Some slaughterhouses are beginning to refuse the sale of meat to companies that will test the trimmings. They have also began to not test out their products as well resulting in more people getting infected. This legislation that they want to pass would increase the price of producing the beef by 1 cent per pound. But the testing had been proved that it had prevented infected meat to being dispersed in school which would be feed to most of the students. There has been 36 different trimmings that were tested and found to have E. coli and in every case they were required to go and find the exact cause for contamination and had to find ways to prevent it. Recently the American Meat Institute has said that this legislation would cause unnecessary repetitive actions because slaughterhouses have been making their own checks routinely however many other companies have stated an interest in conducting more checks.
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Legislation for E. Coli Testing
The article "Senate Bill Would Require E. Coli Testing" was written November 18, 2009 by Michael Moss. It talked about how Senator Kristen Gillibrand wants to pass a legislation to require all companies to test for a deadly E. coli strain before it is packaged and sent out. The bill is called the E. Coli Eradication Act of 2009 and is mainly aimed towards slaughterhouses not testing trimmings before they are mixed, which makes it harder to trace it back once it's mixed. Although some companies test their mean upon arrival most places expect that the slaughterhouse that the meat is coming from to already have tested it and not send bad meat.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
It makes sense to have E.Coli testing done before meat is put on the market. Not only does it stop a preventable disease from reaching the population, it stops the recalls that happen every time E.Coli poisoning is found in meat. I think that is worth the additional cent per a pound of meat that this would cost. Testing should not be left up to the companies to decide whether it happens or not, because 9 times out of 10 they will go for what is more profitable, and right now that's putting untested meat on the market.
ReplyDeleteI think its great that there is a majority that takes testing the trimmings very seriously. As shown by the case of the paralyzed dance instructor, the strain of E. coli in hamburg can have horrible, destructive, and long-term effects on the human body. Personally, I would rather pay the extra one cent/lb. to make sure I was buying pure meat rather than suffer the consequences. Also, I think it is extra important to double or triple check the meat for E. coli because, like the article said, it could get distributed to schools. Furthermore, I would think it beneficial to slaughterhouses to always test their meat rather than have investigators come in to find the source of the E. coli later on after selling infected meat.
ReplyDeleteI tihnk this is a great idea. It seems in these fast acting days we live in people are too busy to pay attention to stuff like this. Everyone is at a constant movement and around us people are being infected and becoming sick. One sentence that stood out to me was, "Some slaughterhouses are beginning to refuse the sale of meat to companies that will test the trimmings." If you think about it, why wouldn't the slaughterhouses meat want to be tested. If they are so secure that their meat is flawless, then why refuse the testing. To me, it sounds like the slaughterhouses are becoming lazy in their production and aren't allowing testing because there is a chance their meat is infected.
ReplyDeleteI like this article a lot. I think that what they are doing is helping people have a healthier and safer life. Testing for E.coli more often garauntees that all meat is safe to eat and people dont have to worry about it all of the time. Knowing that some slaughterhouses have tested positive for having E.coli definately brings up more awareness about it and to really secure the saftey of meat. I dont see why slaughterhouses would not test their meat. It does not make them look good at all, it just seems as if they dont care. Why wouldnt they want to see if their meat is safe for the public to eat?
ReplyDeleteI found this article very interesting and surprising. As Taylor said: "Why wouldn't they want to see if their meat is safe for the public to eat?" I'm really glad that the government is taking this issue seriously. It is very reassuring to know that steps are being taken to reduce the likihood that people will become infected with E.coli. Another point that Taylor made that I agree with is that by testing the meat and publishing this article, people are becoming aware that not all meat is safe to eat. People need to become more proactive and I'm glad that the government is taking the first step.
ReplyDeleteThis is a very important topic to bring up. In the current economy, many different businesses will certainly try to cut corners to save a bit of cash, and this is a sneaky way to do it. Unfortunately, by doing this the consequences could be potentially disasterous. This leads me to agree with what Taylor wrote, "It does not make them look good at all, it just seems as if they dont care." And in the end, a company will be more successful if consumers feel that they can trust them. This topic is something that should not be ignored, instead it is excellent that Sam has helped bring it out into the light.
ReplyDeleteI really liked this article. I think it is a great idea to test the meat for E.coli before they sell it to the public. With many rules for food vending, I think it would be smart to push this law into affect so protect the public. A company that does not want to test their meat is careless and should have their licenses revoked due to public safety issues. I would not mind paying the extra money, because in the long run, I would rather pay with money than with my health, or even my life. This law would ensure the safety of consumers food, and I think more people would buy meat knowing it is safe. It would be stupid for a company not to test because if their was an outbreak from their meat, people are less likely to buy from them, and the company has to pay more to recall the meat. Great Article!!
ReplyDelete