Rancho Feedings' Recall Affects All Of 2013's Yield
By Laurel Maloy, contributing writer, Food Online
Feb 10 recall of nearly 9 million pounds of beef from Petaluma, CA-based Rancho Feeding now includes products sold at Walmart across 16 states
The headlines are screaming about “possibly diseased” meat, causing consumers to panic. In fact, the issue isn’t that diseased animals were found; the issue is that the beef was never inspected, according to the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS). As of writing, no one has gotten ill from consuming this beef, despite a lot of it having already been sold and eaten.
The first recall was for about 40,000 pounds but has now been expanded to include the entire amount of beef processed in 2013 by Rancho Feeding. As the total scope of the recall becomes evident, the news is trickling out. The latest is an announcement from Jensen Meat Company, a third party supplier furnishing processed meats to Walmart and Sam’s Clubs. Rancho Feeding advised Jensen that any raw materials used in whole or in part had to be taken out of the supply chain, citing FSIS directive 8080.1 revision 7. The voluntary recall from Jensen lists 16 states: AK, AZ, CA, CO, HI, ID, MT, ND, NE, NM, NV, OR, SD, TX, WA and WY. Jensen supplies bulk-packaged beef, which is then further processed by Walmart and Sam’s Club butchers. The beef in question is sold under the Great Value and Fatburger brand names.
As this recall affects ALL of the meat processed since January 2013 by Rancho, many must be asking, “How did this happen?” How does a major processing plant go uninspected for a full year?
Rancho Feeding Corp was the subject of a large recall in January for the same infraction. According to the USDA’s news release, Rancho “processed diseased and unsound animals” without a full inspection. The meat products, the USDA said, are “unsound, unwholesome or otherwise are unfit for human food” and must be recalled. At that point in time, the plant was closed pending the completion of the USDA probe, as well as investigation by the Office of the Inspector General.
Considered a family-run plant, the impact of this plant closing will prove to be detrimental to the small-scale organic and grass-fed beef industry in the area. These small agri-farmers are highly dependent upon this local wine-country plant to get their beef to market, the close proximity allowing for reduced transportation and animal stress. These two factors alone will greatly impact the bottom line of these relatively small operations. The plant has been defended strongly by those most directly affected by the recalls. Tara Smith, owner of Tara Firma Farms in Petaluma, says, “The USDA guy practically lives there. He has to be there whenever processing is going on. If there was a sick cow that showed up, they would turn it away.” She further adds, “There should have been no recall,” and she continues on to say the media hype is not only unfair to Rancho, but to the many producers who now have to inform their customers of the recall affecting more than a year’s worth of meat.
The answer appears to have been offered by Michael Taylor, Deputy Commissioner for Foods and Veterinary Medicine on Feb 5, during his appearance in front of the Energy and Commerce Committee. He admitted to the lack of resources, stating “Simply put, we cannot achieve our objective of a safer food supply without significant increase in resources. We will continue our efforts to make the best use of the resources we have, but I can say with absolute certainty that we cannot do all that is asked without additional resources.”
Want to publish your opinion?
Contact us to become part of our Editorial Community.