Search results: USDA meat

The recall of 143 million pounds of hamburger is a big blow to the image of the meat industry, and its lobbying groups are hard at work. Calling calls for more regulation “simply outrageous,” the Institute argues that what was caught on the Human Society’s notorious videotape is not typical: We will not let a video from what appears to have been a tragic anomaly stand as the poster child for our industry.

And if you were wondering what happened to the recalled meat, the USDA gives an accounting: 50.3 million lbs were distributed as part of the national school lunch program; of that, 19.6 million were consumed; 15.2 million are identified and on hold; and 15.5
million still being traced.   But what about the remaining 93 million?  All eaten?

As predicted, the FDA says cloned animals are just fine to eat and, therefore, do not need to be labeled in any special way. According to Food Chemical News, the FDA acknowledges that people have raised “moral, religious and ethical concerns,” but emphasizes that it performed “strictly a science-based evaluation” as it is required by law to do. Yes indeed. Whenever I hear “science-based,” I know that something political is going on, in this case avoidance of those pesky “moral, religious, and ethical concerns.” Maybe that’s why the USDA says slow down. Also according to Food Chemical News, USDA “has asked cloning firms to extend their voluntary moratorium on introducing meat and milk from clones into the marketplace to enable a smooth transition for such products.”. I can’t wait to see what happens next. Even if cloned animals are safe, they are not necessarily acceptable–and the USDA seems to understand this.

And just for fun, take a look at some of the comments on this decision.

At the moment, these agencies do not have the authority to order companies making contaminated foods to recall the unsafe products. They have to ask for voluntary recalls. Why? Because meat companies much prefer recalls to be voluntary. Now, the Food Marketing Institute, which represents and lobbies for food companies of all kinds, has broken with meat trade associations on this issue. Recall authority, it says, might help restore flagging consumer trust in the food supply. I’m glad they finally figured that one out.

The Department of Agriculture, apparently concerned about consumer confusion over what “natural” meat might be, is proposing to define the term. Right now, “natural” means minimally processed plus whatever the marketer says it means, and nobody is checking (I devote a chapter of What to Eat to explaining all this). This proposal, as the USDA explains, would be a voluntary marketing claim (“no antibiotics, no hormones”). The proposal is open for comment until January 28. Want to comment? Do that at this site.

According to news reports, the USDA has just announced that it plans to hold companies accountable for producing safe beef. USDA safety officials say they are taking aggressive steps (see list) to reduce outbreaks from E. coli and other pathogens. As I keep saying, companies know how to produce safe meat, but need some encouragement (translation: enforcement) to do so. The USDA absolutely has the mandate to enforce food safety regulations and let’s hope it really does.

So now we know (courtesy of the New York Times) why E. coli O157:H7 recalls are becoming more frequent: the meat industry isn’t following food safety rules. These rules were require meat and poultry producers to develop and monitor plans for producing safe food, and to test to make sure the plans are working. Two problems here: the companies aren’t bothering to follow the rules, and the onsite USDA inspectors aren’t bothering to enforce them. Standard food safety rules–HACCP and pathogen reduction–work really well, but only if designed, followed, and enforced to the letter and spirit. I keep asking: what will it take to get Congress to act on the food safety issue?

CivilEats’ Lisa Held writes: The Industry Ties Within Trump’s Food and Ag Leadership: Many of the president’s top officials at the USDA, EPA, HHS, and FDA have connections to chemical, agribusiness, or fossil fuel interests.

Really?  Yes.  And the list is long.

As Lisa describes the situation,

The picture of influence is all the more noteworthy because no president has been louder about “draining the swamp” of corporate influence in D.C. Those calls have gotten even more strident around food issues as a result of Trump’s alignment with Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who is a frequent critic of corporate influence on government policies…To begin to track the influence that industry may exert on the food system over the next four years, Civil Eats dug into the backgrounds of the most prominent individuals currently working on food and agriculture within federal agencies.

She then goes through the list, agency by agency.  Two examples :

I.  Mindy Brashears, USDA Undersecretary for Food Safety (nominated, not yet confirmed)

Brashears has consulted for Cargill, Perdue, and other meat industry giants. She held the same role during Trump’s first term, during which she played an essential role in keeping meatpacking plants running at the height of the pandemic. Congress later called her the “meat industry’s go-to fixer.” In her most recent ethics disclosure forms, she says she’ll resign from positions with Boar’s Head and the Meat Institute, the trade and lobby organization that represents the country’s biggest meatpackers, upon confirmation.

II. Calley Means, Special Advisor (to HHS Secretary RFK Jr)

Means often acts as Kennedy’s mouthpiece on MAHA priorities related to food and health. He is an outspoken member of the team, often accusing government employees of being beholden to industry. Because he’s a special government employee, Means does not have to fill out financial disclosure forms.

Means co-founded Truemed, a company that directs health savings account dollars toward wellness products and memberships that reportedly raised more than $32 million in venture capital earlier this year. Truemed has extensive partnerships with makers of supplements (an industry that wants HHS to loosen regulations), health technology, and other wellness products.

Comment

The list of food (and drug) officials with financial conflicts of interest is long and extensive.  This situation explains the non-regulatory approaches to food issues, and leaving such approaches to states.  If you are hoping that this administration will do anything to refocus production agriculture on food for people (rather than feed for animals and fuel for cars or planes), stop junk food marketing to children, improve school food, reduce ultra-processed food consumption, regulate the content and labeling of supplements, or anything else that might reduce food industry profits, it’s best to keep expectations low.

The EAT-Lancet Commission has released its updated report on “healthy, sustainable, and just food systems.”

Let me point out immediately that the report was written by a great many authors (I could not easily count them), is 76 pages long, and is pretty much impenetrable without a lot of hard work.

As it did in its first report in 2019, the Commission’s report defines a Planetary Health Diet (PHD), which

represents a dietary pattern that supports optimal health outcomes and can be applied globally for different populations and different contexts, while also supporting cultural and regional variation…The PHD is based entirely on the direct effects of different diets on human health, not on environmental criteria….[It] emphasises a balanced dietary pattern that is predominantly plant-based, with moderate inclusion of animal-sourced foods and minimal consumption of added sugars, saturated fats, and salt.

The report offers “eight solutions and 23 actions to enable food systems transformation, which can be organised into coherent bundles of interventions that simultaneously advance health, environmental, and justice goals.”

the exercise of corporate power in ways that undermine public interests. The high degree of corporate concentration across food systems remains an intractable governance issue, which is partly due to the vast influence of large transnational food and beverage companies with considerable power.

Vox was kind enough to produce this explanatory chart.CNN quotes author Walter Willett:

“A diet good for both people and the planet focuses on fruits, vegetables, nuts, legumes and whole grains — a moderate amount of meat and dairy — and very little added sugar, saturated fat and salt…When it comes to meat and dairy, think one plus one, Willett said — one daily serving of dairy, such as milk or yogurt, along with one daily serving of an animal protein such as fish, poultry, eggs or meat. Red meat (beef, lamb and pork) should be limited to a 4-ounce serving only once a week, however, due to its impact on overall health.

The Guardian: ‘Planetary health diet’ could save 40,000 deaths a day, landmark report finds

The diet – which allows moderate meat consumption – and related measures would also slash the food-related emissions driving global heating by half by 2050. Today, a third of greenhouse gas emissions come from the global food system and taming the climate crisis is impossible without changing how the world eats, the researchers said. Food production is also the biggest cause of the destruction of wildlife and forests and the pollution of water.

AP News:

About 15 million deaths could be avoided each year and agricultural emissions could drop by 15% if people worldwide shift to healthier, predominantly plant-based diets, according to the EAT-Lancet Commission, which brought together scientists worldwide to review the latest data on food’s role in human health, climate change, biodiversity and people’s working and living conditions.

Comment: The recommended diet for health—and also the planet and food justice—is extremely low in meat by U.S. standards.  It also directly opposes the MAHA movement’s emphasis on meat, beef tallow, and full-fat dairy, and its disapproval of seed oils and plant-based diets (these, according to the Secretaries of USDA and HHS, reflect “left-wing ideology”).