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

USDA Proposal Would Name Stores in Meat Recalls

Posted on: Tuesday, 7 March 2006, 18:00 CST

By Andy Dworkin, The Oregonian, Portland, Ore.

Mar. 7--The federal government wants to start naming grocery stores that have sold recalled meat, reversing a years-old rule that has frustrated many consumers.

Now, public recall notices say what meat product is being recalled and names the states where it was sold, but not specific stores. The U.S. Department of Agriculture called that "confidential business information" and has worried that meatpackers might not agree to the roughly 50 to 100 voluntary recalls made each year if competitors might learn whom they sell to.

Consumer advocates and others have said that rule keeps important information from the public, especially in high-profile recalls such as the one following the first U.S. mad cow case, in Washington state in 2003.

On Monday, the USDA floated a rule that would publish store names on its Web site, helping consumers figure out whether they have meat that's been recalled. The agency will take comments on the idea over two months, then decide whether to make the change.

The proposed rule would not name wholesalers or distributors, information that might mean little to consumers but concern businesses, USDA spokesman Steven Cohen said.

"We think this is a good balance between protecting proprietary information and giving consumers useful information," Cohen said.

Consumer advocates praised the idea, though they worry the agency won't follow through on the proposal. "We have been asking for this for a long time," said Michael Hansen, a food safety expert with Consumers Union.

The idea was so new and unexpected that several state officials and retailers said Monday they had not heard of it or considered it.

The USDA has no power to issue a recall, but Cohen said no company has ever refused its request to recall meat. Under the current rule, the USDA will share only the names of businesses touched by recalls with the dozen states that have signed a pledge to keep those names secret. That secrecy pledge caused controversy after the mad cow-related recall of 38,000 pounds of beef, much of it distributed in the Northwest. The USDA wouldn't tell Oregon and Washington officials which stores got the suspect meat because the two states had not signed the agreement.

The USDA did share that information with California officials, who had signed the deal. That angered many Californians, who learned that their state knew, but would not say, who had sold recalled meat. Last year California's assembly passed a bill, not yet signed into law, that would end the state's privacy agreement.

Federal officials hope to make recalls more effective and get more consumers involved, Cohen said. In many cases, only a fraction of the recalled product is returned: Slightly more than half of the 19 tons of beef recalled in the mad cow case was returned, for instance. But other recalls draw an excess as some consumers return products not covered by it to stores that never sold the suspect meat.

"We've been looking for ways to provide more accurate information and more timely information to consumers," Cohen said.

Advocates have pressured the agency to make the change. The secretary of agriculture was asked about publicizing store names during budget hearings last year, Cohen said. A 2004 report by the Government Accountability Office said the secrecy led to "potentially ineffective consumer notification" in recalls.

The USDA is asking for comments on the idea over the next 60 days and then will decide whether to follow through on the proposal, which covers only meat. Meat is recalled for a number reasons, from mislabeling to bacterial contamination.

Fred Meyer spokeswoman Melinda Merrill said the chain "will do whatever the regulators and trade groups believe is best for customers. And we'll work with the regulatory and trade groups" to see about commenting.

Oregon and Washington officials said they hadn't considered the idea.

Officials in both states again said they will not sign the USDA's secrecy agreement because they want to be able to share information with the public. Washington Department of Health spokesman Tim Church said signing it might violate state freedom of information laws. That makes the USDA's proposed rule change consumers' best hope of linking recalled meat to stores.

Hansen said the proposal is "a step forward," if it becomes a federal rule. But some advocates worry that the USDA will not follow through and is just floating the idea to keep California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger from signing the state bill.

Schwarzenegger vetoed a similar bill in 2004, noted Elisa Odabashian, senior program manager at Consumers Union's West Coast office. His veto said the state should negotiate with the USDA to get out of the secrecy rule, and California state health officials said they were trying to do that. But no changes were made, and California's secrecy deal remains.

With Schwarzenegger due to get a new bill any day, Odabashian said she "found it very interesting that the proposal came" from USDA again. She worries if he vetoes the state bill again, the USDA will drop the plan quietly. "I would kind of be surprised if this rule went through," she said.

-----

To see more of The Oregonian, or to subscribe the newspaper, go to http://www.oregonian.com.

Copyright (c) 2006, The Oregonian, Portland, Ore.

Distributed by Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News.

For information on republishing this content, contact us at (800) 661-2511 (U.S.), (213) 237-4914 (worldwide), fax (213) 237-6515, or e-mail reprints@krtinfo.com.

Source: The Oregonian

More News in this Category