September, 2009

Congress should enact interim combustible dust rules

Savannah Morning News
Editorial

IT’S GOOD that Georgia’s two senators now support permanent, mandatory standards to protect American workers and eliminate hazardous dust in industrial workplaces.

Here’s a better idea for Johnny Isakson and Saxby Chambliss – support proposed legislation that could have the new rules in place in as few as 120 days.

Both Mr. Isakson and Mr. Chambliss were on the fence last year on legislation to establish specific standards on combustible dust in general industries. Instead, the senators opted to wait until the government’s independent experts officially weighed in on the causes of the Feb. 7 explosions and fires that killed 14 workers and injured 36 others at the Imperial Sugar refinery in Port Wentworth.

And now the experts have spoken.

The U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board approved a report Thursday in Savannah, citing a combination of unsafe sugar dust, poor equipment design and poor maintenance as factors in the fatal blast. The four-member, independent board again urged – for the second time in three years – adoption of dust standards to stop such preventable accidents from reoccurring and killing and injuring more workers.

Deliberation in federal rule-making is a positive thing when it stops the creation of excessive, bureaucratic red tape.

This isn’t one of those times.

Instead, in the wake of last Thursday’s affirmation by experts that dust has again needlessly taken lives, there’s a need for speed. Let’s get the new rules in place as soon as possible. Then enforce them.

U.S. Rep. John Barrow, D-Savannah, is co-sponsoring legislation (HR 849) that would fast-track the rule-making process, which means the new dust standards would go into effect in as little as three months.

We support this measure. After the CSB’s report, there’s no reason for Congress and the administration to go slow. Lives are potentially at stake.

Dust standards would make American industries pay attention to potential hazards now, not after workers have been killed or injured and facilities destroyed.

It’s clear from the evidence collected and presented by the CSB that Imperial Sugar was, at the very least, complacent before last February. Management was aware that dust was a hazard. Yet it didn’t take the risk seriously.

Today, Imperial Sugar says it’s a changed company. That’s good. But it took death and destruction for the company to readjust priorities. Many American businesses complain, and rightly so, about new, costly government regulations that appear to serve no legitimate purpose. But this is one instance when additional regulation is a good thing.

Complacency kills. It can kill again. The sooner that dust standards are applied to American industries, the better.

Analyst raises Tyson forecasts on pork, beef, chicken outlooks

Meatingplace.com
by Rita Jane Gabbet
t

Stephens Inc. analyst Farha Aslam has raised her 2009 earnings forecasts for Tyson Foods based on an optimistic view of profitability in its beef, pork and prepared foods businesses.

Aslam put fiscal 2009 earnings at 24 cents per share, up from 16 cents per share earlier. For fiscal 2010, she boosted her forecast by a penny to 95 cents per share, expecting strong improvement in chicken profitability driven by lower grain costs.

Beef

Aslam raised her forecast for Tyson’s beef operating margins in its fiscal fourth quarter to 2.6 percent from 1.6 percent earlier and compared to 5.4 percent a year ago. While beef sales volume and pricing are down on reduced foodservice demand, she cited good discipline by beef packers in reducing production in line with demand.

Pork

Similarly, Aslam now expects Tyson to realize fourth quarter pork margins of 4.5 percent, up from 3.6 percent earlier and compared to 7.5 percent last year. Pork prices have rallied over the past month while hog prices have remained depressed, which is positive for Tyson because it buys hogs and sells pork.

Poultry

Aslam now expects fourth quarter poultry sales to decline by 4 percent to 5 percent from a year ago instead of declining by 6 percent to 7 percent, largely because higher bird weights are expected to drive higher sales volume.

She also noted that despite rhetoric about China pulling back on poultry purchases to punish the United States for trade action on tires, “China over the past few weeks has been business as usual.”

Westland/Hallmark knowingly sold meat from downers: federal lawsuit

Meatingplace.com
by Tom Johnston

Westland/Hallmark Meat Co. knowingly slaughtered and processed downer cattle an average of once every six weeks over the course of almost four years, the federal government alleges in a lawsuit.

The U.S. Department of Justice is seeking damages from individuals and corporations affiliated with the company, which closed after videos showed workers abusing non-ambulatory cows in late 2007 and prompted the largest beef recall in U.S. history. The DOJ in May joined a lawsuit originally filed by the Humane Society of the United States, which produced the video.

The federal suit, filed Aug. 21 following additional research and interviews, states that Westland/Hallmark’s sales of beef to USDA for the National School Lunch Program in a series of contracts during the period from Aug. 8, 2003, to Jan. 24, 2008, were fraudulent because the company had certified that it was complying with the Federal Meat Inspection Act.

Westland/Hallmark, the DOJ alleges, handled cattle inhumanely on a daily basis and after June 22, 2004, periodically processed meat from non-ambulatory cattle on average once every six weeks. This continued through Sept. 30, 2007, the lawsuit states.

“Despite these material breaches, WHMC falsely represented and certified that it had complied with all the terms of its contracts, and as a result, USDA paid WHMC millions of dollars to which it was not entitled,” the suit states.

Additionally, the suit claims Hallmark/Westland intentionally kept from legal disclosure a business partner who was a twice-convicted felon. Such disclosure ultimately would have made the company ineligible for federal contracts, the lawsuit states.

The presiding judge gave defendants until Oct. 13 to respond.