United States Department of Agriculture Food Safety and Inspection Service Washington, DC  20250

Animal and Egg Production Food Safety Staff

[ Home ] [ Activities ] [ Presentations ] [ Publications ] [ Contact Us ]

[ USDA Home Page ] [ FSIS Home Page ]

Presentations

Food Safety and Animal Production - Presented by Daniel J. Vitiello, Domestic Program Leader (former), Animal Production Food Safety Staff, Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA

It is a pleasure to be with the Association of Food and Drug Officials. About three years ago, I had the opportunity of presenting the Food Safety and Inspection Service's new education program to provide state sanitarians information on meat and poultry processing issues that they were likely to encounter when inspecting retail stores and restaurants. That activity continues and is being ably managed by Paulette Platko of FSIS’ Texas A&M Training Center. Today I have the opportunity to discuss with you another new FSIS initiative -- FSIS' role in improving food safety in animal production.

The Food Safety and Inspection Service does not have direct statutory authority with regard to on-farm activities. Rather, its role is to provide assistance and leadership for development and adoption of animal production food safety production practices. FSIS’ animal production food safety role can be segregated into four distinct components:

• Fostering research to develop reasonable and practical voluntary science-based food safety practices and verification procedures for food animal production that will reduce the risk of chemical, physical, and microbial hazards entering the food chain;
• Developing and maintaining cooperative relationships and state-based animal production food safety partnerships to support food safety initiatives;
• Communicating information needed by the animal production community to assist them in meeting reasonable, science-based requirements of animals and eggs at the receiving stage of processing; and
• Working cooperatively with the information multipliers to promote the adoption of good production practices by producers and suppliers which result in the safest and best quality animals and eggs being presented to meat, poultry, and egg processing plants.

FSIS has sought to develop a comprehensive educational approach to producers on animal production food safety. It has sought not only to provide information, but also to develop the information delivery systems to reach all producers, especially those small producers that are not part of any identified group. To accomplish this goal, we have had to utilize a variety of information delivery mechanisms. We know that many producers are part of producer organizations and are part of main stream agriculture. Others are more independent and harder to reach with traditional information routes.

We have utilized a dual approach – one to reach the majority of producers, the other to reach the underserved producer population. To reach this underserved producer population, FSIS has entered into several outreach agreements with the Hispanic, Tribal, and the 1890 institutions to foster animal production food safety practices. Our intent is to provide to them information about HACCP and how its implementation in meat and poultry processing facilities might affect their ability to market their animals for slaughter. We entered into nine (9) agreements with Hispanic and Tribal colleges in 1999 and intend to add at least the same number this year. However, it is FSIS’ outreach efforts with the states to reach the majority of producers through the state animal production food safety partnership that I will emphasize during this presentation, highlighting the entrepreneurial role of state government in animal production food safety.

State-based partnerships to improve animal production food safety

FSIS’s involvement with the states in animal production food safety really began following a meeting in Sacramento in November of 1997 at which then-AFDO President Dan Smyly discussed the need for federal-state integration of activities in order to maximize use of the limited resources each of us is provided. At that Sacramento meeting, we learned from the California Department of Food and Agriculture, the California Department of Health Services and the Food and Drug Administration about the value of local producer-based state partnerships to improve food safety. Following that conference Tom Billy, FSIS's Administrator, designated $500,000 of agency funds to begin the process of developing state-based animal production food safety partnerships to organize a producer education effort in support of HACCP. On developing this outreach program, FSIS recognized the success its sister USDA agency, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, has enjoyed by working with the state animal health officials to achieve its mission goals. Through cooperative federal-state efforts, a strong animal health/disease eradication and control infrastructure was established to protect livestock from damaging diseases such as brucellosis. FSIS sought to conjoin this infrastructure to deliver its producer education message about HACCP.

FSIS entered into 10 partnerships in 1998 by piggybacking onto FDA’s tissue residue program initiatives; we added nine more in 1999. In fiscal year 2000, we will use newly enacted cooperative agreement authority to maintain these relationships. These 19 states contain about 50 percent of all livestock producers in the country. These state partnerships are the vanguard for a new relationship for all involved in the animal production sector. Some states are putting many times more into the effort than is being provided by the federal government. From the state's perspective, there is an attitude of "let's get the job done" as they recognize that these activities really do affect the livelihood of the animal producers in the states, while improving food safety for consumers.

FSIS encourages state animal health officials to develop animal production food safety partnerships, which include local producers, private veterinarians, USDA extension agents, transporters and marketers. FSIS encourages the partnerships to also involve others concerned with food safety such as the packers which are implementing HACCP, state public health officials, local representatives of federal public health and animal health agencies, and even consumers. The goal has been to encourage producers, especially small family farmers, to implement practices described in industry-based quality assurance programs. These programs contain the best guidance currently accepted for residue control and good sanitation.

These food safety-related activities may be new for state animal health agencies. In addition, the task of educating small producers on food safety is made even more difficult because small producers may not be members of any organization and may be outside the reach of existing information distribution systems. For some states, there has been much trial and error methodology because each state is different, with different needs, and different information distribution mechanisms available to it. Some states already had an infrastructure on which to build the food safety delivery message; other states had to develop new processes.

Why are these animal production food safety state partnerships important to food safety? First, these partnerships are a sign of an important change that is occurring among the members of the food animal production sector. Information distributed on food safety issues is bearing fruit. Producers are beginning to understand that the actions they take can affect the acceptability of their product in the marketplace. Their involvement with public health officials, encouraged by the state animal health agencies, offers the opportunity for improved understanding of the relationship between production practices and improved food safety.

Second, the state partnerships are creating information delivery systems aimed at reaching the small family farmer. Government statistics indicate that the overwelming majority of food animal producers in the country are small family farmers. Today the animal production food safety partnerships are providing the small family farmer with information on residue avoidance through adoption of industry quality assurance practices and programs. Tomorrow, with the sizable public and private dollars being spent on finding reasonable and practicable ways to reduce harmful pathogens from entering the food supply, the animal production food safety partnerships will provide information on pathogen reduction practices to small producers.

As I indicated to you earlier, FSIS is currently involved in some 19 states partnership activities. The FSIS approach has been to contract with state animal health agencies to carry out the producer education. FSIS has not detailed the kinds of activities that the states are to carry out. The agency has set goals and purposes for these activities -- such as educating small producers concerning HACCP implementation and urging the adoption of food safety-related production practices normally contained in industry quality assurance programs. The states have chosen to emphasize certain producer groups based on the primary species raised in the states. According to Table 1, in the Appendix, sixteen (16) states are working with cattle producers, thirteen (13) states are working with dairy producers, and thirteen (13) states are educating swine producers. Eight (8) states are working with poultry meat producers; and ten (10) states are working with egg producers.

Their efforts are aimed at reaching the small family farmer -- the most difficult to reach. Table 2, in the Appendix, illustrates a variety of methods that the states have used trying to reach the small family farmer. Eighteen (18) states have developed their own materials to be provided to the producers and seventeen (17) states mailed these materials to producers. Six chose to place materials at kiosks at buying stations, which has the effect of tying information on food safety to the marketing system. Eighteen (18) states conducted meetings with producers and 11 states encouraged meetings between packers and producers. I might note that producer-packer meetings have not been largely successful. This creates real obstacles for the long-term -- processors and producers need to share information. If we are to have widespread adoption of the production practices that processors are going to need for pathogen reduction, these groups must communicate.

Many states recognized the private veterinarian as an important conveyor of food safety information and fourteen (14) states chose to train the private veterinarian. In one state, New York, the state legislature provided the state animal health office $400,000 for the purpose of training private veterinarians in food safety. Seven (7) states noted that other state officials, such as the dairy health inspectors and county agriculture contacts, could be important sources of information to producers and chose to train these information suppliers.

With regard to their individual partnerships, it is interesting to see on a statewide basis which groups the state partnerships have involved. Table 3, in the Appendix, illustrates how the states have been able to widen membership in the animal production food safety partnerships. Sixteen (16) states include public health officials and two (2) include marketing agencies. The majority of states relied on government funding to accomplish their goals, but four (4) states relied on more industry funding than government funding. Finally, four (4) states, recognizing that in the future marketing activities would be affected by HACCP, have begun working with local producers to develop verified or certified production control programs. FSIS encourages inclusion of consumers in the process, but no state, to date, has reported consumer involvement.

Federal Partnerships to Improve Animal Production Food Safety

At the federal level, FSIS is currently working with other federal agencies to develop verified production control programs. For the past several years, FSIS, APHIS, ARS (Agricultural Research Service) and the swine industry have worked together to develop animal production control programs for Trichinae in swine. This program, which will involve APHIS-accredited veterinarians at the local level, could be underway with in a pilot form later this year. The Trichinae program is seen as a model for identification of pathogen risk factors on farm, and their reduction or elimination.

FSIS also is cooperating in the development of production control systems for eggs through the Egg Safety National Standards Work Group which also includes the Center for Food Safety Applied Nutrition of the Food and Drug Administration and several states. This program is currently reviewing comments that have been received from public meetings and submitted materials to draft proposed national standards for the producer, shell egg packers and egg product processors.

Lastly FSIS participates in several interagency activities to foster improved animal production food safety communication among federal agencies. A major initiative is the Interagency Committee on Animal Production and Food Safety. Co-chaired by Dr. Stephen Sundlof of the Center for Veterinary Medicine and Dr. Bonnie Buntain of FSIS, it seeks to coordinate activities among the member agencies and to maximize the use of resources available to the agencies for animal production food safety activities. Another initiative seeks to improve current animal identification systems used by the animal production community. Six federal agencies are sharing information on this important animal production control tool, which will assist in traceback for residue violations and pathogen outbreaks, as well as enhance animal health and productivity.

Let me emphasize this activity. The availability of a national, reliable animal identification system will be an important food safety tool for FSIS. It will assist in its oversight of packer food safety activities. With regard to drug and chemical residues, it will permit stronger controls over repeat violators than is possible under today’s system. It will permit the development of data that are important to the prevention of disease in humans and enable both processors and government to recognize hazards in the food chain. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is taking the lead to encourage federal agencies to work together to assist in the development of a voluntary animal identification system by providing the funds necessary to develop the infrastructure to support such a system.

Education is the centerpiece of FSIS animal production food safety efforts. FSIS has established a College of Animal Production Food Safety in FSIS's Virtual University -- (http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OFO/HRDS/animalp/animalp.html). This website provides information to state agencies, producers and researchers on ongoing activities. Information on the state partnerships is contained at the website. We are currently working to develop training modules that might be used by high school agriculture education instructors and extension educators to provide information on animal production food safety practices. These activities are a joint effort by FSIS, the Department of Education, and the Cooperative State Research Education and Extension Service. These educational modules will be available on the FSIS Virtual University for easy downloading and use in the classroom. We will continue to develop this website as the central location for animal production food safety information for meat, poultry and egg products production and marketing.

In closing, I believe we have a good structure in place on which to build further food safety improvements. Meeting our food safety goals will require the efforts of both the public and private sectors in a farm-to-table approach. The Agency must be able to assure consumers that mechanisms are in place throughout the farm-to-plant segment to hold industry accountable for the introduction of hazards into the production and marketing of food animals and eggs. In the future, systems should be developed to assure traceback concerning the movement of animals from the farm until they are presented for slaughter and eggs to the point they reach a breaking plant. Similarly, it is imperative that producers, marketers, and packers share information concerning food safety production practices.

APPENDIX

State Partnership Overview

FSIS is currently involved with some nineteen (19) state partnership activities. The FSIS approach has been to contract with state animal health agencies to carry out producer education on HACCP. FSIS has not detailed the kinds of activities that the states are to carry out. The Agency has set goals and purposes for these activities: to educate producers in the state concerning HACCP implementation and to educate producers and urge their adoption of industry quality assurance programs, which include methods for residue avoidance. Because of limited and uneven year-to-year funding, FSIS has not made such funding available to all states.

Partnership Species Addressed

Table 1 contrasts how the 19 state partnerships have dealt with livestock production in their state. The states have chosen the species emphasis based on the primary species raised in that state. Sixteen (16) states are working with cattle and thirteen (13) are working with diary producers. Swine producers are being educated in thirteen (13) states. Eight (8) states are working with poultry producers; and ten (10) states are working with egg producers.

Partnership Education Activities

Since FSIS did not provide each state with materials to be utilized, each used the information available to it through generally available publications. Table 2 illustrates the variety of methods states have used -- trying to reach the small producer who is not part of an organized group. In accomplishing this objectives, eighteen (18) states developed their own materials to be provided to the producers. Seventeen (17) states mailed materials to producers. Six (6) chose to place materials at kiosks at buying stations -- tying information on HACCP to the marketing system. Some eighteen (18) states attempted meetings with producers and eleven (11) states encouraged meetings between packers and producers. Many states recognized that the private veterinarian would be an important conveyor of food safety information, and fourteen (14) states chose to train the private veterinarian. Other states noted that other state officials, such as dairy health inspectors and county contacts could be important sources of information to producers and seven (7) states chose to train these information suppliers.

 Partnership Characteristics

FSIS did provide guidance in the preparation of its contracts as to partnership characteristics. FSIS recommended a multi-disciplined membership including federal and state animal and public health officials, producer groups, marketing agencies, academia, and consumers . Table 3 indicates sixteen (16) states include public health officials and seven (7) included marketing agencies. While the majority of the states relied on government funding to accomplish their goals, four (4) states relied on more industry funding than government funding. Finally, four (4) states, recognizing that in the future marketing activities would be affected by processing plant HACCP systems, have begun working with local producers to develop verified/certified production control programs. FSIS did encourage the inclusion of consumers in the process, but no state has reported their involvement.

Go to Top

For further information contact:

Food Safety and Inspection Service
Office of Policy, Program Development and Evaluation
Animal and Egg Production Food Safety Staff
1400 Independence Ave., SW
Room 0002
Washington, DC  20250
Telephone:  202-690-2683
Fax:  202-720-8213