Michael Moss of the New York Times has written a lengthy article that calls in question government safety methods and a private company’s process for ensuring ground beef safety that may have resulted in contamination of E.coli and salmonella.
In order to remove fatal pathogens like E.coli and salmonella from hamburger meat, Beef Products, Inc., a South Dakota-based company came up with an idea of injecting beef with the chemical ammonia. If the ammonia process killed E.coli and salmonella it would reduce the risk of exposure to the pathogens, and in theory, allow lower-grade beef trimmings (like those used in pet food) to now be used in hamburger beef. So the ammonia process was developed, and soon it was endorsed by official at the US Department of Agriculture (USDA).
As Moss reports, the “USDA decided it was so effective that in 2007, when the department began routine testing of meat used in hamburger sold to the general public, they exempted Beef Products.”
With the government seal of approval and not having to worry about the cost of “routine tests” the potential market for Beef Products hamburger meat could grow exponentially. And as Moss reports, it did—providing McDonalds and other fast-food restaurants with their product to be used in their beef. Grocery chains followed, and last year the federal school lunch program used “an estimated 5.5 million pounds of the processed beef [.]”
Yet, the system was clearly not working as the New York Times obtained government and industry records that show testing for the school lunch program reveals that Beef Products meats have been linked to dozens of discoveries of E.coli and salmonella in meat for school children, despite government assurances to the otherwise.
The Times presented their test results to government officials, and the paper is reporting that the government testing exemption Beef Products enjoys is being revoked and review of the company’s research and operations will take place.
This will also affect the government’s process for recalls during pathogen outbreaks. Previously, because the ammonia they used made their products “pathogen-free,” Beef Products was “excluded from recalls, even when it was an ingredient in hamburgers found to be contaminated.”
It is worth noting that no outbreak has been tied to Beef Products, and following the lengthy Times article the government will likely step up its oversight of future innovations to fight contamination “and that they were examining the government’s overall meat safety policies.”
Given the history of pathogen outbreaks linked to ground beef, the number of times the ground beef in question has been linked to Beef Products, and their so-called “pathogen-free” ammonia process, the microscope is likely to be on the company and the government’s safety measures for some time.
Never mind the desire of Congress to take on issues of food safety, the fact the administration has a Food Safety Working Group, or that the Child Nutrition Act, which deals with the federal school lunch program, is up for reauthorization in 2010.
For much more on this story click here to read the article in the New York Times by Michael Moss.
Posted: 01/04/10
Search This Blog
Content Areas
- Administrative Law (36)
- Agricultural Economics (184)
- Agritourism (30)
- Alternative Dispute Resolution (17)
- Animal Feeding Operations (136)
- Animal Identification (26)
- Animal Law (39)
- Animal Welfare (158)
- Announcement (259)
- Antitrust (1)
- Aquaculture (42)
- Bankruptcy (15)
- Biosecurity (32)
- Biotechnology (132)
- Blogs (18)
- Business Organizations (1)
- Checkoff Programs (11)
- Clean Air Act (5)
- Clean Water Act (113)
- Climate Change (147)
- Commercial Transactions (24)
- Commodity Programs (94)
- Congress (310)
- Conservation Programs (77)
- Cooperatives (16)
- Corporate Farming Laws (11)
- Country of Origin Labeling (43)
- Crop Insurance (92)
- Disaster Assistance Programs (17)
- Drought (24)
- Endangered Species Act (11)
- Environmental Law (268)
- EPA (139)
- Estate Planning and Taxation (28)
- Farm Bill (202)
- FDA (97)
- Finance and Credit (76)
- Food Labeling (176)
- Food Law (162)
- Food Safety (373)
- Food Security (18)
- Forestry (26)
- GIPSA (12)
- Hemp (11)
- House Agriculture Committee (17)
- Immigration (10)
- International Law and Organizations (175)
- International Trade (234)
- Labor (57)
- Landowner Liability (38)
- Leases (13)
- Local Food Systems (88)
- Marketing Orders (18)
- NALC Resource (20)
- NASDA (2)
- National Organic Program (42)
- Nutrition Programs (118)
- Packers and Stockyards Act (30)
- Perishable Agricultural Commodities (27)
- Pesticides (70)
- Production Contracts (19)
- Renewable Energy (185)
- Research (16)
- Right to Farm (13)
- Rural Development (111)
- Secured Transactions (12)
- Senate Ag Committee (20)
- Specialty Crops (30)
- Sustainable Agriculture (106)
- Urbanization and Agriculture (46)
- USDA (600)
- USDA HWFRCP (8)
- Water Law (136)
Related Blogs
- AgMag by the EWG
- Agricultural Law - The official blog of the AALS section on agricultural law
- AgWired
- Animal ID Systems
- Arkansas Electric Energy Law Blog
- Beginning Farmers
- Blog for Rural America
- Blogiculture
- Corn Commentary
- Dairy Cast
- DTN Ag Policy Blog
- DTN's Minding Ag’s Business
- eXtension's Blog
- Farm Aid
- Farm Future's D.C. Dialogue by Jacqui Fatka
- Farm Future's This Business of Farming Blog by Mike Wilson
- Farmer-Veteran Coalition
- FarmersReport.com
- FarmPolicy.com
- Food-Label-Compliance.com
- InfoFarm: The National Ag Library's Blog
- Iowa Farmers Union
- Kentucky Journal of Equine, Agriculture & Natural Resource Law's Blog
- Marketmaker's
- Marler Blog
- Nebraska Corn Kernels
- Obama Foodorama
- Ohio Agricultural Law Blog
- Oklahoma Agriculture Blog
- Rincker Law's Agriculture Blog
- Southeast AgNET
- The Farm Gate
- The Rural Blog
- The Westerner
- U.S. Food Policy
- Washington View
- What to Eat