by Gary J. Kushner
Since almost the inception of continuous USDA inspection in meat and poultry slaughtering and processing facilities, conflicts have arisen between inspection personnel and plant management concerning the interpretation and application of federal regulations and policies.
Probably most often, disagreements concern an inspector's subjective judgments about a plant's routine compliance with sanitation requirements. Other disputes involve the use of ingredients or equipment, shipping practices, product labeling and the appropriate scope of USDA inspection and enforcement authority.
Plant operations are often disrupted pending resolution of these disputes. Daily occurrences including retention of products, slowing of line speeds and even suspension of production are not uncommon. Serious disputes, particularly those involving the shipment of product that the inspection service considers to be misbranded or adulterated, can lead to product recalls and even criminal prosecution.
Relationship strained
Historically, legitimate disagreements between plant management and inspectors have been resolved informally by appeal to a company's FSIS circuit supervisor, area supervisor or regional director. Where these channels have been unsuccessful, an approach to operations officials in the FSIS Washington headquarters has generally ended the matter with some degree of compromise.
Unfortunately, in recent years, relationships between plant management and inspectors have become increasingly strained. More and more facilities are experiencing significant disruptions, "white glove" treatment, and intensified inspection, often with little or no legal or practical basis. To make matters worse, traditional avenues of appeal have been all but closed.
Most recently, in one glaring example of the kind of virtually uncontrolled inspector conduct to which plants are being subjected, meat inspectors reportedly stopped the processing lines in one of the nation's largest and most progressive beef packing facilities following a plant visit by a U.S. senator.
Apparently, the senator's tour of the plant generated media coverage in part because of his scrutiny of certain USDA regulatory policies and enforcement practices. In alleged retaliation, inspectors stopped processing lines, leaving 1,600 employees standing idle.
There are several reasons for the deteriorating relationships between plant management and their inspectors. Unwarranted press criticism of USDA coupled with the lack of stability in agency leadership in the last few years have certainly contributed to the the problem.
Probably the main reason why meat inspectors have thrown their weight around, however, is to prove that they are needed. And with USDA Secretary Mike Espy essentially inviting presumed inspector whistleblowers to call him directly if they feel they are being inhibited in doing their jobs, supervisors are reluctant to interfere.
The point is this: With a growing consensus that organoleptic inspection, which is highly labor intensive, should be replaced by an inspection system that takes greater advantage of scientific techniques, inspectors fear losing jobs to progress. To them, modernization is anathema.
So, if they can convince the media, Congress and other prospective industry antagonists that meat companies cannot be trusted to produce a safe and wholesome product under sanitary conditions in the absence of continuous inspection, the move from physical inspection to scientific assessment might be stymied.
Inspectors valuable but...
Notwithstanding inspector union cries to the contrary, there is little disagreement that the physical presence of 7,000 inspectors in plants will become hardly justifiable under a modern, science-based system.
There are certainly valuable functions that USDA inspectors can perform, but looking at a meat carcass for aesthetic flaws, something that plant quality assurance personnel have ample incentive to do more efficiently, is not one of them. And with budgetary concerns reaching crisis proportions, reducing the cost of inspection will come none too soon.
But this evolution will not come overnight. And as long as inspectors remain in plants, someone in Washington had better start holding them accountable for their behavior.
Some members of Congress have already begun asking the hard questions. USDA's leadership, though, would do well to take the bull by the horns and defend those inspector practices that appropriately safeguard the public health-but put a stop to those motivated by nothing more than featherbedding.