Jefferson Policy Journal

Will the primary regulator of cell-cultured products (fake meat) be the Food and Drug Administration or the U.S. Department of Agriculture?
The answer could make a big difference to the future of agriculture. The ‘sustainable’ meat folks believe they will have an easier time controlling the future of fake meat at FDA than they would working with the red meat fans at USDA. They believe USDA is part of the problem in not shutting down the pork, beef and poultry industries because of its in-humaneness.
This is a flank attack on the meat industry by the enviros and PETA types.
Power grab?
FDA, and surprisingly members of President Trump’s White House staff, are supporting a regulatory power grab by the bureaucrats at the FDA.
Major ag organizations recently sent a letter to President Trump, which included the following statement: “At a recent public meeting held by the FDA (which excluded USDA) and at which FDA indicated it plans to assert itself as the primary regulator of cell-cultured (fake meat) products…” The letter was signed by major agricultural organizations such as the National Pork Producers, American Farm Bureau and the North American Meat Institute.
As background, consider this: The White House in June released a new government reorganization plan which suggested all food safety functions be housed in a single agency within the USDA. USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service already reviews new technologies, and it is argued that cell-based protein (fake meat) production fits into USDA’s mission, not FDA’s.
Memphis Meats, a cell-based protein company, believes that its products must be subject to the same USDA inspection system to ensure such products are safe for human consumption. Memphis Meats wants to ensure its products are marketed and labeled in the same manner as other meat products.
An August 10, 2018 letter from the Director of Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to Chairman of the House Ag Committee, Mike Conaway, was unclear in assuring that USDA would be in charge of the regulatory framework for fake meat. In a “mealy mouth” statement, Director Mick Mulvany stated, “You can be assured that all of the administration’s food safety expertise that has been gleaned through the exercise of current authorities granted to the Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration will be brought to bear on our consideration of proper regulatory framework for these products.”
Bill Gates is a fan
Cell-cultured meat (fake meat) is backed by individuals such as Bill Gates. Environmental groups are getting into the act because these organizations have long opposed traditional meat production. These groups see fake meat as sustainable food, but have indicated, “We’ve had the experience of watching the environmental impacts of some food products and we really can’t afford to create more unsustainable food systems that take us in another wrong direction.”
A spokesperson for Friends of the Earth claims “People have been clear that they want real, truly sustainable organic food, as opposed to venture capitalist hype which would lead us down the wrong path.”
USDA Secretary Sonny Perdue has indicated in earlier statements that fake meat should be regulated by the Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS). FDA earlier this summer has announced it plans to be the agency overseeing fake meat. Who will win?
Recently a large number of agriculture trade representatives met with OMB, the National Economic Council and representatives from the White House Counsel’s office. It has been reported to me that this meeting was openly hostile and combative, with White House staff supporting FDA’s right to regulate fake meat.
It appears both the White House staff and FDA personnel do not understand the Federal Meat Inspection Act, which has significant scientific expertise and assures the safety of all meat and poultry products. FDA and its friends in the sustainable food movement want fake meat regulated by those who have little or no understanding of agriculture.
Congressmen Bob Aderholt, Mike Conaway, Colin Peterson and Sanford Bishop have told the White House that FDA should keep its hands off of regulating fake meat and USDA should continue its role in ensuring safety and accurate labeling of anything called meat (of course, using the word ‘meat’ is also under debate). FDA, according to its fulltime equivalent employee chart, appears to have 1,001 employees in its Food Safety Center. USDA, on the other hand, indicates in its FSIS that 9,600 individuals work to protect meat food safety.
Based on these numbers, who can do the better job protecting consumers?
(This article first ran in the September 6, 2018 edition of Farm Futures.)     
–
Email this author

The August 17th Wall Street Journal published an editorial describing how plaintiffs’ lawyers used junk science to persuade a California jury that a school groundskeeper was ‘exposed’ to glyphosate, and it caused his cancer.
This case and loss will have a huge potential impact on agriculture, if upheld.
Related: Monsanto fined $289 million in Roundup suit
The Journal stated “…the problem…is that there’s overwhelming scientific evidence that glyphosate does not cause cancer.” The Journal editorial went on to quote the Journal of National Cancer Institute study which investigated 45,000 licensed pesticide applicators exposed to glyphosate and found “no evidence of an association between glyphosate use and risk of any solid tumors or lymphoid malignancies including non-Hodgkin lymphoma.”
The WSJ editorial even refers to U.S. EPA as concluding glyphosate is safe. One expert claims “There is no known biological mechanism by which glyphosate could cause cancer…”
Related: Taking a global view of pesticides
If this is true and did not get presented to the jury, something is wrong with Monsanto’s legal team.
The World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) suggests otherwise. IARC surprised many in the scientific community when it concluded glyphosate is “probably carcinogenic.” Subsequent investigations revealed that contrary data had been repeatedly ignored and omitted by IARC.
IARC is the same group that has claimed very hot beverages can cause cancer, among other things. And now this junk science is getting traction in court. Monsanto, now being purchased by Bayer, faces 5,000 similar suits.
Apparently, the same researcher for IARC also works for plaintiff’s law firm, and even testified as an expert witness in the California jury case.
The plaintiff in the California case is a former school groundskeeper who routinely used Roundup. The lesions which were shown to the jury covered 80% of his body, and he indicated even wearing clothes causes pain. Other stories from the plaintiff’s side of the case indicate Monsanto suppressed evidence which suggested risk associated with the world’s most widely used herbicide that most know by its name, Roundup.
The WSJ did not comment that there was internal correspondence introduced at trial which indicated Monsanto was aware its herbicide was carcinogenic and that Monsanto “…has continuously sought to influence the scientific literature to prevent its internal concerns from reaching the public sphere and to bolster its defenses in products liability actions.”
Plaintiff’s attorney claimed in his argument that “Monsanto has specifically gone out of its way to bully and to fight independent researchers.” Plaintiff’s counsel also presented to the jury, according to one report, internal Monsanto emails which he argued demonstrated “…how the agrichemical company rejected critical research and expert warnings over the years while pursuing and helping to write favorable analyses of their products. They fought science.”
Plaintiff’s counsel used the well-paid activist scientist Christopher Portier. He chaired the IARC evaluation of glyphosate, which has been attacked as deficient. He is now a senior scientist with the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) and works as an expert witness for law firms who have thousands of clients claiming glyphosate has caused their cancers.
As most readers know, Monsanto began marketing Roundup in 1974. It was a major breakthrough for agriculture and could kill almost every weed without harming humans or the environment. Roundup products are registered in 130 countries and have been approved for use on more than 100 crops. More than 800 scientific studies and reviews and regulatory authorities around the world support the fact that glyphosate does not cause cancer.
Knowing all that, how could Monsanto lose this case?
In a statement released after the trial verdict, Monsanto said glyphosate did not cause the plaintiff’s cancer. The jury believed otherwise and gave the plaintiff $39.2 million to compensate for his injuries and $250 million to punish Monsanto for its conduct. Monsanto will likely appeal or ask the judge to vacate the jury’s decision.
Monsanto was represented by one of the largest Chicago law firms, and its lead trial lawyer has been singled out as one of the best trial lawyers in the United Sates. He is an expert in patent law and white collar defense cases. Agriculture issues do not seem to be part of his practice.
Plaintiff’s lawyer, on the other hand, was a 36-year-old, small town attorney from Orange, Virginia. Background on plaintiff’s attorney indicates he has a practice which focuses on pesticide litigation. Appears he may know and understand agriculture.
There might be a lesson here?
(This article first ran in the August 21, 2018 issue of Farm Futures.)
Email this author