USDA Seeking to Shut Down Nebraska Beef After Numerous Food Safety Violations Follow-up story: Nebraska beef stays open after "bargain" with USDA January 2003 ELIZABETH BECKER, NEW YORK TIMES: After a year of record recalls of meat suspected of contamination, the Bush administration is asserting its legal right to seek the shutdown of an Omaha slaughterhouse for repeated violations of food safety rules. The Agriculture Department . . . argue[d] in Federal District Court on Thursday that the plant, Nebraska Beef Ltd., should be effectively shut down after numerous citations for unsanitary conditions. The investigation last August of the Omaha slaughterhouse was sparked by the discovery of hamburger contaminated with E. coli 0157:H7, some of which was supplied by Nebraska Beef. Saying it would lose $2.7 million each day of a suspension and be driven out of business, Nebraska Beef won the first round in the case last week, convincing Judge Joseph F. Bataillon of Federal District Court that economic considerations outweighed what the company called the government's questionable accusations and authority. Judge Bataillon issued a temporary restraining order against the suspension. Consumer advocates and members of Congress have warned that the case reveals the essential weakness in the system; the government's inability to enforce health safety rules in the meat and poultry industry. They argue that the Agriculture Department will need new, explicit powers from Congress before the department can enforce rules strict enough to combat bacterial contamination of raw meat in the nation's slaughterhouses. "This is an extraordinary case because it shows, bottom line, that the U.S.D.A. has no real authority to close a plant, even one with gross violations," said Carol Tucker Foreman, director of the Food Policy Institute of the Consumer Federation of America. Ann M. Veneman, the secretary of agriculture, would not comment on the pending case. She is planning to announce proposals to bolster her department's budget for food safety programs on Thursday, money that would add new inspectors and more surveillance and microbiological testing. For the administration, victory in the Nebraska Beef case would answer critics who have accused the Agriculture Department of failing to take aggressive action to improve meat safety after last year's recalls of tens of millions of pounds of meat and poultry, some after deaths from food-borne illnesses. "We have to win," said one senior official at the Agriculture Department who spoke anonymously because the case is pending. "When you are finding repeated food safety violations that is an indication that the plant is deficient and we have to be able to remedy that." Officials at Nebraska Beef did not return telephone calls about the case. But in briefs filed with the court, the beef packing company argued that a suspension of the plant's operation would cause irreparable damage to the company's reputation. "Once a company's quality image has been damaged, if it is ever repaired, it takes years; the length of time Nebraska Beef Ltd. does not have," said Michael Thatcher, senior vice president for sales at the company. This is not the first time inspectors have found fault with Nebraska Beef. In confidential reports over the past three years, the company has received regular citations from federal inspectors for failing to comply with safety rules. These include three citations for the discovery of fecal material on carcasses. One dated October 15, 2001, stated that an inspector found "visible fecal material on the neck, armpit, underneath the foreshanks, and underneath the brisket area of two carcass sides." Congress has debated putting more teeth in the inspection system for the past three years. Senator Richard J. Durbin, Democrat of Illinois, said today that he would re-introduce legislation with Senator Tom Harkin, Democrat of Iowa, to restore the power of the Agriculture Department to "exercise a range of options --- from imposing fines to suspending operations --- when they find that a plant is contaminated." "Our scientific inspection system should be a watchdog, not a lap dog," Mr. Durbin said. "We are not doing enough to protect consumers and families." Mr. Durbin first introduced his legislation in 2000 after the Agriculture Department was told by a federal court that existing law did not allow it to close the Supreme Beef plant in Dallas even though its ground beef failed tests for salmonella three times in one year. Dan Glickman, the secretary of agriculture during the Clinton administration, fought that case and said in an interview that it demonstrated "a serious gap in the law. We tested our authority and we lost," he said. "Now it is up to Congress to correct it and see it as a matter of high priority for public health." NEBRASKA BEEF LTD BARGAINS TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER WITH USDA; CRITICS CHARGE DECISION PUTS MEAT CONSUMERS AT RISK posted January 30, 2003 REUTERS: A Nebraska beef company, cited for a series of food safety violations, reached an agreement with the U.S. Agriculture Department on Friday that will prevent a temporary shut down of its operations. The USDA on January 14 ordered the suspension of federal meat inspections at the Nebraska Beef Ltd. slaughtering plant in Omaha after reporting several instances of unsanitary practices, fecal contamination and condensation problems. The company immediately obtained a restraining order from a federal judge to keep the plant open until a hearing took place. In issuing a temporary restraining order last week, U.S. Judge Joseph Batallion said the company would suffer "substantial" and irreparable harm if USDA suspended inspections. The plant has been operating ever since. "USDA believes that the terms of the agreement are sufficient to meet the requirements of the Federal Meat Inspection Act related to food safety and public health," said Michael Heavican, attorney for the U.S. Justice Department representing USDA. "The public health mission of (USDA) is preserved through this agreement." USDA had no comment on the settlement. Nebraska Beef officials were not immediately available for comment. Some consumer advocates criticized the agreement saying USDA gave up to easily and placed consumers at risk. "They have put the concerns of the company, and the cattlemen that supply it, and the stockholders ahead of public health," said Carol Tucker Foreman, food policy director for the Consumer Federation of America. "I simply don't understand why you (Nebraska Beef) continue to get another chance when you've demonstrated you can't meet the requirements."