In a recent press release from the USDA’ Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), new procedures and sampling techniques are being compiled into data in order to decrease the growing prevalence of Salmonella in our nation’s beef and poultry supply. According to a CDC report in 2006, Salmonella accounted for 38.6% of human foodborne illnesses, the greatest of all such pathogens. FSIS also launched their new protocol to deal with Salmonella in 2006. The initiative grouped production establishments into categories based on their rates of Salmonella with current regulations.

The categories for establishments are as follows, as stated in the report:

Category 2 establishments are those with sample set results above half but not exceeding the current standard for one or both of their most recent sample sets and Category 3 are those that are exceeding the current standards. Category 1 establishments have the lowest Salmonella rates of the three categories with sample set results at or below half of the current standards.

All the collected data from the establishments will be posted on the FSIS web site on March 28, 2008. The new compilation of data will shed more light on data already analyzed which shows differences in the third quarter of 2007 with the first quarter.

Eighty-four percent of turkey slaughter establishments are now Category 1, the other 16 percent are in Category 2. These numbers represent significant improvement from the first quarter of 2007 where 53 percent of establishments were in Category 1, 38 percent in Category 2 and three percent at Category 3. For broilers, the percentage of establishments in Category 1 is 73 percent and the percentage of establishments in Category 2 is 23 percent. This figure is up by ten percent from the first quarter of 2007. This is compared with only 35.5 percent of broiler establishments performing in Category 1 after the first quarter of 2006.

New technology such as new equipment, procedures, and processing techniques are also being tested at Category 1 establishments to measure their effectiveness at combating the presence of Salmonella. The partaking establishments take samples during every shift to be sent to FSIS for analysis.

Along with all of the data being collected and analyzed, FSIS has reexamined how to deal with smaller ground beef establishments that produce very little of the beef supply. Rather than taking the majority of test samples from these establishments, more samples are being taken from the larger establishments, while random testing of the smaller establishments continues. FSIS is also looking into sub-groups of establishments, such as ratite or religious-exempt establishments, to make sure that all possible sub-groups are documented and tested so that it can be clearer where contamination is coming from. All data is being compared to data on the CDC’s PulseNet so that the FSIS can have a clearer picture of which facilities are producing products that lead to foodborne illness.

Labels: beef, food safety, FSIS, poultry, Salmonella

Analysts from the Heritage Foundation have studied the current policies and procedures of the food system of the United States, outlining problems with current practices and with reform ideas from the government. The major issues concerning food safety revolve around the regulation of imported products into the U.S. and the way government agencies interact to promote safer food.

In the current system the regulation of food is split between the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) of the Department of Agriculture, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) of the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agency of the Department of Homeland security. FSIS regulates meat, poultry and egg products, FDA regulates everything else, and CBP regulates imports into the country.

Although FSIS regulates a smaller percentage of the nation’s food supply than the FDA, FSIS receives more government funding and handles food safety much differently than the FDA. FSIS creates a list of countries (currently 34) that comply with U.S. safety standards and allows the import of products from firms who are certified by their home nation’s government. The CBP then verifies shipping records when products reach U.S. borders. Once on U.S. soil, FSIS inspects the products in 33 different ports among 135 inspection centers, using a computer system to record vital information. All products must be visually inspected by FSIS officials, while a computer system randomly generates a variety of products to also undergo laboratory testing.

The FDA, on the other hand, utilizes a completely different system. The FDA inspects each foreign firm in order to certify safe producers. This is a difficult task so the agency notes which importing firms are a high or low risk, and does on-site testing on that basis. The FDA can also communicate with the CBP computer systems, while FSIS cannot, to see if the shipments reaching the ports are verified. Because of the lack of funding, the FDA is understaffed and inspections occur far less frequently than FSIS inspections.

Washington has noted the flaws in the procedures of the FDA and FSIS, and has attempted to pass a new strategy to control the safety of our nation’s imported food products. The strategy implements aspects of both systems, calling for more interagency cooperation and for the formation of a single agency to regulate the entire food supply. The reform also includes the certification of countries to import products into America, utilizing import fees and restricting the number of ports available to import products.

The Heritage Foundation, however, sees flaws in the government’s attempt to reform the current system. Rather than imposing penalties on other countries to import food and increasing a government hold on the system, the Heritage Foundation promotes a free market solution to the problem. With simplified government regulations and expanded research into food safety from a scientific standpoint, market forces will promote a safer food supply. Rather than losing money due to bad publicity, companies will voluntarily remove unsafe products from store shelves and competitive forces in the market will favor safer foods. But the Foundation also sees the need for government agencies to have the power to impose mandatory recalls for companies who handle their products irresponsibly.

We respectfully disagree with the Heritage Foundation with regards to a free market solution. This is basically the current federal policy of industry self regulation. As evidenced by the numerous recalls and foodborne outbreaks, this is a failed policy. We do agree that the federal government needs to have the power to impose mandatory recalls on food and other dangerous products.

Labels: FDA, food imports, food regulation, food safety, FSIS