Skip to main content

Just run on CNN.

A friend called and I came in late in the story, so I don't have all of the details yet, but the story was that the administration has announced it's intention to CUT meat inspections.

UPDATE: Story in Chicago Tribune, Bill would reduce meat inspections, from last night says that a provision in the farm bill from July would require only state inspection, not federal.

I regret that the story is not up on their site yet. It ran during the bottom part of the hour 1:30-200 am Pacific time.

Quotes from the Chicago Tribune article, it is a Democrat that is responsible.

" Because of a little-noticed legislative change buried deep within the 2007 farm bill approved in July by the House, only state inspections would be required for some meat products.

The measure was planted in the farm bill by Rep. Collin Peterson (D-Minn.), according to congressional staffers familiar with the bill. It would be a boon to small meat processing companies whose products must remain in the state of origin because they lack a federal inspection stamp.

Consumer advocates and a federal meat inspectors union oppose the measure, which is now under consideration in the Senate. They say that state inspection standards vary widely and that the federal inspection requirement ensures food safety.

Under current law, the U.S. Department of Agriculture inspects and regulates the interstate sale of beef and poultry. Inspectors are present in many large and medium meat plants. Some states also regulate meat production, but only for products that stay within that state's jurisdiction. "

Originally posted to Mr Tek on Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 02:20 AM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  My first diary in a while. (5+ / 0-)

    I just cannot believe with all of the failures in meat safety due to a severe lack of inspections, that this caould at be a good idea.

    Wrong time, wrong war, WRONG PRESIDENT!

    by Mr Tek on Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 02:25:37 AM PDT

  •  MMMMMM....ecoli....mmmmm! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ChaosMouse

    You see, we don't need government regulation.  The industry regulates itself.  As soon as enough people get sick or die or something, bang!  There's a recall.  

    And it's not like many people get sick or die or anything...

    /snark

  •  I laughed (in a sad, resigned kind of way) (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    realtime

    when I read the title.  I mean, how could they reduce meat inspections from almost nil.  Oh, now it's nil.  Vegetarianism never sounded so good.

    •  vegetarianism does sound good (0+ / 0-)

      So good in fact that I became a vegetarian.  Not a strict no meat eating vegetarian but a vegetarian none the less.  I read a book called "Eat to Live" and not that much protein is required.  In addition the FDA is in bed with the food industry and I no longer believe much of the stuff they publish.  Mercury in fish, mad cow, hormones in meat, and poison in Chinese meal just about did it for me.  

  •  I believe that it was Tom or Dick Smothers who (0+ / 0-)

    said, "It's not red meat that will kill you, it's the blue-green ones that will."

    Perhaps the Bushies are finding new ways to cull the current population, after all, genocide is such a nasty word.

    Let me do right to all, and wrong no man. - Dr. C. Savage, Jr.

    by pwrmac5 on Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 08:32:15 AM PDT

  •  I figured this was some executive decision (0+ / 0-)

    when I read the diary title, a bush thing.

    Fewer or no inspections or consumer protection sounds so republican.
    This Democratic congress is such a sad joke, just as willing to screw the people over. I hoped...it would be different.

  •  not sure I share the concern (0+ / 0-)

    Is it factually correct to say "reduced meat inspections"? Yes.

    But really all this bill would do is empower state inspectors to certify that small producers meet federal standards.

    I don't really see the problem here. States enforce federal regulations in a wide variety of areas.

  •  The concern is, (0+ / 0-)

    there are only a 150 or so federal inspectors.  I don't know if all states even have 1 full time meat inspector.  The whole reason for the federal inspection system was that states had a reputation for being way to lax in the early part of the last century.

    So now states will have to develop inspectors from budgets already gutted from years of ridiculous tax cuts.

    Wrong time, wrong war, WRONG PRESIDENT!

    by Mr Tek on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 09:42:17 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site