J. Patrick Boyle president, AMI
On significant issues facing AMI members:
Of major concern is the transition to a Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point-based inspection system; expanding sales into export markets; and retaining a competitive presence in the domestic market place at a time of huge supplies and greater competition.
On the jobs USDA Secretary Dan Glickman and Acting Undersecretary for Food Safety Michael Taylor have done for the red meat industry:
Taylor was proposing a HACCP regulation that had a number of flaws in it when it was tabled the first part of last year. But he has subsequently spent a lengthy amount of time listening to the concerns of affected parties. He deserves noteworthy mention and credit for the quantity of time and effort he has devoted to his rule-making responsibilities.
Glickman deserves an enormous amount of credit for coming to the department when the comment period on the "mega reg" was about to close and re-opening the comment period ... insisting that the agency [seek additional comments from industry.] He also deserves credit for improving upon the food-safety process.
In international trade, he has been a strong and active proponent of increasing U.S. meat and poultry exports. He has traveled to the Pacific Rim where he included our industry's exports as a high-priority item in his trade mission.
Similarly, he has met with his counterpart in the European Union [Agriculture Commissioner Franz Fischler] and conveyed to the Europeans that the hormone ban should not stand and that he will provide them with a reasonable amount of time to dismantle that unfair trade barrier.
Thus far, he has resisted a number of emotional-and I believe economically unfounded calls-for further inquiries into the structure of the beef and pork packing sector. He has said thus far that any action on the part of USDA will await the release of the
Packers & Stockyards Administration review of the meat packing industry.
This has been about three years in the making and contains an unprecedented amount of cost information from companies involved in beef and pork packing.
On the need for red meat segments to work together:
As an industry containing a number of species and segments including producers, packers and processors, we need to contain as much public uniformity and consistency as we can on issues of overriding importance for the long-term health and economic well being of the industry.
I hope as competitive pressures continue to unfold, we can retain sight of the overall objectives that would serve all segments of the nation's meat and poultry industries and find a way to adopt some policies and achieve some uniformity in pursuing them.
Steve Krut executive director, American Assoc. of Meat Processors
On how 1995 was for AAMP members:
It was a very solid year. Not just because the beef and pork raw material supplies were plentiful. Our members' [smaller companies] forte has always been in value-added and high-value products.
But there has been a signal of concern regarding replacement of equipment, adding personnel or going ahead with plant expansion. In the small plant area, there's concern over what the shape of the inspection proposal will have on future investment in the business.
On the call for validation studies:
USDA has taken the position that products like fermented, semi-dry sausage are not necessarily fully cooked. Therefore, a plant must validate there is no pathogenic contamination for each particular product that fits in that category.
That [one validation study] is an expensive process that may range from $10,000 to $20,000 for a single product. And when talking about a validation study, USDA is saying that it won't just test for E. coli 0157:H7, we'll take one test with a combination of E. coli strains; listeria and maybe salmonella. It came up with this toxic cocktail that doesn't exist in nature. It's a very contrived poison it wants you to defeat with a five log reduction or kill. That's a pretty tall order when no specific problems have been traced or identified.
USDA has since recanted a bit and said it may make a validation study on the worst scenario for a particular product. In other words, a validation study on the one product that might be most at risk within a given category.
On liability issues:
USDA says keep more records, take more tests and make them all public. One of the difficulties a plant has is when it does a lot of micro-testing for salmonella or listeria, it has an organism that is dynamic in that it may be in a controlled level at the plant. But as it moves further down the food chain, that organism can increase in count.
If you have any record in your plant that says you had a plate count of only one for salmonella and someone in the community develops a sniffle or the flu, they could rush to an attorney and say: "I think this is a salmonella-related problem." And though you can go back and have evidence that you had product going out with salmonella at a level not harmful and that abuse might have taken place beyond your control, your plant [still] has the liability.
Rosemary Mucklow executive director, National Meat Association
On major challenges facing NMA members:
Dealing with government issues is always a big concern. People in our organization want to take control of their businesses. But the government-while it says it wants to get out of the command/control business-designs it in such a way that it stays right in the saddle.
On government's role in inspection reform:
[Last year] was a pretty good year for NMA members. But if companies are going to make capital investments for business improvement, they need to know what the [inspection/HACCP] system is.
When we went to meetings [in Washington] last September, we heard a lot about what "current [government] thinking" was. Well, current thinking last September was quite different from "current thinking" in February 1995. We can't plan [for capital investments] when current thinking is constantly a moving target.
There is not a lot of certainty about the way that USDA is looking at revising those rules.
On predictions for 1996:
We see it as a year of opportunity for innovators and entrepreneurs. But I also think we're going to see an increased level of competition between the species for consumer dollars. I don't think this is bad-as long as they do it without denigrating each other's products.
Deven Scott executive vice-president, National Association of Meat Purveyors
On how 1995 was for NAMP members:
It was a reasonably good year, but we had a few members who have closed their doors. In geographic areas where competition is the stiffest between purveyors and larger distributors, that is where we have seen some of the [closings.]
On new product development:
I don't see enough new product development in our industry. We need to come up with new ideas to help chefs with their menus.
On the consolidation of the Meat Board into the National Cattlemen's Beef Association:
They [Meat Board] have done an outstanding job. The Meat Board was in the meat business-not the species business. We're somewhat concerned about who out there without a political agenda is going to speak for the meat industry and not as a species industry.
On 1996:
I'm optimistic. Generally, I think purveyors feel good about the future of their industry. But we have tough competition from large distributors like the Syscos and Krafts. On the other hand, we have some members cutting steaks for [distributors], too; they have become partners.