|
Critics are also quick to point out that the U.S. farmers for years have argued that the Vietnamese catfish species
-- pangasius -- isn't really catfish, even winning a law in 2002 prohibiting Vietnamese exporters from labeling their product as catfish. On the other side, domestic farmers -- struggling for years with high feed costs and other obstacles
-- argue that Asian producers are using antibiotics and other substances banned in the U.S. for an unfair advantage. Joey Lowery, an Arkansas catfish farmer and immediate past president of the Catfish Farmers of America, said it's inconceivable that USDA would decide to inspect only domestic catfish. "The intent of this law is food safety, and there's really only one way to address it, and that's to inspect everything," Lowery said. "There is no Door No. 2." Some food-safety experts agree that illegal additives in Asian imports are a concern. The advocacy group Food and Water Watch reluctantly supported the new catfish program, for example. The group's chief lobbyist, Tony Corbo, said that despite the political motives behind the change, the group believes USDA has a better system than FDA, which inspects only about 2 percent of the seafood it oversees. But many experts question the wisdom of splitting seafood oversight between two agencies, saying the real problem is a lack of funding for inspections, regardless of the agency. In addition, as the government struggles to keep up with deadly food scares involving other products, catfish
-- both domestic and imported -- has a good safety record, and the FDA says its limited sampling has not found a higher rate of banned substances in Vietnamese imports. "This is about sensible spending of scarce food-safety dollars," Acheson said. "We just don't have the money to squander on nonissues, which in my book this is. ... Somebody should just pull the plug on it." The USDA already has spent nearly $15 million developing the new program. It had been expected to issue a decision last month, but under intense pressure, it punted and asked for six more months of review. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said at a hearing this week that it may be 2012 before a final rule is issued. Lowery wouldn't say what the U.S. industry's next move will be if the ruling doesn't go its way, although most observers predict the law would be quickly repealed. "We're confident USDA knows what they have to do," he said. But, he added, "We'll play the hand we're dealt."
[Associated
Press;
Copyright 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
News | Sports | Business | Rural Review | Teaching & Learning | Home and Family | Tourism | Obituaries
Community |
Perspectives
|
Law & Courts |
Leisure Time
|
Spiritual Life |
Health & Fitness |
Teen Scene
Calendar
|
Letters to the Editor