Science is the goal of inspection reform. But to get there, political squabbling must be cast aside.
An analysis by Ken Krizner and Larry Aylward
Meat inspection reform, led astray by political bickering, appears to be back on track toward actualization. The meat industry recently obtained what it wanted: a voice in the inspection reform decision-making process. And USDA obtained what it wanted: to continue writing its regulation.
Both sides achieved their goals through a compromise between House Republicans and USDA after Rep. James Walsh (R-N.Y.) amended an appropriations bill that would have forced the department to participate in negotiated rule-making before issuing its inspection reform regulation.
With both sides declaring victory, yet still at odds over the nuances of the inspection system of the future, can a solution be reached?
Nearly three years after a contaminated meat incident on the West Coast was supposed to be the wake-up call for industry and government, and more than seven months after a long-awaited reform proposal was introduced by USDA, inspection reform remains muddled in bureaucracy.
Inspection reform has found its way into the courtrooms, Congress, and into the media. It has even made its way into presidential politics.
Democrats accused Sen. Robert Dole (R-Kan.) of promoting "dirty meat," and the Republicans of being "in bed with meatpackers."
Dole, the leading GOP presidential candidate, was attempting to pass a regulatory reform bill that Democrats said would hamstring meat inspection regulations. The bill was eventually rewritten to exempt the regulations, but could not survive a Democrat filibuster.
Despite politics, inspection reform may yet find its way to its proper destination-processing and slaughtering plants. But much work remains.
"I am furious that the meat inspection issue has become partisan politics," says Kathi Allen, co-chair of Safe Tables Our Priority, a national coalition dedicated to eradicating outbreaks of E. coli 0157:H7. "That is disgusting."
In the seven months since the inspection proposal was introduced:
-- IBP inc. has severed its relationship with AMI partially over differences in inspection philosophy. IBP believes that visual carcass inspection remains a vital part of the process while AMI believes it should be abolished.
-- Industry trade associations, fearing that USDA was kowtowing to the inspectors' union and upset that there was no advanced notice of rule-making, petitioned USDA to conduct negotiated rule-making.
The aforementioned compromise between Congress and USDA was a result of this move.
-- The American Association of Meat Processors has indicated that 85 percent of small processors-deemed by USDA as having sales of $2.5 million or less-could be put out of business by the proposal.
Backing up AAMP's claim is the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA). In comments made about the proposal, SBA said it was "deeply troubled by the failure of FSIS to properly analyze the impact of HACCP [Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point program] on small business."
It also said that there should be exemptions for at least the smallest of small processors.
-- Consumer advocates, Democrats and several influential media-including the New York Times, Chicago Tribune and Washington Post-blasted the meat industry and Republicans for blocking the proposal.
Meanwhile, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that 9,000 deaths occur each year because of food-borne contamination, although CDC cannot specify how many of those cases are linked to meat.
But at least 99 cases of food-borne illnesses related to meat products were reported in 1994, and at least one death and 17 cases of E. coli 0157:H7 have been linked to raw ground beef this year.
Different roads to same goal
It is hard to believe that reforming meat inspection is something both sides want. But the devil is in the details, and it is the details that have both sides at loggerheads.
It is also hard to recall that it wasn't always this cantankerous.
More than two years ago, there was consensus that change was needed in inspection. It seemed that politics and personal agendas would be put aside to overhaul a system that everyone agreed was outdated.
The impetus for such thoughts was the outbreak of E. coli 0157:H7 traced to contaminated hamburger meat sold at Jack in the Box fast-food restaurants on the West Coast. The outbreak led to the deaths of four children and left more than 600 ill.
Incoming USDA Secretary Mike Espy directed then-FSIS Administrator H. Russell Cross to design a science-based inspection system that could prevent future outbreaks. The meat industry was anxious to help; consumer advocates applauded the effort.
Cross presented Espy with a Pathogen Reduction Program based on HACCP, which was recommended 10 years ago by the National Academy of Sciences as a way to improve meat inspection.
But time passed and no proposal was forthcoming.
In the interim, USDA strengthened the enforcement of its zero-tolerance policy for fecal contamination, introduced safe handling labels, and began random sampling of raw ground beef. Any sample containing E. coli 0157:H7 would be considered adulterated.
The industry went to court over safe handling labels and the sampling program. It successfully argued that USDA needed to use proper rule-making channels before mandating the labels, but could not convince a federal judge to halt the sampling program.
An influential member of Congress says USDA has been unable to justify these policies.
"These decisions have been criticized by the scientific community as being a waste of resources," notes Rep. Steve Gunderson (R-Wis.) "Despite the adverse impact on both consumers and industry, USDA is apparently unable to demonstrate that the policies have had any positive impact whatsoever."
Gunderson, a member of a House agriculture committee and an industry ally, has asked USDA to provide scientific evidence that these policies are combating food-borne illnesses.
Meanwhile, the goodwill between government and industry, evident in January 1993, was squandered.
Breaking the camel's back
Despite the fact that USDA Secretary Dan Glickman and Acting Undersecretary for Food Safety Michael Taylor have replaced Espy and Cross, HACCP remained the objective.
Earlier this year, Taylor announced the long-awaited proposed rules to introduce science into inspection.
The proposal requires anti-microbial rinses, microbial testing, consistent temperature controls and standardized testing of pathogens. But the key element would be the introduction of HACCP within one to three years after the regulation is adopted.
The plan comes with a $733 million price tag for industry during the first three years, and $231 million annually thereafter.
But USDA's proposal would not eliminate visual carcass inspection and therein lies a bone of contention with many, but not all, members of the industry.
A staff member to a Republican member of a House agriculture committee says it is a mistake to call the inspection proposal HACCP.
"It needs some massive, fundamental work," the staff member, speaking on condition of anonymity, tells Meat Marketing & Technology. "Two-thirds [of the process] is the same command-and-control type inspection process that is already in place."
To some, the proposal is nothing more than layering a new, costly burden on processors. The industry sarcastically calls it mega-reg.
"The mega-reg is layering another system on top of the existing system because it does not dismantle, eliminate or substantially change any of the existing regulations," claims Tom Routh, CEO of Sandusky, Ohio-based Routh Packing Co.
Michael Kowalski, president of Hamtramck, Mich.-based Kowalski Sausage Co., is also uneasy about the proposal.
"What concerns me the most is that [the regulation] is new packaging of the same old system with a couple of twists," he points out.
Taylor believes visual carcass inspection is important. However, he has given mixed signals in the past seven months on the role inspectors will play in the new system.
At a press conference in January, Taylor said the new inspection system is not about "reducing the number of inspectors; it is about filling a critical gap in the current inspection system."
In a letter to FSIS employees in April, Taylor said the role of inspectors will expand under the proposed system.
"As we implement HACCP, we will be expanding, not shrinking, the range of regulatory roles and inspection tasks required of our employees," he wrote. "There will be increased emphasis on records review, microbial sampling and other tasks required to verify the proper operation of HACCP plans.
"To carry out our farm-to-table food safety strategy," he added, "we also need to consider expanded roles for our inspectors and compliance officers beyond the official establishments."
As for visual inspection, Taylor said: "I strongly support carcass-by-carcass examination as an effective means of removing diseased animals from the food supply and eliminating visible filth and other defects."
To the meat industry, all Taylor did was succumb to the pressure of the National Joint Council of Food Inspectors-the inspectors' union.
But in a July 11 letter to David Carney, chairman of the National Joint Council, Taylor reversed his course. He wrote that the new inspection regulations and budgetary pressures may force a reduction in inspectors through attrition and other means.
Processors say the union is afraid a new system would eliminate jobs.
The union, itself, has reversed course twice. Initially a staunch supporter of the inspection proposal, Carney criticized Taylor's letter and vowed to fight the proposal if its No. 1 priority was reducing inspectors. There is an effort to "erode inspection into a less than carcass-by-carcass and less than continuous form of processing inspection," Carney wrote to Taylor.
But meetings between Carney and Glickman, and Carney and Taylor in August have mollified the situation. The union appears to be back in the proposal's corner.
Carney defends the more than 7,500 inspectors who examine 7.1 billion pounds of livestock and poultry a year. He argues the industry's charge that the union is impeding progress is off base.
"The union has been accused of this before: 'It is out for its membership and to hell with the industry it regulates,' " Carney points out. "That is wrong."
Carney denies that the union had any input in the formulation of the regulation itself. But he says that after the regulation was written, the union was invited to read it and "see what our thoughts were."
But Carney maintains the union had "no impact whatsoever" on the regulation. "We commented on the proposal through the proper channels just like everyone else," he says.
Politics seem to have also marred the relationship between inspectors and packers and processors, Kowalski observes. It peeves him that some inspectors can't make tough decisions at critical times.
"A lot of times, inspectors have the authority to make decisions and they won't make them," Kowalski says. "They'll wait and see what their bosses say.
"They're so scared of losing their jobs or getting reprimanded that they won't take chances [on making tough decisions]," he adds. "If they are supposed to make decisions and are always kicking them up, it doesn't help us. A lot of times, we have to know immediately."
Richard A. Mackey, an inspection circuit supervisor based in Columbus, Ohio, disputes Kowalski's claim.
"Inspectors make decisions on their own," he stresses. "If there are unusual circumstances involved, they have the option of asking for input from their supervisors. I think that is appropriate. For the most part, though, judgments are made on the spot."
Steven F. Krut, AAMP's executive director, says that despite friction, inspectors and packers and processors must work together to address the same goal: safe food.
To look or not to look
Carney sees HACCP as an enhancement to inspection-not as a substitute. He believes visual carcass inspection, mandated since 1906, should remain a part of the system. That opinion is supported by both his No. 1 boss and a meatpacking giant.
"Bugs and germs are a lot more virulent and difficult to identify, and they cannot be identified by seeing, smelling, feeling and touching," Secretary Glickman tells MM&T. "But I cannot tell you whether we should remove seeing, smelling, feeling and touching from the process. Experience and instinct are as important to meat inspection as the microscope."
At Dakota City, Neb.-based IBP inc., visual carcass inspection remains an integral part of the process.
"IBP is in strong support of carcass-by-carcass inspection methods targeted at removing product that jeopardizes human health," the company said in a statement. "HACCP principles can only enhance food safety; it cannot replace visual detection of animal diseases."
This view was one of the reasons IBP earlier this year ended its association with AMI, costing the nation's largest meat trade association $162,000 in annual dues.
Krut says AAMP supports carcass inspection at the slaughter level.
Gunderson hopes to introduce legislation reforming meat and poultry inspection by the end of the year, making visual inspection one component of of a new system.
"Visual inspection has a role to play in a risk-based inspection system," he tells MM&T. "However, it may be worthwhile to re-deploy some resources currently used for food safety enhancement to address microbiological threats."
Other large packers and processors would not comment on visual inspection and the inspection proposal.
"We usually don't comment on things like that," a Hormel Foods Corp. spokeswoman tells MM&T.
K.T. Miller, director of public relations for ConAgra Red Meat Cos. and Monfort, also declines comment.
An Oscar Mayer Foods Corp. spokeswoman did not return a phone call.
Mark Klein, spokesman for Cargill Inc., says the company supports mandatory HACCP.
And he notes that media coverage of the issue has been "atrocious" and "sloppy." Never was it pointed out by the media that the top U.S. packers and processors have already instituted HACCP and microbiological testing, Klein points out.
"Reading and listening to these stories, the average person would assume that HACCP and microbiological testing aren't being done," Klein says.
But media criticism abounded on negotiated rule-making. Headlines such as "Let them eat poison," "Zero tolerance for delay on meat-safety reforms," and "Food-inspection lag is a deadly outrage" dotted newspapers.
Consumer groups accused the industry of being irresponsible. "This is how the meat industry celebrates the beginning of barbecue season," says Carol Tucker Foreman, consumer advocate and industry nemesis.
But the ploy seems to have worked in the industry's favor.
AAMP, the National Meat Association and several regional associations petitioned USDA to conduct negotiated rule-making on June 12.
The petition cited President Clinton's March 4 memorandum to department and agency heads to conduct negotiated rule-making to make the process of implementing federal regulations more fair.
The petition said that the proposal has been managed in an "authoritarian manner, giving little opportunity to industry for any free interaction."
AMI turned to Walsh-who has received more than $66,000 in campaign contributions since 1988 from Agribusiness, and the meat and food industries, according to the Associated Press-to introduce the ammendment.
The compromise averted a fight on the House floor that would have required USDA to throw out its current proposal and start from scratch.
A statement attributed to 16 meat industry trade organizations, including AMI, AAMP, NMA and the National Cattlemen's Association, said the accord will "help ensure that the new inspection regulations are practical, scientific and broadly supported."
While the department continues to work on the regulation, Glickman is scheduling several meetings with interested parties, including meat processors, to listen to their concerns.
In a letter to Walsh, Glickman said that USDA will conduct public meetings to discuss issues raised during the comment period, and host a food safety seminar to identify both legislative and regulatory mandates that need to be changed or improved.
Glickman also acknowledged the industry's concern about "bureaucratic layering." The department will publish rule-making notices to review current regulations, directives, policy notices and policy memoranda.
To be consistent with HACCP, "USDA will review, revise or repeal its existing regulations," Glickman wrote. One such regulation sure to be on the agenda is visual inspection, which at this juncture would continue under the new system.
Glickman says these initiatives will be completed before the final inspection rule is published.
Inspector Carney, in a letter to Glickman, ripped the compromise. He cited a USDA directive released immediately following the compromise offering an "early out retirement package" for FSIS employees. To Carney, it meant the department was giving in to those who equate inspection reform to less inspectors.
But Glickman assured Carney that the goal of inspection reform is to modernize the system, not reduce inspectors. That seemed to appease Carney, although he warned that any attempt to reduce inspectors through the proposal would be fought.
An FSIS spokeswoman confirms that any uncertainties between the union and USDA and FSIS officials were smoothed out.
The business of FSIS
FSIS has been going about its business as if it was impervious to the political squabbles surrounding the proposal. According to Associate Administrator Thomas J. Billy, that includes reviewing the more than 6,000 comments submitted on the proposal, setting up a meeting with processors for mid-September, and writing a final rule. Billy says FSIS is on target to publish the final rule by Jan. 1.
An FSIS team is coordinating all comments, and will present its findings and recommendations to Taylor, who will make the final decision as to what the regulation will say.
Many of the comments deal with the following concerns:
Time-temperature requirements: Under the proposal, plants would be required to cool the surface of meat carcasses to 50 degrees F or below within five hours and to 40 degrees F or below within 24 hours.
Processors are concerned because a lack of necessary equipment exists to maintain these temperature levels. They also noted that the proposal does not allow industry the flexibility to achieve rapid chilling through alternative means, and could create unforeseen worker safety hazards.
Microbiological testing for salmonella: The proposal mandates that raw products be initially tested for salmonella, and plants would be required to achieve targeted reductions in the incidence of salmonella within two years in relation to the current national baseline incidence rates.
Concerns are based on potential conflicts with recommendations from the National Advisory Committee on Microbiological Criteria for Foods, which recommends that target organisms, such as total plate count or generic E. coli, should be used instead.
The economic impact on small plants: There has been a concern from the beginning that small processors will not be able to absorb the cost of the proposal. USDA's measuring stick for small processors-$2.5 million or less in annual sales-has been particularly singled out as being too low.
The Small Business Administration believes the bar for small processors should be raised to $25 million. Size will determine how long a company has to implement HACCP (between one and three years). If the level considered "small" is raised, more companies will have more time to implement HACCP.
Small processors have helped stoke the political fires.
Warren Brannon, owner of Moravia, New York-based Owasco Meat and secretary of the New York Association of Meat Processors, says he believes the inspection proposal "interferes with free enterprise."
Brannon and other New York processors met with a representative of Rep. Armory Houghton (R-N.Y.) Word of the meeting reached Walsh, and Brannon talked to Walsh on the phone.
USDA estimates that it will cost two-tenths of a cent a pound of meat to implement HACCP.
But an AAMP report says that cost is based on a plant killing 1,000 to 1,500 head of cattle or hogs a day. The cost is "exorbitantly" higher for small processors who make a variety of items in small volumes.
SBA notes that FDA's seafood HACCP program-which Taylor helped write-exempts the smallest firms, which face the greatest burdens in both absolute and per unit costs.
"By limiting the exemption to the smallest firms, the majority of [seafood] processors would not bear the costs of HACCP, but the majority of seafood consumed would be subject to regulatory controls," SBA wrote. "Significant benefits would accrue from this type of exemption." SBA makes a similar argument for small meat processors.
But Taylor opposes any exemption.
Manuel E. Gonzalez, president of Odessa, Texas-based Odessa Tortilla & Tamale Factory, says the inspection proposal would regulate smaller plants into a non-competitive stage. "I am very thankful that Glickman has agreed to hear us out," he says.
AAMP believes the proposal would force many operations to discontinue product lines, stop introducing new products or processes, and halt limited volume seasonal items.
Krut says that practicality must be practiced to reach cost affordability for individual plants. He also points out that some companies in excess of $25 million in sales are losing money.
"I'm not sure [those companies] are in a better situation to afford this than anyone else," Krut says.
A study conducted by the congressional General Accounting Office says that a small plant engaged in the activity of grinding meat would spend about $50,000 more during the first four years of implementation. Additional annual costs thereafter would be about $12,000.
A plant that slaughters only cattle would spend about $52,000 more during the first four years and an additional $12,000 annually thereafter.
Plants performing more than one activity would have higher increased costs because of additional activities.
SBA also says that FSIS could base exemptions on risk potential. For example, plants processing ground beef could be required to use HACCP while other types of food could be exempt.
Mary Alice McKenzie, president and CEO of Burlington, Vt.-based McKenzie Packing Co., which does about $12 million in sales, says USDA needs to be sensitive toward small packers and processors regarding implementation.
"The more appropriate approach for small to medium processors and packers is to say [to USDA]: 'Give us a reasonable amount of time and give us access to resources to help us understand how to [implement HACCP.]' Rather than [small processors] saying: 'We can't do this; it will put us out of business,' " McKenzie notes.
Consensus, but...
In a recent speech, Taylor said the debate has "focused not on whether to reform food safety programs, but on how to reform them."
The consensus is clear: More needs to be done. But compromise is also needed.
Perhaps a lesson can be learned from the agreement that averted negotiated rule-making. USDA officials and House Republicans gave ground until each was satisfied.
Opponents of visual inspection may have to agree that it is a necessary component, while USDA might have to exempt the smallest companies and raise its bar for small processors.
But the landscape remains filled with potential minefields.
Just a hint of job loss could turn the inspectors' union against the proposal.
And recently, rabbis indicated that portions of the proposal-notably, anti-bacterial rinses-conflict with strict regulations for the processing of kosher meat found in the Book of Leviticus. The new rules might force religious Jews to become vegetarians.
One thing is for sure: Business as usual is no longer acceptable.
"I don't believe we will have pathogen-free meat," admits STOP's Allen. "We know there is some risk, but we don't need to have the level of risk we currently have."
Inspection reform is painstakingly near. After coming so far, industry and government both stand to have their reputations damaged, as well as watching a loss of consumer confidence in meat safety, if the reform effort collapses now
Taylor outlines five principles
for meat and poultry inspection
On Aug. 1, USDA Acting Undersecretary for Food Safety Michael Taylor spoke about his philosophy of food safety, specifically with meat and poultry. Taylor outlined five principles to achieve his goal:
-- First, science-based, systematic prevention of food safety hazards must guide the efforts of both government and industry. The current system relies too heavily on FSIS inspectors to detect and correct problems after they have occurred.
A system of preventive controls operated by plant management and overseen by FSIS inspectors will work better to produce safer food.
-- The industry's responsibility for systematically preventing hazards and achieving an acceptable level of food safety performance must be clearly defined, and FSIS must develop objective measures of accountability to verify that meat and poultry plants are meeting their food safety responsibility.
-- The industry must have the flexibility and incentive to innovate to improve food safety. Technological innovation in production, slaughter and processing must be harnessed and applied aggressively if we are to achieve our food safety goals. FSIS must encourage, not stifle, innovation that can approve food safety.
-- The potential hazards that arise throughout the food production and delivery system must be addressed, including before animals enter FSIS-inspected plants and after meat and poultry products leave those plants. Opportunities exist throughout the system to prevent or minimize hazards and improve food safety.
-- The system of government oversight must be structured and operated in a manner that ensures the most efficient and effective use of its resources to improve food safety. FSIS must have the flexibility to target its resources and change the allocation of its resources in a manner that allows it to address significant and emerging food safety problems all along the farm-to-table chain