The State of Food Safety
June 18, 2009
The new presidential Administration just
finished its first 100 days in office, pushing through new ideas and new
strategies in myriad areas of government. However, not everything has changed —
the government’s focus on food safety remains among the top concerns. With so
much emphasis on food safety nowadays, The National Provisioner approached Alfred V.
Almanza, Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) Administrator, to get his
take on the meat and poultry industries’ accomplishments and issues in this
arena. What follows is a sneak peek into what the industry and consumers can
expect from FSIS in the future and how they can work best together to reach
ever-higher food safety plateaus.
The National Provisioner: On a scale of 1-10,
where would you say the meat- and poultry-processing industries are in terms of
food safety? What can help the industry boost that number?
Almanza: Like I said before,
the House Agriculture Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry during a
April 23, 2009, hearing on federal food-safety systems, I can only speak from
the Food Safety and Inspection Service perspective, but I would give the
food-safety system an A-plus. There’s always more work to be done, but FSIS
works closely and constantly with the industry and other public-health partners
to make sure that A-plus doesn’t fall to an A. From where I sit, FSIS is a
strong food-safety agency for a very simple reason — we inspect. It’s in our
name. It’s what the public demands and the law requires. And it’s been working
well for more than a century.
NP: What do you believe to be the biggest
threat to food safety in the meat and poultry industries? What are the key
targets/strategies of FSIS to address this situation?
Almanza: Let’s start by
looking at the mission of FSIS. Our mission is to protect the public health.
Since our long-standing statutes were established, our inspection process has
evolved into a preventative system designed to address problems before they
occur. However, there is always room for improvement. One of the key things for
FSIS going forward is, we believe we must measure and attack risk, hazards or
inadequate performance to know where we can best focus our attention and
efforts. In order to efficiently and effectively protect public health, we
recognize that all food doesn’t necessarily carry the same risk and all plants
do not operate the same way.
The different food-safety agencies, consumer representatives and
industry representatives need to look at the various levels of risk posed by
different food products and the different performance of the establishments
that manufacture those food products. The conversation should include a
discussion about what level of inspection is appropriate for different kinds of
foods, what roles are appropriate for the different agencies involved in food
safety, and how we approach uniformity in import safety.
In addition to working with our food-safety partners and
industry, FSIS also relies heavily on data to carry out its mission. In that
vein, FSIS has been working on a number of actions related to data integration
and analysis, and enhancements to the agency’s inspection program, and many are
nearing completion. The most significant initiative is the development of a
Public Health Information System (PHIS), which will integrate the agency’s data
systems to provide a comprehensive, fully automated system that will allow FSIS
to more quickly and accurately identify trends, including vulnerabilities in
food-safety systems, and thus allow us to more efficiently and effectively
protect public health. This system will allow us to be proactive, not reactive,
when it comes to food safety.
NP: Has there been, or will there be, any significant
changes in our nation’s food-safety/security policies or strategies enacted by
the new Administration? How much of an effect on FSIS has the new
Administration had? Furthermore, how have they affected or will they affect
processors?
Almanza: President Obama is
committed to looking at the entire food supply, across products and across
jurisdictions. To accomplish this goal, President Obama has established a Food
Safety Working Group to conduct a thorough review of food-safety systems. The
working group is comprised of government public-health and food-safety
officials who are dedicated to evaluating the current food-safety system and
providing recommendations for the future to President Obama.
In recent years, and in light of large-scale recalls, there has
been a lot of interest in food safety from Congress, our stakeholders and the
public. We fully support the President’s pledge to strengthen and enhance our
nation’s food-safety system. Based on my more than 30 years serving with FSIS
in the field and more recently at headquarters, I believe we are up for the
challenge.
NP: Do you see biologically based
pathogens as a greater threat to food safety/security than, say, “introduced”
contaminants (i.e., foreign objects, improperly added contaminants/allergens,
processing agents, etc.)? Please explain.
Almanza:The FSIS mission is
to ensure that all food we inspect is safe and wholesome. Since our mission is
to protect public health, we take any threat seriously.
Certainly pathogens can cause illnesses, but foreign objects can
cause injury, and contaminants or allergens can cause adverse health effects.
All of these reasons are serious reasons for a recall, but I can assure you
that FSIS inspectors and public-health veterinarians are present in establishments
to ensure that meat and poultry products are safe for consumption.
I should make the point that recalls are the last weapon that
FSIS uses to combat foodborne illness and protect public health. The purpose of
a recall is to remove meat or poultry from commerce as quickly as possible when
FSIS has reason to believe it is adulterated or misbranded. Just as we approach
preventing a recall in a proactive way, FSIS is also proactive in overseeing
recalls once they become necessary.
The agency issues recall information as quickly as possible to
the public, stakeholders and public-health partners. Also, we now translate
many of the recall releases into Spanish. Last year, in order to improve the
effectiveness of a recall, FSIS also began to make available to the public a
list of retail establishments that have likely received products subject to the
recall. FSIS believes this information helps consumers lower their risk of
foodborne illness by providing more information that may assist them in
identifying recalled products. Interested individuals can also subscribe on the
FSIS Web site to get e-mail alerts about the retail distribution lists and
recalls.
The industry also does its part to ensure a product’s safety.
Slaughter and processing establishments develop a food-safety plan, which
addresses issues including pathogens, contaminants and allergens. It is each
plant’s responsibility to ensure that these food-safety plans are followed to
reduce the risk of contamination that could negatively impact the safety of any
meat or poultry product.
NP: How does FSIS work with the
ever-evolving technologies that are developed to serve the industry? Do you
consider any of these advances to be groundbreaking or simply another (good)
step in the process toward creating a much more safe food supply?
Almanza: Technology is
important to us because our policies at FSIS are rooted in science and based on
data. Through science-based initiatives and efforts to continue to strengthen
our infrastructure, FSIS works to prevent adulterated food from reaching the
consumer. In 2008, FSIS personnel tested about 21,300 ready-to-eat product and
environmental samples using risk-based criteria for Listeria and approximately
49,000 raw product samples for E. coli O157:H7 in ground beef and Salmonella in
raw meat and poultry. To analyze these samples, FSIS has three labs, and
supports 25 Food Emergency Response Network (FERN) labs. FERN consists of
federal, state, and local governmental laboratories, which are responsible for
protecting the U.S.
food supply from intentional biological, chemical, and radiological
contamination.
I’d also like to talk about how FSIS has engaged industry
members — for example, on E. coli O157:H7 and non-STEC E. coli. Over the past
year, we’ve held several meetings with key industry representatives and other
stakeholders to discuss the control of E. coli O157:H7. We also meet with
industry to discuss the public-health concerns about non-STEC E. coli. These
meetings are crucial in helping industry face pathogen problems head-on and in
helping to reduce the risk of foodborne illness. I have told several industry
groups lately to expect advancements and expect them soon. We’ve also begun
using more sensitive testing broths, and testing new components for E. coli O157:H7.
We couldn’t have done this without the industry’s support and commitment to
food safety. As pathogens evolve, so must the industry and FSIS.
FSIS also created a new office dedicated to serving small and
very small plants. The Office of Outreach, Employee Education and Training
(OOEET) was created by the industry to assist the industry. FSIS listened to
industry feedback, and created OOEET to specifically aid in outreach to small
and very small plants. Over the past year, FSIS has also unveiled a series of
podcasts for industry members. These podcasts, which range in topic from
“Developing a HACCP Plan” to “Food Defense,” are meant to supplement outreach
that FSIS conducts for plant owners and managers throughout the year.
NP: Along those lines, what technology
excites you in terms of the short-term future of food safety?
Almanza: First off, I’d like
to mention the Public Health Information System, or PHIS. PHIS is a project
that FSIS is excited about. It’s an information and monitoring system that is
being designed to alert inspectors to dangerous food-processing trends; more
rapidly detect and respond to everything from pathogen outbreaks and unsafe
practices to widespread violations; better coordinate with managers,
stakeholders and other agencies while improving investigations and adulterant
tracing; and allow FSIS to enter, coordinate and store information in
centralized data warehouse. The information collected will be constantly
monitored, compared and assessed for unsafe patterns and anomalies that could
spell trouble. PHIS will allow FSIS to be proactive about food safety.
In order to be proactive, we must also look at new trends and
address them head on. For example, over the past year FSIS has conducted several
surveys of industry practices. Through these surveys FSIS found documented
evidence that many processing establishments were grinding primals and
subprimals, which were not intended to be ground — and therefore not tested for
E. coli O157:H7. Through these surveys and the subsequent meetings with
industry members, we were able to produce new guidance for industry on E. coli
O157:H7. We will continue to use data and surveys, like this one, to identify
emerging trends and challenges and address them before they impact food safety.
NP: Finally, with everything protein
processors have to worry about from a regulatory standpoint nowadays (safety,
security, financials, employee issues such as immigration, etc.), what is your
key piece of advice or reassurance for processors, in terms of the areas FSIS
covers?
Almanza: Do your part and be
proactive. The meat and poultry industry is made up of America’s
individuals — they produce our meat and poultry. For the most part, the
industry is receptive to the advancements that FSIS has continued to make in
order to protect public health. FSIS makes an effort to keep the industry in
the loop — through meetings and demonstrations, and even recently through
podcasts targeted toward industry representatives on our FSIS Web site. But the
industry must work hard too, and we must work together. Unfortunately,
pathogens like E. coli O157:H7 are agile bugs — they’ll continue to grow,
evolve and change, and in order to keep up with them, we must grow and evolve
faster.
