Civil liberties groups have reacted angrily to US President Barack Obama's decision to revive military trials for some Guantanamo Bay detainees.
Mr Obama has previously denounced the Bush-era judicial system, but in a statement said new safeguards would ensure suspects got a fairer hearing.
New rules include rejecting statements obtained from harsh interrogations and limitations on using hearsay evidence.
There are still 240 detainees at the US base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Mr Obama halted the controversial military commissions as one of his first acts on taking office in January, saying the US was entering a new era of respecting human rights.
"It's disappointing that Obama is seeking to revive rather than end this failed experiment," said Jonathan Hafetz, a national security attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union.
"There is no detainee at Guantanamo who cannot be tried and shouldn't be tried in the regular federal courts system. This is perpetuating the Bush administration's misguided detention policy."
Kenneth Roth, head of Human Rights Watch, said: "By resurrecting this failed Bush administration idea, President Obama is backtracking dangerously on his reform agenda."
Campaign statement
On the campaign trail last year, Mr Obama had branded the military commissions "an enormous failure".
But in the statement issued on Friday, he said he had supported their use as one avenue to try detainees, and in 2006 had voted in favour of them.
He said he had opposed the tribunals used by George W Bush's administration because they had failed to establish a legitimate legal framework and undermined swift and certain justice.
The extra safeguards for detainees include a ban on evidence obtained by harsh interrogation; restrictions on hearsay evidence; giving detainees more leeway to choose their own lawyers and protecting detainees who refuse to testify, the statement said.
Mr Obama said he was seeking more time so that the new procedures could be implemented.
These reforms will begin to restore the commissions as a legitimate forum for prosecution, while bringing them in line with the rule of law," he said.
"This is the best way to protect our country, while upholding our deeply held values."
But Geneve Mantri, of Amnesty International, said Mr Obama's message was confusing.
"It was clear from his announcements soon after he reached the White House what he was going to do," he said.
"Now it is somewhat confusing what the administration's standard is or what their policies are."
Zachary Katznelson of Reprieve, which represents a number of Guantanamo Bay detainees, told the BBC that the president was making a "fundamental mistake".
"He is taking a gravely, truly flawed system, tinkering at the edges and hoping that the world is somehow going to see this as legitimate, as open, as fair - it's not going to happen," he said.
In contrast, Mr Obama found support for his decision among his opponents.
"I am pleased that President Obama has now adopted this view," said Republican Senator John McCain, who lost the presidential election to Mr Obama.
Ari Fleischer, who was George W Bush's first press secretary, said President Obama "should acknowledge his campaign criticisms were wrong".
"With some minor changes, he really is following the same path President Bush pursued," he said.
Pragmatic style
The BBC's James Coomarasamy in Washington says that although some are disappointed, for others it is further evidence of Mr Obama's pragmatic style of leadership, one that recognises the need to balance the change he has promised with the reality he has inherited.
Mr Obama has said he wants the Guantanamo Bay camp closed by 2010.
Shortly before his announcement, US officials said that Algerian detainee Lakhdar Boumediene had left Guantanamo Bay for France.
Mr Boumediene was arrested in Bosnia in 2001 and was held for seven years. He was cleared of any wrongdoing in November
Friday, May 15, 2009
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Changing tones: Karat comes full circle on Congress
With exit polls indicating only a slender edge for the Congress and a crumbling of the Third Front, the Left could tacitly allow the formation of a Congress-led minority government.
CPM general secretary Prakash Karat (56) told Hindustan Times on Thursday that the Left would not “help the Congress” but said nothing to suggest it would bring down a Congress-led government in a trust vote if the Congress is the single-largest party.
“Why speculate at this point. No government is possible without the Third Front and our involvement. Let’s wait for the results,” Karat said, when asked if the Left would let the Congress seize power to keep the BJP out.
The Left had built its campaign around a non-Congress, non-BJP alternative government. A day before results, such a government looks like a numerical impossibility.
The Left’s position vis-à-vis the Congress has come down to two options. If the Congress’s tally drops, the Left is likely to put forward the argument that the Congress should support a secular government of the communists and their regional allies.
But if the Congress improves upon its 2004 figures, then the Left can keep an equal distance from the BJP and the Congress. Such a position will only help the Congress sustain a minority government.
The Left and its allies could then form an influential bloc that will pressure the government on policies, hanging over it like a Damocles' sword.
Such a position would go well with at least two Left allies: the Biju Janata Dal and the Telugu Desham Party.
Both are fundamentally anti-Congress and yet very conscious of their secular appearance, making it unlikely that they will support the BJP.
“Whatever decision we take, we will take it in consultation with our allies. That’s why we have called a meeting on May 18,” Karat said.
Karat has said the Left would never allow the BJP —which it considers a right-wing party — to leverage election results that are too close to call.
Karat said he did not make much of the exit polls and therefore did not rule out the possibility of the Third Front forming a minority government either.
Going by Karat’s statements over the past two days, it is clear that the first priority of the Left would be to see the formation of a “secular government”.
It is also safe to infer that the Left would head for the Opposition benches and do nothing to pull down a Congress government down during a trust vote, to keep the BJP out.
Karat’s refusal to spell out the Left stand in the event of the Congress emerging as the single-largest party means that the comrades may change their pre-poll stand.
CPM general secretary Prakash Karat (56) told Hindustan Times on Thursday that the Left would not “help the Congress” but said nothing to suggest it would bring down a Congress-led government in a trust vote if the Congress is the single-largest party.
“Why speculate at this point. No government is possible without the Third Front and our involvement. Let’s wait for the results,” Karat said, when asked if the Left would let the Congress seize power to keep the BJP out.
The Left had built its campaign around a non-Congress, non-BJP alternative government. A day before results, such a government looks like a numerical impossibility.
The Left’s position vis-à-vis the Congress has come down to two options. If the Congress’s tally drops, the Left is likely to put forward the argument that the Congress should support a secular government of the communists and their regional allies.
But if the Congress improves upon its 2004 figures, then the Left can keep an equal distance from the BJP and the Congress. Such a position will only help the Congress sustain a minority government.
The Left and its allies could then form an influential bloc that will pressure the government on policies, hanging over it like a Damocles' sword.
Such a position would go well with at least two Left allies: the Biju Janata Dal and the Telugu Desham Party.
Both are fundamentally anti-Congress and yet very conscious of their secular appearance, making it unlikely that they will support the BJP.
“Whatever decision we take, we will take it in consultation with our allies. That’s why we have called a meeting on May 18,” Karat said.
Karat has said the Left would never allow the BJP —which it considers a right-wing party — to leverage election results that are too close to call.
Karat said he did not make much of the exit polls and therefore did not rule out the possibility of the Third Front forming a minority government either.
Going by Karat’s statements over the past two days, it is clear that the first priority of the Left would be to see the formation of a “secular government”.
It is also safe to infer that the Left would head for the Opposition benches and do nothing to pull down a Congress government down during a trust vote, to keep the BJP out.
Karat’s refusal to spell out the Left stand in the event of the Congress emerging as the single-largest party means that the comrades may change their pre-poll stand.
Santa Monica jet ban 'unjustly' discriminates against specific aircraft, FAA finds
A controversial ordinance banning private jets with fast landing speeds at the Santa Monica Airport violates the city's legal obligations because the restriction "unjustly and unreasonably" discriminates against specific aircraft, according to a Federal Aviation Administration decision released Thursday.
Based on evidence presented during a four-day hearing in March, Anthony N. Palladino, a senior FAA attorney and hearing officer, concluded that the ban violates the terms of $9.7 million in federal grants received by the airport and a 1984 agreement between the city and the federal government to give final authority over safety issues to the FAA.
Palladino also decided that the restriction does not comply with the federal Surplus Property Act, which provided for the airport's return to the city under certain conditions after it was leased by the government during World War II.
The ban "is not consistent with the city's obligation to make the airport available for public use . . . to all types, kinds and classes of aeronautical activity," Palladino wrote.
Passed by the Santa Monica City Council in late 2007, the ban prohibits private and corporate jets with landing speeds of 139 mph to 191 mph from using the airport, which sits on a plateau a few hundred feet from homes and businesses. City officials contend the planes are at risk of running off the runway, though the jets have never crashed at the airport.
The ordinance has not gone into effect, however, because of a cease-and-desist order issued by the FAA and a preliminary injunction, which was upheld earlier this week by a federal appeals court.
Palladino's decision can be appealed to an FAA associate administrator for policy, who would have to decide the matter by July 8. The ruling would constitute the FAA's final decision, which can then be appealed in federal court.
Based on evidence presented during a four-day hearing in March, Anthony N. Palladino, a senior FAA attorney and hearing officer, concluded that the ban violates the terms of $9.7 million in federal grants received by the airport and a 1984 agreement between the city and the federal government to give final authority over safety issues to the FAA.
Palladino also decided that the restriction does not comply with the federal Surplus Property Act, which provided for the airport's return to the city under certain conditions after it was leased by the government during World War II.
The ban "is not consistent with the city's obligation to make the airport available for public use . . . to all types, kinds and classes of aeronautical activity," Palladino wrote.
Passed by the Santa Monica City Council in late 2007, the ban prohibits private and corporate jets with landing speeds of 139 mph to 191 mph from using the airport, which sits on a plateau a few hundred feet from homes and businesses. City officials contend the planes are at risk of running off the runway, though the jets have never crashed at the airport.
The ordinance has not gone into effect, however, because of a cease-and-desist order issued by the FAA and a preliminary injunction, which was upheld earlier this week by a federal appeals court.
Palladino's decision can be appealed to an FAA associate administrator for policy, who would have to decide the matter by July 8. The ruling would constitute the FAA's final decision, which can then be appealed in federal court.
Review: 'Angels & Demons'
Just when everyone thought they'd long since disappeared, four Cardinals are kidnapped on the eve of a conclave called to replace the pope, a progressive thinker who has conveniently died. The Illuminati is not only claiming responsibility but setting about to brand (yes, brand, as in molten metal searing skin) each of the Cardinals before killing them at the rate of one an hour and gruesomely staged for maximum effect. If that wasn't frightening enough, there are dark hints of the Vatican being consumed by light at the stroke of midnight.
Meanwhile (there is always a "meanwhile" in Dan Brown's densely plotted tomes), a prominent research facility in Geneva has succeeded in creating anti-matter, the substance that everything is made of. Creation, my friends, courtesy of colliding particles, and we get to see it. Though before we witness the Big Bang, those unseen particles -- dubbed "God particles" in case you've missed the allusions that have been falling around us like a hard rain -- race through a complex maze of underground pipes that look like they might carry sewage except they're polished to a blinding high sheen. Even a Hans Zimmer orchestration with lots of swells and cymbals (versus symbols) doesn't help.
Then, wouldn't you know it, despite incredible levels of security, one of the anti-matter canisters is stolen and its lava-lamp likeness turns up on a Vatican camera, though in this high-tech wireless world, the Swiss Guards who protect the pope and his environs have no idea where it is, an issue they've hopefully resolved since the book came out.
Through all this Langdon has been swimming laps at the Harvard gym. But wave the word "Illuminati" in front of him and he's at Vatican headquarters in a flash -- ahem, a man of science called to save the church.
"Oh, good, the symbologist has arrived," says a droll Swiss Guard Commander Richter ( Stellan Skarsgard), whose biting skepticism helps keep the pompous in perspective. (He's not the only actor who seems to be telegraphing that "Angels & Demons" shouldn't be taken all that seriously.) By now the beautiful Italian scientist Vittoria Vetra, an underused Ayelet Zurer, has shown up as the brains behind the anti-matter brew.
As if this arena weren't already standing room only, there's the plethora of villains and heroes, most prominently Ewan McGregor's Camerlengo Patrick McKenna, whose pale skin, watery eyes and soulful observations are a perfect fit for playing the late pope's right-hand man.
Many weighty philosophical questions are thrown out along the way, including the "big" one, "Do you believe in God?" posed by the Camerlengo to Langdon. I suspect they were designed to fool you into thinking "Angels & Demons" is more than what it is -- an old-fashioned, big-budget action flick dressed up in cassocks and collars, bleeding red and pretending spirituality.
To his credit, director Ron Howard tried to make some course corrections after "The Da Vinci Code." He and screenwriters David Koepp and Akiva Goldsman have lost a few of the book's schemes and schemers to keep the film on fast forward. The "Angels' " killer is dressed in a natty suit rather than wool robes that hid a penchant for self-mutilation that we had to suffer through in "Da Vinci," though the killings themselves are far more perverse and brutal. And much of what is supposed to pass for dialogue is merely a recitation of fact, but at least we've been spared the historical flashbacks with the books-on-tape voice-overs that so pulled at the seams of "The Da Vinci Code."
Where "Angels & Demons" succeeds best is in its look and speed. With much of the story set in and around Vatican City, a shrine to art as much as God, Howard has a rich canvas, used to great effect by production designer Allan Cameron. Meanwhile, the action and the effects come so fast and furiously, if you turn away for a second you may miss a murder.
Where the film ultimately fails is that Howard never really takes control of the ideas. The director is far too reverential, leaving "Angels & Demons" to reflect Dan Brown's hackneyed vision rather than his own.
Meanwhile (there is always a "meanwhile" in Dan Brown's densely plotted tomes), a prominent research facility in Geneva has succeeded in creating anti-matter, the substance that everything is made of. Creation, my friends, courtesy of colliding particles, and we get to see it. Though before we witness the Big Bang, those unseen particles -- dubbed "God particles" in case you've missed the allusions that have been falling around us like a hard rain -- race through a complex maze of underground pipes that look like they might carry sewage except they're polished to a blinding high sheen. Even a Hans Zimmer orchestration with lots of swells and cymbals (versus symbols) doesn't help.
Then, wouldn't you know it, despite incredible levels of security, one of the anti-matter canisters is stolen and its lava-lamp likeness turns up on a Vatican camera, though in this high-tech wireless world, the Swiss Guards who protect the pope and his environs have no idea where it is, an issue they've hopefully resolved since the book came out.
Through all this Langdon has been swimming laps at the Harvard gym. But wave the word "Illuminati" in front of him and he's at Vatican headquarters in a flash -- ahem, a man of science called to save the church.
"Oh, good, the symbologist has arrived," says a droll Swiss Guard Commander Richter ( Stellan Skarsgard), whose biting skepticism helps keep the pompous in perspective. (He's not the only actor who seems to be telegraphing that "Angels & Demons" shouldn't be taken all that seriously.) By now the beautiful Italian scientist Vittoria Vetra, an underused Ayelet Zurer, has shown up as the brains behind the anti-matter brew.
As if this arena weren't already standing room only, there's the plethora of villains and heroes, most prominently Ewan McGregor's Camerlengo Patrick McKenna, whose pale skin, watery eyes and soulful observations are a perfect fit for playing the late pope's right-hand man.
Many weighty philosophical questions are thrown out along the way, including the "big" one, "Do you believe in God?" posed by the Camerlengo to Langdon. I suspect they were designed to fool you into thinking "Angels & Demons" is more than what it is -- an old-fashioned, big-budget action flick dressed up in cassocks and collars, bleeding red and pretending spirituality.
To his credit, director Ron Howard tried to make some course corrections after "The Da Vinci Code." He and screenwriters David Koepp and Akiva Goldsman have lost a few of the book's schemes and schemers to keep the film on fast forward. The "Angels' " killer is dressed in a natty suit rather than wool robes that hid a penchant for self-mutilation that we had to suffer through in "Da Vinci," though the killings themselves are far more perverse and brutal. And much of what is supposed to pass for dialogue is merely a recitation of fact, but at least we've been spared the historical flashbacks with the books-on-tape voice-overs that so pulled at the seams of "The Da Vinci Code."
Where "Angels & Demons" succeeds best is in its look and speed. With much of the story set in and around Vatican City, a shrine to art as much as God, Howard has a rich canvas, used to great effect by production designer Allan Cameron. Meanwhile, the action and the effects come so fast and furiously, if you turn away for a second you may miss a murder.
Where the film ultimately fails is that Howard never really takes control of the ideas. The director is far too reverential, leaving "Angels & Demons" to reflect Dan Brown's hackneyed vision rather than his own.
Schwarzenegger outlines drastic budget cuts
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger today proposed major cuts to education, healthcare, prisons and other services on the eve of a special election that will determine how many billions he and lawmakers must slice from the budget to curtail a growing shortfall.
The governor offered two scenarios. The first was grim, to address a $15.4-billion deficit that finance officials say the state will face even if voters approve a set of ballot measures Tuesday. The second was devastating, intended to close a $21.3-billion gap if the measures fail.
The governor's plan, unveiled this afternoon, would take $3 billion from public schools if the ballot propositions pass and $5 billion if they fail.
In either case, Schwarzenegger would borrow $6 billion to pay bills, lay off 5,000 workers, cut funding to hospitals, sell the Los Angeles Coliseum and Sports Arena, San Quentin State Prison and other facilities, consolidate state agencies and eliminate some state boards and commissions.
"We are going to do everything that we can to make sure that we are going to make ends meet, but it's going to be tough," Schwarzenegger said. "And I think that state government has to make the same sacrifices as the ordinary folks make out there."
Under the worst scenario, the state would also borrow up to $2 billion from local government, cut 225,000 children from a state healthcare program and release up to 19,000 undocumented immigrants from state prisons, turning them over to federal authorities. Up to 23,000 other state prisoners could be sent to county jails.
Only three months ago, Schwarzenegger and legislative leaders reached a budget deal they said would carry the state through the middle of next year. But a worsening economy and falling tax revenues have thrown that plan way out of balance.
Polls show that California voters are ready to reject Tuesday's proposals for altering the state lottery and diverting money from voter-approved programs -- ideas that accounted for $6 billion of the solution Schwarzenegger and lawmakers reached in February.
Schwarzenegger said he moved up the release of his revised budget, originally scheduled for May 28, to let voters know the consequences of rejecting the ballot measures on Tuesday.
"We want to basically just tell the people: You are our partners, and you need to know that kind of information," he said.
The governor offered two scenarios. The first was grim, to address a $15.4-billion deficit that finance officials say the state will face even if voters approve a set of ballot measures Tuesday. The second was devastating, intended to close a $21.3-billion gap if the measures fail.
The governor's plan, unveiled this afternoon, would take $3 billion from public schools if the ballot propositions pass and $5 billion if they fail.
In either case, Schwarzenegger would borrow $6 billion to pay bills, lay off 5,000 workers, cut funding to hospitals, sell the Los Angeles Coliseum and Sports Arena, San Quentin State Prison and other facilities, consolidate state agencies and eliminate some state boards and commissions.
"We are going to do everything that we can to make sure that we are going to make ends meet, but it's going to be tough," Schwarzenegger said. "And I think that state government has to make the same sacrifices as the ordinary folks make out there."
Under the worst scenario, the state would also borrow up to $2 billion from local government, cut 225,000 children from a state healthcare program and release up to 19,000 undocumented immigrants from state prisons, turning them over to federal authorities. Up to 23,000 other state prisoners could be sent to county jails.
Only three months ago, Schwarzenegger and legislative leaders reached a budget deal they said would carry the state through the middle of next year. But a worsening economy and falling tax revenues have thrown that plan way out of balance.
Polls show that California voters are ready to reject Tuesday's proposals for altering the state lottery and diverting money from voter-approved programs -- ideas that accounted for $6 billion of the solution Schwarzenegger and lawmakers reached in February.
Schwarzenegger said he moved up the release of his revised budget, originally scheduled for May 28, to let voters know the consequences of rejecting the ballot measures on Tuesday.
"We want to basically just tell the people: You are our partners, and you need to know that kind of information," he said.
Food Companies Try, but Can’t Guarantee Safety
The frozen pot pies that sickened an estimated 15,000 people with salmonella in 2007 left federal inspectors mystified. At first they suspected the turkey. Then they considered the peas, carrots and potatoes.
Threatened with a federal shutdown, the pie maker, ConAgra Foods, began spot-checking the vegetables for pathogens, but could not find the culprit. It also tried cooking the vegetables at high temperatures, a strategy the industry calls a “kill step,” to wipe out any lingering microbes. But the vegetables turned to mush in the process.
So ConAgra — which sold more than 100 million pot pies last year under its popular Banquet label — decided to make the consumer responsible for the kill step. The “food safety” instructions and four-step diagram on the 69-cent pies offer this guidance: “Internal temperature needs to reach 165° F as measured by a food thermometer in several spots.”
Increasingly, the corporations that supply Americans with processed foods are unable to guarantee the safety of their ingredients. In this case, ConAgra could not pinpoint which of the more than 25 ingredients in its pies was carrying salmonella. Other companies do not even know who is supplying their ingredients, let alone if those suppliers are screening the items for microbes and other potential dangers, interviews and documents show.
Yet the supply chain for ingredients in processed foods — from flavorings to flour to fruits and vegetables — is becoming more complex and global as the drive to keep food costs down intensifies. As a result, almost every element, not just red meat and poultry, is now a potential carrier of pathogens, government and industry officials concede.
In addition to ConAgra, other food giants like Nestlé and the Blackstone Group, a New York firm that acquired the Swanson and Hungry-Man brands two years ago, concede that they cannot ensure the safety of items — from frozen vegetables to pizzas — and that they are shifting the burden to the consumer. General Mills, which recalled about five million frozen pizzas in 2007 after an E. coli outbreak, now advises consumers to avoid microwaves and cook only with conventional ovens. ConAgra has also added food safety instructions to its other frozen meals, including the Healthy Choice brand.
Peanuts were considered unlikely culprits for pathogens until earlier this year when a processing plant in Georgia was blamed for salmonella poisoning that is estimated to have killed nine people and sickened 27,000. Now, white pepper is being blamed for dozens of salmonella illnesses on the West Coast, where a widening recall includes other spices and six tons of frozen egg rolls.
The problem is particularly acute with frozen foods, in which unwitting consumers who buy these products for their convenience mistakenly think that their cooking is a matter of taste and not safety.
Federal regulators have pushed companies to beef up their cooking instructions with the detailed “food safety” guides. But the response has been varied, as a review of packaging showed. Some manufacturers fail to list explicit instructions; others include abbreviated guidelines on the side of their boxes in tiny print. A Hungry-Man pot pie asks consumers to ensure that the pie reaches a temperature that is 11 degrees short of the government-established threshold for killing pathogens. Questioned about the discrepancy, Blackstone acknowledged it was using an older industry standard that it would rectify when it printed new cartons. Government food safety officials also point to efforts by the Partnership for Food Safety Education, a nonprofit group founded by the Clinton administration. But the partnership consists of a two-person staff and an annual budget of $300,000. Its director, Shelley Feist, said she has wanted to start a campaign to advise consumers about frozen foods, but lacks the money.
Estimating the risk to consumers is difficult. The industry says that it is acting with an abundance of caution, and that big outbreaks of food-borne illness are rare. At the same time, a vast majority of the estimated 76 million cases of food-borne illness every year go unreported or are not traced to the source.
Home Cooking
Some food safety experts say they do not think the solution should rest with the consumer. Dr. Michael T. Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota, said companies like ConAgra were asking too much. “I do not believe that it is fair to put this responsibility on the back of the consumer, when there is substantial confusion about what it means to prepare that product,” Dr. Osterholm said.
And the ingredient chain for frozen and other processed foods is poised to get more convoluted, industry insiders say. While the global market for ingredients is projected to reach $34 billion next year, the pressure to keep food prices down in a recession is forcing food companies to look for ways to cut costs.
Ensuring the safety of ingredients has been further complicated as food companies subcontract processing work to save money: smaller companies prepare flavor mixes and dough that a big manufacturer then assembles. “There is talk of having passports for ingredients,” said Jamie Rice, the marketing director of RTS Resource, a research firm based in England. “At each stage they are signed off on for quality and safety. That would help companies, if there is a scare, in tracing back.”
But government efforts to impose tougher trace-back requirements for ingredients have met with resistance from food industry groups including the Grocery Manufacturers Association, which complained to the Food and Drug Administration: “This information is not reasonably needed and it is often not practical or possible to provide it.”
Now, in the wake of polls that show food poisoning incidents are shaking shopper confidence, the group is re-evaluating its position. A new industry guide produced by the group urges companies to test for salmonella and cites recent outbreaks from cereal, children’s snacks and other dry foods that companies have mistakenly considered immune to pathogens.
Research on raw ingredients, the guide notes, has found salmonella in 0.14 percent to 1.3 percent of the wheat flour sampled, and up to 8 percent of the raw spices tested.
ConAgra’s pot pie outbreak began on Feb. 20, 2007, and by the time it trailed off nine months later 401 cases of salmonella infection had been identified in 41 states, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which estimates that for every reported case, an additional 38 are not detected or reported.
It took until June 2007 for health officials to discover the illnesses were connected, and in October they traced the salmonella to Banquet pot pies made at ConAgra’s plant in Marshall, Mo.
While investigators who went to the plant were never able to pinpoint the salmonella source, inspectors for the United States Department of Agriculture focused on the vegetables, a federal inspection document shows.
ConAgra had not been requiring its suppliers to test the vegetables for pathogens, even though some were being shipped from Latin America. Nor was ConAgra conducting its own pathogen tests.
Threatened with a federal shutdown, the pie maker, ConAgra Foods, began spot-checking the vegetables for pathogens, but could not find the culprit. It also tried cooking the vegetables at high temperatures, a strategy the industry calls a “kill step,” to wipe out any lingering microbes. But the vegetables turned to mush in the process.
So ConAgra — which sold more than 100 million pot pies last year under its popular Banquet label — decided to make the consumer responsible for the kill step. The “food safety” instructions and four-step diagram on the 69-cent pies offer this guidance: “Internal temperature needs to reach 165° F as measured by a food thermometer in several spots.”
Increasingly, the corporations that supply Americans with processed foods are unable to guarantee the safety of their ingredients. In this case, ConAgra could not pinpoint which of the more than 25 ingredients in its pies was carrying salmonella. Other companies do not even know who is supplying their ingredients, let alone if those suppliers are screening the items for microbes and other potential dangers, interviews and documents show.
Yet the supply chain for ingredients in processed foods — from flavorings to flour to fruits and vegetables — is becoming more complex and global as the drive to keep food costs down intensifies. As a result, almost every element, not just red meat and poultry, is now a potential carrier of pathogens, government and industry officials concede.
In addition to ConAgra, other food giants like Nestlé and the Blackstone Group, a New York firm that acquired the Swanson and Hungry-Man brands two years ago, concede that they cannot ensure the safety of items — from frozen vegetables to pizzas — and that they are shifting the burden to the consumer. General Mills, which recalled about five million frozen pizzas in 2007 after an E. coli outbreak, now advises consumers to avoid microwaves and cook only with conventional ovens. ConAgra has also added food safety instructions to its other frozen meals, including the Healthy Choice brand.
Peanuts were considered unlikely culprits for pathogens until earlier this year when a processing plant in Georgia was blamed for salmonella poisoning that is estimated to have killed nine people and sickened 27,000. Now, white pepper is being blamed for dozens of salmonella illnesses on the West Coast, where a widening recall includes other spices and six tons of frozen egg rolls.
The problem is particularly acute with frozen foods, in which unwitting consumers who buy these products for their convenience mistakenly think that their cooking is a matter of taste and not safety.
Federal regulators have pushed companies to beef up their cooking instructions with the detailed “food safety” guides. But the response has been varied, as a review of packaging showed. Some manufacturers fail to list explicit instructions; others include abbreviated guidelines on the side of their boxes in tiny print. A Hungry-Man pot pie asks consumers to ensure that the pie reaches a temperature that is 11 degrees short of the government-established threshold for killing pathogens. Questioned about the discrepancy, Blackstone acknowledged it was using an older industry standard that it would rectify when it printed new cartons. Government food safety officials also point to efforts by the Partnership for Food Safety Education, a nonprofit group founded by the Clinton administration. But the partnership consists of a two-person staff and an annual budget of $300,000. Its director, Shelley Feist, said she has wanted to start a campaign to advise consumers about frozen foods, but lacks the money.
Estimating the risk to consumers is difficult. The industry says that it is acting with an abundance of caution, and that big outbreaks of food-borne illness are rare. At the same time, a vast majority of the estimated 76 million cases of food-borne illness every year go unreported or are not traced to the source.
Home Cooking
Some food safety experts say they do not think the solution should rest with the consumer. Dr. Michael T. Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota, said companies like ConAgra were asking too much. “I do not believe that it is fair to put this responsibility on the back of the consumer, when there is substantial confusion about what it means to prepare that product,” Dr. Osterholm said.
And the ingredient chain for frozen and other processed foods is poised to get more convoluted, industry insiders say. While the global market for ingredients is projected to reach $34 billion next year, the pressure to keep food prices down in a recession is forcing food companies to look for ways to cut costs.
Ensuring the safety of ingredients has been further complicated as food companies subcontract processing work to save money: smaller companies prepare flavor mixes and dough that a big manufacturer then assembles. “There is talk of having passports for ingredients,” said Jamie Rice, the marketing director of RTS Resource, a research firm based in England. “At each stage they are signed off on for quality and safety. That would help companies, if there is a scare, in tracing back.”
But government efforts to impose tougher trace-back requirements for ingredients have met with resistance from food industry groups including the Grocery Manufacturers Association, which complained to the Food and Drug Administration: “This information is not reasonably needed and it is often not practical or possible to provide it.”
Now, in the wake of polls that show food poisoning incidents are shaking shopper confidence, the group is re-evaluating its position. A new industry guide produced by the group urges companies to test for salmonella and cites recent outbreaks from cereal, children’s snacks and other dry foods that companies have mistakenly considered immune to pathogens.
Research on raw ingredients, the guide notes, has found salmonella in 0.14 percent to 1.3 percent of the wheat flour sampled, and up to 8 percent of the raw spices tested.
ConAgra’s pot pie outbreak began on Feb. 20, 2007, and by the time it trailed off nine months later 401 cases of salmonella infection had been identified in 41 states, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which estimates that for every reported case, an additional 38 are not detected or reported.
It took until June 2007 for health officials to discover the illnesses were connected, and in October they traced the salmonella to Banquet pot pies made at ConAgra’s plant in Marshall, Mo.
While investigators who went to the plant were never able to pinpoint the salmonella source, inspectors for the United States Department of Agriculture focused on the vegetables, a federal inspection document shows.
ConAgra had not been requiring its suppliers to test the vegetables for pathogens, even though some were being shipped from Latin America. Nor was ConAgra conducting its own pathogen tests.
Pelosi Acknowledges She Was Told of Waterboarding in 2003
Under fire from Republicans for what she knew about harsh questioning of terror detainees, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Thursday acknowledged that she had learned in 2003 that the C.I.A. had subjected suspects to waterboarding, but she asserted that the agency had misled Congress about its techniques.
At a tense press conference, Ms. Pelosi said for the first time that a staff member alerted her in February 2003 that top lawmakers on the House Intelligence Committee had been briefed on the use of tough interrogation methods on terror suspects.
But she said the fact that she did not speak out at the time due to secrecy rules did not make her complicit in any abuse of detainees. She accused the C.I.A. and Bush administration of lying to Congress about what was actually transpiring with the detainees.
“I am saying that the C.I.A. was misleading the Congress and at the same time the administration was misleading the Congress on weapons of mass destruction,” Ms. Pelosi said.
Ms. Pelosi said she was told at that briefing that waterboarding, one of the most controversial of the harsh techniques employed, was not being used.
The C.I.A., reacting to Ms. Pelosi’s remarks, said that agency records declassified last week and cited by congressional Republicans show that Ms. Pelosi had taken part in a September 2002 briefing on interrogation techniques was “true to the language in the Agency’s records.”
An agency spokesman, George Little, added that the C.I.A. director, Leon E. Panetta, had pointed out in a recent letter to Congress that the information “is drawn from the past files of the C.I.A.” and represented contemporaneous memoranda “and notes that summarized the best recollections of those individuals.”
According to the C.I.A. records, Ms. Pelosi attended the Sept. 4 briefing about the agency’s interrogation techniques with her Republican counterpart, Representative Porter J. Goss of Florida. Based on agency notes from the briefing, the two lawmakers were told the specific techniques “that had been employed” on Abu Zubaydah.
By then, that C.I.A. already used a number of harsh methods on Mr. Zubaydah, including waterboarding.
The C.I.A. records do not list the individual techniques that lawmakers were told about. However, in an op-ed last month, Mr. Goss said he remembers being told specifically about waterboarding during the September 2002 briefing.
“I am slack jawed to read that members claim to have not understood that the techniques on which they were briefed were to actually be employed; or that specific techniques such as “waterboarding” were never mentioned,” Mr. Goss wrote in The Wall Street Journal.
Other Republicans took sharp issue with the speaker’s remarks.
“The speaker’s comments continue to raise more questions than provide answers,” said Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the House Republican minority leader. “It’s pretty clear that they were well aware of what these enhanced interrogation techniques were; they were well aware that they’d been used; and it seems to me that they want to have it both ways. You can’t have it both ways.”
Senator Kit Bond of Missouri, vice chairman of the Senate intelligence committee, issued a more scathing response.
“It’s outrageous that a member of Congress would call our terror-fighters liars,” he said in a statement released by his office. “Instead of prosecuting or persecuting, our country should be supporting our intelligence professionals who work to keep us safe.”
The Republican-driven furor over what Ms. Pelosi knew about waterboarding and other techniques has put the speaker on the defensive. She repeatedly referred to a carefully prepared statement to respond to multiple questions at the session with reporters.
Ms. Pelosi blamed the dispute on Republicans and others, saying they are trying to shift attention from those who authorized the interrogations and other tactics now found to be questionable.
Republicans have said the speaker was now criticizing the Bush administration for abusing terror suspects when she herself was aware of it at the time.
“This is a diversionary tactic to take the spotlight off of those who conceived, developed and implemented these policies, which all of us long opposed,” Ms. Pelosi said.
Ms. Pelosi said that at the sole briefing she attended as the senior Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee in September 2002, the only mention of waterboarding by C.I.A. officials was that while it was deemed to be legal, the technique was not being used.
On Friday, Congressional Republicans, citing a new accounting that showed some top Democrats taking part in briefings on harsh methods in 2002, had accused Democrats of full complicity in approving the Bush administration’s brutal interrogations.
The chart said that in a briefing on Sept. 4, 2002, attended by Ms. Pelosi, the interrogation methods that ”had been employed” against a prisoner, Abu Zubaydah, were described. But according to the legal memorandums released last month, Abu Zubaydah had been waterboarded 83 times the month before the briefing, so any objection from Democrats at the Sept. 4 briefing would have come too late.
Indeed, Ms. Pelosi said Thursday that she had learned only after the Sept. 4 briefing that waterboarding had already been used and that some administration experts had questioned its legality.
“We later find out that it had been taking place before they even briefed us about the legal opinions and told us that they were not being used,” she said, referring to the interrogation techniques.
Ms. Pelosi said she had supported a letter opposing the tactics sent in 2003 by Representative Jane Harman of California, who replaced Ms. Pelosi as the top Democrat on the intelligence panel when Ms. Pelosi took over as Democratic leader. But she said that she realized a letter would not change administration policy and said she instead set about to win Democratic control of Congress, then held by Republicans.
“It was clear we had to change the leadership in Congress and in the White House,” she said. “That was my job — the Congress part.”
Ms. Pelosi urged the C.I.A. to disclose the contents of the briefing she attended and said she did not believe there was more she could have done when she learned of the waterboarding.
At a tense press conference, Ms. Pelosi said for the first time that a staff member alerted her in February 2003 that top lawmakers on the House Intelligence Committee had been briefed on the use of tough interrogation methods on terror suspects.
But she said the fact that she did not speak out at the time due to secrecy rules did not make her complicit in any abuse of detainees. She accused the C.I.A. and Bush administration of lying to Congress about what was actually transpiring with the detainees.
“I am saying that the C.I.A. was misleading the Congress and at the same time the administration was misleading the Congress on weapons of mass destruction,” Ms. Pelosi said.
Ms. Pelosi said she was told at that briefing that waterboarding, one of the most controversial of the harsh techniques employed, was not being used.
The C.I.A., reacting to Ms. Pelosi’s remarks, said that agency records declassified last week and cited by congressional Republicans show that Ms. Pelosi had taken part in a September 2002 briefing on interrogation techniques was “true to the language in the Agency’s records.”
An agency spokesman, George Little, added that the C.I.A. director, Leon E. Panetta, had pointed out in a recent letter to Congress that the information “is drawn from the past files of the C.I.A.” and represented contemporaneous memoranda “and notes that summarized the best recollections of those individuals.”
According to the C.I.A. records, Ms. Pelosi attended the Sept. 4 briefing about the agency’s interrogation techniques with her Republican counterpart, Representative Porter J. Goss of Florida. Based on agency notes from the briefing, the two lawmakers were told the specific techniques “that had been employed” on Abu Zubaydah.
By then, that C.I.A. already used a number of harsh methods on Mr. Zubaydah, including waterboarding.
The C.I.A. records do not list the individual techniques that lawmakers were told about. However, in an op-ed last month, Mr. Goss said he remembers being told specifically about waterboarding during the September 2002 briefing.
“I am slack jawed to read that members claim to have not understood that the techniques on which they were briefed were to actually be employed; or that specific techniques such as “waterboarding” were never mentioned,” Mr. Goss wrote in The Wall Street Journal.
Other Republicans took sharp issue with the speaker’s remarks.
“The speaker’s comments continue to raise more questions than provide answers,” said Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the House Republican minority leader. “It’s pretty clear that they were well aware of what these enhanced interrogation techniques were; they were well aware that they’d been used; and it seems to me that they want to have it both ways. You can’t have it both ways.”
Senator Kit Bond of Missouri, vice chairman of the Senate intelligence committee, issued a more scathing response.
“It’s outrageous that a member of Congress would call our terror-fighters liars,” he said in a statement released by his office. “Instead of prosecuting or persecuting, our country should be supporting our intelligence professionals who work to keep us safe.”
The Republican-driven furor over what Ms. Pelosi knew about waterboarding and other techniques has put the speaker on the defensive. She repeatedly referred to a carefully prepared statement to respond to multiple questions at the session with reporters.
Ms. Pelosi blamed the dispute on Republicans and others, saying they are trying to shift attention from those who authorized the interrogations and other tactics now found to be questionable.
Republicans have said the speaker was now criticizing the Bush administration for abusing terror suspects when she herself was aware of it at the time.
“This is a diversionary tactic to take the spotlight off of those who conceived, developed and implemented these policies, which all of us long opposed,” Ms. Pelosi said.
Ms. Pelosi said that at the sole briefing she attended as the senior Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee in September 2002, the only mention of waterboarding by C.I.A. officials was that while it was deemed to be legal, the technique was not being used.
On Friday, Congressional Republicans, citing a new accounting that showed some top Democrats taking part in briefings on harsh methods in 2002, had accused Democrats of full complicity in approving the Bush administration’s brutal interrogations.
The chart said that in a briefing on Sept. 4, 2002, attended by Ms. Pelosi, the interrogation methods that ”had been employed” against a prisoner, Abu Zubaydah, were described. But according to the legal memorandums released last month, Abu Zubaydah had been waterboarded 83 times the month before the briefing, so any objection from Democrats at the Sept. 4 briefing would have come too late.
Indeed, Ms. Pelosi said Thursday that she had learned only after the Sept. 4 briefing that waterboarding had already been used and that some administration experts had questioned its legality.
“We later find out that it had been taking place before they even briefed us about the legal opinions and told us that they were not being used,” she said, referring to the interrogation techniques.
Ms. Pelosi said she had supported a letter opposing the tactics sent in 2003 by Representative Jane Harman of California, who replaced Ms. Pelosi as the top Democrat on the intelligence panel when Ms. Pelosi took over as Democratic leader. But she said that she realized a letter would not change administration policy and said she instead set about to win Democratic control of Congress, then held by Republicans.
“It was clear we had to change the leadership in Congress and in the White House,” she said. “That was my job — the Congress part.”
Ms. Pelosi urged the C.I.A. to disclose the contents of the briefing she attended and said she did not believe there was more she could have done when she learned of the waterboarding.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)