Time for a Tamper Resistant Burger
By Robert Warne - November 8, 2001Should we be beefing (pun intended) up security around large bridges or focusing on the protection of the nation’s slaughterhouses? Is it possible that along with national symbols and airports, meatpacking plants may also be targets for terrorist activity? Recent reports suggest there’s a greater risk for bio-terrorism associated with meatpacking plants than with our water supply. It’s information of this nature that could drive the fiercest carnivore to self inflicted veganhood.
Whereas the postal service became the first hub for bio-terrorism, the meat processing facilities may be next. And just as airlines and airport related businesses have struggled to obtain appropriate levels of liability insurance and sought government intervention, so may the meat processing industry in the future.
A meat processing plant is where just about anybody with a bio-terrorist agenda could easily contaminate tons of market ready meat. One doesn’t need to be a chemist or have a laboratory to produce E. coli, salmonella or listeria. These undesirable types of bacteria occur naturally around meatpacking operations. A worker would only have to steal a sample of deadly bacteria from a packinghouse inspection lab and then introduce it to the meat mix to wreak havoc. Recent studies have shown that multiple forms of bulletproof bacteria are readily available at meatpacking facilities.
One particular study documented in the Oct. 18 edition of The New England Journal of Medicine, explains that many forms of salmonella found in modern meat are resistant to antibiotics. Conducted by a group of doctors and scientists, the study focused on the occurrence of antibiotic-resistant salmonella from retail ground meats.
Out of 200 meat samples (ground chicken, beef, turkey and pork) purchased from three different grocery stores, 41 contained salmonella. Eighty-four percent of the salmonella samples taken were resistant to at least one antibiotic. Sixteen percent of the samples were resistant to ceftriaxone, which is the preferred drug to treat children with salmonellosis. The study also discovered strains of salmonella resistant to as many as 12 different antibiotics. The good news though is that antibiotics ciprofloxacin, amikacin, apramycin and nalidixic acid proved effective against all strains studied.
Since the meat samples came from different processing plants the report concluded that the overuse of antibiotics in food animals has bred potent strains of antibiotic resistant bacteria.
With minimal security, the meat processing industry is just an outbreak away from some serious liabilities. The average plant turns over its entire staff each year. The majority of the staff is made up of underpaid, untrained migrant workers with little documentation. Many workers are hired without background checks. This type of information typically wouldn’t cause one to think twice about the “business as usual” procedures at meatpacking facilities. But since the threat of foot-and-mouth disease, and the events of Sept. 11, the question of how safe is our meat has become a viable topic of discussion. The one thing standing between us and infectious bacteria are those that handle our meat. Details surrounding the meatpacking process don’t conjure up the most pleasant thoughts.
The Los Angeles Times reports that, “Meatpacking is the nation’s most life-threatening occupation. The rate of serious injury—losing limb or an eye—is five times the national average. In 1999, more than one out of four of the nation’s 150,000 meatpacking workers suffered a job-related injury or illness. Yet in many ways, these people—and the conditions at these plants—are the first line of defense against food-born illnesses.”
This information evokes images of the activities and environment associated with meat processing portrayed in Upton Sinclair’s 1906 novel The Jungle. At the time the book was published, it provoked a public outcry over the unhealthy standards in the meatpacking industry and brought about the passage of The Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906.
This novel was a wake-up call to the public regarding the threat of tainted beef. The events that have transpired since Sept. 11 have also served as a wake-up call.
The US Agriculture Secretary Ann M. Veneman announced Oct. 19 that President George W. Bush requested $45 million from Congress to address issues of bio-security.
“USDA is committed to doing our part for homeland protection,” said Veneman. “We must stand ready and ensure that we are prepared, coordinated, and able to respond should we face an emergency.”
To prevent potential threats the USDA has taken measures that “…includes inspector being on heightened awareness at ports of entry and in food processing plants; increased security at appropriate USDA facilities…”
In remarks made to a group of Farm Broadcasters Oct. 23 Veneman said, “I think we are doing everything we can. I am certain that our food supply is safe as it can possibly be…”
Since Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge was named to head up the office of homeland security, Veneman has been working with him on food safety issues. “As we go through this we will be looking at additional funds and requests to enhance our infrastructure in this area even more,” she said.
For the time being, as a rule of thumb it may be best to make some changes of your own. Properly cooked meat is your strongest defense against a bacteria laden product, short of going cold turkey (pun intended again) and abstaining from meat altogether. Don’t carelessly handle meat and make sure you wash your hands thoroughly and clean surfaces that have come in contact with raw meat.
| 
__May11th2017.gif)
.gif)