Think the USDA is Protecting Our Health? Think Again!
I just read an excellent and very disturbing article from the New York Times about the failures of the USDA to assure the safety of ground beef. The article is required reading for anyone with an interest in the safety of our food supply, which is to say anyone who eats food that they don't personally grow and harvest.
We all know that meat needs to be handled in certain ways after we buy it at the store:
- It must be kept refrigerated or frozen.
- Meat should be used or frozen by the use-by date on the package.
- Meat must be cooked to a certain temperature, which varies depending on the type of meat. (And yes, I'm aware of the irony that the safe-cooking data in the linked article comes from the USDA, given that I'm about to criticize them.)
- Hands, utensils, and surfaces that have come in contact with raw meat must be thoroughly washed afterward.
These aspects of food safety are under our control, but it is important to remember that no amount of good hygiene in the kitchen will guarantee that your family is safe if the meat that you buy was contaminated at its source. With some highly virulent strains of bacteria, a very small number of residual bacteria can cause serious illness.
I'm very much in favor of personal responsibility, but we have become so far removed from the sources of our food that we rely on the integrity of the food producers and the government agencies that regulate them. We have to trust that the USDA has our public health interest in mind.
The NYT article describes failures at several points in the meat-safety chain. Slaughterhouses, meat packers, and stores may all share some of the blame, but ultimately the USDA is the agency whose inspections and policies can keep contaminated meat out of our food supply.
The USDA has been criticized for not having enough inspectors and resources to inspect with the frequency and level of detail that would identify hazards before they get into the food supply. While that may well be true, consumers need to be aware that guaranteeing public health is not what the USDA sees as its primary mission.
Here's the quote from the NYT article that really got me riled up:
Dr. Kenneth Petersen, an assistant administrator with the [USDA's] Food Safety and Inspection Service, said that the department could mandate testing, but that it needed to consider the impact on companies as well as consumers. “I have to look at the entire industry, not just what is best for public health,” Dr. Petersen said.
Really? A meat packer's profit margin can trump public health? Is that what the USDA is for?
The USDA's mission statement doesn't specifically mention public health. In its Strategic Plan Framework, found at the same link, the activities at the top of the list are about "expanding markets for agricultural products." Food safety and health are mentioned, but much farther down the list. If the order of the items on that list reflects the priority they are given, then the USDA is more interested in helping the agricultural industry sell more stuff than it is in making sure their stuff is safe for people to eat.
Caveat emptor.
So how can we protect ourselves and our families?
- First, always follow the rules for safe meat handling and preparation. Don't cut corners.
- Eat less meat, especially ground meat. Ground meat is much more susceptible to contamination as any one batch contains meat from many sources, so it can spread rapidly.
- The safest way to get ground meat is probably to buy a cut of whole meat and either grind it yourself, or have it ground for you at the store. Many supermarkets can do this for you, and any butcher shop can.
- If you buy meat that was raised and produced locally, you may be able to ask questions about how it was processed and what testing was done for contamination. Small farmers tend to be more open with this information than large corporations.
- And, unfortunately, you need to remember that food safety concerns aren't just relevant to meat. Going vegetarian will protect you from unsafe ground beef, but similar issues are found in many other areas of the food supply.
If you've found this post thought-provoking, please share your comments, or forward to a friend.
Melissa H. Kennedy
Reader Comments (2)
I think you've hit on a very important point here. Government regulations and government agencies give people this false sense of security. Somehow we think that passing laws and hiring bureaucrats makes things safer and fixes every problem.
But as you point out, Melissa, this approach isn't working for the food industry, and it clearly didn't work very well for the financial industry.
And what's worse, the very agencies that are supposedly protecting consumers can actually shield companies from responsibility for their mistakes. Under a legal doctrine called "pre-emption," the makers of medical devices may be protected from legal liability for defective products simply because the FDA gave those products a stamp of approval. Now, I'm a big proponent of business - yes, even big business - but this just seems wrong to me.
@Jeffrey, I agree that there are pitfalls with either too much regulation or too little. Whatever level of regulation we decide is "enough," it should be relevant to consumer safety and it needs to be enforced fairly and reliably. Also, I take issue with the lack of transparency in the supply chain in the food production industry. I'd love to boycott the company that was responsible for the E. coli outbreak described in the NVT article ... but, short of boycotting all ground beef, it's nearly impossible to figure out how to do that.