‘Growing concern’ over marketing tainted beef
Submitted by Drew Kaplan on April 14, 2010
Beef containing harmful pesticides, veterinary antibiotics and heavy
metals is being sold to the public because federal agencies have failed
to set limits for the contaminants or adequately test for them, a
federal audit finds. A program set up to test beef for chemical residues
“is not accomplishing its mission of monitoring the food supply for …
dangerous substances, which has resulted in meat with these substances
being distributed in commerce,” says the audit by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture’s Office of Inspector General. The health effects on people
who eat such meat are a “growing concern,” the audit adds. The testing
program for cattle is run by the USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection
Service (FSIS), which also tests meat for such pathogens as salmonella
and certain dangerous strains of E. coli. But the residue program relies
on assistance from the Environmental Protection Agency, which sets
tolerance levels for human exposure to pesticides and other pollutants,
and the Food and Drug Administration, which does the same for
antibiotics and other medicines.
Limits have not been set by the EPA and FDA “for many potentially
harmful substances, which can impair FSIS’ enforcement activities,” the
audit found.
The FSIS said in a written statement that the agency has agreed with the
inspector general on “corrective actions” and will work with the FDA and
EPA “to prevent residues or contaminants from entering into commerce.”
Even when the inspection service does identify a lot of beef with high
levels of pesticide or antibiotics, it often is powerless to stop the
distribution of that meat because there is no legal limit for those
contaminants.
In 2008, for example, Mexican authorities rejected a U.S. beef shipment
because its copper levels exceeded Mexican standards, the audit says.
But because there is no U.S. limit, the FSIS had no grounds for blocking
the beef’s producer from reselling the rejected meat in the United
States.
“It’s unacceptable. These are substances that can have a real impact on
public health,” says Tony Corbo, a lobbyist for Food and Water Watch, a
public interest group. “This administration is making a big deal about
promoting exports, and you have Mexico rejecting our beef because of
excessive residue levels. It’s pretty embarrassing.”
Some contamination is inadvertent, such as pesticide residues in cows
that drink water fouled by crop runoff. Other contaminants, such as
antibiotics, often are linked to the use of those chemicals in farming.
For example, the audit says, veal calves often have higher levels of
antibiotic residue because ranchers feed them milk from cows treated
with the drugs. Overuse of the antibiotics help create
antibiotic-resistant strains of diseases.
Beef producers are taking steps to better ensure that pesticide and
antibiotic residues don’t get into meat destined for the public, says
Meghan Pusey, a spokeswoman for the National Cattlemen’s Beef
Association. “Beef farmers and ranchers pride themselves on producing a
safe and wholesome product, and anything less is unacceptable,” she
says. “We remain committed to working with industry and government
partners to eliminate rare safety incidences from a meat supply that is
extraordinarily safe by any nation’s standards.”
Others say legislative action is needed, especially to curb problems
with antibiotic residues.
The audit “shows clearly the need for quick action by Congress to place
some reasonable limits on the use of antibiotics in farm animals,” says
Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y., who has more than 100 co-sponsors on her
bill to ban seven types of antibiotics from being used indiscriminately
in animal feed. “If we don’t remedy this problem, who knows what kind of
havoc these residues will have on our bodies.”
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-04-12-tainted-meat_N.htm
To subscribe or visit go to:
http://www.usatoday.com
|