Food Safety Binds Links in Meat Chain
Industry wages farm-to-fork assault on microbial contamination
by Bryan Salvage, editor
Ensuring meat safety is the highest priority of the American meat industry. And efforts to ensure product safety are intensifying in each segment of the meat chain.
All agree that more needs to be done by industry, but ensuring meat safety has never been easy. Livestock are hosts to millions of unwanted and potentially dangerous guests-bacteria. And bacteria is everywhere-in the air, ground and water.
Most food items that cause food-borne bacterial diseases are raw or undercooked foods of animal origin-including meat, poultry, milk, eggs, cheese, fish and shellfish.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that more than 250 different diseases have been described that can be caused by contaminated food or drink. The most common food-borne diseases are infections caused by bacteria, such as salmonella and campylobacter, or by the Norwalk family of viruses.
New infections not previously known to be food-borne diseases, such as E. coli 0157:H7, have also entered the scene.
In 1983, CDC estimated there were about 6 million cases of infectious food-borne diseases responsible for 9,000 deaths. CDC estimates that today, as many as 80 million cases of food-borne illness could be striking American consumers, with the majority of those cases being linked to either poultry, meat or seafood. However, there are no hard statistics on food-borne illnesses that relate specifically to meat, according to a CDC spokesman.
Against all odds
Despite the seemingly unbeatable odds the meat industry faces in manufacturing and maintaining safe products, it gets high food safety marks from many meat and allied industry leaders.
-- "On a scale of one [representing the worst] to 10 [representing the best], I'd rate American meat a nine in terms of safety," says AMI President J. Patrick Boyle. "I don't give it a 10 because there is always room for improvement, but we unquestionably have the safest meat supply in the world."
-- "I think [the meat industry] is doing fine in addressing meat safety, says John Farquhar, vice president of science and technology for Food Marketing Institute. "I have the greatest confidence in the world in the meat industry."
-- "The majority of packers and processors do a good job," points out Bo Reagan, director of product technology research for the National Livestock & Meat Board. "A lot of problems we have [relating to food safety] are from companies on the lower end of our business. It reflects on the whole industry. We have to clean up that lower end."
-- "Meat by its nature is going to carry bacterial contaminants," stresses Bob Harrington, director of technical services for the National Restaurant Association. "The [meat] industry is getting better, but we all [producer, packer, processor, retailer and foodservice operator] have a long way to go. There are improvements that can and ought to be made [in each segment of the chain]."
Research is a top priority for beef producers, according to Gary Wilson, director of animal health and research for the National Cattlemen's Association. "We've tried to line up a lot of research because we have to know where we are and what we are dealing with before we can start making improvements," he points out.
Microbial contamination is a major problem facing all food industry segments. The beef industry, however, has a tremendous battle on its hands regarding a particularly deadly and relatively new pathogen-E. coli 0157:H7.
Although this pathogen was unknown by most Americans until the contaminated meat outbreak last year (when four children died), E. coli was no stranger to the industry.
"In the past 3 or 4 years, beef producers have approved the expenditure of many beef checkoff dollars on E. coli research alone," Wilson says.
"During the last three years, we [Meat Board, NCA and AMI] have probably spent close to $2 million in food safety research," Reagan adds. "This year we put in $1.3 million, mostly related to E. coli research."
Since data suggests that infections with the organism are increasing, E. coli research is intensifying throughout the industry. Even proven technologies not currently used by the beef industry are being used in tests.
Last year, the AMI Foundation reported that low levels of irradiation successfully destroy harmful bacteria in raw ground beef patties. The pathogens most sensitive to irradiation are campylobacter and E. coli 0157:H7, followed by staphylococcus aureus, listeria monocytogenes and salmonella.
USDA Secretary Mike Espy said recently that the agency will support a petition for federal approval of beef irradiation. FDA has already approved irradiation for pork and poultry.
Reagan says that a task force, consisting of 10 packer or processor scientists and four industry association scientists, is focusing research on E. coli from the gate to the plate.
A blueprint on what is known about E. coli-and what additional research is needed-will be available by June.
NCA's Beef Quality Assurance program was launched in 1987 to decrease chemical residues on meat. FSIS, which has done chemical residue surveys and testing for the past five years, reports there is now no residue in fed cattle, according to Wilson. The program has since evolved to provide beef producers with steps to enhance beef quality.
Another NCA/Meat Board research project relates to the physical contaminants in the zero-tolerance policy: Is hand-trimming better than carcass washing in battling microorganisms? Preliminary data looks promising for carcass washes in reducing pathogen loads, Wilson says.
"It has always been in the back of our minds to move toward evaluations and identifying management systems that will reduce microbiological loads," Wilson stresses. "We now need to look at things we can do at the farm level to help reduce pathogen loads, which is the next phase of [the audit] program."
In recent months, the Meat Board has done research on the best intervention systems in conjunction with a carcass-washing system. Researchers will go in-plant to get data on how effective such combinations will be.
Another research project, to conclude this summer, is investigating whether there is E. coli present on whole muscle cuts, such as strips and loins, and the effect needle tenderizing may have on such cuts. A study is also underway on microbiological sampling procedures.
Academia is important ammunition in industry's food safety arsenal. Many universities are involved in various research throughout the meat chain.
For example, the Meat Board alone is conducting research with many major universities, including the University of Georgia, Texas A&M University, Colorado State University, University of Wisconsin, Kansas State University and Iowa State University.
In 1989, the National Pork Producers Council started its Pork Quality Assurance Program to address proper drug usage on animals and residue avoidance. It has since expanded to include herd health practices.
"The pork industry is interested in improving what it can do on the farm [to enhance meat safety]," says Beth Lautner, veterinarian and NPPC director of swine health and pork safety. "We've already effectively addressed the residues issue through programs like the Pork Quality Assurance Program and other programs."
NPPC's pork audit program is based on 10 Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point principles. At present, 25,000 pork producers (who produce 50 percent of the nation's pork) are enrolled in the program.
Last May, NPPC hosted a meeting with government agency officials, food safety scientists, veterinarians, producers and packers to discuss the pork chain and how safety can be ensured throughout each step of it.
"We've also visited with [USDA's] Agricultural Research Service food safety scientists to see what's being done [in food safety research]," Lautner says. "We're trying to get a good grasp on what's being done in the area of pre-harvest food safety."
NPPC recently organized a pork safety task force consisting of pork producers, which prioritizes and addresses food safety issues. The task force will also address how to reach consumers on these issues. Work is also being done to establish a technical advisory group to help coordinate food safety efforts throughout the chain.
NPPC is also working closely with the American Association of Swine Practitioners (veterinarians who provide services to the swine group). Each vet may have 40 or 50 farm clients.
"A lot of quality assurance programs have been implemented through vet contacts," Lautner says.
"We see a three-pronged approach to food safety," she adds. "We need to know what research is being done so we can improve what we're doing; we must communicate what we're doing and planning to do; and we're hoping research will drive the politics. Our support has been for a scientifically sound, risk-based inspection system."
Some relatively new technology being used by pork producers to enhance food safety include the depopulation/repopulation concept (where producers empty their herds and start over with herds exhibiting enhanced health).
Once assured of a healthy herd, producers are segregating animals by age group to prevent the transmission of organisms. Another technology that segregates by age group is multi-site production. The breeding herd is on one farm; nursery growing animals are another, and hogs approaching market are on another. This breaks the disease transmission cycle, Lautner points out.
Genetic engineering also offers promise.
"[USDA's] Agricultural Research Service has looked at [creating hogs with] genetic resistance to organisms or disease," Lautner says. "There is potential to learn more about how to create animals that are resistant."
Work is being done by the AMI Foundation through Beef Board funding on intervention systems.
"We're looking at things like trisodium phosphate, hydrogen peroxide, organic acids, ozonated water and hot water," the Meat Board's Reagan says. "Preliminary results on those studies look very encouraging, especially some combinations."
The study will also examine the effectiveness of high-intensity pulses of light, which are flashed at carcasses. This technique uses a broad spectrum of "white light," which appears to have an antimicrobial effect.
The Foundation raised nearly $4 million in 1993 to find new ways to prevent or destroy bacteria in raw meats before it leaves the plant.
The Foundation also received funding from the National Cattlemen's Beef Promotion and Research Board to develop a rapid immunological test for verification of endpoint processing temperatures in hamburger patties. This allows food handlers to quickly determine if hamburger patties were cooked within the recommended internal temperature range of 145 F to 155 F.
A company point of view
All meat companies have implemented their own meat safety efforts. Minneapolis-based Excel Corp., for example, has 12 quality control labs servicing 12 of its plants.
"Each lab is an integral part of each plant operation," says Dell Allen, Excel's vice president of quality and training. Microbiologists with master's degrees, food chemists and microbiology graduates staff these laboratories.
Microbiological monitoring of products is done daily, including carcass and ground beef sampling. The company pays particular attention to its ground beef numbers.
"If your ground beef numbers are under control, your plant is under control because ground beef comes from all carcasses," Allen notes.
Excel began implementing HACCP in 1991. Today, fully implemented HACCP programs exist in all of its facilities.
"HACCP has made our people very cognizant of their processes-and of the monitoring processes-to prevent problems from developing or escalating into larger ones," stresses Allen, who leads Excel's corporate HACCP efforts. "Each plant has a HACCP coordinator who ensures HACCP is being used and monitored."
Excel has also held beef and pork supplier seminars explaining its HACCP program and the role suppliers play in it. Each plant has a food safety committee to review its HACCP programs, and these committees would handle recalls.
Excel also conducts food safety seminars for its retail customers, explaining how to create a HACCP program. It also includes a presentation on basic microbiology.
"Any company our size is doing as much as possible to enhance meat safety; we can't afford not to," Allen admits. "I think there has been a much more serious effort to improve meat safety on the private industry's side than there has been on the government's side."
USDA action plan
But there is some action on government's side.
USDA's vision on enhancing meat inspection (Track I and Track II) have been lauded by industry officials because they say there is a need for an improved, science-based meat inspection system.
But industry is at odds with other food safety stances taken by USDA.
The agency has been criticized for moving too fast on mandatory safe handling labels-and for moving too slow on implementing mandatory HACCP programs in meat plants. And the recent revolving door ushering out key personnel-particularly former FSIS Administrator H. Russell Cross-is causing concern.
Regardless, USDA has many meat safety initiative irons in the fire. During testimony before a Senate subcommittee, USDA's acting Assistant Secretary Patricia Jensen said more than 70 initiatives are underway addressing E. coli 0157:H7, specifically, and food safety in general. This was established through a Pathogen Reduction Program, which Secretary Espy announced following the Jack in the Box incident.
Regarding enforcement, Espy directed FSIS to emphasize stricter enforcement of sanitation and other food safety requirements at meat plants.
In February 1993, he directed FSIS to strictly enforce procedures to ensure that all fecal, ingesta and milk contamination is removed from beef carcasses. Guidelines on implementing this zero-tolerance policy have been provided to all beef plants and USDA employees at those plants.
FSIS has instituted more inspector training to ensure uniform enforcement of the policy at all beef plants.
FSIS conducted surprise visits to beef plants last year to assess implementation of its zero-tolerance policy. FSIS' newly formed Review and Assessment office recently began a series of 1,000 unannounced plant reviews throughout the country.
Jensen said 200 inspector positions were added at FSIS. And Espy has made it a priority for FSIS to maintain existing staffing levels in plants.
President Clinton's fiscal year 1995 budget, which is currently being examined by congressional committees, calls for an additional $25.6 million for pathogen reduction research and an additional $7.7 million for hiring and training new inspectors.
"Our commitment to improve the nation's meat and poultry system remains a top priority at USDA," Espy said in a news release.
Industry applauded the increase in pathogen research funding, but criticized the call for additional money to hire more inspectors.
While different spokes of the meat wheel and government will continue to be at odds over certain issues, all agree on one point: Consumers must be assured of safe meat.
Consumer education is a key part of the Pathogen Reduction Program. Jensen said safe handling labels on raw and partially cooked meat and poultry products will benefit consumers.
USDA has implemented a number of consumer education and training campaigns, and its Meat and Poultry Hotline received more than 130,000 calls last year-mostly asking questions on how to safely handle, cook and store meat and poultry products.
Another added dimension to USDA's consumer education plan is public service announcements, which emphasize the importance of safe meat handling.
The retail grocery and foodservice industries are stepping up employee meat handling training by better managing critical control points, while various segments of the meat chain continue to educate consumers through recipes and meat handling tips.
"In terms of building consumer confidence, we need to continue to enhance the quality and safety of our products and work to educate the entire food preparation chain about meat safety," stresses AMI's Boyle. "[This will] help prevent food-borne illness outbreaks that can undermine consumer confidence."