PORKER
Well-known member
The 'foggy mark' of inspection
(MEATPOULTRY.com, November 29, 2007)
by Steve Krut
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONTACT THE EDITORS
What does the federal mark of meat and poultry inspection really mean?
For consumers, the mark is generally thought of as a certified assurance by USDA that the product has been "inspected and passed" and is wholesome to eat. To the shipping plant, particularly for ground beef or beef trimmings, it means the plant and product have met all government inspection requirements for it to be shipped and sold in commerce.
To USDA's Food Safety & Inspection Service, it means the agency has an inspector "in attendance" during operations and that they detected no problem. But for the small plant, retailer, wholesaler or grinder that receives this product, it means that if a problem is detected with this product once it is in their shop or after they sell it, they will be held responsible and suffer the consequences.
For more than a decade, FSIS has played the eunuch in such instances, seemingly denying it has power to do much except go after the facility caught holding the bag, the chub pack or the box. Even when an enteric pathogen like E. coli O157.H7 or Salmonella is found in the product (meaning the problem originated in a slaughter facility where a broken intestine or hide manure was the likely source of contamination) it holds the receiving plant accountable. Whether a matter of convenience, cost or fear of taking on bigger and more well-heeled folks for the defendant's chair, the agency has demonstrated a pattern at balking at the truth.
Even though it is unreasonable to assume that the enteric problem originated in a facility that does not slaughter, FSIS has made this its starting point, and too commonly, its point of resolving the problem. The agency response is typically to have the receiving plant reassess its HACCP plans or make other changes. Even when it could test other raw material from the same lot still on hand at the receiving plant, the agency squanders its resources on a localized inquisition. With this delay, the trail goes cold and more potentially adulterated product is consumed.
The agency contends that its officials are not sufficiently trained to do tracebacks to plants or origin and may waste days, weeks or even months avoiding the probable truth. There is a simple answer to that scenario: Train the officials and let them document the origin of all products on site when a presumptive result for pathogens is found. Surely that does not require an advanced degree or complex training.
In years past, agency officials suggested options to plants receiving contaminated product, including having the plant operator go to the source plant and verify their HACCP program, which was a great idea if the plant was in the same country and if they would even let you in to check things out.
Sensing trouble on the horizon, larger plants have opted for such liability-dodging tactics as labeling raw ground product as suitable only for use in cooked final product. USDA itself is toying with the idea of insisting on "purchasing specifications" for plants that have already been victimized by receipt of contaminated product.
Whether FSIS will ever demonstrate enough gumption to look into the corporate policies of those shipping products under those guises is questionable at best. It even hesitates to let its inspectors document the source product still on hand after a problem has been discovered in a receiving plant, a process that would take five minutes at best. This could potentially be the most effective five minutes an inspector could spend in a plant if the goal is to prevent contamination.
Raw product was, and is likely to always be, a potential carrier for such bacteria unless it is irradiated or cooked properly. The political ramification of admitting that everyone is responsible would be a backtracking step for FSIS that the public and Congress would assail.
Thus, the game continues. Serious traceback steps are the exception, not the rule, in this year of spikes in the detection program for E.coli. Major packers have invested millions to get the counts down. And while they've been pressured by USDA, it will be only slower line speeds, closer physical inspection, new technology and serious, prompt tracebacks at the first smell of smoke that improves the record.
For smaller receiving plants that undergo the ensuing increase in down-line testing, holding product until test results are in and improved lotting systems could help.
But until animal science develops a foolproof way of eliminating these pathogens from the livestock as they are raised, as much as we hate to admit it, the label may state that it is "inspected and passed" but the realists will continue to read between the lines. Emperor still wears no clothes and the truth is still bare on this controversy.
Steve Krut is the author of M&P's bimonthly, Small Business Matters features. He previously served as the executive director for the American Association of Meat Processors for 26 years.
(MEATPOULTRY.com, November 29, 2007)
by Steve Krut
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONTACT THE EDITORS
What does the federal mark of meat and poultry inspection really mean?
For consumers, the mark is generally thought of as a certified assurance by USDA that the product has been "inspected and passed" and is wholesome to eat. To the shipping plant, particularly for ground beef or beef trimmings, it means the plant and product have met all government inspection requirements for it to be shipped and sold in commerce.
To USDA's Food Safety & Inspection Service, it means the agency has an inspector "in attendance" during operations and that they detected no problem. But for the small plant, retailer, wholesaler or grinder that receives this product, it means that if a problem is detected with this product once it is in their shop or after they sell it, they will be held responsible and suffer the consequences.
For more than a decade, FSIS has played the eunuch in such instances, seemingly denying it has power to do much except go after the facility caught holding the bag, the chub pack or the box. Even when an enteric pathogen like E. coli O157.H7 or Salmonella is found in the product (meaning the problem originated in a slaughter facility where a broken intestine or hide manure was the likely source of contamination) it holds the receiving plant accountable. Whether a matter of convenience, cost or fear of taking on bigger and more well-heeled folks for the defendant's chair, the agency has demonstrated a pattern at balking at the truth.
Even though it is unreasonable to assume that the enteric problem originated in a facility that does not slaughter, FSIS has made this its starting point, and too commonly, its point of resolving the problem. The agency response is typically to have the receiving plant reassess its HACCP plans or make other changes. Even when it could test other raw material from the same lot still on hand at the receiving plant, the agency squanders its resources on a localized inquisition. With this delay, the trail goes cold and more potentially adulterated product is consumed.
The agency contends that its officials are not sufficiently trained to do tracebacks to plants or origin and may waste days, weeks or even months avoiding the probable truth. There is a simple answer to that scenario: Train the officials and let them document the origin of all products on site when a presumptive result for pathogens is found. Surely that does not require an advanced degree or complex training.
In years past, agency officials suggested options to plants receiving contaminated product, including having the plant operator go to the source plant and verify their HACCP program, which was a great idea if the plant was in the same country and if they would even let you in to check things out.
Sensing trouble on the horizon, larger plants have opted for such liability-dodging tactics as labeling raw ground product as suitable only for use in cooked final product. USDA itself is toying with the idea of insisting on "purchasing specifications" for plants that have already been victimized by receipt of contaminated product.
Whether FSIS will ever demonstrate enough gumption to look into the corporate policies of those shipping products under those guises is questionable at best. It even hesitates to let its inspectors document the source product still on hand after a problem has been discovered in a receiving plant, a process that would take five minutes at best. This could potentially be the most effective five minutes an inspector could spend in a plant if the goal is to prevent contamination.
Raw product was, and is likely to always be, a potential carrier for such bacteria unless it is irradiated or cooked properly. The political ramification of admitting that everyone is responsible would be a backtracking step for FSIS that the public and Congress would assail.
Thus, the game continues. Serious traceback steps are the exception, not the rule, in this year of spikes in the detection program for E.coli. Major packers have invested millions to get the counts down. And while they've been pressured by USDA, it will be only slower line speeds, closer physical inspection, new technology and serious, prompt tracebacks at the first smell of smoke that improves the record.
For smaller receiving plants that undergo the ensuing increase in down-line testing, holding product until test results are in and improved lotting systems could help.
But until animal science develops a foolproof way of eliminating these pathogens from the livestock as they are raised, as much as we hate to admit it, the label may state that it is "inspected and passed" but the realists will continue to read between the lines. Emperor still wears no clothes and the truth is still bare on this controversy.
Steve Krut is the author of M&P's bimonthly, Small Business Matters features. He previously served as the executive director for the American Association of Meat Processors for 26 years.