@ossobuco,
Hi osso,
No, I hadn't read it. It really all comes down to this one statement.
Quote:Dr. Kenneth Petersen, an assistant administrator with the department’s Food Safety and Inspection Service, said that the department could mandate testing, but that it needed to consider the impact on companies as well as consumers. “I have to look at the entire industry, not just what is best for public health,” Dr. Petersen said.
Americans demand cheap products (not just cheap hamburger), but they also demand that these cheap product be safe. They think the federal agencies such as the USDA or the FDA are out there keeping them safe. That's not exactly true. Federal agencies report to Congress and, as we all know, Congress doesn't always just have the American consumer in mind as it gives direction to the various inspection/licensing agencies.
As Dr Petersen indicates, public health is just one component of what needs to come into play when the agencies establish policies. As you can see in the article, many of these policies are reactionary. The meat industry was given voluntary recommendations by the USDA. Many chose not to implement the recommendations. There's also a "don't ask, don't tell" mentality within the meat-packing industry (as well as many other 'regulated' industries) and they'd rather insure against individual litigation than implement expensive changes to their procedures and processes. If the number of incident cases becomes high enough then the federal agencies will strengthen their guidelines and, in some cases, upgrade recommendations to mandates. Once a policy or process is mandated the cost of implementation is passed on to the consumer. And, I strongly believe that the average consumer would rather eat cheap hamburger and take their chances on not becoming the subject of an investigative news article than pay the cost of government mandates on the meat packing industry.