A USDA seal of approval might be on your hamburger meat, but that doesn't mean it's salmonella-free. One company insists that as long as it's fully cooked, it's safe.

In a nonsensical ruling, federal judges told the U.S. Department of Agriculture that it cannot withhold its seal of approval for hamburger meat that inspectors know is tainted with the salmonella bacteria. So unless a new consumer protection law is written, the ruling means that the government is actually prevented from protecting Americans, even children, from dangerously contaminated meat.

The ruling came in a suit brought by Supreme Beef Processors in Texas against the USDA. The company, which grinds beef and beef "trimmings" into hamburger, failed a USDA inspection in 1998 when nearly half of the sampled hamburger was contaminated with salmonella. In a re-inspection 10 months later, Supreme failed again when 20 percent of the meat was tainted with the bacteria, and it failed a third set of tests in August 1999. At that point, the USDA said it would suspend inspections at the plant, which could have put the company out of business because meat must pass inspection before it can be sold.

Supreme sued in federal court, saying the presence of salmonella in its hamburger wasn't cause for the USDA to deny federal approval of the meat. Remarkably, not only did the trial judge agree, but a three-judge panel with the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals confirmed that ruling last month.

Supreme cannot be held accountable for the presence of salmonella in its hamburger, the courts ruled, because the bacteria was already in meat supplied to the grinder. Even more ludicrous was the courts' finding that the USDA could not deny its "inspected and passed" sticker for salmonella-infected hamburger because the meat can't be considered "injurious to health."

Salmonella is a bacteria present in animal waste and when consumed, causes severe diarrhea and fever, and the bacteria can spread throughout the body if untreated. A particular threat to children, the elderly and those with impaired immune systems, salmonella food poisoning causes 1.4-million illnesses and 600 deaths a year in the United States.

So how could the judges conclude it is not injurious to health? Because raw hamburger is meant to be cooked, they ruled, and "normal cooking practices for meat and poultry destroy the salmonella organism."

That is a risky assumption, says Carol Tucker Foreman, a former USDA official and director of the Consumer Federation of America's Food Policy Institute. Cross-contamination is common, she said, when food preparers or kitchen utensils touch tainted meat then pass the salmonella on to other foods. Also, consumers cannot be sure meat is cooked properly when they eat out.

The courts have undermined the very confidence that Americans have in their government to protect them from dangerous food products. The USDA guarantee on every package of hamburger that the meat has passed an inspection will be meaningless. "It makes it worse than meaningless," Foreman said. "The government is intentionally misleading the consumer that the product is safer than it is."

We would hope that legitimate meat processors would want to build confidence in their product. Hamburger grinders could insist that their meat supply be free of salmonella, and they could take steps to disinfect meat during the production process. But they have chosen profit over trust.

The only fix is for Congress to pass a new law making it clear that meat should not pass a USDA inspection if it is seriously tainted by salmonella or other pathogens. And Americans should demand action. If members of Congress fail to fix the law, they once again will have chosen a special interest over their constituents.

In the meantime, the USDA may be forced to add its "inspected and passed" sticker to hamburger that isn't fit to eat, but the department should make its inspection results available to the public by posting them on the Internet. At least that way American consumers will know which meat processing companies are a threat to their health.

Back to Opinion

Contact the Times | Privacy Policy
Standard of Accuracy | Terms, Conditions & Copyright

From the Times
Opinion page