How does it function down under?
Meat Marketing & Technology Editor Bryan Salvage recently conducted a one-week tour of meat plants throughout Australia. During his stay, he met with top executives of the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service (AQIS), the inspection arm of Australia's Department of Primary Industries and Energy. AQIS' 1,600 meat plant inspectors administer all Australian meat inspection and certification.
Salvage met with Digby Gascoine, director of the development and evaluation division; Robert Biddle, assistant director of the food branch policy; and Peter McGregor, deputy chief veterinary officer.
The interview covered an array of topics including incorporating quality assurance, the need for trace-back systems, and adopting a Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point program. Although AQIS and FSIS differ in structure, they do share one common goal: ensuring meat safety. Here are excerpts from the interview.
MM&T: The United States is moving more toward a science-based form of inspection. How does Australia's inspection system work?
McGregor: The traditional way we used to do inspection is the way that's probably being done now in most countries overseas: full regulatory control and direct supervision [of plant personnel on processing lines].
In the mid-1970s, we determined this was not efficient in trying to control practices that were under the control of a meat company. Ultimately, it is management that determines whether its control system is in place. So we brought in what was called a Code of Practice in 1975. That code initiated the steps to having a company become responsible for its practices.
We partially withdrew some of our supervision in the ancillary areas where we were not directly involved.
In the late 1980s, we decided the code was a good first step, but it didn't meet the needs of having companies take control of their practices, so we introduced a new quality system.
One component is a PQA (production quality arrangement) where we still maintain supervision control and are present at the plant.
The other is AQA (approved quality agreement) whereby the company picks up complete responsibility for its operations and practices, and can operate without direct inspection presence. But under AQA, we still have control of the inspection staff, which applies a health stamp that says this product is fit for human consumption and may be exported or sold on the domestic market.
MM&T: What kind of role did the industry play in this development?
McGregor: We involved industry in the development of what quality should be. And it was developed along international lines, which would comply with the Codex Alimentarius on food and the ISO 9002 series. This became an agreement with industry as to the expectations of quality, how quality should be arrived at, and the fundamentals that should be in place-the product would be properly controlled at all stages in the processing area by the company's own people. This is what has become known as the Meat Safety Quality Assurance System (MSQA), which began last year.
The quality assurance engine, particularly in abattoirs, is the slaughter floor. Everything flows from the slaughter floor. Providing a company has its systems and procedures on the slaughter floor, the company has a great head start to the offal area, chillers and boning room.
When companies pick up quality assurance, they pick up a heightened level of responsibility. We provide them with a reduction in inspection or regulation on the basis that they accept that responsibility themselves.
MM&T: Is the AQA a voluntary program? If so, will there be a push to make it mandatory?
McGregor: It is voluntary, but we operate slightly different than the United States because we have fee for service. We believe that mandatory quality assurance is not quality assurance. We believe quality should be based voluntarily because that means it is a direct company system.
Biddle: Let me say that we are quite envious of the scientific resources that USDA has. We place a lot of emphasis on the science component. We share with USDA a common objective about the outcome of inspection-safe food.
We directly apply quality assurance approaches based on HACCP principles, which are very effective in ensuring the common goal of food safety.
Gascoine: I recently spoke with Michael Taylor, USDA acting undersecretary for food safety, and others in the U.S. meat industry. It's my impression that [AQIS and FSIS] have a great deal in common in approaches. It is also clear that the spotlight is shining very strongly right now on microbial contamination.
This concern, however, is not new. What is new is the increasing effort placed on testing for-and measuring of-microbial contamination with a specific focus on E. coli 0157:H7. As a consequence, there is the sense that regulatory agencies can find initiatives to help drive technology in the direction it needs to go.
FSIS' testing for E. coli 0157:H7 in ground beef was specifically motivated by the proposition that if there is a demand, there will be a technological response. That is the important aspect of the policy shift that has taken place in Washington. As a result, a lot of healthy attention is beginning to focus on HACCP.
In 1989, AQIS introduced quality assurance in various aspects of meat processing in abattoirs. We recently published a new book entitled, "A Guide for the Preparation of the Meat Safety Quality Assurance System." This is an updated version of quality assurance plans that are available as an option for meat plants to adopt.
MM&T: What training do your inspectors receive?
Biddle: They attend technical schools where classes are required. Once successfully completing the classes, they receive a certificate of competency in meat inspection. Our staff has been trained to make sure it understands both the legislation and the job it has to do on the processing lines.
MM&T: Is the Australian meat industry placing a greater emphasis on utilizing in-plant rapid microbial tests?
Biddle: We're looking for reliable and effective rapid tests. There is some work going on by a meat research laboratory to find such tests. We would use microbiology as a means of monitoring the operations.
MM&T: What is your opinion on the importance of trace-back capabilities?
Gascoine: One of the important elements of the Pathogen Reduction Act in the United States is the section that specifically addresses the trace-back of contaminated products all the way back to the farm.
The problem is if you do trace contaminated product back that far, nobody has good advice to give producers on what they should do [to correct the problem].
Producers need good advice on what to do.
MM&T: Does Australia have a trace-back system?
Gascoine: We can get back quite effectively from an individual carcass to an individual property of origin (producer).
But the trace-back gets more difficult regarding mixed product. If you have a box containing bits of meat to serve as hamburger meat, it may contain meat from carcasses that were from several lots.
Trace-back is always going to be difficult, particularly once meat gets into the United States. I understand that Australian lean meat gets mixed with fatty meat from U.S. plants.
A hamburger patty may come from as few as two-but as many as 20 plants and possibly involve three or four countries.
MM&T: Is the Australian meat industry open to utilizing new technologies in fighting pathogens?
Biddle: Australia's Meat Research Corp. is investigating a range of products and technologies to fight contamination which doesn't involve additives, such as hot water on carcasses.
But the question is: Can we find a hot water temperature that kills bugs effectively and quickly but doesn't cause discoloration of the meat?
Gascoine: The Australian meat industry is open to using new technologies. If there is a quick test available that is effective, I have no doubt companies will rapidly implement the use of that test because downstream the customers are asking for them.
The E. coli 0157:H7 concern is putting enormous pressure back on suppliers. The supermarket chains are insisting on testing, the grinders are insisting on testing, and the brokers are insisting on testing.
The rate of adoption of new technology will be contingent upon the efficiency and effectiveness of that technology.
MM&T: There is a slight debate going on in the United States about the importance of a meat company receiving ISO certification. Would this further enhance food safety, or will it just create more bureaucratic paperwork?
Gascoine: There's a bit of a race on it at the present time. On one hand is the proper adoption of ISO standards, which will be beneficial short-term to the food industry, in particular.
But the other side of the equation is there's no doubt that companies are using ISO 9000 accreditation as a selling point. If it's not used properly-if companies use ISO 9000 in a shallow, superficial way-it might well be that ISO 9000 will be rapidly devalued.
Some companies throughout the world have banners across their packaging saying they are ISO accredited. Our position is that quality assurance is the way to go.
We say, however, by all means-take the ISO 9000 framework and build into the heart of it a proper HACCP criteria to make sure everything stays on track. Then-and only then-do you have an effective food-safety management system.
MM&T: In the United States, we have what's considered by some an adversarial relationship between meat inspectors and meat companies. How is the relationship between these two groups in Australia?
McGregor: It's proactive, but we are regulators and that is the key point. And our regulations are based on fundamental requirements that must be met.
MM&T: What are the major challenges facing the Australian meat industry?
Gascoine: The major challenge is maintaining excellent market access around the world-and maintaining the reputation of our products in the face of consumer skepticism in some markets about the quality of our products.
The microbiological contamination issue in the United States is critical on that last score.
We're going to have to move the whole of our inspection services forward to address new problems. Meat inspection has a lot of inertia about it-traditional techniques, traditional methods used by people, and traditional approaches by operators. We, as well as the United States, have inspectors who have been doing the job the same way for decades.
We put a lot of effort in Australia into re-educating and upgrading the skills of meat inspectors, but we have to keep that momentum going. We have to get people working in assisting the development of the quality assurance moves.
The Australian meat industry through MRC has been investing very strongly in demonstrating the full-scale application of quality assurance to meat processing.
There are three plants in Australia (two in Victoria and one in Tasmania) that have very good quality assurance plans they are following, and which will be evaluated. They supply meat only for domestic consumption.
One plant in Victoria supplies a third of the domestic market for meat at the supermarket level. The operator originally set out to rid itself of the official inspection approach (by utilizing AQA).
Halfway along as he analyzed his business, he discovered how important quality assurance was for improving his operation.
Today, the operator still has inspectors in his plant, but he found out he didn't need four trimmers anymore. That's where he saved his money.
He can now use his inspection staff more efficiently, and he's getting so much more improvement up and down the line. He effectively adopted HACCP.
He looked at what his organization was trying to do-sell clean, high quality meat. He analyzed the way everything was operating in his plant and everything that could possibly go wrong.
He looked at the criteria he had to apply-the critical control points.
He trained and involved his staff in working out problems and discovering the right way to do things.
He used to get a daily visit from a slaughter union delegate; there used to be a problem every day.
Now, he sees him no more than once a month.