The Vermont Attorney General announced today that arrest warrants have been issued for former Bushway Packing, Inc. owner Frank Peretta and former Bushway worker Christopher Gaudette on charges of animal cruelty in the Bushway case. The case attracted national attention last fall, when the Humane Society of the United States released shocking video footage of operations at Bushway showing animals being repeatedly stunned with electrical prods, too weak to stand on their own, and stabbed for bloodletting while still conscious.

However, while the Humane Society footage spurred action, GAP client and USDA Public Health Veterinarian Dr. Dean Wyatt had been warning of problems at Bushway for months before. As detailed in Dr. Wyatt’s testimony earlier this year in front of the Domestic Policy Subcommittee of the House Committee on Government Oversight and Reform, Dr. Wyatt had attempted to stop inhumane handling practices not only at Bushway, but also at his previous assignment at the Seaboard pork plant in Guymon, Oklahoma. How did Dr. Wyatt’s supervisors at the USDA Food Safety Inspection Service react? They overturned his reports of animal cruelty based solely on the word of plant ownership, they forced him out of his job in Oklahoma, and the Director of the Office of Field Operations for FSIS even wrote a letter to Congress calling Dr. Wyatt “incompetent” for his charges of animal cruelty.

Fortunately for Dr. Wyatt, the Humane Society video tape vindicated his charge that there was something very wrong in the way Bushway was treating its animals. To the credit of USDA leadership, once the video evidence became clear, the agency was very aggressive in taking action on Bushway in conjunction with state and federal law enforcement.

GAP is happy to see real consequences for the people who engaged in animal abuse at Bushway. However, not every whistleblower is lucky enough to have an independent secret videotape investigation to surface and support his or her claims. How many others like Dean Wyatt are out there, being ignored and marginalized for speaking out against industry interests?

-------------------

Jonathan Cantú is Food and Public Health Counsel at the Government Accountability Project, the nation's leading whistleblower advocacy organization.

After July 1, all ground beef purchased by the National School Lunch Program will be required to be as safe as ground beef used by fast food chains, according to new standards announced by the USDA.

The stricter standards follow a 2009 investigation by USA Today that found safety standards set by the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), a part of the USDA that buys meat for school lunches, were lower than those set by many fast food restaurants. The investigation found cases in which the AMS bought ground beef that retailers and fast-food chains would have rejected because of high amounts of so-called indicator bacteria – which can indicate an increased probability that the product contains dangerous pathogens.

In addition, the investigation found that the AMS testing procedures for ground beef are sorely deficient. Regardless of how long the production day runs, AMS combines eight samples of school-bound ground beef for a single combined pathogen test. That means 100,000 pounds of ground beef could be tested only once for pathogens. In comparison, many fast food chains take samples of their ground beef every 15 minutes and test the combined sample every one or two hours. So, basically, a fast food restaurant tests their ground beef five to 10 times more often than the USDA tests school lunch beef. Thankfully, the new school lunch standards will require that AMS test their ground beef at the same rate as fast food restaurants.

The investigation also found that the school lunch program purchases tons of chicken for schools that KFC or the Campbell Soup Company wouldn't use. The chicken bought by the USDA might otherwise go to compost or pet food if it weren't being eaten by schoolchildren.

Children are uniquely vulnerable to foodborne illness because of their still developing immune systems, and many strains that would be a nuisance for adults can prove life-threatening for them. According to the CDC, at least 23,000 children were sickened from eating school lunch food from 1988 through 2007. However, the CDC believes that many more cases go unreported.

As Senator Kristen Gillibrand (D-NY), an advocate of school lunch reform put it:

"Our schools and parents have a right to know where food is coming from and whether it's high-quality. I don't know why we're not putting better protections in place for our most vulnerable population. We have to reform how we feed our children in schools."

USA Today, which should be commended for its work, also found many other problems with school lunch safety during its examination of the program last year.

An interesting article in the New York Times today discusses the rise of the phrase "If You See Something, Say Something," which is prominently seen throughout the New York City subway system, and has spread to other public transportation systems around the world. The slogan also includes the phone number for a counter-terrorism unit.

According to the article, a New York advertising executive wrote the slogan on September 12, 2001, before the Metro Transit Authority, a former client, even asked for a new phrase to respond to the to the World Trade Center attacks. The executive says of the slogan:

“I’m proud of what it’s done and the potential it has to do more. Some things you just can’t stop. But if it is stoppable, and that thought makes someone think twice and say something that stops something, that’s its reason for being.”

Which got us here at GAP thinking, what if this slogan was posted on the wall in workplaces around the world, instead of just in transportation systems?

What if society encouraged workers to blow the whistle on fraud, waste, and bureaucratic carelessness, as enthusiastically as it encouraged people to report a suspicious package?

According to the CDC, an estimated 76 million Americans endure foodborne illness every year. Of those 76 million people, up to 9,000 die. Simply for comparison’s sake, 2,669 Americans perished in the horrific September 11 attacks.

However, when GAP clients have seen wrongdoing and said something about dangerous handling of food product, they have faced retaliation and backlash, and even public disdain.

On March 25, 2010, Senator Jon Tester introduced the Meat Safety and Accountability Act or Traceback Act. The bill can largely be attributed to years of advocacy by former GAP client and whistleblower, John Munsell, who has steadfastly demanded that mega-slaughterhouses be held accountable for distributing tainted products to downstream grinders, retailers, and processors.

The Traceback Act requires the USDA to “trace back” harmful foodborne pathogens, namely E.coli and Salmonella, to the slaughterhouse of origin. Current USDA testing detects most of the positives at destination facilities (retail stores, restaurants, cafeterias, etc.); however, the vast majority of the contamination actually occurs upstream at the slaughterhouses as a result of fecal contamination associated with the slaughter process.

Munsell, a small grinder and owner of the family business Montana Quality Foods, Inc., sought GAP’s assistance in 2002 when the USDA failed to act on evidence that ConAgra foods was shipping beef to his facility that was contaminated with E. coli. Regrettably, not only did the USDA fail to regulate ConAgra, the Agency actually blamed Munsell for accepting the beef, had him re-write his HACCP plan 14 times, and suspended his meat grinding privileges. Instead of following up on Munsell’s evidence of wrong-doing by an industry giant, the USDA responded by harassing Munsell’s small meat packing company out of business.

GAP authored a report in 2002 based on Munsell’s experiences.

Munsell is one step closer to protecting both the public’s health and small business from the grips of industry giants. With any luck, Tester’s bill will take on the mega-slaughter plants that have had a stranglehold on the industry. The Meat Safety and Accountability Act is proof that the tenacity of one whistleblower can upset the balance of power between small business and the powerful meat lobby. GAP continues its support of Munsell and looks forward to the passage of the Traceback Act.

USDA whistleblower and GAP client Dean Wyatt testified yesterday before the House Subcommittee on Domestic Policy (under Oversight and Government Reform). Wyatt, a supervisory veterinarian at the USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) reported shocking mistreatment and unsafe butchering of animals at two slaughterhouses. His disclosures raise serious concerns about the state of American food integrity.

For more info on the case and allegations, check out GAP’s press release here, or the USA Today story or Washington Post piece.

Wyatt’s testimony paints a terrible picture of FSIS as being, in many cases, more interested in keeping corporations happy than protecting public safety.

But Wyatt’s isn’t the only major food safety story to appear over the last couple of days (shocking, I know).

Slaughterhouse Whistleblower Reveals Inhumane Animal Treatment, Food Integrity Violations

FSIS Ignores Serious Problems and Retaliates Against Whistleblower;
GAP Client Dean Wyatt to Testify Today Before House Committee

(Washington, D.C.) – At 3 p.m. EST this afternoon, Government Accountability Project (GAP) client and federal food safety inspector Dean Wyatt will testify before a House of Representatives Subcommittee, and blow the whistle on a laundry list of problems he witnessed at two major meat-packing plants. The egregious nature of the violations and the subsequent reaction by the USDA’s Food Safety & Inspection Service (FSIS) regional offices raise serious questions about the current state of national food integrity oversight, the FSIS attitude toward and treatment of whistleblowers, and the overall state of food safety in America.

The hearing will be held by the House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Subcommittee on Domestic Policy, at 2154 Rayburn House Office Building.

This serious problem of ammonia-infused beef (which is not required to be labeled as such), was discussed over a year ago in an op-ed by GAP Public Health Associate Amanda Hitt. GAP worked with the reporter on this story.

By Michael Moss

Eight years ago, federal officials were struggling to remove potentially deadly E. coli from hamburgers when an entrepreneurial company from South Dakota came up with a novel idea: injecting beef with ammonia.

By Helena Bottemiller

The Government Accountability Project (GAP) held a conference yesterday focused on the important role whistleblowers play in protecting the food supply, exploring ways to empower more food workers to speak out against inhumane and unsafe practices in the food system.

This op-ed was written by GAP Food & Drug Safety Associate Jonathan Cantu, and appeared in several outlets across the country including: the Kennebec Journal (Me), Central Maine Morning Sentinel (Me), Newtown Bee (Cn), Valley-City Times Record (ND) and LaGrange Daily New (Georgia).

Spinach. Lettuce. Jalapeno and Serrano Peppers. Common agricultural products have been severely tainted in recent years amidst food-borne illness concerns. And rightfully so. These outbreaks caused multiple deaths and more than a thousand illnesses nationwide. The Center for Disease Control now estimates 76 million cases annual cases of food-borne illness, resulting in over 350,000 hospitalizations and 5000 deaths.

With massive product recalls seemingly constant, one would think that the federal government would have prioritized fixing its food system. Now, however, comes the peanut butter scare. In one of the largest food product recalls ever, peanut-laced items have been snatched from the shelves due to salmonella contamination that has killed at least eight Americans. Recent reports show that the culpable company, Peanut Corporation of America (PCA), knowingly sent out salmonella-tainted product to other food processors at least 12 times since 2007. Even worse is that the FDA, according to current rules, had to gain permission from PCA to initiate the recall.

by GAP Public Health and Safety Associate Amanda Hitt

Recent food scares are prompting American consumers to double-check food product labels — not just where items are coming from, but the precise ingredients and chemicals being ingested. But what if the labels are themselves misleading? You would hope this would be illegal, but Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidelines allow for this every day.

Consumers should be able to rely on the reassuring “100 percent Beef” label on the package when making a purchase. But from the label, you would never know that much of the commercial beef on the market actually contains a chemical commonly found in floor cleaners! Anhydrous ammonia, which appears nowhere on the label, is now being intentionally added to meat by one of the nation’s largest beef distributors.

Beef Product Inc. (BPI) sells its ammoniated product (used in frozen hamburger patties, taco meats, low-fat hot dogs, beef-stick snacks) to major fast-food chains and food distributors as well as the federal Child Nutrition Program.

It’s likely you or a family member has eaten ammoniated beef products already and didn’t know it. BPI uses low-grade beef trimmings (notoriously high in microbial pathogens like E. coli, salmonella, lysteria and staph) and then whirls them in a giant centrifuge until the fat spins off. It then pumps the treated beef full of ammonia to kill the pathogens that flourished during the fat removal process. But not all of the pathogens are reduced and some might even be increased.

Whether or not the ammonia levels threaten human health is arguable. But don’t consumers have the right to know that this treatment adds ammonia to their food?

No, according to the powers that be. In 1973, the Food and Drug Administration, which shares labeling responsibility with the U.S. Department of Agriculture declared ammonia a Generally Recognized as Safe substance (GRAS) on the basis that it is a metabolite found in foods and is safe at naturally occurring concentrations.

It’s one thing to find low levels of ammonia in beef because of natural metabolic processes in cows; it is a different beast altogether when ammonia levels are so artificially elevated that the odor alarms food inspectors. This happened when a Georgia Department of Agriculture meat inspector came across a BPI product, which he reported to the Food Safety Inspection Service as an “adulterated.”

After testing, it was determined that the residual ammonia levels were an “acceptable” 800 parts per million. Given that the USDA has considered products with residual ammonia levels as low as 500 parts per million “contaminated” in the past, it’s unclear what level is now deemed unsafe. BPI’s own Web site acknowledges that “the amount of excess ammonia (i.e., over and above the amount normally produced in the body) that can be safely ingested and assimilated is difficult to define.”

Of course if carbon monoxide — the infamous silent killer — meets the FDA/USDA GRAS standards, it’s little surprise that ammonia would too. Indeed, it’s common industry practice to infuse ground beef with carbon-monoxide gas, which keeps beef red for weeks after it actually spoils, tricking consumers into buying bad meat. And just as with the ammonia-treated product, the label on the package makes no mention that the meat was gassed with carbon monoxide.

Not surprisingly, the food industry lobbies hard to keep it this way. What is surprising is that our government watchdogs aren’t barking. It is the government’s job to inform society of health risks and safeguard against them, not to protect food companies’ marketing secrets.