'Nother Day, 'Nother 850,000 lb beef recall

Lovely. Really it is.

Huntington Meat Packing Inc., a Montebello, Calif. establishment, is recalling approximately 864,000 pounds of beef products that may be contaminated with E. coli O157:H7, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced today.

The recall includes some beef produced just in the last few weeks, and from a two-month period in 2008. Seriously. Lovely.

Broken Record Post: NY Times & Beef Safety

The hordes of LBoN readers (snicker, snicker) are familiar with the coverage this blog has given to the safety of one of our country's favorite foods, beef.

As was pointed out on a science journalism blog, just when you thought this territory had been well covered -- that is, that it has been fairly well established that there are some serious problems with beef safety, etc. -- the New York Times' Michael Moss one-ups everybody and rips off this doozy in last Sunday's paper.

It leads with the story of Stephanie Smith, who can no longer walk due to an infection with E. coli that she got from a hamburger. It turns out, Mr. Moss reports, that ground beef, whether it's in a nicely packaged mound or frozen pre-made patties, isn't necessarily always what you think it is...

Ground beef is usually not simply a chunk of meat run through a grinder. Instead, records and interviews show, a single portion of hamburger meat is often an amalgam of various grades of meat from different parts of cows and even from different slaughterhouses. These cuts of meat are particularly vulnerable to E. coli contamination, food experts and officials say. Despite this, there is no federal requirement for grinders to test their ingredients for the pathogen.

The frozen hamburgers that the Smiths ate, which were made by the food giant Cargill, were labeled “American Chef’s Selection Angus Beef Patties.” Yet confidential grinding logs and other Cargill records show that the hamburgers were made from a mix of slaughterhouse trimmings and a mash-like product derived from scraps that were ground together at a plant in Wisconsin. The ingredients came from slaughterhouses in Nebraska, Texas and Uruguay, and from a South Dakota company that processes fatty trimmings and treats them with ammonia to kill bacteria.

I particularly like that ammonia bit at the end. "Would you like fries with that? Oh, and we're running a special extra-value meal for burgers with extra ammonia. It's a real bargain, I tell you."

So, as I did once before, I'd like to come back to a letter to the editor (scroll down a bit) that came in reply to my op-ed on the subject of beef safety published in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette last year. The LTE came from Mr. William R. Henning, the Emeritus Professor of Animal and Food Science at Penn State University.

Penn State has come under criticism from some in the sustainable ag community because of its cozy relationship with the corporations that make up big ag. They have this one professor, Terry Etherton, who apparently believes that anybody who doesn't think pumping cows full of hormones is the be-all end-all of "progress" is anti-science and anti-agriculture. Nice, I know.

Keep that in mind when you read this bit from Mr. Henning's LTE: [NOTE: From this point forward, all bolded text is mine for emphasis]

I'm confident we have a very safe and affordable supply of this important protein. Strict and numerous government regulations along with strong industry leadership protect the safety of our beef.

And then a little later on in the LTE:

For example, each of the 100 million animals that enter the human food supply is closely inspected by veterinarians and trained inspectors. And the inspection system continues throughout the entire process, including careful examination of both raw and fully cooked products.

I tried to wrap my head around how 100 million animals could possibly be closely inspected, even if there was a fully stocked army of inspectors, which published reports have indicated there is not.

In any case, compare the LTE claims with this from the Times' article:

The United States Department of Agriculture, which allows grinders to devise their own safety plans, has encouraged them to test ingredients first as a way of increasing the chance of finding contamination.

Unwritten agreements between some companies appear to stand in the way of ingredient testing. Many big slaughterhouses will sell only to grinders who agree not to test their shipments for E. coli, according to officials at two large grinding companies. Slaughterhouses fear that one grinder’s discovery of E. coli will set off a recall of ingredients they sold to others.

It's almost as if Mr. Moss and Mr. Henning are talking about two entirely different worlds, no? In any case, the article apparently caused enough of a ruckus to prompt a response from the Department of Agriculture, from Sec. Vilsack himself no less.

He talks about additional inspections, new guidelines, better record keeping. But something seemed to be missing: The fact that something can be labeled as ground beef and yet really be "a mix of slaughterhouse trimmings and a mash-like product derived from scraps that were ground together at a plant in Wisconsin."

Anyone else find that unnerving? Perhaps the "strong industry leadership" touted by Mr. Henning from our state's largest (only?) land-grant university will address that?

Right, right. Dumb question.

UPDATE: Speaking of Big Ag influence on land-grant universities, The Ethicurean provides a primo example, this time involving Michael Pollan.

Scrapin' Up the Bits... "Mad Men" style

The third season of Mad Men returns to AMC this Sunday. Admittedly, season 2 was not as good as season 1, and season 3 almost never happened, so hopefully there was no rush to crank out less- than-stellar material. This show has gotten raves for its quality of course, its influence on fashion, and, now, its devotion to getting its cocktails right...

Liquor is not only an integral part of many plotlines (last season, it played a pivotal role in a car crash, a divorce, a rape and two career implosions), but often a telling sign of character. When it comes to choosing a character’s poison, Ms. Perello said, many people have input, starting with the show’s creator, Matthew Weiner: “Matt will say, ‘I want them to have a brown liquor.’ And I’ll go, ‘Let’s do a nonblended Scotch, because this is a person who would appreciate that.’ ”

The cocktail historian David Wondrich, 48, thinks an old-fashioned is a conservative choice for the young Draper, but considers his preference for Canadian Club “exactly right. We’d had years of destruction of the American whiskey industry up until then. So the Canadian stuff was viewed as being pretty good.”

Another month, another recall of hundreds of thousands of pounds of beef. I'm a little late to writing about this, but it certainly did not get the coverage previous recalls have. Guess people are just so used to it by now...

I'm more than happy to put in my fair share of time for delicious food, but several hours of serious prep time and two days in total just is beyond my limits, even for something as delicious sounding (and looking) as Sicilian style square pizza.

Finally, and happily, there is a chance that beer might once again be brewed in the hallowed tanks of the Penn Brewery. Tom Pastorius apparently did not like what was being done to the business, and the beer, he worked so hard to make a success.

Tom Pastorius, who founded the brewery in 1986 and sold most of it to Birchmere Capital in 2003, is working with a group of investors who have negotiated to buy back Birchmere's stock. They've applied for a $300,000 Urban Redevelopment Authority loan for working capital as part of a plan to fix up and return brewing to the building.

For the Record

Last year, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette was kind enough to publish an op-ed I wrote about beef recalls and beef safety. The bottom line message, I suppose, was that the rash of beef recalls was disturbing and that purchasing beef from local farmers was a good way to take personal action that could -- in addition to getting some good meat and supporting local food systems -- help spur much-needed change in beef cattle farming and processing.

Some time later, my wife's aunt (my aunt in-law?) informed me that a LTE had been published in response to my op-ed (link here, scroll down). Authored by Mr. William R. Henning, the Emeritus Professor of Animal and Food Science at Penn State University, the letter basically said U.S. beef is extraordinarily safe:

Strict and numerous government regulations along with strong industry leadership protect the safety of our beef. For example, each of the 100 million animals that enter the human food supply annually is closely inspected by veterinarians and trained inspectors. (emphasis mine)

I had been meaning to respond to this letter on my poorly read blog for some time. This finally got me to do it:

President Obama on Saturday nominated Margaret Hamburg, former New York City health commissioner, to head the FDA, and announced he is taking new measures to address food safety.

During his weekly radio address, Obama said a lack of funds and staff at FDA in recent years have left the agency with only enough resources to inspect just 7,000 of 150,000 food processing plants and warehouses annually. (emphasis mine)

Now the USDA is responsible for the safety of beef via inspections, etc. But surely the experience of the FDA couldn't be that different than the USDA, could it? Um, no, it couldn't:

The legal requirements for inspections, combined with a reduced force, mean that the inspection goals have not been met for years, according to inspectors. They say the workload is unrealistic, reducing their duties to cursory checks of company records, not the physical examination of meat, poultry and eggs. ...

But one of those inspectors was responsible for a total of five processing plants.That means spending one hour and 36 minutes each day in each plant, she said.

“This is a problem we’ve been pointing out to them forever,” Nestor said.”There are vacancies and shortages all over the country. In a lot of places, the patrol assignments are doubled and tripled up.” (emphasis mine)

[The story linked to above is admittedly a little old. But I think it's safe to say that little to nothing has changed since then.] Am I saying that the U.S. beef supply is irrevocably tainted? No. Dr. Henning claims that cases of E. coli have been low and steady. A quick search of the CDC Web site didn't turn up any statistics along those lines, so I still have to confirm that. Even if it's the case, the massive beef recalls in 2007 and 2008 really did, in my mind, underscore that there are some serious shortcomings in the beef safety net.

Given the points above about significant "vacancies and shortages" among beef processing plant inspectors -- a far cry from Mr. Henning's "closely inspected" -- would it be safe to say there might be many more recalls if there were an adequate number of inspectors? What do you think?

Where's the Beef, Updated!

On Sunday, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette was kind enough to run an op-ed I penned on the safety of beef sold in the United States entitled “Where’s the Beef?

Figured I’d share some of the sources I used in developing it. First, though, is a correction to the next to last paragraph in the op-ed.

"I'm not holding my breath, though. In the past few months alone, federal regulators have proposed a rule that would effectively bar small family farms from providing their pastured or grass-fed beef to the school lunch program, as well as a second rule seemingly intent on pushing out of business the state-licensed, small-scale meat processors who service small, family farms."

Actually, the first proposed rule should have read “introduced legislation,” because it refers to a provision in appropriations legislation that covers the USDA introduced by Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), which I believe is, at the moment, going nowhere. The provision is this:

Beginning with the 2010 school year (that starts in July 2009), the bill includes language that requires USDA to purchase for the School Lunch Program meat products that are derived from livestock premises registered with National Animal Identification System.

Because AMS is a major purchaser of meat products through the School Lunch Program, this proposal would generate significant market-based incentives to strengthen the department’s voluntary animal ID system and support livestock producers and other premises that signup for USDA’s system.

I wrote about this potential travesty in July.

As for the second proposed rule, Elanor at the Ethicurean recently reported the lurid details.

Other sources that came in handy in developing the article:

Whole Foods recall - the Marler Blog.

Factory farms - in addition to books like Omnivore’s Dilemma and Fast Food Nation, PBS’s Frontline did an excellent series called “Industrial Meat.”

More on factory farms (including the burden they place on tax payers) - a recent report from the Union of Concerned Scientists, CAFOs Uncovered.

As for the related news...

First, a new study out of Johns Hopkins that demonstrates how the media has effectively ignored the global warming impact of our global food system, including all of that methane from the cows on those factory farms.

Ironically, for space purposes, I cut this line from an early draft of my op-ed:

Funny, though, that even the most ardent proponents of taking actions to limit the emission of greenhouse gases choose to ignore this inconvenient truth.

And finally, and not surprising in the least, is that a new law that was supposed to let consumers know the country of origin of the beef they are buying has a massive loophole in it that benefits the, you guessed it, big-a#% meat packers.

Shocking, I know.

All the Industrial Meat School Kids Can Eat

This is a story about meat. It is not good.

It is a story about the National Animal Identification System (NAIS). Under this voluntary program, participating farms and other “livestock premises” register any cows, chickens, etc. that they raise – even if not intended for consumption -- with the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and place a satellite-tracked “tag” on them.

This system is designed to respond to a disease outbreak in such animals, a la the “mad cow disease” problems in the UK a while back. Apparently, some members of Congress think it would help in the case of a massive E. coli-related meat recall like those the United States has experienced in the last few years.

In practice, it would do nothing of the sort.

This program is precisely the opposite of what is needed to improve our food safety. Not only does it provide incentives for [confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs)], but it fails to address the main source of food-borne illnesses – poor practices at the packing plants and food processing facilities. In the Hallmark/Westland beef recall, the problem was that the packing plant broke the law governing “downer” cattle and the USDA inspectors didn’t properly inspect the plant. In the Humane Society’s video, every time there was a clear shot of a cow’s left ear, you could see a tag! Changing the type of tag to an NAIS electronic tag would do nothing to address the problem.

The immediate issue? A provision in the House Appropriations Committee 2009 agriculture appropriations bill that requires the USDA to purchase meat products for the National School Lunch Program from livestock premises registered with NAIS beginning next July.

The National School Lunch Program, for those who don’t know, “provides nutritionally balanced, low-cost or free lunches to children [in public schools] each school day.”

So, let’s revisit. What’s been the genesis of the U.S. meat recalls? Questionable meat as a result of questionable practices at massive packing/processing companies like Hallmark (meat that is then distributed by other large companies like Westland).

Where do they get their meat: the big CAFOs. So what? Under the said provision in this appropriations bill...

Confinement operations and massive corporate operations get essentially a free ride through provisions for “group identification,” which would not be available to most family farms. The industry organizations who helped create the program carefully provided that group or lot identification would only be allowed where animals are managed as a group from birth to death and never commingled with animals outside of their production system, a practice that is essentially limited to CAFOs and vertically integrated corporate operations. Family farmers stuck with tagging every animal (in most cases, with electronic identification) and reporting their movements would quickly be crushed by the expense, paperwork burdens, and potential fines for any failure to comply with this complex program.

[Quick aside to define something. From the comments to this op-ed, a family farmer provides a good definition of “vertically integrated corporate operations.”

The consolidation in the food animal industry, as well as the continued growth of completely integrated operations (where the processor owns the farm, the animals, and the processing plant), has led to a situation where independent producers, whether contracting or selling on the open market, are beholden to big corporations.]

I don’t know how many smaller-scale farms provide meat products to schools. I suspect it’s not many. But this requirement seems to have the sole purpose of driving any meat from small farms out of the school lunch game -- or, more likely, never letting them get started in the first place.

And, again, it would do nothing to address the problem raised by Appropriations Agriculture Subcommittee Chair Rep. Rosa DeLauro in describing this bill:

This proposal would increase participation in the animal ID program. Also, in a case such as the historic Hallmark/Westland beef recall earlier this year, we would know about the history of the animals involved which could help address public health concerns.

Based on my own reading, most small farms do not rely on the same large meat processing plants that the big CAFOs do, mostly because, even if they wanted to (which at this point, given what’s been exposed in books like Fast Food Nation and in other reports about the inhumane way workers are treated and the foul conditions in many of these allegedly federally inspected plants, you wouldn’t think would be the case), they don’t provide enough volume for the plants to accept their business.

And, even more frustrating is that many small farms have a hard time finding processing plants they can work with, and the small processing plants – according to a recent report from the Pennsylvania Association for Sustainable Agriculture (to which I can’t track down a link at the moment!) – have their own serious regulatory and workforce issues that are threatening their ability to continue operating.

What’s the bottom line?

Contact your member of Congress and let them know that 1) this proposal sucks, and 2) make it go away. Just say it nicely. Something along the lines of…

In the wake of the recent Hallmark beef recall, I appreciate any effort to ensure meat safety, particularly any meat intended for consumption by our school children. However, this NAIS provision in the House 2009 Agriculture Appropriations bill will do little to nothing to address situations like this, while effectively ending the participation of small- to mid-size family farms that engage in sustainable practices and provide what many consider far superior meat products to those that come from large confinement operations and meat processing plants.

It occurs to me that if Rep. DeLauro is really concerned about meat safety and our school children, she would take steps to provide some help to smaller farms and processors, directing the USDA to specifically purchase a certain percentage of organic fruits and vegetables, and pastured/grass-fed meat from said farms, and offer grants to help processors with their challenges.

I guess that’s too much to expect, though.

In the meantime, hopefully this lawsuit will stop this legislative atrocity in its tracks.

To Test or Not to Test?

In the mid- to late-1980s and early 1990s, the first automobile manufacturers began to sell cars with airbags as a standard feature (they weren’t a federal requirement until 1998). Imagine if the National Highway Safety Traffic Administration had sued those carmakers, arguing that they should not be allowed to sell cars with airbags because they were trying to create “false assurances” that people driving those cars would be safer than cars equipped only with seat belts.

It’s a ludicrous proposition, I know. But the government has been actively engaged in a very similar type of action. Last year, the United States Department of Agriculture -- which is charged, in part, with assuring that farms and meat packers produce food free from things that will make consumers sick – sued a Kansas-based beef outfit, Creekstone Farms, to prevent them from testing all of their cattle for so-called Mad Cow Disease, known in scientific circles as bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE).

The feds lost. But they decided to appeal. And it’s looking like they’re set to lose again.

Chief Judge David B. Sentelle seemed to agree with Creekstone's contention that the additional testing would not interfere with agency regulations governing the treatment of animals.

"All they want to do is create information," Sentelle said, noting that it's up to consumers to decide how to interpret the information.

Hmm… Now why would the government object to wider testing of cattle? Wouldn’t that be a good thing? Ensure the safety of meat. Isn’t that one of the most important functions of the USDA and FDA and other government agencies, protecting the public well being?

For example, the FDA requires that every single unit of red blood cells and plasma intended for use in patients is tested with exquisitely sensitive (and intensively regulated) tests for HIV, hepatitis C, and hepatitis B, among other things.

Ironically, there are even specific inquiries on the FDA-mandated questionnaires that prospective blood and plasma donors must fill out specifically intended to screen out donors who may have consumed beef that may have come from… wait for it… BSE-infected cows (e.g., From 1980 to 1996, did you spend time that adds up to three (3) months or more in the United Kingdom?)!

So, yes, if you even visited certain countries in the U.K. for just a week between 1980 and 1996, you cannot donate blood in the United States.

Yet, only approximately 1% of cattle intended to become integral parts of chili cook-offs and drunken weekend barbecues across the United States are tested for BSE.

So, again, why would the government – or, to be more accurate, the current administration – object to a cattle company wanting to test more of its cows for BSE?

Larger meatpackers have opposed Creekstone's push to allow wider testing out of fear that consumer pressure would force them to begin testing all animals too. Increased testing would raise the price of meat by a few cents per pound.

This action by the Feds just reeks of the same kind of corrupt behavior of the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture when it attempted to outlaw milk labels that used phrases like “hormone free.”

As Creekstone’s attorney told the appeals court judges:

"This is the government telling the consumers, `You're not entitled to this information,'" Frye said.

This is outrageous behavior. And it proves yet again, as Sen. Barbara Boxer once said, that “elections have consequences.”

Bad Beef, Stinky Pigs, and Healing Honey

Here we go again… While many members of Congress are focused on eviscerating the constitution—clearly an important topic—there are other pieces of legislation moving through Congress, including the Farm Bill.

I recently discussed a disconcerting effort by Sen. Diane Feinstein to try to derail a provision in the Senate version of the Farm Bill that would make it easier for small farms to sell their beef—very often grass-fed or mostly grass-fed beef—by allowing beef from state-inspected processing facilities to be sold across state lines. Bottom line is that the massive processing facilities that are inspected by the feds, the USDA to be precise, often won’t take the cows from the small farmers. Not enough coming in to justify it.

And, of course, these facilities don’t have the best reputation for food or worker safety, so the small farmers who have put in the tremendous amount of time and effort it takes to raise grass-fed beef probably aren’t real keen on sending their cattle to those large facilities for processing anyway.

In any case, the excellent Ethicurean has a fantastic round up on the latest with this provision, including what appear to be shenanigans by Big Beef—that is, the big meat processing companies—to fuel speculation about how this provision will hurt meat safety. I think it’s pretty clear what’s going on there: They are scared of the competition from a beef product that more and more people are trying because of things like recalls of 22 millions pounds of frozen beef patties.

And, in another bit of scary irony, while Sen. Feinstein is atwitter about alleged lax safety at state-inspected facilities, the federal situation—shock—apparently ain’t so good.

Several USDA inspectors said their workloads are doubling or tripling as they take on the duties of inspectors who have left the department. The force has been reduced dramatically in recent years as vacancies are left unfilled.

"We've been short the whole time I've been in," said one veteran inspector, who asked to not be named. "We don't have enough inspectors, but we have too much management. The inspectors are short all the time and getting spread thinner and thinner."

Makes me feel real safe. We had some grass-fed steaks from So’ Journey Farms a few weeks ago with a fantastic chimichurri sauce. I’ll admit, the steak was a little gamier than what you would get from a grain-fed steak or even from the Niman Ranch grass-fed but grain-finished steaks (which, I’ll admit, are always stellar), but it was tender and, overall, very enjoyable. I see myself ordering up a good bit of beef from both So’ Journey and Niman to keep us through the winter.

And about those stinky pigs… In parts of Iowa, it turns out, the residents are tired of the huge factory pig farms stinking up the joint.

Mayor Kent Forbes has learned a hard truth about small-town life in Iowa: Sometimes it stinks. That's not a figure of speech. His tiny southern Iowa town is surrounded by hog farms, where tons of manure fill the air with a biting ammonia smell.

Farm odors are nothing new in a state that has long been a national leader in hog, corn and soybean production. But a steady proliferation of huge hog confinements _ many with upward of 5,000 hogs _ has drawn complaints from longtime Iowans and concerns that the odor could hinder efforts to attract businesses.

Why would these farms stink? Jeff Tietz explained in an excellent Rolling Stone article on Paula Dean’s favorite pork product manufacturer, Smithfield.

Smithfield's pigs live by the hundreds or thousands in warehouse-like barns, in rows of wall-to-wall pens. Sows are artificially inseminated and fed and delivered of their piglets in cages so small they cannot turn around. Forty fully grown 250-pound male hogs often occupy a pen the size of a tiny apartment.

They trample each other to death. There is no sunlight, straw, fresh air or earth. The floors are slatted to allow excrement to fall into a catchment pit under the pens, but many things besides excrement can wind up in the pits: afterbirths, piglets accidentally crushed by their mothers, old batteries, broken bottles of insecticide, antibiotic syringes, stillborn pigs -- anything small enough to fit through the foot-wide pipes that drain the pits. The pipes remain closed until enough sewage accumulates in the pits to create good expulsion pressure; then the pipes are opened and everything bursts out into a large holding pond.

Those ponds turn pink from all the waste and bacteria built up in them. And they stink.

Again, all the reason to search out some local farmers who sell pork from pigs raised on a pasture, not in poop and waste laden environments.

To end on a sweet note… British researchers have some advice for anybody who has a wound or has to undergo surgery: consider using honey to help it heal.

“Honey is one of the oldest foods in existence and was an ancient remedy for wound healing” explains lead author Dr Fasal Rauf Khan from North West Wales NHS Trust in Bangor. “It was found in the tomb of King Tutankhamun and was still edible as it never spoils.”

Now, I enjoy drizzling a little honey on a piece of toast that I’ve topped with a thin layer of peanut butter. And I regularly use it in various vinaigrettes and marinades. I had not considered applying it to a gash. But maybe I should…

“Now concerns about antibiotic resistance, and a renewed interest in natural remedies, has prompted a resurgence in the antimicrobial and wound healing properties of honey.

“Honey has a number of properties that make it effective against bacterial growth, including its high sugar content, low moisture content, gluconic acid – which creates an acidic environment – and hydrogen peroxide. It has also been shown to reduce inflammation and swelling.”

Researchers have also reported that applying honey can be used to reduce amputation rates among diabetes patients.

Stressing that patients should always check with their surgeon before applying any substance to post-operative wounds, Dr Khan adds that studies have found that honey offers a number of benefits.

“It can be used to sterilise infected wounds, speed up healing and impede tumours, particularly in keyhole surgery.”

Well, perhaps I’ll hold off on applying it to any surgical wounds. But I’m going to try it the next time I get a little scrape.