January, 15 2013, 11:04am EDT
Deregulated Foreign Meat Inspection Leaves U.S. Consumers Unprotected, USDA Records Reveal
WASHINGTON
Today, the consumer advocacy group Food & Water Watch released U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) inspection records from foreign meat plants that reveal troubling examples of how deregulated meat inspection regimes in other countries can put U.S. consumers at risk.
On October 18, 2012, Food & Water Watch filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) for foreign establishment audit checklists for all foreign country audits the agency conducted between 2009 and 2012. It had been customary for FSIS to post the individual plant checklists as part of the country audit reports on its website, but inexplicably, the Obama Administration had stopped that practice.
Food & Water Watch received 155 pages in response to the request, which covered audit checklists from eight countries. Three examples, from Australia and Canada, reveal conflicts of interest and long histories of poor food safety performance.
"These particular establishment audit reports should give U.S. consumers pause about the inadequacy of meat and poultry inspection systems responsible for the safety of products destined for the U.S. market," said Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Watch. "These records offer further proof that the Obama Administration must stop its efforts to deregulate meat and poultry inspection here in the United States and stop its recognition of privatized inspection schemes abroad. Plus, it is unacceptable that these records had to be obtained through the Freedom of Information Act when they should have been posted to the agency's website in a timely manner."
Nolan Meats - Australian Establishment No. 80
Nolan Meats is a slaughter facility that processes meat from lambs and sheep. It was the "trial" plant selected by the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service (AQIS) in 2006 to pilot a new inspection model in which Australian government meat inspectors were removed from the slaughter lines and replaced by company employees (called AQIS Approved Officers or "AAOs"). This new inspection model is based on the HACCP-based Inspection Models Project (HIMP) in poultry and swine that is being conducted in the United States. The alternate inspection model in Australia was originally called the Meat Safety Inspection Program (MSEP); it was recently renamed the Australian Export Meat Inspection System (AEMIS). After several fits and starts, the trial began in earnest in 2008. Data from the trial was provided to FSIS to determine whether this new inspection model should be expanded to all slaughter facilities in Australia.
On March 3, 2011, FSIS posted a Federal Register Notice (76 Fed. Reg. 11752 - 11755) in which it announced the formal recognition of this privatized inspection model as "equivalent" to the U.S. meat inspection system based on the trial. At the time, Food & Water Watch vigorously objected to the FSIS decision and pointed to potential conflicts-of-interest that could occur under such a privatized inspection scheme. Based on FSIS approval, Australia expanded the privatized inspection system to most of its red meat slaughter facilities in late 2011.
FSIS officials visited the Nolan Meats facility on March 21, 2011. In the audit report for that facility, FSIS staff reported:
"Employees of the establishment that work as the AQIS Approved Officers (AAO) conducting post mortem inspection, received financial benefits that are tied to profits generated by the operator of the establishment whose products they inspect. These AAOs receive salaries and profit sharing directly from the establishment. Government officials verify the adequacy of AAO inspection routines and meet the expectations of the CCA (Central Competent Authority). However, the fact that AAOs financial benefits are linked to profits generated by their employer appears to be a conflict of interest that needs the attention of the CCA" (See attached file).
In recent months, the number of imported meat rejections from Australia has increased dramatically, prompting FSIS to call for a review on the entire Australian meat inspection system. Several Australian slaughter establishments have been delisted as being eligible to export to the U.S. as a result of meat rejections. Food & Water Watch sent a letter to USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack on January 2, 2013 asking for a status report on the FSIS review and is awaiting his response.
XL Foods, Inc. - Canadian Establishment No. 038
In September and October of 2012, XL Foods, Inc., Canadian Establishment No. 38, was involved in the largest beef recall in Canadian history for E. coli 0157:H7 that sickened 18 Canadian consumers. FSIS issued several "Public Health Alerts" that described the agency's efforts to help the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) recover some 2.5 million pounds of beef products that had been imported from that Canadian plant into the United States.
The contamination was first discovered by FSIS at its border inspection station in Sweetgrass, Montana, when a sample from a shipment of beef from XL was taken for testing. That sample and subsequent samples taken by FSIS inspection personnel tested positive for E. coli 0157:H7 prompting the agency to delist XL Plant 38 on September 13, 2012. It was eventually relisted on December 7, 2012.
In late 2012, FSIS conducted an audit of the Canadian meat inspection system. It included a visit to XL Foods Plant 38. Prior to that, FSIS last visited XL Plant 38 in September, 2009. XL Foods Plant 38 is one of several beef slaughter plants in Canada that has been using a privatized inspection model called the High Linespeed Inspection System (HLIS) in which most of the inspection on the slaughter lines is performed by company personnel. Food & Water Watch recently learned that FSIS had secretly recognized this new inspection model in March 2006.
The 2009 audit of XL Foods Plant 38 proved to be a harbinger of things to come. In that audit, FSIS inspection personnel reported:
- Poor plant sanitation
- Poor plant recordkeeping
- CFIA inspection personnel did not adequately document plant deficiencies or take proper action to verify that deficiencies had been corrected
- Inadequate oversight provided by CFIA supervisory inspection personnel resulted in failures to cite the plant for food safety and sanitation violations (See attached file)
Unfortunately, these are many of the same issues that were uncovered during the 2012 E. coli outbreak when the CFIA conducted its own internal review of XL Foods Plant 38. Food & Water Watch awaits the publication of the FSIS 2012 audit report on Canada's meat inspection system to verify whether progress has been made, especially at XL Foods Plant 38.
Maple Leaf Consumer Foods, Inc. - Canadian Establishment No. 001
The Obama and Harper administrations have hatched a scheme called the Beyond the Border Initiative (BtB) to deregulate border inspection by allowing Canadian meat processors to ship their products directly to U.S. meat processors without first being scrutinized at the border by FSIS inspectors.
The current inspection system has been in existence since the 1980's and has worked well for U.S. consumers since it prevents contaminated or otherwise adulterated meat products from entering into U.S. commerce. Food & Water Watch has vigorously opposed BtB from its inception since it eases trade between the two countries at the expense of food safety. Food & Water Watch has also cited examples (here and here) of how the current inspection system at the border catches problems before they endanger U.S. consumers.
The United States and Canada have been in talks to conduct a "pilot project" to prove that a deregulated inspection system could work. In October 2012, Food & Water Watch was able to obtain a document that described the pilot in detail. The document also identified Maple Leafs Plant 001 as one of the participants in the pilot project.
In September 2009, FSIS visited Maple Leaf Foods Plant 001 during its audit of the Canadian meat inspection system and found:
- Poor recordkeeping
- Flaking paint over food contact areas
- Poor sanitation
- Poor employee food handling practices
- Deficient enforcement of food safety standards by CFIA inspection personnel
- Lack of daily inspection by CFIA inspection personnel of all shifts
- Insufficient training of CFIA inspection personnel (See attached file)
Maple Leaf Foods Plant 001 was also part of the 2012 audit conducted by FSIS.
"If this plant is the best that the Obama and Harper administrations can offer, we remain convinced that no pilot should be conducted to test the Beyond the Border initiative for meat inspection," said Hauter. "The Obama Administration should abandon its ill-conceived initiative for meat inspection because it will leave U.S. consumers vulnerable to unsafe meat products from Canada."
Inspection records obtained by the October 18, 2012, FOIA can be downloaded here: https://documents.foodandwaterwatch.org/doc/2013_Jan_15_FSIS_foreign_audit.pdf
Food & Water Watch mobilizes regular people to build political power to move bold and uncompromised solutions to the most pressing food, water, and climate problems of our time. We work to protect people's health, communities, and democracy from the growing destructive power of the most powerful economic interests.
(202) 683-2500LATEST NEWS
As Senate Prepares for NDAA Vote, Progressive Caucus Says It Is 'Past Time' to Slash Pentagon Budget
"This legislation on balance moves our country and our national priorities in the wrong direction," said Rep. Pramila Jayapal.
Dec 12, 2024
As Senate Democrats prepared to move forward with a procedural vote on the annual defense budget package that passed in the House earlier this week, the Congressional Progressive Caucus outlined its objections to the legislation and called for the Pentagon budget to be cut, with military funding freed up to "reinvest in critical human needs."
CPC Chair Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) said following the passage of the Servicemember Quality of Life Improvement and National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for 2025 (H.R. 5009) that "it should alarm every American taxpayer that we are nearing a trillion-dollar annual budget for an agency rampant with waste, fraud, and abuse."
Jayapal, who was one of 140 lawmakers to oppose the package, emphasized that the Pentagon has failed seven consecutive annual audits.
Despite being the only federal agency to never have passed a federal audit, said Jayapal, the Department of Defense "continues to receive huge boosts to funding every year. Our constituents deserve better."
As Common Dreams reported last month, more than half of the department's annual budget now goes to military contractors that consistently overcharge the government, contributing to the Pentagon's inability to fully account for trillions of taxpayer dollars.
The $883.7 billion legislation that was advanced by the House on Wednesday would pour more money into the Pentagon's coffers. The package includes more than $500 million in Israeli military aid and two $357 million nuclear-powered attack submarine despite the Pentagon requesting only one, and would cut more than $621 million from President Joe Biden's budget request for climate action initiatives.
Jayapal noted that the legislation—which was passed with the support of 81 Democrats and 200 Republicans—also includes anti-transgender provisions, barring the children of military service members from receiving gender-affirming healthcare in "the first federal statute targeting LGBTQ people since the 1990s when Congress adopted 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' and the Defense of Marriage Act."
"This dangerous bigotry cannot be tolerated, let alone codified into federal law," said Jayapal.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said Thursday that the legislation "has some very good things we Democrats wanted in it, it has some bad things we wouldn't have put in there, and some things that were left out," and indicated that he had filed cloture for the first procedural vote on the NDAA.
The vote is expected to take place early next week, and 60 votes are needed to begin debate on the package.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), a longtime critic of exorbitant U.S. military spending, said in a floor speech on Wednesday that he plans to vote no on the budget.
"While middle-class and working-class families are struggling to survive, we supposedly just don't have the financial resources to help them," he said. "We just cannot afford to build more housing, we just cannot afford to provide quality childcare to our kids or to support public education, or to provide healthcare to all."
"But when the military industrial complex and all of their well-paid lobbyists come marching in to Capitol Hill," he continued, "somehow or another, there is more than enough money for Congress to provide them with virtually everything that they need."
Jayapal noted that the funding package includes substantive pay raises for service members and new investments in housing, healthcare, childcare, and other support for their families.
"Progressives will always fight to increase pay for our service members and ensure that our veterans are well taken care of," said Jayapal. "However, this legislation on balance moves our country and our national priorities in the wrong direction."
By cutting military spending, she said, the federal government could invest in the needs of all Americans, not just members of the military, "without sacrificing our national security or service member wages."
"It's past time we stop padding the pockets of price gouging military contractors who benefit from corporate consolidation," said Jayapal, "and reallocate that money to domestic needs."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Dems Urge Biden to Limit Presidential Authority to Launch Nuclear War Before Trump Takes Charge
"As Donald Trump prepares to return to the Oval Office, it is more important than ever to take the power to start a nuclear war out of the hands of a single individual and ensure that Congress's constitutional role is respected and fulfilled," wrote Sen. Edward Markey and Rep. Ted Lieu.
Dec 12, 2024
Two Democratic lawmakers sent a letter to outgoing U.S. President Joe Biden Thursday, urging him to place more checks on potential nuclear weapons use by mandating that a president must obtain authorization from Congress before initiating a nuclear first strike.
The letter writers, Sen. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) and Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.), argue that "such a policy would provide clear directives for the military to follow: A president could order a nuclear launch only if (1) Congress had approved the decision, providing a constitutional check on executive power or (2) the United States had already been attacked with a nuclear weapon. This would be infinitely safer than our current doctrine."
The two write that time is of the essence: "As Donald Trump prepares to return to the Oval Office, it is more important than ever to take the power to start a nuclear war out of the hands of a single individual and ensure that Congress's constitutional role is respected and fulfilled."
The Constitution vests Congress, not the president, with the power to declare war (though presidents have used military force without getting the OK from Congress on multiple occasions in modern history, according to the National Constitution Center).
During the Cold War, when nuclear weapons policy was produced, speed was seen as essential to deterrence, according to Jon Wolfsthal, the director of global risk at the Federation of American Scientists, who wrote an op-ed for The Washington Post last year that makes a similar argument to Markey and Lieu.
"There is no reason today to rely on speedy decision-making during situations in which the United States might launch first. Even as relations with Moscow are at historic lows, we are worlds removed from the Cold War's dominant knife's-edge logic," he wrote.
While nuclear tensions today may not be quite as high as they were during the apex of the Cold War, fears of nuclear confrontation have been heightened due to poor relations between the United States and Russia over the ongoing war in Ukraine, among other issues. Last month, Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a decree lowering the threshold for potential nuclear weapons use not long after the U.S. greenlit Ukraine's use of U.S.-supplied long range weapons in its fight against Russia.
This is not the first time Markey and Lieu have pushed for greater guardrails on nuclear first-use. The two are the authors of the Restricting First Use of Nuclear Weapons Act, a proposed bill first introduced in 2017 that would bar a U.S. president from launching a nuclear first strike without the consent of Congress.
"We first introduced this act during the Obama administration not as a partisan effort, but to make the larger point that current U.S. policy, which gives the president sole authority to launch nuclear weapons without any input from Congress, is dangerous," they wrote.
In their letter, Markey and Lieu also recount an episode from the first Trump presidency when, shortly after the January 6 insurrection, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Mark Milley ordered his staff to come to him if they received a nuclear strike order from Trump.
But Milley's ability to intervene was limited, according to Lieu and Markey, because his role is advisory and "the president can unilaterally make a launch decision and implement it directly without informing senior leaders." They argue this episode is a sign that the rules themselves must change.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Amnesty Urges War Crimes Probe of 'Indiscriminate' Israeli Attacks on Lebanon
"The latest evidence of unlawful airstrikes during Israel's most recent offensive in Lebanon underscores the urgent need for all states, especially the United States, to suspend arms transfers," said one campaigner.
Dec 12, 2024
Amnesty International on Thursday called for a war crimes investigation into recent Israeli airstrikes in Lebanon that killed dozens of civilians, as well as a suspension of arms transfers to Israel as it attacks Gaza, the West Bank, and Syria.
In a briefing paper titled The Sky Rained Missiles, Amnesty "documented four illustrative cases in which unlawful Israeli strikes killed at least 49 civilians" in Lebanon in September and October amid an Israel Defense Forces (IDF) campaign of invasion and bombardment that Lebanese officials say has killed or wounded more than 20,000 people.
"Amnesty International found that Israeli forces unlawfully struck residential buildings in the village of al-Ain in northern Bekaa on September 29, the village of Aitou in northern Lebanon on October 14, and in Baalbeck city on October 21," the rights group said. "Israeli forces also unlawfully attacked the municipal headquarters in Nabatieh in southern Lebanon on October 16."
Erika Guevara Rosas, Amnesty's senior director for research, advocacy, policy, and campaigns, said in a statement that "these four attacks are emblematic of Israel's shocking disregard for civilian lives in Lebanon and their willingness to flout international law."
The September 29 attack "destroyed the house of the Syrian al-Shaar family, killing all nine members of the family who were sleeping inside," the report states.
"This is a civilian house, there is no military target in it whatsoever," village mukhtar, or leader, Youssef Jaafar told Amnesty. "It is full of kids. This family is well-known in town."
On October 16, Israel bombed the Nabatieh municipal complex, killing Mayor Ahmad Khalil and 10 other people.
"The airstrike took place without warning, just as the municipality's crisis unit was meeting to coordinate deliveries of aid, including food, water, and medicine, to residents and internally displaced people who had fled bombardment in other parts of southern Lebanon," Amnesty said, adding that there was no apparent military target in the immediate area.
In the deadliest single strike detailed in the Amnesty report, IDF bombardment believed to be targeting a suspected Hezbollah member killed 23 civilians forcibly displaced from southern Lebanon in Aitou on October 14.
"The youngest casualty was Aline, a 5-month-old baby who was flung from the house into a pickup truck nearby and was found by rescue workers the day after the strike," Amnesty said.
Survivor Jinane Hijazi told Amnesty: "I've lost everything; my entire family, my parents, my siblings, my daughter. I wish I had died that day too."
As the report notes:
A fragment of the munition found at the site of the attack was analyzed by an Amnesty International weapons expert and based upon its size, shape, and the scalloped edges of the heavy metal casing, identified as most likely a MK-80 series aerial bomb, which would mean it was at least a 500-pound bomb. The United States is the primary supplier of these types of munitions to Israel.
"The means and method of this attack on a house full of civilians likely would make this an indiscriminate attack and it also may have been disproportionate given the presence of a large number of civilians at the time of the strike," Amnesty stressed. "It should be investigated as a war crime."
The October 21 strike destroyed a building housing 13 members of the Othman family, killing two women and four children and wounding seven others.
"My son woke me up; he was thirsty and wanted to drink. I gave him water and he went back to sleep, hugging his brother," survivor Fatima Drai—who lost her two sons Hassan, 5, and Hussein, 3, in the attack—told Amnesty.
"When he hugged his brother, I smiled and thought, I'll tell his father how our son is when he comes back," she added. "I went to pray, and then everything around me exploded. A gas canister exploded, burning my feet, and within seconds, it consumed my kids' room."
Guevara Rosas said: "These attacks must be investigated as war crimes. The Lebanese government must urgently call for a special session at the U.N. Human Rights Council to establish an independent investigative mechanism into the alleged violations and crimes committed by all parties in this conflict. It must also grant the International Criminal Court jurisdiction over Rome Statute crimes committed on Lebanese territory."
"Israel has an appalling track record of carrying out unlawful airstrikes in Gaza and past wars in Lebanon taking a devastating toll on civilians."
Last month, the court issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in connection with Israel's 433-day Gaza onslaught, which has left more than 162,000 Palestinians dead, maimed, or missing in the embattled enclave.
The tribunal also issued a warrant for the arrest of Hamas leader Mohammed Diab Ibrahim Al-Masri for alleged crimes committed during and after the October 7, 2023 attack on Israel, in which more than 1,100 people were killed and over 240 others were kidnapped.
Meanwhile, the International Court of Justice is weighing a genocide case brought by South Africa against Israel. Last week, Amnesty published a report accusing Israel of genocide in Gaza.
The United States—which provides Israel with tens of billions of dollars in military aid and diplomatic cover—has also been accused of complicity in Israeli war crimes in Palestine and Lebanon.
"Israel has an appalling track record of carrying out unlawful airstrikes in Gaza and past wars in Lebanon taking a devastating toll on civilians," Guevara Rosas said. "The latest evidence of unlawful air strikes during Israel's most recent offensive in Lebanon underscores the urgent need for all states, especially the United States, to suspend arms transfers to Israel due to the risk they will be used to commit serious violations of international humanitarian law."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular