The panel consisted of:
J. Patrick Boyle, President and CEO
American Meat Institute
Dr. James "Bo" Reagan, Senior Vice President, Research, Education and Innovation
National Cattlemen's Beef Association
Jill Appell, pork producer, Appell's Pork Farms, Inc.
Past President, National Pork Producers Council
Dr. Elizabeth A. Krushinskie, Director of Quality Assurance and Food Safety,
Mountaire Farms, Inc., on behalf of the National Chicken Council
Dr. Michael Rybolt, Director, Scientific and Regulatory Affairs
National Turkey Federation
Elliot P. Gibber, President
Deb-El Foods, on behalf of United Egg Association Further Processors Division
Barry L. Carpenter, Chief Executive Officer
National Meat Association
American Meat Institute (Boyle)
Boyle began by reminding the committee about all of the small, family businesses that AMI represents. He prefaced that by stating that the AMI represents companies that together produce 90 percent of the nation's beef, pork, veal, and lamb and 75 percent of the nation's turkey. While it may be true that "more than half of AMI's members are small, family-owned businesses employing fewer than 100 individuals," I think it's probably more important to remember that the meat industry is highly, highly consolidated and becoming more so with each passing year. In the last year, two of the top beef packers merged (JBS Swift and Smithfield) so that the top 5 companies that account for over 90% of the nation's beef became the top 4 companies instead.
Then Boyle spoke about how safe our meat supply is. He said that the sky isn't falling but "most rational individuals still believe that food safety can be improved." He basically made the case that the meat industry's already doing just that, and that the government regulation in place is good enough already.
Boyle then through in a weasely bit about microbiological performance standards. He noted that the meat industry has been reducing the prevalence of pathogens like E. coli, Listeria, and Salmonella in their products BUT the incidence of illnesses from Salmonella actually went UP during that time. So therefore Boyle thinks that reducing the amount of pathogens in food is "inappropriate" and "arbitrary."
He went on to request that Congress please do not strengthen the USDA. He reminded them how powerful the USDA is already, and pressed them to NOT give the USDA authority to call for mandatory recalls. Overall, he believes that control measures should be based on the particular risk of each given food and that inspection programs or other regulations that do not directly contribute to better public health "waste scarce resources and divert attention from issues of public health importance." Which such a statement makes sense, I interpret his overall statement to mean: Things are great, so please don't increase regulations. Thanks.
National Cattlemen's Beef Assocation (Reagan)
First off, he's thrilled that America has "the most affordable, nutritious, and safest food supply in the world." I wonder how he can say that with a straight face. Going on with his testimony he notes that two pathogens of particular concern to the beef industry are E. coli and Salmonella. He tells about efforts in the late 1990s to discover more about E. coli in live animals in order to "develop interventions that could be used pre-harvest and to continue improving post-harvest interventions and their efficacy." (Harvest? As in slaughter? I hate euphemisms.) In other words - how can we reduce E. coli in live animals. Great idea. How about feeding them alfalfa or grass in the last few days before slaughter since that reduces E. coli 0157:H7 by 99%? Oh, no. He suggests "vaccines, sodium chlorate, direct fed microbials and neomycin."
One more clever point he makes? Everyone plays a role in food safety. Sometimes, it's the consumer's fault for not cooking their E. coli tainted burgers well enough before eating them. (He didn't use that wording... he said "Consumers play an important role in food safety and should always follow the food handling, cooking, and storage steps that are essential in preventing foodborne illness.")
His next point is that "it is the responsibility of our government to give the industry the various tools needed to keep our food safe," which I believe means "leave us alone and let us handle it ourselves - no regulations, please!" He notes various methods of improving food safety in processing plants including hide washes, hand-held steam vacuums, spray washes, organic acid sprays and irradiation. Yum, doesn't that make you hungry for a burger?
Nestled into his arguments that consumers should cook their food and that the government should leave the beef industry alone (but go ahead and use taxpayer dollars to fund food safety research by the USDA), he actually says something that I particularly agree with:
Another area of concern for beef producers is the misconception that an animal identification program is a necessary component for food safety. Animal identification programs are tools to help monitor and trace in the event of an animal health emergency. Animal ID systems do not enhance food safety, nor were they ever intended to. In addition, animal ID systems do not prevent animal disease; they are only a tool to help contain them.
National Pork Producers Council (Appell)
Appell began by reminding the committee that the pork industry creates "nearly 35,000 full-time equivalent jobs" and "provides about 20 billion pounds of safe, wholesome and nutritious meat protein to consumer worldwide" (a particularly ironic statement in the middle of the swine flu outbreak and in light of the recent headlines about hogs, pork, and MRSA). Oh, and pork producers are very committed to safety and animal welfare. Clearly.
So what were her concerns? In addition to not wishing for more regulation (like those before her, she thinks the government already does a good job!), she does not want her industry to be charged fees for the privilege of being inspected by the government. That's a proposal that's on the table in the bill H.R.759, which would establish such fees for those inspected by the FDA. Her solution to the problem is having Congress fully fund food safety agencies so that they don't need to charge fees to industry. She also noted that many government inspectors, particularly veterinarians, are eligible to retire in the next few years and suggests the government do more to recruit and retain veterinarians.
What does she think the government needs to do better? She notes inconsistencies among state health departments - some do a great job of finding and reporting food borne illness and others don't - and wants to see improvement there. She also wants better communication between the USDA and the FDA. Then she speaks at length about plant closings:
A specific area that needs to be addressed is how FSIS handles plant closings. U.S. pork producers have an obligation to handle pigs humanely during the loading and unloading of trucks as they are moved to market. Our partners in the plant have the same obligation in the holding pens and the stunning area. However, situations have arisen recently where one pig in a plant is handled inhumanely, the plant is shut down and hundreds of pigs enroute [sic] to the plant - or at the plant but still on trucks - are not allowed to be unloaded. U.S. pork producers strongly agree that pigs should be humanely handled at all times, but shutting down a plant for an inhumane action against one pig can leave hundreds of pigs on trailers for hours, resulting in pig deaths.
I would LOVE to find out what was done to the "mishandled" pig in these situations that was so bad it led to the inspector closing down the plant.
Other than that, she doesn't want the USDA or FDA to have mandatory recall authority. She also doesn't want stricter standards on performance standards for acceptable levels of pathogens in pork. She doesn't want any on-farm inspections. And, last, she does not want the government to develop its own industry standards for the pork industry.
National Chicken Council (Krushinskie)
Like the others, she bragged about how safe her industry already is. "The broiler industry has always taken very seriously its obligation to produce safe, wholesome, high quality products." Then she spoke about how strict the current system is, bringing up USDA inspection and HACCP. She clearly says "Since FSIS regulation is already pervasive, the agency does not need more power."
National Turkey Federation (Rybolt)
Naturally, Rybolt wants us to know how safe our turkeys already are, particularly pointing out the implementation of HACCP in 1998. As part of the HACCP finaly rule, Rybolt says that FSIS tests for pathogens to make sure each establishment is meeting their standards. What he doesn't say is that the USDA currently lacks the legal authority to shut down a plant that repeatedly fails these microbial tests.
The turkey industry's own data, which is blinded and complied by NTF, demonstrates that the current incidence of Salmonella on whole turkey carcasses is about 6 percent, less than half the standard.
Wait a second, does that mean that 6% of turkeys are contaminated with salmonella? And that's good? What happens to the 6% of turkeys with salmonella? Are they sold to consumers? Surely if the testing is just sampling then most of the tainted turkeys are not detected - you'd have to test every turkey to do that.
About recalls, he says:
In the unfortunate event that unsafe or unwholesome product has been shipped into commerce, a establishments historically have worked with FSIS and voluntarily issued a product recall. Congress, in the 2008 Farm Bill, made a significant adjustment to this process. Upon completion of implementing regulations, any establishment that has reason to believe adulterated or misbranded products have been shipped into commerce will be required to notify USDA regarding the type, amount, origin and destination of the product. Should an establishment fail to issue a voluntary recall, FSIS does have the legal authority to seize and detain the affected product. It also has the authority, which it has exercised in the past, to issue a public health alert. I am not aware of any situation where a meat or poultry plant has failed to issue a recall. In an era where most meat and poultry products are branded, and corporate identities and reputations are tied to the quality of those products, the recall and news release remains, perhaps, the most powerful enforcement tool of all.
Note that despite all of the things he lists that the USDA can do, one of the things the USDA can't do is call for a mandatory recall. FYI. All in all, Rybolt thinks the current system is working pretty well, although he admits it could be made better, and he cautions Congress from making any drastic changes.
United Egg Association (Gibber)
As Gibber points out, eggs are unique because the FDA and USDA share regulatory duties over them. But that's only shell eggs. The USDA alone regulates liquid, frozen, and dried egg products (which equals about 1/3 of the egg industry as a whole). Also, the USDA mandates pasteurization of all processed egg products.
Gibber noted some opposition to the creation of a single food agency (although the United Egg Association has no official position). According to Gibber, restructuring government makes a mess and results in lost efficiencies and institutional knowledge. He specifically said he doesn't want any restructuring that reduces the food safety responsibilities of the Ag committee. No wonder. The Ag committee is totally sympathetic to Big Ag. That's precisely WHY I want to see a single food safety agency created under the Department of Health and Human Services.
Gibber also requested that the USDA move from its current "command and control" regulatory structure to HACCP. I think that means: Please leave us alone and let us just fill out paperwork. And most of all, Gibber doesn't want increased inspection requirements.
National Meat Association (Carpenter)
Carpenter's testimony focused on plants with less than 20 employees, which make up 25% of NMA's membership. He notes that HACCP was implemented in a way that recognized the impact it might have on small plants and made accommodations for them, and praised that approach as successful. A small plant, by the way, was considered to be one with less than 500 employees (according to the USDA). He spoke at length about the implementation of HACCP and lauded HACCP as a great way to keep food safe. He also asked for the government to include industry as it crafts any new policies. |
