Round One Goes to Industry In Inspection Brouhaha
By Larry Aylward, managing editor
It's a classic case of winning ugly. Although the meat industry can declare a victory by way of the House Appropriations Committee's decision to implement negotiated rule-making for inspection reform, it is facing a barrage of hostile criticism from its mostly Democratic detractors, and from some major players in the national print media who are trying to make the industry out to be the villain.
On June 27, the House Appropriations Committee voted 26-15 to bar USDA from proceeding with its plan to reform inspection until department officials engage in negotiated rule-making with meat and poultry processors.
On July 3, the decision-which also must pass the House and Senate, and not be vetoed by President Clinton to become law-was a hot issue on the editorial pages of three major U.S. newspapers, which took the opportunity to crash the meat industry's low-key victory party.
The headline in the lead editorial of the Chicago Sun-Times read: "Food-inspection lag is a deadly outrage."
The headline in the lead editorial of the Atlanta Journal-The Atlanta Constitution read: "The risk of deregulation," and cited that the House Appropriations Committee's decision is a symptom of the "deregulation fever going through Congress." The editorial also said: "These days, informed testimony is given no weight whatsoever in Congress, where corporate money and blind ideology now drive the debate."
The headline in the Seattle Times read: "Zero tolerance for delay on meat-safety reforms." The editorial went on to say that the committee's decision was craven, political and anti-consumer.
The industry may have taken its worst hit in a column written by New York Times' writer Bob Herbert. In his July 3 "In America" column under the headline, "Let Them Eat Poison," Herbert wrote: "The meat industry and its stooges in the Republican Party have ganged up on the Agriculture Department (and the American consumer) to make sure the new inspection system never sees the light of day."
A non-gloating AMI President J. Patrick Boyle sounded irked by the headlines. "I don't think there's any basis and fact for a headline like that ['Let Them Eat Poison']," Boyle said firmly, adding he perceives media coverage to be fairly balanced. "I'm always worried about sensationalism or inaccurate statements whenever they appear in the press or other forms."
A sticking point of the vehement disagreement is the time factor involved with the implementation of an inspection program. Democrats, and USDA Undersecretary for Food Safety Michael R. Taylor, whose controversial inspection reform proposal has been lambasted by opponents for its potential expense, wanted the program in place by early 1996.
Democrats now claim the institution of negotiated rule-making will delay the implementation of meat inspection by possibly two years.
Boyle disputes such thinking. He would like to get to the table as soon as possible. "I remain optimistic that if we could actually sit down through a negotiated rule-making process, we could find a consensus on a lot of important areas rather quickly," he states.
The meat industry claims it only wants a say in the matter. It is why the National Meat Association and other industry organizations filed a petition with USDA Secretary Dan Glickman in June asking for negotiated rule-making. Under the current bill, sponsored by Rep. James Walsh (R-N.Y.), a panel established for negotiations would be expected to report back to USDA in nine months with suggestions for meat inspection.
But Democrats, consumer groups and some media are convinced that inspection will end up on the back burner. They claim consumers are the ultimate losers.
One observer claimed the meat industry had no choice but to take its problem to the House Appropriations Committee. H. Russell Cross, director of the Institute of Food Science and Engineering at Texas A&M University and former FSIS administrator, is not surprised the industry is already garnering bad press. But the industry will have to swallow the bad press like a dose of castor oil.
"The bottom line is that the industry didn't have a lot of choice but to try and bring this discussion back to the table," Cross says, adding that he supports an industry voice in inspection proposals. "It would have been better for the industry if it had an alternative plan to present-a consensus on where inspection should be going.
"But the economic impact of the proposed rule is far, far worse than negative press."
It's called winning ugly.