Canada and the European Union (EU) have signed a memorandum of understanding that tentatively settles a long trade dispute over hormone-treated cattle. According to the March 17, 2011, memorandum, European nations will expand market access to Canadian beef while Canada will suspend trade sanctions on $11 million worth of EU imports. Effective since the early 1980s, EU’s “non-discriminatory” ban on hormone-treated beef was challenged by Canada and the United States at the World Trade Organization (WTO) starting in 1996, according to the European Commission (EC), the oversight body for EU legislation. In 1999, Canada and the United States were given WTO permission to impose retaliatory sanctions on a number of EU exports. Canada’s sanctions applied to a variety of meat products “in the form of 100% duties.” “The memorandum foresees that Canada suspends these sanctions and the EU would extend its duty-free tariff-rate quota of high quality beef by an…
Tag Archives beef
A California resident has filed a putative class action against Taco Bell Corp., alleging that the company violates consumer protection laws by mislabeling some of its beef products as containing seasoned beef “when in fact a substantial amount of the filling contains substances other than beef.” Obney v. Taco Bell Corp., No. 11-00101 (C.D. Cal., filed January 19, 2011). Seeking to certify a nationwide class of consumers and claiming that damages exceed $5 million, the plaintiff alleges violations of California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act and unlawful business acts and practices, including misbranded food in violation of federal law. She also asks for declaratory and injunctive relief, a corrective advertising campaign, attorney’s fees, and costs. According to plaintiff’s counsel, testing has shown that “the taco meat filling is about 35 percent meat.” The complaint asserts that the company’s use of the term “seasoned beef” in the labeling and advertising of its beef…
After a Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) investigation of complaints about discoloration and off-odors, a New Jersey-based meat processor has reportedly recalled more than 225,000 pounds of ground beef products distributed to penal institutions in California and Oregon. In a recall release, FSIS reported that its review “uncovered evidence to show that the establishment repackaged and recoded returned products and sent them out for further distribution to institutional customers.” While no reports of illness were apparently associated with the recall, FSIS considers the products to be adulterated “because the establishment’s food safety plan was inadequate to produce wholesome product.” The meatpacker involved is One Great Burger. See FSIS News Release, January 10, 2011; Meatingplace.com, January 12, 2011.
A recent National Research Council (NRC) report has apparently found no scientific evidence to support “more stringent testing of meat purchased through the government’s ground beef purchase program,” which distributes products to the National School Lunch Program and other public outlets. According to a December 9, 2010, National Academies press release, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) purchases ground beef from suppliers “who must meet mandatory process, quality, traceback, and handling controls as well as comply with strict limitations on the amounts of bacteria in the meat, such as E. coli and salmonella.” To assess this program, the National Academies established a committee to review the scientific basis of AMS’s ground beef safety standards, evaluate how these standards compare to those used by large retail and commercial purchasers, and recommend possible improvements to the federal system. The committee evidently found that AMS’s “scientific basis for the current…
The U.K. Food Standards Agency (FSA) has announced that meat from a cloned cow’s offspring has evidently entered the food supply, sparking concerns about the country’s livestock registration and tracking requirements. The agency apparently traced four female and four male calves to a cloned Holstein cow from the United States. According to FSA, farmers have not sold any milk from the three surviving females but have slaughtered the bulls and sold three for human consumption. “While there is no evidence that consuming products from healthy clones, or their offspring, poses a food safety risk, meat and products from clones and their offspring are considered novel foods and would therefore need to be authorized before being placed on the market,” stated FSA in an August 11, 2010, news release, adding that food producers who purchased such animals or their offspring “will need to seek authorization under the Novel Food Regulations.” See…
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has lifted a preliminary injunction that prevented California from enforcing a law adopted after The Humane Society’s video of the mistreatment of downer cattle at a slaughterhouse became public and led to a massive beef recall in 2008. Nat’l Meat Ass’n v. Brown, 09-15483 (9th Cir., decided March 31, 2010). The National Meat Association challenged California’s law, which prohibits slaughterhouses from receiving, processing or selling nonambulatory animals, as preempted by the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA), and the district court agreed. The state law also prohibits moving a nonambulatory animal without a sling or other sled-like or wheeled conveyance. According to the Ninth Circuit, the federal law, which contains an express preemption provision, prescribes what is to be done with nonambulatory animals to be slaughtered and sold for human consumption; it does not limit states “in their ability to regulate what types of meat may…
Cargill, Inc. has reportedly responded to a $100 million lawsuit by admitting that a beef patty it manufactured contained E. coli and caused plaintiff Stephanie Smith’s debilitating injuries. While not contesting strict liability, the company is denying that it was negligent. Its suppliers apparently certified that the product had been tested for E. coli and that all the tests were negative. The company also reportedly included in its response that its products are inspected by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and that federal law requires meat products to be labeled with warnings that meat may contain bacteria that will cause illness if not properly cooked. Smith, who is confined to a wheelchair and was profiled in a New York Times article, is represented by food lawyer William Marler. He was quoted as saying, “Never in my 23 years have I seen a food company admit liability out of the box…
The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS) will hold a second meeting to discuss current product tracing systems for food intended for humans and animals. The March 10, 2010, meeting in Washington, D.C., specifically welcomes input on procedures for suppliers of source material used to produce raw ground beef products that test positive for E. coli. Issue 326 of this Update announced a similar meeting by FSIS and the Food and Drug Administration held in December 2009 that was designed to stimulate ideas on improving the agencies’ ability to “increase the speed and accuracy of the traceback investigations and traceforward operations.” See USDA website, February 22, 2010.
According to a news source, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) inspectors, who test the meat and trimmings used in ground beef, deal with about 60 positive E. coli tests annually by taking steps to ensure that the tested meat does not reach consumers, but they apparently fail to conduct a full inspection to try to pinpoint the source of contamination or locate additional meat that may be contaminated. Food safety and consumer advocates, such as Food & Water Watch, have reportedly called on the USDA to adopt a policy change that would require deeper investigations when positive results turn up in routine investigations. They contend that this could indicate a breakdown in the food safety system and consumers are at risk because other tainted meat could remain in the food chain. A spokesperson for the USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) was quoted as saying, “The risk profile of these…
In this article, Slate contributor James McWilliams questions “the conventional wisdom among culinary tastemakers” that pasture-raised cattle does not harbor E. coli O157:H7 at the same levels as conventional livestock. “In fact,” he writes, “exploring the connection between grass-fed beef and these dangerous bacteria offers a disturbing lesson in how culinary wisdom becomes foodie dogma and how foodie dogma can turn into a recipe for disaster.” McWilliams traces the misconception to a 2006 New York Times op-ed piece by food activist Nina Planck, who claimed that E. coli was “not found in the intestinal tracts of cattle raised on their natural diets of grass, hay, and other fibrous forage.” According to McWilliams, Planck drew her conclusions from a 1998 report published in Science that found more acid-resistant E. coli in grain-fed cattle, but failed to specifically test for the O157:H7 strain. Further studies have apparently shown that grass-fed cattle “do…
