Compromise Secures New Meat Safety Rules The Last-Minute Agreement Keeps The Issue Of Food Poisoning Out Of House Debate

A compromise between Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman and Republican lawmakers will let the department impose new meat safety rules on schedule while giving the industry more voice in the regulations.

The last-minute agreement keeps the emotionally charged issue of food poisoning out of the House debate, scheduled for today, on a 1996 spending bill for the Agriculture Department.

The bill had included language, introduced by Rep. James T. Walsh, R-N.Y., that would have made the department rewrite the rules after a process that required negotiations with the industry and other groups.

Glickman had vigorously opposed the negotiated rulemaking, saying an agreement would be virtually impossible under that system. Glickman and consumer groups said the process would have delayed the rules, exposing people to harmful, even deadly, bacteria in raw meat and poultry.

Walsh said that his measure would have prevented legal challenges that threatened to delay the rules, intended to prevent excessive bacterial contamination of raw meat from the nation’s packing plants. Walsh said many people in the industry felt their concerns were being ignored.

“We have accomplished what we wanted to do without the statutory requirement for negotiated rulemaking,” Walsh said Tuesday. “What we wanted was a process wherein the secretary would involve himself personally and make a personal commitment to involve himself with all the stakeholders.”

The final rule was due out by the end of the year, with interim safety steps including tests for harmful bacteria due to begin in 1996 while other changes are phased in.

Under the agreement, outlined in a letter from Glickman, he will hold several meetings with the different groups, including industry representatives, to listen to their concerns, Walsh said.

Also, the department, before the final rule is published, will publish a list of outdated rules to be lifted as the new rules are imposed, Walsh said. Carcass-by-carcass inspections, required by law, will still occur.

Several groups accused the industry of using the amendment intentionally to delay the regulations.

“This is really all about communications,” Walsh countered. “This is what people are looking for from government - compromise.”

A leading consumer group reacted positively.

“I think this underlines that Congress understands it should not delay urgently needed new health and safety regulations,” said Caroline Smith DeWaal, food safety director for the Center for Science in the Public Interest.

She noted that the pending Senate bill on regulatory reform was amended to exempt the meat safety rules from risk and cost studies that could have delayed them - though not from industry challenges.

“The Republican Congress is beginning to recognize its limits and that everyone is for smarter, smaller government, but no one supports theory over public health protection,” she said.