Source: Lisa M. Keefe, MEATINGPLACE, 6/16/17

The USDA scientists who figured so prominently in ABC News’ coverage of lean finely textured beef (LFTB) in 2012 had their day in court, via videotaped testimony.

The hours-long depositions of former Food Safety and Inspection Service microbiologists Gerald Zirnstein and Carl Custer were reviewed, beginning late Wednesday afternoon and continuing most of the day Thursday. ABC reporter Jim Avila had emphasized that USDA’s approval of LFTB happened over the objections of “USDA’s own scientists." Avila interviewed both Zirnstein and Custer on camera for the reports.

In questioning, Dan Webb, attorney for LFTB manufacturer Beef Products Inc. (BPI), established that:
• Zirnstein was not working at USDA at the time LFTB was approved for use in meat products without additional labeling, and so was not in a position to object to its approval, as Avila stated in his report.
• Zirnstein did not write or submit any official report objecting to LFTB’s approval when he was working at USDA. He did write several emails to his bosses and others expressing his belief that the product should not be approved without being separately noted on the label.
• He was the first to use the term “pink slime," in an email in 2002, shortly after touring BPI’s LFTB manufacturing facility in Holcomb, Kansas. The factory was one of three the company was forced to shut down in the wake of the reports, although it has since resumed production.
• Zirnstein’s guide for that plant tour — whose identity he didn’t recall — described LFTB as “goop” before it is frozen and formed into chips or bricks. Zirnstein said he had seen LFTB in that pre-frozen state during the tour, but only just as it was being applied to the freezing drums and from a catwalk some 50 feet away.
• Webb called up several emails Zirnstein had written over the years critical, often in off-color language, of the product and of USDA executives. Zirnstein denied that they indicated a bias on his part against the product, BPI or USDA. He acknowledged that no one from ABC ever asked him about potential biases when they interviewed him for the reports.
• Carl Custer also never wrote any official report objecting to USDA’s approval of LFTB. Although he had researched a pre-cursor product to LFTB in 1989 and 1990, he was not involved in the process of reviewing LFTB, a later product, for approval in 1993.
• Custer never heard any USDA official say about LFTB, “It’s pink, therefore it’s meat,” as he relayed on camera for the ABC report. He recalled it was mentioned in a passing conversation in a USDA hallway with an individual who said he did hear such a statement in a meeting. However, other USDA officials have not corroborated the story.
• In a lengthy exchange, Custer and Webb debated over Custer’s contention that LFTB is not meat, each referencing different sections of the Code of Federal Regulations that refuted or supported his argument.

In each video, ABC’s attorneys wrapped up questioning of the scientists by reviewing their qualifications and accomplishments, emphasizing that they were well-equipped to form the opinions they expressed in the ABC reports. Custer said, in response to questioning by ABC’s attorney, that he stands by the statements he made in 2012, and if he had the chance to do it again, he would say the same things.

The scientists' testimony is important to both sides of the $1.9 billion defamation suit BPI has brought against the network and Avila. If ABC is found liable for product disparagement, BPI could be awarded treble damages under South Dakota law.

The videotaped deposition of former BPI executive Kit Foshee began Thursday and is expected to continue on Friday.

Media recording is prohibited by the court, with the sole exception of an audio recording made by KMEG-TV in Sioux City. Meatingplace thanks KMEG for granting access to its audio for ongoing coverage of the trial.

For more stories, go to www.meatingplace.com.