Sanitation protects many aspects of meat and poultry processing plants. In addition to the important food safety implications, shelf life preservation is also dependent on sanitation. A company relies on its reputation and one sanitation hiccup can destroy it. Not only that, but the reputation of the company’s business partners as well. Sanitation also affects a plant’s stewardship of the environment in the communities where processing plants operate, through chemical usage and waste treatment.
Processing facilities have three choices regarding how they will implement their sanitation processes. Plants can contract a third-party vendor to handle the sanitation, use an in-house team to sanitize the facility, or in rarer cases, use both a third-party and in-house sanitation. The three options each come with advantages and disadvantages, and facilities consider different things when choosing how to handle their sanitation needs.
Third party
Contracting a third party to provide sanitation offers facilities a certain level of expertise built into the sanitation process. An outside sanitation service company carries with it specialized knowledge in chemical usage, available technology and equipment, and auditing resources, said Valerie Tapley, senior director, QA & Food Safety-Fresh at Wayne-Sanderson Farms, Oakwood, Ga.
Tapley added, “Contract companies also often have more flexibility to scale services in the event of an emergency or when demand changes.”
Another advantage to contracting third-party sanitation is the contractor bears the responsibility. If an inspector finds something that they don’t like, the contractor has to answer for it, or if production is delayed, due to a sanitation issue, the contractor is obligated to make it right with the processor and provide assurance it will not happen again.
“The advantage is that it’s basically not your headache, in a way,” said Meni Bruk, plant manager, KJ Poultry in Monroe, NY.
At the Seaboard Foods pork plant in Guymon, Okla., vice president and general manager, Rick Sappington, said the cost of contracting third-party sanitation is typically a more affordable option. This would be unique to each partnership and situation, but in Sappington’s case, he sees it as an advantage. However, Sappington noted leverage, in terms of the contractor’s quality of work, as another advantage.
“What I mean by that is you can set the bar kind of much higher for a third party because you’re paying them,” he said.
In-house
An in-house sanitation team first and foremost comes with more control, both over the consistency and standardization of policies and procedures. The facility maintains direct management and oversight of their own employees, as well as setting the expectations for immediate response to any issues that may occur.
“However, the ability for the processor and contract vendor to coordinate on plant needs in a timely manner can sometimes prove challenging, creating a sense of limited control from the processor’s standpoint and slower response to issues,” Tapley said. “Using contractors for a key business practice also exposes processors to vulnerabilities if the third-party company is unable to meet the needs or has unforeseen business interruptions.”
Bruk, who uses both in-house and third-party sanitation at KJ Poultry, said in-house incurs less cost and said the control of the in-house method is advantageous.
“It’s a direct cost, there is nobody in the middle that also needs to make a living,” Bruk said. “You know who is doing the job and then you know, day-to-day operations, so if you want to change that, it’s your management. It’s basically in your control just like anything else in production. That’s basically the upside.”
The Seaboard Foods pork plant in Guymon recently changed from contracting a third party to an in-house sanitation team. In light of recent events in the meat processing sanitation industry, the company felt taking control of its sanitation made more sense.
“The industry as a whole is in a spot where you’re a hero or a zero,” Sappington said. “If you don’t make the news, you’re a hero. If you do make the news, you’re a zero. We’d rather control our own destiny on that versus the third party that gets us in trouble and gets us in the paper.”
Sappington said the tough part of bringing sanitation in house was not procedural. He views plant sanitation the same way he views operating production. A line has people doing tasks that constitute the overall procedure necessary to achieve the goal. People are hired to do a job, and the processes are carried out.
The difficulty in-house sanitation adds is 100% of the accountability now falls on the facility. The chemical usage and its effect on the environment, waste treatment and shelf life ability now become more relevant.
“They were relevant before, but you had a third party to lean on, a partner to figure that out while I run my business, but now it’s part of my business,” Sappington said. “That’s the difference.”
Source: IronwearMaking choices
Whether a processor chooses to use a third party or an in-house team for its sanitation, there are many factors that need consideration. In the case of a third party, who you choose to partner with and why has the potential to greatly affect outcomes. For an in-house team, who a processor hires, or the people it chooses internally will also affect efficiency, quality, etc.
Tapley listed Wayne-Sanderson’s priorities for third-party sanitation vendors as depth of knowledge in chemical usage, a proven history of maintaining sanitary conditions and a safe work environment, and availability of Personnel Safety and Food Safety Assessments as it relates specifically to the sanitation process.
Tapley added, “Above all else, alignment with company values is the greatest consideration.”
When Bruk and KJ Poultry shop sanitation vendors the recommendation from other customers of a vendor carries the most weight in their choice. The company found in its previous experiences that recommendations from existing or former customers are where things outside of a sales call or pitch are found that might sway the choice.
“I’ve found it to be the most valuable thing because no company will tell you anything bad about themselves,” Bruk said. “They can do everything and you’re going to be happy, everything is good, but when you ask for the recommendation, that’s where those things will be.”
When Seaboard changed to in-house sanitation, the goal was to hire 100% of the team (approximately 200 people) from the outside, but that did not happen. The plant ended up hiring 15 people from the former third-party company and roughly 190 completely new employees from outside.
“We leaned on recruiting really, really hard to find the people and gave them a pretty short window,” Sappington said.
Once the team was in place, training began, and tasks evolved and then began to be assigned. Then, the new hires shadowed with the departing third-party team. At first, Sappington thought he would see a lot of turnover on the team, but was pleasantly surprised.
“It took us months before we really started to see some turnover with that group,” he said. “I mean, we were a couple months in where we thought we would see it every day, every week. We didn’t see it.”
Once the executive decision was made to move sanitation in house, Sappington didn’t look back.
“One of my biggest fears as a leader is that I make a bad decision that puts 2,000 people out of a job,” he said. “So, I never take that lightly. If I’m committing to do something, then I’m going to do it.”
Two-pronged approach
KJ Poultry operates both slaughter and cooked processing areas. Because the company felt it could cut some costs while keeping the strictest kosher standards, it decided to try in-house sanitation in the cook area of the plant.
“We wanted to try in the cooking area where it needs to be cleaner than the slaughter area, and the inspector is stricter over there,” Meni Bruk said. “We wanted to see if we could work it out, and we did. We’re still doing it.”
Bruk believes that barring a major situation KJ will continue to use both an in-house team and a third party for its sanitation.
“Unless something happens and people quit somehow, I will keep it that way,” he said. “It’s way cheaper. Tomorrow morning, maybe if I had to hire a new crew, I will think again.”
