Spoiled meat, Rotten Congress


The USDA’s meat inspection program is virtually the same as it was in 1906. But now that the agency is trying to bring meat inspection into the 21st century, some members of Congress are battling to stick to the status quo.

The Senate regulatory reform bill (S.343) would effectively stifle the USDA’s modern, scientific inspection system which was to go into effect next month. The bill, introduced by majority leader Bob Dole, would put any government regulation through a long analysis to assess any economic impact. President Clinton has said that S.343 would let industries that are supposed to be regulated “delay and sometimes even control the rules that affect them.” (New York Times; July 18, 1995)

For its part, the House has already passed an even more radical regulatory reform package as part of its Contract with America. President Clinton has promised to veto that bill and he says he’ll veto the Senate package as well, if it goes too far.

In addition, Rep. James Walsh, R-NY, orchestrated his own crusade against the new meat inspection program. Walsh inserted a rider into a subcommittee report spelling out the details of the appropriated funds to the USDA. The rider would have halted the new program for nine months, during which time the meat and poultry industry would have been able to attack it in Congress. Walsh forced a compromise with Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman. In return for dropping the amendment, Glickman will allow the meat industry to air its concerns at open public hearings. (Chicago Tribune, July 20, 1995)

Walsh’s amendment, according to the Washington Post, was written in large part by Philip Olsson, a meat-industry lobbyist. The Federal Election Comission reports that Walsh has received more than $66,000 in campaign contributions since 1988 from agribusiness and the meat and food industry.(Associated Press, July 17, 1995)

Back to “Unhappy Meals: Let the Eater Beware

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our newsletters

Subscribe and we'll send Mother Jones straight to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate

Share your feedback: We’re planning to launch a new version of the comments section. Help us test it.