Meat + Poultry - September 2006 - 19

Washington

Foreign inspection favoritism?
A new U.S. Dept. of Agriculture rule
may have slipped under most U.S. meat
processors' radar. The regulation involves cutbacks in how often foreign
inspection supervisors are required to
visit plants exporting meat and poultry
products to the United States.
The new regulation was recently
published by U.S.D.A. and becomes
effective this month. The new rule is
titled "Frequency of Foreign Inspection System Supervisory Visits to
Certified Foreign Establishments." It
now requires international meat and
poultry inspection systems supervisors, whose plants have been approved to sell products in the United
States, to make "periodic supervisory
visits" to certified establishments to
ensure they meet Food Safety and Inspection Service requirements.
Previously, supervisors in these foreign establishments were required to
visit the plants and check on conditions
there "not less frequently than one such
visit per month." By changing the verbiage to "periodic supervisory visits,"
with the term "periodic" undefined, not
only is F.S.I.S. making things easier on
foreign inspection programs and plants,
but the agency is making supervision
requirements virtually the same as in
American plants.
This final rule is certainly not new.
The agency proposed it two years ago
in August 2004. The idea behind this
proposal is to make F.S.I.S. requirements for foreign inspection as consistent as possible with the American
inspection program. U.S.D.A.'s second
goal in making this change is to give
foreign countries additional "flexibility" in structuring their inspection
programs.
During the past two years, a total of
four comments were sent to the agency
regarding the proposed rule. One comment was favorable, but the other feedback was negative. For example, two

comments noted that F.S.I.S. claims
continual contact exist between meat
and poultry inspectors in American
plants and their supervisors, such as
front line supervisors, staff veterinary
medical officers, and enforcement investigation and analysis officers.
One comment questioned whether
such intensive interaction will exist between supervisors and inspectors in exporting countries, if monthly visits were

While certified foreign
countries can ship their
products anywhere in
the United States, state
inspected plants still
can't sell products
outside their own state.
no longer required. F.S.I.S. claims the
inspection system of a country wanting to export meat and poultry to the
United States is thoroughly investigated
during the equivalence evaluation process, prior to being granted the right
to export to the United States. By way
of this explanation, F.S.I.S. dodged the
question regarding supervisor-inspector contact.
Another comment noted the 28
"equal- to" state inspection systems
are required to be "at least equal to"
the federal inspection system and many
federally inspected plants report supervisory visits take place more frequentwww.MEATPOULTRY.com

By Bernard Shire
meatpoultry@sosland.com

ly than once a month as was required
in foreign plants. U.S.D.A.'s response
acknowledged it does not require a set
frequency of supervisory visits from the
28 "equal-to" state inspection systems.
"Thus there is no compelling reason for
the agency to require exporting countries to meet a specific frequency that
is not mandatory for any domestic program," the agency replied. F.S.I.S. officials say the number of visits in American plants is based on local conditions,
and the need for such visits is typically
less than once a month.
The problem with this new regulation
stems from the inconsistency in the inspection frequencies, especially when it
comes to the 28 "equal-to" state inspection programs operating in the United
States. While F.S.I.S. is trying to erase
all differences between U.S. meat inspection and inspection programs in
countries importing products into the
United States, at least one glaring inconsistency remains. While certified
foreign countries can ship their products anywhere in the United States,
state inspected plants still can't sell
products outside their own state. Understandably, operators are frustrated over
this, and the fact they must operate under inspection programs "at least equal
to" the U.S.D.A. program and must implement HACCP programs the same
way as federally inspected plants.
Many in the industry believe U.S.D.A.
is playing favorites again - this time favoring foreign inspection programs over
the 28 state programs.
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:meatpoultry@sosland.com.
I

September 2006

MEAT&POULTRY

at:meatpoultry@sosland.com http://www.MEATPOULTRY.com

Meat + Poultry - September 2006

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