more from the madness front - or is there a method to it?
in friendship,
prad
U.S. Scientist Tells of Pressure to Lift Bans on Food Imports
(http://www.vegforlife.org/resources_NYT4.htm)
By DONALD G. McNEIL Jr.
New York Times
February 25, 2004
A senior scientist at the Department of Agriculture says its scientific experts have been pressured by top officials to approve products for Americans to eat before their safety can be confirmed.
In particular, the scientist said, approval to resume importing Canadian beef was given last August before a study confirming that it was safe. Canadian beef was banned after mad cow disease was found there in May.
The scientist's concerns were echoed by several scientific groups, including the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Government Accountability Project, which say the Agriculture Department has pressured scientists to protect industries or countries favored by the Bush administration.
It was the Union of Concerned Scientists that directed a reporter for The New York Times to the senior scientist, who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of dismissal. The union, an independent organization that has opposed the Bush administration on environmental policies and the Clinton administration on biotechnology, issued a report last Wednesday accusing the administration of distorting science to serve its political goals.
Alisa Harrison, a spokeswoman for Agriculture Secretary Ann M. Veneman, said the secretary did not direct scientists to make findings. The administrator of the department's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Services, Bobby R. Acord, said he had never been told to make science fit a policy decision.
"If you ignore the science, you could bring in a pest or disease," Mr. Acord said. "No one in their right mind would do that."
The senior scientist said department researchers had been pressured by Ms. Veneman's office to approve cattle from Mexico at risk of tuberculosis, pears from China with fungus problems and, in August, boneless meat from Canadian cattle, calves, sheep and goats, as well as hunters' kills.
Ms. Veneman, a former food industry lawyer and lobbyist, has former representatives of the National Cattlemen's Beef Association and other industry groups among her top staff members.
The scientist acknowledged that such pressures had existed in previous administrations but added that they seemed more pervasive under the present one, prompting the decision to speak out. The scientist claimed to have no other motive, and a spokeswoman for the scientists union said she knew of no other.
Critics of the department say it also uses unscientific testing standards that protect industry. Many experts say, for example, that its mad cow tests do not ensure that beef is safe. The testing is voluntary, samples only 40,000 head of the 35 million head of cattle killed annually and lets slaughterhouses influence which animals are tested.
Last August, as Ms. Veneman offered to lift the ban on boneless beef from Canada, she said that a "thorough scientific analysis" had been done and that "our experts have determined that the risk to public health is extremely low."
The department scientist said her statement "really frosted me --- that she said said we'd done it when I knew in fact that we hadn't."
Ms. Harrison, who moderated Ms. Veneman's Aug. 8 telephone news conference, said last week that the secretary's words had not been meant to imply that her department had done its own analysis.
"The Canadians did their investigation," she said. The department relied on it because international experts were on the panel and American scientists in Canada observed it, she said.
Ms. Harrison denied any pressure from Ms. Veneman.
"The secretary fully respects the judgment of scientists and would never force them by saying, `Here's a policy decision, now make it work,' " Ms. Harrison said. "But she's very inquisitive and asks a lot of hard questions."
In the case of the Chinese pears --- round, pale yellow fruit called ya --- the department imposed a ban in 2001 because they were found to carry a fungus that can spread to American pears and apples. It lifted the ban in 2003 and banned their import again last Christmas.
"We get pressure all the time to allow in products from China," the senior scientist said.
Describing the "horse trading" that went on, the scientist asked: "Why is this an issue for negotiations? The science ought to be allowed to speak. If the context is, `We'll take your fungus-ridden pears if you'll intercede with North Korea and get them to cut their nuclear program,' well, O.K., maybe that's a good thing. But we're not asked to participate at that level. We're just asked to look at the science."
Dr. Richard Dunkle, a department official in charge of plant quarantines, said decisions were based on science. A new fungus was found in 2001, Dr. Dunkle said, then imports were reauthorized after the mold was traced to a few Chinese orchards and cold treatment was ordered to stop its spread.
When it reappeared last year, he said, imports were cut off even though the Americans and Chinese disagreed on whether it was a new, hardier species. When the Chinese were convinced it was, "they said we were prudent and reasonable," Dr. Dunkle said.
The senior scientist critical of the department said its scientists were now under pressure to ease restrictions on Mexican cattle, more than a million head of which are imported each year, mostly into Texas. Bovine tuberculosis is endemic in southern Mexico, and cattle move too freely to ensure that all imports stay tuberculosis free, the scientist said.
In 2002, Texas lost its tuberculosis-free status because of imports, and the department spent tens of millions of dollars to protect state cattlemen, including paying market prices to kill entire herds. Since 2002, most Mexican imports must be individually tested and tagged.
Dr. Andrea Morgan, a department official in charge of veterinary issues for imports, said there was "absolutely no pressure from anybody to increase imports from Mexico."
On the Canadian cattle issue, Ms. Harrison originally said that only the Canadian study supported Ms. Veneman's assurances. In fact, an American study was being done, but it was not issued until October. A draft copy dated Aug. 13, obtained from the Union of Concerned Scientists, was clearly unfinished.
It contained notes debating how to explain that young cattle had been found with the disease overseas and blanks where it said researchers would eventually fill in figures.
In August and September, when the safety report was being compiled, the senior scientist said, "the secretary's office changed its mind several times" about what products it wanted to let in.
Those decisions "were not in response to risk assessments," the scientist said. "That would be fine, but that's not what happened. Even as it was being done, analysts were getting new marching orders, a new list of commodities the secretary wanted approved for import. It was very frustrating."
Mr. Acord said the agency had the legal right to issue import permits "if we believe there is no risk" while a new rule ? and the safety assessment that supported it ? was being written.
"We got questions from the secretary," he said. "But they were, `Are you sure this is safe?' rather than `Can't you bring this in?' "
Ms. Harrison said it was "unfortunate" that the scientist was afraid to complain publicly. The department's inspector general has an anonymous hot line, she said. "Any employee can call in if they want to comment, without fear of repercussions."