March, 04 2010, 11:56am EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Dylan Blaylock, GAP Communications Dir.
202.457.0034, ext. 137
dylanb@whistleblower.org
Slaughterhouse Whistleblower Reveals Inhumane Animal Treatment, Food Integrity Violations
FSIS Ignores Serious Problems and Retaliates Against Whistleblower; GAP Client Dean Wyatt to Testify Today Before House Committee
WASHINGTON
EST this afternoon, Government Accountability Project (GAP) client
and federal food safety inspector Dean Wyatt will testify before a House of
Representatives Subcommittee, and blow the whistle on a laundry list of
problems he witnessed at two major meat-packing plants. The egregious nature of
the violations and the subsequent reaction by the USDA's Food Safety
& Inspection Service (FSIS) regional offices raise serious questions about
the current state of national food integrity oversight, the FSIS attitude
toward and treatment of whistleblowers, and the overall state of food safety in
America.
The hearing will be held by the House of
Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Subcommittee on
Domestic Policy, at 2154 Rayburn
House Office
Building.
Wyatt has been a public health veterinarian with FSIS
for more than 18 years. FSIS is the primary government department charged with
monitoring the inner workings of food processing plants, and guarding against
any threats to public safety or inhumane animal treatment. Before raising
concerns, Wyatt was repeatedly lauded for his work performance from both inside
and outside the agency, and received numerous performance awards and veterinary
honors over the past decade.
However, as Wyatt's experiences clearly illustrate,
FSIS officials continually chose to ignore shocking reports of inhumane
treatment and safety violations. Instead, FSIS reprimanded him on several
occasions for trying to hold the incompliant plants accountable, and subjected
him to a slew of blatant retaliatory actions. These included the ordering of
obviously unnecessary remedial training that damaged his professional
reputation, writing a letter of reprimand, and forcing him to transfer to a
different plant.
"The evidence and testimony presented by Dean
Wyatt today will show that FSIS is more interested in keeping the food industry
happy than protecting the public," said GAP Public Health Associate Jonathan Cantu. "There should be a full-scale
investigation into how FSIS operates, treats it staff, and deals with non-compliance
reports."
Oklahoma - Seaboard Farms
When Wyatt attempted to enforce food safety laws at
the Seaboard Farms plant in Oklahoma
from March 2007 to May 2008, his FSIS superiors repeatedly retaliated against
him. Wyatt's disclosures at the hearing will cover his experiences at
that plant, and at the Bushway Packing plant in Vermont. Specifically, Wyatt will speak
about the following atrocities that were committed at Seaboard:
- Conscious pigs,
shackled to the conveyor line, having their throats slit while kicking and
squealing - Inhumane unloading
of livestock off of trucks, to the point that several animals were
trampled and crushed - Needless and unprovoked
beating of animals
Wyatt wrote to the FSIS District Office (in
Springdale, Arizona) about the preceding gross violations of safe and ethical
animal handling laws in non-compliance reports (NRs), which is the proper
procedure for reporting plant wrongdoing. The FSIS ignored his concerns and
chose to bully, intimidate, and retaliate against him. Specifically:
- After Wyatt notified
the District Office about the slaughtering of live animals, the office
chose to not speak with him directly about his allegations, and instead
blanket-accepted the company's version of events. - After exposing the
trampling of animals, on-site FSIS inspection personnel were chastised and
blamed. Subsequently, plant officials simply erected panels to
prevent FSIS personnel from viewing future offloading. When Wyatt
informed the District Office of this, he was told to take no action. - After Wyatt
contacted the district office about the beating of pigs, Wyatt received a
letter of reprimand. - After observing the
forced trampling for a second time, and sending another NR, District
Office management ordered him to drastically cut back on his
humane-handling enforcement. Wyatt was also notified that he would be
demoted to a non-supervisory position for two weeks.
This sort of cycle repeated itself until, in another
act of retaliation, Wyatt was informed he had to leave the plant and transfer
to another site.
Vermont - Bushway Packing
Wyatt then moved to the Bushway Packing plant in Vermont. Shockingly,
Wyatt found that the abuse levels and acts of wrongdoing were horrific at this
plant as well, and that the regional FSIS District Office (Albany, NY) was
also unwilling to intervene and solve the problem. Problems at this site
included:
- Cattle were
haphazardly shot, resulting in repeated firings being necessary, and in
some cases animals were left writhing in pain with head-shot injuries - Baby calves were
being dragged on the ground because they were too young, weak, and
dehydrated to stand. Some of these calves were then thrown in the air into
pens. - The FSIS District
Office gave specific orders to plant management, demanding that the
calf-stunning area be decreased in size (to safeguard the animal's
wellbeing when stunned). After the plant manager became angry and
protested, the District Office backed down, and no changes were
implemented.
Retaliation and response to Wyatt's concerns
regarding these problems was similar to those he experienced while in Oklahoma - his
allegations, written up in NRs, were largely ignored or downplayed. The Vermont plant manager then discovered Wyatt's past
"problems" at the Oklahoma
plant, and claimed that Wyatt was harassing him. FSIS supervisors then ordered
Wyatt to attend remedial training classes - a unique punishment for
someone of Wyatt's background and stature - which was later made
public in a newsletter sent throughout the industry, damaging Wyatt's
professional reputation.
Validation
Wyatt turned to GAP. Until today, his disclosures to
several government officials have remained anonymous, and have prompted much
needed and greater scrutiny of the situation. In addition, Wyatt's concerns
about plant treatment of animals were validated last year when a Humane Society
of the United States undercover
worker infiltrated the Vermont
plant and exposed graphic and shocking forms of inhumane animal treatment. The
video garnered national media attention and also alluded to plant officials
actively trying to hide wrongdoing from Wyatt. On camera, one of Wyatt's
subordinates told plant personnel only to engage in violations when Wyatt was
not present.
"This smoking gun proves that FSIS cannot
perform its function of ensuring food integrity, and that the agency takes a punitive
stance against whistleblowers" stated GAP Public Health Associate Amanda Hitt. "Wyatt's experiences at
these two separate plants illustrate a pattern that FSIS is broken, and must be
fixed immediately."
Recommendations
Wyatt has supplied several recommendations to the
committee about what actions should be taken to fix these problems permanently.
Besides holding accountable those responsible for the retaliation against him,
Wyatt has outlined how: 1) FSIS needs more staffers at each plant in order to
catch all potential violations of food integrity; 2) the Whistleblower Protection
Enhancement Act must be passed; and 3) a through revamping must be undertaken
of the non-compliance reporting system (the method by which FSIS field staff
report violations).
The Government Accountability Project (GAP) is a 30-year-old nonprofit public interest group that promotes government and corporate accountability by advancing occupational free speech, defending whistleblowers, and empowering citizen activists. We pursue this mission through our Nuclear Safety, International Reform, Corporate Accountability, Food & Drug Safety, and Federal Employee/National Security programs. GAP is the nation's leading whistleblower protection organization.
LATEST NEWS
ICE Goons Pepper Spray Congresswoman Adelita Grijalva During Tucson Raid
"If federal agents are brazen enough to fire pellets directly at a member of Congress, imagine how they behave when encountering defenseless members of our community," Grijalva said.
Dec 05, 2025
In what Arizona's attorney general slammed as an "unacceptable and outrageous" act of "unchecked aggression," a federal immigration officer fired pepper spray toward recently sworn-in Congresswoman Adelita Grijalva during a Friday raid on a Tucson restaurant.
Grijalva (D-Ariz.) wrote on social media that US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers "just conducted a raid by Taco Giro in Tucson—a small mom-and-pop restaurant that has served our community for years."
"When I presented myself as a member of Congress asking for more information, I was pushed aside and pepper sprayed," she added.
Grijalva said in a video uploaded to the post that she was "sprayed in the face by a very aggressive agent, pushed around by others, when I literally was not being aggressive, I was asking for clarification, which is my right as a member of Congress."
The video shows Grijalva among a group of protesters who verbally confronted federal agents over the raid. Following an order to "clear," an agent is seen firing what appears to be a pepper ball at the ground very near the congresswoman's feet. Video footage also shows agents deploying gas against the crowd.
"They're targeting small mom-and-pop businesses that don't have the financial resources to fight back," Grijalva told reporters after the incident. "They're targeting small businesses and people that are helping in our communities in order to try to fill the quota that [President Donald] Trump has given them."
Mocking the incident on social media, Department of Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin contended that Grijalva "wasn’t pepper sprayed."
"She was in the vicinity of someone who *was* pepper sprayed as they were obstructing and assaulting law enforcement," she added. "In fact, two law enforcement officers were seriously injured by this mob that [Grijalva] joined."
McLaughlin provided no further details regarding the nature of those injuries.
Democrats in Arizona and beyond condemned Friday's incident, with US Sen. Ruben Gallego writing on social media that Grijalva "was doing her job, standing up for her community."
"Pepper spraying a sitting member of Congress is disgraceful, unacceptable, and absolutely not what we voted for," he added. "Period."
Democratic Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes said on social media: "This is unacceptable and outrageous. Enforcing the rule of law does not mean pepper spraying a member of Congress for simply asking questions. Effective law enforcement requires restraint and accountability, not unchecked aggression."
Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) also weighed in on social media, calling the incident "outrageous."
"Rep. Grijalva was completely within her rights to stand up for her constituents," she added. "ICE is completely lawless."
Friday's incident follows federal agents' violent removal of Sen. Alexa Padilla (D-Calif.) from a June press conference held by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem.
Congresswoman LaMonica McIver (D-NJ) was federally indicted in June for allegedly “forcibly impeding and interfering with federal officers" during an oversight visit at a privately operated migrant detention center in Newark, New Jersey and subsequent confrontation with ICE agents outside of the lockup in which US Reps. Bonnie Watson Coleman and Rob Menendez, both New Jersey Democrats, were also involved.
Violent assaults by federal agents on suspected undocumented immigrants—including US citizens—protesters, journalists, and others are a regular occurrence amid the Trump administration's mass deportation campaign.
"If federal agents are brazen enough to fire pellets directly at a member of Congress, imagine how they behave when encountering defenseless members of our community," Grijalva said late Friday on social media. "It’s time for Congress to rein in this rogue agency NOW."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Gavin Newsom Wants a 'Big Tent Party,' But Opposes Wealth Tax Supported by Large Majority of Americans
"A wealth tax is a big tent policy unless the only people you care about are billionaires," said one progressive organizer.
Dec 05, 2025
California Gov. Gavin Newsom, considered by some to be the frontrunner to be the next Democratic presidential nominee, said during a panel on Wednesday that he wants his party to be a “big tent” that welcomes large numbers of people into the fold. But he’s “adamantly against” one of the most popular proposals Democrats have to offer: a wealth tax.
In October, progressive economists Emmanuel Saez and Robert Reich joined forces with one of California's most powerful unions, the Service Employees International Union's (SEIU) United Healthcare Workers West, to propose that California put the nation’s first-ever wealth tax on the ballot in November 2026.
They described the measure as an "emergency billionaires tax" aimed at recouping the tens of billions of dollars that will be stripped from California's 15 million Medicaid recipients over the next five years, after Republicans enacted historic cuts to the program in July with President Donald Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which dramatically reduced taxes for the wealthiest Americans.
Among those beneficiaries were the approximately 200 billionaires living in California, whose average annual income, Saez pointed out, has risen by 7.5% per year, compared with 1.5% for median-income residents.
Under the proposal, they would pay a one-time 5% tax on their total net worth, which is estimated to raise $100 billion. The vast majority of the funds, about 90%, would be used to restore Medicaid funding, while the rest would go towards funding K-12 education, which the GOP has also slashed.
The proposal in California has strong support from unions and healthcare groups. But Newsom has called it “bad policy” and “another attempt to grab money for special purposes.”
Meanwhile, several of his longtime consultants, including Dan Newman and Brian Brokaw, have launched a campaign alongside “business and tech leaders” to kill the measure, which they’ve dubbed “Stop the Squeeze." They've issued familiar warnings that pinching the wealthy too hard will drive them from the state, along with the critical tax base they provide.
At Wednesday's New York Times DealBook Summit, Andrew Ross Sorkin asked Newsom about his opposition to the wealth tax idea, comparing it to a proposal by recent New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani, who pledged to increase the income taxes of New Yorkers who earn more than $1 million per year by 2% in order to fund his city-wide free buses, universal childcare, and city-owned grocery store programs.
Mamdani's proposal was met with a litany of similar warnings from Big Apple bigwigs who threatened to flee the city and others around the country who said they'd never move in.
But as Robin Kaiser-Schatzlein explained in October for the American Prospect: "The evidence for this is thin: mostly memes shared by tech and finance people... Research shows that the truth of the matter is closer to the opposite. Wealthy individuals and their income move at lower rates than other income brackets, even in response to an increase of personal income tax." Many of those who sulked about Mamdani's victory have notably begun making amends with the incoming mayor.
Moreover, the comparison between Mamdani's plan and the one proposed in California is faulty to begin with. As Harold Meyerson explained, also for the Prospect: "It is a one-time-only tax, to be levied exclusively on billionaires’ current (i.e., 2025) net worth. Even if they move to Tasmania, they will still be liable for 5% of this year’s net worth."
"Crucially, the tax won’t crimp the fortunes of any billionaire who moves into the state next year or any later year, as it only applies to the billionaires living in the state this year," he added. "Therefore... the horrific specter of billionaire flight can’t be levied against the California proposal."
Nevertheless, Sorkin framed Newsom as being in an existential battle of ideas with Mamdani, asking how the two could both represent the Democratic Party when they are so "diametrically opposed."
"Well, I want to be a big-tent party," Newsom replied. "It's about addition, not subtraction."
Pushed on the question of whether there should be a "unifying theory of the case," Newsom responded that “we all want to be protected, we all want to be respected, we all want to be connected to something bigger than ourselves. We have fundamental values that I think define our party, about social justice, economic justice.”
"We have pre-distribution Democrats, and we have re-distribution Democrats," he continued. "Therein lies the dialectic and therein lies the debate."
Polling is scarce so far on the likelihood of such a measure passing in California. But nationally, polls suggest that the vast majority of Democrats fall on the "re-distribution" side of Newsom's "dialectic." In fact, the majority of all Americans do, regardless of party affiliation.
Last year, Inequality.org examined 55 national and state polls about a number of different taxation policies and found:
A billionaire income tax garnered the most support across party identification. On average, two out of three (67%) of Americans supported the tax including 84% of Democrats, 64% of Independents, and 51% of Republicans.
In national polls, a wealth tax had similarly high levels of support. More than three out of five Americans supported the tax including 78% of Democrats, 62% of Independents, and 51% of Republicans.
That sentiment only seems to have grown since the return of President Donald Trump. An Economist/YouGov poll released in early November found that 72% of Americans said that taxes on billionaires should be raised—including 95% of Democrats, 75% of independents, and 48% of Republicans. Across the board, just 15% said they should not be raised.
Support remains high when the proposal is more specific as well. On the eve of Mamdani's election, despitre months of fearmongering, 64% of New Yorkers said they backed his proposal, including a slight plurality of self-identified conservatives, according to a Siena College poll.
Many observers were perplexed by how Newsom proposes to maintain a “big tent” while opposing policies supported by most of the people inside it.
"A wealth tax is a big tent policy unless the only people you care about are billionaires," wrote Jonathan Cohn, the political director for Progressive Mass, a grassroots organization in Massachusetts, on social media.
"Gavin Newsom—estimated net worth between $20 and $30 million—says he's opposed to a billionaire wealth tax. Color me shocked," wrote the Columbia University lecturer Anthony Zenkus. "Democrats holding him up as a potential savior for 2028 is a clear example of not reading the room."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Case That Could Bless Trump's Bid to End Birthright Citizenship
"That the Supreme Court is actually entertaining Trump’s unconstitutional attack on birthright citizenship is the clearest example yet that the Roberts Court is broken beyond repair," said one critic.
Dec 05, 2025
The United States Supreme Court on Friday agreed to decide whether US President Donald Trump's executive order ending birthright citizenship—as guaranteed under the 14th Amendment for more than 150 years—is constitutional.
Next spring, the justices will hear oral arguments in Trump's appeal of a lower court ruling that struck down parts of an executive order—titled Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship—signed on the first day of the president's second term. Under the directive, which has not taken effect due to legal challenges, people born in the United States would not be automatically entitled to US citizenship if their parents are in the country temporarily or without legal authorization.
Enacted in 1868, the 14th Amendment affirms that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."
While the Trump administration argues that the 14th Amendment was adopted to grant US citizenship to freed slaves, not travelers or undocumented immigrants, two key Supreme Court cases have affirmed birthright citizenship under the Constitution—United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) and Afroyim v. Rusk (1967).
Here is the question presented. It's a relatively clean vehicle for the Supreme Court to finally decide whether it is lawful for the president to deny birthright citizenship to the children of immigrants. www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25...
[image or embed]
— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjsdc.bsky.social) December 5, 2025 at 10:55 AM
Several district court judges have issued universal preliminary injunctions to block Trump's order. However, the Supreme Court's right-wing supermajority found in June that “universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts."
In July, a three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit unanimously ruled that executive order is an unconstitutional violation of the plain language of the 14th Amendment. In total, four federal courts and two appellate courts have blocked Trump's order.
“No president can change the 14th Amendment’s fundamental promise of citizenship,” Cecillia Wang, national legal director at the ACLU—which is leading the nationwide class action challenge to Trump's order—said in a statement Friday. “We look forward to putting this issue to rest once and for all in the Supreme Court this term.”
Brett Edkins, managing director of policy and political affairs at the advocacy group Stand Up America, was among those who suggested that the high court justices should have refused to hear the case given the long-settled precedent regarding the 14th Amendment.
“This case is a right-wing fantasy, full stop. That the Supreme Court is actually entertaining Trump’s unconstitutional attack on birthright citizenship is the clearest example yet that the Roberts Court is broken beyond repair," Edkins continued, referring to Chief Justice John Roberts.
"Even if the court ultimately rules against Trump, in a laughable display of its supposed independence, the fact that fringe attacks on our most basic rights as citizens are being seriously considered is outrageous and alarming," he added.
Aarti Kohli, executive director of the Asian Law Caucus, said that “it’s deeply troubling that we must waste precious judicial resources relitigating what has been settled constitutional law for over a century," adding that "every federal judge who has considered this executive order has found it unconstitutional."
Tianna Mays, legal director for Democracy Defenders Fund, asserted, “The attack on the fundamental right of birthright citizenship is an attack on the 14th Amendment and our Constitution."
"We are confident the court will affirm this basic right, which has stood for over a century," Mays added. "Millions of families across the country deserve and require that clarity and stability.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


