The process of writing legislation has often been compared to
sausage-making, but rarely is rotten meat actually present at a
congressional hearing. Yet some is expected this afternoon at a
House Agriculture Committee hearing "to
review technologies in the meat industry."
The hearing is in the cross hairs of activists opposed to the
spiking of packaged red meats with carbon monoxide gas, which keeps
cuts crimson no matter how old the meat. Unable to wrangle a place
on the witness list, some plan to make their olfactory point in the
hallway.
Meat producers are enthusiastic about carbon monoxide, which in
small quantities poses no risk when consumed. By keeping meat
red it boosts sales of aging but still edible cuts that would
otherwise be tossed or discounted because of poor appearance --
a waste the industry says costs it $1 billion a year.
Opponents -- including Kalsec of Kalamazoo, Mich., which
sells extracts that slow the browning of meats and has been
badly hurt by the use of carbon monoxide -- have petitioned the
Food and Drug Administration and the Agriculture Department to
ban the practice, or at least submit it to a full safety review.
They point to studies showing that consumers rely primarily
on color to determine meat freshness -- modern packaging makes
it impossible to smell spoiled meat -- and argue that the FDA
was wrong in 2002 to classify the treatment as "generally
recognized as safe."
The European Union has banned the practice because it can
"mask visual evidence of spoilage."
"The use of carbon monoxide in meat packaging is clearly
deceptive to consumers," said Donna Rosenbaum, executive
director of Safe Tables Our Priority, an advocacy group in
Northbrook, Ill., created after four children died and hundreds
became sick from eating tainted Jack in the Box hamburgers in
1992 and 1993.
On Oct. 22, her group and three others -- the Consumer
Federation of America, Food & Water Watch and the Government
Accountability Project -- sent a letter to Agriculture Committee
Chairman Collin C. Peterson (D-Minn.) asking for a place at the
hearing table, to no avail.
Peterson's state is home to Precept Foods, a major player in
carbon monoxide treatments. It is a joint venture between a
subsidiary of Cargill Inc. and Hormel Foods Corp., both also of
Minnesota.
A committee staff member said that the hearing is for those
who develop and use new meat technologies and that "there will
be other opportunities for the committee to hear from other
stakeholders" at a later date.
In fact, Kalsec was invited to testify but declined, a
company representative said, on the grounds that it did not want
the hearing to morph from one about consumers' "right to know"
into a David-and-Goliath argument over money and market share.
"But that's exactly what it is and has been from the start,"
countered Randy Huffman of the American Meat Institute
Foundation in Washington. The industry is "fed up" with the
suggestion that consumers are being duped, he said, adding that
the meat "has enjoyed enormous consumer acceptance."
Huffman said new data to be presented today along with a
letter of support signed by 17 "independent scientists" should
help allay safety fears. But the industry has its work cut out
for it.
Already, several supermarket chains, including Giant Food,
Stop & Shop and Safeway, have announced they will no longer sell
carbon-monoxide-gassed meats. And Tyson Foods, the nation's
largest processor of meat and poultry, recently said it would
stop using the technology.
Those decisions came after the companies received five-page
letters from Rep. John D. Dingell, chairman of the Energy and
Commerce Committee, and Rep. Bart Stupak, chairman of the
panel's oversight and investigations subcommittee -- Democrats
from Kalsec's home state of Michigan.
The letters asked how the companies are ensuring that
consumers are not being fooled about freshness and demanded
reams of data going back several years. Among other sensitive
issues, the congressmen asked for data on how often the
companies' refrigerators get too warm and how much spoiled meat
is returned by customers.
An Oct. 11 letter to Dingell and Stupak from a lawyer
representing Giant and Stop & Shop showed the impact such
letters can have. It informed the legislators that those stores
had decided to drop the treated meat.
"Based on conversations I have had with . . . the Committee
staff, it is my understanding that this decision by Stop &
Shop/Giant addresses the concerns raised by your letter," lawyer
Theodore M. Hester said in the letter. ". . . And, accordingly,
that it will not be necessary for Stop & Shop/Giant to provide
the committee with the information requested by that letter."