| Remarks prepared for delivery
by Dr. H. Scott Hurd, Deputy Under Secretary for Food Safety,
to the 2008 AFDO 112th Annual Educational Conference, June 9,
2008, in Anaheim, California.
Notes: Slides are available in an attached
PDF document; individual pages are linked within the text.
Links to organizations outside USDA open in a second window.
Introduction
(Slide 1) Good morning. It's great to be here with you to discuss
the USDA Office of Food Safety's ongoing efforts to protect
the U.S. food supply.
At USDA, we value AFDO as a true partner in our efforts to
keep our nation's food supply among the safest in the world.
Some of the tangible products that have resulted from this cooperation
are:
- A HACCP-based course of instruction on meat and poultry
processing at retail;
- Guidelines for effective State regulation of slaughter facilities
exempt from mandatory inspection under federal law; and
- A partnership for coordinating state and local governments
in an integrated national effort to link government food laboratories
at all levels through FoodSHIELD.
- This Web-based platform, sponsored by AFDO, allows the diverse
groups of regulatory officials, laboratorians, researchers,
and stakeholders who are responsible for protecting the nation's
food supply to interact and function as one unified network.
Basics
(Slide 2) Many of you are already familiar with what the Office
of Food Safety accomplishes on a daily basis.
The Office of Food Safety oversees the Food Safety and Inspection
Service, which carries out USDA's food safety regulatory program,
as well as important public health outreach and education activities
focused on enhancing the safety of the U.S. food supply.
Our mission is to ensure the safety and wholesomeness of the
nation's commercial supply of meat, poultry and processed egg
products. It doesn't matter if those products are imported to,
or exported from, the United States.
(Slide 3) In the present food safety environment, it's critical
that we all work together to ensure the safety of the food that
our families — and the consumers we serve — eat, as well as
the intricate supply chain that makes these meals possible.
Our responsibilities are clear. Industry is accountable for
producing safe food. To make sure those products are safe, we:
- Conduct carcass-by-carcass inspection, and
- Set appropriate food safety standards.
We also:
- Verify through inspection that those standards are met,
and
- Maintain a strong enforcement program to deal with plants
that don't meet regulatory standards.
(Slide 4) These numbers for Fiscal Year 2007 tell the story.
Of our 9,000+ employee workforce, 7,800 are full-time inspectors
on the front line every day/every shift in more than 6,000 federally
regulated plants.
And our inspection employees maintain a continuous presence
in slaughter establishments throughout the United States doing
carcass by carcass inspection.
- (Slide 5) In total, 48 billion pounds of livestock carcasses,
almost 57 billion pounds of poultry carcasses, and about 4.3
billion pounds of processed egg products are inspected annually;
- 9 million inspection procedures are conducted annually;
and
- 3.9 billion pounds of meat and poultry and 5.9 million
pounds of liquid egg products are presented for import inspection
every year.
Hallmark/Westland
(Slide 6) Before I talk about our efforts to combat foodborne
illnesses, I'd like to take a few moments to address the Hallmark/Westland
recall.
As I'm sure you're all aware, Hallmark/Westland Meat Packing
Co. was the subject of an undercover video by The Humane Society
of the United States that depicted alleged humane handling violations.
After the video was released to the media and USDA, we initiated
an investigation, which is still ongoing and being led by our
Office of Inspector General. Through the investigation, FSIS
has obtained evidence that the establishment had the practice
of occasionally slaughtering cattle that had already passed
ante-mortem inspection but became non-ambulatory prior to entering
the slaughter operation without notifying our Public Health
Veterinarian. This practice is not compliant with FSIS regulations.
Therefore, FSIS determined that their products are unfit for
human food because the cattle did not receive complete and proper
inspection.
Based on this noncompliance with FSIS regulations, Hallmark/Westland
Meat Packing Co. voluntarily recalled 143 million pounds of
raw and frozen beef products produced since February 1, 2006.
FSIS issued a Class II recall (PDF Only) on February 17, 2008.
A point I want to stress is that this is not a food safety
issue. This meat was recalled because the plant violated our
regulations and therefore the meat is considered unfit for sale
— unfit, but not unsafe.
Current Initiatives
Now I'd like to share with you the ongoing and upcoming initiatives
that we're using to combat pathogens like Listeria,
Salmonella, and E. coli, and our plans for
the future.
(Slide 7) I think everyone will agree that to be successful,
public health decisions must be based on science and data. In
November 2005, the Agency began its evolution toward a more
public health focused/risk-based inspection system.
Since then, we have held a number of public meetings and technical
summits and have actively encouraged input from all of our stakeholders.
We have also incorporated risk into our initiatives to combat
pathogens that cause foodborne illnesses.
(Slide 8) You may be aware that before we moved forward to
a more robust risk-based inspection system in processing, Congress
and the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) told us we needed
to spend even more time examining our approach and making sure
we have a strong data system and infrastructure in place.
To facilitate this, we formed two new entities, the Data Coordinating
Committee and the Data Analysis and Integration Group (DAIG).
These groups ensure that data used by FSIS for decision making
are of high quality and consistent with relevant guidelines.
To further strengthen our focus on data, FSIS created analysis
plans for directives and notices, conducted peer reviews and
solicited input from stakeholders, and developed a consistent
set of tools for conducting data analysis.
FSIS worked closely with OIG on its audit and we're pleased
that OIG agrees with our responses to all 35 of its recommendations.
(Slide 9) The Agency has made a good deal of progress in its
collection, analysis, and response to data, including using
data to predict problems before they occur.
Our inspection system will continue to need to evolve to better
utilize risk in public health decision-making based on science
and data. We need to target our resources where they can best
ensure food safety systems are under control.
We believe this will help us to achieve FSIS' public health
mission better, by:
- Focusing inspection activities on vulnerable points in
the food safety system;
- Prioritizing deployable resources to establishments with
evidence of a lack of process control; and
- Reporting data from these inspections for use in protecting
public health.
Listeria
(Slide 10) As I mentioned, we've taken a risk-based approach
to battling pathogens that cause foodborne illness. By instituting
risk-based sampling for Listeria monocytogenes targeted
on establishments that are more likely to generate products
contaminated with Lm, we focus our resources on plants
and processes with the greatest risk to public health. Since
1998, the percentage of regulatory samples of meat and poultry
products that tested positive for Lm has fallen by
more than 80 percent.
Salmonella
(Slide 11) We've also taken a risk-based approach to combat
Salmonella. In February 2006, FSIS announced an 11-point
Salmonella reduction plan, which concentrated resources
at establishments with higher levels of Salmonella
and changed the reporting and utilization of FSIS Salmonella
verification test results.
The Agency heard repeatedly before the plan's implementation
that it just wasn't practical to reduce the prevalence of Salmonella,
especially in poultry. This initiative's success once again
highlights the simple truth that new science-based approaches,
economic incentives, and common sense lead to real successes,
even when dealing with problems once thought intractable.
Our progress to combat Salmonella is a direct reflection
of FSIS' science-based policies and our partners' efforts to
produce a safer product. For example, in broilers we've seen
the numbers go from more than 16 percent of samples testing
positive for the pathogen in 2005 down to single digits.
On March 28, FSIS began posting on its Web site the results
of completed sample sets for broiler slaughter establishments
performing in Category 2 or 3, making it clear to everyone -
the news media, business partners, and ordinary consumers -
which ones are poorly performing. The results are posted on
the FSIS Web site — www.fsis.usda.gov — around the 15th of each
month.
We've started with young broilers, but are considering other
product categories as well.
Making the results public is part of an effort to strongly
encourage industry to further reduce the presence of Salmonella
on raw carcasses and ground product.
E. coli O157:H7
(Slide 12) Now I'd like to talk about the overall progress we've
made over the long haul in controlling E. coli O157:H7.
The Agency's E. coli O157:H7 initiatives and industry's
collective response in 2002 helped drive the rates of positive
samples down in 2002, 2003 and 2004, and these rates remained
at 0.17 percent for 2005 and 2006 — a decline of 80 percent
in positive samples from 2002 to 2006. But in 2007, the rate
increased to 0.23 percent. To put that percentage into perspective,
out of 12,000 samples taken in 2007, only 27 — a miniscule amount
— were positive for E. coli O157:H7.
Last year, we also experienced an increase in the number of
recalls related to E. coli O157:H7 — 21 recalls, with
10 due to reported illnesses.
I don't think anyone has become complacent in the last year
or two. What may have changed is the ecology of the bug, or
the prevalence of the bug, or the concentrations of the bug
on hides or in the gut of the animal. The increase in recalls
may also be due to statistical variation.
(Slide 13) In April, FSIS held a public meeting to discuss
challenges and proposed solutions in moving forward to address
recalls and illnesses related to E. coli O157:H7. More
than 200 people from government, industry, academia, and consumer
groups attended the meeting. I think the discussions we had
were very frank, and I'm hopeful that we can rally industry
around new ideas to combat E. coli just as we did with HACCP
and the principle that public health is not a competitive issue.
We're also focused on improving coordination during foodborne
illness outbreak investigations and response. FSIS, in conjunction
with the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, held a public meeting May 15 in St.
Louis, Missouri. The meeting, which was attended by more than
160 people, was part of our follow up on the issue of recalls
and investigation of foodborne illness outbreaks.
After hard work and a close look, we realized with each outbreak
that there was something we could have done better. We're working
to get better. We know there is a clear need for better
communication, as opposed to more communication.
This meeting and the simulated exercise that followed on May
16 were important steps to get different levels of government,
industry, and consumer groups all in the same room to discuss
the challenges and opportunities for coordination in foodborne
illness outbreak investigations — and perhaps listen to a viewpoint
they'd never heard before.
We challenged the participants to identify one single thing
they could each do to improve their own processes. And we encouraged
them to take that challenge back and extend it to their colleagues.
We also got some really good suggestions on new directions
that FSIS could take as an Agency. We're listening to that feedback,
as well as doing some self-examination, and exploring ways to
do some things differently.
I'd like to thank Dan Sowards, a past president of AFDO, for
his efforts in making this meeting a reality.
In addition to AFDO, we also had participants from
Outreach to Small/Very Small Plants
(Slide 14) USDA is also committed to continuing and expanding
our outreach efforts.
Three months ago, we announced a new office within FSIS — the
Office of Outreach, Employee Education and Training — that is
dedicated to serving the needs of small and very small plants.
Through this one-stop location for service, we ensure that
we share with states and industry the same training and resources
that we give to our inspectors. This provides continuity and
consistency in the understanding and application of the Agency's
public health regulatory policy. This new office was created
by better aligning our existing staffing and budget, and without
using any additional resources.
(Slide 15) You can find more information on the resources available
on FSIS' Web site. Our Businesses and Partners page provides
quick and easy access to regulations, directives and notices;
information on HACCP; guidance for state and local agencies;
and workforce training to name a few links.
(Slide 16) Small and very small plant owners can enter the FSIS
Web site through the Small and Very Small Plants page and find
information about FSIS policies, technical assistance, and answers
to common questions from small plants across the country.
We're also exhibiting here at the conference, so be sure to
stop by to learn more about the resources available to you.
State Inspection/Interstate Shipment/Farm Bill
(Slide 17) I'd like to take a few minutes now to talk about
the State Meat and Poultry Inspection programs.
As you know, USDA has a federal-state cooperative program for
States to develop and administer inspection programs that impose
mandatory inspection and sanitation requirements that are "at
least equal to" those in the Federal Meat Inspection Act and
the Poultry Products Inspection Act.
Twenty-seven states provide inspection to more than 1,900 small
and very small establishments.
Based on the self-assessment documents received during Fiscal
Year (FY) 2007, FSIS determined that these 27 state Meat and
Poultry Inspection programs have provided adequate documentation
to support that they have implemented and can maintain Meat
and Poultry Inspection programs "at least equal to" the federal
requirements.
We finalized a summary report (PDF Only) and individual state determination
reports and we have posted these reports on the FSIS Web site.
I also understand that the interstate shipment of state-inspected
product is of interest to many of you.
The 2008 Farm Bill would allow a "hybrid" form of interstate
shipment of state-inspected meat and poultry products.
- State-inspected plants with 25 or fewer employees may request
to be included in a new program that subjects them to federal
inspection regulations administered by state employees, and
thus ship interstate.
- In addition, within the first three years after enactment
of this provision, the Secretary of Agriculture may select
state-inspected establishments with more than 25 employees
for this new "hybrid" program.
FSIS must conduct rulemaking which will likely take at least
18 months before this can begin.
Closing
(Slide 18) I want to thank AFDO and its membership again for
all of your efforts to make our food supply the safest in the
world. We have a strong system in place, and that's due in part
to the work AFDO does every day.
Now, I'd like to open it up for your questions. |
