Skip navigation
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Here’s how you know

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

  • Food Safety
    • Recalls & Public Health Alerts
      • Report a Problem with Food
        • Additional Recalls
      • Annual Recall Summaries
        • Summary of Recall Cases in Calendar Year 2012
        • Summary of Recall Cases in Calendar Year 2013
        • Summary of Recall Cases in Calendar Year 2014
        • Summary of Recall Cases in Calendar Year 2015
        • Summary of Recall Cases in Calendar Year 2016
        • Summary of Recall Cases in Calendar Year 2017
        • Summary of Recall Cases in Calendar Year 2018
        • Summary of Recall Cases in Calendar Year 2019
        • Summary of Recall Cases in Calendar Year 2020
        • Summary of Recall Cases in Calendar Year 2021
    • Food Safety Stats
      • Consumer Research
    • Foodborne Illness and Disease
      • Illnesses and Pathogens
        • Campylobacter
          • Campylobacter En Español
        • Clostridium botulinum
        • Escherichia coli O157:H7
        • Parasites and Foodborne Illness
        • Salmonella Questions and Answers
      • Resources for Public Health Partners
        • State Departments of Public Health
      • Outbreaks
        • Outbreak Investigations: Prevention
        • Outbreak Investigations: Response
    • Safe Food Handling and Preparation
      • Food Safety Basics
        • Additives in Meat and Poultry Products
        • Appliance Thermometers
        • Asar a la parrilla y seguridad alimentaria
        • Cleanliness Helps Prevent Foodborne Illness
        • Cooking for Groups
        • Cooking with Microwave Ovens
        • Cutting Boards
        • Deep Fat Frying
        • Doneness Versus Safety
        • Food Allergies
        • Glossary of Packaging Terms
        • Grilling Food Safely
        • Grilling and Food Safety
        • High Altitude Cooking
        • How Temperatures Affect Food
        • How to Find the USDA Establishment Number
        • Importing Meat, Poultry & Egg Products US
        • Inspection for Food Safety: The Basics
        • Irradiation and Food Safety FAQ
        • Keeping "Bag" Lunches Safe
        • Keeping Food Safe During an Emergency
        • Kitchen Thermometers
        • Mail Order Food Safety
        • Meat and Poultry Labeling Terms
        • Meat and Poultry Packaging Materials
        • Natural Flavors on Meat and Poultry Labels
        • Safe Handling of Take-Out Foods
        • Slaughter Inspection 101
        • Slow Cookers and Food Safety
        • Smoking Meat and Poultry
        • Tailgating Food Safety Q & A
        • Understanding FSIS Food Recalls
        • Water in Meat & Poultry
        • Danger Zone 40F - 140F
        • Food Product Dating
        • Freezing and Food Safety
        • Leftovers and Food Safety
        • Molds on Food: Are They Dangerous?
          • Hongos en los Alimentos: ¿Son Peligrosos?
        • Refrigeration
        • Safe Temperature Chart
        • Shelf-Stable Food
        • Steps to Keep Food Safe
        • The Big Thaw — Safe Defrosting Methods
        • The Color of Meat and Poultry
        • Washing Food: Does it Promote Food Safety?
        • Food Safety While Hiking, Camping & Boating
        • Seguridad Alimentaria Durante Caminatas, Campamentos y Paseos en Bote
      • Meat
        • Bacon and Food Safety
        • Bagre de la Granja a la Mesa
        • Beef From Farm To Table
        • Bison from Farm to Table
        • Carne de res ablandada mecánicamente
        • Catfish from Farm to Table
        • Color of Cooked Ground Beef as It Relates to Doneness
        • Corned Beef
        • Door-to-Door Meat Sales
        • Fresh Pork from Farm to Table
        • Goat from Farm to Table
        • Ground Beef and Food Safety
        • Hams and Food Safety
        • Hot Dogs & Food Safety
        • Jerky
        • Lamb From Farm to Table
        • Mechanically Tenderized Beef
        • Rabbit From Farm to Table
        • Roasting Those "Other" Holiday Meats
        • Sausages and Food Safety
        • Veal from Farm to Table
        • Yersiniosis and Chitterlings Tips
      • Poultry
        • Chicken From Farm to Table
        • Chicken Liver
        • Duck and Goose from Farm to Table
        • Hock Locks and Other Accoutrements
        • Is Pink Turkey Meat Safe?
        • Let's Talk Turkey Roasting
        • Poultry Processing: Questions & Answers
        • Poultry: Basting, Brining, and Marinating
        • Stuffing and Food Safety
        • The Poultry Label Says "Fresh"
        • Turduckens Require Safe Food Handling
        • Turkey Basics: Handling Cooked Dinners
        • Turkey Basics: Safe Cooking
        • Turkey Basics: Safe Thawing
        • Turkey Basics: Stuffing
        • Turkey from Farm to Table
        • Turkey: Alternate Routes to the Table
      • Eggs
        • Egg Products and Food Safety
        • Shell Eggs from Farm to Table
      • Emergencies
        • A Consumer's Guide to Food Safety: Severe Storms and Hurricanes
        • Fires and Food Safety
        • Keep Your Food Safe During Emergencies
        • Removing Odors from Refrigerators and Freezers
      • USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline
      • Brochures & Publications
    • Food Defense and Emergency Response
      • Emergency Response
      • Continuity of Operations (COOP)
      • Food Defense
        • Risk Mitigation Tool
        • Food Defense Considerations for Transportation of FSIS-Regulated Products
        • Food Defense Tools, Resources and Training
        • Functional Food Defense Plans
        • International Food Defense
  • Science & Data
    • Research Priorities
    • Data Sets & Visualizations
      • Microbiology
        • Baseline Microbiology Data Reports
        • Microbiological Testing Program for RTE Meat and Poultry Products
          • Tables & Results Microbiological Testing Program for RTE Meat
          • Tables & Results: Microbiological Testing Program Pasteurized Egg Products
          • Aggregate Salmonella Categorization of Raw Chicken Parts, NRTE Comminuted Poultry, Young Chicken Carcass and Young Turkey Carcass Establishments Using Moving Windows
          • Salmonella Initiative Program Criteria
            • Quarterly Sampling Reports on Antimicrobial Resistance
            • Quarterly Sampling Reports on Raw Beef Products
            • Quarterly Sampling Reports on Ready-to-eat Products and Egg Products
            • Quarterly Sampling Reports on Salmonella
            • Salmonella Action Plan: A One and Two Year Update
            • Salmonella Categorization of Individual Establishments for Poultry Products
        • Microbiological Testing Program for Escherichia coli O157:H7 and non-O157 Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli (STEC)
          • Year-to-Date Totals: Testing of Raw Ground Beef Component (RGBC) Samples for E. coli O157:H7 and non-O157 Shiga toxin-producing E. coli (STEC)
          • Annual Report for STEC in Raw Ground Beef or Veal and Raw Ground Beef or Veal Components
          • Individual E. coli Positive Results for Raw Ground Beef (RGB) and RGB Components 2017
          • Individual E. coli Positive Results for Raw Ground Beef (RGB) and RGB Components 2018
          • Individual E. coli Positive Results for Raw Ground Beef (RGB) and RGB Components 2016
          • Individual E. coli Positive Results for Raw Ground Beef (RGB) and RGB Components 2015
          • Year-to-Date 2018 Totals: Results of Raw Ground Beef Component (RGBC) Samples for E. coli O157:H7 and non-O157 Shiga toxin-producing E. coli (STEC):
        • National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System (NARMS)
        • Salmonella Verification Testing Program Monthly Posting
      • Residue Chemistry
      • Humane Handling Data
      • Laboratory Sampling Data
        • Egg Product Testing, Years 1995-2017
      • Inspection Task Data
    • Scientific Reports
      • Public Health Regulations (PHR)
        • FSIS Data Analysis and Reporting: Public Health Regulations FY 2022
        • FSIS Data Analysis and Reporting: Public Health Regulations FY 2021
        • FSIS Data Analysis and Reporting: Public Health Regulations FY 2016
        • FSIS Data Analysis and Reporting: Public Health Regulations FY 2017
        • FSIS Data Analysis and Reporting: Public Health Regulations FY 2018
        • FSIS Data Analysis and Reporting: Public Health Regulations FY 2019
        • FSIS Data Analysis and Reporting: Public Health Regulations FY 2020
        • FSIS Data Analysis and Reporting: Public Health Regulations FY 2023
      • Interagency Food Safety Analytics Collaboration (IFSAC)
    • Laboratories & Procedures
      • Accredited Laboratory Program
        • Key Facts: ISO Accreditation
      • FSIS Laboratories
        • Requesting Bacterial Isolates from FSIS
    • Risk Assessments
    • Sampling Program
      • Raw Pork Products Exploratory Sampling Program
      • Sampling Results for FSIS Regulated Products
    • Journal Publications
  • Policy
    • Food Safety Acts
      • Federal Meat Inspection Act
      • Poultry Products Inspection Act
      • Egg Products Inspection Act
      • Humane Methods of Slaughter Act
    • FSIS Guidelines
    • Directives & Notices
      • FSIS Notices
      • FSIS Directives
    • Petitions
    • Federal Register & Rulemaking
      • Federal Register Notices
      • Federal Register Rules
      • Executive Orders, Small Business Protection Laws & Other Guidance
      • Regulatory Priorities
    • Advisory Committees
      • National Advisory Committee on Meat and Poultry Inspection (NACMPI)
      • National Advisory Committee on Microbiological Criteria For Foods (NACMCF)
        • 2021-2023 National Advisory Committee on Microbiological Criteria For Foods (NACMCF)
        • NACMCF 2022 Subcommittee
        • 2018-2020 National Advisory Committee on Microbiological Criteria For Foods (NACMCF)
  • Inspection
    • Inspection Programs
      • Inspection of Meat Products
        • Humane Handling Ombudsman
        • Modernization of Swine Slaughter Inspection
      • Inspection of Poultry Products
        • Reducing Salmonella in Poultry
          • Pilot Projects: Salmonella Control Strategies
          • Proposed Regulatory Framework to Reduce Salmonella Illnesses Attributable to Poultry
            • Component 1
            • Component 2
            • Component 3
          • Salmonella By the Numbers
          • Salmonella KPI
          • Salmonella Risk Assessments
        • Modernization of Poultry Slaughter Inspection
      • Inspection of Egg Products
      • Inspection of Siluriformes
    • Compliance Guidance
      • Significant Guidance
      • HACCP
        • HACCP-Based-Inspection Models Project
          • New Poultry Inspection System (NPIS)
          • HIMP Redesign Achievement of Performance Standards Young Chicken Plants
          • List of HIMP Participating Plants
        • HACCP Validation
      • PHIS
        • PHIS: Historical Information
      • Retail Guidance
      • Small & Very Small Plant Guidance
        • Appealing Inspection Decisions
        • Food Safety Resources for Small and Very Small Plant Outreach: Order Form
        • Small Plant Help Desk
        • Small Plant Help Desk Form
      • Microbial Risk
        • Listeria Monocytogenes
        • Salmonella
        • Shiga Toxin-Producing E.Coli (STEC) and E. Coli O157:H7
        • Specified Risk Material
          • BSE Rules Being Strictly Enforced
        • Guidance for Controlling Listeria monocytogenes (Lm) in Retail Delicatessens - Best Practice Tips for Deli Operators
      • Specified Risk Material Resources
      • Food Safety Assessments Tools
      • Recall Process
      • Sanitation Performance Standards Compliance Guide
      • Labeling
        • Basics of Labeling
        • Claims Guidance
        • Nonfood Compounds
          • Compounds Used for Construction and Repair in Federally Inspected Meat and Poultry Plants
          • Criteria Used by the Former Compounds and Packaging Branch for Evaluating Nonfood Compounds and Proprietary Substances
        • Ingredients Guidance
        • Label Submission and Approval System (LSAS)
          • Integration of Paper Label Applications into the Label Submission and Approval System (LSAS)
        • Labeling Policies
          • Human Food Made with Cultured Animal Cells
          • Regulations for Package Dating
          • Comprehensive List of Reasons for Label Modifications and Returns
          • Questions and Answers Concerning the Recently Published Generic Labeling Final Rule
        • Labeling Procedures
          • Information Required For Requesting a Temporary Approval
          • 10 Most Common Mistakes And How to Avoid Them
          • Label Submission Checklist
          • Labeling Situations That Can Not Have a Temporary Approval
          • Labeling and Establishment Responsibilities
          • Ten Most Commonly Asked Labeling Questions
          • Trans Fat Declarations in the Nutrition Facts Panel on Product Labeling
      • New Technology
        • Cooperative Agreements FY 2003
        • Cooperative Agreements FY 2004
        • Cooperative Agreements FY 2005
        • Food Safety Technologies FY 2003
        • Food Safety Technologies FY 2004
        • Food Safety Technologies FY 2005
        • NOL for Non-O157 STEC Test Methods
        • New Technology Information Table
      • Humane Handling
    • Import & Export
      • Import & Export Library
        • Eligible Foreign Establishments
        • U.S. Establishments by Country
          • Australia Eligible Establishments
          • Brazil Export Eligible Establishments
          • Egypt Export Eligible Establishments
          • Gibraltar Export Eligible Establishments
          • Israel Export Eligible Establishments
          • Japan (Casings) Export Eligible Establishments
          • Japan (Cold Storage Facilities) Export Eligible Establishments
          • Mexico Export Eligible Establishments
          • Russia (Beef) Export Eligible Establishments
          • Russia (Pork) Export Eligible Establishments
          • Russia (Poultry) Export Eligible Establishments
          • Russia (Prepared Products) Export Eligible Establishments
          • South Africa Eligible Establishments
      • Import Guidance
        • FSIS Import Procedures for Meat, Poultry & Egg Products
        • FSIS Import Reinspection
        • Sourcing Egg Products and Shell Eggs From Foreign Countries
      • Export Guidance
      • Equivalence
      • PHIS Components
      • International Reports
        • Foreign Audit Reports
        • Import and Export Data
    • Regulatory Enforcement
      • Humane Handling Enforcement
      • Quarterly Enforcement Reports
        • Quarterly Enforcement Reports (Narrative, Archived v1)
        • Quarterly Enforcement Reports (Narrative, Archived v2)
        • Quarterly Enforcement Reports (Narrative, Archived v3)
        • Quarterly Enforcement Reports (Narrative, Archived v4)
      • FSIS Policies on Regulatory Decisions
    • Inspection Training & Videos
      • Inspection & Mission Training
      • Meat, Poultry and Egg Product Inspection Videos
      • Regulatory Education Video Seminars
    • Apply for Grant of Inspection
      • Grants & Financial Options
    • State Inspection Programs
      • Cooperative Interstate Shipping Program
        • Cooperative Interstate Shipment (CIS) Establishments
      • Guidance Documents for State and Local Agencies
      • States With and Without Inspection Programs
      • Reviews of State Programs
    • Establishments
      • FSIS Inspected Establishments
      • Meat, Poultry and Egg Product Inspection Directory
    • Inspection Forms
  • About FSIS
    • History
    • Leadership & Organizational Structure
    • Strategic Planning
      • FSIS Enterprise Governance Decision Making Process
    • Core Values
    • Food Safety & Agency Partners
      • Memoranda of Understanding (MOU)
    • Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
      • FSIS Adjudications
      • FSIS FOIA Reading Room
      • Frequently Requested Records
      • Making a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Request
    • Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS)
  • Contact Us
    • FSIS Offices
      • Office for Food Safety (OFS)
      • Office of the Administrator (OA)
      • Office of Field Operations (OFO)
      • Office of Investigation, Enforcement, and Audit (OIEA)
      • Office of Public Health Science (OPHS)
      • Office of Policy and Program Development (OPPD)
      • Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO)
      • Office of International Coordination (OIC)
      • Office of Employee Experience and Development (OEED)
      • Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO)
      • Office of Management (OM)
      • Office of Public Affairs and Consumer Education (OPACE)
      • Internal Affairs (IA)
      • Office of Planning Analysis Risk Management (OPARM)
      • Civil Rights Staff
    • FSIS Department Emails
    • State Contacts
    • askFSIS
      • Having Trouble with the Webform
    • Pregúntele a Karen
  • Careers
    • Apply for a Job
    • Job Opportunities
    • Who Works for Us
      • Dr. Summer Addo — an Unexpected Career Path
      • Dr. Jeanetta Tankson Shares Her Passion for Science and Food Safety
      • Micheall Myrie - Visual Information Specialist and AAFE Award Winner
      • DDM Jeffery Jacobsen Ensures Meat is Safe and Cooks it, Too!
      • CSI Sherri Rodriguez: Thankful for FSIS and Friends
      • Stephen Whatley Celebrates 50 Years of Federal Service
      • Stevie Hretz Enjoys Putting “Humans First!”
      • Archives
    • Career Profiles
      • Administrative Positions
      • Compliance Investigator Positions
      • Consumer Safety Inspector
      • Food Inspector
      • Professional Positions
      • Public Health Veterinarian (PHV)
      • Scientific Positions
    • Incentives
      • Federal Employee Benefits Summary
    • Employment Programs
    • Food Inspector Apprenticeship Programs
    • Professional with Disabilities
  • News & Events
    • Events & Meetings
      • Officials' Calendar of Meetings
      • Food Safety Education Month
    • News & Press Releases
      • News Feeds & Subscriptions
    • Publications
    • Branding & Toolkits
  • Employees
    • HR Policies & Systems
      • Forms
      • Performance Management
      • Understanding Your Benefits
        • Emergency Backup Dependent Care (EBDC) Program
    • FSIS Safety
      • COVID-19 Pandemic Resources
        • Information about Face Coverings/Masks and Face Shields
      • Workplace Violence
    • Onboarding
      • New Hire Training
    • Agency Awards & Achievements
    • Professional Development Opportunities
      • OFO Workforce Investment Initiative Pilot Program
    • Facilities and Services
    • Employee Bargaining
    • Civil Rights
    • Employee News & Stories
    • FSIS Snapshots
      • January 2023 Snapshots
      • December 2022 Snapshots
      • September 2022 Snapshots
      • August 2022 Snapshots
      • November 2022 Snapshots
      • July 2022 Snapshots
      • October 2022 Snapshots
      • June 2022 Snapshots
      • May 2022 Snapshots
      • April 2022 Snapshots
      • March 2022 Snapshots
      • February 2022 Snapshots
      • January 2022 Snapshots
      • December 2021 Snapshots
      • November 2021 Snapshots
      • October 2021 Snapshots
      • September 2021 Snapshots
      • August 2021 Snapshots
      • July 2021 Snapshots
      • June 2021 Snapshots
    • Submit Your Stories
    • Meet Pickle-Eating Champ, CSI Joe Smith
    • Supervisors Make All the Difference!
    • Disability: Part of the Equity Equation
    • Archives
      • ARCHIVE: National Preparedness Month - Cyber Security for Remote Work
      • ARCHIVE: National Preparedness Month: Occupant Emergency Planning
      • ARCHIVE: Message from Leadership — Women’s Equality Day
      • ARCHIVE: Managing Heat Risk in Hot Weather
      • ARCHIVE: New Netflix Show Features USDA and FSIS
      • ARCHIVE: Asian American, Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander Heritage Month — Advancing Leaders Through Collaboration
      • ARCHIVE: Thank You for Your Public Service
      • ARCHIVE: World Veterinary Day — Recognizing the Resilience of FSIS Veterinarians
      • ARCHIVE: Two Hero Inspectors Provide Potentially Life-Saving CPR to a Plant Employee
      • ARCHIVE: Hero Inspector Saves a Life While on the Road
      • ARCHIVE: Administrative Professionals Day — Thank You
      • ARCHIVE: Chief Information Security Officer Marvin Lykes Recognized for Operational Excellence
      • ARCHIVE: Women’s History Month: Women Providing Healing, Promoting Hope
      • ARCHIVE: Alameda District Awards Petaluma Circuit Inspectors Recognition Coins
      • ARCHIVE: Collaborating in the Caribbean — Bringing Awareness About African Swine Fever
      • ARCHIVE: Message from Leadership — Be an Advocate for Public Health
      • ARCHIVE: Message from Leadership — Honoring Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
      • ARCHIVE: In Their Own Words: The 2021 Administrator’s Awards for Excellence Winners Speak Out
      • ARCHIVE: CSI Koffi Hoenou – From Togolese Teacher to U.S. Citizen
      • ARCHIVE: Dearborn, Mich., Circuit Inspectors Receive Collaborative Coins
      • ARCHIVE: Don’t Invite Foodborne Illness to the Party
      • ARCHIVE: Inspection for Ritual Meat and Poultry Slaughter
      • ARCHIVE: Thanksgiving Message from Leadership
      • ARCHIVE: Make a Difference for You and Your Colleagues – Respond to FEVS by Dec. 3
      • ARCHIVE: American Indian/Alaskan Native Heritage Month — Together Towards Tomorrow
      • ARCHIVE: Federal State Audit Staff Twice Honored for Supporting Military Staff
      • ARCHIVE: Veterans Day Messages from FSIS Leadership
      • ARCHIVE: Food Inspector Apprenticeship Programs for Veterans
      • ARCHIVE: Disability Employment Awareness Month — America’s Recovery: Powered by Inclusion
      • ARCHIVE: Helping Today’s Inspectors Be Tomorrow’s Leaders with Tuition Reimbursement
      • ARCHIVE: Dr. Geraldine Vidal-Covas Embraces Her Hispanic Heritage, Encourages All
      • ARCHIVE: National Preparedness Month – Home Go Kits & Pets
      • ARCHIVE: Mask Requirements Updated for FSIS Employees
      • ARCHIVE: Modernizing Egg Inspection
      • ARCHIVE: FSIS Recognized Twice for 2020 Food Safety Education Efforts
      • ARCHIVE: Four Steps to Good Mental Health
      • ARCHIVE: Building Relationships at Work
      • ARCHIVE: Pride Month and USDA’s Commitment to Inclusion
      • ARCHIVE: Honoring the Dedicated Public Servants of FSIS
      • ARCHIVE: Asian American and Pacific Islander Contributions to Our Nation’s History
      • ARCHIVE: USDA Vaccination Heroes Do Their Part for America
      • ARCHIVE: Remembering Their Sacrifice: Jean Hillery, Tom Quadros and Bill Shaline

Food Safety and Inspection Service

  • About FSIS
  • Contact Us
  • Careers
  • News & Events
  • Employees
  • Food Safety
  • Science & Data
  • Policy
  • Inspection
  • Recalls
  • Search
  • Full Menu
Page Hero
Subscribe for Updates
Accountable Icon star in center and leaf design

Questions or Concerns

Please contact FSISDataDriven@usda.gov with any questions or concerns about FSIS data.
Contact us
Ask FSIS

askFSIS

Find answers to questions on inspection-related policies, programs, systems, and procedures.
Find An Answer

Residue Chemistry

Annual information on the process of sampling meat, poultry, and egg products for chemical contaminants, as well as repeat violators.

Residue Testing: National Residue Program

"Blue Books" explaining of the process used to plan the U.S. National Residue Program (NRP) for Meat, Poultry, and Egg Products.

  • FY2020
  • FY2019
  • FY2018
  • FY2017

"Red Books" explaining FSIS' chemical residue sampling plans and present NRP testing results.

  • FY2019
  • FY2018
  • FY2017
  • FY2016
  • FY2015

These lists, provided in PDF and Excel spreadsheet format, contain information to help establishments, Livestock Markets as well as inspection program personnel identify residue history of producers.

  • View the Residue Repeat Violators List

On May 28, 2014, FSIS issued FSIS Notice 24-14, Livestock Slaughter Establishment Residue Questionnaire, with instructions to Public Health Veterinarians (PHVs) to gather data about factors that may affect the performance of in-plant screening tests.  The questionnaire began June 1 and ended June 30, 2014.   The PHIS assigned questionnaire produced completed PHV responses from 796 establishments; however, multiple PHV responses were received from several establishments.  In addition, several of the questions allowed multiple answers so this also resulted in answers that exceeded the 796.  FSIS intends to use the responses to the questionnaire to assess what factors influence the ability of PHVs to implement residue sampling instructions as intended and to develop strategies to enhance the effectiveness of those instructions.

  1. PHVs were asked to identify in which document the establishment addresses residues.
    The majority of responses (432) indicate establishments address residues in their HACCP plan or in a prerequisite program (341).   The third most common answer selected was that the establishment does not address residues (156).  Some PHVs selected pre-slaughter controls at the livestock production unit (79) or a Sanitation SOP (17). Only a few responses indicated that residues were addressed as a critical control point (9).
     
  2. The PHVs were asked to select the statements that describe the establishment's residue control program (other than testing). 
    The response selected most frequently was that the establishment does not have a residue control program (354).  For establishments with residue control programs, the responses were selected in this order:   the establishments have residue control programs that are written (349), the residue control program is available for FSIS review (325), the establishment adheres to their program (285), the program creates and maintains records (223), the program identifies elements of FSIS’ sampling as part of their program (222), the program requires residue-free certification from all suppliers (186), the residue control program has pre-slaughter controls (108), and the program has decreased the number of violative residues (48).  The least selected answer was pre-testing of livestock from all suppliers (2).
     
  3. The PHVs were asked to select the statements that describe this establishment's residue testing plan.
    The vast majority responded that the establishment does not have a residue-testing plan (753).  Of the establishments that have a residue-testing plan, the responses in decreasing frequency were:  the residue testing plan is written (74), the residue testing plan is available for FSIS review (71), the plan creates and maintains records (58), the establishment adheres to its plan (56), the plan implements pre-slaughter testing at livestock production units (18), and the residue testing plan has decreased the number of violative residue results (7).
     
  4. PHVs were asked to select the statements that describe residue testing at this establishment.
    The majority responded that the establishment does not conduct its own residue testing (802).  Of the responses at establishments that conduct their own residue testing, the top response was that the establishment performs residue screen assays only (20), followed by the establishment performs screening and submits the screen positives to an outside lab (19).  The least selected response was that the establishment collects samples and submits them to an outside lab (15).
     
  5. FSIS asked PHVs if there are livestock production units (producers) supplying animals to this establishment that have residue avoidance programs due to requirements in the establishment's residue control program.
    The majority answered “no” (692) but around one-third of the responses were “yes.” (246).
     
  6. FSIS asked if the establishment provides FSIS the livestock producer name and address for carcasses found to have violative levels of residues by the FSIS laboratory.
    The majority of the responses were “yes” (465) with “not applicable” being the next most common response (370).  A few responded “no” (14).
     
  7. PHVs were asked to select and rank the top seven most significant reasons to not perform residue testing from greatest to least.
    The top response was that there was no reason to not test (542).  For the reasons that were selected to not test, starting with the most frequently selected:  professional discretion (473), carcass condemned (337), and no specific instruction (305).  286 PHVs selected the time needed to enter information into PHIS as a reason to not residue test.  Staffing issues like rotation (277) and vacancies (262) were next, followed by a lack of supplies (253), “other” (240), and office space needed for testing equipment (207).  Inspector training (179) was selected next, followed by perceived FDA inaction (176), frozen storage space (143), and establishment cooperation (123).  The least selected includes KIS test block availability (113), lack of enforcement action (109), PHV training (85), and establishment repercussions (70).
     
  8. The PHVs were asked to provide other barriers from Q.7.
    Small establishment slaughtering healthy livestock was the reason for the majority of the answers (127).  The second most frequent response was that there were no barriers; they do test (88).  The other reasons for not testing include time (25), staffing shortage (14), shortage of KIS equipment or supplies (4), and vacant positions (4).
     
  9. The PHVs were asked to list and rank the top 5 time-consuming inspection tasks out of a list of 18 possible choices. 
    The most frequently selected choice was HACCP duties (614), followed by post-mortem/on line inspection duties (588), humane handling (540), Sanitation SOP (497), and ante-mortem inspection (419).  PHIS non residue entry was the next selected time-consuming task (402) and was followed by plant discussions (261), travel (252), email (247), pathology/dispositions (193), and then personnel issues (161).  The least selected choices include residue in-plant testing (141), residue PHIS entry (107), residue-directed sampling (99), other generic E. coli (74), other records (72), and NR appeals (60).
     
  10. The PHVs were asked to provide other time-consuming tasks from not identified in Q.9.
    The reasons provided include other sampling (11), PHIS data entry (9), exports (4), AgLearn (2), and verifying sanitary dressing (1).
     
  11. Veterinarians were asked to select from a list of decision criteria which factors they use to support a decision not to select a carcass for residue testing when the carcass demonstrates a condition that may warrant testing.
    The most frequently selected responses were the establishment only slaughters healthy livestock (401) and the veterinarian had not previously found violative residues in livestock from the producer (297).  The next most frequently selected responses were: IPP have the authority to test fewer carcasses if establishment history supports the decision (181) and the list of conditions that may warrant testing does not apply to the market class slaughtered (169).  The selections identified least frequently were when the carcass is condemned (148), and the IPP have the authority to test fewer carcasses if producer history supports the decision (119).
     
  12. FSIS veterinarians selected a set of responses that they find helpful when determining which carcasses to test for residues.
    Generally, respondents prefer to strengthen inspector awareness of the pathological conditions that warrant testing for residues (406).  Additionally, respondents favor more definitive carcass selection criteria (348).  The rest of the responses, in order of emphasis from most to least, were: provide IPP guidance on how to assess their level of in-plant testing (333), require veterinarians, food inspectors and consumer safety inspectors to test a percent of carcasses for each market class (262), provide an explanation on how to prioritize performance of residue tasks (229), and strengthen FSIS veterinarians’ awareness of pathological conditions warranting residue testing (228).
     
  13. FSIS veterinarians were asked to share an approach or a strategy they use when implementing FSIS’ residue program that they considered helpful to other FSIS veterinarians.
    The top two responses were 1) perform the screen test  based on the observations made from antemortem and postmortem inspection observations (59) and 2) work with the consumer safety inspectors to enhance the inspectors’ awareness of FSIS’ policy and pathological conditions that may warrant testing for residues (47).  Additionally, veterinarians recommend the following steps be taken:  follow the existing policy (20), post a list of pathologies warranting testing in the FSIS inspection office (19), post the residue violator list and refer inspectors to the list(6),  ensure carcasses demonstrating conditions of acute disease are tested (5), and finally, a small percentage of veterinarians suggest testing all condemned carcasses (4).
     
  14. FSIS asked whether field staff consider antemortem inspection findings when selecting carcasses for drug residue testing.
    Most of the respondents selected “Always,” indicating veterinarians considered antemortem findings and postmortem findings when selecting carcasses for in-plant residue testing (383).  Many veterinarians reported they either “occasionally” (220) or “frequently” (186) consider antemortem observations when deciding if a carcass should be tested for residues.  A small percentage of the responses showed that antemortem observations are not used when deciding to test a carcass (53).
     
  15. Respondents identified the residue tasks performed by Food Inspectors or Consumer Safety Inspectors at the establishment.
    The survey identified the process of selecting carcasses for testing and the performance of the many features of the testing program as separate elements, and the survey asked veterinarians to identify which parts of the testing program were completed by inspectors.  The parts most frequently selected were: tissue sample collection (641), security of samples (634), collection of all animal identification (581), carcass selection at postmortem for residue testing (565), setting up the residue test (KISTM Test)(562), security of animal identifications (554), entering the information into PHIS (529), and inspectors perform all aspects of the FSIS in-plant residue program (515).  Additional tasks performed by inspectors included selecting animals for residue testing during ante-mortem inspection (399), and some inspectors enter test results in another record system, such as Microsoft Excel or Word (152).
     
  16. Veterinarians were asked to report the total number of hours all FSIS personnel at the assigned establishment spend performing all aspects of FSIS' in-plant residue program.
    Most respondents said they spend less than 1 hour per shift executing FSIS’ residue program (560), followed by 1 hour to less than 2 hours (173), 2 hours to less than 3 hours (52), 4 hours or more was next (31), followed by 3 hours to less than 4 hours (25).
     
  17. FSIS asked veterinarians to identify what actions the establishment took to prevent the slaughter of livestock that have violative residues by selecting from a list of actions that establishments could implement.
    The most frequent response was that the establishment did not have to address violative residues because FSIS never found a violative residue in livestock slaughtered at the establishment (489).  Other responses identified include: buying directly from producers (282), provide supplier information to FSIS at the time of antemortem inspection (239), notify producers of all residue findings (221), establishments verified supplying producers are not on the Residue Repeat Violator List (179), and the establishments stopped buying livestock from the repeat violator (121).

    Additional actions taken included: establishments started their own in-plant residue control program (75), identifying drug residues as reasonably likely to occur in the establishment’s hazard analysis (55), establishments improved their animal segregation practices (31), establishments reassessed the hazard analysis when there are changes in suppliers (24), and started live animal testing (7).
     
  18. FSIS asked veterinarians to identify additional actions that establishments took to prevent the slaughter of livestock that have violative residues.
    In order of predominance, the responses include: purchase from known suppliers with good reputations (29), require certificates or producer affidavits (27), slaughter only healthy animals (20), discontinued business with suppliers of residue positive livestock (9), all suppliers are notified of violations (8), the establishment provides educational information on residues (7), the establishment does not or rarely slaughters high risk production classes (6), the establishment monitors herd records (6), the establishment does not buy from sale barns (6), and  the establishment provides FSIS with animal identification (3).

    Veterinarians also reported the following actions were taken by establishments.  A few establishments increase testing when violations are identified (3), make suppliers liable for violations (2), require suppliers to check the repeat violator list for names of owners of livestock shipped to the establishment (2), hold livestock prior to slaughter (2), use end-user specifications (1), performs its own ante-mortem and postmortem check (1), post signs in the pen area indicating that the establishment will not accept livestock with drug residue (1), and maintains and updates list of known violators.
     
  19. FSIS asked veterinarians to identify those actions, from a list of actions, which FSIS took in the establishment because of multiple residue violations.
    The most common response was that no actions had been taken because the establishment has not had to address multiple violative residues (683).  For those establishments that experienced multiple residue violations, veterinarians reported that FSIS took the following actions: increased testing of carcasses (71), documented discussions with establishment officials on memorandum of interviews (63), authored noncompliance records (50), linked noncompliance reports (15), and district offices issued either a Notice of Intended Enforcement (9) or Notice of Suspension without prior notification (2).
     
  20. Veterinarians were asked to provide any additional comments they may have about FSIS taking action due to multiple residue violations.
    Some respondents thought FSIS should increase residue testing on livestock from brokers that handled violative livestock and producers who sold livestock with violative residues (7).   They also express concern regarding suppliers changing their names in order to evade the repeat violator list protocols (6).  Some veterinarians responded that FDA should take on greater responsibility and take stronger action against violators (3).
     
  21. Respondents provided additional comments about the establishment's residue control program or testing plan that were not addressed in the rest of the survey.
    Several veterinarians reported that establishments relied solely on National Residue Program testing and FSIS’ residue program (14).  Several reported establishments address residue in HACCP plans and determined residues are a hazard not reasonably likely to occur (13).  Respondents report establishment-based practices included: residue testing to support export requirements (2), marking swine to identify hogs to be used for producing export product and specific domestic distribution(1), and establishments are purchasing hogs from producers certified by National Pork Board’s Quality Assurance Program (1).

Conclusion:  The 2014 Residue Questionnaire results indicate a need for more specific instruction and training for PHVs on when to residue test.  The responses from the PHVs indicate that there is some confusion with the current instruction, and, further, those instructions should be more slaughter class specific.  Staffing shortages and interference from other inspection responsibilities continue to be a reason to not residue test.  The results of this questionnaire were used to initiate the FSIS Slaughter Pilot project which FSIS intends to start in October.

This quarterly report summarizes chemical residue results for the United States National Residue Program for meat, poultry, and egg products. The results in this report cover the domestic (scheduled and inspector-generated) and import sampling programs.

Fiscal Year 2022

  • Fourth Quarter, July – September 2022 | Dataset
  • Third Quarter, April – June 2022 | Dataset
  • Second Quarter, January – March 2022 | Dataset
  • First Quarter, October – December 2021 | Dataset

Fiscal Year 2021

  • Fourth Quarter, July – September 2021 | Dataset
  • Third Quarter, April – June 2021 | Dataset
  • Second Quarter, January – March 2021 | Dataset
  • First Quarter, October – December 2020 | Dataset

Fiscal Year 2016

  • Second Quarter, January–March 2016
  • First Quarter, October–December 2015

Fiscal Year 2015

  • Fourth Quarter, July–September 2015
  • Third Quarter, April–June 2015
  • Second Quarter, January–March 2015
  • First Quarter, October–December 2014

Illegal drug residues in the nation’s food supply are a concern to the Food and Drug Administration. The Center for Veterinary Medicine’s Division of Compliance is responsible for reviewing violative residues reported to the Agency by the USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service.

  • View the FDA Drug Residues page

Screening Tests

Guidance document which provides instruction for conducting residue in-plant tests. Available in English, Arabic, Chinese, Spanish and Vietnamese.

  • View the instructions

Dioxins

  • Dioxins and PCBs, U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
  • Environmental Assessment: See Dioxin Resources, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
  • Dioxins, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS)

USDA, with its government partners FDA and EPA, conducts periodic monitoring surveys for dioxins in meat and poultry.

  • View the 2018, 2013, 2009 and 2005 Reports

In February 2012, EPA established a chronic oral reference dose (RfD) for noncancer effects for  2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD), which is used as a reference dioxin.   In a study published in September 2013, FSIS estimated dietary exposures of its regulated products for comparison to the RfD.

  • Dietary Estimates of Dioxins Consumed in U.S. Department of Agriculture–Regulated Meat and Poultry Products. Kerry L. Dearfield, Sarah R. Edwards, Margaret M. O’Keefe, Naser M. Abdelmajid, Ashley J. Blanchard, David D. Labarre, and Patty A. Bennett (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection Service). Journal of Food Protection, Vol. 76, No. 9, 2013, Pages 1597–1607. (Subscription required)
  • Dietary Estimate Tables (Supplemental) to accompany the journal article
    • Beef
    • Pork, Chicken and Turkey

Melamine

FSIS collected retail samples of ready-to-eat meat and poultry products to test for the presence of melamine. This action was prompted by public health concerns regarding melamine contamination of imported milk-derived food ingredients in FDA-regulated products. None of the products tested by FSIS posed a public health concern.

  • View the report

Nitrofuran

FSIS conducted an analysis to evaluate whether semicarbazide (SEM) could be detected in fresh and frozen chicken samples collected at various points during production. Tissue-bound SEM has been used as a target for monitoring compliance with the restrictions on nitrofurazone use. Nitrofurazone is a nitrofuran antibiotic that is restricted from use in food-producing animals. Its metabolism results in tissue-bound metabolites, including semicarbazide (SEM).

  • View the report

Related Resources

Food safety journal covers

Journal Publications

FSIS research and findings are published in peer-reviewed journals.
Learn More
Import inspector at work

Quarterly Enforcement Reports

Review the enforcement actions FSIS has taken to ensure that consumers have access to safe, wholesome and properly labeled products.
Learn More
Woman inspects pork as it goes through processing

Humane Handling Enforcement

Contains official notifications of enforcement actions and restarts when the establishment has demonstrated regulatory compliance.
Learn More
Last Updated: Oct 28, 2022
  • USDA.gov
  • USA.gov
  • Whitehouse.gov
  • About Us
  • Our Performance
  • Information Quality & Publishing Schedule
  • Visit OIG
  • FOIA
  • Accessibility Statement
  • Privacy Policy
  • Non-Discrimination Statement
  • Plain Writing
  • No FEAR
  • Significant Guidance

Food Safety and Inspection Service

  • Pinterest
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • GovDelivery
  • Instagram
  • Flickr
  • YouTube
  • Linked In
  • RSS
.

Start your search

Popular Topics

Recalls Import & Export FSIS Directives FSIS Guidelines Petitions