You forget that the FDA/USDA COVERED UP Con-Agra’s sale of e-coli contaminated beef FOR YEARS!

USDA will not disclose the names of slaughter houses without a positive test “above the grinder” – which is why there is no mention of where the meat came from that was ground by AFG in this latest recall. Also, on the “downside” of the grinder – on the retail side – there is also an agreement between USDA and industry to not disclose “proprietary information” – which includes where the contaminated meat was sold. Health Departments have to sign a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to not disclose that information to the public in order to get the information from USDA. http://www.marlerblog.com/2007/11/articles/case-news/american-foods-group-recalls-ground-beef-products-due-to-e-coli-o157h7-contamination-and-illnesses-in-illinois/

A Letter from John Munsell (One of my heroes for the work he did during the Farm Wars.)

RE: CLARIFICATION IN APRIL 6, 2009 FOOD CHEMICAL NEWS 

Hello Amber:

I’d like to clarify two statements in your story entitled “House Hearing pits FSIS against FDA in search for answers”. 

The fourth paragraph includes the following statement: “If a food borne illness outbreak prompts a recall, FSIS has the ability to trace the source of the contaminated food back to its point of origin”.

The sixth paragraph from the end includes the following statement: “By having FSIS responsible for inspection, growth regulations and transportation to processors, it would rely on its vast inspector work force, HACCP program and electronic records for being able to trace any outbreak back to the original point of production,

both statements are blatantly false, but are central to the façade FSIS has orchestrated of the HACCP ideal

First of all, it’s necessary to explain that E.coli and Salmonella are “enteric” bacteria, which by definition means they originate within animals’ intestines, and by extension, on manure-covered hides. 

Slaughter facilities have intestines and manure-covered hides on their premises, which is where enteric bacteria are inadvertently transferred onto carcasses. The vast majority of destination facilities where meat is shipped do not have intestines or hides on their premises.

The quickest way to independently determine if tracebacks to the origin of meat contaminated with enteric bacteria are being accomplished is to communicate with every entity which has been involved in recalls of E.coli and salmonella-tainted meat this century. The vast majority of these establishments do not slaughter, but wholly depend on meat they purchase from their source slaughter providers. I have personally visited with perhaps the majority of these plants. I do not call plants if they slaughter, but restrict my calls to those who strictly further process. Once I describe to them how FSIS acted at my plant subsequent to a test which was positive for E.coli at my plant, these other plant owners readily opened their hearts to me, and divulged the whole truth of how FSIS treated them. I ask all of them “Did FSIS show any interest in tracing your contaminated meat back to your source slaughter provider?” The vast majority of them stated “None whatsoever”. They all went on to explain that FSIS investigators asked them where they purchased their meat. Then, the investigators spent the remainder of their time perusing all records at the impacted plant, made numerous accusations against the impacted plant, and concocted a plethora of additional suggestions (aka “requirements”) which the victimized plants were forced to implement to ostensibly prevent future recurrences. Interestingly, all the plant owners also volunteered that if they did comply with 100% of the agency’s suggestions/requirements, that the victimized plant would have zero ability to prevent recurrences of this scenario. They all opined that they had no control over the wholesomeness of meat they purchase from their source slaughter providers, and stated that any suggestion on their part to their suppliers would be ignored. My point is that if you or someone else would likewise contact all non-slaughter plants which have experienced recalls this century, you would independently validate the accuracy of my statements. 

My plant experienced a recall of 270 pounds of ground beef potentially contaminated with E.coli 0157:H7 in January 2002. The FSIS Inspector (Dan Ellis) who collected the sample informed the agency that the meat he had tested which was deemed positive emanated solely from coarse ground beef which I had purchased from a source slaughter provider. I believe that based on this fact, the agency’s enforcement actions against me were “fair”, initially. At the time, agency policy mandated that subsequent to a recall, that inspectors collect an additional 15 samples on consecutive days. Believe me, both the inspector and I copiously documented all evidence during those 15 additional samples. During the collection of those 15 samples, we experienced three consecutive days of E.coli positives: February 19, 20 & 21. When we were notified of the 3 positives, we immediately reviewed our records and discovered that the source meat we used on all 3 of the days came from one supplier, from the same production date and the same grinding batch number. The local inspector (Ron Irvine) and his veterinarian supervisor (Dr. Daryl Burden) handwrote and signed a letter in which they identified Est. 969 as the origin of the meat which provided the 3 consecutive days of positives. The letter was faxed to the FSIS office in Minneapolis, which subsequently stated that their two field personnel were not authorized to make that statement. This was correct! These two daring men were not authorized to tell the whole truth, which is an important fact to remember as we discuss the agency’s unwillingness to perform tracebacks to the origin.

After the 3 consecutive days of positive samples, the agency then recommenced the 15 sample protocol, and I again fully documented every piece of evidence associated with every test. Once I accumulated all evidence, I gave the inspector a packet which included copies of all evidence in the event we experienced another positive. The inspectors’ reactions were revealing. One inspector gladly accepted the evidence, and kept it in his files. Other inspectors (we had several fill-in inspectors at the time) were visibly nervous, stating they didn’t know what to do with the evidence, and would have to call the Minneapolis office for instructions. Some were told to throw all evidence away, some were told to return all evidence to me, and another was instructed to turn it upside down on his desk, pending lab results. Amber, don’t you wonder why the agency avoids authorizing inspectors to aggressively document all evidence?

For your information: the agency has since discontinued the 15 sample protocol. The evidence was too damaging!

When an inspector collects a ground beef sample for E.coli testing at a USDA lab, the inspector fills out FSIS Form 10,210-3 and sends it with the sample to the USDA lab. Nowhere on the form is there room to document the slaughter house origin of the meat which was sampled. So, if the sample was collected at Paul’s Processing Plant (which does not slaughter), the inspector can only document that it came from Paul’s facility, while deftly avoiding documenting the slaughter plant origin of the meat being tested for the presence of enteric bacteria.
Believe it or not, FSIS prohibited me from grinding meat under inspection for four months after I experienced the 3 consecutive days of E.coli positives. During that time, Est. 969 (ConAgra) was not required to implement any corrective actions. At the end of those four months, Est. 969 announced a 19.1 million pound recall, after which FSIS abruptly changed course and altruistically gave me the right to grind under inspection again. Two weeks later, I went public to expose agency actions at my plant since my recall. NBC Nightly News quickly visited me, spent 2 days taping at my plant, and announced that our story would be aired on Tom Brokaw’s evening segment. What happened next was, well, interesting to say the least.

On July 26, 2002, Cheryl A. Hicks (Program Manager in FSIS’ Office of Field Operations) sent an email to all FSIS District Office Managers with instructions for inspectors who collect ground beef samples for microbial analysis. Two statements in her email included the following:

• “As discussed in our conference call on July 23, 2002, the following are the actions each District must take when an FSIS E.coli 0157:H7 monitoring sample is taken for ground beef”.
• “At the time the sample is taken, the IIC will obtain from the establishment, the name, point of contact, and phone number for the establishments supplying the source materials for the lot of ground beef being sampled”.

Amber, it is ironic that the agency quickly changed its sampling procedures, and just prior to the program aired on NBC Nightly News. It also shows that the agency can easily mandate that its inspectors use unrestricted evidence gathering protocol when collecting samples, which should be mandatory in any science-based inspection system. 

Two inspectors at my plant started collecting evidence on a form which they provided to me after they completed the form. When the Minneapolis office received copies of the completed form, an agency inquiry began to determine who had authored this “phantom form”, as FSIS called it. No one stepped forward, as no one wanted to incur the wrath from an agency which was determined to withhold pertinent evidence.

A month later, the inspection force was informed to no longer document all evidence. However, the inspectors were not informed what the newest procedure should be. So, at an October 5, 2002 joint industry/FSIS meeting in Great Falls, I asked the Minneapolis office manager (Dr. Nathaniel Clark) what the proper current procedure was. Dr. Clark responded, in a public meeting “For legal reasons (emphasis added), the agency has decided to wait until the sample has been determined to be Presumptive Positive before asking for such evidence”. End quote. 

Two years ago, the new (& energetic) manager of the Minneapolis FSIS District Office (Jim Grems) instructed his inspectors to commence documenting the slaughter plant origin of meat being sampled at the time of sample collection. When USDA officials in Washington DC became aware of this, the Minneapolis office discontinued the practice.

Amber, when agency officials initially described HACCP to the industry in the mid-90’s, the agency made the following enticing promises:

    “Under HACCP, the agency will implement a “Hands Off” role in meat inspection”.

    “Under HACCP, the agency will no longer police the industry, but the industry will police itself”.

    “Under HACCP, the agency will disband its previous command and control authority”.

• “Under HACCP, each plant will write its own HACCP Plan, and the agency cannot tell plants what must be in their HACCP Plans”.

Please remember these four promises, which FSIS made in numerous public settings.

FSIS justified HACCP on the premise that HACCP was “science based”, in contrast with the previous meat inspection system which was organoleptic in nature, meaning based on senses such as sight, smell, touch, etc. Newly-emergent invisible pathogens such as E.coli which caused the JITB outbreak could not be detected organoleptically. I personally attended official HACCP training sessions in Salt Lake City and Kansas City in early 1996. During both sessions, attendees pressed the FSIS presenter for a definition of what “science based” meant. The agency answer was 2-fold:

• Microbiological testing. It is true that in the 54 years my plant had run prior to implementing HACCP, neither the agency nor I had ever collected samples for microbiological analysis. Since HACCP’s advent, both the agency and I have collected multiple dozens of samples.
• HACCP Plans, SOP’s, SSOP’s, Prerequisite Plans, etc, all of which must be authored by meat plant operators or designees.

Amber, on 1-26-98, the biggest plants implemented HACCP. A mere six days later, FSIS released Directive 10,010.1 which exempted the big packers from agency-conducted microbial testing. Quick payback, wouldn’t you say?

Subsequent to ConAgra’s 19.1 million pound recall in June 2002, various news media, especially the Denver Post via Dave Migoya, printed numerous stories describing how ConAgra attempted to limit FSIS access to company-conducted microbial test results. The Greeley Tribune (where the ConAgra plant was located) reported that once the agency finally obtained access to ConAgra’s test results, the agency reviewed test results from the previous 100 days. Shockingly, the agency discovered that ConAgra had experienced E.coli positives on 34 of those 100 days. During those 100 days, FSIS did not require ConAgra to implement corrective actions, nor did the company do so of their own volition.

Amber, let’s return to the four agency promises used to entice the industry to voluntarily embrace the HACCP concept. The heart and soul of HACCP is deregulation, and food safety is an afterthought. I must admit that FSIS has fully complied with all four promises………….but only at the big packers. On the contrary, FSIS has performed the ultimate bait and switch at the small plants, where the agency is regularly noncompliant with all four promises……….at small plants.

Amber, FSIS ardently avoids any meaningful incidence of agency-conducted at big plants for several reasons:

1. FSIS knows that some big slaughter houses continue to ship E.coli-contaminated meat into commerce. If this was not the case, why are we experiencing the huge number of outbreaks, and recalls, which have become apparent in 2007 & 2008? Furthermore, FSIS allows slaughter facilities to ship intact cuts of meat into commerce which are surface-contaminated with E.coli 0157:H7. Reasoning: the agency claims that E.coli 0157:H7 is NOT an adulterant when found on surfaces of intact meat. Yeah, right, and I am Darth Vader’s fairy godmother too.
2. If FSIS implemented a large increase in agency-conducted microbial tests at the biggest slaughter facilities, the agency would quickly have evidence of the true origin and incidence of E.coli-contaminated meat. Such evidence would:
3. Reveal that the agency has been intentionally asleep at the wheel at the big plants, by its own design, and
4. Would reveal that some large slaughter plants have ongoing sanitation problems, in spite of their much-ballyhooed multiple hurdle pathogen interventions and HACCP Plans which constitute the cutting edge of scientific endeavors. 
5. When the agency is forced to accept the full truth of the existence of recurring sanitation problems at the large slaughter plants, what can FSIS do? Because of the four initial promises I stated above, the agency cannot police the big plants, cannot utilize command and control, must maintain a “Hands Off” non-involvement role, and cannot tell the slaughter facility what must be in its HACCP Plan. If the agency would attempt any of these steps, it would find itself a defendant in litigation.

Amber, HACCP has eviscerated FSIS of any meaningful authority…………….at the biggest slaughter facilities. And, the agency frolics in its HACCP-provided comfort of semi-retirement……….at the biggest slaughter facilities. No way will FSIS countenance a change in its new-found comfort zone. However, if the agency were confronted with a bevy of incontrovertible microbial statistics which provide evidence of ongoing sanitation problems at the big packers, well, FSIS would be forced to negate all four promises it gave to the industry in the 90’s, get off its duff, and implement enforcement actions at the big slaughter entities.

The best way to prevent this level of discomfort is to adroitly avoid any tracebacks to the true origin, and instead to place all liability against the hapless, victimized downstream destination facilities which unwittingly purchase previously-contaminated meat from their suppliers. 

FSIS initially described HACCP as “Farm to Fork”. History has shown that FSIS interprets that today to mean “Further Processor to Consumer”. 

I could say lots more, and provide more evidence, but I’ve already spent six pages. Suffice it to say, FSIS not only avoids tracebacks to the origin, but has implemented policies preventing tracebacks. Perhaps a fitting conclusion to this letter is a statement made by Bill Smith at a Senate Field Hearing held in Billings Montana on December 11, 2002 entitled “Food Safety Recall Procedures”. On page 38 of the transcript of the hearing, I stated “….it is my contention that both the inspector and the plant management should work together and fully document all that information so that, in the future, three days later, if it (the sample) is presumptive-positive, there can be no question”. Part of Bill Smith’s response, found on page 39 of the transcript, was “…..we could have inspectors doing more important things”. Amber, I hope you realize now that now only does the agency consider the true origin of contaminated meat unimportant, but FSIS also would find such evidence damaging to the public relations image of the agency, as well as exposing HACCP’s underlying deregulatory faults.

I feel it important that you, and all America, know “the other side of the story”. Until we come to grips with the dark side of this HACCP Hoax, consumers will continue to get sick (some will die), while FSIS sleeps at the wheel, by its own intentional design. 

John Munsell, Manager

Foundation for Accountability in Regulatory Enforcement (FARE)

Miles City, Montana

April 4, 2009

Daily Kos actually published some of the letter plus other info. I also know ‘ScaredHuman’ and corresponded with her during the ‘Farm Wars’. She ‘disappeared’ after reporting people creeping around her home..

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2009/4/12/719195/-