Federal Government Eliminates Pork from Federal Prison Menus

After a 17-day furor over its decision to strip pork products from the national menu for 206,000 federal inmates, the Bureau of Prisons has finally produced the documentation it says led to the change.

Only it’s different from what the government first said it was.

While prison officials originally said they had banned pork because inmates no longer liked its taste, the survey results show just the opposite: A majority of inmates like pork dishes or have neutral feelings about them, compared to a minority who say they dislike them.

“We re-evaluated the inmate food preference surveys and costs that were considered when the Bureau made the decision to remove pork roast,” Newton E. Kendig, assistant director of the Bureau of Prisons health services division, wrote to Grassley.

“This re-evaluation led us to the conclusion that the decision to remove pork roast was an error.”

Prison officials had pretty much acknowledged that when Director Charles E. Samuels, Jr. ordered pork roast reinstated on the food menu just nine days after its Oct. 1 removal — and the same day Grassley sent Samuels a letter of protest.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ry-behind-the-ban-on-pork-in-federal-prisons/

 

Liars were caught cold.

It was a PC move, pure and simple.

 

Politically correct? No. Someone(s) stood to benefit financially from the pork ban and they were called on it. There ARE some very influential inmates incarcerated in the federal system.

 

Proof?

 

Proof it was a 'PC move'?

 

I was born at night but twern't last night. I retired from the feds, last four years of my career in contracting. I got a real good idee at how things work under the table and behind the scenes when it comes to lump sums of taxpayer money up for grabs.

 

I would submit that since the decision was reversed in 9 days, it had to be a money issue. No way a PC issue would be resolved that quickly.

 

Meaning your statement was purely an opinion. I don't doubt it's possible, but you have no facts to back it up at all.

However there is precedent that this was very likely a move to appease muslims. First, the obvious...Obama always appeases muslims.

Second, pork was banned in Ohio prisons by a federal judge after a lawsuit by a muslim inmate. Muslims feel very empowered with this administration in power.

Third, muslims and their attack dog organizations were all very pleased with the decision, some even hinting they were behind it.

Waiting on you to at least post something to back up your opinion.

 

And you know this how. They were caught red handed in a lie to cover up a financial move?

Really? :confused:

 

Meaning again that you have absolutely nothing to back up your opinion. Noted.

 

Did you read the article?

The senator that spearheaded the complaint about removing pork from prison menus was Iowa Senator Charles Grassley. Iowa produces more pork than any state in the nation. Connect the dots. Follow the money. etc. etc. It's not difficult.

 

Follow your own advice. If the prison system banned pork for financial reasons, how do you explain that the cost of pork overall has the lowest cost of meats served in the prison system? It's even comparable to chicken if you remove the prices for ham and bacon.

 

OK, I wasn't clear, sorry.

I don't know why pork was initially banned. The reason given was because prisoners didn't like it, which was subsequently shown to be false. I believe it was reinstated because of financial reasons. If it was banned for a PC reason, the financial reasons trumped the PC reasons.

 

As an aside, Texas, with the largest inmate population in the country, serves a lot of pork, some chicken and very little beef. The reason...pork costs less. The state raises their own hogs and Texas does not serve bacon and ham to inmates. Those cuts are sold on the open market to further reduce the cost of the pork that they serve.

 

Why do you think they lied about the reasons?