USDA Forces Meat Industry to Clean up Its Act
By Michele Simon
After years of debating, petitioning, rulemaking and outright stalling, this week the federal government is finally implementing new requirements for testing E. coli in ground beef.
Why is this cause for celebration?
Because while the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Food Safety and Inspection Service has for years required testing of the deadly 0157:H7 strain of E. coli, numerous other strains have also become a significant safety threat.
So now, any ground beef that tests positive for six additional strains will be considered adulterated under the law, which means the product cannot be placed into commerce. That’s what makes this such a big deal.
It also explains why the meat industry fought the policy for so long. As I detailed last year in an article for Food Safety News, this issue has been a decade-long battle, during which numerous outbreaks might have been prevented.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention approximately 160,000 people in the U.S. are sickened each year by non-O157 E. coli. “These strains of E. coli are an emerging threat to human health and the steps we are taking today are entirely focused on preventing Americans from suffering foodborne illnesses,” said Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack in a press release. “We cannot ignore the evidence that these pathogens are a threat in our nation’s food supply.”
But we did ignore the evidence for far too long. While the first non-0157 E. coli outbreaks occurred in the 1990s, USDA didn’t seriously consider the matter until 2008. The following year, the food safety law firm Marler Clark filed a 470-page petition demanding expanded testing, and along with other groups, kept the pressure on USDA ever since.
Unsurprisingly, the meat lobby put up roadblocks at every turn. In 2010, the American Meat Institute opined: “We do not believe declaring non-O157 [strains] to be adulterants will enhance the food safety system.”
But, in fact, declaring the O157 stain an adulterant back in 1994—in the wake of the deadly Jack in the Box E. coli outbreak—did just that, as evidenced by declining 0157 infections, while non-0157 cases have increased. When USDA requires testing, the meat industry takes extra steps to avoid having its products declared unfit for consumption—the policy incentivizes better practices.
USDA’s testing requirements also work because by removing contaminated product from the stream of commerce, we prevent (or minimize) outbreaks. Indeed, defining bacteria such as E. coli as legal adulterants is one of the best examples of how government regulation enhances public safety.
Too often we take government interventions for granted because we can’t always see when policy works to reduce or minimize problems.
However, testing is not true prevention, and we still have a long way to go toward cleaning up the industrialized meat system. It also doesn’t make ground beef completely safe or, for that matter, healthy. But it’s a start. This time, in an atmosphere of government deregulation, the Obama administration stood up to the meat industry and did the right thing.
By Robin Scher
Beyond the questions surrounding the availability, effectiveness and safety of a vaccine, the COVID-19 pandemic has led us to question where our food is coming from and whether we will have enough.
- Can Urban Farms Prevent Hunger in 54 Million People in the U.S. ... ›
- New Report Finds Malnutrition World's Top Killer Amid Pandemic ... ›
- Oxfam Warns 12,000 Could Die Per Day From Hunger Due to ... ›
- Three Ways to Support a Healthy Food System During the COVID ... ›
- Trump USDA Resumes Effort to Cut Food Stamp Benefits - EcoWatch ›
- Pandemic Threatens Food Security for Many College Students ... ›
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
Tearing through the crowded streets of Philadelphia, an electric car and a gas-powered car sought to win a heated race. One that mimicked how cars are actually used. The cars had to stop at stoplights, wait for pedestrians to cross the street, and swerve in and out of the hundreds of horse-drawn buggies. That's right, horse-drawn buggies. Because this race took place in 1908. It wanted to settle once and for all which car was the superior urban vehicle. Although the gas-powered car was more powerful, the electric car was more versatile. As the cars passed over the finish line, the defeat was stunning. The 1908 Studebaker electric car won by 10 minutes. If in 1908, the electric car was clearly the better form of transportation, why don't we drive them now? Today, I'm going to answer that question by diving into the history of electric cars and what I discovered may surprise you.
As bitcoin's fortunes and prominence rise, so do concerns about its environmental impact.
- 15 Top Conservation Issues of 2021 Include Big Threats, Potential ... ›
- How Blockchain Could Boost Clean Energy - EcoWatch ›
By David Drake and Jeffrey York
The Research Brief is a short take about interesting academic work.
The Big Idea
People often point to plunging natural gas prices as the reason U.S. coal-fired power plants have been shutting down at a faster pace in recent years. However, new research shows two other forces had a much larger effect: federal regulation and a well-funded activist campaign that launched in 2011 with the goal of ending coal power.
- Major Milestone: More than 100,000 MW Worth of Coal-Fired Power ... ›
- Coal Will Not Bring Appalachia Back to Life, But Tech and ... ›
- Renewables Beat Coal in the U.S. for the First Time This April ... ›