Maybe it's worth taking a look at how influential the cattlemen are? Could the stuff they sell with Escherichia coli O157:H7 (thrown right in as freebies) be as clean some politicians?
http://influenceexplorer.com/organization/national-cattlemens-beef-assn/a30c391b761f4e98a8aa714617cfd8f3CAMPAIGN FINANCE $4,179,495 GIVEN
LOBBYING $5,862,671 SPENT
http://facultypages.morris.umn.edu/~cholledl/anth%203204/Class%20Presentations.08/Politics%20versus%20Science.ppthttp://books.google.com/books?id=39oVBbtt6IEC&pg=PA57Saturday, April 13Washington Post reporter Malcolm Gladwell noticed the Orange County Register story on the wire services and thought it worth pursuing; his editor advised him to expand it with interviews. His April 13 account featured the remarks of Dr. Joan Gussow, a professor of nutrition education at Columbia University. Praising the Pyramid, she said, "[T]here is no question that the basic food groups ... gave the impression that the most important things were meats and dairy products. This is a real mark of progress." Mr. Gladwell also quoted William Castelli, the director of the Framingham Heart Study, saying that he thought it was great that USDA "is going to suggest that we pig out on cereals and legumes and use the other foods as a complement. The societies that do that now live healthier lives." The story appeared with an illustration of the Pyramid on the front page. In yet another improbable coincidence, the National Cattlemen's Association (a lobbying group for beef products) happened to be holding its annual meeting in Washington, DC, that very weekend. Its members could hardly miss the Washington Post story or its significance.
Monday, April 15The final stroke of bad luck was this: the Cattlemen's meeting agenda included a scheduled visit the Secretary Madigan two days after the story appeared. According to one account, the secretary had "also learned of the Pyramid for the first time in Saturday's paprt. 'I bet a lot of you were surprised,' he said to the ranchers when he walked into their April 15 meeting.... 'I'm the Secretary of Agriculture, and I was surprised too.'" The cattlemen complained that the Pyramid would cause people to eat less meat and that meat should not be displayed so close to fats and sugars. They joined the National Milk Producers Federation in demanding that USDA withdraw the Pyramid. During the next ten days, other trade associations also protested. The head of the American Meat Institute, for example, was said to have written a letter to Secretary Madigan explaining that although he had "neither seen the Pyramid nor been consulted about it," he thought that to clear up confusion USDA should reject its adoption.
Saturday, April 27The Washington Post story containing my quote appeared two weeks later. It contained Secretary Madigan's statement about withdrawing the guide so it could be tested on schoolchildren and low-income adults. It also quoted a USDA spokeswoman who confirmed that the Pyramid had been 'killed' but denied that industry complaints were the reason; instead, she said that it might confuse children. The article, however, led off with the phrase "Yielding to pressure from the meat and dairy industries," and it quoted a lobbyist for the National Milk Producers Federation claiming that "her group's concerns were one of the reasons the proposal was pulled." It and the article in the New York Times used comments from interviews to highlight USDA's conflicts of interest related to dietary advice and the department's consistent history of responding to the interests of agricultural producers at the expense of public health.
http://books.google.com/books?id=Q_GrDI9wVy4C&pg=PA142LEGISLATING COOPERATION: "CHECK-OFFS"
A second example of the friendlier forms of influence exerted by food companies occurs through "check-off" programs that can only be interpreted as federally sanctioned and administered public relations enterprises to benefit certain food commodities. To promote sales, food companies induced Congress to pass a collection of laws that require the producers of certain commodities—among them beef, dairy products, milk, eggs, and peanuts—to deduct, or "check-off," a fee from sales to be used for generic advertising and promotion. By 1986, U.S. food producers were contributing more than $530 million annually to promote farm commodities through such programs. The three largest check-off funds are for dairy, beef, and soybeans; in 1994 these generated $228 million, $81 million, and $48 million, respectively, for national and state promotional activities. The dairy check-off, for example, funds the $100 million or greater annual cost of the milk campaign illustrated in Figure 12.
These programs have an especially interesting history. The beef check-off, for example, began as a voluntary program that generated $31,000 in 1922. In the 1970s, as beef consumption began to decline, the National Cattlemen's Association started lobbying for a compulsory program through a campaign that involved political action committees, letter writing, and personal visits to members of Congress by hundreds of beef producers.
This lobbying was especially effective because cattlemen, who tend to be generous with campaign contributions, are distributed among a great many states—each, of course, with two senators and several representatives.