E. Coli #4 (Best to start with #1 and work your way through)

E. coli conservatives (4): LIVE AND IN CONCERT!!!

By Rick Perlstein on Thu, 2007-04-19 23:18.
Last year I attended a major conference of conservative intellectuals and activists at Princeton University as the token liberal. There I heard Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention say that the Democratic Party ostracizes all pro-life Democrats. Reflecting on the pro-life Democrat who happened to hold the obscure position of Senate minority leader, I finally realized I'd met, socialized with, interviewed, and debated enough conservative Republicans to come to a firm conclusion: they could be divided into two groups--those who lied or stonewalled to my faced, and those who hadn't...yet.

I don't know whether it's fair to label Bush administration officials Stephen Sundlof, Michael Rogers, and Captain David Elder--respectively, the FDA's veterinary medicine, field investigations, and enforcement directors--conservatives. I just learned, however, what it feels like to be stonewalled by them.

I just got off with phone from a conference call arranged by the FDA press office to respond to the latest developments in the pet food scandal--that the importer Wilbur-Ellis received rice protein concentrate from the Chinese company Futian Biology Technology Co. Ltd. in a bag stamped "melamine"--the same contaminate that killed dogs and cats by shutting down their kidneys--and that the poison showed up in Natural Balance brand pet food. I've been doing a lot of research lately on how the E. coli conservatives running our food safety system instinctively put the interests of corporations over the interests of consumers. Though I have to say I was shocked to hear it happen in real time, and in stereo.

The first reporter's question was, naturally enough, about China: had FDA inspectors been able to get visas to travel there to see what was what? No, not yet. But "we fully expect the Chinese government to cooperate." Later someone asked about a press release they'd received from a Chinese government agency stating that since one of the companies in question only exported for industrial purposes, not for food, it wasn't their responsibility. Another asked if the spiking was accidental or intentional. Dr. Sundlof said no one was sure, because they haven't been able to get into China.

But no worries: they fully expect the Chinese government will cooperate.

As I've noted, in South Africa, a third ingredient, corn gluten, was found to be poisoned by malamine. And so, logically enough, the second question out of the box, from the Sacramento Bee, was whether any the FDA planned to sample any other ingredients besides wheat gluten and rice protein concentrate for the poison at the docks. The FDA reps didn't answer that question. They answered another question, which hadn't been asked, insead: that they only contaminated products they definitely knew about were wheat gluten and rice protein. The official added a distracting, redundant, and entirely extraneous point: "The common variable in all this appears to be the country of origin."

Then, a non sequitor: "We're certainly looking into that." He said it in a steely, determined tone, as if he hoped no one would notice he was saying nothing.

No such luck. Brian Hartman of ABC followed up: "I still don't think I heard an answer to the question from the Sacramento Bee if anything was found in border checks."

The staffer responded with another non-answer: that they only knew of kidney failure problems that had been reported. (That, you should know, is the Orwellian standard by which most food safety scares are "reported": by the companies, after the product proves defective.) He said that, "We would expect the companies, when FDA contacts them...to initiate the appropriate action."

Yes: the FDA would ask them to take tests. If they don't test; well, there's nothing FDA can do.

It was at this point that I noticed that they seemed to be answering questions from prepared texts. It suddenly occured to me that this might be why the call had been scheduled for 4:00 EST, but didn't begin until 4:20--they were refining the stonewall.

The obvious question came. We already know that Natural Brands is only one of five pet food manufacturers to which the suspect rice protein was shipped. What are the other four companies whose products might be poisoned? "Right now we're in the middle of that investigation so we're not releasing the names." Why not? Because "we don't know what if any products have been made" using poisoned ingredients.

A follow-up: "Shouldn't consumers have that information now so we can use it in our decision-making processes?"

Good question, for which the answer was: "We're not aware of all the products that have been made." Captain Elder contributed: "We don't have complete information.... We're not going to share information that is speculative, that is prelminary."

But it wasn't speculative. It wasn't prelminary. They know who these companies are. But they were protecting them, instead of the public, on the off chance that they didn't happen to put the poisons they'd taken deliver of in their product.

"I know this has sort of been asked," another report pleaded, but why can't the FDA tell people which four companies had taken delivery of poisoned pet food ingredients before Fido finds out the hard way? "Our efforts," came the response, "are limited to...finished products that might reach consumers on the shelves."

And there it was. Conservative "government" at work. When it comes to foreign policy, the Bush Administration has propounded a "one percent doctrine": even if there's a one percent chance they represent a threat, they should be invaded anyway. When it comes to pork products people might eat--wouldn't want to put a corporation at risk.

Oh, wait. Did I say pork products?

That's right. I almost forgot. One of the companies that took delivery of delivery of potentially tainted ingredients from China mixed up a batch of something turned out not to be of standards high enough for pets. So they apparently sent it down the supply chain to a less finicky customer. Though the FDA is not sure of the exact details: "I don't know if it was sent to another processor for hog feed but we do understand that it made it into some hog feed."

The reporter who first asked about pork broke in for a follow-up, and was cut off.

Next, someone asked about the "nitrogen spiking theory" of how the ingredients ended up poisoned. One heard in the background--perhaps one of the officials thought their phone was on mute--"Is that something we would do or the company would do?", and one seemed sure.

I asked a question. Belatedly, they had begun testing samples of wheat gluten and rice protein concentrate at the borders. Now that we know that corn gluten had been poisoned, too, from South African authorities, were they testing samples of that at the ports?

An FDA official stammered. He wasn't reading from a paper now. He promised, "We're taking a number of proactive steps." He said, "We're increasing the number of products we're sampling"--but he refused say which.

Which was an extraordinary thing. If they're increasing the number of products they're sampling, but won't confirm that they're sampling the one other ingredients we know has been poisoned--well, isn't that an admission that they they suspect more ingredients have been poisoned, but that they won't tell the public what those ingredients are? Making it impossible for conscientious consumers to search out those ingredients on product labels?

Not to fear. Just feed your dog meat. Avoid, however, the pork. "We will be working closely with USDA to determining the final outcome as to the disposition of those pigs who might have gotten contaminated feed might be."