A Concise Message
Taylor sets the tone for WSMA convention: The credibility of USDA and the industry lies in adding science to meat inspection
by Ken Krizner, senior editor
It did not take long for the overlying theme of the 1995 Western States Meat Association convention to take root.
Coming just two weeks after USDA announced its proposed inspection system reformation-including a mandated Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point program in meat plants, microbial controls and anti-bacterial rinses-it was obvious that food safety would dominate the sessions, the talk on the exhibit floor, and talk during social functions.
During the four-day convention, held in San Francisco in February, sessions underscored the following:
-- Regulatory costs, most notably the inspection reform measure, will be an enormous burden, perhaps the biggest cost burden the industry will ever see. USDA estimates a $2 billion regulatory price tag for industry over a 20-year period.
-- Information on the scientific and technological aspects of blunting food-borne pathogens, as well as the important role that HACCP will play in inspection reform, is already established. In essence, most speakers said that processors need not wait for USDA rules to improve their methods of combating pathogens.
-- There is enough information available so processors can begin to formulate a HACCP plan to their individual plants.
In what was the final convention under the name Western States Meat Association, since members voted to change the name to the National Meat Association (see story on page 51), each session focusing on food safety produced standing-room-only audiences.
But the conversation centered mainly on the first session, a speech by Michael R. Taylor, USDA acting undersecretary for food safety.
In his first public appearance following the reform announcement, Taylor told members that the new regulations, aimed to control food-borne pathogens through scientific methods, will not replace traditional carcass inspection.
"USDA will continue to carry out carcass-by-carcass inspection in all plants on a daily basis," he cautioned. "That will not change."
He suggested that if industry executives truly wanted to abolish the current regulation that mandates carcass inspection, they should turn their attention to Congress, not USDA.
Following his 20-minute speech, Taylor made himself available for about one hour's worth of questions from processors. Later, he held a one-hour news conference, answering additional questions.
In his 2 hours and 20 minutes at the WSMA convention, Taylor tried to convey this message: As currently constituted, the inspection system does not have the credibility to ensure consumers that there is a safe food supply, and that government and industry must work together to ensure food safety. The reputation of both parties depends on it.
An open mind
Taylor said he is committed to science-based inspection, but that he is also willing to listen to the industry. On several occasions he implored processors to take advantage of the comment period (which lasts until June 5) and make their opinions known.
During the question-and-answer session, processor concerns centered mainly on the cooling temperatures for beef carcasses, that HACCP is just another layer of bureaucracy, and the $2.5 million line regarding mandated HACCP that USDA has drawn for small processors.
"We are concerned that HACCP is another layer of regulatory activity," pointed out Rosemary Mucklow, WSMA executive director.
Another concern, she added, was the cost to processors of implementing HACCP-$732 million over three years, according to USDA estimates. Taylor acknowledged the costs, but also said that those costs will be offset by savings in medical care for food-borne illnesses, which he put at about $3 billion a year.
But Taylor added: "Our job isn't saving processors money. Consumers have a right to expect us to do everything possible to ensure food safety. We have never sold HACCP as a tool for cost savings."
Other Taylor comments included:
-- Consumers have an "inalienable right" to a safe food supply.
-- Processors must continue to find ways to prevent contamination.
-- The threat to public health, not industry's long-term economic interests, now moves USDA to act.
-- Industry must develop state-of-the-art tools to combat food-borne pathogens.
-- It is inconsistent for industry officials to demand science-based improvements to the inspection system without providing scientific data.
-- E. coli 0157:H7, which was traced late last year to dry sausage products, can survive some food-making processes. "We do not know how broad its ecological niche will become, so we must take steps to get out in front of this growing public health problem," Taylor said.
He confirmed that he believes it is very unlikely that there will be any exemption to the food safety proposal, similar to nutrition labeling. There is some apprehension from processors doing less than $1 million in sales that HACCP implementation could be a blow to their businesses.
"HACCP will be enforced for all companies," he cautioned. "The concept of an exemption for small companies is difficult."
As for the costs, Taylor pointed out: "I don't see a huge additional cost burden. HACCP is feasible for all plants, no matter what the size."
One processor summed up the message that he and his colleagues took away concerning Taylor's attitude. "He is the [kind of] man that the industry is not used to dealing with," he told MM&T. "He cares more about public health than he does about pleasing the industry."
Is that a good trait or bad trait? "Only time will tell," the processor added.
Name change reflects new role
Since 1946, the Western States Meat Association has been the principal voice of meat packers and processors west of the Rocky Mountains. But times change and nearly 50 years later, officials believe it is appropriate to expand the organization's scope.
To reflect its change of philosophy, the organization voted during its recent convention to change names. It is now known as the National Meat Association (NMA). The name change was approved by board of directors and ratified by the rank and file.
It was determined that Western States Meat Association put unnecessary limits on the effectiveness of the organization to speak for the meat industry, and that it does not accurately represent current activities and membership.
There are companies beyond the western United States that would like to participate and be acknowledged, pointed out Rosemary Mucklow, NMA executive director.
Even before the name change, the association's membership encompassed more than the western portion of the country. The association has more than 600 members throughout the United States, as well as members in Canada and Mexico.
In addition, the issues that confront the meat industry do not divide its constituency on a east/west basis, according to Mucklow. Rather, the issues coalesce around regulatory and marketplace equity concerns on a national basis.
The name change is "simply a growing step," Mucklow said. "NMA will continue to provide the same kind of quality service to a larger constituency through communication and technology undreamed of by our founders in 1946."