usda -

The regulation of a certain type of domestic product was set to be moved from one organization to another, but not everyone is happy with that decision.

In 2008, the Farm Bill that was passed included a special stipulation for the regulation of domestic catfish.  In order to ensure that such seafood products could be put on equal footing as those products that are imported from abroad, regulation of this type of catfish was shifted from the Food and Drug Administration to the United States Department of Agriculture.

Four years later, though, and an inspection process has reportedly yet to be put in place by the USDA, despite pressure from senators.  Lawmakers from various states are worried that the investment into domestic catfish is not going to pay off unless the new inspection standards are put in place.

Now, the Government Accountability Office has stated that moving regulation of domestic catfish to the USDA will create overlap and budgetary woes that are unnecessary.  In certain instances, they determined that three regulatory agencies (FDA, USDA, and Food Safety and Inspection Service) would be responsible for inspecting the same facility, a further drain on resources.

The GAO has thus concluded that Congress should consider repealing the directive for the USDA to take over domestic catfish production.  An amendment has been introduced in both the Senate and House to the newest Farm Bill to repeal the previous directive.

Food safety seems to be a topic on everyone’s minds nowadays, and with good reason.  Now, a battle is erupting over a beef product that some say are healthy and others negatively refer to as pink slime.

Beef Products Inc., a South Dakota-based company, has found themselves in the crosshairs of those who question the safety and quality of their boneless lean beef trimmings product.

It all comes down to the process that’s used to make the product.  BPI puts the beef into a centrifuge that spins and removes the fat from the product, which leaves about 90% lean beef.  BPI claims that this is no different than what a cook would do to remove the fat from a product; they say the centrifuge just expedites the product.

However, a report on ABC World News Tonight referred to the product as filler and not a meat.  It also said such filler is used in more than 70% of meat products in the country.  Reports have cited the concerns of two former USDA employees who do not appreciate the government’s decision to allow the beef.  A petition has been created asking the USDA to cancel an order of seven million pounds of the item.

As a personal injury lawyer in Fresno, I’ll be paying attention to any further developments in this story.  It’ll be interesting to see what the general consensus becomes and how the USDA decides to respond to this.  I’ll certainly be keeping track as a Bakersfield personal injury lawyer.