Food Safety and Inspection Service United States Department of Agriculture Washington, D.C. 20250-3700

Communications to Congress

February 2003

Meat, Poultry, and Egg Products Inspection
2000 Report of the Secretary of Agriculture to the U.S. Congress

III. Enforcement Activities

Detentions

A total of 728 detentions of adulterated meat and poultry products, with a corresponding weight of approximately 27,706,396 pounds, occurred during FY 2000. Some of the more significant product detentions include the following:

• 7,481,000 pounds of various meat products were detained at a public warehouse in Gaston, South Carolina. Approximately 12,450 pounds of product were found to be sour and putrid due to improper handling and were voluntarily destroyed. FSIS received a call from a former employee who stated that adulterated product was mixed into the total inventory at the facility. Therefore, the total inventory was detained at the facility.
• 1,500,000 pounds of various meat products were detained at a Benson, North Carolina, warehouse facility. Approximately 1,250 pounds of this product were found to be adulterated due to mishandling and were voluntarily destroyed.
• 2,808,213 pounds of various meat and poultry products, including some canned products, were detained at Certified Grocers, Hodgkins, Illinois. The products were suspected of being adulterated due to a rodent infestation problem at the facility. Approximately 263,287 pounds of product were voluntarily destroyed and the remaining product was released after reinspection.
• 1,084,350 pounds of frozen boneless chicken breast portions were detained at a storage facility in Chesapeake, Virginia. The frozen boneless chicken was found to contain undenatured chicken skin, other chicken parts and was also adulterated with bones and foreign material. The product was destroyed under the supervision of inspection personnel.
• 1,047,225 pounds of frozen undenatured inedible lamb by-products from New Zealand were detained at a cold storage facility in Bridgeville, Delaware, because the product was not shipped directly to the pet food manufacturer, as required. The Application and Permit for Importation of Undenatured Inedible Meat Products indicated the products were received in Pennsauken, New Jersey. The product was released to the pet food manufacturer in New Jersey for production into animal food.
• 3,511,194 pounds of various meat and poultry products were detained at a cold storage facility in Des Moines, Iowa, due to fire and smoke damage. Approximately 1,463,801 pounds were destroyed for human food purposes by disposal at the local landfill. Disposition was monitored by Federal compliance officers. Approximately 186,032 pounds of product was sent under USDA seal to a Federal plant in the State of Georgia for reinspection by the Inspector in Charge. Compliance and Inspection personnel found approximately 1,904,635 pounds of product in Freezer B to be acceptable and allowed it to move in commerce.
• 3,600,000 pounds of meat, egg, and poultry food products were detained at Brockton, Massachusetts, in January 2000 and were found to be adulterated by rodent excreta and gnawing. Approximately 3,600,000 pounds were voluntarily destroyed by incineration and shipment to a landfill.
• 1,500,000 pounds of various meat products were detained at a distributorship in Birmingham, Alabama. The products were adulterated with rodent gnawing and rodent excreta. The product was voluntarily destroyed under the supervision of FSIS Compliance Officers.
• 4,000,000 pounds of assorted meat and poultry products were detained at a distribution warehouse in Canton, Michigan, because of adulteration due to possible ammonia contamination and temperature abuse. The product was sent to a Federal plant for re-inspection and was found to be sound and wholesome.

Administrative Enforcement Actions

FSIS inspects meat and poultry products and applies the marks of inspection when inspectors are able to determine that the products are not adulterated. FSIS may temporarily withhold the marks of inspection from specific products, suspend inspection, or withdraw inspection if a plant is not meeting regulatory requirements. A withholding, suspension, or withdrawal action may be based on any of the following reasons related to the Pathogen Reduction and HACCP regulations:

• failure to collect and analyze samples for the presence of generic E. coli and record results;
• failure to develop or implement Sanitation Standard Operating Procedures (SSOP);
• failure to develop or implement a required HACCP plan; or
• failure to meet applicable Salmonella performance standard requirements.

In addition, a withholding, suspension, or withdrawal action may be taken by FSIS for any of these other reasons: unsanitary conditions, inhumane slaughtering of livestock, failure to destroy condemned product, or interference with inspection personnel.

In FY 2000, approximately 184 enforcement actions were initiated to stop inspection operations in Federal establishments. The vast majority of these actions were taken because of failures associated with the Pathogen Reduction and HACCP final rule and resulted in the resumption of inspection after FSIS received acceptable corrective and preventive action plans from plant officials. The following is a representative sample of these actions:

• November 1999. A meat processing plant in Dallas, Texas, was issued a Notice of Intended Enforcement Action (NOIE) based on the establishment's failure to meet the Salmonella performance standard on three consecutive series of FSIS-conducted tests of its raw ground beef production. Because the establishment failed to provide satisfactory written assurances of corrective and preventive measures in response to the NOIE, FSIS subsequently suspended the assignment of inspectors at the plant. Following the suspension, the establishment advised FSIS of actions taken and procedures implemented to correct its HACCP system and control and reduce the prevalence of Salmonella in raw ground beef. Based on the corrective and preventive measures provided, FSIS notified the establishment that the suspension would be held in abeyance and inspected operations were allowed to resume.

• February 2000. A poultry plant in Winesburg, Ohio, was issued a NOIE based on repetitive noncompliance associated with the establishment's SSOP. The plant subsequently provided a written plan of proposed corrective and preventive measures to restore the effectiveness of its SSOP and to achieve compliance with Agency regulations. Following this, FSIS notified the plant that a suspension of the assignment of inspectors would be held in abeyance. After FSIS inspection personnel verified the effectiveness of the plant's corrective and preventive measures, the case was closed with a letter of warning.

• April 2000. FSIS suspended the assignment of inspectors at a meat and poultry processing plant in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The decision to initiate enforcement action was based on the firm’s failure to take appropriate actions to prevent the recurrence of Listeria monocytogenes in cooked ready-to-eat product. After receiving written assurances of corrective and preventive measures from plant officials, the suspension was held in abeyance. Verification activities performed by FSIS inspection personnel since the abeyance showed that the plant’s corrective and preventive measures were effectively implemented. The case was subsequently closed with a letter of warning.

• May 2000. FSIS temporarily suspended the assignment of inspectors at a meat plant in Quakertown, Pennsylvania, due to inhumane handling of livestock. After receiving acceptable corrective and preventive measures from the plant, plant officials were notified that the suspension of the assignment of inspectors would be held in abeyance and operations were allowed to resume. FSIS inspection officials are continuing to verify the effectiveness of the plant’s corrective and preventive measures.

• June 2000. A poultry plant in Sonora, California, was issued a Notice of Intended Enforcement Action based on repetitive findings of fecal contamination on poultry products produced by the firm, which demonstrated the establishment’s HACCP plan was ineffective. After receiving acceptable corrective and preventive measures from the plant, plant officials were notified that suspension of the assignment of inspectors would be held in abeyance and operations were allowed to resume. FSIS inspection officials are continuing to verify effectiveness of the plant’s corrective and preventive measures.

• July 2000. A slaughter plant in Bristol, Connecticut, was issued a Notice of Intended Enforcement Action based on failure of the establishment to collect, analyze, record, and meet Escherichia coli Biotype I testing requirements as required by FSIS regulations. After receiving acceptable corrective and preventive measures, plant officials were notified by FSIS that the suspension of the assignment of inspectors would be held in abeyance. FSIS inspection officials are continuing to verify the effectiveness of the plant’s corrective and preventive measures.

Administrative Consent Decisions

The Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA) and the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) authorize the Secretary to refuse to provide or withdraw inspection service if the recipient of inspection, the applicant requesting inspection, or anyone responsibly connected with either has been convicted in any Federal or State court of any felony or more than one violation of any law, other than a felony, based on transactions in food. The Acts also authorize the Secretary to withdraw inspection or suspend the assignment of personnel for other reasons such as for insanitary conditions. In lieu of withdrawing or denying inspection services, both parties can agree to the provisions and conditions of a Stipulation and Consent Decision (Consent), which settles the administrative action. The following Consent Decisions are a representative sample of administrative actions entered into between FSIS and firms or individuals during FY 2000:

• October 1999. A plant located in Freeport, Pennsylvania, and its president entered into a Consent with FSIS. The Consent specifies that inspection services are withdrawn but holds the withdrawal in abeyance so long as certain conditions are met. The administrative action resulted from a felony conviction of the company for selling, with the intent to defraud, adulterated meat products. The owner was also convicted on four misdemeanor counts of preparation of adulterated meat products. The Consent requires the owner to terminate all business and financial transactions with the Federal establishment and limits his involvement to a non-management position in a related retail business. In addition, the Federal establishment must be operated separately from the related business. The employees are prohibited from performing cross-functional duties, and the company must prevent storage of any compound, additive, or preservative not approved by the Food and Drug Administration and USDA. The Consent also requires that the firm develop and implement enforcement procedures designed to track and control the use of restricted ingredients used in the preparation of meat and poultry products.

• December 1999. A Carlsbad, California, plant and its owner entered into Consent with FSIS. The Consent settled an administrative action to deny the firm’s application for a Federal grant of inspection. The decision to deny was based on the owner’s felony conviction of filing a false Federal income tax return with the Internal Revenue Service. The Consent, among other things, holds the denial in abeyance as long as conditions in the Consent are met, and requires the owner to participate in an approved business ethics program. The Consent also provides for criminal acts or violations of any Federal or local laws involving transactions related to food.

• June 2000. A USDA Judicial Officer (JO) issued a Decision upholding indefinite withdrawal of inspection services from a meat and poultry company located in Greenville, New York. The JO’s Decision upheld an Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) Decision. The decisions were the result of an administrative hearing before the ALJ wherein USDA presented evidence to show that the company was “unfit” for inspection service. The proceeding to withdraw inspection was based on the company’s felony conviction of bribing a public official. An investigation revealed that the company provided money to an inspector in exchange for inspecting and passing dying, diseased, or disabled livestock requiring additional inspection by a Veterinary Medical Officer. The inspector and company were convicted in separate trials. The company has appealed to a U.S. District Court.

• June 2000. A Camden, New Jersey, firm and its owner entered into Consent with FSIS. The Consent specifies that inspection services are withdrawn, but holds the withdrawal in abeyance so long as stated conditions are met. The decision to withdraw inspection was based on the owner’s felony conviction of filing, for the corporation, a fraudulent Federal income tax return, and a misdemeanor conviction for selling misbranded poultry. The Consent requires the owner and managers to participate in a training or educational course in business ethics and develop and maintain a corporate ethics code for the company. The Consent also stipulates the failure to adhere to stated conditions could result in an immediate 5-year withdrawal of inspection.

Criminal Enforcement Actions

FSIS defines a Criminal Enforcement Action to be when evidence is found that a person or business has engaged in violations of the FMIA, PPIA, or EPIA; USDA may refer the case to the appropriate U.S. Attorney to pursue criminal prosecution. Conviction for a criminal offense can result in a fine, imprisonment, or both. The following Criminal Enforcement Actions are representative of actions taken during FY 2000.

• November 1999. A California firm’s co-owner and the manager were sentenced on five felony counts for selling and transporting adulterated and misbranded poultry products, causing meat and poultry products to become adulterated and unfit for human consumption, and processing poultry products without Federal inspection. The firm was fined $5,000. The co-owner and the manager were fined $2,500 each.

• February 2000. A Michigan packing plant’s former president plead guilty to one felony count of selling and transporting adulterated meat and poultry products to retail stores, restaurants, and a correctional facility. The former president was fined $22,000 and ordered to pay a $50 special assessment fee.

• April 2000. A California man was found guilty of simple assault and threatening to kill Federal officials with a deadly weapon. He was sentenced in the U.S. Court’s Central District of California to 12 months and 1 day in jail and was also prohibited from any future engagement in any type of operation involving meat products.

• May 2000. A Michigan cold storage warehouse and distributor of meat and poultry products was sentenced on a one-count misdemeanor for causing meat and poultry products to become adulterated. The firm was placed on probation for 1 year, fined $10,000, and ordered to pay a special assessment fee of $125.00. Two management officials entered into a 12-month Pre-Trial Diversion program.

• June 2000. A Florida wholesale meat distributor was sentenced on two misdemeanor counts for causing meat and poultry products to become misbranded. The firm was fined $10,000 and ordered to pay $50,000 to local charities. The firm was also required to establish an effective compliance program for the operation of its facilities, including the storage and distribution of its products.

• September 2000. A Michigan wholesale meat distributor was sentenced on one misdemeanor count for causing meat and poultry products to become adulterated and then selling them. The firm was fined $100,000 and the court ordered the secretary to pay $22,000 and placed both on 1-year probation.

• September 2000. An Illinois wholesale meat distributor was sentenced on one misdemeanor count for causing meat products to become adulterated by rodents. The firm was fined $25,000 and the court ordered the firm to pay a $125 special assessment fee.

• September 2000. A Grand Jury for the State of California indicted the owner and operator of a Portuguese-type sausage processing plant located in San Leandro, California, for the shooting deaths of two Federal officials, a State government inspector, and the attempted murder of another State inspector. The deaths occurred when the government officials were conducting a joint review at the sausage plant. The officials believed the plant and its owner were in violation of both Federal and State meat inspection laws. Months prior to the shootings, USDA inspection officials had suspended operations at the plant because of noncompliance with food safety and sanitation regulations. USDA’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) and FSIS continue to assist a joint State of California, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and Department of Justice (DOJ) prosecution team. USDA employees will continue to assist the prosecution team during CY 2001, and several employees will most likely testify during a trial expected to occur in CY 2001 or 2002.

Civil Enforcement Actions

The Agency has authority to seek the following civil actions in Federal Court:

• Seizures. When FSIS has reason to believe distributed products are adulterated or misbranded, the Agency may, through the U.S. Attorney, institute a seizure action against the product. The product is held pending an adjudication of its status. If the court finds that the product is adulterated or misbranded, it will condemn the product. Condemned product is destroyed, sold, or upon posting of an appropriate bond, returned to its owner to be brought into compliance with Federal law. Condemned product cannot be further processed for use as human food.
• Injunctions. FSIS, through the U.S. Attorney, may request a U.S. District Court to enjoin repetitive violators of the FMIA, PPIA, or EPIA. The Agency seeks injunctions to stop un-inspected retail stores from processing products without the required inspection for wholesale business or to prevent or restrain other violations of law.
• False Claims Act Violations. The Department of Justice Affirmative Civil Enforcement Program is used by U.S. Attorneys to recover damages when violation of law involves fraud against the Federal Government. Under the False Claims Act, the Government may recover three times its estimated losses. FSIS typically seeks action under this program for cases involving products not in compliance that have been sold to the military, to public schools engaged in the school lunch program, or to other Federal Agencies.

The following Civil Enforcement Actions are a representative sample of actions taken during FY 2000.

• December 1999. A meat and poultry distributor in Illinois entered into a settlement agreement with the USDA for violation of the False Claims Act, the Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA), and the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA). The firm removed labels from properly marked federally inspected poultry products and then falsely represented and sold the products as “Amish” or “All Natural Chicken.” In the settlement agreement, the firm was ordered to pay $100,000 plus interest to the U.S. Attorney’s office. The Illinois Department of Agriculture and USDA will monitor the terms of the settlement agreement.

• December 1999. A federally inspected meatpacking company in Texas entered into a settlement agreement and consent judgment with USDA for violation of the False Claims Act and the FMIA. The agreement requires the firm to pay $54,000 in monetary claims to the United States. An investigation conducted in 1996 revealed that the firm prepared, sold, and transported various meat products to Federal and State medical institutions and a Federal correctional facility, which were sour and malodorous and did not meet the institutions’ product specifications for fat content.

Pre-Trial Diversion Programs

In certain situations, U.S. Attorneys may enter into Pre-Trial Diversion (PTD) agreements. Under these agreements, the Government agrees not to proceed with criminal prosecution if the alleged violator meets certain terms and conditions. The terms and conditions of a PTD are tailored to fit each individual case. FSIS frequently monitors these agreements so that the Agency can assist the U.S. Attorneys in determining whether prosecution should be re-instituted. If the violator successfully completes the program, no criminal charges are filed. If, the violator does not complete the program, criminal charges may be reinstated.

The following cases were referred to the Pre-Trial Diversion Program during FY 2000:

• January 2000. The president, vice president and treasurer of a meatpacking company in Kentucky entered into a Pre-Trial Diversion Agreement (PTD) with the Department of Justice as a result of criminal actions documented against the firm in January 1994. An investigation revealed that the firm caused meat products to become adulterated and misbranded, and then sold and transported the adulterated products. The PTD defers criminal prosecution for 12 months, provided that the terms of the agreement are followed. The company president, vice-president, and treasurer each paid USDA $2,000 for the cost of the investigation.

• April 2000. A food distribution company in Arkansas entered into a PTD agreement with the Department of Justice following criminal actions documented against the firm in January 1995. The investigation revealed that the firm caused meat products to become adulterated. The agreement defers criminal prosecution for 12 months, provided that the terms of the agreement are followed. The firm agreed to pay the United States a monetary penalty of $80,863, to pay USDA $25,000, and to make a charitable donation of $25,000 to local food bank.

Emergency Activities

Meat and Poultry Recalls

FSIS conducts a program to handle emergency actions concerning residue, microbiological, and other adulteration problems. This program oversaw actions on 78 meat and poultry product recalls during FY 2000 totaling 5.3 million pounds, including 26 beef recalls (33%), 16 poultry recalls (21%), 12 pork recalls (15%), and 24 multi-species recalls (31%). The primary causes of product recall for meat and poultry were microbiological (76%). Other causes for recalls were process/container defects (5%), undeclared substances (8%), extraneous material (6%), chemical (1%), residue (1%), and mislabeling (3%).

Egg Products Recalls

Five recalls involved a total of 9,510 pounds of domestic egg products. The causes of the recalls were potential contamination with Salmonella and Listeria. Products were destroyed or re-pasteurized and tested prior to entering commerce for human consumption.

Forward to Section IV    |    Return to Contents

For Further Information Contact:
FSIS Congressional and Public Affairs Staff
Phone: (202) 720-3897
Fax: (202) 720-5704

Communications to Congress Page | FSIS Home Page | USDA Home Page