1970 Broadway, Suite 825, Oakland, CA 94612 ¨ Ph. (510) 763-1533¨ Fax (510) 763-6186 ¨ E-mail [email protected]
1400 - 16th St., N.W., Ste. 400 ¨ Washington, D.C. 20036 ¨ Ph. (202) 667-2108 ¨
http://www.nmaonline.org/
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Jeremy Russell
March 13, 2002 Director
of Communications
(510)
763-1533
THE TRUTH ABOUT SUPREME
BEEF PROCESSORS v. USDA
OAKLAND, CA –
Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) doesn’t want you to know that National Meat
Association and other concerned groups worked hard to make a level playing
field, with fair and effective testing procedures that assure better food
safety for all meat eating Americans.
Harkin is
proposing legislation that would overturn a decision by a Federal District
Court in Texas, affirmed by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. This
legislation authorizes USDA to close down businesses based on microbiological
standards that measure neither product adulteration nor sanitation
deficiencies. The legislation would allow USDA to hold processors responsible
for events outside of their control.
NMA and four
other industry groups joined the Texas litigation as amici, because they
had known for a long time that USDA’s Salmonella Performance Standard
was scientifically flawed and was being implemented unfairly. They argued
against USDA’s end product testing methodology, which punished grinders for
contamination that had occurred at other plants.
Congress has
granted USDA strong authorities to take action against adulterated meat and poultry
products and to assure that establishments produce those products under
sanitary conditions. The recent court decision does not undermine USDA’s
authority. In fact, the District Court specifically addressed this concern
stating:
“What the court takes issue
with today is not the use of scientific methods in USDA inspections but the
agency’s science-based testing of a processor’s product to evaluate the conditions
of its plant. There is no reason to suppose that Section 601(m)(4) would
not allow science-based tests, as long as those tests truly evaluate sanitary
conditions in a processing plant. And, science-based tests of a plant’s end
product may be appropriate when the USDA is determining whether a plant’s meat
is adulterated under the several other definitions of “adulterated” provided by
Section 601 (m).”
The Texas
decision bars USDA only from using the Salmonella
Performance Standards to put companies out of business. In doing this, the
court provided a succinct explanation of the limitations of the USDA
performance standards:
“Because the USDA’s performance standards and Salmonella tests do not necessarily evaluate the conditions of a meat processor’s
establishment, they cannot serve as the basis for finding a plant’s meat
adulterated under Section 601(m)(4). …The USDA’s Salmonella tests …
inspect a processor’s end product to
determine whether its plant’s conditions
are sanitary. The flaw in such tests is that the presence of Salmonella is not solely – or even
substantially – dependent upon the sanitation in a grinder’s establishment.”
From a policy perspective, the FSIS Salmonella Performance Standard was seriously flawed. While there is strong support for better procedures to minimize a pathogen such as Salmonella on raw meat, even with the best controls there is no way, short of using irradiation, to guarantee pathogen-free product. Statistically some level of Salmonella will remain, and it is statistically inevitable that some processors will fail three successive test series. At the District Court hearing in Dallas in December, 1999, the Administrator of USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) testified there was no evidence of insanitation at Supreme’s beef grinding plant. To withdraw inspection based on a statistical inevitability is just Russian roulette.
The USDA and consumer amicus position
was that beef grinding plants should cut off suppliers whom they find are
supplying already USDA-inspected meat which contains Salmonella. In
fact, ground beef processors will try to select the best available suppliers.
But the government/activist argument seemed to turn the whole inspection
program on its head. Should USDA, which inspects both slaughter and processing
plants, enforce Salmonella performance standards primarily at beef
grinding plants, so that the grinding plants will enforce Salmonella
standards on the USDA inspected slaughter plants? Instead of giving first
priority to preventing Salmonella at the slaughter plants, the
USDA/activist position focused on punishing the processor, rather than
preventing the contamination where it starts.
NMA’s
position throughout the litigation is to support microbiological testing at a
point in the system where it can effectively reduce the prevalence of
pathogenic organisms. “The best place for micro-tests is at the
slaughterhouse,” says NMA Executive Director Rosemary Mucklow, “where pathogen
reduction intervention occurs.”
In its
decision, the court specifically affirmed USDA’s ability to use “science-based
tests, as long as those tests truly evaluate sanitary conditions in a
processing plant.” The Texas decision has strengthened USDA’s ability to use
its performance standards, by excluding the use of such tests in circumstances
where they do not evaluate plant sanitation.
“USDA shall
continue to enforce all applicable statutes and regulations, including
compliance with the Pathogen Reduction/HACCP rule,” said USDA Under Secretary
for Food Safety Elsa Murano in a December 11, 2001 statement about the case.
“We will continue to work with all interested parties in our commitment to
ensure a safe food supply for all Americans,” she added.
Like USDA,
NMA is trying to make the system work for consumers, but Senator Harkin and
those groups who acted as amici on behalf of USDA in the Supreme case,
have refused to meet with NMA to discuss its position. “It’s frustrating trying
to move forward on something as important as meat safety when a whole segment
of the debate won’t even sit down to discuss the issues,” says Mucklow. “But we
have faith that consumers, when finally given the facts of the case, will
recognize that Harkin’s proposed legislation will not make meat any safer.”
National Meat
Association is a non-profit trade association representing meat packers and
processors, as well as equipment manufacturers
and suppliers who provide services to the meat industry. The association, with
over 600 members throughout the United States, includes membership in Canada,
Australia and Mexico.
Online
resources:
Decision
of the Texas District Court - http://www.nmaonline.org/files/5thCircuitdecision12-20-01.pdf
Decision
of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals - http://www.nmaonline.org/files/fishdecision5-25-00.pdf
Statement
of Under Secretary for Food Safety - http://www.usda.gov/news/releases/2001/12/0255.htm
-30-