• E-mail
• Print
• Comment
• Font Size
• Digg
• del.icio.us
• Discuss article

Proposal Would Unfreeze the Secrecy: A USDA Plan Would for the First Time Reveal the Names of Stores That Might Have Sold You Bad Meat.

Posted on: Friday, 23 June 2006, 06:00 CDT

By Paul Wenske, The Kansas City Star, Mo.

Jun. 23--Ever wonder what's in that hamburger you're eating?

OK, maybe you don't really want to know. But would a dash of E. coli concern you? How about a sprinkling of metal shavings? And if contaminated meat is out there, wouldn't you want to know which stores sold it?

Just last month, an Oklahoma meat company recalled 4.3 million pounds of frozen meat contaminated with bits of metal that posed a high risk of injury to consumers. But if you wanted to find out which Missouri and Kansas stores sold that meat, you can't. And neither can The Kansas City Star.

Unlike other unsafe products that are publicly recalled, the processing company, meat distributors and retail outlets don't have to tell you or the media.

You can find out who processed it, any identifying lot codes, states where it was shipped and whom to call if you're worried about whether you ate it. But under current federal rules, even most state health officials aren't told where bad meat ends up.

All that would change, however, under a new U.S. Department of Agriculture proposal that for the first time would publicly disclose all retail stores where bad meat was traced up the food chain of distributors and other sellers.

Public comment on the proposal ended earlier this month, and the USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service won't say when it will render a final ruling.

But the issue already is sparking a meaty debate.

Consumer groups applaud the proposal and even want to expand it to include restaurants, hospitals, nursing homes and schools.

"It's a first step," said Chris Waldrop, deputy director of the Consumer Federation of America's Food Policy Institute. "The way we look at it is, by not giving that information to consumers you are keeping them in the dark about potentially contaminated meat in the marketplace," Waldrop said.

But industry groups argue that the proposal adds little to an already-efficient recall system, unnecessarily discloses confidential information and may confuse consumers more than help them.

A top official for the National Grocers Association maintains that the most important information for consumers is the name of the product and often lot codes, which reflect the date the meat was processed. "Knowing the name of the store is not a crucial element," said Tom Wenning, the association's senior vice president and general counsel.

Even so, Steve Cohen, a spokesman for the USDA's food safety service, said the proposal brings the urgency of a recall closer to home.

"We are hopeful people will take a second look in their freezers, and maybe determine they purchased the product and need to return or destroy it," Cohen said.

A system of secrecy

To some consumer advocates, the USDA's proposal helps counter years of being overly chummy with a meat and poultry industry it both regulates and promotes.

"There is no coincidence there's been a close relationship between the USDA and big packers," said John Munsell, a former Montana meat processor who became a national activist after more than three dozen reports of deadly E. coli in 2002 were linked with the recall of 19 million pounds of ConAgra beef.

The USDA was criticized during that recall for not responding more swiftly to a health hazard. A year later it was criticized again for secrecy surrounding the distribution of 38,000 pounds of recalled mad cow-connected meat. The USDA wouldn't tell health officials where the suspect meat went.

Munsell, who spoke in favor of the proposal at a recent public hearing in Washington, gives partial credit for the new proposal to the USDA's current undersecretary of food safety, Richard Raymond, a former Nebraska health official who experienced first hand a lack of access to recall information.

Since 2003, the USDA has worked to improve inspections. The number of recalls has dropped from 113 in 2002 to 55 last year. There have been 17 so far in 2006. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention also report that the number of E. coli cases has fallen significantly.

Raymond has said publicly that he sees the proposal "as a supplement to an already good system. This is the last step to get recalled product back."

Recalls are most often started by a meat company, after a government inspection or in response to reported illnesses. But a recall is always voluntary. The USDA lacks authority to require one. It can only threaten to withhold an inspection and keep a packer's meat out of the supply chain.

Most meat companies willingly participate out of concern for public health and their reputations. But they use their own proprietary customer lists in tracking the distribution of meat from a plant to far-flung grocery stores.

And they don't want to make that information public.

Jeremy Russell, a spokesman for the National Meat Association, said the fear is that if distribution lists aren't protected, a competitor can "poach customers out from under a company that had a recall. And that's the reason that information has never been made public."

As a result, the USDA generally exempts the lists from public disclosure. But there is one exception: The USDA has agreements with about a dozen states, including Kansas, in which health officials can obtain the names of stores that were sent recalled meat.

But health officials must pledge to keep those names secret.

"The distributor is not bound by law to tell us where the product was distributed in the state," said Mary Fandrey, food program coordinator for the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services.

"Absolutely, that's a downside," Fandrey said, adding, "There have been times when we were blindly running down information."

It's not much better for states with USDA agreements. Lisa Taylor, a spokeswoman for the Kansas Department of Agriculture, said under that state's three-year-old agreement, "information can be given to us, but we cannot pass it on to anyone else."

In addition, Taylor said, access to names is conditional on state officials being asked to help the USDA verify a recall's effectiveness. So far, Taylor said, Kansas has not been asked to help the USDA with any recalls.

Taylor favors the new USDA proposal. She said consumers often are inclined to ignore recalls because they may seem vague and far away. She thinks consumers would take recalls more seriously if they learn they affect their neighborhoods.

"That makes for a more informed consumer," Taylor said.

The USDA's Cohen said the agency believes it can provide store names to state health officials and consumers and still protect the proprietary interests important to businesses. He said the agency would develop a unique list of names, independent of those customer lists developed by industry sources.

Because it would take time to generate such a list, the names of stores would primarily be listed online after a recall. Industry officials contend that lag time will reduce the effort's effectiveness.

But Cohen argued that some people don't get the message right away anyway, and it usually takes time to collect recalled meat.

Restaurants exempted

Still, some consumer groups argue that the proposal doesn't go far enough. Michael Hansen, a senior scientist with Consumers Union, publisher of Consumer Reports, said it should include restaurants and institutions such as hospitals and schools.

"Such places often have populations that cannot fully protect themselves," Hansen said.

However, Cohen said the USDA isn't persuaded by that argument. "We wanted to make this most useful for consumers," he said, noting a big difference between stores and restaurants.

When consumers buy meat at stores, they often put it in a refrigerator or freezer for future use (which by the way, does not kill E. coli.) That situation doesn't usually exist at a restaurant, where recalled food has either already been removed or already eaten.

Frank Ybarra, a spokesman for Overland Park-based restaurant-chain Applebee's, pointed out that many consumers might not have any idea what, if any, food they ate was subject to a recall. Nonetheless, he said Applebee's would seriously consider any proposal that improves safety.

Barbara Kowalcyk, president of Safe Tables Our Priority, which promotes efforts to curtail food-borne illnesses, said identifying restaurants might provide clues to ill consumers about where they got sick.

Kowalcyk's son died 12 days after being sickened by E. coli. His death was later linked to eating tainted meat.

"It was like our kid had been hit by an invisible truck and we wanted to find what that truck was," she said. "The idea is to get information into the hands of consumers so they can make intelligent decisions about what they feed themselves and their loved ones."

------

------

To reach Paul Wenske, call (816) 234-4454 or send e-mail to pwenske@kcstar.com.

-----

Copyright (c) 2006, The Kansas City Star, Mo.

Distributed by Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News.

For reprints, email tmsreprints@permissionsgroup.com, call 800-374-7985 or 847-635-6550, send a fax to 847-635-6968, or write to The Permissions Group Inc., 1247 Milwaukee Ave., Suite 303, Glenview, IL 60025, USA.

NYSE:CAG, NASDAQ-NMS:APPB,

Source: The Kansas City Star (Kansas City, Missouri)

More News in this Category