Momentum must continue to modernize meat inspection
by Bryan Salvage, editor
Momentum must continue to modernize meat inspection
Consumers should always be confident that they are buying the safest meat possible. No one should ever become ill-let alone die-from eating red meat.
To this point, meat inspection reform is long overdue. Generally, the industry is doing a commendable job in producing safe, high-quality meat under the current system. But potential risks from microbial contamination require that industry and USDA employ the best that science and technology have to offer when it comes to processing and inspecting products.
In short, a new inspection system is needed.
Herein lies one major food safety challenge for the industry. It needs to move to a more modern, science-based inspection system incorporating the principles of a Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point program. But small processors, particularly those with good safety records, shouldn't be punished or forced out of business because they can't afford the costs of implementing HACCP.
How can small processors be helped? A blanket HACCP exemption for small companies is not a good idea, but some common ground must be reached. Perhaps USDA should think about raising its bar for annual sales from $2.5 million to $25 million in defining small processors to allow them more time to implement an effective HACCP system.
Looking to the future
Visual inspection should remain a critical control point in the inspection system of the future, but it should be limited to the holding pens and the kill floor. From fabrication on, analyzing equipment systems and other advanced technology designed to analyze and monitor products should be utilized.
In order to effectively work in a HACCP environment, meat inspectors of the future should have meat science education. But will this be a prerequisite? No one knows.
Regardless of what happens in inspection reform, meat produced in the future will be safer than today's supply because:
-- An increasing number of customers are placing higher safety and quality demands on meatpackers and processors than the government currently mandates.
-- More customers (retail and foodservice) are demanding documentation that the meat they are receiving is safe.
-- In order to meet this growing documentation demand, an increasing number of meat companies are not waiting for government mandates; they are implementing their own versions of HACCP, creating total quality management plans, incorporating more science into their packing and processing operations, and bar-coding products to enhance trace-back capabilities.
ISO Certification could complement a company's meat safety and quality efforts. (See story on Jac Pac Foods, page 50.)
Not only should the meat industry have a voice in inspection reform, companies in the industry must be held 100 percent accountable for creating safe meat. To this latter point, perhaps USDA should consider adopting an inspection procedure similar to Australia's Approved Quality Agreement (AQA) concept. (See story on Australian inspection, page 44.)
Although inspection will remain vital in the quest to produce safe meat, it is not the overlying issue regarding safety and quality. As stated many times before, safety and quality cannot be inspected into meat.
HACCP must be adopted by all links in the meat chain. Producers and packers should research areas such as genetics and use intervention systems, and processors must use the best analyzing and processing technology they can afford. Most importantly, once meat leaves a plant, the remaining links in the meat chain must ensure product is handled, stored and prepared properly.
It's also time for politicians, industry and government to bury the hatchet and join forces to keep inspection reform moving forward. The future of the meat industry depends on it.