Its own meat inspectors-and their Washington allies at the Government Accountability Project-may be USDA's biggest roadblock to reform
by Dan Murphy, contributing editor
In a city that boards a bandwagon like a bloodhound follows a trail, there is no hotter issue in Washington, D.C., these days than the federal meat inspection system.
With a string of deadly E. coli O157:H7 outbreaks as the driving force, the chorus of voices clamoring for change has grown so thunderous of late it is beginning to approach the decibel level of the "We Are the World" soundtrack. Everybody from activists to agencies to industry insiders wants a seat on the Inspection Reform Limited.
Michael R. Taylor, USDA acting undersecretary for Food Safety, publicly asserts: "There is now broad support for implementation of HACCP [Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point programs] from both industry and government. We just need to clarify the direction FSIS needs to take."
USDA Secretary Dan Glickman clearly insists: "I am deeply committed to improving the meat inspection system."
Carl Kuehne, CEO of American Foods Group and new AMI chairman claims: "Getting a HACCP-based inspection system in place is our biggest priority."
Even Carol Tucker Foreman, coordinator of the Safe Food Coalition and seemingly lifelong critic of the industry's food safety performance, now says: "I'm positive about the changes that need to be made. I'm convinced a lot of industry people realize their businesses are at risk."
Overcoming roadblocks
Will the energy of this unlikely reformist coalition overcome the roadblocks impeding inspection reform? One of the most obvious, ironically, is the very legislation first created to solve the industry's shortcomings.
When the principals in the current movement-if we may dust off that somewhat tired terminology-remark: "It's a jungle out there," they are no longer referring to Upton Sinclair's classic that sent a horde of the industry's original "bad actors" packing some 80 years ago. The "jungle" of the 1990s is a congressional canopy of legislative mandates choking efforts to blaze a trail toward a science-based inspection system.
After decades of growth, the statutory underbrush has become a formidable barrier to USDA's intentions to de-layer HACCP implementation from existing regulatory responsibilities, and detach field personnel from duties unrelated to the agency's born-again belief in its food safety focus.
"Inspectors are now performing many tasks unrelated to our primary mission: food safety," Taylor admits. "That has to change."
Therein lies perhaps the biggest barrier on the paved path to reform: How will USDA transform its more than 7,000 field inspectors from agents of command-and-control directives to technically trained specialists able to provide oversight for a science-driven program of antimicrobial intervention? Whatever its course, the agency may not get much help from the inspectors themselves.
The inspectors' union stance is adamant. Its political point man and main mouthpiece, David Carney, chairman of the National Joint Council of Food Inspection Locals, minces no words in portraying exactly who lines up where in the battle over the road map to reform.
"Our union is the salvation of the American consumer," Carney flatly states. "We provide the front-line protection and the last line of defense against food-borne health problems."
Carney and his "thin white line" have gone on the offensive against what they characterize as USDA's "clandestine" efforts to eliminate continuous inspection-and eventually, many of the personnel now conducting it. (See story, page 33.)
"All of your forthright efforts appear to be an effort to erode inspection into a less than carcass-by-carcass form of processing inspection," Carney accused Taylor in August just prior to the FSIS hearings on HACCP implementation. A bit wordy perhaps, but the union's message is clear: You won't reduce the number of inspectors without a fight.
The bell for round one of that fight may soon be sounding. In July, Taylor instituted both a hiring freeze and an Early-Out retirement program throughout FSIS. The freeze quickly left dozens of slots unfilled, and the Early-Out program may eliminate hundreds more. Exactly how many is under dispute.
Carney claims Taylor estimated only about 500 vacancies among FSIS positions in August but says the union's research shows 928 vacancies.
William West, FSIS budget officer, confirms to Meat Marketing & Technology that 500 vacancies represent an "approximate daily average of the number of inspection assignments for which there is no coverage."
In reference to Carney's assertion that there are more than 900 vacancies, West explains that some 400 relief assignment personnel are employed on a part-time basis by FSIS to cover various inspection assignments.
However the numbers are calculated, Carney insists the reduction would deprive FSIS of some of its most experienced people. Add in the early retirees, and you've got problems, he suggests.
"More than 1,520 people are targeted for [USDA's] Early Out program," Carney says. "If they go through with that, the resulting public health problems would make E. coli look like a picnic."
The GAP connection
Don't bring any meat products to that picnic, though-not if you value your health. At least that is what the union's not-so-silent partners at the Government Accountability Project would have people believe.
"USDA's leadership is committed to change," says Tom Devine, GAP's legal director. "But the jury is out on whether the industry is ready to assume more responsibility [for safe products]."
GAP has taken a visible and highly vocal role in documenting alleged problems in meat packing, problems GAP says warrants the daily, continuous presence of federal inspectors inside meat plants. The alleged violations reported by GAP's whistle-blowing inspectors represent a litany of some of the worst abuses to be found in the industry, including processing of condemned animals; smoking of rancid meat; falsification of processing records and lab sampling; and contamination of product from a potpourri of excrement, blood, grease, insect larvae, and machine filings.
Nowhere in the group's widely circulated "fact" sheet is there any quantification of these abuses. But the summary is graphic enough that its absence is minimized.
After all, how many maggots are too many?
"Consumers are not going to have any confidence in an [inspection program] based on the honor system," Devine argues. "That would be a marketing disaster. The bottom line is that there is no need to relax the vigilance incumbent upon the federal inspection work force."
Devine concedes that inspectors will have to be shunted from some of their current duties to provide FSIS with adequate staffing to handle the oversight required of a HACCP system. But GAP wants whistle-blower protection written into the regulations for plant employees who, it appears, will eventually take over much of the authority of federal inspectors to hold or even condemn contaminated product.
"Obviously, no one in the industry would support harassment of these employees," Devine says. "But no one seems willing to have that protection written into law, either. You can't have a system where employees can be fired if they discover defects."
And the potential defect in USDA's plans to revamp inspection may well be whether the agency-and industry-can counter the all-too-real perception among consumers that meatpackers need that "cop on the block" in the form of a government inspector.
Safety questions remain
The argument that HACCP will provide superior protection against invisible microbial contamination, while accurate, provides little consolation to critics as well as consumers that other deficiencies in packing and processing operations will be ferreted out and eliminated.
As Foreman, a former USDA assistant secretary, points out: HACCP has never been used as a regulatory program before.
"It's well-established in industry," she notes, "but it's only been used to ensure an individual company's own level of quality and safety. Now USDA wants to use HACCP to monitor performance standards. That's another animal altogether."
And according to both inspectors and activists, an animal that is not yet ready to be processed by either government or the public
Union rules
In an exclusive interview with Dan Murphy, Meat Marketing & Technology's contributing editor, inspectors' union chief David Carney warns that USDA's inspection reforms won't fly unless the inspectors themselves are on board.
MM&T: Why is the inspectors' union fighting against changing meat inspection?
Carney: The government is taking a backdoor approach to inspection, that's why. Science-based inspection takes training, equipment and lab facilities. But how do you move into the 21st century without adequate funding? Believe me, we are pro-progress-we want science-based inspection, we want a system based on dealing with public-health risks.
MM&T: What about proposed reductions in total number of inspectors?
Carney: FSIS is now evaluating how we inspect, how the field staff approaches inspection, and the physical "structure" of FSIS. We see quite a few redundancies, and we especially recommend "streamlining" the management side of the agency.
MM&T: But what about the number of bodies out there? Wouldn't the inspection work force be reduced under Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point programs?
Carney: A true HACCP system requires critical control points from farm to table. Yes, FSIS inspectors would have to evolve into a more scientifically-trained staff, but that doesn't mean that the overall numbers could be significantly reduced. Honestly, I really don't know how HACCP will shake out.
MM&T: Do you see a need to "soften" the rhetoric between the union and USDA?
Carney: I see industry having to evolve. A lot of meatpackers maintain an antagonistic relationship toward USDA, although I admit some USDA supervisors do contribute [to the problem]. They tell their staff, "Go out and hammer that plant." They know the more PDRs [plant deficiency reports] they write up, the better they look.
MM&T: It seems that your union has been getting hammered of late.
Carney: Right now, morale is at the lowest I've ever seen. That's because of cutbacks. A lot of people may not be replaced.
MM&T: What would change that?
Carney: I told Michael Taylor [USDA acting undersecretary for Food Safety] that if we're going to upgrade the entire FSIS staff to a higher level of scientific and technical competence, USDA should reward these people with higher GS grades. That would be a tremendous incentive for the field inspectors.
MM&T: Overall, are you pessimistic about the changes that need to be made?
Carney: No, I'm optimistic. Taylor is a refreshing change. I like his style, his credentials and his approach. But [congressional] Republicans are playing scary games with the budget right now. Our union wants to move ahead, but that requires funding. Listen, 10 years ago we were fighting against the change [to Discretionary Inspection]. Now, in 1995, we're fighting for change.