WRITTEN SUMMARY OF WNC HEARING ł JUNE 14, 2003
Washington State Beef Commission, Washington Dairy Products Commission, and Midway Meats Inc. vs. KIRO-TV
The proceedings began at 10 a.m. with welcoming remarks by Eddie Reed, WNC president. He asked members present to introduce themselves and describe their current affiliations. Then Reed explained the mission of the WNC and how the Council operates.
He encouraged all attendees to pick up our brochure and other materials and to visit our website. He also encouraged those present to become members of the organization and to attend our 5th Annual Gridiron West Dinner on Nov. 7, 2003.
The hearing was then called to order by Robert Utter, WNC chairman. Utter explained that we had a quorum and a balance between media and public members, so the hearing could proceed. Utter said we were pleased to have the complainants present, but ¦deeply regret˛ that KIRO chose not to participate. He explained that KIROĂs decision would not prejudice the News Council in any way, but that their absence ¦obviously makes it impossible˛ for Council members to ask them specific questions and to hear their responses. He noted that a previous hearing considered a complaint against The Seattle Times, and they prevailed even though they did not attend the hearing.
Utter explained the order of the hearing, noting that it would start with a viewing of the KIRO reports, followed by a presentation from the complainants. Then he would ¦present KIROĂs case as best we can˛ by reading their written response that was posted on their website. That would be followed by questions from Council members, open discussion by Council members, and a vote on the complaint.
Utter also thanked TVW for filming the hearing and broadcasting it statewide. He then read the Questions that were to be considered by the Council.
KIRO-TV VIDEOTAPE (Four-part series aired Oct. 31-Nov. 1, 2002) WAS SHOWN.
Utter then introduced complainants Patti Brumbach, executive director of the Washington State Beef Commission, and Blair Thompson, consumer communications manager of the Washington Dairy Products Commission, to make their presentation.
Brumbach noted that ¦our organizations are funded entirely by the approximately 10,000 farmers and ranchers in Washington state.˛ She said that KIROĂs broadcasts ¦eroded the very consumer confidence˛ that their members rely on for their livelihood.
TEXT OF COMPLAINANTSĂ POWERPOINT PRESENTATION:
QUESTION 1-A
Thompson: Your first question asks,
(*) "Were KIRO's reports inaccurate by alleging or implying that all 'downer' or 'non-ambulatory' cattle are unsafe and unfit for introduction into the food supply?"
(*) Our response is: Yes, KIRO's reports were inaccurate.
Let's quickly revisit a couple of clips from KIRO's stories - and we ask you to focus closely on the specific words that are used.
(*) [PLAY RAIBLE CLIP: "... meat from dying, sick or diseased cows getting into your food"] Note that Mr. Raible characterizes non-ambulatories as "dying, sick or diseased."
(*) [PLAY HALSNE CLIP: "... downers are too ill or sick to do so ..."] Note that Mr. Halsne equates non-ambulatories with sick and ill animals.
(*) In response to these allegations, we refer you to sections 309.2(b), 309.3 and 313.2(d) of Title 9 of the Code of Federal Regulations, which specify the handling, inspection and slaughter requirements for both non-ambulatory and diseased cattle. We did not include this as an appendix to the written Case Brief we submitted to you, but have a copy with us if you wish to inspect it.
These animal handling laws are based on science, not sentiment. These laws draw a distinction between non-ambulatory and diseased cattle, because there is a difference. Diseased cattle are not permitted for introduction into the food supply ł end of story. With a few exceptions and subject to USDA inspection, the meat from non-ambulatory animals is perfectly safe. "Non-ambulatory" does not mean "diseased," as federal law makes clear. But throughout its report, KIRO continually treated these two groups of animals as if they are one. This is factually inaccurate.
QUESTION 1-B
Thompson: Your next question asks,
(*) "Were KIRO's reports inaccurate by alleging or implying that consumers are at elevated risk of E. coli 0157:H7 contamination due to the introduction of meat from non-ambulatory cattle into the food supply?"
(*) Our response is: Yes, KIRO's reports were inaccurate.
Again, please listen closely to the language that's used in the following two clips:
(*) [PLAY FRIEDLANDER CLIP: "... where do you think the fecal contamination came... is this a good source? Obviously it is a good source. It's probably one of the main sources"]
(*) [PLAY FRIEDLANDER CLIP: "... if you take care of the downers you'd probably see a lower incidence of recalls for E. coli"]
(*) In answer to this allegation, we refer you to a letter from Thomas Besser, DVM and Ph.D., and included in our written Case Brief submission to you as Appendix A. Dr. Besser is Professor of Veterinary Microbiology at Washington State University and one of the most respected E. coli researchers in the nation. He leads a team of investigators who have been studying E. coli in cattle for 10 years.
I quote from his letter: "cull dairy cattle carry E. coli 0157 at prevalences generally similar to those of other adult cattle ... There is no research available to date that I am aware of that demonstrates any increased risk of carriage of E. coli 0157:H7 by 'downer' cull dairy cattle ... there is no reason to expect that cull dairy cattle represent a specific risk for E. coli 0157:H7 carriage."
Throughout its stories, KIRO repeatedly sounded its theme that non-ambulatory cattle are a major source of E. coli 0157:H7 contamination of the food supply. This is factually inaccurate. Science tells us that non-ambulatory cattle are no more likely a source of E. coli contamination than ambulatory cattle - and, indeed, that E. coli contamination of the food supply has many diverse sources.
QUESTION 1-C
Thompson: Your next question asks,
(*) "Were KIRO's reports inaccurate by alleging or implying that animal-handling practices at Midway Meats' Chehalis processing plant were cruel and inhumane?"
(*) Our response is: Yes, KIRO's reports were inaccurate.
Let's listen carefully to specific allegations made in the KIRO stories.
(*) [PLAY LEE CLIP: "... what some experts are calling violations of the humane slaughter act."]
(*) [FRIEDRICH CLIP: "This is clearly egregious animal cruelty."]
(*) [SHOW GRAPHIC: "Inhumane treatment?"] And here you see a graphic that appeared repeatedly during Mr. Halsne's on-camera segments. You will note that the word "inhumane" appears in extra-large format.
(*) In response to this allegation, we refer you to a letter from Robert Mead, DVM, and included in our written Case Brief submission to you as Appendix B. Dr. Mead serves as the official Washington State Veterinarian. He is recognized as one of the top animal behavior specialists in the state. He is paid by the state legislature to enforce animal cruelty laws, among other things. He is a man with decades of relevant experience behind him.
I quote from Dr. Mead's letter: "After reviewing the tapes ... I thoroughly reviewed Chapter 16.50 RCW entitled 'Humane Slaughter of Livestock', WAC 16-24 entitled 'Humane Slaughter of Livestock' and the article 'How to Determine Insensibility,' by Dr. Temple Grandin ... The images on the tapes do not appear to show practices which violate the Humane Slaughter Act or rules."
A central theme running throughout KIRO's stories was the explicit and implicit allegation that the animal handling practices videotaped at Midway Meats constituted cruel and inhumane treatment. This is factually inaccurate. The state's top veterinarian says so.
QUESTION 1-D
Thompson: Your next question asks,
(*) "Were KIRO's reports inaccurate by alleging or implying that Midway Meats was not complying with United States Department of Agriculture requirements because USDA inspectors were not present at the plant or were 'looking the other way'?"
(*) Our response is: Yes, KIRO's reports were inaccurate.
Again, let's look closely at what KIRO purported in its stories.
(*) [PLAY PROMO CLIP: "... are federal inspectors just standing by?"] That one went by pretty quick, but what he said was: Are federal inspectors just standing by?
(*) [PLAY LINVILLE CLIP: "... USDA inspectors turning the other cheek and letting this occur."]
(*) In response to these allegations, I again refer you to Appendix B - Dr. Mead's letter. In it, he says, and I quote: "The commentator on the tape states that a USDA/FSIS inspector was not present during the stunning and hoisting operations. However, it appeared to me that an inspector was in view of the camera several times during the sequences shown. Therefore, it is likely that a USDA inspector was supervising the stunning and hoisting of the animals."
Dr. Mead's observations are borne out by the videotape KIRO actually included in its broadcast version of the report.
(*) [PLAY STILL #1] In this view, the gentleman you see in the white lab coat and white hard hat is a USDA inspector. (*) [PLAY STILL #2] So is this gentleman. (*) [PLAY STILL #3] So is this gentleman. (*) [PLAY STILL #4] And in this particularly ironic view, a USDA inspector appears in the background just over Mr. Halsne's shoulder while he speaks on camera.
(*) KIRO's claims of slipshod USDA oversight at Midway Meats reflect a profound misunderstanding of the animal inspection process. What KIRO failed to emphasize for its viewers was that both the post-mortem as well as the pre-mortem inspections are critical steps in assuring safe, quality beef for Washington's consumers. The post-mortem inspection takes place inside the processing plant, where KIRO had neither a camera nor a witness.
And KIRO's claims of lax inspection can be proven to be groundless from out of Mr. Halsne's own mouth. KIRO did not have access to either the pre- or post-mortem inspection reports on any of the animals it videotaped when it aired its stories last fall. We know this because these reports are among the documents demanded as a part of the Freedom of Information Act request KIRO issued to USDA - a request which, by Mr. Halsne's own admission, USDA had not acted upon when the stories aired. Since KIRO did not have these records, it could not know which inspections were conducted - nor could it substantiate any of the claims it made about the safety of the animals it videotaped.
QUESTION 2
Brumbach: Question #2 asks,
(*) "Were KIRO's reports unfair by alleging or implying that there was a connection between a young boy who contracted E. coli in 1992 and 'downer' cattle like those processed at Midway Meats?"
(*) Our response is: Yes, KIRO's reports were unfair
Please listen carefully to three clips that demonstrate how KIRO built a bridge between the Linville E. coli case and animals processed at Midway Meats.
(*) [PLAY HALSNE CLIP: "... sick, injured or drying cows turned into hamburger."]
(*) [PLAY FRIEDLANDER CLIP: "... with all the feces, and urine and mud ... and all of a sudden itĂs going to end up, you know, being fed to your kids."]
(*) [PLAY HALSNE CLIP: [Max Linville] "... nearly died from eating an E. coli-contaminated Jack-In-The-Box hamburger."]
(*) In response to these allegations, we again refer you to Appendix A of our written Case Brief - that's Dr. Besser's letter - in which he says that non-ambulatory cattle are no more likely a source of E. coli 0157:H7 contamination than many other sources.
We believe that KIRO introduced the specter of E. coli 0157:H7 into its reports so as to arouse a sense of fear among its viewers and to exploit its audience's natural sympathy for a young boy who became seriously ill 10 years ago. But the allusion to E. coli in these reports is unfair, because as Dr. Besser's letter indicates, there is no particular correlation between non-ambulatory cattle and the likelihood of E. coli contamination of the food supply. Further, KIRO could demonstrate no causal link between the hamburger Max Linville ate in 1992 and non-ambulatory cattle of the type it videotaped at Midway Meats in 2002.
KIRO's reports were additionally unfair because they failed to build a sense of context around the issues of non-ambulatory cattle and E. coli contamination of the food supply. At no point did KIRO quantify the very small number of non-ambulatory animals that arrive at U.S. processing plants - estimated by USDA to be about less than 1% of the total. And KIRO never mentioned statistics from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control that serve to put the problem of E. coli contamination into perspective. These statistics demonstrate that since the year 2000, cases of human contraction of E. coli 0157:H7 have decreased by 21%. This is a problem that's getting better, not worse.
QUESTION 3-A
Brumbach: Your next question asks,
(*) "Were KIRO's reports imbalanced by basing the stories primarily on a set of sources that all share similar viewpoints?"
(*) Our response is: Yes, KIRO's reports were imbalanced.
(*) [SHOW TABLE] Of the four sources KIRO presented on camera to support its contentions, three can be considered spokespersons for the animal rights movement.
Mr. Bruce Friedrich works as director of vegan outreach for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), the nation's largest animal rights advocacy group. Ms. Susan Michaels is a co-founder of Pasado's Safe Haven, a local animal rights advocacy group. Since leaving USDA, Dr. Lester Friedlander has a verifiable history of work as a consultant to the animal rights movement. And Ms. Gaylis Linville is a food-safety critic of the meat industry.
SOURCE: OCCUPATION: CAMERA TIME:
Friedlander Animal rights consultant 154 seconds Linville Meat industry critic 50 seconds Friedrich Animal rights advocate 43 seconds Michaels Animal rights advocate 22 seconds
TOTAL: 269 seconds (76.5%)
Sexsmith Meat processor 58 seconds Van Dam Dairy farmer 25 seconds
TOTAL: 83 seconds (23.5%)
One simple way to measure balance is to quantify the amount of on-air time allotted to the six sources who appeared in the final edit of the stories. In this table, you can see that those attacking the meat industry were allotted 76.5% of the total on-air time allowed to sources, while those defending the meat industry were allotted only 23.5% of total on-air time.
By this one simple measure alone, the time allotted to those attacking our industries outweighed the time Mr. Sexsmith and Mr. Van Dam were allotted to set the record straight by a factor of more than three-to-one. We would submit that this does not even begin to constitute "balance."
QUESTION 3-B
Brumbach: Your next question asks,
(*) "Were KIRO's reports imbalanced by failing to seek more input or comments from parties who were the targets of criticism and/or who have different viewpoints?"
(*) Again, our response is: Yes, KIRO's reports were imbalanced
(*) [SHOW TABLE] At no time in the preparation of its stories did KIRO seek input from any industry organization including either the Washington State Beef Commission or the Washington Dairy Products Commission. Nor is there evidence that KIRO sought input on the substantive issues raised in its report from any of the independent, non-vested scientific authorities that might have offered informed commentary, for instance:
University of Washington scientists No Washington State University scientists No Other respected scientific establishments No WSDA No WA State Veterinarian No WSDH No WSVMA No
(*) None of those were contacted. And then there is the very large question of USDA. Did KIRO talk with USDA about the substantive issues addressed in its reports? Well, it's hard for us to tell what really went on between KIRO and USDA, because each side has a version of events that contradicts the other's. What we do know is that no USDA spokesperson ended up in the broadcast version of the stories to defend the agency or its procedures - even though the stories were largely an attack on USDA. We also know, from independent witnesses, that Mr. Halsne explicitly and repeatedly ruled out the participation of any USDA spokespersons in the preparation of his reports. He told Mr. Charles Powell of WSU and Dr. Mark Elliott, a retired USDA inspector, and I quote: "I don't want to talk to anyone on the government payroll." KIRO's failure to seek information that might contradict the viewpoints it had decided to air in its stories illustrates a troubling disregard for accepted journalistic practice.
QUESTION 4
Thompson: Question 4 asks,
(*) "Did KIRO's reports cause damage to Midway Meats and the beef and dairy industries in Washington state?"
(*) Our response is: Yes, the reports did damage Midway Meats and the our industries.
(*) The processing of non-ambulatory cattle was always a very small part of the meat industry, so the financial impact on farmers, ranchers and processors may not seem large.
Nevertheless, given the desperate economic conditions prevailing within animal agriculture, even small amounts of income can mean the difference between the survival of a farm and bankruptcy.
Similarly, non-ambulatories were never a large part of Midway Meats' overall business. But the reduction of its trade in what is perfectly safe meat has had financial consequences for what is, after all, a small, family-owned business.
But the most serious impact on our industry without doubt was sustained in the area of public image. Consumer confidence in the safety of the beef supply is the foundation of our industry. KIRO jeopardized that confidence by reporting information that is patently false and information that was presented so as to create a false impression in the minds of consumers. Consumer confidence can be a difficult thing to quantify, but does anyone here deny its value?
QUESTION 5
Brumbach: Your last question asks,
(*) "Did KIRO's stories potentially endanger public health by reducing surveillance for early detection of 'mad cow disease'?"
(*) Our response is: Yes, KIRO's stories increased the potential risk to public health by reducing surveillance for BSE by federal regulatory authorities.
Bob Utter then said the complainantsĂ time was up.
Following material submitted in writing:
(*) It is important to understand that we do not have BSE in the United States. However, the targeted BSE surveillance program conducted by USDA is an important tool designed to ensure early detection and rapid control of the disease in the unlikely event that it appears here. The targeted surveillance program focuses on animals with health problems as they are presented for inspection at the packing plant because they are the most likely population to be at risk for BSE.
The single cow eventually diagnosed with BSE in Alberta, Canada, was initially identified as underweight and suffering from pneumonia. The animal was condemned before slaughter and thus - thanks to regulatory oversight - never made it into the food supply. Further post-mortem inspection and testing determined the animal's BSE status. The Canadian inspection system - which is very similar to ours - worked to protect the industry and the public exactly as it was designed to do.
(*) According to Dr. Linda Carpenter of USDA's Animal Plant Health Inspection Service (whose statement we submitted to you in our written Case Brief as Appendix F), both of the meat processing facilities in Washington that previously accepted non-ambulatory animals say they have stopped accepting them as a direct consequence of KIRO's stories. Dr. Carpenter asserts that KIRO's stories thereby had the effect of eliminating the best source of test animals for early detection of BSE in Washington - thereby complicating the challenges USDA faces in protecting the safety of the food supply.
KIROĂS PRESENTATION (STATEMENT READ BY UTTER):
Chairman Utter thanked the complainants for their presentation, then said that in fairness to KIRO, he would read into the record a statement that they posted on their website in response to the complaint:
KIRO's Responses to Beef and Dairy Commissions
Following publication of its initial series of stories regarding "downer" cows in late 2002, KIRO accepted an invitation from the Washington Dairy Products Commission and the Washington State Beef Commission (the "Commissions") to discuss their concerns about the stories. A meeting was held on March 27, 2003, at which KIRO invited the Commissions to specify the factual errors they claimed were in the stories.
Undisclosed to KIRO, the Commissions had already commenced preparation of a formal complaint to the Washington News Council ("WNC"), which was dated March 28, 2003. That complaint set forth many issues regarding alleged unfairness to the Commissions and the industries they represent. The WNC proclaims that it encourages parties to resolve problems on their own. KIRO did just that, asking the Commissions in an April 2003 letter to set forth the alleged factual inaccuracies, just as it had in the March 27 meeting. Those issues were set forth in an April 16 letter and attached memorandum.
KIRO sought additional information from the Commissions to address some of the complaints, and some of the suggested "implications" of the stories. The Commissions:
In short, KIRO has been denied information from these State agencies to respond to the purported errors in the stories. But KIRO can respond from the information it has gathered to date. KIRO will consider the various alleged "errors" in the Commission's April 15, 2003 memorandum to KIRO as follows:
Alleged Factual Misrepresentation
The Commissions claim that KIRO's stories contain certain factual errors. The Commissions are incorrect. Most of the complaints from the Commissions stem from simply not listening to the broadcasts and deriving subjective "implications" or innuendoes not contained in the broadcasts themselves.
1. "Unsafe and Unfit for Introduction into the Food Supply." KIRO made no such allegation that downer cattle are unsafe and unfit for introduction into our food supply. Our lead story says: "The US Department of Agriculture labels downers 'high-risk or suspect', but under proper inspection allows their use for hamburger, soups, and hotdogs." KIRO journalists interviewed world renowned experts, who believe downer cow meat used as human food is an unnecessary risk. We also interviewed (and included in our series) several experts with countervailing viewpoints: those who think meat from downer cows is perfectly acceptable for consumption. The debate over the safety of this product is a matter of great controversy, which brings about strong opinions from both sides. Our viewers can only benefit from being exposed to this debate. The Commissions are asking KIRO to tell only their side of this story, or worse yet, asking KIRO to prevent opposing viewpoints from being heard.
2. "Consumers Stand at Increased Risk of E. coli." KIRO has no opinion and makes no statement in its broadcasts about whether or not E-coli risks are greater in downer cows compared to cattle that walk into the slaughterhouse. The USDA has already determined downer cows pose a greater risk of introducing food borne illnesses into our food supply. Inspectors are required to conduct extensive testing and evaluation of these downers before they can be processed. By definition, these cattle have something wrong with them before they arrive at the slaughterhouse. Some scientific studies say downer cows pose a greater e-coli risk, some are inconclusive, some show risks are the same as e-coli contamination from healthy cows. KIRO will not ignore the fact that e-coli 0157, cows, and the lack of proper food inspections create a proven combination of serious public health risk.
3. "Cruel and Inhumane Animal Handling Practices." KIRO received sworn affidavits, testimony, and conducted a series of interviews with experienced USDA veterinarians. They viewed our videotape, shot by our team of journalists, and determined several downer cows were either not properly stunned or not stunned at all. These experts worked as federal meat inspectors inside slaughterhouses and understand federal inspection procedure. Additionally, KIRO interviewed truck drivers, dairy farmers, and others who witnessed mistreatment of a downer cows. We trust our viewers can watch the videotape for themselves and decide whether the dairy cows were rendered completely insensitive to pain. Five and a half months after our videotape aired, the Commissions have asked KIRO to consider State Veterinarian, Dr. Robert Mead, as an expert on the humane treatment of downer cows. Dr. Mead states that he does not believe our videotape showed inhumane treatment of cattle. Although we have respect for Dr. Mead's opinion (both as a veterinarian and a long-time civil servant), he has no experience as a USDA inspector. He admits that he does not know what procedures food safety inspectors must follow when it comes to downer cows. That said, KIRO contacted Dr. Mead and allowed him to review our videotape. He said, "You can't do a thorough evaluation of the Humane Slaughter Act through this type of video. You don't see everything." Other experts, with more experience working with downer cattle, had less trouble assessing the situation on the videotape shot by KIRO. We respect Dr. Mead's opposing viewpoint, but our viewers are not mislead or misinformed by the absence of his views.
4. "USDA Inspectors Were Not Present." The Commissions first claim that KIRO "repeatedly alleged" that USDA inspectors were not present and then claimed that KIRO "suggested" that USDA inspectors were "looking the other way." KIRO demonstrates clearly in its series of stories that USDA inspectors were in fact present during most downer transactions we witnessed. We pointed them out to viewers on videotape. We do raise serious questions, however, about whether proper ante-mortem (prior to death) inspections were performed by USDA inspectors on all downer cows. The USDA compliance code requires inspectors to do more than simply be present. Diseased cattle are not permitted to enter our food supply. Additionally, diseased cattle, per federal law, are not supposed to enter a USDA-inspected slaughterhouse. Former USDA vets and meat inspector trainers say our videotape clearly shows instances where downers cows were not properly, nor fully, inspected by USDA personnel. These experts raise legitimate concerns and questions about the inspectors' ability to prevent a diseased cow from entering that plant. KIRO believes these concerns are of great public interest.
Alleged Inappropriate Journalistic Practices
The system for checks and balances for the KIRO investigative unit exceeds the highest standards in the industry. A team of seasoned, award-winning journalists researched every aspect of the downer cow controversy. We interviewed scores of scientists, slaughterhouse operators, former USDA Food Safety Inspectors, animal rights advocates, dairy farmers, and major beef buyers. We spoke with 68 sources, recorded several hours worth of videotape of downer cow transactions, conducted extensive surveillance, and included in our story a vast array of opinions and knowledgeable people on this subject. Written scripts were fact checked, peer reviewed, edited, and finally approved by management at KIRO. The end product is an example of a balanced and thought-provoking piece of investigative journalism.
1. "Stories Based Upon Sources who All Share the Same Viewpoint" and "Deliberately Create an Unbalanced Story to Mislead the Public." Although the USDA would not respond to our repeated requests for comment, this series of reports carries an array of viewpoints. The Commissions complain that William Sexsmith, owner of Midway Meats, is not "trained" to represent the beef industry. That observation is both ludicrous and insulting. As a long-time operator of a multi-million dollar slaughterhouse, Mr. Sexsmith is fully capable of offering expert comment on matters affecting his business. His beliefs and opinions are valuable to this story and are given fair play. The Commissions made similar complaints regarding a well-respected diary farmer, Richard Van Dam. KIRO centered one of its stories around the financial benefits downer cows provide ranchers. Mr. Van Dam was featured. The story dedicated a fair and balanced amount of airtime for him to voice his support of using downer cattle for food. KIRO sought interviews and comment from every side of this controversial issue. The Commissions may want KIRO to censor a growing number of critics of downer cattle, but we believe consumers have a right to hear the debate.
2. "Failing to Seek Comment from USDA" KIRO journalists discussed every detail of its investigation with high-ranking United States Department of Agriculture officials. These discussions took place over a two-month period before the stories were broadcast to viewers. KIRO offered to show voluminous amounts of videotape to USDA inspection compliance agents and managers. The list includes: The Special Agent in Charge, USDA Office of the Inspector General in San Francisco; and the Acting Director of Inspection Compliance for Oregon/Washington. Public Relations officers in Washington DC squelched their efforts. At no time did KIRO put conditions on USDA meat inspection experts reviewing our videotape or having access to witnesses.
3. "KIRO Stories Endanger Public Health." USDA officials told the Commissions that testing for Mad Cow Disease (bovine spongiform encephalopathy) has ceased in Washington because of KIRO's reports. The Commissions allege that, because of this, KIRO is "endangering public health". The opposite appears true. The kind of cattle (downer cows) that are most likely to carry any disease are no longer entering slaughterhouses in the state of Washington.
COMPLAINANTSĂ REBUTTAL:
Chairman Utter then told the complainants they would have 5 minutes for rebuttal.
Brumbach said that in the first section of KIROĂs response, they said the commissions ¦had been uncooperative.˛ She said that following their inititial meeting, KIRO had asked them to detail their concerns in writing. She said they offered to sit down with KIRO management. She said KIRO wanted it in writing, so they sent a copy of the complaint to the WNC to Helen Swenson. She said ¦we received no further requests for information from KIRO management from that time on.˛
She said KIROĂs concern about of ¦our lack of responsiveness˛ had more to do with their efforts at pursuing follow-up KIRO stories (aired June 12 and 13) than with the stories that aired last fall. She said that while they said ¦we refused to grant interviews to them,˛ that was ¦really about the new series that aired just this last couple of days.˛
As for HalsneĂs request for a spokesperson to address the effect that cessation of shipping of non-ambulatory cattle had on the industries in this state, Brumbach said: ¦We cooperated by arranging for Mr. Halsne to interview Dairy Federation Executive Secretary Jay Gordon,˛ a dairy farmer who is ¦highly qualified to address that issue.˛ She said that also Halsne said he was not doing a story on the News Council case, he asked to interview her or Blair Thompson about the News Council case. She said they responded: ¦We would talk with KIRO management at any time about this case. But we felt that the News Council, not one of Mr. HalsneĂs investigative reports, was the proper forum to adjudicate those concerns.˛
She said they responsed to the open records request within 5 days, and said that they would provide the requested documents ¦by the end of the month (June), just as the state law requires.˛
As for KIROĂs written statement that it made ¦no claim˛ that downer cows were ¦unsafe and unfit˛ for introduction into the food supply, she said: ¦The entire series was designed to make that claim. It was done so through graphics and the sources that they chose to put on the air.˛ She said KIRO ¦may not have spoken every word,˛ but they cannot separate themselves from the stories that they aired because ¦They chose those sources, they asked the questions, and they did the editing.˛
She said KIRO said they interviewed ¦several experts˛ who said that meat from non-ambulatory cows was ¦perfectly acceptable˛ for introduction into the food supply. ¦We asked, where were those other experts in their stories?˛
She said KIRO said the commissions are asking KIRO to tell ¦only their side of the story˛ or ¦worse yet, asking KIRO to prevent opposing viewpoints from being heard.˛ She said: ¦YouĂve read the brief. We have never asked that they not include opposing viewpoints. We expect that. We simply ask for balance. The more than 3-to-1 ratio that we presented earlier doesnĂt even include KIROĂs inflammatory comments and its teasers. So again, this is hardly balanced.˛
She said KIRO also indicates ¦that it makes no statement in its broadcasts˛ about whether or not E. coli risks are greater in non-ambulatory cattle compared to cattle that walk into the slaughterhouse. She said, ¦Again, KIRO cannot separate themselves from the opinion expressed by their sources. They provided a platform for these sources. All that we are asking is that provide a countervailing platform for scientific experts˛ who are currently researching and publishing credible research on the issue of E. coli risks.
She said KIRO ¦claims that they received sworn affidavits, testimony, and conducted a series of interviews with experienced USDA veterinarians, and they also spoke with truck drivers, dairy farmers and others who have witnessed the mistreatment of downer cows. Again, if that is true, why didnĂt they use that information in the stories.˛ The series ¦showed no evidence˛ of these sources, she said, ¦the inclusion of which would have constituted balance.˛
KIRO claimed in their letter that 5 · months after the stories aired, the commissions asked KIRO to consider State Veterinarian Dr. Robert Mead an expert on the treatment of downer cows. She said they never asked KIRO to consider Dr. Mead for anything. ¦WeĂve never been consulted by them about that,˛ she said. She said they did ask Dr. Mead to review the videotape and ¦provide his expert opinion to us,˛ which they included in their complaint to the WNC.
She said KIRO ¦went on to discredit Dr. Mead˛ in their response letter. She said: ¦I find it quite ironic that two years ago, the animal rights movement, the media and the state of Washington all recognized Dr. MeadĂs expertise˛ when he was asked to conduct unannounced inspections at the IBP plant in Pasco ¦in response to another television expose facilitated in partnership with animal rights groups.˛ She concluded: ¦So we ask, if he was an expert then, why isnĂt he an expert now?˛
She said KIRO also claimed that their sources saw instances when downer cows ¦were not properly stunned or fully inspected˛ by USDA personnel. She said: ¦The videotape that aired does not prove this one way or another.˛ She said that ¦no responsible spokesperson would give an absolute opinion on this matter, because thereĂs simply not enough detail in the video visible.˛ She said: ¦We canĂt see the stunning process in this video, so we donĂt know whether thatĂs true or not.˛
In response to the commissionsĂ concerns about ¦inappropriate journalistic practices,˛ she said ¦KIRO claims to have interviewed 68 sources for these stories. Again, who are these people and where were they?˛ She said KIRO said ¦they sought interviews and comments from every side of the issue. If that is so, where are the industry associations?˛ She said Halsne ¦was able to track down the professional spokespersons for PETA and PasadoĂs Safe Haven, so where are those spokespeople for some industry associations like the American Meat Institute, or the National Meat Association, or even our local organizations?˛
She said KIRO said ¦they reviewed every detail of their investigation with the USDA,˛ and that ¦at no time did KIRO put conditions on the USDA˛ meat-inspection experts for viewing their videotapes. ¦Well, USDA says that just the opposite is true. We have no real way of knowing the truth other than by experiencing first hand how our own words and actions have been twisted by this reporter.˛ Further, she said, several of HalsneĂs own sources that ¦he didnĂt want to talk to anyone on the government payroll˛ adding that ¦he wasnĂt out to get them, he was out to get the USDA.˛
KIROĂS REBUTTAL:
Chairman Utter thanked the complainants and then said: ¦Again, we regret that KIRO is not here. Under our process, they would have a 5-minute rebuttal of their own. In an effort to be fair, IĂm going to read the conclusion from their website:
¦KIRO stands by the content and journalistic practices employed in producing the downer cow series to date. The whole story has not been told. Viewers have inundated KIRO and enforcement officials with positive reactions, and calls for additional action. For KIRO, that means the publication of additional stories about downer cows. We hope that the Commissions and the USDA, as public agencies, will cooperate in our investigation as it moves forward. But it will move forward, regardless.˛
COUNCIL MEMBERSĂ QUESTIONS:
Chairman Utter then said we would shift to Council participation, and take 15 minutes for questions from Council members, in an effort to seek clarification and not draw conclusions.
Larry Cali, Media Member, asked if ¦this in fact is a report that was directed toward the USDA,˛ and dealt with ¦the process˛ of handling downer cows in general and not just at Midway Meats. He said he was ¦a little miffed˛ that it did not deal with the USDAĂs process. His question was why the USDA was not at least interviewed about the process for the stories.
Wes Uhlman, Public Member, asked if the commissions or its representatives had asked KIRO about ¦what appears to be a serious imbalance of on-air time of 76% versus 23%˛ of on-air sources. ¦If you did ask them that question, what was their answer?˛
Brumbach replied that when they met with KIRO, they had not yet quantified the ratio of on-air time, so although they ¦did lay out the imbalance,˛ the question did not arise. She said the KIRO people they met with (Doug Culver, assistant news director, and Karen Lucht, director of special projects) but they ¦only took notes and did not ask any questions.˛
Sue Frause, Media Member, said she ¦had the impression that you werenĂt too happy with the two spokespeople˛ that were interviewed on the KIRO series. She asked if they had contacted the Beef and/or Dairy Commission before they were interviewed by Halsne. Brumbach said ¦we did speak with them briefly.˛ Thompson added that only William Sexsmith of Midway Meats had called, but not Richard Van Dam, the dairy farmer. Thompson said Sexsmith had called basically to say: ¦TheyĂre coming. What do I do?˛ (Laughter)
Eddie Reed, Public Member, said he wanted to remind everyone that the WNC was here to determine whether the KIRO report was ¦fair and accurate and balanced,˛ and not to decide whether the three ¦theories of action˛ in the series were valid. First, that lack of inspection of downers was the direct result of contaminated meat. Second, that handling of downers was inhumane. Third, that downers are not acceptable as a food source.
He said that KIROĂs statement as to why it was not participating in todayĂs hearings had said that the practices of the Meat and Dairy Commission need to be looked at very closely. ¦The question that I have is that all of these theories of action are based on unedited portions of these tapes that we have not seen yet.˛ He asked if Brumbach and/or Thompson had seen the unedited versions. Brumbach said they had not, and said they knew of no one else who had seen unedited versions.
Reed asked if there was ¦more that could be done˛ by the beef and dairy industries to lessen public concerns over the impression about how meat is introduced into the food supply, and to deal with the ¦image issue˛ that meat products are not being handled safely.
Wes Uhlman raised a point of order, noting that at this stage of the hearing we were focusing on the quality of the KIRO reports, not on options for the industries. Chairman Utter noted that such a question could be raised in the discussion phase of the hearing.
Herb Robinson asked what are the Beef Commission and Dairy Commission, who pays their salaries, and how are they organized.
Thompson said both are ¦state-chartered agencies,˛ created by the Legislature. The Dairy Commission was created in 1939, and the Beef Commission in 1969. He said they were ¦funded entirely by our members˛ in his case through a check-off system. ¦We use no public money whatsoever,˛ he said, but the state performed a ¦watchdog˛ role in overseeing expenditures. He said they were subject to all state rules, and were audited by the state every year. He said there were somewhat different laws for groups such as the Apple Commission and other crop groups.
Robinson said that ¦your function is not as an objective friend of the public, but as much as you are a friend of the industry.˛
Thompson said: ¦I consider myself a friend of the public. I am paid by the industry to promote their products, and IĂm proud to do that.˛
Brumbach added ¦we do work to ensure the safety of the meat supply through tremendous investment in beef safety research˛ and that it had been ¦very effective˛ over the past decades.
Chuck Nordhoff said he had a number of questions, some for KIRO but ¦unfortunately they are not here to respond.˛ He said the questions concerned accuracy and balance.
His first question had to do with federal meat inspectors, noting that the series of reports suggested they were not doing their jobs or were ¦just turning the other cheek.˛ He noted that Steve Raible said this ¦raises troubling questions.˛ He said the video ¦didnĂt show any of those kinds of things˛ although if made reference to hours of ¦undercover video that did.˛ He said ¦Since we donĂt have evidence of that, I wonder if you could describe to me the relationship between federal inspectors and meat processors.˛ He noted that Chehalis was a small town where ¦everybody knows one another˛ and asked if itĂs the kind of place where ¦nobody will blow the whistle on their neighbor˛ or to what extent is there ¦n adversarial relationship between inspectors and processors.˛ He asked: ¦How often are animals tagged?—.Can you help me assess these claims that inspectors are not doing their jobs or ignoring the law?˛
Brumbach said sheĂd spent a lot of time in meat-packing plants and observed the relationship, noting that ¦itĂs largely an adversarial relationship.˛ She said, ¦I have not seen the kind of ‘good old boyĂ process˛ that the question alluded to. She said the meat packers ¦definitely˛ did not think inspectors ¦were out to make life easier˛ for them. She compared it to when state auditors come in to inspect their books. ¦HeĂs not looking for the good things, heĂs looking to find the problems.˛ She said that was the kind of relationship ¦that you see between meat inspectors and the plants.˛
Nordhoff asked if Brumbach had been present when inspectors rejected or tagged animals.
Brumbach said she had not observed that, but had been present when animal had been delivered. She had not seen the actual tagging process of animals that were ¦at risk or suspect.˛
Nordhoff asked about the ¦chronological sequence of contacts˛ between the commissions and KIRO. ¦Were you ever contacted before these stories ran?˛
Brumbach and Thompson both said no.
Nordhoff asked ¦How come the big long gap˛ between their first meeting with KIRO (on March 27) and the time the stories ran five months before. ¦I would think that youĂd have been outraged and would be on their front door the very next day. Why so long?˛
Brumbach said she reported to a board of directors that meets every other month (noting that the Dairy board meets every month), and ¦it takes some time to show them the program and ask what they want us to do with it. And then it took us some time to work on following the footsteps of the reporter and getting our expert opinions.˛ She said ¦we have a very small staff. My staff is here. ThereĂs four of them. We have a lot of other things to work on throughout the year.˛ She said, ¦Our final deadline was the News CouncilĂs deadline. You gave us six months to get it done, and we worked to get it done in that time period.˛
Nordhoff observed that if this had been a newspaper, they could have asked for a letter to the editor or space for an opposing column. He asked if they had asked KIRO, ¦to run a second story with more balanced point of view,˛ or ¦for your own time, in essence.˛
Thompson said no, but when they met with KIRO
management they had asked for a letter
Nordhoff noted that KIRO said the commissions ¦havenĂt responded˛ to its questions and accused them ¦in essence, of stonewalling them.˛ He asked: ¦To your knowledge, have you not answered any of their questions regarding these four stories˛ that ran last year?
Thompson said KIRO never contacted them regarding the original four stories and ¦never gave us the opportunity to answer any questions they may have.˛
Charles Dunsire said he had a two-part question: ¦Are cattle affected by ‘mad cow diseaseĂ generally non-ambulatory cattle or downers? And if not, why should the stopping of processing of downer cattle˛ end all testing for mad cow disease in this state, as the commissions charge, as a result of the KIRO reports?
Brumbach said BSE, or ¦mad cow disease˛ has never been detected ¦in any animal under 20 months of age,˛ and therefore USDA had a ¦very targeted˛ surveillance program where they consider the at-risk population of animals, and that is the downer cow population.
Dunsire noted that KIRO anchorwoman Kristy Lee reported that Congress had stopped the use of all downer cattle in the federal school lunch program. He asked if this was true, and if so, ¦what reasons were given for that legislation?˛
Thompson said: ¦That is true,˛ adding: ¦This may come as a shock to someone, but thereĂs a theory that the things that Congress does arenĂt always done for logical reasons.˛ He said: ¦In our opinion—we feel that law was enacted largely under pressure from the animal-rights movement.˛
Brumbach added: ¦It wasnĂt a reflection of any concerns about food safety.˛
Cyrus Krohn asked what was the date when KIRO submitted the FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) request. He was told it was on September 5, 2002.
Margo Gordon asked: ¦What percentage of downer cows are just old dairy cows as opposed to cows that are going into this process for some other reason?˛
|