The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) has announced that, as of February 8, 2013, it will require producers of non-intact raw beef and all ready-to-eat products containing meat and poultry to hold shipments until they pass agency testing for foodborne pathogens. FSIS announced its plan to implement this policy in April 2011. In the past, FSIS’s practice has apparently been “to allow products tested for adulterants to bear the mark of inspection, and to enter commerce, even when test results have not been received.” FSIS had asked, but not required, official establishments to maintain control of products tested for adulterants pending test results. According to FSIS, “because establishments, including official import inspection establishments, were not consistently maintaining control of product, despite FSIS’s request that they do so, adulterated product was entering commerce.” FSIS has reportedly stated that if the new requirement had been in place…
Tag Archives beef
The owners of the California-based Hallmark Meat Packing Co. have reportedly settled claims that they committed fraud under the False Claims Act (FCA) by supplying ground beef to school lunch programs without meeting contractual commitments to treat their animals humanely. The Humane Soc’y of the U.S. v. Hallmark Meat Packing Co., No. 08-00221 (C.D. Cal., partial settlement announced November 16, 2012). The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) brought the suit after it discovered and videotaped animal abuse at the meatpacking facility. Videotape of employees abusing non-ambulatory animals at the slaughterhouse resulted in the recall of 143 million pounds of beef in February 2008. The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) intervened in the litigation, which also involves the Westland Meat Company and other individual defendants. According to HSUS, Donald Hallmark Sr. and Donald Hallmark Jr. have agreed to pay $304,000 from their personal assets and will make structured payments…
After removing to federal court a defamation lawsuit brought by the company that makes lean finely textured beef (LFBT), ABC News has reportedly filed a motion to dismiss claiming that its news stories referring to the product as “pink slime” are protected speech under the First Amendment. Beef Products, Inc. v. Am. Broadcasting Cos., Inc., No. 12-04183 (D.S.D., filed October 24, 2012). Additional information about the lawsuit appears in Issue 453 of this Update. According to the news company’s motion, “Pink slime is exactly the sort of ‘loose, figurative, or hyperbolic language’ that courts recognize demands protection under the First Amendment.” ABC reportedly contends that the lawsuit challenges the rights of news organizations to “explore matters of obvious public interest—what is in the food we eat and how that food is labeled.” See Reuters, October 31, 2012.
Two British Columbia residents have reportedly filed individual and putative class action suits against the Canadian meat processor that was forced to recall 1,800 ground beef products in an E. coli contamination outbreak that involved retail chains in the United States and Canada. The class action, filed October 12, 2012, by Erin Thornton in B.C. Supreme Court, names XL Foods Inc. and its owner Nilsson Bros., Inc. as defendants. She alleges that XL Foods was negligent and that both defendants breached disclosure obligations and mishandled the recall. According to news sources, at least 15 people in four provinces have been sickened by the E. coli strain linked to the defendants’ Brooks, Alberta-based plant. Class actions have also apparently been filed in other provinces. U.S. officials reportedly discovered E. coli O157 at the plant on September 3, and the recall began September 16. See The Canadian Press and The Province, October 17,…
An Edmonton, Alberta, resident has filed a putative class action against a beef processor with operations in Alberta and Nebraska, alleging that he became severely ill from consuming the company’s beef, which was recalled in September 2012 due to an E. coli outbreak. Harrison v. XL Foods Inc., No. 1203-14727 (Can. Alta. Q.B., filed October 2, 2012). Seeking to certify province-wide and nationwide classes of plaintiffs “who purchased and/or consumed the Recalled Products,” the plaintiff alleges strict liability, breach of the Fair Trading Act, negligence, waiver of tort/disgorgement, and vicarious liability. He requests punitive and actual damages, as well as non-pecuniary general damages, pecuniary damages, disgorgement of revenues, attorney’s fees, costs, and interest. He also seeks a declaration that the recalled products are contaminated. According to news sources, plaintiff Matthew Harrison fell ill after eating allegedly contaminated steak, purchased at a Costco store, at a friend’s house. He was purportedly…
Beef Products Inc. (BPI) has filed a defamation lawsuit against ABC News, Diane Sawyer and two former U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) employees, among others, claiming that they “knowingly and intentionally published nearly 200 false and disparaging statements regarding the company and its product, lean finely textured beef (LFTB).” Beef Prods. Inc. v. ABC, Inc., No. ___ (Cir. Ct., Union Cty., S. Dak., filed September 13, 2012). The company is seeking $1.2 billion in damages. At one time, LFTB was used in some 70 percent of ground beef; it is made from fatty scraps remaining after cattle carcasses are cut into steaks and roasts. Bits of lean meat are heated and separated from the fat in a centrifuge, then treated with ammonium hydroxide gas to rid the product of E. coli or other pathogens. BPA claims that it sold more than 3.7 billion pounds of LFTB between 2003 and 2012 and…
The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) has denied a motion seeking to consolidate and transfer to a multidistrict litigation court three cases filed in federal courts against companies allegedly responsible for a 2009 E. coli outbreak involving contaminated ground beef. In re: Ne. Contaminated Beef Prods. Liab. Litig., MDL No. 2346 (J.P.M.L., D. Conn., decided April 17, 2012). According to the court, the cases do not “contain significant overlapping questions of fact sufficient to warrant centralization of the few involved actions,” and “the likelihood that additional actions will be filed concerning this E. coli outbreak—which occurred nearly two and a half years ago and affected under 30 individuals—seems low. With only three actions pending in two adjacent districts involved in this litigation, movant has failed to convince us that centralization is needed.” The court indicated that it would be “practicable and preferable” for the parties, courts and counsel to informally…
U.S. Representative Chellie Pingree (D-Maine) has reportedly introduced legislation that would require manufacturers to label products containing lean finely textured beef (LFTB) trimmings. Dubbed the “Requiring Easy and Accurate Labeling” or REAL Beef Act, the proposal would mandate such labels “at the final point of sale” to inform consumers that they are purchasing what Pingree described in a March 30, 2012, press release as “pink slime.” Citing an online petition calling for an end to LFTB in school lunches, Pingree argued that consumers “have made it pretty clear they don’t want this stuff in their food. If a product contains connective tissue and beef scraps and has been treated with ammonia, you ought to be able to know that when you pick it up in the grocery store.” Meanwhile, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has apparently agreed to grant manufacturers’ requests to voluntarily label LFTB trimmings in their products.…
The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) has appealed a ruling made by a World Trade Organization (WTO) panel against the United States in a dispute with Mexico and Canada over country-of-origin labeling (COOL) laws for beef and pork products. Responding to complaints filed by Canada and Mexico, WTO’s Dispute Settlement Panel ruled in November 2011 that although the United States has the right to require COOL regulations, specific requirements enacted in 2008 such as those calling for segregation of imported livestock before processing provide less favorable treatment to Canadian and Mexican livestock. The ruling was covered in Issue 419 of this Update. According to the appeal, USTR found several errors in the panel’s ruling and contends, among other issues, that its COOL labeling does not impose unfavorable treatment of imported products because it “requires meat derived from both imported and domestic livestock to be labeled under the exact…
According to news sources, a 25-year-old trade dispute pitting European Union (EU) laws prohibiting the import of beef treated with growth hormones and U.S. and Canadian trade sanctions imposing hundreds of millions of dollars of duties on EU exports of Roquefort cheese, truffles, chocolates, and other comestibles has been resolved. The U.S. and Canadian tariffs reportedly cost EU exporters more than US$250 million annually. In exchange for lifting a 100 percent ad valorem duty against EU products, the EU has agreed to increase quotas on imports of hormone-free beef to 48,200 metric tons under the deal. The agreement will allow the EU to maintain its ban on imports of hormone treated beef. Additional details about the dispute appear in Issues 103, 255, 262, 278, and 289 of this Update. See Law 360 and European Parliament News, March 14, 2012.
