The Safety of American Meat And Poultry Release No. 0346.97 Backgrounder Improving The Safety of American Meat And Poultry The Food Safety Enforcement Enhancement Act The United States is putting in place a state-of-the-art, science-based meat and poultry inspection system. Times are changing. Our food industry is changing. The means by which government ensures food safety have got to change, too. We lived with the old system for 90 years, but the world is different today. Today's meat and poultry plants are large operations that move millions of pounds of product into grocery stores and restaurants across the country every day. We now know that traditional sight-touch-and-smell inspections overlook the hidden dangers in our food -- bacterial pathogens like E. coli O157:H7 and Salmonella -- that pose the greatest threat to public health. That is why the Clinton Administration is committed to cutting-edge food safety research, to consumer education, and to better ensuring the safety of imported food. A changing food safety environment is also why America needs the Food Safety Enforcement Enhancement Act of 1997. The Act will enable USDA to levy civil penalties tailored specifically to violations of the new food safety standards and to move quickly against public health threats. It will also give USDA the authority to order recalls of unsafe meat or poultry that is a threat to consumers. These tools are no substitute for aggressive inspection and oversight, but they will further enhance food safety for America's consumers. A NEW FOOD SAFETY SYSTEM The heart of USDA's new system is Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP). All federally and State inspected meat and poultry plants have to put in place HACCP systems and new sanitary operating procedures. The traditional system was principally visual. Food safety inspectors relied on sight, touch, and smell to prevent contaminated food from entering the market. The traditional system works in many respects, but has two fundamental flaws. First, rather than preventing contamination, it focuses on catching contamination after it occurs. Second, it cannot detect harmful bacteria like E. coli O157:H7 and Salmonella, which are invisible to the naked eye. The latest science and technology are not being harnessed to protect American consumers. The new HACCP system changes all that, putting in place controls to prevent contamination and verifies that the controls are working. It directly targets E. coli and Salmonella. It is also designed first and foremost to prevent, not just identify, contamination. Here's how it works. Each meat and poultry plant is required to identify all of the hazards, or ways in which contamination could occur, in its operation. The plants then establish critical control points at which steps are taken to prevent contamination. After plants validate their plan, or make sure it works, they must keep written records that verify that the system is being faithfully followed. And for the unavoidable system breakdown, the plant follows a written plan to correct the problem and determine what to do with the affected product. The New Roles of Government and Industry under HACCP The HACCP rule makes it clear that industry is responsible for producing safe food. Rather than micromanaging or trying to impose a detailed one-size-fits-all system on every plant, the Food Safety and Inspection Service will set the food safety standards and will allow plant managers to establish procedures that work best for them. USDA inspectors will be less directly involved in a plant's operations, but they will continue to play a crucial role in protecting the public health. In addition to traditional tasks, such as carcass-by-carcass inspection, inspectors will monitor operations at each plant's critical control points, review records verifying conformance with HACCP plans, and collect samples for scientific testing for pathogens. USDA needs new enforcement tools to hold industry accountable when, through inspection and compliance activities, USDA finds violations of food safety standards. NEW ENFORCEMENT TOOLS ARE NEEDED TO ENFORCE THIS NEW FOOD SAFETY SYSTEM The Food Safety Enforcement Enhancement Act will better protect American consumers by giving USDA enforcement tools that will make this new food safety system work more effectively. The bill will do three things: (1) it will give USDA the power to assess civil fines; (2) it will require notification to USDA of contaminated meat or poultry and authorize mandatory recalls of unsafe meat and poultry products; and (3) it will clarify and reinforce USDA's authority to refuse or withdraw inspection. CIVIL PENALTIES An Effective Deterrent Against Food Safety Violations The Food Safety Enforcement Enhancement Act would give USDA the ability to impose civil fines against plants that violate food safety regulations. Civil fines serve as a deterrent and can be imposed more quickly than criminal penalties or the withdrawal of inspection. They can be appropriately tailored to the nature and scope of the violation, as well as to the size and type of business. As USDA moves to the HACCP-based inspection system, more flexible enforcement tools will become even more important. Under HACCP, proper recordkeeping is essential to ensure that plants are complying with food safety regulations. If a plant fails to keep accurate records, criminal penalties or suspension of inspection might be warranted, but, civil fines would often be a more appropriate remedy and will help hold plants accountable. Food safety problems can also arise outside of federally inspected meat and poultry plants. USDA has only limited enforcement tools. The civil fines proposed in this bill will give USDA an enforcement tool against distributors, transporters, and retailers who do not meet their food safety responsibilities. Civil Penalties: A Common Tool Among Other Government Agencies Civil fines are a common tool to enforce Federal laws. The Consumer Product Safety Commission has the ability to fine companies that distribute products in violation of product safety standards. The Federal Aviation Administration has the ability to impose fines for violations of airline safety laws. USDA can also impose civil fines in a wide variety of situations. For example, USDA has the authority to fine people who mistreat animals, people who exchange food stamps for cash, and people who fail to keep appropriate records on watermelons. But, USDA does not have this authority for food safety. Due Process Protection for Industry The Food Safety Enforcement Act provides due process protections for industry, restricting USDA's ability to impose fines until after opportunity for a hearing before an independent administrative law judge. Someone USDA fines could also appeal to the Federal courts. HACCP COMPLIANCE BY REFUSING OR WITHDRAWING INSPECTION Most plants are committed to producing the safest food possible. Unfortunately, there are some bad actors who persistently violate food safety standards. The Food Safety Enforcement Act would reinforce USDA's ability to protect consumers by taking strong action against these companies. USDA's existing authorities to withdraw or deny inspection have historically been used on a problem by problem basis. Under HACCP, USDA will need to take strong action against companies that either willfully or repeatedly fail to operate HACCP systems in compliance with food safety standards. Most plants will successfully implement HACCP systems. But for those few who do not, who either willfully or repeatedly fail to meet the new standards, the Food Safety Enforcement Act would reinforce USDA's ability to take effective action to protect American consumers. Due Process Protection for Industry The Food Safety Enforcement Act provides due process protections. Plant operators have the right to a full hearing before an independent administrative law judge and the right to seek judicial review of any USDA order refusing or withdrawing inspection. USDA can, however, deny or suspend inspection prior to the hearing if necessary to protect the public health. MANDATORY NOTIFICATION AND RECALL Mandatory Notification Mandatory notification will improve food safety because the quicker USDA is notified of potentially contaminated meat and poultry, the quicker American consumers can be protected. All plants and companies throughout the food processing and distribution system, including restaurants and grocery stores, would be required to notify USDA if they have reason to believe that meat or poultry is contaminated. Household consumers would be specifically exempted from this requirement. Here is one example why mandatory notification is important. In 1994, a major restaurant chain required the plant that supplied its hamburgers to test for E. coli O157:H7. When a hamburger tested positive, the restaurant chain recalled the product. Neither the plant nor the chain notified USDA, however, and other product from the plant continued to be distributed into the market for an additional two days before USDA was notified. Mandatory Recall: An Insurance Policy for American Consumers USDA does not have the authority to order unsafe meat or poultry from the market. Under current law, all recalls are done on a completely voluntary basis. For the most part, this voluntary system works. If, however, the system does not function smoothly and without delay in the future, American consumers will be exposed to potentially dangerous meat or poultry; the Food Safety Enforcement Enhancement Act is an insurance policy for American consumers. Mandatory Recall Will Fill in the Gaps in the Existing System About 2,000 plants that produce ground meat fall under USDA's jurisdiction. But about 100,000 retail establishments produce ground meat. Giving USDA the authority to order the recall of suspect ground meat would ensure that such product is recalled from the entire food distribution system. The Power to Seize and Condemn Product Is Insufficient In the past, most food was produced and distributed locally. USDA could easily seize and condemn potentially contaminated meat and poultry. Today, meat or poultry produced by one plant can be distributed across the country to hundreds or thousands of distributors, grocery stores, and restaurants. USDA simply does not have the resources or the information to locate, detain, and seize all suspect product in the food distribution system. The power to order a recall, however, will help ensure that this occurs. Mandatory Recall: A Common Tool Among Other Government Agencies Suppose a very popular toy turns out to be defective, so defective that it could kill the very children it is meant to please. Fortunately, the Consumer Product Safety Commission has, as it should, the ability to order the toy company to pull the unsafe toy from the market. In cases of dangerous chemicals, the Environmental Protection Agency has, as it should, the authority to order a recall. The Food and Drug Administration has mandatory recall authority for a number of products, including infant formula, but not for food products under its jurisdiction. But when hamburger is contaminated with deadly E.coli O157:H7 bacteria, the government does not have the authority to remove it from grocery stores. Several of our major trading partners have mandatory recall authority for meat and poultry. In fact, the majority of our meat and poultry imports are produced under foreign inspection systems with this authority. Due Process Protection for Industry The proposed legislation contains due process safeguards for companies. A company can request an informal hearing when USDA issues a recall order. If the company requests the hearing, USDA can only require that the company stop distributing the suspect meat or poultry and notify others to cease its distribution. The meat or poultry would not be recalled until the hearing is held. Food Safety Initiatives and Accomplishments This legislation is part of the Administration's farm-to-table food safety strategy. It will ensure that USDA can enforce more effectively the food initiatives undertaken since 1993. Since 1993, when a major outbreak of foodborne illness attributed to the presence of E. coli O157:H7 in ground beef occurred, USDA has focused on a more science-based food safety strategy to reduce the risk of illness. USDA also: -Began to require safe handling labels for raw meat and poultry products; -Declared E. coli O157:H7 an adulterant in ground beef; -Began an E. coli O157:H7 testing program; -Announced expansion of food safety research, training, and education and broadening of early warning system for foodborne illnesses through the President's Food Safety Initiative; -Initiated reviews of FSIS' policy on ground product production practices, and FSIS' meat and poultry recall policy, including public notification procedures. CONCLUSION Because of an ongoing revolution in food safety, USDA is doing much more to prevent unsafe food from ever reaching consumers. However, the new rules being put in place will work best with the right tools to enforce them. Mandatory notification and recall, civil penalties, and authority to refuse or withdraw inspection for chronic violators will make it possible for USDA to do the most effective job it can to protect the public health and ensure the safest possible supply of meat and poultry for American consumers. # NOTE: USDA news releases and media advisories are available on the Internet. Access the USDA Home Page on the World Wide Web at http://www.usda.gov