Remarks given by Dr. Barbara Masters, Acting Administrator, Food Safety and Inspection Service, at the World Meat Congress 2004, June 16, 2004, Winnipeg, Canada.

View or download slides to accompany this speech (PDF Only)

Introduction
(Slide 1) Good morning everyone. It's a pleasure to be at this very important event. I appreciate the opportunity to join my colleagues here on this panel to give you an overview of U.S. food safety initiatives regarding meat, poultry and egg products. This forum presents a wonderful opportunity to continue dialogue and learn from each other in how we can all further improve food safety and security across international borders.

In my role as Acting Administrator of the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) I am responsible for managing FSIS' food safety activities. I believe we have accomplished much to reach our public health goals and I am committed to building on our success. The way I look at it…we (FSIS) enhance public health through improving food safety. We are committed to public health, and believe strongly that science is the way to get us there.

With the global food supply, we are interdependent on each other's actions. In today's market, we must take a global approach to food safety by employing science and risk-based initiatives.

Significant Food Safety Advancements

Basing policies and initiatives on the best available science and risk analyses has been key to FSIS' efforts to enhance public health by improving the safety and security of the meat, poultry and egg products supply.

Even though FSIS's statutory authority lies most directly over slaughterhouses and processing establishments, we are working with all of our partners along the farm-to-fork continuum to ensure that food safety measures are implemented during production, processing, transportation, and preparation.

(Slide 2) Recent indicators show that our approach seems to be working. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), in its annual report on the incidence of infections from foodborne pathogens, noted significant declines from 1996 to 2003 in illnesses caused by E. coli O157:H7 (42%), Salmonella (17%), Campylobacter (28%) and Yersinia (49%).

(Slide 3) Specifically to the products FSIS regulates, illnesses caused by Salmonella Typhimurium (typically associated with meat and poultry) decreased by 38%. Most significantly, between 2002 and 2003, illnesses caused by E. coli O157:H7, typically associated with ground beef, dropped by 36%. That's a one-year reduction!

We are very hopeful that if we continue on our current course, this reduction will not be just for one year, but will continue from now on until we have achieved the greatest reduction possible in the illnesses caused by this pathogen.

We believe these reductions in illnesses have occurred in the context of the control measures that FSIS and industry have put into place. The effectiveness of a science and risk-based approach is especially evident when we look at Listeria monocytogenes.

(Slide 4) FSIS recently implemented a new Listeria regulation that provided incentives for ready-to-eat establishments to implement scientifically-based measures to prevent contamination of products with Lm. We developed our Listeria rule from a very thorough quantitative risk assessment, which provided a road map to determine the practices that industry should follow in order to exert the greatest control over this pathogen in ready-to-eat meat and poultry products. The risk assessment showed that testing the processing environment was critical, in that it would help find the organism in the niches where it may reside, allowing processors to target and eliminate it from the plant environment before it contaminates product.

We recently conducted a survey of 1,400 establishments producing ready-to-eat meat and poultry products, and found that more than 87% have changed their operations in one way or another to more effectively control Listeria monocytogenes. Of course, there were many companies that did not have to change anything, because they were already implementing science-based measures like these in their processes. So the bottom line is that this rule challenged those in industry that had not begun to implement these scientifically based measures, to do more to prevent contamination with this pathogen.

Late last year, we released data that showed a one-year, 25 percent drop in the percentage of positive Listeria monocytogenes regulatory samples from the year before, and a 70 percent decline compared with years prior to the implementation of HACCP. Data can fluctuate from year to year, but we are cautiously optimistic that this downward trend will continue due to actions required by this rule.

Accountability With HACCP

(Slide 5) The foundation of our recent food safety advancements was built with the implementation of the Pathogen Reduction/Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) systems in meat and poultry slaughter and processing plants. As you know, the principles of HACCP are the gold standard accepted throughout the world…a standard that we know works when fully implemented and enforced. However, HACCP plans must be continuously reassessed to address known hazards and that is where we are focusing our attention now.

For example, most recently, we focused on industry reassessing and our Agency verifying the effectiveness of HACCP plans to control pathogens such as E. coli O157:H7 and Salmonella. Our scientifically trained personnel have conducted the first-ever comprehensive audits of 1,500 beef establishments' HACCP plans. Sixty two percent of those plants made major improvements based on these reassessments. In 2003, of the E. coli O157:H7 samples collected and analyzed, 0.31 percent tested positive, compared to 0.78 percent in 2002 - or a 60% reduction. This is a definite improvement - and although these figures do represent regulatory samples, and are not necessarily representative of the prevalence of this pathogen in the United States, they are representative of a downward trend, and a signal that our science-based policies are working.

(Slide 6) We have also seen a downward trend in our regulatory samples for Salmonella in raw meat and poultry since 1998. Again, these figures represent a downward trend in our regulatory samples.

Initiatives

(Slide 7) After a thorough assessment last year of our progress, we outlined specific initiatives to make sure we continue building on our public health regulatory model. These initiatives were outlined in our food safety vision document, Ensuring Public Health: a Vision for the Future. I want to share with you some of the initiatives we are currently working on from this vision document.

Training
(Slide 8) First, training is at the top of our priority list. We have been further integrating HACCP training into our workforce through the Food Safety Regulatory Essentials (FSRE) training, which was inaugurated in April 2003. FSRE training is designed to better equip our inspectors who verify an establishment's HACCP food safety system. We expect to have this segment of our workforce fully trained by the end of fiscal year 2005.

This year FSIS also initiated an updated entry level public health veterinarian training program, which includes a comprehensive offering of classroom instruction and in-plant mentoring on topics such as humane handling, food microbiology, residue detection, occupational safety, animal production, food safety and security, and establishment system reviews. FSIS is the largest employer of veterinarians in the United States with approximately 1,100; therefore, this training program is essential for retaining the highest caliber of veterinarians in the agency to improve public health.

Outreach
(Slide 9) A second initiative is conducting an aggressive outreach program to connect all of FSIS' stakeholders with essential agency information. For instance, one of our goals is to improve industry's understanding of Agency policies and programs. We have been actively involved in providing plant managers with guidance on our new regulations. Last fall, we held a series of highly successful workshops for small and very small plant owners and managers to cover our new Listeria regulations. From January through March of this year, we held a series of workshops to offer assistance to industry on our interim BSE rules. And now, we are holding workshops across the country to ensure that both plant and FSIS employees have the same understanding of our recent E. coli O157:H7 measures.

An important component of our public health regulatory effort includes holding a variety of public meetings to receive input from all stakeholders who have an interest in food safety. This includes industry, consumer groups, academia and others. Their input is vital for the development and further refinement of our policies and programs.

(Slide 10) To help all food handlers understand the importance of safe food handling, FSIS conducts an aggressive educational campaign of public events and media interviews with national and regional news organizations in order to reach more of the U.S. population with important public health messages. Last year, FSIS teamed up with several high profile celebrities such as country music star Wynonna Judd, pop legend Olivia Newton-John, and former Miss America Heather Whitestone McCallum to deliver important food handling tips.

(Slide 11) Our consumer educational efforts have also "hit the road." Last year, FSIS launched the USDA Food Safety Mobile to strategic locations throughout the United States to bring food safety messages directly to consumers and food handlers. Through partnerships with university extension agents and private industry, the Mobile has hosted numerous demonstrations for food handlers of all ages. In 2003 alone, the Mobile Food Safety Marketing campaign enabled us to reach a potential 64 million people, using information multipliers, throughout the United States.

(Slide 12) Our newly redesigned and improved Web site is another means by which we can communicate to our audiences in a whole new - and easier - way. Our Web site features a virtual representative - we have named "Ask Karen" - to answer food safety questions 24 hours, seven days a week. This allows us to extend our reach from thousands to potentially millions of food handlers and consumers! The URL is www.fsis.usda.gov

Best Practices for Animal Production
(Slide 13) A third initiative is the development of a list of best practices for animal production. In consultation with producers, researchers, and other stakeholders, FSIS is developing a list of best management practices for animal production in order to provide guidance in reducing pathogen loads before slaughter.

Last September, we arranged a symposium to discuss ways to significantly reduce the levels of E. coli O157:H7 in live animals before slaughter. We understand that preventing the spread of E. coli and other pathogens on the farm is vital to increasing food safety and protecting public health.

The dialogue that was generated from that meeting was very beneficial toward our development of guidelines outlining best management practices at the pre-harvest stage, which we expect to publish this year. Once these guidelines are developed, you can expect to see an aggressive outreach effort by FSIS to distribute these to producers.

Baseline Studies
(Slide 14) Another key initiative is to conduct microbiological baseline studies. This is an absolute priority for FSIS. We expect to begin a baseline study to determine the nationwide prevalence and levels of various pathogenic microorganisms in raw meat and poultry. We intend to conduct these studies on a regular basis. The continual nature of the baseline studies will provide both information on national trends as well as a tool to assess performance of initiatives designed to reduce the prevalence of pathogens in meat and poultry products. These baseline studies will also provide important information for conducting risk assessments that can lead to risk management strategies to reduce foodborne illness.

Moreover, we will be able to correlate prevalence with practices at processing plants, and thereby help establishments and us to understand better what interventions are working, which ones are not, and if not, why not. The new baseline studies will take into account regional variation, seasonality and other critical factors, which were not taken into consideration before, so they will serve to give us the truest picture of prevalence we've ever had.

Food Security Initiative
(Slide 15) Finally, enhancing our food security measures is a top Agency initiative as well. We must take a global approach to food security, and that includes working with our trading partners to encourage them to take steps as well. All of us must examine our own systems, detect vulnerabilities, and put measures in place to address them.

FSIS has been able to improve food security under its existing authorities. We have more than 7,600 inspectors in slaughter and processing plants and at import facilities nationwide. Four laboratories provide analytical support. This extensive and well functioning food safety infrastructure serves us well whether contamination is naturally occurring or introduced intentionally. And the infrastructure serves as a foundation on which to build additional safeguards.

(Slide 16) First, we established a full-time staff whose sole responsibility is food security. This office works in concert with other government agencies, including the White House, to ensure that activities are coordinated and resources used efficiently.

(Slide 17) Second, we made a number of improvements at our laboratories. We improved security to ensure the integrity of all samples and materials received by the laboratories. We participate in an electronic laboratory exchange network through which food safety laboratories at various government agencies can share food sample and test data in a secure environment. We also have expanded laboratory capabilities to test for approximately 12 non-traditional microbial, chemical and radiological threat agents. And we recently celebrated the opening of a new, high-tech laboratory that will be able to conduct analyses on a larger range of potential bioterrorism agents.

(Slide 18) Third, we made sure our workforce of inspectors was ready to address the new challenges posed by potential acts of bioterrorism. Our entire workforce is being trained with a program that focuses on preventing terrorist activities, rather than responding to them after the fact.

And we have in place a system for when there is an elevated alert. Certain inspection tasks not related to food safety are replaced with targeted inspection and sampling for a dozen or so biological, chemical and radiological agents.

(Slide 19) Strengthening our borders is important. We established a new inspection position to augment the current activities of our traditional import inspectors at 146 locations.

(Slide 20) Another area where we have made food security improvements is in assessment vulnerabilities from farm to table. Through this assessment, we identified commodities that are at higher risk of being potentially contaminated. These assessments have allowed us to develop shields, or counter measures, to address the vulnerabilities identified.

(Slide 21) And last but not least, we have provided outreach to industry on what steps they can take to improve food security. We have issued two publications to industry -one for slaughter and processing plants and one for transporters and distributors-on steps they can take to tighten plant security. Since many of these establishments are small businesses that many be minority-owned, we have offered these publications in five languages-English, Spanish, Mandarin Chinese, Vietnamese and Korean. (Slide 22) We also have issued a publication for consumers, also in various languages.

Achieving the Next Level of the Food Safety

(Slide 23) We have accomplished a lot, but we are not done yet. Through analysis and discussions with stakeholders, we have identified three issues that need to be addressed to attain the next level of public health protection.

(Slide 24) The first issue is to anticipate/predict risk through enhanced data integration. To better anticipate risks involving meat and poultry products, we must have the best available data to clearly identify the extent and nature of these risks, so that we may determine an effective response. These data consist of regulatory samples, as well as samples collected by food processing establishments. Thus, there is a need to improve access to and analysis of food safety data from all reliable sources.

Accomplishing this task will help us direct our inspection and enforcement efforts on those practices where risk is deemed to be highest, resulting in a more efficient use of government resources.

(Slide 25) The second issue is the improved application of risk into regulatory and enforcement activities. Food safety problems need to be documented as they occur, so that conditions may be analyzed, and if need be, corrected. A better understanding of the prevalence and causes of food safety failures could allow better assessment of how to best address them. Data regarding the causes of food safety violations, either within a specific establishment, or within a class, can be utilized in order to better focus prevention and regulatory enforcement strategies. The types and frequencies of enforcement actions taken can help determine where FSIS resources need to be focused.

(Slide 26) To develop a relative, real-time measure of how well an establishment controls the biological, chemical, and physical hazards inherent in its operations; FSIS is exploring the development of the concept of a Hazards Control Coefficient (HCC). (Slide 27) Imagine if we could divide the universe of plants into categories based on the risk inherent in their product (ground beef vs. beef jerky), and on the compliance history of the plant, we could determine which plants have the lowest vs. the highest probability of producing safe product. Such a scheme would help the Agency make resource allocation decisions with more than 6,000 meat and poultry establishments based on risk, and thus maximize food safety and public health protection.

(Slide 28) Finally, the third issue is better association of program outcomes to public health surveillance data. We have seen notable advances in preventing foodborne illness, which the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has attributed in part to the implementation of HACCP. However, there still is a need to determine how specific policies affect public health. In order to accomplish this, data that links foodborne illness outbreaks with specific foods needs to be obtained and documented. It may then be linked with prevalence data of specific pathogens in specific foods. However, to complete the linkage with public health outcomes, a strong connection with human health surveillance data is needed.

Closing

(Slide 29) With a global food supply, we are all interdependent on each other's actions. The farm-to-table chain that we historically visualized as being confined within one nation's borders is becoming more of a complex and integrated global network.

Protecting public health by ensuring safe and wholesome food is not accomplished through one isolated action or through just one organization. This is the reason why when we carry out our meat, poultry and egg products inspection, as well as other food safety activities, we work with all of our domestic and international partners. (Slide 30) We need to make sure that we are seeking the highest levels of food safety standards possible - standards that are based on sound science and risk-based initiatives.

We are all in this together. We still have work to do - government to government…industry to industry. But when we focus on utilizing science as our common ally to improve food safety and public health, we will get it done.

Thank you for your attention, and I would be happy to answer any questions you might have.