Organic Consumers Association

Investigation Shows USDA Negligence on Filthy Meat



A severely flawed food-safety system jeopardized consumers when it allowed contaminated meat to leave a Greeley slaughterhouse and then failed to track the tainted meat, a scathing federal audit said [October 2].

Independent federal investigators who looked into the circumstances
surrounding the 2002 recall of meat from the then-ConAgra plant condemned
how it was handled, pointing fingers at federal regulators and the company.

"Neither ConAgra nor (the U.S. Department of Agriculture's food-safety arm)
effectively fulfilled their responsibilities," the report from the Office of
the Inspector General says. "The recall was ineffective and inefficient."

Contaminated meat from the plant, which now operates as Swift & Co., has
been tied to 46 illnesses and one death.

The 149-page report cites many of the problems that were already known about
the recall, including issues revealed by The Denver Post, and uncovers new
ones. Investigators found so many problems, food-safety experts said, that
it's surprising more people weren't sickened.

Among the report's major findings:

The Colorado slaughterhouse found contaminated meat at least 63 times in the
weeks before 18.6 million pounds of beef was recalled last year.

The USDA's Food Safety & Inspection Service did not look at tests --- done
by ConAgra --- that showed meat contaminated with E. coli bacteria. Because
of its policies, the USDA believed it did not have the authority to review
those tests. The USDA can only act on tests it conducts, not those done by
the plant. Prior to the recall, ConAgra was exempt from USDA tests and
conducted its own checks for E. coli. Investigators found, however, that the
plant did not review its policies for preventing contamination after E.
coli-laced meat was found repeatedly from April 8 through July , 2002.
Between May 30, when the contaminated beef was produced, and June 30, when
the recall was announced, ConAgra found E. coli nearly three dozen times.

USDA officials did not respond sufficiently when their own inspectors were
saying meat from the plant was contaminated.

Only 3 million of the 18 million pounds recalled ultimately was accounted
for, largely because the systems for finding problem meat are seriously

The safety plans USDA makes meat processors have in place do not require
them to plan for a recall. While ConAgra had its own plan, other processors
in the food chain did not, which thwarted the USDA's ability to get meat out
of the food stream.

The USDA issued a statement in response to the report.

"Protecting public health is our No. 1 goal and we are continually working
to enhance our systems to ensure they are the strongest possible," said
Garry L.McKee, administrator of the Food Safety & Inspection Service. "FSIS
acted swiftly in the interest of protecting public health when
microbiological testing determined that meat produced by ConAgra Beef
Company was contaminated with E. coli O157:H7."

The statement cites a number of actions the FSIS has taken since the recall.
The department changed several policies in response to flaws revealed by the

"The majority of the findings contained in the (inspector general's) audit
of the ConAgra recall have already been addressed by the agency," McKee's
statement says.

However, in a response given to investigators, USDA said it was making
additional changes. Among them, by the end of the year, the agency will
issue guidelines requiring workers to track all meat that has tested
positive for contaminates. The USDA said it lacks the authority to follow
some of the recommendations, including requiring processors to have plans
for dealing with recalls and to impose monetary fines for noncompliance with

One lawmaker said the USDA needs to do better.

"While some of the flaws in USDA policy identified by the OIG have been
corrected, many persist to the present day," said Rep. Henry Waxman,
Dem.-California "After closely reviewing this important report, Congress
should act to protect the safety of our food supply."

A Swift spokesman defended to company's actions before and after the recall.

"With one-year's perspective, we have confirmed that the steps we took
during the recall were appropriate at every point in the process," said
Swift spokesman Jim Herlihy. "Our company responded promptly to the USDA to
ensure the swift recall of affected product, as well as to implement changes
to our production processes to ensure the highest level of product safety
and quality."

Swift said it helped the USDA figure out the recall needed to expand from a
relatively paltry 354,000 pounds to more than 18 million.

"It was our company's proactive and voluntary testing protocol for E. coli,
which we voluntarily share with the USDA, that enabled the USDA to recommend
the expanded recall," Herlihy said.

Herlihy said he couldn't discuss specifics in the report because he had not
read the whole document.

ConAgra has paid more than $10 million to settle out-of-court claims from
victims and their families, according to attorney William Marler, who
represented several of them.

A consumer advocate said the report verifies that more should have been

"With swifter action on the available evidence, the ConAgra outbreak in the
summer of 2002 was a tragedy that could have been prevented," said Caroline
Smith-DeWaal, food-safety director of the Center for Science in the Public
Interest. "Both the company and USDA missed clear warning signs that could
have averted the outbreak. Consumers shouldn't have to get sick before the
government takes action to address problems in meat and poultry plants."

From Agribusiness Examiner #292 10/6/03


Home | News | Organics | GE Food | Health | Environment | Food Safety | Fair Trade | Peace | Farm Issues | Politics
Español | Campaigns | Buying Guide | Press | Search | Donate | About Us | Contact Us

Organic Consumers Association - 6771 South Silver Hill Drive, Finland MN 55603
E-mail: Staff · Activist or Media Inquiries: 218-226-4164 · Fax: 218-353-7652
Please support our work. Send a tax-deductible donation to the OCA

Fair Use Notice: The material on this site is provided for educational and informational purposes. It may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. It is being made available in an effort to advance the understanding of scientific, environmental, economic, social justice and human rights issues etc. It is believed that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have an interest in using the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. The information on this site does not constitute legal or technical advice.