• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Meat inspector's

ranch hand

Well-known member
Meat inspector's rigorous standards led to beef with bosses



PAUL WALDIE

From Tuesday's Globe and Mail

May 16, 2006

Canada



Dr. Scott Frazee has been a veterinarian with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency for 10 years and he knows all about the pressure meat inspectors face from the food industry.



But what he never expected was how quickly his own bosses at the agency would succumb to that pressure and potentially put food safety at risk.



"I was shocked," Dr. Frazee said from his home in Berwick, N.S. "It's difficult to do your job even with support, but in this case there was no support from my own employer."



For the past three years, Dr. Frazee has been battling the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) over the way it handled complaints about his meat inspections at Larsen Packers Ltd., a Nova Scotia pork plant owned by Maple Leaf Foods Inc.



The plant is one of the largest in Atlantic Canada. It employs roughly 600 people and processes about 2,000 hogs a day. Dr. Frazee joined the agency in 1996 and has been head veterinarian at Larsen since 1997, leading a CFIA team that includes one other veterinarian and six meat inspectors.



When plant manager Mike Larsen and a group of hog producers complained that Dr. Frazee was rejecting too many hogs, the agency suspended him from the kill floor and launched a review of his inspection techniques.



Despite three independent assessments that upheld Dr. Frazee's conduct, his duties continued to be restricted after Mr. Larsen and the producers took their complaints up agency ranks to the regional director. In one letter to a senior agency official, a group of hog producers said that, if Dr. Frazee was not removed, they would take their hogs to other facilities. "No other option is acceptable," the letter warned.



Dr. Frazee was eventually restored to his position on June 25, 2003, after two months of wrangling between the plant and CFIA, but his fellow inspectors were stunned by the agency's actions.



After his reappointment, Dr. Frazee asked the agency to look into how it handled the situation, alleging the agency buckled under intimidation. When his request was ignored, he took his case to the Public Service Labour Relations Board. The CFIA rejected his allegations and argued before the board that it did its best to resolve a difficult issue.



In a decision released last week, the board backed up Dr. Frazee's concerns and ordered the agency to review its actions. Adjudicator Léo-Paul Guindon ruled that the repeated requests by Mr. Larsen and the producers to remove Dr. Frazee amounted to "harassment and coercion."



"The expressly stated objective of the industry was to have Dr. Frazee removed off the kill floor and, later, out of the Larsen Packers Ltd.'s plant," Mr. Guindon said in his ruling. He added that the agency sent the wrong signal by suspending Dr. Frazee before properly assessing the complaints.



Jeanette Jones, a spokeswoman for Maple Leaf, said the company and Mr. Larsen were unaware the issue had gone to the labour board. She said they will review the decision and make any necessary changes.



"The vets play a very important and valuable role at these facilities," Ms. Jones said.



A CFIA spokesman said the agency is reviewing the ruling.



The tribunal heard that Dr. Frazee's case was not the first. "This is becoming an all too frequent occurrence in this Agency," Maureen Harper, a vice-president with the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, which represents the veterinarians, said in a letter filed with the board. "Plant management makes a complaint to CFIA if they perceive a vet is too stringent in performing his duties, which causes an economic loss to the plant and CFIA pulls the vet from the job to keep the industry happy. And we dare call ourselves a regulatory Agency!"



Industry pressure is a concern for veterinarians across Canada, said Alan Phillips, a union official who represented Dr. Frazee. Mr. Phillips said many veterinarians simply quit because of the stress. He added that Dr. Frazee was the first to fight back and his case has already resulted in important changes.



Dr. Frazee, 37, is still working at Larsen but his relations with management remain strained. "Life hasn't been quite the same since. I wish it never happened in the first place," he said. "It's hard to hold your head up going down the halls some days, but you got to put the smile on anyway. Right?"





theglobeandmail.com
 

Econ101

Well-known member
"Management" should be changed, and quickly. Someone was not doing their job on the production end and they wanted to pawn if off on consumers.

This system of influence in the meat industries is problematic.

We have a bunch of backboneless upper management in our regulatory agencies and they need to be fired.

Maple Leaf should have a huge fine for this and Dr. Frazer should get some of it. Part of it should come out of the quality control manager's pay as well as the general manager at the plant. To not do so may encourage this kind of action in the future. Who knows if the next "Dr. Frazer" will stand up?
 

DiamondSCattleCo

Well-known member
I have every intention of talking to my MLA, verifying whats been wrote, and lodging a complaint. I grow weary of good people who are attempting to do their jobs, getting crapped on. I'd also be interested in finding out why the hogs were rejected.

Rod
 

Brad S

Well-known member
There's so many unspoken possibilities here. I can't imagine anyone would want a safe product more than plant management. I look at this as "nonnews" Just the lumps and bumps that work themselvs out, and note the inspector kept his job (threrefore he's entitled to back pay he may have missed).
 

DiamondSCattleCo

Well-known member
Perhaps it is non-news, but I don't think we should focusing on why the hogs were refused. The important point to note is that the CFIA backed the plant first before ever investigating. If I were a vet and had a family to feed, I'd think twice about rejecting animals knowing full well that there would be a chance of being suspended. The CFIA should be standing behind their employees first, not the plant owners.

Rod
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Anti corporate packer blamers seek out a disgruntled employee to tell them what they want to hear.


Brad S.: "I can't imagine anyone would want a safe product more than plant management."

Don't start using logic Brad, you'll have them all confused. LOL!

Sure would hate to let the facts stand in the way of another good story. Isn't it funny how the same guys always sink their teeth into any opinion that supports their bias?

Sheep!


~SH~
 

Jason

Well-known member
article quote: "Despite three independent assessments that upheld Dr. Frazee's conduct, his duties continued to be restricted after Mr. Larsen and the producers took their complaints up agency ranks to the regional director. In one letter to a senior agency official, a group of hog producers said that, if Dr. Frazee was not removed, they would take their hogs to other facilities. "No other option is acceptable," the letter warned."

Looks like the producers who were losing hogs to the tank were the ones who forced this.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Jason said:
article quote: "Despite three independent assessments that upheld Dr. Frazee's conduct, his duties continued to be restricted after Mr. Larsen and the producers took their complaints up agency ranks to the regional director. In one letter to a senior agency official, a group of hog producers said that, if Dr. Frazee was not removed, they would take their hogs to other facilities. "No other option is acceptable," the letter warned."

Looks like the producers who were losing hogs to the tank were the ones who forced this.

With no help from the packer?

When plant manager Mike Larsen and a group of hog producers complained that Dr. Frazee was rejecting too many hogs, the agency suspended him from the kill floor and launched a review of his inspection techniques.
 

DiamondSCattleCo

Well-known member
~SH~ said:
Brad S.: "I can't imagine anyone would want a safe product more than plant management."

Don't start using logic Brad, you'll have them all confused. LOL!

Logic would dictate that plant management would want safe meat, but didn't you read the story SH? Even after 3 independent assessments, he was still restricted. Wheres the logic in that?

Let me ask you something, if you were in Frazee's shoes, you had upheld the regulations, which the assessments prove you had, and you were still on restricted duty, wouldn't you be upset too? And wouldn't you be somewhat upset with your employer for not going to bat for you? It was the CFIA who restricted his duties, not the packer.

Obviously there was something wrong with the hogs if after 3 assessments the vet was proven to be right. While I'm almost always on the side of producers, producers can't expect to deliver crap either. This is like someone delivering a BSE cow to slaughter, then being ticked off that it's not made into food.

Rod
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Jason, "Looks like the producers who were losing hogs to the tank were the ones who forced this.

"Despite three independent assessments that upheld Dr. Frazee's conduct,"

Looks like the tank was where those hogs belonged.
 

Jason

Well-known member
I would agree that if the hogs were unsafe they should be tanked.

But ask yourself this.... if that particular inspector was tanking more hogs percentage wise than industry average or whatever, why was it happening?

From the article it upset all the producers, so it wasn't a case of 1 or 2 bad producers sending poor hogs.

The processor doesn't make any money on condemned hogs so that doesn't make sence.

There is no ecomomic incentive for the CFIA to pass or condemn more than whatever is unsafe.

There are some answers missing from the information available. Was the inspector within the letter of the law but missing the intent? A hog can have a small bruise and by the book maybe could be condemned..was this the case? We don't know from the information provided.

The most common answer for incidences like this is an individual with his/her own agenda.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Jason said:
I would agree that if the hogs were unsafe they should be tanked.

But ask yourself this.... if that particular inspector was tanking more hogs percentage wise than industry average or whatever, why was it happening?

From the article it upset all the producers, so it wasn't a case of 1 or 2 bad producers sending poor hogs.

The processor doesn't make any money on condemned hogs so that doesn't make sence.

There is no ecomomic incentive for the CFIA to pass or condemn more than whatever is unsafe.

There are some answers missing from the information available. Was the inspector within the letter of the law but missing the intent? A hog can have a small bruise and by the book maybe could be condemned..was this the case? We don't know from the information provided.

The most common answer for incidences like this is an individual with his/her own agenda.

There are plenty of questions that need to be asked - can't make a solid decision simply based on an article, but it looks to me that three people who didn't have a stick in the game backed the vet. In mind, that makes him the one to beat.

The article does NOT say all the hog producers were upset - it says "a group".

You can ask if he was too picky - but then you have three independents on his side.

Maybe the producers are torked because the other guy let ones get by that he shouldn't of? Obviously there is more pressure to be lenient than stringent, I don't think it is a stretch to guess that more inspectors than not are letting hogs go thru that they really shouldn't. That would also explain why he might have a higher average than the industry.

Maybe you've got one guy who actually is strong enough in his convictions to do his job as he sees is his responsibility? Maybe his agenda is to do his job properly regardless of pressures to do otherwise? If you want to talk agendas, that makes the most sense to me. He's not profited from this deal, it's cost him.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Jason said:
I would agree that if the hogs were unsafe they should be tanked.

But ask yourself this.... if that particular inspector was tanking more hogs percentage wise than industry average or whatever, why was it happening?

From the article it upset all the producers, so it wasn't a case of 1 or 2 bad producers sending poor hogs.

The processor doesn't make any money on condemned hogs so that doesn't make sence.

There is no ecomomic incentive for the CFIA to pass or condemn more than whatever is unsafe.

There are some answers missing from the information available. Was the inspector within the letter of the law but missing the intent? A hog can have a small bruise and by the book maybe could be condemned..was this the case? We don't know from the information provided.

The most common answer for incidences like this is an individual with his/her own agenda.

Jason, you would make a good salesman, but not a good regulator.

I would agree with you that it might be nice to have a little more information than the article presents, but as presented, we have enough information to show that the packers have too much influence on the Candadian regulatory agency.

If a farmer had 300 hogs that were bad and definitely not fit for human consumption and came in to sell them would you let them all in except the industry percentage of bad hogs?

The reason for tanking hogs should not have anything to do with percentages, it should have to do with the reasons you tank hogs only. I doubt it was just a matter of bruising, but we really don't know that for sure.

There should be no CFIA incentive to step in this matter and do what was done to Dr. Frazee without followup. The fact that it did do these things and obviously does have an incentive to take the kind of action against Dr. Frazee that means there needs to be an investigation into CFIA corruption.

I don't know what it takes to "tank" a hog, but if a batch of hogs was bad and they all needed to be "tanked" I would want an enforcement agency that could tank them, not look to some number percent of industry average as an excuse not to do it.

The threat that the producers gave needs to be followed up. If the producers could just take a batch of hogs that was bad to another facility and get them passed, it doesn't say much about the CFIA's integrity and Canada's food safety. (This isn't a jab against Canadians, the U.S. regulators are just as bad).

Barring further specific information, the most common answer for incidences like this is a regulatory agency management that is corrupt, not an individual with his/her agenda.


"Despite three independent assessments that upheld Dr. Frazee's conduct, his duties continued to be restricted after Mr. Larsen and the producers took their complaints up agency ranks to the regional director. In one letter to a senior agency official, a group of hog producers said that, if Dr. Frazee was not removed, they would take their hogs to other facilities. "No other option is acceptable," the letter warned."

I hope they follow up with the CFIA management, the producers, and if the Dr. Frazee was correct, warn the other plants nearby of the producers trying to downgrade food safety for their own pocketbook and possibly levee a fine against them. They should also give Dr. Frazee a bonus that comes directly out of the CFIA director's pay if the CFIA director took any punitary actions against Dr. Frazee.

The Canadian dept. of Ag. might also want to try to help those producers fix their quality problems and educate them on food inspection regulations.

I hope this was all just a mistake and we are all reading too much into it.
 

DiamondSCattleCo

Well-known member
Jason said:
But ask yourself this.... if that particular inspector was tanking more hogs percentage wise than industry average or whatever, why was it happening?

There are some answers missing from the information available. Was the inspector within the letter of the law but missing the intent?

I don't think there are many answers missing. 3 independent assessments should have caught him if he were being overly strict. Surely one of the three would have run a flag up the pole if he were being too strict, but instead all three backed him up. That tells me the hogs were tanked with cause.

Irregardless, the CFIA's first responsibility was to their employee and they let him down. You don't suspend or restrict someone until an investigation is complete. After a full investigation is complete, if it shows that Frazee was working within the established system, he deserves an apology and a commendation. As much as I dislike packers, I dislike producers who cut corners and deliver unsafe products more. They hurt the industry worse than all the packer concentration in the world.

Rod
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
agman said:
RobertMac said:
This is the problem with increasing meat demand...consumer perception of what go on in processing plants.

What evidence do you have to back your claim?

When there is evidence backing perception, it's called facts. I'm not claiming facts...just the perceptions I am being told by consumers. The fact is that many consumers have a bad perception of large processors...which tells me large packers have a PR problem. Large packers PUBLICLY announcing a doubling of inspectors in their plants and increasing testing would be good PR. How many Ecoli problems have we had since the increased testing???
 

Brad S

Well-known member
RM,

You may have a few annecdotes about "public perception" but don't confuse that with data. The Giant packers push an amazing amount of product with almost no contamination. And like Diamond S indicates, producers are still responsible for many problems on the processing floor. In beef production we can really help processors by shipping clean cattle and standing them (empty out) before processing.



More inspectors? Advanced HAACP practices are much more responsible for improved sanitation.
 
Top