Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

market-farming - Fwd: Sign-on letter

market-farming AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Market Farming

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Leigh Hauter <lh AT pressroom.com>
  • To: market-farming AT franklin.oit.unc.edu
  • Subject: Fwd: Sign-on letter
  • Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 10:44:19 -0400


>Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 10:26:25 -0400
>From: "Noel Petrie" <npetrie AT citizen.org>
>Subject: Sign-on letter
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>X-RCPT-TO: <lh AT pressroom.com>
>Status: U
>
>Please sign-on to the letter below, which was written by the Government
>Accountability Project, and demands that the USDA stop threatening USDA
>meat inspectors when they blow the whistle on bad practices at
>slaughterhouses! You can sign on by replying to this email (name and
>organization).
>
>Background:
>
>USDA is experimenting with privatizing meat and poultry inspection
>in a number of plants around the nation and trying to draw a cloak of
>secrecy around the project by silencing whistleblowers and concealing
>facts from the public.
>
>Since October 1999, pork and chicken produced in experimental plants
>have been inspected by company employees rather than the USDA meat
>inspectors prior to being labeled "USDA inspected and passed". Federal
>inspectors blew the whistle almost immediately when more diseased and
>contaminated product began entering commerce. (For more information see
>the Government Accountability Project's webpage at www.whistleblower.org).
>
> Help us let USDA know that we are watching and we expect honesty and
>full disclosure.
>
>LETTER
>
>Mr. Thomas Billy
>
>USDA/FSIS
>
>May 12, 2000
>
>
>
>Dear Mr. Billy,
>
> We are writing to express our concern about apparent FSIS
>retaliation against inspectors who recently made disclosures covered by
>the Whistleblower Protection Act about the agency's experimental
>inspection system, the HACCP-Based Inspection Models Project (HIMP).
>Further we are concerned that the agency continues, through the press and
>at public meetings, to obfuscate the issues raised by these
>whistleblowers.
>
> Whistleblower disclosures recently revealed that since late last
>year substandard poultry products produced under the experimental
>inspection system have been receiving the USDA seal. Only after these
>disclosures were aired in the media did USDA take steps to prevent
>excessive amounts of diseased and adulterated products from reaching
>consumers. Though these products have been entering commerce since early
>October 1999, USDA has yet to release any data to the public concerning
>the project. Subsequent to the media report, USDA initiated a retaliatory
>investigation of inspectors. Further, in public statements the agency
>discredited accounts that the agency previously had itself confirmed in a
>site visit, as documented in agency transcripts. The agency also insulted
>and wrongfully discredited another whistleblower at the March 30, 2000
>public meeting on HIMP.
>
>This approach thwarts the public's right to know about the quality and
>safety of poultry products they purchase and feed to their families.
>Through lack of full disclosure the agency also threatens the
>effectiveness and legitimacy of public participation in experimenting with
>new inspection techniques.
>
> While consumers support the agency's efforts to utilize inspection
>resources most efficiently and effectively, FSIS must fulfill its
>commitment to a transparent public process as the experiment continues.
>Especially because these products are not labeled as 'experimentally
>inspected' and therefore can not be avoided by consumers, the agency must
>assess, correct, and inform the public of problems in a timely fashion.
>The agency must also live up to its promise that product quality and
>safety under experimental models will equal or exceed that of product
>inspected under the traditional system.
>
>BACKGROUND
>
>In June 1997, the Food Safety and Inspection Service announced that it
>would experiment with new models of meat and poultry inspection through
>the HIMP and would fully involve the public in the process. During the
>experiment, products would be shipped to consumers with the standard
>agency seal, but FSIS promised that adequate measures would be taken to
>ensure that no substandard products would be sent to consumers.
>
> Under HIMP, instead of federal inspectors examining each animal carcass
>for disease and filth prior to receiving the seal, these inspection tasks
>are performed by company employees. Federal inspectors under the new
>system oversee the plants' activities and periodically sample product to
>determine if it meets agency standards.
>
>On October 4, 1999 poultry inspected with the new techniques first began
>entering commerce from one plant, Gold Kist in Guntersville, Alabama.
>Almost immediately inspectors complained that government sampling revealed
>that the plant was not meeting standards for removing diseased animals
>from the food supply. Agency policy prevented inspectors from doing
>anything except informing the plant that they were not meeting standards.
>Inspectors could not demand that affected product be cleaned up prior to
>shipment or prevented from entering commerce. HIMP managers acknowledged
>a problem after a few months and upgraded inspection authority to initiate
>action, but only if the plant did worse than the worst test plant under
>the traditional system. According to whistleblowers, substandard product
>continued to be sent to consumers.
>
> On February 6, 2000 the Cox Newspapers ran a story including
>inspectors' concerns about adulterated products being sent to consumers
>and also reported that some affected product was entering the School Lunch
>Program as chicken nuggets. Finally, Departmental agencies heeded
>inspector concerns about product adulteration. FSIS sent a senior manager
>to the plant on February 8th and the Office of Inspector General (OIG)
>began a "preliminary inquiry" on February 9th, 2000. Unfortunately, FSIS
>also asked OIG agents to investigate whether "inspectors released internal
>agency documents to the press."
>
> Though public documents reveal that both FSIS and OIG staff
>discovered evidence of adulterated products passing all controls, the
>agency later denied these findings in public statements. Also, at the
>March 30, 2000 public meeting on HIMP, you publicly castigated another
>inspector who released data about problems surfacing at other HIMP plants
>and refused to fully address issues raised by his disclosures though the
>inspector had previously, repeatedly notified the government's chain of
>command about the same conceptual issues.
>
>
>WHISTLEBLOWER RETALIATION
>
> When Congress reauthorized the Whistleblower Protection Act in
>1994, it recognized whistleblowers as the "eyewitnesses in the front lines
>as public policy is implemented" and thus mandated that agencies create a
>climate where whistleblowers' disclosures are encouraged and acted upon.
>Contrary to this mandate, inspectors connected with this project have been
>illegally investigated, discredited in the press, and aggressively
>attacked at a public meeting by you or your staff. Notably, your own
>general attitude towards whistleblowers seems to be more hostile than
>hospitable. At a February 15, 2000 meeting with the meat and poultry
>inspector's union, the National Joint Council of Food Inspection Locals,
>you said, "in terms of the [Cox] article, the people that decided that
>there ought to be an article and participated in that should have
>anticipated that there may be some risks to those that are involved in
>it."
>
>Whistleblowers at the Gold Kist plants in Alabama
>
> During the first four months of HIMP inspectors initiated numerous
>internal efforts to ensure that the new program would deliver on its
>promises to maintain traditional levels of wholesomeness and safety by
>raising concerns about the number of OCP defects entering the food
>supply. When these conscientious efforts failed, and after much
>soul-searching, these inspectors felt compelled to make their misgivings
>known to the public.
>
> A number of inspectors at the Gold Kist plants in Guntersville and
>Boaz spoke to a Cox News reporter about high levels of disease in flocks
>entering the plants and defects entering the system under both new and old
>inspection models. Because inspectors at Boaz still were authorized to
>slow lines when chicken flocks exhibited high levels of disease, the Boaz
>plant began shipping chickens it could not slaughter to the Guntersville
>plant, where inspectors had no authority to slow or stop the lines. Some
>inspectors were concerned that because line speeds were not controlled
>under the new system and performance standards were not being enforced,
>higher levels of defects were entering the system from the plant under
>experimental inspection.
>
> The Cox article ran on February 6, 2000. Your agency sent Karen
>Henderson, a senior manager of the HIMP project down to investigate at the
>plant on February 8. Internal agency documents reveal that she confirmed
>most of the inspectors' allegations. She reported that as soon as she got
>there the plant added two "sorters" to the three already on the line to
>examine animals for filth and disease. The plant also slowed the line
>speed from 130 birds to 51 birds per minute. These remedial efforts are
>strong evidence that the plant was aware that it had not been meeting the
>standards.
>
>Further, her interviews with veterinarians at the plants confirmed
>inspectors' statements that Boaz had a chronic problem with sores and
>bruises slipping by all plant controls, and that airsacculitis (a disease
>with potential public health implications) was a frequent problem at the
>end of the line at the Guntersville plant. She admitted that even with
>the plant's extraordinary changes in response to her visit, she still
>found that birds with airsacculitis had passed all company controls.
>
> Most strikingly, company records included as an exhibit to the OIG
>report reveal that from the beginning of January till just prior to Karen
>Henderson's investigation began, the plant was producing 177,000 birds and
>condemning only 5.5% on average each day. As soon as she arrived the
>plant cut production to 115,000 birds, presumably because of the slower
>line speeds, and condemned 33% on average per day.
>
>These facts present a classic example of the value and necessity of
>whistleblowers. Only after such disclosures reached the press did the
>agency take effective action to ensure that this plant was meeting the
>standards of the program promised to the public. Unfortunately the agency
>made no policy changes to ensure that inspectors at this or other HIMP
>plants could ensure the same level of compliance when top management from
>Washington is not present to watchdog production.
>
> Your office's response to such valuable information was not to
>reward inspectors for their conscientious efforts but instead to
>retaliate. When the Office of Inspector General began a "preliminary
>inquiry" into the facts, your agency also asked them to determine whether
>inspectors released data about the project to the reporter. OIG
>investigators also asked inspectors if they spoke to the reporter while on
>or off duty, a question that could only serve in bringing disciplinary
>proceedings against them.
>
>Your request of OIG constitutes the initiation of an illegal retaliatory
>investigation of inspectors, because absent the disclosures through the
>press, inspectors would not have been placed under investigation. There
>is some question about whether OIG's "inquiry" was only a pretext to
>harass whistleblowers, because they ended their investigation only after
>GAP reminded them that many of their questions to inspectors were illegal
>under the Whistleblower Protection Act. They responded by immediately
>ending the entire probe without ever independently determining whether
>there were problems with the products at Gold Kist.
>
>We are especially concerned about this, because collusion to discredit
>whistleblowers is recognized as one of the prime motivations behind many
>retaliatory investigations. These investigations are illegal, because
>they contravene the rights of concerned federal employees and citizens to
>freely express concerns to the public, and because they tend to have a
>chilling effect on future disclosures.
>
> Your agency showed disrespect for its own inspectors and violated
>the public trust when you repeatedly led the public to believe that there
>was proof their allegations were wrong.
>
>Further Retaliation against Whistleblowers and Stonewalling the Public
>
> Unfortunately agency activities to foster secrecy are not limited
>to the whistleblowers and their allegations at the Gold Kist facility.
>Events at the March 30, 2000 public meeting on HIMP suggest that
>disrespect for merit system free speech rights is becoming the pattern and
>practice at the agency.
>
>There are a number of other plants involved in the HIMP which have also
>been sending product into commerce since as early January 2000. Alvin
>Sewell, an inspector and union Local president familiar with the project,
>questioned the agency on some additional concerns arising at these plants.
>Mr. Sewell is a strong proponent of HACCP, but has an equally strong
>commitment to defending the integrity of HACCP's implementation,
>otherwise, the experiment could be a public health disaster. These
>issues, including food safety problems such as increasing fecal
>contamination, staffing shortages and discrepancies between government and
>establishment sampling, are all very relevant to the public.
>Again, this public whistleblowing occurred only after you and/or members
>of your staff had been previously informed of, or had enough information
>so that you should have already been looking into, these problems. Instead
>of fully and openly addressing the issues, you and your staff feigned
>ignorance, and postponed the issues saying you needed to investigate. You
>also made irresponsible personal attacks on Mr. Sewell, associating him
>with an attempt to "prevent the agency from . . .. trying to achieve the
>improvements in food safety and other consumer protections [through the
>HIMP project ]."
>
>This disrespect for your staff is unprofessional and poisons the
>atmosphere at public meetings. Only if substantive issues are timely and
>fully investigated and aired can the agency claim that the HIMP is a
>public process and not a public hoax. The public has a right to the
>information shared by Mr. Sewell not only as participants in the public
>process but also as consumers who have been eating the poultry produced
>under this experimental system.
>
>Given the conflict between FSIS' public and private statements as well as
>the inconsistencies within the OIG report about poultry products at the
>two Alabama Gold Kist plants, troubling questions persist and must be
>resolved. FSIS must also address the important issues raised by Mr.
>Sewell at the March 30, 2000 public meeting on HIMP. Finally, we urge
>the agency to recommit itself to creating an environment in which
>employees are encouraged to raise issues of waste, fraud, abuse or threats
>to public health. It is essential in safeguarding the public interest.
>
>
>
>
>Sincerely,
>
>
>
>Felicia Nestor
>Food Safety Project Director, Government Accountability Project
>
>Joan Claybrook
>President, Public Citizen
>
>Rod Lenard
>Executive Director, Community Nutrition Institute
>
>William Marler, Esq.
>Marler Clark (Law firm representing E coli 0157:H7 victims)
>
>Ronnie Cummins
>Campaign Director, Organic Consumers Association
>
>



  • Fwd: Sign-on letter, Leigh Hauter, 05/25/2000

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page