April 5, 2001

U.S. Proposes End to Testing for Salmonella in School Beef

By MARIAN BURROS

The Bush administration has proposed dropping testing for salmonella in ground beef for the federal school-lunch program and letting schools serve beef that has been irradiated, a procedure that kills salmonella and all other harmful bacteria but is mistrusted by many consumers.

The salmonella tests, ordered last June by the Clinton administration, were met with fierce opposition by the meat industry, which complained that the tests were burdensome and not scientific. The industry has since lobbied to scrap them.

In those tests, packages of meat were sampled randomly by the government for salmonella before shipment to schools.

Dr. Ken Clayton, acting administrator of the Agricultural Marketing Service at the Agriculture Department, said the current testing program did not ensure that schools were getting the safest food possible. In place of testing for salmonella, he said, the agency would institute a system to weed out suppliers who did not meet standards.

With two exceptions, the standards Dr. Clayton outlined are those that already exist for a meat-processing plant to receive the Agriculture Department's seal of approval.

The agency will now require a second anti-microbial step at slaughterhouses, like an acid rinse, for plants that want to sell ground beef to the school lunch program.

In addition, grinders that do not meet the standards for cleanliness a certain percentage of the time will not be allowed to supply the school lunch program and other federal food programs.

The Agriculture Department must make a final decision before July, in time for the start of the buying season for the new school year.

The proposal means that "neither federal inspectors nor companies involved will test for a potentially deadly pathogen in meat going to millions of school children nationwide," said Carol Tucker Foreman, director of the Food Policy Institute of the Consumer Federation of America and a former Agriculture Department official in the Carter administration.

Senator Richard J. Durbin, an Illinois Democrat who sits on the agriculture subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee, was also critical of the change and threatened Congressional action.

"The school lunch program is a very sacred budget in our program," Mr. Durbin said, "and a lot of senators and congressman don't feel it's a political issue.

"First, it was arsenic in drinking water. Now it's salmonella in school lunches. Where will it end?"

Ms. Foreman said that she did not object to the additions to the safety standards, but that she believed that the agency must continue to check for salmonella.

"They caught five million pounds of meat that had salmonella in it last year that they wouldn't have caught, and they won't catch it next year," she said.

Dr. Clayton said he had no idea how many companies would choose to irradiate their ground beef.

Critics of irradiation say it is the easy way to sterilize harmful bacteria but does nothing to improve the safety of the meat processor.

It would be up to the schools to notify parents if they planned to serve irradiated hamburgers.

Irradiation shatters the genetic material of bacteria, killing them. Scientists say the process leaves no residual radioactivity. The government began allowing beef to be irradiated a year ago, but relatively little has been produced, in part because of doubts about whether most consumers would accept it.

Mishandling of food, even if it has been irradiated or previously tested as untainted, can introduce harmful bacteria. And improperly handled raw beef can cross-contaminate raw food with which it comes in contact.

Salmonella causes 1.4 million illnesses and 600 deaths a year, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. While testing for salmonella would be eliminated, the Agriculture Department would continue its daily testing for E coli 0157H:7, except in products that had been irradiated.

It would also test for generic e-coli, which in itself is not harmful but which indicates the presence of fecal contamination. Even when a sample tests high for generic e-coli, however, it does not necessarily signal the presence of salmonella.

As of March 30, 1,436 samples had been taken by federal testers from more than 120 million pounds of ground beef. Of those, 130 samples were rejected, 75 of them because of salmonella, 10 because of contamination with E coli 0157H:7. The rest were rejected for high coliform counts or the presence of staphylococcus aureus.

The meat processors have lobbied hard to get rid of the salmonella testing. Sara Lilygren, a spokeswoman for the American Meat Institute, said: "The draft proposal appears to be an improvement for consumers because it allows irradiated ground beef to be purchased, uses generic e- coli testing to determine whether the product has been produced in a clean and controlled environment and abandons the old zero tolerance for salmonella, which had no basis for reducing food-borne illness risk since it was in a product required to be cooked to 160 degrees but caused millions of pounds of good meat to be rejected and jacked up the cost of ground beef."

The salmonella tests added to the cost of ground beef. Irradiation is expected to do the same, but it is not known by how much.

Until the Clinton administration adopted the science-based specifications last year, the only safety requirement for school-lunch ground beef was that it be produced in an Agriculture Department-certified processing plant.

Those specifications were enacted after a federal judge rebuffed the department's efforts last summer to close a Texas meat-processing plant based on random salmonella tests the department had conducted.

The plant supplied as much as 45 percent of the ground beef in the school-lunch program after it failed salmonella tests three times. But the judge said the department lacked the authority to use such tests, and ordered that the plant remain open. It closed later last year, however, after the department decided to appeal the judge's ruling.

Since the rules became effective, salmonella contamination has dropped by as much as 50 percent, studies show.

"The requirements that were put into effect last year went further than the fast-food restaurants which have stringent limits but not zero tolerance," said Ms. Foreman.

Referring to a coalition of consumer groups that asked the Clinton administration to set salmonella standards for school-lunch beef, she said: "We didn't argue for zero tolerance. We just wanted them to set a standard that limited salmonella."

Mr. Durbin said it might not be necessary to require zero tolerance. "We should entertain any reasonable approach that still protects our children in a responsible way," he said. "I don't believe this approach does."

-- Bush Would Kill School Children (salmonella@testing.cut), April 05, 2001

Answers

Jeez! You just better hope its not your kid who eats a contaminated burger, and gets sick and dies. I guess our childrens lives are just a crapshoot with W.

-- never again (bye@gop.com), April 05, 2001.

What a load of horseshit! Why not just make them all vegetarian lunch programs......oops, I forgot, veggies have e-coli too. Gosh why don't we just not feed them at all. That solves the problem. Nobody has to worry, school lunch workers are notorious for turning hamburger into hockey pucks. Get a grip!

-- Marg (Crapbuster@whataload.com), April 05, 2001.

Lets rehighlight the correct area shall we Cherri?

The Bush administration has proposed dropping testing for salmonella in ground beef for the federal school-lunch program and letting schools serve beef that has been irradiated, a procedure that kills salmonella and all other harmful bacteria but is mistrusted by many consumers.

U R such a dumb bitch.

-- Cherri (is such a dumb@bitch.com), April 05, 2001.

Couldn't we just let'em serve those nuke'em burgers,like the ones sold at the mini-marts? Does that qualify as irradiated?

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), April 05, 2001.

Couldn't we just let'em serve those nuke'em burgers,

I say we start with Cherri first.

-- Cherri (is such a dumb@bitch.com), April 05, 2001.

I think I'd rather glow than gag to death with some yucky virus. Maybe irradiated food's time is nigh.

Washington Post

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), April 05, 2001.

George W. Bush is doing everything in his power to kill the American people.

When will the people fight back?

-- (enough@is.enough), April 05, 2001.

The article is not correct in one area.

You will notice that the forum trolls have survived irradiation, and are in fact quite healthy and prolific.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), April 05, 2001.

Unk:

You will notice that the forum trolls have survived irradiation, and are in fact quite healthy and prolific.

One problem; they are not Gram negative bacteria. Of course you have their IP addresses and there may be something that I don't know. *<)))

Best Wishes,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), April 05, 2001.

Vegetarian lunches - great idea! =)

-- (cin@cin.cin), April 05, 2001.

Link

Thursday April 5 3:31 PM ET

U.S. Drops Plan to Scrap Beef Salmonella Tests

By Randy Fabi

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Bush administration on Thursday abandoned a plan to stop salmonella testing of beef for the national school lunch program after critics denounced the plan as a move that would put children at risk.

The White House announcement reversed a notice published by the Agriculture Department last week which said it would stop requiring the food safety tests for the more than 100 million pounds of ground beef which the government buys each year.

Administration officials said the plan to drop testing was put forward by a low-level USDA official, and was not approved by Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman.

``The secretary is the one who makes those decisions, and the secretary had not made a decision until today,'' White House spokesman Ari Fleischer (news - web sites) said. ``The secretary made her decision based on the merits and based on protecting schoolchildren.''

The plan to stop the tests was published by the USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service on the agency's Internet site, and said comments from the public would be accepted through April 30.

Last June the USDA, under the Clinton administration, ordered suppliers to test raw meat for salmonella, E. coli 0157:H7 and other food-borne bacteria.

Salmonella can cause vomiting, diarrhea and fever in healthy adults, and can be deadly for elderly or people with weak immune systems. An estimated 600 Americans die from salmonella annually out of 1.4 million cases, according to federal health data.

Of the 120 million pounds of ground beef purchased and tested last year, seven percent was rejected for various types of contamination, according to USDA data.

Consumer groups and some Democrats slammed the Bush administration for wanting to eliminate salmonella testing, saying that last year, almost 5 million pounds of meat destined for schoolchildren was found to be contaminated with salmonella.

The meat processing industry has repeatedly called for an end to the USDA testing requirements. Beef processors argued that salmonella testing increased costs and was an unfair way to assess a company's overall sanitation standards.

Consumer groups, however, expressed relief at the decision to keep the tests in place.

``I have to thank the Bush administration for seeing the folly of its ways and changing their decision,'' said Carol Tucker Foreman, food safety specialist with the Consumer Federation of America, adding that ``it's a privilege'' to sell meat to the federal government.

On Wednesday, Ken Clayton, acting administrator for the Agricultural Marketing Service, told reporters at a news conference that salmonella testing was not necessary. ''Everybody knew last year that these standards were interim, and the plan was always to review them,'' Clayton said.

But Veneman, who has been on the job for three months, said she was never briefed on the planned change.

``These proposed changes were released prior to receiving appropriate review,'' she said in a statement.

``USDA will continue to examine additional measures to improve food safety and will consider new contract procedures after appropriate scientific-based information is received from all interested parties,'' Veneman added.

Chandler Keys, vice president of the National Cattlemen's Beef Association (news - web sites), said his organization has been ``supportive'' of setting a USDA salmonella standard for beef being bought under the school lunch program.

But instead of the current rule, Keys said his organization prefers the adoption of meat-buying standards that ``mimic'' rules recently instituted by large commercial firms, such as McDonalds and Burger King. Those toughened rules tolerate a tiny amount of salmonella, which is killed in the cooking process.

American Meat Institute President Patrick Boyle said in a statement that USDA's salmonella standard ``does nothing to promote children's health'', and noted that the government does not impose a similar standard on ``produce, ground turkey or ground pork.''

``Schools are required to cook raw ground beef to 160 degrees, which kills bacteria, which begs the question, 'Why a zero tolerance standard when the product must be thoroughly cooked?'''

-- (flip@flop.org), April 05, 2001.

I was wondering when the people would fight back, and the above article indicates they are starting to get wise to Dumbya. Very encouraging.

He's been in office 2 months and it's already clear that if we wish to survive we simply have to put a stop to every single thing that Dumbya tries to do.

In fact he could serve as the key to the answer to all of mankind's problems. Just find out what Dumbya would like to do, and do the opposite!

-- (Dumbya could be the key @ to saving. the human race), April 06, 2001.

It looks like the person in charge of this is going to continue with the testing.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), April 06, 2001.

Cin -- pack vegetarian lunches for your own kids. Great idea!

Afterwards, fuck off. Even better idea!

-- Already Done Happened (oh.yeah@it.did.com), April 08, 2001.

I already do. Whussa matta you allergic to vegetables too?

And I think I will fuck off. Great idea!

-- (cin@cin.cin), April 08, 2001.

"I already do."

If you already pack veggie lunches for your kids, then why go any farther? You appeared to be agreeing with Marg, who at first seemed to be advocating all-veggie school lunches (but who later clarified her position). And longtime readers and posters on this board and others know of your advocacy of vegetarian diets and your antipathy towards meat. You wouldn't be recommending enforced all-veggie lunches in schools, would you, Cin?

"Whussa matta you allergic to vegetables too?"

I enjoy a large variety of vegetables; probably more than most meat- eaters. But I also enjoy a wide variety of meats and meat products, and I don't plan to change any time soon. It is the snotty attitude of many vegans and vegetarians that pisses me off. If your kids' school offers meat-entree lunches and a vegetarian alternative (like my kids' school does), then deal with it. I don't think your kids should eat meat if you (and they) don't want that, but I don't think my kids should be forced into a vegetarian or vegan diet simply to make YOU (or any other vegetarian/vegan) feel comfortable.

"And I think I will fuck off. Great idea!"

Excellent. On that point, we are agreed.

-- Already Done Happened (oh.yeah@it.did.com), April 09, 2001.

Whatever dude

Maybe you should invest in a heavy bag and do some boxing. You know, work out some of that hostility.

-- (cin@cin.cin), April 09, 2001.

"Whatever dude"

Yes, I didn't think you'd have much of a response to that, Ms. Vegan Queen. Freedom of choice should be suspended when it comes to diet, right? You do want those all-veggie school lunches, don't you? I thought so.

"Maybe you should invest in a heavy bag and do some boxing. You know, work out some of that hostility."

Maybe you should invest in some psychoanalysis and do some soul- searching. You know, be content with your own life and your own child-rearing choices and learn how not to impose your standards on others.

But maybe that's asking too much of you, Cin.

-- Already Done Happened (oh.yeah@it.did.com), April 10, 2001.

Whoa better watch that blood pressure, what with all the consumed animal fat and cholesterol... Youre a walking timebomb. Tick tock tick tock

-- (cin@cin.cin), April 10, 2001.

"Whoa better watch that blood pressure, what with all the consumed animal fat and cholesterol..."

Yawn. Typical vegan claptrap from the vegan Nazi of the board. You can't justify forcing your dietary choice on others, Cin, so you think you will score some points by claiming I am in poor health. Bad move on your part. My BP was 130/78 last month. My last cholesterol stick (last fall) was 164. And my family is quite long- lived. My two late grandfathers lived into their 80s, and my elder grandmother is 93. My health is great, I've got a great gene pool working, and so I'm not worried about a THING.

For dinner tonight, we enjoyed pork steaks smothered with mushrooms, and a lovely roast dish I prepare with redskin potatoes, asparagus, garlic, rosemary, basil and BUTTER. So if I were you, I'd be more worried about my own diet than about someone else's. You see, Cin, a vegan diet is fine for SOME people, but some OTHER people just don't really need it. Of course, asking you to recognize that is just simply asking too much of you.

Nothing's more annoying than someone who thinks they have found THE ONE TRUE ANSWER and have to shove it in everyone's face. Being absolutely convinced you are right is such a powerful weapon against the poor deluded masses, isn't it, Cin?

"Youre a walking timebomb. Tick tock tick tock"

Obviously, I am not. Perhaps your data is in error, Vegan Queen.

Oh, and don't bother answering the question about school lunches, Cin. I think we can all see that you'd rather not answer that question. I also think that we all know why.

-- Already Done Happened (oh.yeah@it.did.com), April 10, 2001.