspection which says "USDA Inspected and Passed". Since USDA is unwilling to change their policies, the agency is officially endorsing the sale of USDA Inspected and Passed E.coli pathogens and who cares? In a luncheon speech in Chicago last September 17, Dr. Raymond in his last public speech before departing the agency, stated that USDA had tested 24 pieces of intact muscle cuts, and that 8 tested positive for E.coli, and 6 of the 8 were loin cuts. Realizing this, we can readily discern why both the agency and the big slaughter plants fiercely oppose testing of intact muscle cuts. They both know full well that large-scale testing of intact cuts would immediately reveal that the big packing houses have ongoing sanitation problems which are not being remedied. But just as important, such expeditious revelations would also expose the inherent foundational problems which permeate the HACCP Hoax, a political science-based interloper which the agency and the big packers claim to be the cat's meow for public health. Testing intact cuts would let the cat out of the bag, revealing that HACCP imperils public health as long as the SOURCE of contamination continues to be insulated from accountability, since USDA sends all accountability downstream with previously-contaminated product, placing all liability on the innocent and unwitting downline further processors who cannot visually detect invisible E.coli. The statement above which states that if 4 out of 91 tests of beef trim are positive for E.coli, that all of the beef could be dangerous is rife with implications. The agency is thus stating that if only 3 out of 91 samples (3.3%) are positive, that the rest of the beef is NOT dangerous. Dr. Engeljohn has established a precedent here, in that the agency allows slaughter plants to operate as is, without corrective actions, as long as microbial tests turn up 3.3 % or less positives. So, 3.3 % positives is now acceptable, and everyone goes home happy, no enforcement actions against the now-compliant (3.3 %) packers, and the agency is relieved of the discomfort which would undoubtedly occur if it bravely suggested to a big packer that sanitation problems (a) exist, and (b) must be remedied. When HACCP was initially rolled out in 1998, FSIS proudly announced that the agency had a "Zero Tolerance" for E.coli 0157:H7. Now, absent any public fanfare, FSIS meekly states that a 3.3 % positive ratio is ok, and does not constitute a high event day. To his credit, Dr. Raymond unilaterally (I always felt he was a Lone Ranger at the agency) attempted to change faulty policies to promote public health. Naw, there is no room for heretics like him at USDA, which places a much higher focus on mitigating potential litigation with the big packers than it places on safe food. Perhaps the most insidious aspect of this power play is that the big packers ship intact cuts to downstream customers, and place this warning on the invoice: "Not Intended for Grinding". Are we idiots? We all know that trim off these intact cuts are ground up! Always has been, always will. E.coli are not INTRODUCED into this trim via further processing of the intact cuts. E.coli arrived at the further processing plant as a surface contaminant on the intact cuts. Garbage in, garbage out. Likewise, E.coli is not INTRODUCED via the grinding process, for the same reason. Face it folks, our Senators, Representatives, and White House lack the fortitude to Force the Source to clean up its act. They also lack the courage to force FSIS to jettison HACCP and go back to a "Hands On" role on meat production lines. HACCP is much more than a driver of domestic meat production. HACCP has morphed into a global behemoth, because HACCP has become the global prerequisite necessary for international trade. In a nutshell, HACCP is a dumbed-down profoundly political-science derivative driving a deregulated global food supply. If our elected officials conjure up enough courage to deep six HACCP, all countries involved in international trade would be forced to make the same improvements. This would adversely impact the bottom lines of multi-national conglomerates, who will dedicate tens of millions lobbying in WDC to prevent my ideas from serious consideration. This is a melluvahess, with no easy solution. Sounds like WWII, but once this nation was galvanized in a common goal, we were victorious in WWII. Anyone who endorses the twin towers of safe food and public health must galvanize behind the belief that public health trumps multi-national corporate profits. John Munsell

Senator Paul Muegge

marler@marlerclark.com (E. coli Attorney) — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 19:05:32 -0800

Why have the giants in agribusiness been allowed to make the rules? It is just not the power politics they play but the open ended inffluence that they have throughout the meat industry. USDA and the Land Grant Institutions are filled with confederates of the meat packing interest. We also must recognize that NCBA and other farm groups are far to willing to spout the corporate speak. This is not limited to meat industry. We see it in every phase of production agriculture. Why are we not having discussions concerning the issues? We would not want to disparage the farmers and ranchers. Yes, more corporate speak. Industrial agriculture has devised the integrated business model that has successfully taken good old fashion competition out the the market place. Yes, there is much more to this than the concerns of food safety and we need to talk about it.

Marler Blog - Richard Raymond, former USDA Undersecretary of FSIS, Unplugged, but Right On - Comments

John Munsell

Senator Paul Muegge