Presentations
Partnering - The Future for Food Animal
Producer-Processor Government Interface -
Presented by Bonnie Buntain, DVM, MS, Director (former), Animal Production Food Safety Staff,
and Dan Vitiello, Domestic Programs Leader (former), Animal Production Food Safety Staff, Food
Safety and Inspection Service, USDA
I want to thank you for having FSIS' Animal Production Food Safety Program as part of your
meeting again this year. By coming to your meetings last year, we learned a lot about the
complexity of issues you face, and the successful solutions being implemented.
Last year’s meeting included great information about the importance of the dairy
beef quality assurance and care program. We also believe this is a critical area, not only
for real but also for perceived public health risks linked to the culled dairy cow.
The Pathogen Reduction and HACCP Systems final rule in slaughter and processing plants
is being implemented over the next three years. At the same time, companies like
McDonald’s Corporation and other branded products are requiring more and more
assurances for certain quality, safety and animal welfare practices. The culled dairy cow
is at risk of losing beef markets due to real and perceived food safety, animal welfare
and quality concerns. Real and perceived concerns about dairy cattle are everywhere:
- National media have expounded on Salmonella typhimurium DT 104 in Vermont dairy
cattle;
- The Farm Sanctuary has petitioned FDA and USDA to mandate disabled animals as
adulterated and therefore not suitable for food;
- Johnes disease has a questionable public health link;
- The BSE scare has imbedded on people’s minds the image of a suffering,
uncoordinated dairy cow;
- Evidence indicates Salmonella and E. coli O157:H7 shedding may be higher
in culled dairy cattle than fed beef; and
- Violative residues in culled cows and bob veal continue to lead the pack.
According to Section 417.2 of the Pathogen Reduction/HACCP Systems final rule,
slaughter plants must conduct a hazard analysis "to determine the food safety hazards
reasonably likely to occur before, during and after entry into the establishment."
The hazards are defined as:
- Physical (foreign objects);
- Natural toxins (e.g., aflatoxins);
- Zoonotic diseases (bacterial, parasitic);
- Other microbial contaminants;
- Chemical contaminants; and
- Food additives and decomposition.
Plants must evaluate significant hazards of incoming animals, develop a HACCP plan for
each, determine whether the critical control points are either prior to slaughter or where
during slaughter, make sure their system controls prevent the above hazards and ensure
products meet Salmonella performance standards.
I believe both FSIS and the slaughter establishments will take a close look at the culled
dairy cow. We all need to work together to provide adequate assurances to plants, branded
products and the consuming public that we are addressing all potential food safety,
quality and animal welfare real and perceived risks. Implementing and certifying producers
in Quality Assurance Programs will be key to survival in the HACCP-based and global
marketplace.
FSIS’ Animal Production Food Safety Program has not had much funding in the past
three years to provide assistance to food safety educational and risk analysis work at the
State level. However, we have funded projects which will contribute important information
for animal production food safety. I’d like to share some important outcomes with
you:
In 1996, FSIS and the Food Animal Production Medicine Consortium collaborated on a
nationwide culled cow survey. Total shared expenditures of approximately $500,000 were
utilized for this important work. We sampled 5,000 cows at slaughter, at five plants,
during winter and summer months. We wanted to know if culled cows could be sorted by body
condition score prior to slaughter to reduce Salmonella contamination during
slaughter. What was discovered was no significant difference in Salmonella shedding
in poor versus good body condition culled dairy cows.
In 1997, we funded, by the competitive contract process, four major risk and cost/benefit
analysis pilot projects:
- ARS received $300,000 to add to their broiler national epidemiological and risk
reduction survey using industry farms to study Salmonella and Campylobacter.
Dr. Stern’s group will identify important sources of these organisms and evaluate
competitive exclusion and other interventions for their ultimate impact on levels of
carcass contamination.
- Colorado State University received $245,000 and will evaluate the impact of certain good
hygienic management practices on the level of carcass pathogens in lambs at five major
slaughter plants.
- Iowa State, the Food Safety Consortium and North Carolina State Universities received
$272,244 to compare pathogen contamination antemortem and postmortem from All-In-All-Out
and continuous flow swine production systems.
- The University of Illinois, the Food Animal Production Consortium and Cornell University
were awarded $299,144 to assess a culled cow identification system in studying cattle from
the farm, through markets, and at slaughter. They will seek to determine the effect of
production practices on the prevalence of Salmonella and E. coli O157:H7.
Educational contracts were awarded to the:
- Livestock Conservation Institute for a survey of current educational programs for food
animal producers. An additional year of the Food Safety Digest was also
funded;
- Dairy Quality Assurance Center is developing biosecurity training materials and will
evaluate them; >
- DG Management Consultants of California will develop bilingual educational videos, an
internet web site, workbooks and educational analysis of teaching methods for poultry
producers in partnership with the California Poultry Egg and Meat Quality Assurance
Programs.
- Tuskegee University in partnership with Texas A & M and the Research Triangle
Institute of North Carolina will survey small farm and ranch producers for educational
needs in food safety and quality assurance;
- Alabama State Department of Agriculture’s Veterinary Office is bringing together
small packers and producers to discuss the importance of HACCP; and
- Missouri’s Department of Agriculture’s Veterinary Office is seeking to reach
small producers to educate them about HACCP’s implementation and the importance of
Quality Assurance Programs.
Because Food Safety and Quality Assurance Programs are so important, and should be
implemented in every small dairy and other food animal farm or ranch, FSIS has committed
to a long-term strategy of enhancing State partnerships. We’re seeking better ways to
support efforts similar to what Alabama and Missouri are doing to address their specific
State’s food safety challenges.
We saw the importance of enhancing State partnerships at last year’s USAHA’s
Western States Regional Meeting. We listened to the important working relationships
between the California State Veterinarian’s office and the State Public Health
office. This past year, we have shared Vermont’s collaborative efforts among State
and Federal animal health and public health offices with the Interagency Coordinating
Committee on Animal Production and Food Safety. We know the North East USAHA has nurtured
successful partnerships.
In November, FSIS held its annual Federal-State Conference on Food Safety outside the
beltway for the first time in Sacramento. Our Administrator, Tom Billy, chaired the
Conference and was present for the entire time and learned how California approached
partnering on food safety issues, whether it was in dairy animals or in eggs, or in
strawberries, lettuce, sprouts, or apple juice producers. The partnership approach worked
to improve coordination and communication.
After listening to discussions, Mr. Billy commented:
"It's clear that the partnership approach offers us some real advantages. It pools
our resources; they're getting ever scarcer. It helps avoid duplication, and quite frankly
we can't afford, for resource reasons or time reasons, duplication. And I think just as
important, it fills the gaps. Gaps that can occur in terms of effectively addressing farm
to table, of from bloom to bottle." (This was a reference to the apple juice
producers.)
Stuart Richardson, Chief of the Food and Drug Branch in California's Department of Health
Services made some comments on partnerships that are also worth repeating here:
"PARTNERING is a neat buzzword. We've all use it. All of you in your states have done
it for years. You have to partner to get things done."
What we learned in California was the high level of commitment to building trust among
partners from the Governor's office down. The Health Departments, Agriculture Department,
industry, academia, Extension and others work together for a common goal – improved
food safety and production.
Building trust among partners can be accelerated by a unifying event. In California the
egg industry was very concerned about Salmonella. And at the same time, there was a
increasing number of cases of SE in the human population. A very serious concern. The time
was right. A unifying event solidified the need to communicate, partner and try to work
out issues from all perspectives.
We in government can sit in our state capitals or in Washington and design the perfect
programs and hand them to industry. And they are going to just sit on the shelf unless the
industry is committed, trust among partners develops, and government supports the efforts.
This is not new – you have been through this with zoonotic diseases. The role of the
federal government continues to change, driven in a large part by budgetary constraints
and the evolution of new and complex food safety issues of our present day world. In order
to carry our complex programs impacting many stakeholders, partnerships are needed.
Responsibilities are increasingly shared with States and industry. Public involvement has
become more direct through the ever-expanding media, information super-highways and
consumers affected by foodborne illnesses. FSIS has both the challenge and opportunity to
plan and carry out its mission and implementation strategies through new forms of
collaboration and cooperation.
So in FY 1998, the Animal Production Food Safety Program is supporting State Partnerships.
Our goal is to encourage partnerships across the country, but resources limit us this
year. Hopefully next year, with Food Safety Initiative funding, we will be able to expand
from ten States to twenty-five.
What we plan to do is to make approximately $45,000 available to about ten offices of the
State veterinarian. We are pilot testing this concept by partnering with the Food and Drug
Administration’s tissue monitoring program. For those who are involved, we will be
asking you to facilitate the setting up of partnerships at the local level with your own
groups who are interested in animal production and food safety issues. By providing
supplemental funding, we hope local partnerships will be better able to be vehicles of
information for food animal producers.
The key State partners are:
- State veterinarians and State Department of Agriculture officials
- Local federal agency representatives of USDA and HHS
- Universities and Extension Service
- Food animal producers
- Veterinarians in practice
- State public health officials
- FSIS District managers
- Markets, dealers and transporters of livestock, poultry and eggs
- Consumer representatives
We will provide HACCP and food safety information as you request them. Our concern is
the small producer. We are looking for you to develop systems to provide information to
the small producer on HACCP-compatible production systems. As the marketplace changes, we
want to be sure that the small producer knows what to do to market their product.
HACCP-compatible practices are already out there. We do not intend to create something new
– just build on what works for you and your stakeholders.
Some key components of HACCP-compatible practices are:
- Animal or premise identification
- Management records
- Quality Assurance Program Certification
- Good Production Practices which reduce diseases and animal drug and antibiotic use
- Good sanitation practices in production, marketing, transportation and pre-slaughter
preparation which potentially reduce zoonotic foodborne pathogens
We believe State officials are key in enhancing information delivery systems during local
foodborne outbreaks and regarding food safety issues in general. It is critical that
experts in animal and human health work well together and have key local stakeholders meet
regularly and build trust and processes for working on food safety issues. Many of you are
already doing this and have success stories to share with other states.
So our strategy this year is to send next month requests for proposals to ten States which
have FDA residue contracts. The State names will not be released until the request for
proposals are announced publicly in the Commerce Business Daily. Additionally, we are
hoping to provide additional funds to APHIS to encourage States to enhance adoption of
Quality Assurance Certification Programs. Another project will be funded through CSREES to
develop an educational program in auditing skills for veterinarians to be used in
verifying quality assurance programs. We hope to have an announcement on all of these in
the near future.
Finally, I want to note what Dr. Richard Brietmeyer said to an audience of many livestock
regulators. He noted farm to table food safety links among some produce products, animal
manure and environmental issues. These links are best dealt with through State-based
partnerships.
This leads me to mention in our farm-to-table approach, the new FSIS District Offices are
being encouraged by senior management to work closer with you in the future. They have all
joined USAHA and are interested in working with you. They know HACCP implementation --
their prime responsibility now -- will be helped by advances in good production practices.
District Manager Dr. White is attending this meeting. I hope you take the time to talk
with him.
In closing, through these State partnerships we hope coordination among key stakeholders
from farm to table will continue to work together to deliver important food safety and
quality assurance information to small producers. In other words, to help industry be
proactive by having the best information available to make good decisions. Voluntary,
non-regulatory initiatives in animal production and food safety at the State level will
benefit us all.
Thank you.
Go to Top
|
