Press "Enter" to skip to content

Not Enough Meat? Rounds Proposes Weakening Food Safety Inspections

With Donald Trump doing his darnedest to self-fulfill the Republican prophecy that government doesn’t work, Republicans can’t very well propose serious government plans to address coronavirus and its economic impacts that would require the Executive Branch to perform effectively. Thus, they can only propose more deregulation and a race to the anarachic bottom.

Take, for instance, Senator Marion Michael Rounds’s proposal to address overblown concerns about the meat supply chain by eliminating some food safety inspections:

Speaking on the Greg Belfrage Show Thursday morning, Rounds said he supported easing restrictions that mandate meat inspected in a certain state cannot be sold across state lines.

“If you’ve got a state-inspected meat facility near Sioux Falls, why can’t they sell into Minnesota?” Rounds said. “If it’s safe enough for somebody in Sioux Falls, in South Dakota, why isn’t it safe enough for somebody in Minnesota?”

Rounds and eight other senators signed a letter Monday urging Senate leadership to include the bill in future coronavirus relief [Carter Woodiel, “Rounds: New Meat Inspection Rules Could Ease COVID-19 Strain,” KELO Radio, 2020.05.14].

Not new rules, KELO headline writer—fewer rules. Rounds has been beating this drum on reducing food safety inspections for the last couple years—and wait, what? Hasn’t gotten it done yet? Primary voters, would you like to think about that?

We heard this same old saw from Rounds and the GOP on health insuranceoh, gee, if we could just sell across state lines, everything would be fine! Eliminating state standards only leads to a race to the bottom, where South Dakota would roll back its inspection rules and use that deregulation as a recruiting ploy, inviting unscrupulous corporations to settle here, face minimal inspections, and subject the rest of the country to increased risk.

Rounds’s deregulatory plan won’t pull kinks out of a supply chain; it’ll put a kink in your digestive system as meatpackers look for the states with the least government oversight and churn out wormier meat.

I know Republicans can’t propose government solutions when they’ve put a moron in charge of government, but instead of tearing up rulebooks and harming consumer safety, why not try a simpler solution: let’s all just buy more spaghetti!

23 Comments

  1. Loren 2020-05-15 08:06

    Typical GOP-think to do away with all regulation because commerce is self regulating. If enuf sickness and death can be traced to any specific plant, people will no longer buy from that plant. It will go out of business, thus eliminating the problem. They will “go away like magic.”

  2. jerry 2020-05-15 09:19

    EB5 Rounds, especially Thune and even Queen NOem were privy to the pandemic plan set out by President Obama for their view in 2016. This was destroyed by trump but it did give the blueprint on everything, including food supplies. We need more inspectors along with a new approach to the process lines at packing plants. Remember folks, Covid19, processed by sick workers and unsanitary lines, stays on that meat until you fry it up. Or, you can do it like the Brits, boil it and then fry it. Lovely.

    Inspectors do many inspections, including workplace and sanitary conditions, to keep us safe. In fact, producers should demand more inspections on their products so they can sell.

    https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/food-safety-education/get-answers/food-safety-fact-sheets/production-and-inspection/slaughter-inspection-101/slaughter-inspection-101

  3. Moses6 2020-05-15 09:25

    Amazing you have these three who think their conservative will bail out banks, airlines and agriculture but , something else needs funding they call it socialism.Can we do better than have these three as mouth pieces

  4. 96Tears 2020-05-15 17:49

    EB-5 Rounds and COVID Kristi should spend a shift on the floor working side by side with the people they’re ordering back to the slaughterhouses. When they’ve done that (working, not sloughing off in the coffee room), then I’ll listen to that baloney.

  5. Debbo 2020-05-15 20:38

    So Roundy and his GOP pals, including the utterly loathsome Perdue, think it’s a good plan to add patients suffering from salmonella, listeria and other food borne illnesses to the COVID-19 crowd? Is the GOP really that stupid and/or cruel top to bottom?

  6. Eve Fisher 2020-05-16 10:03

    “The US far-right long ago rejected evidence-based policy in favor of policy-based evidence.” – Paul Krugman

    Therefore, in a time of pandemic, OF COURSE you deregulate, because people are getting sick anyway, so who’s gonna notice? As long as the meat is cheap, and the plants are making money, who cares?

  7. jerry 2020-05-17 09:28

    Did someone say, “Impossible sausage” or “Impossible pork”, oh yeah, those foods are coming soybean farmers. Get your ya ya’s out boys.

    “Impossible Pork has 220 calories in a four-ounce serving. That’s not much less than a serving of Smithfield 80% lean ground pork, which has 260 calories. Smithfield’s animal-derived pork has more total fat, at 20 grams, than Impossible Pork, which has 13 grams. But Impossible Pork has far more sodium, at 420 milligrams. Smithfield has 70 milligrams.

    But health concerns are only part of the reason consumers are eating more plant-based meats. Animal welfare and environmental concerns are also a factor. Nearly 1.5 billion pigs are killed for food each year, a number that has tripled in the last 50 years, according to the World Economic Forum. Raising those pigs depletes natural resources and increases greenhouse gas emissions.” https://www.denverpost.com/2020/01/07/impossible-foods-pork-sausage/

  8. Clyde 2020-05-17 10:05

    Well, soybean and all farmers are not going to benefit from this. The fact is that if you eliminate the inefficiency of growing the crop and feeding it to animals and only feed the crop directly to humans you will guarantee huge surplus crop production. What will we do with what little pasture we have left if cattle don’t graze on it. How many less soybean fields do we need it people are eating just soybean meal disguised as meat rather than converting that soybean meal to meat by feeding it to hogs?
    Looks like we had better bring back the “Buffalo Commons” idea. A new Serengeti in South Dakota….will the state benefit?????
    Right now, through the UN, we supply to nations that are staving a food that is almost exactly the ration we feed to hogs in this country. Starving peoples have been known to survive on it but I don’t think they relish it.
    As the producer of Micheal Moore’s latest points out: “You cannot have infinite growth on a finite planet.” I think this planet is heading for a point when just pushing the big red button and ending it all will look to be a very attractive alternative.

  9. jerry 2020-05-17 11:31

    Buffalo commons, perhaps. With the buffalo, we had the efficient means to weed control and of the seeding of grasses. Yes, I think that would be a great idea for South Dakota! Indeed, tourists and nature lovers would find this prairie as endearing as I do. Nature trails and tourism, who would’ve thunk it. As a plus, this could then be a place where bees could thrive even better than they do now for natural honey production, the list goes on. No slaughter houses on the grand scale, just local butcher shops for local grown meats. Good thinking Clyde! Great idea!!

    Soy could be the food staple of the future to benefit the producer’s wallet immensely, as long as it’s grown right, no GMO to get the top dollar. You could feed the masses with the soy, corn, wheat and oats and rice to name a few. Not only do we drink those products, we could produce all of our foods with them.

  10. mike from iowa 2020-05-17 12:10

    Didn’t drumpf pretty much fritter away our biggest buyer of soy in his continuing efforts to totally screw up our economy? drumpf is now saying he is breaking off relations with China because they are too smart and play him for the fool he is.

  11. Cory Allen Heidelberger Post author | 2020-05-18 05:51

    Raising soybeans to feed livestock to then feed people seems inefficient. If we were stocking a starship that would have to produce its own in a contained environment with no chance of resupply for years, we’d never build a cattle pen in the cargo bay and then divert 50% (or more?) of the hydroponics lab plant production to their feed; we’d just flavor and eat whatever came out of hydroponics and leave the cattle (and their waste) at home.

  12. Clyde 2020-05-18 13:04

    I see nothing wrong with the buffalo commons idea either. And yes, eating the soybeans directly would be more efficient. Only thing is….it ain’t gonna happen.
    Instead a tiny handful of people will eventually have control of all food production and when they do it will be very profitable for them. Instead of price takers like farmers have been they will be price makers and won’t produce unless it is profitable. That has been the last position they want the folks that are farming now to be in.
    The Chinese and other poor country’s have got along fine for a very long time with almost no meat but guess what they want in their diet now?
    Then I think that a very careful analysis of what the real costs are of growing the plant based protein really is. I know that the way we are doing it right now is extremely energy inefficient and likely very unhealthful as well. There is a reason farmers are 6 times more likely to come down with Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma than the general population. The same thing that is making farmers sick isn’t likely doing the general population any good.
    Yeah, the population just needs to keep growing because we can feed them on “impossible” food and, after all, our big multinationals need cheap labor. Don’t think our ‘Ponzi scheme’ banking system will work either unless it is continually expanded.
    One more thing. The idea of a “buffalo commons” might sound romantic but that land is now paying property tax to the state of South Dakota. Who’s going to make up that revenue when a non profitable ‘ buffalo commons’ ends up with a huge chunk of land.

  13. jerry 2020-05-18 13:48

    If you plant and harvest only GMO soybeans, corn, etc., you are not likely to get Non-Hodgkins Lymphoma if you lay off the Bayer. As the Buffalo Commons was suggested by you, I guess you know that the Fort Pierre National Grassland or the Buffalo Gap National Grassland or any grounds that are publicly owned don’t pay tax. In fact, when you buy a ranch in western South Dakota, the land you purchase is deeded or leased that is under contract.

    After reading what you write Clyde, you almost seem like you’re arguing with yourself on the benefits of soy production to replace meat production. Maybe it’s because you know that most of the meat we get here is imported from Brazil, Argentina, Australia, parts of the European Union and the list goes on.

    The reason why Dances with Wolves was so successful to audiences was its authenticity, not only the language, but the landscape. They still come here for that. So yeah, that Buffalo Commons you like, would be a money maker for the state coffers.

  14. Debbo 2020-05-18 14:14

    Meaty Mugface isn’t worried about enough meat. His only concern is ripping off farmers and filling the pockets of the Big Packers.

    Pulseless Perdue has tossed the safeguards President Obama installed for the farmers who raise and finish livestock and cleared the way for JBS, Cargill, National Beef and Tyson to collude to suppress the prices they pay for the beef on the hoof.
    National Memo has this story, no paywall.

    is.gd/fnnjzr

  15. mike from iowa 2020-05-18 15:06

    Great link, Debbo. Not in the least surprised by underhanded wingnut tricks to screw all but the biggest.

  16. mike from iowa 2020-05-18 17:00

    This just in, Beaver Cleaver’s worst nightmare, Eddie Haskell (You little creep) has left the Cleaver residence for the final time, age 76. RIP Ken Osmond.

  17. Debbo 2020-05-18 18:39

    “C’mon Eddie.” Wally, with a sigh, as Eddie harasses the Beav yet again.

  18. Clyde 2020-05-18 21:02

    Jerry, I don’t quite understand how you value public land. As it is now if private parties utilize that land for cattle grazing they most definitely pay a fee. It may not be called a tax but it ain’t free. You may not be aware that before the 1930’s mess almost all land in the west was privately owned but the depression made many owners stop paying taxes and there were no buyers willing to take it on. Soooo, the government owned it. Huge tracts of BLM land. You may also be talking about purchasing a long term contract to lease which I’m sure is also done. In which case the lessee is standing the tax or is using the purchase of the lease in stead of a tax on BLM land. Regardless, its being payed for.
    Folks may get all warm and fussy over a drive through the buffalo herd in Custer park but how far will they go and how many buffs do they want to see?
    Anyway, Jerry, have at it and get rid of those GMO soybeans. Please. we will need more people to grow them and when they make that “impossible burger” out of them they will have to cost a little more. Doubt that the fake food or the GMO owners will be happy with that.
    Rounds wanting less meat inspection is nothing new. They have been chipping away at food inspection for decades. One of the big arguments with the UK Brexit was that they would have to make food trade agreements with the US and get the same lousy stuff we are eating rather than the foods they were getting from the EU.

  19. Debbo 2020-05-18 21:51

    An op ed in the Strib has some thoughts about the food production system in the USA.

    “Should cheap meat to consumers, raised and processed on the backs of workers and farmers, be the end goal of our food system? No. The end goal of our food system should be to provide nutritious, safe, affordable food that respects and adequately compensates farmers, workers and local businesses all along the supply chain.

    “Continued concentration in the meatpacking industry has resulted in fewer market options and the mind-boggling fact that these mega-plants produce tens of millions of meat servings per day. Indeed, lack of antitrust enforcement in the meatpacking industry has been a major problem before the COVID-19 pandemic. Enforcement of antitrust laws such as the Packers and Stockyards Act, passed in the 1930s, can help turn this situation around. It’s the kind of bold action needed to restore fairness for farmers and workers.

    “Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison has joined 10 other state attorneys general in investigating antitrust issues with these mega-packers. And Agriculture Commissioner Thom Petersen and his staff have moved quickly to take steps to aid farmers and the food supply. They are working hard to identify and expand farmer options for processing and have created a grant program for existing smaller processors to add more processing capacity. These are positive steps that can help create needed change in our food system.”

    There’s more of course, but that is the gist. You know the Strib is paywalled, sorry.
    is.gd/VKeHcl

    Can/should SD join Minnesota in some of our efforts?

  20. jerry 2020-05-18 22:24

    A fee? Please, that’s a gift for those in control of that land. But you knew that Clyde. How does this amount square with what you pay in tax

    “The grazing fee for 2019 is $1.35 per AUM, as compared to the 2018 fee of $1.41 per AUM. The grazing fee applies to federal lands in 16 Western states on public lands managed by the BLM and the U.S. Forest Service.” https://www.blm.gov/programs/natural-resources/rangelands-and-grazing/livestock-grazing

    So, we understand one another on an AUM “An AUM is the amount of forage needed to sustain one cow and her calf, one horse, or five sheep or goats for a month.”

    As you can see, when a landholder sells their place, they not only sell the deeded land but also the lease. The lease is worth more than the land in many regards.

    I don’t begrudge folks for taking up this great deal. I only begrudge the idea that we must have only meat on the table and we don’t care that we’re destroying the planet for the greed of it. We can clearly see now what a sham the current meat industry is when they send folks to certain illness or death for the profit. On top of that, this ain’t animal husbandry when you send these cattle to a CAFO and jack them full of corn and chicken crap and growth hormones.

  21. Clyde 2020-05-19 09:41

    Right, Jerry. I got into a war with Sandra Day O’Conners brother back in the 80’s over the cost of BLM grazing. He ran cattle on BLM land from Texas to Canada. In his article he claimed that the BLM AUM fee was like land owners land taxes. I had to respond that that AUM fee that fat cats like him were paying should at least be equivalent to property taxes. Taxes that were four times higher than his BLM fees. Argument went on for a couple of issues back when letters to the editor were still allowed. Now that all of media has been taken over I don’t see many “letters to the editor” sections anymore.

Comments are closed.