A Winter of Discontent?
Industry gears up for another bout with zero tolerance
by Martha Mueller Neff
No one disagrees that safe, bacteria-free meat must be the primary goal for both the meat industry and for federal inspectors who oversee the process.
But how to get there remains a problem.
"Everyone wants to reach zero tolerance," points out Billy Lloyd, coordinator of beef quality assurance for the National Cattlemen's Association. "No one wants to leave visible contaminants on the carcass. Everybody wants to reduce the pathogens, but we just disagree on how to do it."
FSIS began enforcing its zero-tolerance policy in February 1993. To pass inspection, a carcass with surface defects such as fecal material, mud, stomach contents or milk must be trimmed to stop bacterial contamination.
Those in the industry accept the need for such standards. But after last winter, they are lobbying FSIS to allow other methods for eliminating contaminants other than zero tolerance. They continue to complain about inconsistent inspections from plant to plant, and also believe that more focus is needed at the retail and consumer levels to avoid contaminated and often undercooked meat.
Mud-filled campaign
Officials point out that it is not unusual to see an animal with 100 pounds of mud and manure on its hide during the winter.
They say zero-tolerance enforcement costs packers from $5 to $8 in reduced yields per head. Scientists say the industry has lost $130 million in meat value since USDA stepped up its zero-tolerance policy about 18 months ago.
Lloyd says statistics show carcasses sit longer and are handled more extensively while packers implement zero-tolerance procedures prior to inspection, increasing the risk of cross-contamination.
And in winter, the animals are often covered with frozen-then-thawed mud, fecal matter and hay-all which could lead to contamination.
Processors say that from all indications the upcoming winter will be just as severe as last year.
Several in the industry echoed Lloyd's reservations about zero tolerance.
"Our data shows that the increased handling of carcasses actually increases the amount of contaminants," says Mark Klein, a spokesman for Minneapolis-based Excel Corp.
He adds that he does not expect any major changes in the zero-tolerance policy this winter.
"Last winter was better than 1993-dirt-wise and mud-wise," he notes. "But with zero tolerance, the meat was not as clean because of all the handling."
Stephen F. Krut, executive director of the American Association of Meat Processors agrees, saying that he favors a new or modified approach to carcass washing to complement trimming.
"Not everything on a carcass is what they say it is; it could be sawdust," Krut says. "I don't know one USDA inspector who doesn't use his washroom. You don't want to touch something often, and I think everybody already washes carcasses. No one has any scientific basis for saying trimming is better. It's a bureaucratic answer."
In fact, in testimony to a Senate subcommittee earlier this year, AMI President J. Patrick Boyle asked for support "in convincing USDA that the current strategy used to enforce zero tolerance is harmful to both consumers and the industry." He added that industry and USDA must find a better way to achieve the same clean meat objective.
Among three recommendations to the subcommittee, Boyle asked members to encourage USDA to adopt a better enforcement strategy that would "allow companies to use carcass spray washes as an alternative to hand trimming to achieve a safer, cleaner product."
Nearly six months after that testimony, AMI is still trying to get FSIS to stop what it says is erratic enforcement and clarify its zero-tolerance policy and objectives, and packers are still waiting to hear what the agency will do.
"To ask what is going to happen this year, nobody really knows because it's in the hands of FSIS," Lloyd points out.
Michael R. Taylor, USDA acting undersecretary for food safety, tells Meat Marketing & Technology that zero tolerance remains a priority.
"We will continue to enforce our zero-tolerance policy," he says. "There is an issue of what is the best way to enforce the policy.
"We will address those issues publicly and scientifically," Taylor adds. "But the zero-tolerance policy makes a contribution [to food safety]."
Industry lobbies for hot wash spray
Packers, meat scientists and other industry officials are attempting to persuade FSIS that there is more to food safety than just zero tolerance. Officials have tested products and interventions in the hopes of getting FSIS' blessings for industry-wide implementation.
Some of the procedures include:
-- Steam-vacs to remove visible contaminants from carcasses.
-- Chemical spray washes.
-- Higher-temperature and pressure-water washes.
Brad Morgan, assistant professor of animal science at Colorado State University, says because pathogens are not always visible, hot water washes-about 165 degrees F on the carcass surface-may be the most cost effective and safest answer to eliminate contaminants.
Colorado State recently completed a three-phase research project with spray-wash equipment manufacturer Chad Corp., testing several types of wash intervention systems on 3,000 samples at Monfort Corp.'s Greeley, Colo., plant.
Researchers used acetic acid, trisodium phosphate, ozonated water, hydrogen peroxide, hot water washes and varied water pressures to rid samples of bacteria.
They found that ozonated water, hydrogen peroxide and hot water washes are the "most consistent and had the lower bacteria count as compared to trimming," according to Morgan.
The researchers took the results to seven different packing plants to determine if hot water washes indeed worked to reduce the occurrence of bacteria, and found hot water has potential, especially to large packers who already have the technology in place to increase the temperature on water washes.
"We're not telling anyone to quit trimming," Morgan notes. "But they could do one or two hot water washes and greatly reduce the number of pathogens. I think it's going to be a lot easier to implement this than some of the other intervention plans like ozonation."
Officials have submitted their findings to USDA. Morgan hopes for a decision by the end of the year.
Meanwhile, FSIS will allow new procedures dealing with antimicrobial rinses and hot water rinses to be implemented without prior approval. The move, which is meant for carcasses after they have passed inspection and before they enter the cooler, does not alter the agency's zero-tolerance policy.