A Full Plate of Issues
The 1995 International Meat Industry Convention and Exposition was filled with talk surrounding food safety, inspection reform, HACCP, user fees, technological challenges and the potential of case-ready products.
USDA seeks compromise with industry on thorny issue of inspection reform, HACCP implementation
The million-dollar question is easy to answer: What was the major theme of the International Meat Industry Convention and Exposition held in Chicago this September?
Answer: How to hammer out an acceptable plan to reform meat inspection and implement a Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point program without endangering the public or crippling smaller processors.
Defining the dilemma is easy. Solving it is another matter-one that government and industry leaders alike confess will strain the best of intentions.
USDA Secretary Dan Glickman proclaimed he is "deeply committed" to improving the current inspection system. As packers and industry suppliers listened intently during his General Session address, Glickman said he supports HACCP as a tool to enhance food safety and improve inspection. But he cautioned that he is not yet ready to advocate relieving federal inspectors of non-food safety related duties.
"With the investment most processors make in their operations, you would be nuts to sell bad meat," Glickman said. "But we still need a strong government agency to protect people. We need modernization, but it can't happen in a vacuum."
Michael R. Taylor, USDA acting undersecretary for Food Safety, spoke with industry executives and media members at a breakfast meeting. It might not have been exactly a "kinder, gentler" Taylor, but he was undeniably affected not only by the raucous HACCP hearings held recently in Washington but by the preceding months of squabbling from all quarters over inspection reform.
"The HACCP hearings have been very helpful in clarifying the direction we need to take," Taylor said. "We know there has been some dispute over how to modernize the system, but believe me-we are as opposed to layering HACCP onto existing rules as anyone in the industry."
That said, Taylor challenged industry to accept performance standards. "We need achievable, practical performance standards if we're going to shift from the command-and-control [mode of] inspection," he said. "The concept of HACCP requires plants to accept responsibility for setting standards. Without standards, there is no way to measure progress, and no incentive to seek continuous improvement."
Taylor did acknowledge that one component of an inspection reform plan needs to be a streamlined appeals process to judiciously settle food safety-related disputes in the plant.
"But the central issue is still accountability," he cautioned. "We have to control the microbial threat to the nation's meat supply."
To help achieve that accountability, AMI will accelerate its commitment to train one employee as a HACCP expert in every AMI member meat and poultry plant by December 1996, noted AMI President J. Patrick Boyle.
A recent survey by the AMI Foundation revealed dramatic voluntary use of HACCP by AMI members. The December 1996 deadline shortens the original deadline by three years. More than 12 percent of companies from about 800 polled responded to the survey, which revealed:
-- 66 percent have a written HACCP plan.
-- 72 percent had written standard operating procedures prior to developing a HACCP plan.
-- 74 percent included microbial testing in their plans.
-- 59 percent of customers require a HACCP plan from AMI member companies.
-- 17 percent of respondents require HACCP plans of their suppliers.
-- 72 percent have an employee trained in HACCP in each plant.
-- 47 percent provided line workers with some HACCP training.
-- 74 percent participated in AMI Foundation training programs.
-- 37 percent indicated there were other specific types of HACCP training the AMI Foundation should provide.
-- 71 percent will send employees to future AMI Foundation HACCP courses.
"This is a very positive development and actually gives us a statistical basis that industry is voluntarily moving largely and successfully toward developing HACCP programs," Boyle said.
A sticking point with HACCP implementation is cost. Many small processors and packers are worried that modern inspection reform could hamper them financially.
The issue was not addressed in detail, but Glickman said he could identify with small business owners and their concerns.
"I grew up with a small business background," Glickman said, referring to his family's scrap iron business in Kansas. "I understand the unique nature of [running a] small business."
Glickman said he recognizes that HACCP is only worthy in the plant setting and that improvements in food safety must be instituted in distribution, sale and handling of meat and poultry products.
"I also recognize the role the consumer plays in proper handling and cooking of meat and poultry," he added. "We must continue to educate consumers."
Taylor said food safety at the retail front "has to be addressed as part of our strategy."
"I don't think the solution will ever be any sort of systematic federal inspection oversight of retail outlets," Taylor insisted. "From a resource standpoint, it's too massive of an undertaking."
Science-based HACCP standards and principals can be installed and applied through the efforts of retailers and state and local regulatory personnel, Taylor said.
"I don't think the answer is the federal government mandating HACCP in every retail establishment and attempting to oversee that from an inspection standpoint," he stated.
Another area of inspection reform that has been greatly debated is the retraining of federal inspectors in scientific and technical areas. Taylor expressed optimism that retraining can be successfully accomplished.
"We have a capable work force," he said. "The retraining can be done in a 3- to 5-year time frame."
Taylor also said that despite talk about farm-to-table oversight, federal inspectors will not get involved in food safety at retail food stores.
"That's not practical, given our resources," he said. "That will be the job of state and local authorities."
But given their more than likely tightened resources, as well as the debate surrounding a balanced federal budget, Taylor said user fees for inspection are inevitable.
"The user fee issue will not go away," he cautioned. "[Meat and poultry processors] realize the difficulty of that concept. But the fiscal reality that the government at large is dealing with is going to compel serious consideration of ideas, such as user fees."
However, at a later news conference, Boyle rejected both user fees and Taylor's assertion.
"User fees are not inevitable," he stressed. "What is inevitable is that [FSIS] will have to operate more like a private company-more efficiently and focused. That will reduce the cost of government and make a worthwhile contribution to reducing the federal deficit.
"The challenge for FSIS is not to pass the cost of its bureaucracy on to the private sector; the challenge for FSIS is to find a more efficient way to operate," he added.
Every White House budget since 1981 has included user fees for meat and poultry inspection. But every year, the fees are removed by congressional committees.
Glickman's good news, bad news
USDA Secretary Dan Glickman brought good news and bad news to the AMI General Session. The good news: The farm sector is fueling a phenomenal increase in global trade. Agricultural exports should grow by an estimated $12 billion to more than $65 billion annually by the year 2000, with meat and poultry products accounting for about $5.5 billion of the increase, Glickman noted.
The bad news: USDA, the giant bureaucracy responsible for overseeing the nation's food production, is struggling with sweeping changes in its farm support programs and meat inspection system-right in the middle of a severe congressional assault on the department's traditional funding levels. "It's a tough time to run USDA," Glickman said. "We're in the middle of a great transition."
With the farm bill, Glickman agreed that government needs to give more flexibility to producers. "But it's a matter of how much we have to spend," he said. "We think the [Republican] cuts are too great."
Hard target: Tough to find, even tougher to track-E. coli
has the edge
For a microscopic organism, it has had a monumental impact. In fact, the 1993 E. coli O157:H7 outbreak on the West Coast-which killed four children-has been the "driving force" behind a fundamental re-examination of the entire federal meat inspection system, stated H. Russell Cross, director of the Institute for Food Science and Engineering and the Center for Food Safety at Texas A&M University.
Cross was the kick-off speaker for a special panel updating E. coli-related research. "We have reached a consensus," the former FSIS administrator declared. "There simply is an unacceptable level of food-borne illness in the United States today."
Cross urged industry to begin implementing antimicrobial interventions at the plant level.
Despite the availability of various technologies, including rinses, sprays, and steam treatments, he noted that "we really have nothing in place right now-except cooking. That's about it."
Ultimately, Cross suggested the industry will need some "post-cooler" interventions as well.
"Prevention is the key to controlling E. coli," he contended.
Yet one major problem persists: Sufficient data do not yet exist to develop on-farm interventions against E. coli.
"We just don't know the prevalence in animal herds; we don't know whether there are 'reserves' of E. coli out there; and we don't really understand the role of other vectors in spreading the organism," Cross said.
In fact, a blue-ribbon panel on E. coli, coordinated for the National Live Stock and Meat Board by microbiologist Ranzell Nickelson, urged that research be focused on five key issues:
-- E. coli's relationship to its bovine hosts.
-- The organism's survivability outside the host.
-- Development of real-time microbial testing methods.
-- Improved sampling methods for HACCP verification programs.
-- Effective interventions at retail and foodservice.
The first one of those voids is at least being partially filled thanks to the work of John Luchansky, a food science professor at the University of Wisconsin.
To better understand how the organism is transmitted, Luchansky sampled 70 dairy herds-a primary reservoir of E. coli in ground beef-throughout southern Wisconsin. His study showed a 15 percent incidence rate, or five of 70 farms, of E. coli. However, only 2 percent, or 10 of 560 animals on those farms, actually carried the organism.
Comforting? Not really. Luchansky's study did not answer the one key question: Can the bacteria be controlled on the farm?
"E. coli O157:H7 is very tough to deal with," Luchansky admitted. "It's difficult to isolate and analyze. And animal carriers show no illness."
His team did approach one tentative conclusion, however.
"We found that individual farms had distinctive E. coli organisms identifiable with DNA testing," Luchansky noted. "It may well be that only specific, highly virulent strains actually cause outbreaks."
Microbial testing is one of the keys to processors' efforts to avert such outbreaks, of course. Now, a new study shows that the location and the type of sampling method may make a critical difference in the accuracy of the results.
Conducted by Richard Matner, marketing manager of 3M Microbiology Products, the study analyzed the best method for identifying the presence of E. coli O157:H7.
Matner's team inoculated beef carcasses with the pathogen, then attempted to recover the bacteria with various methods. The conclusions were as follows:
-- Recovering E. coli by testing enriched, ground-up samples requires a high level of contamination. "Plus, you will get a lot of false negatives with the enrichment method," Matner asserted.
-- Direct swab testing of carcasses is superior. "E. coli is essentially a surface contaminant," Matner said. "You will get better results swabbing the outside of the carcass."
-- Swabbing should be performed prior to chilling. "The test takes 24 hours. And that way, you have the results available shortly after the carcasses leave the cooler," Matner noted.
Time to pick up pace on path to improved science
Change can be slow; it can be fast. No matter the speed, change can be difficult to track.
Stan Richert, vice president of meat science for Protein Technologies International and planning committee chairman for the Meat Industry Research Council, said the top issue facing today's meat scientists is how to keep up with a changing world.
"I travel extensively and the meat industry is changing all over the world," Richert said. "The markets keep changing; the consumer keeps changing. In the past, the meat industry has moved fairly slow [in adapting to change] from a technological standpoint. We need to pick up the pace and that will require everyone's involvement."
Two days prior to the AMI convention, meat scientists from the packing/processing community, academia and government listened to presentations by their peers on food safety, tools for product development, meat quality and consistency, meat science on the information superhighway and updates on research.
"Science and Technology for Change" was the theme of MIRC, co-sponsored by the AMI Foundation and the American Meat Science Association.
Although dealing effectively with change is a major challenge facing industry in general, increasing and improving food safety efforts was the major focus of the MIRC program.
"We set up this year's program to address top industry issues. Maintaining and enhancing food safety is first and top-of-mind," Richert said.
Forrest Dryden, vice president of R&D for Austin, Minn.-based Hormel Foods Corp., said: "Inspection reform is coming, but it's going to be slow. It's going to be a tremendous education process to really understand how we shift the paradigm within industry and at USDA."
Attendees commended several speakers on their presentations.
"I was particularly impressed with John Marcello's [manager of technical education for the National Restaurant Association's Educational Foundation] talk about what the NRA is trying to do [in implementing HACCP at the restaurant level]," said Gary Smith of Colorado State University. "He boiled down HACCP by saying [if you effectively implement and manage] personal hygiene, time and temperature and prevent cross-contamination-from farm to fork-you have done most of what we're going to be able to do [in maintaining and enhancing meat safety]."
William Schwartz, vice president of technical services for Bil Mar Foods, said: "What I found most interesting was the willingness of industry to open up and share what would have been considered proprietary information in the past. There's an emerging change in the mind-set. We [industry executives] are recognizing more that we have the same obligation to the industry as we do to our own companies. If we don't do the right kinds of things together, we are all going to fail together."
Clean scene: Sanitation demands vigilance-but correct procedures are key as well
The sanitation "mentality" for processors in this era of food safety crises should be that of a "clean room," suggested Norman Marriott, professor of the Food Science and Technology Department at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.
Along with a wealth of common sense yet practical suggestions-such as hand dips, foot baths, employee showers, uniforms, hairnets, masks, and even employee health cards updated every six months-Marriott offered some suggestions he said industry needs to consider, such as:
-- Livestock "car wash:" Alternatively, Marriott suggested total dehairing for beef. "The hide, particularly the hair, carries too much of a 'load' of contamination into the plant," he said.
(Editor's note: In October, USDA approved a dehairing treatment for cattle using a mixture of sodium sulfide and hydrogen peroxide applied to the hide after stunning. The chemicals, similar to what tanneries use, only stronger, remove hair and mud to reduce bacterial contamination prior to fabrication. The procedure is undergoing in-plant trials.)
-- Carcass washing: Packers should install either hot water wash, steam, or a rinse/spray with organic acids or trisodium phosphates.
-- Clean up: Marriott suggested that pre-rinsing be minimized. "We tend to overdo it-and use water too hot," he said. "It just creates condensation. Keep the water at 115 degrees F to 125 degrees F." He also suggested minimizing the water applied with cleaning compounds. "Just enough to spread it around the surface."
Marriott nixed the idea of a mid-shift clean-up. "Don't do it," he urged. "It's detrimental. A hose down just spreads debris around, making it worse for end-of-shift clean-up."
-- Sanitizers: Although chlorine is an excellent sanitizer, it doesn't work if too much time elapses before start-up. "When it evaporates, it's useless against residual organic matter and bacteria," Marriott said. "It's better to use quaternary ammonium or an iodine-type sanitizer instead."
-- Air filtration: "It's costly, but airborne contaminants-including pathogens-are spread all too easily by unfiltered air," he noted.
-- Maintenance workers, inspectors: "The biggest sanitation mistake is letting these people live by different rules than regular employees," he said. "It's a very real problem."
Joe Cordray, professor at Iowa State University, and Michael Rose, director of scientific affairs for AMI, followed with a wealth of design tips. "Some simple changes can make a big difference in how efficient a sanitation program can be," Cordray noted. Among the changes Cordray and Rose suggested:
-- Specifying rounded corners on trench drains, along with adequate size to handle peak flows so no standing water accumulates.
-- Grouting steel columns at the bottom, or encasing the entire beam with a column sleeve.
-- Installing acid-resistant flooring, brick or tile.
-- Running pipes vertical-otherwise condensation builds up.
-- Installing waterproof switch boxes, sealed conduits, closed table ends, and leaving no exposed bolts or rivets.
Rose advocated an aggressive rodent control program. "Rats and mice can walk power lines, travel hundreds of yards to get into the plant," he noted. "Mice can drop down 50 feet without injury and crawl through a half-inch wide space. You have to be totally vigilant."
Some key points were also made in a paper written by Julie Lahr of Excel Corp. She discussed "biofilms," a sticky matrix formed by bacteria that attach to equipment or other surfaces.
"Biofilms are absolutely resistant to sanitizers," the paper stated. "They must be removed first with detergents, scrubbing and hot water before applying sanitizers."
Lahr's paper also strongly recommended additional chlorination of a plant's water supply-whether it's drawn from municipal sources or not-from a minimum of 0.1 parts per million to a maximum of five parts per million. "Even in potable water, the level of chlorine may be enough to kill pathogens but not enough to kill spoilage bacteria and that can adversely affect product shelf life," according to the paper.
Case-ready: Meeting consumers' lifestyle changes
The question posed to the audience was a simple one: What sections of the supermarket have seen increased traffic in the past several years at the expense of the red meat department?
The answers came back quickly: deli, produce and bakery.
The next question was a little bit more difficult: How can the red meat department regain some of that lost traffic?
The answers were not forthcoming so panel moderator Jack Allen of Michigan State University's Food Industry Management Program answered the question himself: A successful case-ready meat program.
Case-ready meat products have garnered a lot of attention in the past year. Many people from the retail and processing sides agree that after years of fits and starts, the concept has finally grabbed a foothold.
So, it is no surprise that one of the most-attended sessions at the AMI convention was "Case Ready: Packaging for the Future."
A near-capacity audience heard how case-ready must be used as a marketing tool to entice consumers into buying meat products. The aforementioned supermarket sections all have gained traffic because of paying attention to consumers. It is an area supermarket meat departments have fallen behind in.
"Deli, produce and bakery sections have been meeting lifestyle demands [of consumers] for several years," pointed out Bill Pizzico, associate publisher of Supermarket Business. "The meat department is just now learning how to meet that demand. I see a real opportunity for meat departments to become No. 1 in homecooking, once meat is identified as a meal that can be prepared quickly and is nutritious."
Case-ready affords processors and retailers that opportunity. If processors can prepare and package meat products at the plant, instead of having it done in the back room, meat department personnel can be behind the case answering consumers' questions about the product they intend to purchase.
"Consumers will expect the same specifications every time they pick up a piece of meat-the same amount of fat and quality," stressed Colin Knight, retail project director for Kalamazoo, Mich.-based Hoekstra Quality Meats Inc. "That is what case-ready can offer consumers."
Walker Stockley, market development manager of Duncan, S.C.-based Cryovac Inc., said: "Case-ready addresses lifestyle needs with different categories in the meat case. You just don't have the consumer going to buy a pot roast-not everyone has the time to cook a pot roast anymore. Case-ready answers this need."
In the end, processors and retailers must work together to educate consumers. "Where is our spokesperson educating consumers on case-ready?" Pizzico rhetorically asked. "You have to show convenience and quality. You have to talk to retailers as if consumers were standing right next to them."
Stockley emphasized not to miss opportunities to talk to consumers. "Get feedback from consumers," he noted. "Ask them what do they want in the package. Why is poultry regarded as a health-conscious item? The poultry industry responded by putting out items such as lean, skinless breasts. If you are going to change consumer attitudes about red meat you have to be able to offer products that answer the needs of consumers."
Three industry stalwarts receive recognition
The prestigious Industry Advancement Award was presented to world-renowned animal handling expert Temple Grandin.
A professor of animal science and behavior at Colorado State University and president of Grandin Livestock Handling Systems, Grandin has "the remarkable ability to understand the world from the point of view of animals," AMI's Boyle remarked during presentation ceremonies.
More remarkably, Grandin overcame the disability of autism to become one of the industry's foremost researchers into minimizing stress among livestock in feedlots and packing plants. Grandin invented the center track restrainer, widely credited as one of the most humane advances in livestock handling ever developed. She authored AMI's "Recommended Animal Handling Guidelines," and has personally helped engineer or consult on more than half of all slaughter installations in North America.
-- The Edward C. Jones Community Service Award was presented to Dan Evans, chairman of Columbus, Ohio-based Bob Evans Farms Inc.
Bob Evans' community service activities include sponsorship of the Great Ohio Bicycle Adventure; historic preservation, especially a restoration project for Ohio's state capital building in Columbus; promotion of Women's Health Week; scholarships for Hispanic students through a foundation created in conjunction with the company's Cantina Del Rio Mexican restaurant chain; and support for Ohio 4-H Clubs, The Boy Scouts of America, the YMCA, the Diabetes Association, and other charities throughout its marketing area.
-- The Supplier of the Year was awarded to Phil Hinderaker, president of Lodi, Wis.-based Alkar. Hinderaker and his company were recognized for their long-term membership and support of AMI, and for innovations in processing technology, including cook-and-chill systems and smokehouse designs.
"Phil Hinderaker has also been very involved in issues such as product liability reform, and that benefits everyone in the industry," Boyle said in presenting the award.
Meat convention to be joined by
dairy show
When the AMI International Meat Industry Convention & Exhibition reconvenes on Oct. 30, 1997, there will be a slight change.
The convention will be held concurrently with the newly created International Food and Dairy Show, a joint venture between the International Dairy Foods Association and the Dairy and Food Industry Supply Association. The co-located conventions will be held in Chicago's McCormick Place.
Officials from all three trade groups said the simultaneous conventions will allow meat, poultry and dairy processors with "one-stop shopping" for equipment, ingredients and supplies.
"For the first time, North American processors and manufacturers and the increasingly important international audience will be able to see everything available to them in one location," AMI's Boyle said during a news conference.
Boyle said that major trade shows hosted outside of the United States gave credence to the idea of a mega-trade show. Officials from the three organizations believed that a large, U.S.-based show would enhance the competitiveness of the entire North American food industry.
Each convention will have a separate identity and trade show floor. But the three participating organizations will work together to coordinate attendance promotion efforts, including international and domestic advertising and direct mail, to attract attendees from around the world.
"This new arrangement will be an extremely cost-effective and productive tool for both suppliers and their customers," noted John M. Martin, president of the Dairy and Food Industries Supply Association.
Boyle predicted that the concurrent trade shows will attract between 25,000 to 30,000 visitors, and more than 500,000 square feet of exhibit space will be used for more than 1,000 exhibitors.