April 14, 2002
Mr.
Doug Hamilton, Producer
Modern
Meat
Frontline/WGBH
TV
125
Western Ave.
Boston,
MA 02134 By
email: [email protected]
Dear
Doug:
This
responds to your letter of April 9, 2002 [see .jpg below] that was received in
my office on April 11 via Federal Express.
It is regrettable that you were unable to reschedule the March 19
interview with me. My request to
reschedule came to you more than four weeks before your show was scheduled to
air, and because of the frustrations that you claim you had to arrange
interviews with industry executives, and my availability beginning March 27, it
seems very surprising that you could not work it into your schedule.
I
am also surprised that your investigative efforts did not clarify for you that
the American Meat Institute did not join the group of organizations that were amicus
to the plaintiff in the lower court, and it did not seek to be an intervenor in
the Appeals Court.
Once
again, we hope that you will make clear to your viewers that the judicial
decision in Supreme Beef vs. USDA does not undermine USDA’s authority to
enforce the law or even to use performance standards, but merely requires the
government to use testing technology to truly measure performance and protect
consumers. Frontline’s promotional
quotations of Carol Tucker Foreman, whose organization was an amicus to
the defendant, incorrectly inform consumers. We urge you to inform your viewers
that unfortunately you were not able to make adjustments, three weeks before
the show, to interview a key industry representative.
Sincerely,
Rosemary
Mucklow
Executive
Director
April 5, 2002
Doug Hamilton, Producer
& Writer
Frontline
1459 18th Street #121
San Francisco, CA 94107 By
email: [email protected]
Dear Doug:
After several telephone
calls and emails, Steve Johnson confirmed to me on Wednesday that you are close
to the end of your interviews for on-air presentation in the April 18, 2002 Frontline
segment about the meat industry and that you will not be interviewing me. Your
advance website promotional introduction, which was posted after the 3-hour
background discussion you and Steve had with me on January 11, drew conclusions
very critical of the meat industry. Nevertheless, I believed an on air
interview would provide some balanced perspective about industry initiatives to
make meat safe. Your viewers need to know the meat industry works hard to
improve food safety, not to impair it.
Specifically, your website
description of the recent decision in Supreme Beef Processors v. USDA is
biased against the industry and makes a direct reference to our organization,
followed by disparaging comments from an Amicus party of the
defendant. National Meat Association
participated in this litigation, first as an Amicus, and ultimately as a
Plaintiff/ Intervenor, because we believed USDA’s ground beef performance standard
was applied at a point where it did not measure performance, and both the
District Court and the Court of Appeals agreed with us. In the cancelled interview we had hoped to
reassure viewers that these judicial decisions do not undermine USDA’s authority
to enforce the law or even to use performance standards, but merely make sure
that the government will use testing technology to truly measure performance
and protect consumers..
There’s not one person
working in the meat industry today who doesn’t want to provide wholesome food
for Americans. They all have families
and children who eat meat, and they are just as concerned about eating safe
meat as every other consumer.
The meat industry does care
about food safety. Safe meat is simply good business for meat processors.
Please share this letter
with your viewers.
Sincerely,
Rosemary
Mucklow
Executive
Director