Three years ago, FSIS released a plan to outline key steps toward reducing the incidence of Salmonella contamination in the poultry industry.
M+P:How is the industry doing in meeting the new poultry performance standards?
AA:FSIS has seen an improvement in the number of establishments expected to pass the newly implemented raw chicken parts performance standards in the short time between when the data was collected to develop the performance standards in 2012 and when FSIS began collecting samples from eligible establishments last year.
M+P:Is FSIS going to make Salmonella an adulterant in ground beef meant for grinding?
AA: There has been a request for us to consider Salmonella in ground beef as an adulterant. We’re still reviewing it. I don’t see Salmonella going away – we’re always going to have to pay attention to it. While it’s true that not all Salmonella is equal – some Salmonella strains are very virulent -- we must pay attention to how it is being addressed in industry process control, how industry handles it, what industry does, the validation of their safety plans. We know industry reads our publications and pays attention to our concerns.
M+P:Why is FSIS planning rulemaking to subject some beef primals and sub-primals to the same pathogen testing as boneless manufacturing trim? Is this also a way to put more emphasis on Salmonella?
AA:When we see new trends in the industry, like taking beef primals and sub-primals and grinding them, instead of using them for steaks and roasts, that creates a new situation and new set of circumstances. We are going to look over existing industry data on beef primal and sub-primal trim testing for Salmonella. We are also going to give them data we have for them to look at. We’re looking for industry comments about this. This is before FSIS publishes proposed rules subjecting those cuts to the same pathogen testing as boneless trim to control sicknesses from Salmonella carried over into ground beef. The primals aren’t handled the same way by a company slaughtering a large number of carcasses and a small operation. Some have interventions and some do not. We may propose testing, or not propose testing – it depends on how helpful the industry interventions are.
M+P:This seems like a lot of issues.
AA:Well, the end of a Presidential administration is like the fourth quarter of a football game. The new poultry inspection system we initiated was a major step forward – modernizing poultry inspection and updating it, after many years of operating under a system where there was more attention being paid to examining each carcass than tracking pathogens. There’s a high priority to reducing pathogen levels in young poultry slaughter plants. That will hopefully result in far fewer illnesses in people from Salmonella and Campylobacter. We’re also looking at modernizing swine inspection to allow our inspectors to perform more food safety tasks. FSIS also implemented a zero-tolerance policy for six additional strains of E. coli that are responsible for illnesses in people.
M+P:How is the retail Listeria monocytogenes (Lm) project going?
AA:As you know, on Jan. 25, FSIS launched a yearlong nationwide pilot project to assess whether retailers are using the recommendations in the “FSIS Best Practices Guidance for Controlling Listeria monocytogenes (Lm) in Retail Delicatessens,” because Lm causes a high level of deaths, compared to other foodborne pathogens, and deli products have been shown to be a major contributor to those illnesses. The percentage of recommendations that retailers followed increased from 82 to 87 percent of product handling recommendations, 76 to 82 percent of cleaning and sanitizing recommendations, 86 to 97 percent of facility and equipment control recommendations, and 92 to 96 percent of employee practices recommendations.
The new poultry inspection system was a significant step toward modernizing poultry inspection.
M+P:I understand that foreign contamination of meat and poultry products is becoming a major problem, and that the agency is considering the possibility of rulemaking to deal with it. Can you provide details?
AA: There have been tens of millions of pounds recalled due to foreign contaminants. As you know, there have been some very big recalls. We have received a draft of Best Practices from the meat and poultry industry to deal with foreign contaminants in products, and to prevent them in the future, which we’re going to review. But the industry is ultimately responsible for these hazards and for reporting these incidents to us. We’re taking some time to identify the problems here, and what’s going on. The problem has been the industry is not reporting these hazards as diligently as they should. That’s the reason there’s been these huge recalls. We’re hoping to work together to solve this problem.
M+P:How is confusion about antibiotic resistance going to affect the meat and poultry industry?
AA: There’s a lot of concern about the issue. We play a dual role with human health and animal health. Our veterinarians do a great job. But our responsibility in the lives and health of food animals is quite a bit downstream. In some ways, this has become a marketing and labeling issue. Producers and processors have to make a choice. In the end, there’s room for responsible animal husbandry and the responsible use of antibiotics in animals.
M+P:What’s being done to fix the unending confusion about “natural” food labeling?
AA:There is widespread confusion about what’s “natural” and what’s not. There is a proposed rule; there was opportunity for stakeholders to help clarify what it means. FSIS, FDA and other agencies are working to clarify this question.
