Tag Archives: Slaughterhouse

Illegal slaughterhouse — goats dogs frogs dragons — found in Melbourne

Posted on by
Reply

Police raided a Rockbank, Australia property this week with representatives from the RSPCA, Melton Shire Council, the Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE) and the regulator responsible for meat safety, PrimeSafe.

"The other agencies attended the residential address in relation to information about possible wildlife and animal cruelty offences, as well as the alleged production and selling of meat," a police spokeswoman said.

An RSPCA spokesman said 22 dogs of varying breeds were found and about 100 goats, one of which had to be euthanased on humane grounds.

PrimeSafe chief executive Brian Casey said two goat carcasses were found and about 20 kilograms of sheep or goat meat was discovered in a freezer.

There was no evidence dogs had been slaughtered, he said.

In Victoria it is illegal to slaughter non-consumable animals such as dogs, horses, cats and donkeys.

"You can slaughter consumable animals [such as goats] but they must be slaughtered at a licensed abattoir," Mr Casey told AAP.

There was an exemption in place to enable farmers to slaughter edible animals on their properties for their own consumption, but the Rockbank property was not a farm, he said.

More than 45 animals were seized by DSE including 30 frogs, four central bearded dragons, a children’s python and a crucifix toad, which were being kept illegally.

"A wildlife licence is required by anyone keeping and trading protected wildlife in Victoria."

Slaughterhouse 5, as in 5 stars; NRC committee finds releasing inspection and testing data on meat and poultry processing facilities with care could have ‘substantial benefits’

Posted on by
Reply

 Billy Pilgrim has come unstuck in time.

Wrong lede.

“Publicly posting enforcement and testing data corresponding to specific meat, poultry, and egg products’ processing plants on the Internet could have "substantial benefits," including the potential to favorably impact public health, says a new report from the National Research Council. The report adds that the release of such data could contribute to increased transparency and yield valuable insights that go beyond the regulatory uses for which the data are collected.”

The report gets a lot of things right, especially the decades-long move to more transparency in U.S. regulatory functions, whether it’s food safety, environmental pollution or energy generation. No one wants to be on the wrong side of history, the democratization of institutions, so best to provide taxpayer-funded information, and figure out the most effective way to provide such information, rather than being the politician or group that says, “no.”

The committee notes that, just like restaurant inspection disclosure, “releasing these data could potentially motivate individual companies, and sectors of the food industry, to improve their overall food safety efforts,” and that such publicly available date could, “provide incentives to food processing establishments to protect brand reputation in food safety in order to protect and enhance customer base and profitability.”

If only consumers could choose at retail.

The press release announcing the report’s findings is below.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is responsible for ensuring that meat, poultry, and processed egg products are safe, wholesome, and properly labeled. It collects voluminous amounts of data at thousands of processing facilities in support of its regulatory functions and is considering the release of two types of collected data on its website. These include inspection and enforcement data and sampling and testing data — such as testing for the presence of foodborne pathogens like salmonella, pathogenic E. coli, and Listeria monocytogenes. Some of this information is already available to the public via the Internet but is aggregated and does not contain names of specific processing facilities. However, most of the data FSIS collects, with the exception of information that is considered proprietary, can currently be obtained by the public through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

The committee that wrote the report examined a substantial body of literature documenting the impacts of disclosing establishment-specific regulatory information similar to that collected by FSIS. Based on this information, the committee believed there are strong arguments supporting the public release of FSIS data that contains the names of processing facilities on the Internet, especially data that are subject to release under FOIA, unless there is compelling evidence that it is not in the public interest to release them. Several potential benefits of releasing such data include enabling users to make more informed choices, motivating facilities to improve their performance, and allowing research studies of regulatory effectiveness and other performance-related issues. More specific benefits might include better understanding on the part of the public relative to the kinds of information that have been collected, such as a greater appreciation for the quality, complexity, and potential usability of the data for specific purposes. Even if individual firms do not change their behavior in response to data posting, overall food safety could improve if information about performance leads consumers to favor high-performing facilities, effectively resulting in a shift in the composition of the market.

The benefits of releasing FSIS data must be balanced against potential unintended adverse consequences, the report says. These could include impacts on facilities’ profitability, possible misinterpretation of the data, pressure on inspector performance, and unintentional release of proprietary or confidential information. However, the committee concluded that while adverse impacts are possible, there is limited systematic evidence documenting their likelihood.
Because of the complexity of issues associated with public release of data with facility names and the potential for adverse effects, the report suggests the need for an effective disclosure plan to inform the process. For example, potential adverse effects could be minimized if FSIS ensures the data’s integrity, provides definitions of what is being quantified, and is careful to protect confidential information associated with particular facilities. To help make sure that the public release of the data will be useful, the committee suggested that FSIS define a timetable for its release and commit the resources necessary to allow the data’s accessibility, quality, and timeliness.

Additionally, the report recommends that FSIS consult with other agencies that have released detailed regulatory data on the performance of individual facilities or firms, such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO), the U.S. Department of Labor’s Mine Safety and Health Administration, and several states and local public health departments that have released data on restaurant hygiene and inspection grading.

Below is one of our contributions to providing such public information.

So it goes.

Filion, K. and Powell, D.A. 2009. The use of restaurant inspection disclosure systems as a means of communicating food safety information. Journal of Foodservice 20: 287-297.
The World Health Organization estimates that up to 30% of individuals in developed countries become ill from food or water each year. Up to 70% of these illnesses are estimated to be linked to food prepared at foodservice establishments. Consumer confidence in the safety of food prepared in restaurants is fragile, varying significantly from year to year, with many consumers attributing foodborne illness to foodservice. One of the key drivers of restaurant choice is consumer perception of the hygiene of a restaurant. Restaurant hygiene information is something consumers desire, and when available, may use to make dining decisions.

UK supermarket chain wants cameras in abattoirs to control cruelty

Posted on by
1

In early 2008, the Humane Society of the United States released video documenting animal abuse at Hallmark/Westland Meat Packing Co. of Chino, Calif., secretly shot by an undercover employee.

That $100-million-a-year company does not exist anymore – brought down by someone using an over-the-counter video recording device.
In April 2009, Cargill Beef announced it had implemented a third-party video-auditing system that would operate 24 hours a day at its U.S. beef plants to enhance the company’s animal welfare protection systems. All of Cargill’s U.S. plants were expected to have the program in place by the end of 2009.

In Feb. 2010, Cargill announced it would expand its remote video auditing program to monitor food-safety procedures within processing plants.

Last week, a new undercover video investigation by a national animal welfare group claimed to show disturbing conditions at a Texas farm operated by the country’s largest egg producer and distributor.

?The Humane Society of the United States said that one of their investigators documented a range of filthy, unsanitary conditions while working at a Cal-Maine Foods operation in Texas over a five-week period this fall. A five-minute video produced by the group shows hens confined in overcrowded cages with rotting corpses, dead and injured birds trapped in cages, eggs covered in feces, and escaped hens floating in manure pits.?

The images are a stark contrast to the clean white birds and eggs featured in the video on the Cal-Maine corporate website.

On Nov, 19, 2010, The Independent reported that Morrisons became the first U.K. supermarket to promise to install CCTV at its abattoirs to reassure the public. The RSPCA called for other chains to follow suit. The supermarket said CCTV images from its Colne and Turriff abattoirs would be stored for 30 days and made available to the Food Standards Agency (FSA). Spokesman Martyn Fletcher said: "Our customers want to know that animals are treated well through the slaughtering process and we believe installing CCTV cameras is the best way to demonstrate we have the highest possible standards."

Slaughterhouse cruelty has been under the spotlight after Animal Aid captured breaches of welfare laws at six out of seven randomly selected abattoirs – including one supplying organic meat, where pigs were kicked in the face.

September’s footage from F Drury & Sons reinforces the suspicion many, if not most, of the 370 abattoirs in England and Wales break the rules.

Speaking on behalf of F Drury & Sons, the Association of Independent Meat Suppliers said the 20-second rule had been designed for religious slaughter when animals are not stunned. "The likelihood of a stunned animal being conscious is extremely small," said its veterinary officer Stephen Lomax. "This is not an animal welfare issue."

He blamed government vets for not alerting owners to the "deplorable" abuse found elsewhere. He said: "There’s no excuse for all the self-serving arguments the FSA gives about these vets [monitoring abattoirs] not having enough time. They spend a great deal of time phoning their boyfriends, reading the newspaper or filling in useless forms. The system has failed."

The FSA initially denied illegality at F Drury & Sons, but changed its mind when challenged.

Companies would protect their brand and build trust with the buying public by having their own video to supplement claims of humane handling and food safety.
 

FSIS issues draft guidelines on in-plant video monitoring – technology could strengthen humane handling, food safety

Posted on by
Reply

Apparently the U.S. was paying attention to that whole video-in-slaughterhouses-to-improve-animal-welfare-and-food-safety discussion. They just never let me in on the details.

Today, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) issued draft guidelines to assist meat and poultry establishments that want to improve operations by using in-plant video monitoring.

(They’re saying we’re from the government, we’re here to help; run).

The purpose of the draft guidance, Compliance Guidelines for Use of Video or Other Electronic Monitoring or Recording Equipment in Federally Inspected Establishments, is to make firms aware that video or other electronic monitoring or recording equipment may be used in federally inspected establishments where meat and poultry are processed. Establishments may choose to use video or other electronic recording equipment for various purposes including ensuring that livestock are handled humanely, that good commercial practices are followed, monitoring product inventory, or conducting establishment security. Records from video or other electronic monitoring or recording equipment may also be used to meet FSIS’ record-keeping requirements.

The draft guidance can be found at: www.fsis.usda.gov/Significant_Guidance/index.asp.
 

UK regulator wants cameras in slaughterhouses to curb animal abuse, industry says, hang on mate

Posted on by
2

In Feb. 2008, the U.S. Department of Agriculture shut down a meat processing company after concluding workers committed egregious acts of animal cruelty, about a week after the Humane Society of the United States released video showing employees of the Hallmark/Westland Meat Packing Co. of Chino, Calif., tormenting cows that were too injured or weak to stand.

That $100-million-a-year company does not exist anymore – brought down by someone using an over-the-counter video recording device.

An employee of the Humane Society of the United States worked undercover inside the company for about six weeks in the fall, secretly recording what went on.

His video shows what appear to be crippled cows dragged with forklifts, sprayed in the face with a high-pressure water hose and poked in the eye with a stick.

The images sparked concern not only from animal-welfare advocates, but from food-safety experts, who feared the company might have used the tactic to prod sick animals to slaughter in violation of state and federal regulations.

At the time I said maybe it was time for USDA to adopt some new inspection and investigative techniques if the HSUS can so easily document such grotesquely poor treatment of animals.

In April, 2008, Dr. Richard Raymond of USDA said the department needed neither video cameras nor more inspectors to police slaughterhouses after the country’s largest beef recall earlier this year.

Everything was just fine.

In March 2009, Cargill Beef decided to do their own thing – probably because when an outbreak or outrage happens, the USDA or any other regulatory types, don’t lose their jobs, it’s the producers, processors and employees who lose money and their jobs — and implemented a third-party video-auditing system that would operate 24 hours a day at its U.S. beef slaughter plants to enhance the company’s animal welfare protection systems.

A year later, Cargill announced it was expanding its remote video auditing program to monitor food-safety procedures within processing plants.

Mike Siemens, Cargill leader of animal welfare and husbandry, said at the time,

“The early results with our animal welfare program have been terrific … In addition to the positive results on compliance rates, we have observed healthy competition among plants on performance scores, as well as a general theme of collaboration among plants on how to attack specific operational challenges. The ability to share data and video easily is extremely valuable.”

If the U.S. regulators aren’t listening, the Brits are.

The U.K. Food Standards Agency tabled a proposal last week to introduce CCTV (closed circuit television) cameras into slaughterhouses in a bid to tackle animal welfare abuse.

Food Production Daily cited FSA director of operations Andrew Rhodes as saying the agency is calling for the voluntary introduction of surveillance cameras after undercover filming by animal rights group Animal Aid in the last year had highlighted abuses in U.K. slaughterhouses. The proposal is due to go before agency chiefs next week for approval.

The report said that while there is no legal requirement to fit CCTV, food business operators (FBOs) may come under pressure from retailers to install systems. The FSA acknowledged there were practical issues – such as how the footage in monitored, who has access to it and how long film is kept – that must be addressed.

Agreed. There are lots of issues involved. So figure them out. What slaughterhouse or processor wants to be held hostage by each new hire that may be carrying a video device.

Today, Food Production Daily cited Stephen Rossides, head of the British Meat Processors Association (BMPA), as saying that proposals to fit surveillance cameras in UK slaughterhouses to combat animal welfare abuses must remain voluntary as violations are relatively rare.

I don’t know about the U.K., but at the time of the Westland mess, Julie Schmit of USA Today reported that newly released government records show such animal mishandling in past years was more than a rare occurrence.

The Animal Welfare Institute, an animal-protection group, said that more than 10% of the humane-slaughter violations issued by the U.S. Department of Agriculture for the 18 months ended March 2004 detailed improper treatment of animals that couldn’t walk — mostly cattle.

USDA records obtained by the Animal Welfare Institute describe 501 humane-handling or slaughter violations that occurred at other slaughter plants. At one plant, a downed cow was pushed 15 feet with a forklift. Other companies were cited for dragging downed but conscious animals, letting downed cattle be trampled and stood on by others and, in one case, using "excessive force" with a rope and an electric prod to get a downed cow to stand, the enforcement records say.

Beyond reaction and regulation, producers and processors who say their food is safe should be able to prove it. Producers and processors who say they treat animals humanely should be able to prove it.

Vietnam closes 60 dog meat slaughterhouses and restaurants after cholera bacteria found

Posted on by
Reply

Continuing on with the cultural preferences for various protein sources, Vietnam closed around 60 dog meat restaurants and slaughterhouses in outlying parts of Hanoi after cholera bacteria were found in two of the animals.

Le Anh Tuan, director of the Hanoi health department, said businesses will be allowed to reopen in two weeks provided they are cholera-free and the owners can show their meat comes from hygienic sources.

Dog meat is a delicacy for many Vietnamese, who believe eating it in the second half of the lunar calendar month helps dispel bad luck.
 

A meaty Memorial Day – stick it in for safety

Posted on by
Reply

Stories abound about meat.

It’s the Thursday morning before the long-weekend carnivorous orgy known as Memorial Day, so of course there are media accounts of meat: USA Today describes the problems of farmers who rely on small, family-owned slaughterhouses inspected by the U.S. Department of Agriculture; the N.Y. Times weighs in about non-O157 Shiga-toxin producing E. coli (note – there are a lot of other STEC than just six).

Others will cover those details.

The run-up to Memorial Day also has another tradition – bad food safety advice, often from N.Y. Times food columnist Mark Bittman, and boring food safety advice, usually from government and all the clones that mindlessly repeat banalities.

I noticed three years ago while travelling by train through France when Bittman wrote,

"… well-done meat is dry and flavorless, which is why burgers should be rare, or at most medium rare. The only sensible solution: Grind your own. You will know the cut, you can see the fat and you have some notion of its quality."

He must have those super space-aged goggles like Scott on Imagination Movers that allow him to see the dangerous bugs.

Yesterday, Bittman penned his annual homage to the burger in all its rare and microbiologically-challenged glory. Play along at home, and see how many instances of microbiological cross-contamination you can spot in the video available here.

And the only way to determine if any food has been safely cooked is to use a tip-sensitive digital thermometer. Color or time are lousy indicators of doneness. Or, as the U.S. Department of Agriculture says,

“1 out of every 4 hamburgers turns brown in the middle before it has reached a safe internal temperature. The only way to be sure food is safely cooked is to use a food thermometer to measure the internal temperature.”

And the snappy USDA slogan — It’s Safe to Bite When the Temperature’s Right!

(Exclamation marks should be reserved for the truly exclamatory; let the reader decide; Strunk and White, Elements of Style)

Stick it in.

Does USDA overrule its own veterinarians on the slaughterhouse floor? Live testimony today

Posted on by
Reply

Today’s The USA Today (I never tire of using that) reports that Dean Wyatt, a supervisory veterinarian at the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service will tell a congressional hearing today that USDA superiors failed to act on reports of illegal and unsafe slaughterhouse practices, letting suspect operations continue despite public health risks.

The story says Wyatt will detail instances in which he and other inspectors were overruled when citing slaughterhouses for violations such as shocking and butchering days-old calves that were too weak or sick to stand. He also describes being threatened with transfer or demotion after citing a plant for butchering conscious pigs, despite rules that they first be stunned and unconscious.

In 2008 and early 2009, Wyatt ordered suspensions in operations three times at Bushway Packing Inc., in Grand Isle, VT. Among other things, he found downed calves being dragged through pens to slaughter — a violation because contact with excrement can contaminate animals. In each case, he says, managers overruled him and allowed the plant to keep running.

Bushway subsequently made headlines last fall when the Humane Society of the United States filmed undercover video of workers hitting and using electric prods to move calves. The plant was shut down.

CBS Radio called about 5 a.m. for comment – they’re so polite, they always e-mail first to see if I’m awake so they don’t wake the household. As soon as I said, yeah, let’s do it, 1-year-old Sorenne awoke so I missed the first call to change a diaper and provide 8 ounces of milk. But, the reporter at CBS in N.Y. agreed it was a good call, kid first, then radio soundbites, in which I said something along the lines of, I don’t know anything about the specifics of these cases, but the best slaughterhouses won’t be held hostage by a dude with a video camera, and will get way, way out in front of the minimal standards required by USDA. Maybe it’s too early and I’m still dreaming.

Cargill expands video monitoring at packing plants; ultimate goal to reduce E. coli and Salmonella contamination

Posted on by
2

In 1184, city leaders in Toulouse, France, introduced some of the first documented measures to oversee the sale of meat: profit for butchers was limited to eight per cent; the partnership between two butchers was forbidden; and, selling the meat of sick animals was forbidden unless the buyer was warned.

By 1394, the Toulouse charter on butchering contained 60 articles, 19 of which were devoted to health and safety.

As outlined by Madeleine Ferrières, a professor of social history at the University of Avignon, in her 2002 book, Sacred Cow, Mad Cow: A History of Food Fears, the goal of regulations at butcher shops — the forerunners of today’s slaughterhouse — was to safeguard consumers and increase tax revenues. Animals from the surrounding countryside were consolidated at a single spot — the evolving slaughterhouse, originally inside city walls — so taxes could be more easily gathered, and so animals could be physically examined for signs of disease.

It’s no different today: slaughterhouses are common collection points to examine animals for signs of disease and to collect various levies.

In early 2008, the Humane Society of the United States released video documenting animal abuse at Hallmark/Westland Meat Packing Co. of Chino, Calif., secretly shot by an undercover employee.

That $100-million-a-year company does not exist anymore – brought down by someone using an over-the-counter video recording device.

At the time, I wrote the U.S. Department of Agriculture — unlike 12th century France — had access to that same video technology. Producers and processors who say their food is safe should be able to prove it. Producers and processors who say they treat animals humanely should be able to prove it. Government should be able to use technology to do their jobs.

In April 2008, Dr. Richard Raymond, the then undersecretary for food safety at USDA, told a House subcommittee that USDA had enough food inspectors after hiring more than 190 the previous year and videotaping meat plant operations would be costly and practically difficult to implement, adding, "It’s not as simple as a camera," and that the agency was "not stretched too thin."

But when an outbreak or recall happens, the USDA types, or any other regulatory types, don’t lose their jobs. It’s the producers, processors and employees who lose money – and their jobs.

In April 2009, Cargill Beef announced it had implemented a third-party video-auditing system that would operate 24 hours a day at its U.S. beef plants to enhance the company’s animal welfare protection systems. All of Cargill’s U.S. plants were expected to have the program in place by the end of 2009.?

Now Cargill has announced its expanded remote video auditing program will monitor food-safety procedures within processing plants.

Cargill already is using RVA to monitor animal well-being practices and is completing the technology installation at its 10 beef-harvest facilities in North America. Based on the positive results in the animal well-being area, Cargill officials decided to extend the RVA technology to monitor food-safety practices and is piloting that portion of the project at beef facilities in Fresno, Calif. and Milwaukee, Wis.

Mike Siemens, Cargill leader of animal welfare and husbandry, said,

“The early results with our animal welfare program have been terrific and we’re excited to get all the facilities up-and-running on the program. Cargill has been able to use the RVA technology to help increase an already superior compliance rate at its plants to an even higher level. In addition to the positive results on compliance rates, we have observed healthy competition among plants on performance scores, as well as a general theme of collaboration among plants on how to attack specific operational challenges. The ability to share data and video easily is extremely valuable.”

For the food-safety pilot, RVA will be used to review stages within the process where workers clean and sanitize their knives and other equipment.

Additionally, Cargill will apply the technology to monitor dressing procedures to ensure proper techniques are followed to reduce the potential for E.coli and Salmonella contamination.

Angie Siemens, Cargill technical services vice president for food safety and quality, said,

“We’re working to eliminate the opportunity for cross-contamination. We want to have the right steps at the beginning of our process to enhance the efficacy of our intervention technologies later in the process. The major objective of the video auditing application is to design a ground-breaking program that can further reduce the E. coli and Salmonella contamination.”

If bars can figure out how to advantageously use video technology, so can slaughterhouses and processing facilities. Someday maybe even USDA will go beyond the inspection techniques of 12th century France.
 

Don’t slaughter goats in restaurant kitchens and don’t store 148 goat carcasses in a van

Posted on by
Reply

Courthouse News Service reports today:

A Texas state trooper found 148 goat carcasses stacked inside Halal Import Food Market’s unrefrigerated van and ordered it to Halal’s warehouse to be inspected, where health inspectors found that 102 dead goats and boxes of organs had mysteriously disappeared in transit, the state says.

The state believes that Zamzam Supermarket and World Food Market received the missing meats, according to the complaint in Tarrant County Court.

The somewhat nauseating complaint describes Halal’s warehouse as filthy, with "dead birds and bird droppings on food products … live birds flying around warehouse and resting on food products," trash piled 6 feet deep in places, "numerous dead rodents, numerous rodent droppings along with gnawed materials and debris," meat rotting on a grinder, "various uncovered and exposed foods in direct contact with wet floor along with debris and trash in produce/dairy cooler," and "cigarette butts, rotting fruit, peels, partially eaten chicken and other food" around the warehouse.

The goat carcasses bore no stamps showing that they were from inspected sourced, and the carcasses in the van were touching "seatbelts, peeling and fraying fabric overhead from van ceiling, and a rusty van floor," the state says.