Meat + Poultry - March 2006 - 18

Washington
F.S.I.S. hears concerns of
smaller processors
By Bernard Shire
meat&poultry@sosland.com

Over the past six months, U.S.D.A.'s
Food Safety and Inspection Service has
been trying to improve its relationships
with industry. Government officials are
appeasing small and very small meat
and poultry processing companies by
"listening" to plant complaints and concerns. This has been sparked in part by
the agency's desire to conform to the
Regulatory Flexibility Act, which requires regulatory agencies to assess if
their rules hinder small businesses more
than other companies they regulate.
The food inspection agency has been
holding meetings in areas where there
are peak problems such as California,
where there are many small operations; in rural Montana, where there
are far fewer plants but a history of
bad relationships between F.S.I.S. officials and federally inspected plants,
which has led some plants to opt for
state inspection; and Pennsylvania, a
hotbed of very small plants. At last
count, more than 400 small plants
were operating in Pennsylvania.
Dr. Barbara Masters, F.S.I.S. administrator; Dr. Kenneth Petersen, F.S.I.S.
assistant administrator
for field operations; and
local F.S.I.S. district
managers have hosted
the listening sessions.
During this same peMasters
riod, the International
HACCP Alliance hosted a meeting in
Dallas that included federal and state
food regulatory agencies, including
F.S.I.S., the Food and Drug Administration, and U.S.D.A.'s Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service, as well as
industry trade associations and universities. The purpose, according to Dr.
Kerri Harris, executive director of the
alliance, was to determine the needs of
the very small businesses, explore how
of smaller processors plant food safety
programs could be improved and help
these small businesses comply better
18

MEAT&POULTRY

March 2006

with government regulations.
During the HACCP meetings, the
regulators and industry looked at six obstacles preventing small and very small
plants from being in compliance:
1. Small plants often lack of documentation for HACCP and food
safety programs;
2. Failure to obtain consistent
responses to questions from
F.S.I.S. personnel in writing;
3. A need for additional guidance
documents from F.S.I.S. focusing on small plant issues;
4. A need for additional educational opportunities for both F.S.I.S.
and industry personnel;
5. A lack of consistent responses
to industry from F.S.I.S. inspectors and the Technical Service
Center; and
6. The failure of many small/very
small plants to appeal F.S.I.S.
decisions.
According to Dr. Richard Raymond, U.S.D.A. under secretary for
food safety who
attended
the
meeting, F.S.I.S.
is greatly concerned that large
plants are leaving many plants
behind when it
comes to complying with food safety regulations.
The most recent F.S.I.S.-industry
listening sessions took place in Pennsylvania after the HACCP meeting.
These sessions were held in WilkesBarre, an old industrial area of the
state and a hub for meat processing
as well as the coal-mining industry, and Harrisburg, the state capital
located in the heart of farming and
food processing country.
The invitation from U.S.D.A. was
quite open and above board. The agency asked small and very small processors to come to the meetings and talk
about whatever was on their minds,
including difficulties with inspectors
and inspection, and any unfairness in
the inspection process.

www.MEATPOULTRY.com

Unfortunately, huge numbers of processors didn't accept the invitation, despite the cajoling of trade associations.
Some company owners who decided
not to attend considered the sessions "a
waste of time" and complained they were
held during the week at the peak of their
business operations. Meanwhile, trade
associations insist processors should not
expect any change if their concerns aren't
brought to the attention of government
officials who are willing to listen.
In Dallas, all parties agreed there is
a need to "educate before you regulate." However, education can't be
expected to replace regulations, and
government regulatory actions will
continue to be taken to protect public
health. Harris of the HACCP Alliance is hopeful that actions proposed
for each perceived "need" voiced at
the meeting will result in help for the
small and very small plants.
At the listening sessions in California, Montana and Pennsylvania, a host
of issues were thrown in U.S.D.A.'s
lap. Many of
these
issues
were very familiar such as abuse
of overtime by
inspectors
in
small plants and
how very small
plants can appeal U.S.D.A. regulatory decisions
without arousing inspector anger.
The ball was thrown into U.S.D.A.'s
court. "We've brought up our concerns
and issues," one processor remarked.
"I think Barbara Masters really wants
to do something. But is it possible for
a rigid bureaucracy to make changes?
It's up to them."

Some company owners
who decided not to attend
considered the sessions "a
waste of time."

Bernard Shire is a food safety
consultant and writer for Shire &
Associates in Lancaster, Pa., and
previously was director of regulatory
and legislative affairs for the American
Association of Meat Processors.
We would like to hear from you- your comments
and questions about this article are welcome.
E-mail the author at: meat&poultry@sosland.com

http://www.MEATPOULTRY.com

Meat + Poultry - March 2006

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Meat + Poultry - March 2006