To the Editor:

Re "Open the Slaughterhouses" (Op-Ed, April 9):

Advocates for the meat industry are fundamentally incorrect in their assertion that ag-gag bills offer protection to whistle-blowers. To suggest that 48-hour grace periods for bringing video evidence of animal abuse to the authorities without threat of prosecution benefits whistle-blowers is misleading.

Mandatory reporting is intended to thwart long-form investigations by limiting the amount of evidence needed for successful prosecution. These clauses prematurely surface truth-tellers and allow management to retaliate against conscientious employees, framing the incident as isolated rather than systemic wrongdoing.

Moreover, with such a short turnaround period, potential witnesses indisputably lack adequate time to learn rights, seek support channels or obtain legal counsel.

AMANDA HITT
Director of Food Integrity Campaign
Government Accountability Project
Washington, April 9, 2013

by Alastair Bland

For years, undercover videos documenting animal cruelty at farms and slaughterhouses have cast the nation's meat and dairy farmers in a grim light.

In response, the livestock industry supported legislative efforts in multiple states designed to keep cameras from recording without permission in livestock plants. The Salt reported on these efforts, which activists call "ag gag" bills, last year.

But recently, the livestock industry seems to have taken a sharp turn in its legislative tactics.

Consider Assembly Bill 343 in California. Introduced in February, this bill would not prohibit a person from seeking employment at a slaughterhouse under false pretenses, which Iowa and several other states have outlawed. Nor would it forbid anyone from using a hidden camera while on the job, which Utah recently made illegal. All that AB 343 would do, in fact, is require that anyone who videotapes or records animal abuse turn over a copy of the evidence to police within 48 hours.

by Aviva Shen

A new food inspection rule proposed by the US Department of Agriculture would let poultry plants conduct their own inspections, removing federal food inspectors from the assembly line. At a House appropriations oversight hearing on Wednesday, Food Safety and Inspection Service administrators argued the move would save taxpayers money and allow the department to focus on testing for pathogens like e. coli and salmonella.

But other FSIS inspectors working in poultry plants piloting the new rule protest that public health is sacrificed by outsourcing inspections.

by Dan Noyes

The ABC7 I-Team took an inside look at a common meat industry practice that has activists and the meat industry squaring off. It's a battle that is bringing up new questions about how much you get to know about the meat you eat.

First we told you about meat glue, now, we're back with another common practice inside the beef industry that's not very well known -- tenderizing meat by machine, using needles or blades. The safety of the practice is being debated right now, after one of the biggest beef recalls in Canada's history.

Industrial videos posted to YouTube show how mechanically tenderized meat is made. Large, tough pieces of meat are punctured with needles or blades, breaking down the fibers into more desirable, tender beef. Sometimes water or marinade is injected at the same time.

"It's another way for industry to get as much profit as they can out of meat that otherwise consumers may not have been interested in," activist and Food Integrity Campaign spokesperson Amanda Hitt said.

by Audrey Haynes

Last month President Obama signed the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act into law. The law revamps protections for federal employees who come forward and report misconduct, abuse of authority, or violation of law in their workplaces. These enhancements could be crucial in advancing environmental issues, but only if implemented properly.

"Protecting federal employees with the courage to come forward — at the risk of their own careers — to report waste, fraud, and abuse that they have witnessed is an important cornerstone of good and effective government," said Congressman Todd Platts (R-Pennsylvania) in a statement. Platts, along with Representatives Darrell Issa (R-California), Elijah Cummings (D-Maryland), and Chris Van Hollen (D-Maryland) introduced this version of the legislation into the House earlier in 2012, where it passed unanimously, representing a remarkable and rare bipartisan effort.

by Mike McGraw

Two kids seriously injured in the Joplin tornado in May 2011 showed up at Children's Mercy Hospital in Kansas City suffering from antibiotic-resistant infections from dirt and debris blown into their wounds.

Physicians tried different drugs, but at first nothing seemed to work.

Blame the overuse of antibiotics in livestock, according to the doctors familiar with their cases.

"These kids had some really highly resistant bacteria that they clearly had not picked up in a hospital," said Jason Newland, director of the Children Mercy's antibiotic stewardship program.

Newland and other doctors believe those infections may be part of the price we are paying for a half century of overusing antibiotics in cattle and other meat animals in the United States.

by Matthew Hay Brown

Federal workers' unions and food safety groups have joined to oppose new rules proposed by the Department of Agriculture to streamline federal poultry inspections.

The USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service says the rules would "modernize" inspections of young chickens and turkeys, saving money for businesses and taxpayers while allowing inspectors to focus on the areas of poultry production that pose the greatest risk to food safety.

The new inspection system grew out of a pilot program that began in the 1990s under President Bill Clinton. It was subjected to public comment this year and may now be implemented at any time.

by Jon K. Brent

Washington, D.C. – A food watchdog group is claiming that the Food and Drug Administration's decision to withhold agency data regarding the sale of antibiotics for use in food animals is unlawful. The group knows as the Government Accountability Project or GAP filed a lawsuit Wednesday in Federal Court.

GAP notes that drug companies are required to report basic information about antibiotic sales to the FDA under the Animal Drug User Fee Act or ADUFA. The information includes how much of each drug is sold; whether the drugs are formulated for use in feed, water, or by injection; and the animals for which each drug is approved. The FDA publicly releases some of ADUFA data each year, but GAP claims they withhold almost all of what companies report.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) decision to "withhold agency data regarding the sale of antibiotics for use in food animals" is unlawful, according to a lawsuit filed by the Government Accountability Project (GAP) Wednesday.

Drug companies are required to report basic information about antibiotic sales to the FDA under the Animal Drug User Fee Act (ADUFA). The information reported includes how much of each drug is sold, whether the drugs are formulated for use in feed, water, or by injection, and the animals for which each drug is approved, but not how much of each drug is given to each class of animals.

by Tyler Smith

If you do not sue the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), it will not do its job. At least when it comes to animal drugs, this has been the lesson of the past year.

Until this spring, FDA had done almost nothing to stop antibiotic misuse in food animal production. Then, in April, a judge ordered the agency to take action to prevent the food animal industry from feeding penicillins and tetracyclines to livestock and poultry to make them grow faster. In June, the same judge told FDA to reconsider its denial of two citizen petitions that asked the agency to go even further. The agency has appealed both decisions, with a decision expected early next year.