New standards inadequate to protect consumers

Shoppers who would just as soon skip the purchase of chicken contaminated with sores, lesions and scabs might want to check carefully the poultry they put in their supermarket buggies.
A U.S. Department of Agriculture report, dated Sept. 26, 2000, and released to Scripps Howard News Service under the Freedom of Information Act reveals that almost 40 percent of 14,000 chickens heading to supermarket shelves from seven "model plants" last year had defects that should have been detected on the processing line.
Most of us could probably handle the occasional feather or oil gland that wasn't properly removed in processing, but the very idea that 1.1 percent of the chickens were diseased and that 18.8 percent were contaminated with material from the chicken's digestive tract should certainly give consumers reason for concern.
In July 1996, we heralded new USDA rules that were supposed to have been governed by scientific standards, instead of the old "poke and sniff" method for finding contaminated meat.
Obvious problems: But apparently, either the new standards aren't sufficiently rigorous or there are simply not enough inspectors to do an adequate job. Either way, the public's health and confidence in American agriculture must not be compromised.
In Europe, the reaction to outbreaks of mad cow disease -- that can affect humans -- and foot-in-mouth disease -- which is a disease primarily of hooved animals -- have devastated farmers, who have had to watch entire herds destroyed. Fear of tainted meat -- even where the fear is not justified -- has radically changed meat-buying patterns, another blow to farmers.
Such panic cannot be allowed to happen here. But when federal guidelines categorize cancer, worms and abscesses as "conditions with consumer-protection implications not related to food safety," we have to wonder whether USDA officials understand the ramifications of such seeming disregard for public opinion.