Remarks prepared for delivery by Dr. Richard Raymond, Under Secretary for Food Safety, to the 110th AFDO Annual Conference, June 20, 2006, in Albany, New York..

Note: Slides are available in an attached PDF document (725kb); individual pages are linked within the text.

Introduction
(SLIDE 1)
Good morning. I appreciate this opportunity to brief you on the important work that USDA's Office of Food Safety is doing to help protect the U.S. food supply.

AFDO and its dedicated membership are valued partners, and I'm looking forward to this important relationship growing stronger.

(SLIDE 2)
Amazingly, this is AFDO's 110th Annual Conference. Some of you might not know that USDA is also celebrating an important milestone. This year marks the 100th anniversary of the passage of the Federal Meat Inspection Act, which was a watershed event in the history of food safety and public health in the United States.

In 1906, only 163 establishments were federally inspected. Today we inspect nearly 6,000. However, the scope of our activities is not the only thing that has changed since then. USDA's approach to food safety has also greatly evolved since 1906.

It has grown from a command-and-control regulatory agency using simple organoleptic inspection into a public health agency that prides itself on preventing illnesses through sound science and intensive public health outreach and education campaigns.

This transition was made possible in part due to our close cooperative partnerships with local and state government agencies, industry and consumers. These relationships will only become more important as we move into the next 100 years.

Office of Food Safety Overview
(SLIDE 3)
First, a very brief historical view of USDA and FSIS. As the Under Secretary for Food Safety, I oversee the Food Safety and Inspection Service, which carries out USDA's food safety regulatory program, as well as its public health outreach and education activities.

Our mission is to ensure the safety and wholesomeness of the nation's commercial supply of meat, poultry and egg products and to protect that supply from both unintentional and intentional acts of contamination. It doesn't matter if those products are imported to, or exported from, the United States.

My position also means that I head up the U.S. delegation to the Codex Alimentarius Commission, the international body for food safety standards.

(SLIDE 4)
FSIS has more than 10,000 employees, approximately 7,700 of whom are inspection and veterinary personnel present daily in nearly 6,000 meat, poultry and egg product processing plants throughout the United States.

The products they inspect represent more than one-third of all consumer spending on food in the United States and about 40 percent of all domestic food production.

(SLIDE 5)
As USDA's premiere public health agency, FSIS is no longer focused only on the inspection of processing plants and slaughter houses. It's dedicated to fostering safer food handling habits among all types of food handlers, and developing science-based policies to improve our food safety and defense systems.

Food Safety Successes
Not only have cooperative partnerships with local, state and federal government agencies, industry and consumer groups been essential in FSIS' transformation into USDA's premier public health agency, but they have also been instrumental in the significant food safety and public health successes we have seen in the past few years.

(SLIDE 6)
I firmly believe the best indicators of these successes are those that directly relate to pathogen reduction and public health outcomes. Cal Dooly probably mentioned these statistics yesterday, but they are so important in where we are going that they bear repeating.

(SLIDE 7)
In 2005, the percentage of samples that tested positive for E. coli O157:H7 was 0.173 percent. You will see in an upcoming slide that the dramatic declines in E. coli product testing positive went hand-in-hand with equally dramatic drops in human illnesses caused by E. coli O157:H7 during that same period of time.

(SLIDE 8)
The percentage of Lm positive test results was 0.64 percent in 2005. But we have changed our focus to be more risk based — more testing of high risk products. [Changed baseline and changed graphs.]

(SLIDE 9)
The recent release of the 2005 data on the Incidence of Infection with Pathogens Transmitted Commonly through Food by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) clearly shows that the reductions in human illness from foodborne pathogens witnessed during the past few years have been dramatic.

You can see in the following graphs that the Healthy People 2010 national objectives are close to being met for E. coli O157:H7 – 24% to, Listeria monocytogenes – 32% and Campylobacter – 30%.

(SLIDE 10) | (SLIDE 11) | (SLIDE 12)

That is 30% fewer people got sick, missed work, saw a doctor, whatever, from these three pathogens that are in the top five.

(SLIDE 13)
Even though there is no current national objective for Yersinia, I would like to point out that we have also seen a 49 percent decline in illnesses associated with it.

As you can see, together, we are protecting public health through a safer food supply. But we must continue to make improvements to our existing strong system.

What's New in Food Safety?
USDA's Office of Food Safety understands that one of our most effective tools in protecting public health is readily available, accurate information; especially when that information empowers individuals to take an active role in protecting the health and well-being of themselves and their families.

(SLIDE 14)
FSIS' recent proposed rule for the agency to provide the public with a list of retail consignees during a meat and poultry recall, in addition to the critical information currently released by FSIS, is built on this basic understanding.

The proposed rule strengthens the efficiency and effectiveness of our current recall procedures by quickly providing consumers, as well as local and state agencies, with additional information that empowers them to protect themselves, their families and communities.

(SLIDE 15)
We are also working hard to prevent foodborne illnesses from occurring in the first place.

Salmonella is the number one cause of foodborne illness — 14.4/100,000 — 42,000 per year — reported only 500 deaths — all sources, not just poultry.

The poultry industry finds itself at a crossroad when it comes to the prevalence of Salmonella in the products it produces. According to our sampling data, the number of product samples testing positive for Salmonella has been on the rise in several poultry categories over the past few years, specifically in young chicken (or broiler) carcasses – 16 %.

That's why we recently announced an initiative to reduce Salmonella in meat and poultry products. This risk-based initiative incorporates 11 steps, including increased sampling in plants where it's most needed and quarterly publication of nationwide Salmonella data by product class. Carrot and stick.

The specifics of this important 11-step plan can be found on FSIS' Web site at www.fsis.usda.gov. Preliminary results are very encouraging.

(SLIDE 16)
Another initiative that I want to talk about is our efforts to prepare the U.S. meat and poultry industry for the realities of the next 100 years by laying the foundation now for a more robust risk-based inspection system.

Risk-Based Systems
Many people wrongly believe that the government is incapable of taking proactive steps to find solutions to problems before they occur. Coming from a public health background, I know that it's possible. It's just not always easy. It is called, in the public health world, going upstream, but that is another speech.

(SLIDE 17)
I want to focus our time and valuable resources on prevention, rather than on response for a common sense, cost-effective public health strategy that best serves the American consumer by preventing human illness, not recalling product after an outbreak has occurred and been investigated for six months.

Our current system, while strong, is not suited to the future realities of food safety and public health, and we'll need the ability to anticipate and quickly respond to food safety challenges before they negatively affect public health. Enhanced risk-based systems offer us this ability.

Remember, FSIS already uses a risk-based approach to food safety. Our goal is to further enhance and strengthen that system so that we're prepared for the food safety challenges of the next 100 years.

(SLIDE 18)
We have already taken measured steps toward this important goal. Our first step along this path toward a risk-based system was to require all meat and poultry establishments under our jurisdiction to develop implement and maintain HACCP systems.

The next step was to start the HIMP pilot program, designed to modernize on-line slaughter inspection. Through HIMP, information on product defects is gathered in real-time, helping plants make immediate corrections when problems occur in their processes.

The third step was the Listeria monocytogenes risk assessment released in 2003, which provided important data that enabled FSIS to design a final Lm rule.

The fourth step, the Salmonella program announced in February 2006, will put resources where the risks are highest.

We are moving toward a more robust risk-based system by developing an objective science-based measure that can meaningfully quantify how well potential risks are being controlled in FSIS-inspected establishments.

We will couple this with an inherent product risk to develop an algorithm that will tell us the risk for plant and product and allow us to concentrate resource, appropriately.

It would only affect those establishments that process meat and poultry products or have combined slaughter and processing operations. Operations in plants that only slaughter animals will not be affected.

This isn't about increasing or decreasing the resources we dedicate to inspection. It's about how best to use currently available inspection-related data and resources to improve the effectiveness of our hard working inspection program personnel. This will allow them to better protect consumers.

(SLIDE 19)
We certainly have our own ideas about what should be measured and how. For example, we believe that any enhanced measurement of establishment risk control should differentiate between NRs that pose significant threats to food safety and those that do not. [Give speeding ticket analogy]

But the final product will be the result of input from employees, consumer groups, industry and all of our other food safety stakeholders. Resolve Inc., a neutral third party selected by FSIS, will work in the coming months to gather and organize the wide range of views concerning what needs to be included that are held among industry, consumers and our employees.

We need all of our food safety partners to be involved in this process, and willing to express their views about the most appropriate objective measures of an establishment's ability to control risk.

Transparency
The idea of risk-based systems has been around for a long time, and attempts at change have sometimes failed — often because some group was left out of the discussions. In the process, misconceptions have formed about what a more robust risk-based system is going to mean for our employees, the industry and consumers.

It's natural for people to have concerns. We're looking at taking a dramatic step forward in food safety and public health. However, we must make sure that these misconceptions and concerns are addressed openly and publicly.

We all know that we can save lives with sensible science-based policies, and together I know we'll do just that.

Small and Very Small Plant Outreach
To move forward with a more robust risk-based inspection system, we need to ensure that every establishment inspected by FSIS is using a HACCP plan designed to meet the demands and challenges of the 21st century.

Perhaps in the late 90's, HACCP was being made a requirement for all plants, we did not realize that small and very small plants have unique needs when it comes to full-scale HACCP compliance and that they do not have as many resources as large plants. I've made it an absolute priority for us to increase communication between FSIS and small and very small plants so that we can identify and respond to their needs faster and more efficiently with regard to full-scale implementation of their HACCP plans.

(SLIDE 20)
Some people might be asking, "Why do we need to focus on small and very small plants?" The answer is simple. There's a heck of a lot of them and people are consuming their products.

Any comprehensive effort to improve the implementation of HACCP plans in inspected establishments cannot leave out over 90 percent of the federally inspected establishments.

(SLIDE 21)
When it comes to improved HACCP implementation among small and very small plants, the International HACCP Alliance identified six key needs, which you can see on this slide, that needed to be addressed. Constituent messages and educational opportunities for joint training and industry inspection. Questions and answers are available on the FSIS' Web site.

(SLIDE 22)
FSIS' recently unveiled, "Strategic Implementation plan for Strengthening Small and Very Small Plant Outreach," outlines seven strategies that the agency will use to addresses the unique needs of small and very small plants.

They form the foundation of our national effort to ensure that all federally inspected establishments have the training and resources necessary to produce the safest food possible in the 21st century, no matter the size of the plant or type of product they produce.

(SLIDE 22)
Improved assistance for food safety and defense will include one-stop customer service. There will be better access to technical resources including scientific validation materials, and easier access to education and training efforts.

(SLIDE 23)
Partnerships with other entities such as extension, state inspection programs, rural development will be expanded and better leveraged. Finally, FSIS will continue to assess the needs of small and very small plants and the effectiveness of agency programs designed to assist them.

Our new approach is focused on ensuring that they can easily access accurate and consistent answers to their questions, whether they deal with HACCP compliance, food safety or food defense issues.

(SLIDE 24)
The biggest change, however, is unwritten. I'm reminded of the saying you see often on police cars. "We are here to protect and serve." Instead for FSIS it's "We are here to regulate, and educate."

We're focused on providing more educational resources and workshop opportunities to small and very small plants on a variety of important subjects — concentrating on helping the plant employee who wants to participate but has too many demands on his time.

We'll be working with Gale Buchanan, the Under Secretary for Research, Education and Economics, on ways to reenergize extension programs and expand the reach of our educational courses.

It's all part of our commitment to provide small and very small plants with numerous options designed to make it easy to receive the training they want. These include Web casts and more night and weekend workshops, as well as making sure that all of our workshops are available on DVD and CD-ROM. The goal is to provide them with the ability to learn the most up-to-date information at the time and place they choose.

We must have safe products, no matter the size of the plant or what they produce. A consumer eating a steak at a restaurant or a hamburger at a barbecue doesn't know if that product came from a large or small or very small plant — nor should it matter.

However, improving the implementation of HACCP plans is not just a matter of education. It's also a rural economic development issue.

That's why we'll also be working with Rural Development Under Secretary Thomas Dorr to distribute important information to owners concerning loans and grants available to small and very small plants.

These loans and grants can provide needed money that plants can use to make any necessary improvements called for in their HACCP plans. NRs are often written for shortcomings in a plant's physical environment and that's why we need to help small, rural establishments not only move their HACCP plans, but also their physical environments into the 21st century.

Many of you here today come from states that have their own meat and poultry inspection systems. You work with small and very small plants every day, and I believe that our insights and experiences are directly applicable to your own work.

Together we can help small and very small plants move into the 21st century of food safety.

State Inspections
Coming from state government, I realize and truly value the important role states serve every day in our nation's food safety and public health infrastructure. Increased coordination and cooperation will be critical to all of our future food safety activities — not just outreach efforts. But to make the most out of these cooperative opportunities, we need to have a firm understanding of their capabilities.

(SLIDE 25) That's why a couple of years ago, we began new procedures for comprehensive reviews of state meat and poultry inspection programs.

Out of the 20 completed on-site reviews, the agency has determined that 17 states have inspection systems that are "at least equal to" federal inspection. The other three received a deferred determination, and those states have submitted corrective action plans which are currently being reviewed.

An additional four on-site reviews have been conducted and the agency hopes to have those reports' final determinations issued shortly. The four remaining on-site reviews should be completed by August. After that a final report will be released no later than January 2007.

This brings me to the issue of interstate shipment of state-inspected meat, poultry and egg products. I know this is an important issue to many of you. USDA hasn't taken a position at this point. And you should not expect a decision until after all the on-site reviews and appropriate follow-ups have been completed. We don't intend to act without first carefully examining the capabilities of the states' current inspection systems.

In the meantime, we'll continue to work on ways to improve federal and state coordination to further enhance food safety and public health protection.

Avian Influenza
(SLIDE 26)
Improved coordination will be especially important as USDA continues to prepare for a possible outbreak of avian influenza (AI).

(SLIDE 27) While the highly pathogenic H5N1 avian influenza virus has not been detected in the United States, it's likely we'll see it here eventually.

It's because of this reality that President Bush's National Strategy for Pandemic Influenza is focused on mobilizing the Government's wide-ranging expertise and resources. The Administration's goal is to ensure that all appropriate preparations are being made for the potential spread of the H5N1 disease to the United States.

(SLIDE 28)
USDA is playing many important roles in this effort. The Department's four-part approach to combating avian influenza includes limiting the spread of the virus overseas through international outreach.

Second, we're also educating the American public through a proactive campaign to inform without causing alarm. Third is USDA's aggressive surveillance program, which includes wild birds, commercial poultry, live bird markets and backyard flocks.

The fourth aspect of our efforts is to execute our response plan. As some of you might know, USDA has a long and successful history of dealing with highly pathogenic avian influenza.

High path AI has been detected three times in the United States since the 1920s. During the most recent outbreak — in 2004 — USDA worked with state, local and industry officials to quickly identify contain and eradicate the source. This has given us first-hand experience of how to prepare for and combat new outbreaks, here and abroad. We just have never had to do it under the intense media scrutiny we are now experiencing.

Even as we make domestic preparations, USDA will continue to work with the international community affected by the highly pathogenic H5N1 avian influenza virus. Any help that we can offer countries in containing this virus could help to protect both animal and human health in the United States and abroad.

There are a few things to remember that I believe are central to this discussion.

First, detection in birds does not signal the start of a human pandemic. This virus is not easily transmitted from person to person. The human illnesses that we've seen overseas have, for the most part, resulted from direct contact with sick or dead birds.

(SLIDE 29)
Second, even if the virus reaches a commercial poultry operation, there's no reason for consumers to be concerned about eating poultry. At federally and state-inspected plants, birds are inspected for signs of infection or diseases to ensure only wholesome birds are given the mark of inspection.

In addition, USDA has worked with industry to develop a further layer of food safety protection. It's agreed that if highly pathogenic avian influenza is suspected in a commercial flock, USDA will test poultry meat originating from the area to rule out the presence of the avian influenza virus.

Testing will be conducted utilizing new methodology and procedures developed by USDA allowing results to be obtained in less than five hours. Product will be voluntarily held by industry until the safety of the product is confirmed.

This is a good example of how the government can work with industry to ensure the safety of the U.S. food supply. We've developed a voluntary system in close cooperation with industry that not only protects public health, but also helps to protect the poultry industry.

In the end, consumers have the power to protect themselves from avian influenza and other foodborne illnesses by properly preparing and cooking poultry. Properly prepared poultry is safe to eat — it's as simple as that.

Our FSIS sermon does not change from Salmonella to AI. It remains: wash your hands and cooking surfaces frequently; keep raw food and cooked food separate; cook poultry to at least 165 degrees Fahrenheit; and chill leftovers promptly.

A minimum internal temperature of 165° F in poultry meat will kill any viruses or bacteria that might be present. So it's important to always use a food thermometer to make sure you've cooked poultry to that safe temperature of 165° F.

USDA established this single, easy to remember temperature and worked with the CDC and the Food and Drug Administration to be certain the federal government's message is consistent.

For more in-depth information on USDA's AI initiatives, I recommend you visit and bookmark www.usda.gov/birdflu.

Closing
Before I close, I want to thank AFDO and its membership again for all of its efforts to make our food supply the safest in the world. We have a strong system in place, and that is due in part to the work AFDO does every day.

(SLIDE 30) Did you know that 100 years ago, one in five coffins contained a child under five years old? Today that number is only one in 100 coffins. That's an amazing accomplishment that's had a profound impact on our society and everyone in this room. That is why the life expectancy has gone from 45 years of age in 1900 to 75 years of age in 2000 — kids survive. They die from enteritis, dysentery, small pox, pneumonia, cholera and typhus.

Clean water, sewage, vaccines, antibiotics — AND a safe food supply have played important roles in this amazing phenomenon.

I'm looking forward to seeing future accomplishments brought about by enhancing the public health system that our communication, cooperation and collaboration will create in the coming years.

(SLIDE 31) The bottom line is that we all have the same objectives — safe food and healthy people. We must never lose sight of these common goals, because it is on these shared beliefs that we will build and strengthen the cooperative relationships that will be so critical to our continued success.

Thank you again for your time and I hope everyone enjoys the rest of the conference.