Advocacy groups Government Accountability Project, the Community Nutrition Institute and Public Citizen have sent a letter to the US Agriculture agency to ask why it is tying the hands of government meat inspectors when it comes to preventing faecal contamination of meat, while at the same time promoting, what it claims to be the controversial technology of food irradiation.
Field instructions to meat inspectors, obtained recently by GAP, outline the constraints on inspectors' authority in the meat plants.
"The USDA has evidently backed away from its zero tolerance stance on faecal contamination, as can be seen in the written instructions for USDA meat inspectors working in Kansas, where 20 per cent of red meat in the US is produced. The field instructions set a high hurdle before inspectors can require a plant to take specific corrective action," the groups' press release stated in relation to the issue.
According to the advocacy groups, the instructions repeatedly state that stopping the production line is to be avoided at all costs and that the inspectors themselves will be held responsible for lost production if the company challenges their action.
"These directions shed some light on the thinking at USDA headquarters: officials would rather promote irradiation and have consumers eating sterilised filth than stand up to meat companies and stop the line when there is a problem," said Wenonah Hauter, director of Public Citizen's Critical Mass Energy and Environment Program.
The US Agricultural agency memo warns that:"stopping production for 'possible' cross contamination*is unjustifiable unless you can verify that there is direct product contamination. Verification is observation of gross contaminate not suspected contaminate. This is the only criteria for justifying halting production."
This low standard extends even to faecal matter, which is the source of deadly pathogens such as E. coli 0157:h7. While the memo mentions the official 'zero tolerance' policy on faecal contamination, the document narrowly defines such contamination, constraining when inspectors can act.
"We will allow the company a chance to trim [faeces, stomach contents, or milk] off on the moving lines unless it is so excessive, that it must be corrected with the line stopped. You are responsible for the time the line is off," the memo dictates. "Remember, you are accountable for this very serious responsibility of stopping the company's production for the benefit of food safety verifiable ingesta or faeces is as follows: a material of yellow, green, brown or dark colour that has a fibrous nature," the memo states.
The advocacy groups claim this directive can lead to dangerous consequences if followed.
Paul Johnson, acting chairman of the National Joint Council of Food Inspection Locals said: "By not taking immediate action when you suspect there is a problem, you increase the odds that one contaminated piece of meat can contaminate machinery, employees and other products. Further, inspectors know that a small smear of faeces can have deadly consequences just as easily as an amount large enough to have 'a fibrous nature' - yet the USDA prohibits us from taking action that could protect consumers."
Felicia Nestor, food safety project director of GAP added: "The USDA is abandoning the zero tolerance standard for any faecal contamination on beef and replacing it with a new standard - wholesome unless there is 'gross' contamination. It's impossible for this standard to coexist with the agency's claim that it makes decisions based on science. 'Gross' is an inherently subjective standard."
In their address to the Agricultural agency the advocacy groups further argue that the irradiation of meat is being used in an effort to maintain productivity and is not in the best interest of the consumer.
