by Gary Jay Kushner
FSIS published its long-awaited proposed "mega-reg" in the Feb. 3 Federal Register. Although the proposal has few surprises, debate about the elements of this massive initiative will barely begin during the 120-day comment period. The proposal has already generated controversy and consternation.
The mega-reg would require significant changes in the way meat and poultry is slaughtered, processed and distributed. Although the proposal is a step in the right direction conceptually, it falls considerably short of the kind of modernization that those "in the know" and willing to abandon politics in favor of progress agree is needed.
Instead of moving away from the labor-intensive, organoleptic inspection system universally criticized as inefficient and ineffective, the mega-reg adds but another layer of cumbersome regulation to this bureaucracy.
FSIS deserves credit for nodding in the direction of science by proposing a system based upon a Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point program. Although there is reasonable debate about the extent to which HACCP should be mandated, it is generally agreed that meat and poultry regulation should focus on food safety through a collective effort to identify and introduce intervention techniques to reduce the risks of foodborne hazards.
FSIS considers this the centerpiece of its strategy. In addition to requiring that all federally inspected facilities implement written HACCP plans within 36 months following publication of a final rule, the proposal would:
-- Require companies to employ antimicrobial treatments of carcasses.
-- Establish time and temperature requirements for various products.
-- Dictate microbiological testing for salmonella.
-- Require companies to implement Sanitation Standard Operating Procedures.
The agency's farm-to-table system will also encourage the voluntary application of HACCP principles by producers. In addition, FSIS indicated that it will review its regulatory program with respect to the transportation, handling and preparation of product at retail stores, restaurants and institutions, and will work with FDA on implementation of the Food Code.
The agency is considering broadening its oversight at the retail level, again in conjunction with FDA, as well as state and local governments.
Sounds good, but...
On the surface, elements of the mega-reg sound good. But timing and substance of the proposed regulatory scheme will be more important than form and appearance. For example, questions remain about the viability of microbiological quality standards, and the availability of effective intervention techniques.
There will also be much debate about the timetable for compliance-several of the new regulatory provisions that go beyond HACCP would take effect as soon as 90 days after publication of a final rule. But this is what the comment period is for, and the industry will certainly (it better) actively participate in the rule-making process.
Perhaps, the most disturbing point about the proposal is the continuing role of FSIS inspectors under the new system. The agency explains that HACCP "verification will expand the roles in-plant inspectors will be called upon to play, and HACCP will enhance the contribution in-plant inspectors can make to ensure the safety of food."
The agency reaffirmed the traditional inspector role in areas including carcass-by-carcass inspection, continuous inspection at processing, and inspection of products for wholesomeness and economic adulteration unrelated to food safety.
Indeed, the agency explained that the inspectors' roles will include "increased activity...in the areas of records review, visual process verification and product sampling." The proposal sounds like a full employment program for FSIS inspectors.
Although not anticipating on-farm inspection, the agency stated that it is appropriate to consider broadening its antemortem inspection oversight to include the transporation conditions affecting livestock and poultry sent to slaughter.
That's not what proponents of inspection modernization have had in mind for the past 10 years.
USDA's proposed mega-reg has promising bones, but they are covered with a lot of fat. Unless the fat is trimmed, the inspection program that FSIS claims it wants to implement cannot, and should not be allowed to work.
Congress must step in to update underlying laws, giving USDA the authority and direction to make regulatory changes that include the scientifically sound elements of the mega-reg, while eliminating unnecessary and inefficient requirements