Luke_Wilbur Posted February 20, 2008 Report Share Posted February 20, 2008 February 3, 2008 As President of Westland/Hallmark Meat Co. I want to reassure our customers and consumers that our company has met the highest standards for harvesting and processing meat under the Federal Meat Inspection Act. A fulltime USDA veterinary medical officer has been assigned to our facility for many years, and he oversees the work of three inspectors in the harvest operation and another inspector assigned to the processing operations. In addition, we have had a full time official from the USDA’s Grading Service in our operation for the purpose of ensuring contractual compliance for the meat we sell to the USDA commodity program. During 2007, we had 17 third party audits of our operation to confirm that we meet the statutorily mandated humane handling and food safety standards. In addition we have conducted 12 internal audits by our own personnel to ensure that such standards are met. We also, conduct weekly humane handling audits based on standards set forth in the American Meat Institute’s (AMI), Recommended Animal Handling Guidelines and Audit Guide 2007 Edition, which was authored by Dr. Temple Grandin, a world renowned expert of humane handling practices. Complete documentation of this activity has been made available to the USDA investigation team currently at our plant. Words cannot accurately express how shocked and horrified I was at the depictions contained on the video that was taken by an individual who worked at our facility from October 3 thru November 14, 2007. We have taken swift action regarding the two employees identified on the video and have already implemented aggressive measures to ensure all employees follow our humane handling policies and procedures. We are also cooperating with the USDA investigators on the allegations of inhumane handling treatment which is a serious breech of our company’s policies and training. As part of our own investigation, we have retained an outside consultant to take an independent look at our operations. He is a veterinarian who worked for FSIS in a supervisory position for 26 years all over the U.S. He spent two days in our facility with full and free access to all documentation and plant personnel. He told us in a written report that our records and programs are “the best he has ever seen in any plant.” We have provided his report to the USDA. We have voluntarily suspended our operations pending the completion of the USDA investigation. We are dedicating our full efforts and resources to fully cooperate with the USDA investigative team that has been assigned to our plant. Finally, I proudly assure our customers that we comply with all USDA requirements, including the requirement that only ambulatory livestock may enter the harvest facility to be processed for human food. I am confident that we have met this high regulatory standard. Steve Mendell President Westland Meat Co. Hallmark Meat Packing http://www.westlandmeat.com/ The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has issued the largest recall in history. Hallmark/Westland Meat Packing Co., a Chino, Calif., establishment, is voluntarily recalling approximately 143,383,823 pounds of raw and frozen beef products that FSIS has determined to be unfit for human food because the cattle did not receive complete and proper inspection. Through evidence obtained by FSIS, the establishment did not consistently contact the FSIS public health veterinarian in situations in which cattle became non-ambulatory after passing ante-mortem inspection, which is not compliant with FSIS regulations. Such circumstances require that an FSIS public health veterinarian reassess the non-ambulatory cattle which are either condemned and prohibited from the food supply, or tagged as suspect. Suspect cattle receive a more thorough inspection after slaughter than is customary. This noncompliant activity occurred occasionally over the past two years and therefore all beef product produced during the period of time for which evidence indicates such activity occurred has been determined by FSIS to be unfit for human consumption, and is, therefore, adulterated. This recall is designated as Class II due to the remote probability that the beef being recalled would cause adverse health effects if consumed. FSIS made this determination because the animals passed ante-mortem inspection but should have been identified as suspect requiring additional inspection after slaughter to determine if there is evidence of disease, injury, or other signs of abnormalities that may have occurred after ante-mortem inspection. In July 2007, FSIS issued a final rule “Prohibition of the Use of Specified Risk Materials for Human Food and Requirements for the Disposition of Non-Ambulatory Disabled Cattle.” This rule requires that a case by case disposition must be made by an FSIS Public Health Veterinarian for every animal that becomes non-ambulatory disabled (“downer”) after passing ante-mortem inspection. The prohibition of downer cattle from entering the food supply is only one measure in an interlocking system of controls the federal government has in place to protect the food supply. The government has multiple safeguards regarding BSE in place and the prevalence of the disease in the United States is extremely low. Other BSE security measures include the feed ban that prohibits feeding ruminant protein to other ruminants and an ongoing BSE surveillance program that began before the confirmation of the first BSE positive cow in the U.S. in 2003. As another measure to reduce the risk of potential exposure to consumers, FSIS requires the removal of specified risk materials (SRM) so they do not enter the food supply. Several FSIS line inspectors are stationed at designated points along the production line where they are able to directly observe SRM removal activities. The USDA said that the recall will affect beef products dating to Feb. 1, 2006, that came from the Chino-based Westland/Hallmark Meat Co., located in California. The same California slaughterhouse has been under investigation for alleged animal abuse. An undercover video from the Humane Society of the United States was released on January 30th, 2008 showing sick animals being shoved with forklifts. Also, the video showed workers kicking, shocking and abusing animals that were apparently too sick or injured to walk into the slaughterhouse. Cattle that becomes "non-ambulatory" is, by USDA Federal regulations, unfit for human consumption and should be discarded. However, since the video allegedly showed workers forcing "downed" non-ambulatory animals to the slaughterhouse, the food that came from it should be recalled as per USDA regulation since it is not safe for human consumption. Downed cattle should be kept out of the food chain supply because a higher risk of contamination by E. coli, salmonella or mad cow disease. Around 37 million pounds of the recalled beef was used to make hamburgers, chili and tacos for school lunches and other federal nutrition programs. However, as many officials have already said they do not know how much of the recalled beef have been already eaten. A complete list of the affected products can be found at Products affected by beef recall Among the fast food chains that buy ground beef from Westland/Hallmark is Jack in the Box, a San Diego-based company with restaurants in 18 states. Hey have halted the use of beef from this company until further notice. Another food chain, In-N-Out has also halted the use of the beef from Westland/Hallmark. McDonald's and Burger King said they do not buy beef from Westland/Hallmark Company. The undercover video, shown on television and on YouTube and other video Web sites, has exposed the issues that exist in the food safety chain in the United States. Apparently, the inspection by the USDA was being ineffective since the USDA veterinarian wasn't there all the time needed for proper inspection. As per USDA regulations, a veterinarian should be "in house" to properly inspect slaughtering operations. Some sources pointed out that the veterinarian was there only 2 hour per day. View the video at YouTube. Undercover video shows blatant abuse of "downed" cattle by slaughterhouse workers at Hallmark Meat Packing Co. released by Humane Society of the United States (HSUS.org) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiley Posted February 20, 2008 Report Share Posted February 20, 2008 Q1. Are Canadian cattle eligible for voluntary segregation procedures? A1. No. With the advent of BSE regulations, no cattle are eligible for voluntary segregation procedures. 1 VS Permits Q2. In FSIS Notice 46-05, it says that livestock arriving under an APHIS VS certificate are not eligible for plant segregation procedures. Based on FSIS Directive 6100.1, are Canadian hogs now eligible for voluntary segregation of livestock? A2. Yes. FSIS Notice 46-05 did not factor in the transport of healthy imported livestock to slaughter establishments under APHIS permit. While all cattle are automatically precluded from voluntary segregation procedures, all imported market swine, sheep, and goats from Canada arriving under APHIS Permit Forms VS-17-30 and 17-33, “Inspection Report of Establishment for Immediate Slaughter of Import Animals,” are eligible for voluntary segregation procedures provided all such swine, sheep, and goats are identified and examined as a group by inspection program personnel at the time of ante-mortem inspection. Q3. Are animals that arrive under an APHIS VS 1-27 Form eligible for voluntary segregation of livestock? A3. No. VS Form 1-27 is typically issued when animals are released from a quarantined farm or feedlot. Since the reasons shipping under permit are not always clear, such animals are not eligible for voluntary segregation procedures. Ante-mortem in HIMP Plants Q4. Are all swine slaughtered in a HIMP plant eligible for all at rest and 10% in motion ante-mortem inspection? A4. Yes. Swine HIMP plants are in effect performing voluntary segregation. Under HIMP, FSIS is required to verify that 100% of all animals to be slaughtered are presented for ante-mortem inspection. Q5. Are Canadian hogs presented for slaughter at HIMP establishments eligible for voluntary segregation? A5. Yes, provided any segregated animals are identified and examined at ante-mortem. II. Ante-mortem Livestock Inspection Steps in-plant personnel follow for inspecting livestock at ante-mortem Q6. What is "presented" for slaughter? Can the animals be removed from the premises if not presented? 2 A6. Animals that are presented for slaughter are animals identified by the establishment to inspection program personnel for ante-mortem inspection. Animals that have not been presented for inspection may be removed from the premises provided they have no other Federal or State restrictions placed on them. If the animals have been presented or have been designated as US Suspect or US Condemned, they can only be removed with the permission of the Program Personnel after permission has been obtained from the local, state, or Federal officials having jurisdiction per 9 CFR 309.2. Application of non-ambulatory disabled status to bob veal Q7. Are there any special considerations for bob veal as it is normal for cattle of this age to spend a significant proportion of their time in recumbence? A7. There are no special considerations for bob veal calves. However, the final rule has clarified veal calves that are cold and tired may be set aside for treatment as per 9 CFR 309.13(. Conditions commonly observed in veal calves can readily be treated before presenting the animals for slaughter. Q8. Are bob veal calves subject to condemnation if non-ambulatory? A8. Yes. All cattle (i.e., bovines of species Bos taurus or Bos indicus) including veal calves are subject to the provisions of the non-ambulatory disabled rule. The existing regulatory provisions providing for treatment of animals on site or transport to another location for treatment continue to be in effect. Humane handling of non-ambulatory disabled animals on ante-mortem Q9. If a non-ambulatory disabled animal is brought on the premises of an official establishment, but not removed from the transport vehicle and not presented for inspection, what is FSIS' role? A9. FSIS is to ensure that the animal is humanely handled. Q10. How should an ambulatory animal with a broken leg be handled before ante-mortem inspection? After ante-mortem Inspection? A10. Ambulatory livestock with a broken leg should be driven as little as possible to prevent inhumane handling during ante-mortem inspection. If the animal is passed for slaughter, it should be handled as humanely as possible while moving to the stunning area. In some cases, it may be appropriate for the establishment to stun the animal in the pen area to minimize discomfort, rather than forcing it to walk to the stunning area. Animals that become disabled with a broken leg after ante-mortem inspection should be handled as described above. Once an animal has passed ante-mortem inspection and then has become non-ambulatory disabled with evidence of an acute fracture, such an animal should be re-examined by the PHV where at such time, the animal may once again be passed for slaughter. Q11. If a cow refuses to rise during ante-mortem inspection, should she be condemned at that time? A11. Not necessarily. During ante-mortem inspection, the animal is condemned once the PHV has determined the animal to be non-ambulatory disabled. The PHV has the discretion to delay making a disposition and may re-examine an animal prior to making a final disposition. Any cow condemned as non-ambulatory disabled with certain underlying conditions may be set aside for treatment (see FSIS Directive 6100.1, Ante-mortem Livestock Inspection, VII. B. 6)(309.13( b )). The program employee will verify that the establishment is handling the animal humanely. Q12. Do the above answers mean that if a bovine does not rise spontaneously, it is to be condemned as non-ambulatory disabled? A12. During ante-mortem inspection, an animal presented for inspection that is unable to rise or walk is considered non-ambulatory disabled and is condemned. PHVs will use their professional judgment in determining when a bovine is unable to rise or unable to walk. Q13. If a beef animal condemned for being non-ambulatory disabled rises and walks unassisted, can the PHV’s disposition of a non-ambulatory disabled animal as being condemned be reversed? A13. Yes. When justifiable, the PHV has the authority to change his or her disposition. The plant has the option to appeal any inspection decision per 9 CFR 306.5. Q14. Can a non-ambulatory disabled animal be treated and re-presented for ante-mortem inspection? A14. A non-ambulatory disabled animal exhibiting any of the underlying conditions described in 9 CFR 309.2, 309.3, or 309.13( b ), may be treated on premises by the establishment (see FSIS Directive 6100.1, Ante-mortem Livestock Inspection, VII. B. 6). The Agency employee will verify that the establishment is handling the animal humanely. Upon approval by the PHV after sufficient time for treatment and recovery, the animals may be re-presented for ante-mortem inspection. All such treated animals may be handled as US suspects. Q15. What is the definition of a non-ambulatory disabled animal? Are the plant employees and management, who are not licensed veterinarians, supposed to make a diagnosis that a given animal is a healthy recumbent one or is a non-ambulatory disabled one? A15. The condition of non-ambulatory disabled is described in 9 CFR 309.2( b ): ( b )…Non-ambulatory disabled livestock are livestock that cannot rise from a recumbent position or that cannot walk, including, but not limited to, those with broken appendages, severed tendons or ligaments, nerve paralysis, fractured vertebral column, or metabolic conditions. The plant may implement procedures to determine whether livestock are non-ambulatory disabled before PHV disposition, provided that the procedure does not result in inhumane treatment. Q16. Plant personnel are called upon to present a pen of cattle for ante-mortem inspection, where the inspection program employee will first observe the cattle in the pen at rest. A plant employee will then enter the pen and move the animals. If one of the animals decides not to stand and walk, how are inspection personnel to proceed? A16. The PHV must presume all animals were presented for ante-mortem inspection by the establishment and make a final disposition on all animals presented. If the animal is unable to rise and ambulate, the animal is condemned as a non-ambulatory disabled animal, and a US Condemned tag is placed on the ear as per 9 CFR 309.18 and 309.13. The PHV has the discretion to postpone making a final disposition if warranted. Q17. If a non-ambulatory disabled beef animal is condemned on ante-mortem, is the plant required to destroy the animal immediately? Or would the plant be allowed to hold the animal in the pen by itself with accessible water until such a time as the animal chose to stand and walk on its own? A17. There is no requirement any livestock animals identified as US Inspected and Condemned on ante-mortem be destroyed immediately. However, all US Inspected and Condemned animals must be destroyed under FSIS inspection. Before presenting such animals for ante-mortem inspection, FSIS encourages plants to determine systematically which recumbent beef animals (i.e., which are not non-ambulatory disabled) should be presented for inspection. The PHV also has the option to delay his final disposition pending further examination. Once a beef animal is determined to be non-ambulatory disabledthe animal is condemned and is to be killed by the establishment per 9 CFR 309.13. The PHV may allow beef animals condemned as non-ambulatory disabled with underlying conditions, at the establishment’s request, to be held apart and treated (see FSIS Directive 6100.1, Ante-mortem Livestock Inspection, VII. B. 6). The Agency employee will verify that the establishment is handling the animal humanely. 9 CFR 309.13( b ) Any livestock condemned on account of ketosis, swine erysipelas, vesicular diseases, grass tetany, transport tetany, parturient paresis, anasarca, anaplasmosis, leptospirosis, listeriosis, or inflammatory condition including pneumonia, enteritis, and peritonitis may be set apart and held for treatment under supervision of a Program employee or official designated by the area supervisor. The U.S. Condemned identification tag will be removed by a Program employee following treatment under such supervision if the animal is found to be free from any such disease. ( c ) Livestock previously affected with listeriosis, including those released for slaughter after treatment under paragraph ( b ) of this section, shall be identified as U.S. Suspect. Q18. Placing a U.S. Condemned tag in an animal’s ear by piercing it with a hog ring causes the animal pain. This can be enough pain on occasion to cause the animal to stand up and walk away. How should inspection proceed in this circumstance? A18. Placing an ear tag in an animal is an acceptable practice when performed by a competent skilled inspector or plant employee (9 CFR 309.13 and 309.18). If the animal gets up and walks, and there is no other reason to hold the animal, then the animal should not be condemned as a non-ambulatory disabled animal. Use of Electrical Prods Q19. Can an establishment minimally use the electric prod as its criteria to determine if a down animal is non-ambulatory disabled? A19. Yes. However, it is considered inhumane to prod with an electrified device an animal that has been determined to be non-ambulatory disabled. Q20. 9 CFR 313.2( b ) prohibits the excessive use of electric prods (e.g., hot shot) while FSIS Directive 6100.1, p. 6., states, "FSIS does not consider forcing an animal to stand or ambulate by kicking or prodding (e.g., electrical prodding) to be humane.” What is the difference? 6 A20. The restriction in the FSIS Directive 6100.1 applies to prodding of non-ambulatory disabled livestock versus driving healthy livestock referred to in the regulation. 9 CFR 313.2( b ) indicates the use of an electric prod to drive animals should be kept at a minimum: ( Electric prods, canvas slappers, or other implements employed to drive animals shall be used as little as possible in order to minimize excitement and injury. Any use of such implements which, in the opinion of the inspector, is excessive, is prohibited. Electrical prods attached to AC house current shall be reduced by a transformer to the lowest effective voltage not to exceed 50 volts AC. In contrast, FSIS Directive 6100.1, page 6, item 7 under “Suspect Livestock,” states that it is inhumane to prod with an electrified device an animal that has been determined to be non-ambulatory disabled. Q21. In effect FSIS Directive 6100.1 is prohibiting the use of electric prods as a means to get animals to rise from a recumbent position. Is there an inconsistency between 9 CFR 313.2( b ) and FSIS Directive 6100.1 regarding the humane use of electric prods? A21. No. The directive indicates the use of an electric prod to drive animals should be at a minimum and does not preclude the use of an electric prod to drive healthy animals that may be recumbent. However, it may be prudent for an establishment to have a program or means to evaluate and determine the status of a recumbent animal (i.e., not non-ambulatory disabled) before using an electric prod. As stated above, the directive indicates electrical prodding of non-ambulatory disabled animals that cannot rise is considered inhumane. Q22. Does FSIS Directive 6100.1 indicate animals can be “hot-shotted” twice without “tailing up” before determining they are non-ambulatory? A22. The directive does not prohibit judicious and minimal use of an electric prod to drive healthy animals that may be recumbent. The directive does not indicate how, how much, or how often an animal can or may be prodded. Per 9 CFR 313.2( b ), electric prods should be used as little as possible to minimize excitement and discomfort. The inspector should discuss the directions from this directive with the District Veterinary Medical Specialist (DVMS), PHV, or Front-line supervisor (FLS) if there is any question regarding inhumane handling. The establishment is encouraged to determine systematically which recumbent animals are able to rise and to keep in mind that it is considered inhumane to excessively electrically prod even a recumbent otherwise healthy animal. Q23. Is the establishment allowed to use an electric prod to get these animals up before FSIS inspection personnel are present for ante-mortem inspection, and if not, then is electric prod use completely forbidden on any animal that is lying down? A23. Yes, plants are allowed to use an electric prod before inspection; however, it may be wise for the plant to discuss the plant’s procedures with the PHV in advance. The directive does not prohibit judicious and minimal use of an electric prod to drive healthy animals that may be recumbent. The establishment must handle all animals at all times in a humane manner. The PHV or inspector may observe handling of animals before, during, and after ante-mortem inspection and will take immediate control action if inhumane handling is observed. The establishment should carefully and systematically determine the best way to get recumbent animals to rise keeping in mind that it is considered inhumane to prod excessively even a recumbent otherwise healthy animal. Q24. Would the restriction on the use of electrical prods also apply to haulers or owners of livestock on the official premises trying to unload an animal that is lying down in the truck or trailer? A24. Yes. Q25. Does one instance of electric prod use on animals lying down constitute a serious infraction thereby requiring the ante-mortem pens to be tagged and the withholding of inspection? A25. Not necessarily. Other than for non-ambulatory disabled animals, the directive does not preclude the minimal use of a prod on an otherwise healthy recumbent animal. For recumbent animals whose status has not been determined, the appropriate and judicious use of the electric prod will have to be determined on a case by case basis. We encourage plants to develop their own program to systematically evaluate and handle non-ambulatory disabled livestock with input from their District Veterinary Medical Specialist (DVMS), PHV, or FLS in advance. Q26. Is there a policy change regarding electrical livestock prods not to exceed 50 volts output from either AC house current or battery powered? A26. No. As stated above, the directive indicates electrical prodding of non-ambulatory disabled animals that cannot rise is considered inhumane. As before, any use of such implements used to drive ambulatory animals regardless of the voltage which, in the opinion of the inspector, is excessive, is prohibited. In accordance with 9 CFR 313.2( b ): Electrical prods attached to AC house current shall be reduced by a transformer to the lowest effective voltage not to exceed 50 volts AC. Hip Hoists Q27. Can a bovine animal that ambulates on her own after being raised with a hip hoist on ante-mortem inspection be passed for slaughter? A27. No. Hip hoists or any other form of assistance that lifts the animal may not be used to present animals for ante-mortem inspection. Animals presented for ante-mortem inspection that require the use of a hip hoist to rise or to walk are considered non-ambulatory disabled and condemned per 9 CFR 309.2 and 309.3( e ). Q28. Can hip hoists be used to treat animals that have not been presented for ante-mortem inspection? A28. FSIS requires all animals treated on premises be treated humanely. A hip hoist can be used to treat animals not presented for ante-mortem inspection. However, hip hoists used to treat animals on premises must be used in a humane manner. FSIS has no policy that specifically prohibits the use of a hip hoist to treat animals on premises; however the use of a particular hip hoist may be deemed inhumane by the inspector. Such arrangements may be discussed in advance with the DVMS, PHV, or FLS when appropriate. A hip hoist should not be used as a substitute for a sling and should not carry the entire weight of the animal (i.e., dead weight). Only after conclusion of treatment and after a suitable time as determined by the Program employee or official designee, animals treated under supervision of a Program employee or official designee may then be presented for ante-mortem inspection. Treated animals must demonstrate they are able to rise or ambulate on their own without assistance to be eligible for slaughter per 9 CFR 309.13(. Q29. Is “tailing up” an acceptable practice to raise a recumbent animal? A29. The suitability of “tailing up” depends on the meaning of the term. The degree and extent of “tailing up” may be no more noxious that an electrical prod when getting a recumbent animal to rise (i.e., slight) or may be considered inhumane (i.e., extreme). Lifting a cow by the tail is not acceptable when presenting an animal for slaughter during ante-mortem inspection in any circumstance. Such animals that must be lifted in order to rise or walk meet the definition of “non-ambulatory disabled” per 9 CFR 309.2( and are condemned. The plant should consult with the DVMS, PHV, or FLS for consensus and additional input. Hobbles: Q30. Can an animal that shows evidence of previously having a restraint placed on the hind legs to prevent splitting (hobbled), passes ante-mortem inspection, and becomes non-ambulatory disabled be passed for slaughter? A30. No. Unless there is evidence of acute injury, a previously hobbled animal that passed ante-mortem inspection (ambulatory) and becomes non-ambulatory disabled is condemned. Evidence of previously being hobbled is evidence of a non-acute chronic injury. FSIS Directive 6100.1 states that the PHV is to re-inspect the animal to determine whether an acute injury is the basis for the animal going down: 1. PHVs are to reassess and determine the disposition of cattle that become non-ambulatory after having passed ante-mortem inspection on a case-by-case basis to determine if the cattle are eligible to proceed to slaughter (9 CFR 309.3(e)); If there is no evidence of acute injury, the animal is considered to be non-ambulatory disabled and should be condemned as per Section VII. C. of Directive 6100.1. PHV Verification of animals that become non-ambulatory disabled after ante-mortem inspection Ante-mortem Condemnation: Q31. If a livestock animal has a head tilt clearly from a tick infestation or ear infection, is it automatically condemned for a CNS disorder? A31. Animals exhibiting any systemic, nervous, toxic, or other conditions affecting the nervous system outlined in 9 CFR 309.4 are to be condemned. A head tilt may be the result of a localized or CNS condition. If a PHV is able to identify the underlying cause of a localized condition not specified in 9 CFR 309.4, such animals may be passed as a US Suspect or for slaughter. The PHV should make his disposition using his professional judgment based on a thorough ante-mortem inspection. The PHV also has the option to hold an animal per 9 CFR 309.3(d) to further evaluate an animal before making a final disposition on ante-mortem. Q32. Are all blind livestock condemned? A32. Not necessarily. FSIS regulations do not specifically say all blind livestock are condemned. Blindness associated with any systemic, nervous, toxic, 10 infectious, or other active conditions outlined in 9 CFR 309.4 observed on ante-mortem inspection warrant condemnation. Q33. Is the establishment allowed to withhold certain livestock from slaughter, humanely euthanize, and dispose of them without presenting them for FSIS inspection? Can FSIS require the establishment to present such animals for inspection to prevent an animal with a foreign animal disease from going un-noticed? A33. Yes, the establishment may elect to humanely euthanize livestock and dispose of the carcasses without presenting them for FSIS inspection. However, as a result, plant and FSIS inspection personnel should be alert to the possibility that the presence of a foreign animal disease might go unnoticed when the plant handles or processes condemned livestock without inspection. Such concerns are worthy of discussion at plant and work unit meetings. Per 9 CFR 309.3(a), all dead livestock on premises shall be condemned and disposed of in accordance with 9 CFR 309.13. Disposition animals slaughtered without ante-mortem inspection Q34. If a Federally inspected plant slaughters a bovine without ante-mortem inspection, does the plant have the option of sending the carcass out as custom exempt or giving it to plant employees? A34. No. According to FSIS Directive 6100.1, such an animal would be condemned and must be disposed of in accordance with 9 CFR 314. In support of this decision, 9 CFR 311.27 states, "The parts and carcasses of cattle slaughtered in the absence of an inspector shall not be used for human food.” Custom slaughtered animals Q35. What is the FSIS policy on custom slaughter of non-ambulatory disabled cattle? For example, if a producer has an animal that he/she wants killed for consumption by his/her own family, and the animal has a broken leg that cannot walk, can he/she take it to a custom plant and have it slaughtered for his or her own use, (i.e., not for sale)? A35. All non-ambulatory disabled cattle are to be precluded from the human food chain, are not for human food, and are to be condemned. This determination derives from the Section 1 ( m )( 3 ) of the Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 601 ( m )( 3 )). Specifically, the term "adulterated" shall apply to any carcass, part thereof, meat, or meat food product under one or more of the following circumstances: if it consists in whole or in part of any filthy, putrid, or decomposed substance or is for any other reason unsound, unhealthful, unwholesome, or otherwise unfit for human food. 11 Cattle with a broken leg that are still ambulatory may be custom slaughtered under 9 CFR 303.1. Q36. If a federally inspected establishment has a non-ambulatory disabled cow that it mistakenly or inappropriately intends to slaughter as "custom exempt", should the on-site FSIS inspector segregate it and call a PHV so it can be condemned? A36. If the federally inspected establishment is preparing to custom slaughter a non-ambulatory disabled cow (cattle) at a federally inspected establishment, then the animal should be controlled by the inspector using a suitable retain tag with a FSIS padlock (if necessary) until the PHV can condemn it. If the animal has not been presented for inspection and could possibly be removed from the premises without FSIS permission, and there is reason to believe it will be taken elsewhere for slaughter, FSIS inspection program personnel should promptly identify the animal as “US Inspected and Condemned”, retain it in a pen using a US Retained Tag or FSIS padlock, and notify the PHV, FLS, and District Office (DO). If the establishment is non-federally inspected custom-exempt only operation, the reviewing officer should contact the DO. The DO will contact the Office of Program Evaluation, Enforcement and Review. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke_Wilbur Posted February 20, 2008 Author Report Share Posted February 20, 2008 Statement by Secretary of Agriculture Ed Schafer Regarding Animal Cruelty Charges Filed Against Employees at Hallmark/Westland Meat Packing Company February 15, 2008 "Today, the San Bernardino District Attorney filed felony animal cruelty charges against two employees who were terminated by Hallmark/Westland Meat Packing Company. It is regrettable that these animals were mistreated and I am encouraged and supportive of these actions by the San Bernardino District Attorney in response to this mistreatment. Since Jan. 30, when USDA learned of allegations made regarding inhumane handling of non-ambulatory disabled cattle at Hallmark/Westland Meat Packing Company, the Department has taken many aggressive steps. To date, Hallmark/Westland Meat Packing Company remains suspended by the Food Safety and Inspection Service and is not operating at this time. We continue to conduct a thorough investigation into whether any violations of food safety or additional humane handling regulations have occurred. On Feb. 8, our Office of the Inspector General took the lead on the investigation. At that time, USDA extended the administrative hold on Hallmark/Westland Meat Packing Company products for the National School Lunch Program, the Emergency Food Assistance Program and the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations while the investigation continues. I remain quite confident in the safety of the food supply. USDA will continue to take appropriate action based on the findings of the investigation." available for direct purchase by consumers. All products subject to recall bear the establishment number “EST. 336” inside the USDA mark of inspection. The products were produced on various dates from Feb. 1, 2006 to Feb. 2, 2008. Companies are urged to check their inventories and hold the products until the recalling firm makes arrangements for final disposition of the products. The following products are subject to recall: • Various weight boxes of “WESTLAND MEAT CO., BURRITO FILLING MIX.” • Various weight boxes of “WESTLAND MEAT CO., PACKED FOR JACOBELLIES SAUSAGE CO., 74/26 GROUND BEEF.” • Various weight boxes of “WESTLAND MEAT CO., RAW GROUND BEEF MEATBALL MIX FOR FURTHER PROCESSING.” • Various weight boxes of “WESTLAND MEAT CO., COARSE GROUND BEEF ‘FOR COOKING ONLY’, FAT: 15%.” • Various weight boxes of “WESTLAND MEAT CO., COARSE GROUND BEEF ‘FOR COOKING ONLY’.” • Various weight boxes of “WESTLAND MEAT CO., COARSE GROUND BEEF TO BE FURTHER PROCESSED INTO COOKED ITEMS, FAT: 15%.” • Various weight boxes of “WESTLAND MEAT CO., COARSE GROUND BEEF 85/15.” • Various weight boxes of “WESTLAND MEAT CO., COARSE GROUND BEEF 93/7.” • Various weight boxes of “WESTLAND MEAT CO., FINE GROUND BEEF ‘FOR COOKING ONLY’, FAT: 15%.” • Various weight boxes of “WESTLAND MEAT CO., FINE GROUND BEEF ‘FOR COOKING ONLY’.” • Various weight boxes of “WESTLAND MEAT CO., 90 - 10% GROUND BEEF, 3/16 GRIND.” • Various weight boxes of “WESTLAND MEAT CO., GROUND BEEF 1 LB. PACKAGE, FAT: 15%.” • Various weight boxes of “WESTLAND MEAT CO., GROUND BEEF, FAT: 15%.” • Various weight boxes of “WESTLAND MEAT CO., RAW BONELESS BEEF TRIMMINGS, ‘FOR COOKING ONLY’.” • Various weight boxes of “WESTLAND MEAT CO., RAW BONELESS BEEF, ‘FOR COOKING ONLY’.” • Various weight boxes of “WESTLAND MEAT CO., BEEF GROUND 50/50% LEAN.” • Various weight boxes of “WESTLAND MEAT CO., BEEF GROUND 73/27% LEAN.” • Various weight boxes of “WESTLAND MEAT CO., BEEF GROUND 81/19% LEAN.” • Various weight boxes of “WESTLAND MEAT CO., BONELESS BEEF 90/10.” • Various weight boxes of “WESTLAND MEAT CO., GROUND PORK FOR FURTHER PROCESSING NOT TO EXCEED 30% FAT.” • Various weight boxes of “PACKED FOR: KING MEAT CO., BEEF TRI TIP.” • Various weight boxes of “PACKED FOR: KING MEAT CO., BEEF TOP SIRLOIN BUTT.” • Various weight boxes of “PACKED FOR: KING MEAT CO., BEEF STRIP SIRLOIN.” • Various weight boxes of “PACKED FOR: KING MEAT CO., BEEF RIB EYE LIP-ON.” • Various weight boxes of “PACKED FOR: KING MEAT CO., BEEF PISMO TENDERLOIN.” • Various weight boxes of “PACKED FOR: KING MEAT CO., BEEF O/S SKIRT.” • Various weight boxes of “PACKED FOR: KING MEAT CO., BEEF I/S SKIRT.” • Various weight boxes of “PACKED FOR: KING MEAT CO., BEEF FLANK STEAK.” • Various weight boxes of “PACKED FOR: KING MEAT CO., BEEF BOTTOM SIRLOIN FLAP.” • Various weight boxes of “PACKED FOR: KING MEAT CO., BEEF STRIP LOIN BONE-IN, FURTHER PROCESS 1X1.” • Various weight boxes of “PACKED FOR: KING MEAT CO., BEEF EXPORT RIB 2X2, FURTHER PROCESS.” • Various weight boxes of REGAL brand “USDA SELECT, BEEF RIBEYE ROLL LIP-ON.” • Various weight boxes of REGAL brand “USDA CHOICE OR HIGHER, BEEF RIBEYE ROLL LIP-ON.” • Various weight boxes of REGAL brand “USDA SELECT, BEEF PLATE, OUTSIDE SKIRT.” • Various weight boxes of REGAL brand “USDA CHOICE OR HIGHER, BEEF PLATE, OUTSIDE SKIRT.” • Various weight boxes of REGAL brand “USDA SELECT, BEEF PLATE, INSIDE SKIRT.” • Various weight boxes of REGAL brand “USDA CHOICE OR HIGHER, BEEF PLATE, INSIDE SKIRT.” • Various weight boxes of REGAL brand “USDA SELECT, BEEF LOIN, STRIP LOIN, BONELESS.” • Various weight boxes of REGAL brand “USDA CHOICE OR HIGHER, BEEF LOIN, STRIP LOIN, BONELESS.” • Various weight boxes of REGAL brand “USDA SELECT, BEEF LOIN, BOTTOM SIRLOIN BUTT, FLAP, BONELESS.” • Various weight boxes of REGAL brand “USDA CHOICE OR HIGHER, BEEF LOIN, BOTTOM SIRLOIN BUTT, FLAP, BONELESS.” • Various weight boxes of REGAL brand “USDA SELECT, BEEF LOIN, TOP SIRLOIN BUTT, BONELESS.” • Various weight boxes of REGAL brand “USDA CHOICE OR HIGHER, BEEF LOIN, TOP SIRLOIN BUTT, BONELESS.” • Various weight boxes of REGAL brand “USDA SELECT, BEEF LOIN, TENDERLOIN, FULL, SIDE MUSCLE ON, DEFATTED.” • Various weight boxes of REGAL brand “USDA CHOICE OR HIGHER, BEEF LOIN, TENDERLOIN, FULL, SIDE MUSCLE ON, DEFATTED.” • Various weight boxes of REGAL brand “USDA SELECT, BEEF FLANK STEAK.” • Various weight boxes of REGAL brand “USDA CHOICE OR HIGHER, BEEF FLANK STEAK.” • Various weight boxes of REGAL brand “USDA SELECT, BEEF, BOTTOM SIRLOIN BUTT TRI TIP BONELESS.” • Various weight boxes of REGAL brand “USDA CHOICE OR HIGHER, BEEF, BOTTOM SIRLOIN BUTT TRI TIP BONELESS.” • Various weight boxes of “HALLMARK MEAT PACKING BEEF LIVERS.” • Various weight boxes of “HALLMARK MEAT PACKING BEEF FEET.” • Various weight boxes of “HALLMARK MEAT PACKING BEEF TRIPE.” • Various weight boxes of “HALLMARK MEAT PACKING BEEF REGULAR TRIPE.” • Various weight boxes of “HALLMARK MEAT PACKING BEEF HONEYCOMB TRIPE.” • Various weight boxes of “HALLMARK MEAT PACKING BEEF TAILS.” • Various weight boxes of “HALLMARK MEAT PACKING BEEF CHEEK MEAT.” • Various weight boxes of “HALLMARK MEAT PACKING BEEF TONGUES.” • Various weight boxes of “HALLMARK MEAT PACKING BEEF TONGUE TRIMMINGS.” • Various weight boxes of “HALLMARK MEAT PACKING BEEF BONELESS.” • Various weight boxes of “HALLMARK MEAT PACKING BEEF RIBS.” • Various weight boxes of “HALLMARK MEAT PACKING BEEF HEARTS.” • Various weight boxes of “HALLMARK MEAT PACKING BEEF CHEEKS.” • Various weight boxes of “HALLMARK MEAT PACKING BEEF PLATES.” • Various weight boxes of “HALLMARK MEAT PACKING BEEF SMALL INTESTINES.” • Various weight boxes of “HALLMARK MEAT PACKING BEEF LIPS.” • Various weight boxes of “HALLMARK MEAT PACKING BEEF SPLEENS.” • Various weight boxes of “HALLMARK MEAT PACKING BEEF SALIVARY GLANDS, LYMPH NODES AND FAT [TONGUES].” • Six-gallon containers of “HALLMARK MEAT PACKING BEEF BILE.” • One- and six-gallon containers of “HALLMARK MEAT PACKING BEEF BLOOD, .2% SODIUM CITRATE ADDED.” Some of the Westland Meat Co. branded products were purchased for Federal food and nutrition programs and, since Jan. 30, 2008, USDA has had an administrative hold on all products from Westland Meat Co. in all of these outlets including, in the National School Lunch Program, the Emergency Food Assistance Program and the Food Assistance Program on Indian Reservations. Based on this Class II recall, officials of the Food and Nutrition Service and Agricultural Marketing Service will work closely with State food and nutrition officials to minimize any disruptions caused by the removal and disposal of recalled Westland Meat Co. products. Media and consumers with questions about the recall should contact company Plant Manager Stan Mendell or Food Safety Consultant Steve Sayer at (909) 590-3340. http://www.fsis.usda.gov/images_recalls/005-2008_Labels.pdf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jordan Crump Posted February 20, 2008 Report Share Posted February 20, 2008 Humane Society of the United States is calling on the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Congress to take immediate steps to strengthen federal humane handling procedures and to enact more stringent laws to prevent a recurrence of the gross abuses documented at a southern California slaughter plant. The HSUS affirmed the USDA-initiated recall as a prudent response. While most of the recalled beef has already been consumed, the recall is an appropriate measure not only to mitigate risks to public health, but also to send a message that such inhumane behavior can have dramatic consequences for slaughter plants which permit it. The HSUS also called on USDA to change its policy and prohibit the slaughter of all—not just some—downed cows. As well, the organization is asserting that this case further underscores the need for Congress to enact pending farm animal welfare legislation -- the Downed Animal and Food Safety Protection Act and the Farm Animal Stewardship Purchasing Act – with no further delay. The beef recall came in response to The Humane Society of the United States' investigation documenting crippled cows being tormented at a Southern California slaughter plant. The abuse occurred even though USDA had a number of inspectors at the slaughter plant. HSUS President & CEO Wayne Pacelle stated, "A recall of this staggering scale shows it's bad for animals, bad for consumers, and bad for business to have slipshod enforcement and porous laws when it comes to handling animals at slaughter plants." After being provided videotaped evidence and a detailed report of the undercover investigation, San Bernardino County District Attorney Michael Ramos on Friday charged one of the slaughter plant's employees with five felony counts under California's anti-cruelty statute and three misdemeanor counts for abusing downed animals. A second worker was charged with three misdemeanors counts of abusing downed animals. Pacelle continued, "The plant HSUS investigated has been shut down indefinitely, its products have been recalled, and two of its employees are now facing criminal charges, with additional legal action almost certain to follow. Every slaughter plant in the nation should heed the messages sent by this investigation." Because the slaughter plant, Hallmark/Westland, shipped potentially dangerous ground beef to schools across the country as part of the National School Lunch Program, The HSUS also urges the USDA to take swift criminal and civil action to make sure Hallmark and its management are held responsible for this criminal conduct. Timeline: Feb. 17, 2008: USDA announces recall of 143 million pounds of beef, the nation's largest recall to date, from Hallmark/Westland Meat Packing Co. Feb. 15, 2008: San Bernardino County District Attorney Michael A. Ramos charges Daniel Ugarte Navarro with five felony counts under California's anti-cruelty statute and three misdemeanor counts alleging the use of a mechanical device to move "downer" cows, those unable to stand on their own, and a second worker, Jose Luis Sanchez, with three misdemeanors involving downers. Feb. 5, 2008: USDA announces it has pulled its inspectors and shut down the cattle slaughter plant that was the subject of an HSUS undercover investigation. USDA Undersecretary Dr. Richard Raymond cites "egregious violations of humane handling regulations" in pulling inspectors from the plant. Jan. 31, 2008: The HSUS urges schools in 36 states to stop serving Westland meat received through the National School Lunch Program. Jan. 30, 2008: USDA suspends Westland Meat Co. as a supplier to the National School Lunch Program and other federal nutrition programs, in response to the weeks-long HSUS investigation of the plant. Jan. 30, 2008: The HSUS reveals weeks-long investigation's findings of widespread mistreatment of nonambulatory dairy cows at a Hallmark Meat Packing Co., of Chino, California. The Humane Society of the United States is the nation's largest animal protection organization – backed by 10.5 million Americans, or one of every 30. For more than a half-century, The HSUS has been fighting for the protection of all animals through advocacy, education and hands-on programs. Celebrating animals and confronting cruelty -- On the web at humanesociety.org. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LAW_* Posted February 20, 2008 Report Share Posted February 20, 2008 Downed Animal and Food Safety Protection Act - States that it is U.S. policy that all nonambulatory livestock in interstate and foreign commerce be immediately and humanely euthanized when such livestock become nonambulatory. Amends the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act of 1958 to direct the Secretary of Agriculture to promulgate regulations providing for the humane treatment, handling, and disposition of nonambulatory livestock by a covered entity, including a requirement that nonambulatory livestock be humanely euthanized. Requires an entity to: ( 1 ) humanely euthanize nonambulatory livestock (while not limiting the Secretary's ability to test nonambulatory livestock for disease, such as bovine spongiform encephalopathy); and ( 2 ) not move nonambulatory livestock while such livestock is conscious, and ensure that such livestock remains unconscious until death. Prohibits an inspector at an establishment covered by the Federal Meat Inspection Act to pass nonambulatory livestock, carcass, or carcass parts through inspection. Requires an inspector or other employee at such establishment to label such material as "inspected and condemned." Defines "covered entity," "nonambulatory livestock," and "humanely euthanize." H.R.661 Title: To amend the Humane Methods of Livestock Slaughter Act of 1958 to ensure the humane slaughter of nonambulatory livestock, and for other purposes. Sponsor: Rep Ackerman, Gary L. [NY-5] (introduced 1/24/2007) Related Bills: S.394 Latest Major Action: 2/2/2007 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry. Rep Abercrombie, Neil [HI-1] - 3/7/2007 Rep Allen, Thomas H. [ME-1] - 10/2/2007 Rep Arcuri, Michael A. [NY-24] - 4/18/2007 Rep Baird, Brian [WA-3] - 2/5/2007 Rep Baldwin, Tammy [WI-2] - 1/30/2007 Rep Bartlett, Roscoe G. [MD-6] - 1/24/2007 Rep Berkley, Shelley [NV-1] - 1/24/2007 Rep Berman, Howard L. [CA-28] - 1/24/2007 Rep Biggert, Judy [iL-13] - 1/24/2007 Rep Bishop, Timothy H. [NY-1] - 1/24/2007 Rep Blumenauer, Earl [OR-3] - 1/24/2007 Rep Bordallo, Madeleine Z. [GU] - 1/24/2007 Rep Butterfield, G. K. [NC-1] - 2/16/2007 Rep Capito, Shelley Moore [WV-2] - 1/24/2007 Rep Capps, Lois [CA-23] - 1/24/2007 Rep Capuano, Michael E. [MA-8] - 7/10/2007 Rep Carson, Julia [iN-7] - 1/24/2007 Rep Castle, Michael N. [DE] - 1/31/2007 Rep Clarke, Yvette D. [NY-11] - 5/24/2007 Rep Clay, Wm. Lacy [MO-1] - 1/31/2007 Rep Cleaver, Emanuel [MO-5] - 1/24/2007 Rep Clyburn, James E. [sC-6] - 1/24/2007 Rep Cohen, Steve [TN-9] - 1/29/2007 Rep Conyers, John, Jr. [MI-14] - 1/24/2007 Rep Courtney, Joe [CT-2] - 4/24/2007 Rep Crowley, Joseph [NY-7] - 1/24/2007 Rep Cummings, Elijah E. [MD-7] - 1/24/2007 Rep Davis, Susan A. [CA-53] - 1/24/2007 Rep Davis, Tom [VA-11] - 11/14/2007 Rep DeFazio, Peter A. [OR-4] - 1/24/2007 Rep Delahunt, William D. [MA-10] - 4/23/2007 Rep DeLauro, Rosa L. [CT-3] - 1/24/2007 Rep Dicks, Norman D. [WA-6] - 1/24/2007 Rep Doyle, Michael F. [PA-14] - 1/24/2007 Rep Engel, Eliot L. [NY-17] - 1/29/2007 Rep English, Phil [PA-3] - 1/29/2007 Rep Eshoo, Anna G. [CA-14] - 4/16/2007 Rep Farr, Sam [CA-17] - 1/24/2007 Rep Ferguson, Mike [NJ-7] - 7/10/2007 Rep Frank, Barney [MA-4] - 1/24/2007 Rep Frelinghuysen, Rodney P. [NJ-11] - 5/1/2007 Rep Gallegly, Elton [CA-24] - 1/24/2007 Rep Gerlach, Jim [PA-6] - 1/24/2007 Rep Green, Al [TX-9] - 3/27/2007 Rep Grijalva, Raul M. [AZ-7] - 1/24/2007 Rep Gutierrez, Luis V. [iL-4] - 1/24/2007 Rep Hall, John J. [NY-19] - 7/26/2007 Rep Hastings, Alcee L. [FL-23] - 9/7/2007 Rep Higgins, Brian [NY-27] - 1/24/2007 Rep Hinchey, Maurice D. [NY-22] - 1/24/2007 Rep Hirono, Mazie K. [HI-2] - 1/29/2007 Rep Holt, Rush D. [NJ-12] - 1/24/2007 Rep Honda, Michael M. [CA-15] - 1/24/2007 Rep Inslee, Jay [WA-1] - 2/27/2007 Rep Israel, Steve [NY-2] - 1/24/2007 Rep Jackson-Lee, Sheila [TX-18] - 1/24/2007 Rep Kaptur, Marcy [OH-9] - 1/24/2007 Rep Kennedy, Patrick J. [RI-1] - 6/6/2007 Rep Kildee, Dale E. [MI-5] - 1/24/2007 Rep King, Peter T. [NY-3] - 1/24/2007 Rep Kirk, Mark Steven [iL-10] - 1/24/2007 Rep Klein, Ron [FL-22] - 3/20/2007 Rep Kucinich, Dennis J. [OH-10] - 1/29/2007 Rep Langevin, James R. [RI-2] - 1/29/2007 Rep Lantos, Tom [CA-12] - 3/19/2007 Rep Larson, John B. [CT-1] - 3/26/2007 Rep LaTourette, Steven C. [OH-14] - 1/24/2007 Rep Lee, Barbara [CA-9] - 1/24/2007 Rep Lewis, John [GA-5] - 2/8/2007 Rep LoBiondo, Frank A. [NJ-2] - 1/24/2007 Rep Lofgren, Zoe [CA-16] - 1/24/2007 Rep Lowey, Nita M. [NY-18] - 1/24/2007 Rep Maloney, Carolyn B. [NY-14] - 1/24/2007 Rep Markey, Edward J. [MA-7] - 4/16/2007 Rep Matsui, Doris O. [CA-5] - 1/24/2007 Rep McCarthy, Carolyn [NY-4] - 1/24/2007 Rep McCollum, Betty [MN-4] - 1/24/2007 Rep McDermott, Jim [WA-7] - 1/24/2007 Rep McGovern, James P. [MA-3] - 3/14/2007 Rep McNulty, Michael R. [NY-21] - 1/24/2007 Rep Meehan, Martin T. [MA-5] - 6/14/2007 Rep Miller, George [CA-7] - 1/24/2007 Rep Moore, Dennis [KS-3] - 1/29/2007 Rep Moore, Gwen [WI-4] - 4/16/2007 Rep Moran, James P. [VA-8] - 1/24/2007 Rep Murphy, Christopher S. [CT-5] - 6/27/2007 Rep Nadler, Jerrold [NY-8] - 1/24/2007 Rep Neal, Richard E. [MA-2] - 2/5/2007 Rep Olver, John W. [MA-1] - 1/24/2007 Rep Pallone, Frank, Jr. [NJ-6] - 1/24/2007 Rep Pascrell, Bill, Jr. [NJ-8] - 3/26/2007 Rep Payne, Donald M. [NJ-10] - 1/24/2007 Rep Platts, Todd Russell [PA-19] - 1/24/2007 Rep Price, David E. [NC-4] - 4/16/2007 Rep Pryce, Deborah [OH-15] - 1/24/2007 Rep Rangel, Charles B. [NY-15] - 1/24/2007 Rep Rothman, Steven R. [NJ-9] - 4/23/2007 Rep Ryan, Tim [OH-17] - 7/26/2007 Rep Sanchez, Linda T. [CA-39] - 1/29/2007 Rep Saxton, Jim [NJ-3] - 1/24/2007 Rep Schakowsky, Janice D. [iL-9] - 1/29/2007 Rep Schiff, Adam B. [CA-29] - 1/24/2007 Rep Schwartz, Allyson Y. [PA-13] - 1/24/2007 Rep Serrano, Jose E. [NY-16] - 1/24/2007 Rep Shays, Christopher [CT-4] - 1/24/2007 Rep Shea-Porter, Carol [NH-1] - 1/24/2007 Rep Sherman, Brad [CA-27] - 1/24/2007 Rep Sires, Albio [NJ-13] - 2/6/2008 Rep Smith, Christopher H. [NJ-4] - 1/24/2007 Rep Solis, Hilda L. [CA-32] - 1/15/2008 Rep Spratt, John M., Jr. [sC-5] - 1/29/2007 Rep Stark, Fortney Pete [CA-13] - 1/24/2007 Rep Sutton, Betty [OH-13] - 1/24/2007 Rep Tauscher, Ellen O. [CA-10] - 1/24/2007 Rep Tierney, John F. [MA-6] - 1/24/2007 Rep Udall, Mark [CO-2] - 1/24/2007 Rep Udall, Tom [NM-3] - 3/7/2007 Rep Van Hollen, Chris [MD-8] - 1/24/2007 Rep Waxman, Henry A. [CA-30] - 3/19/2007 Rep Weiner, Anthony D. [NY-9] - 1/24/2007 Rep Wexler, Robert [FL-19] - 1/24/2007 Rep Wolf, Frank R. [VA-10] - 1/24/2007 Rep Woolsey, Lynn C. [CA-6] - 1/24/2007 Rep Wu, David [OR-1] - 3/6/2007 Rep Wynn, Albert Russell [MD-4] - 2/12/2008 Rep Terry, Lee [NE-2] - 9/20/2007(withdrawn - 9/24/2007) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Adam Posted February 26, 2008 Report Share Posted February 26, 2008 Join FARM (Farm Animal Rights Movement)this Thursday for a TOTAL RECALL demo at the USDA What: USDA Demo for a total recall of ALL animal products When: Thursday, February 28, 2008 at 1:00 pm Where: Meet at 14th & Independence SW. Closest metro is the Smithsonian Stop (orange/blue line). We will be moving around to various entrances and visible street locations to make the most impact. In the wake of the USDA’s largest ever recall of ground beef because it came from sick, abused cows, the Great American Meatout is calling for recall of all animals products, as they ALL come from sick, abused animals. We will educate the public that this single incident is NOT an isolated case. This ABUSE, NEGLECT, LIES AND CRUELTY happens everyday inside these mechanized prisons and execution chambers! All animal products are cruel, so let’s hammer this message to the USDA and the general public. We NEED TO DEMAND A TOTAL RECALL OF ALL ANIMAL PRODUCTS BY THE USDA! If you have questions or interest, please contact adam@farmusa.org or call 301-530-1737. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.