Download:
pdf |
pdf
Report on USDA FSIS Guidance and Outreach to Small Meat Processors
Written by Rebecca Thistlethwaite, Extension Specialist and Director of the Niche Meat
Processor Assistance Network, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331
Draft version 3.20.2020
Executive Summary:
To be developed in final draft
1
Table of Contents:
Background
Methodology
Findings & Recommendations
-‐Outreach
-‐Information Tools
-‐Responsiveness and Inclusion
Humane Handling Case Study
Conclusions & Next Steps
Appendices
-‐Glossary
-‐References
2
Background:
As part of the 2018 US Farm Bill, the following study was authorized-‐
SEC. 12107. REPORT ON FSIS GUIDANCE AND OUTREACH TO SMALL MEAT PROCESSORS.
(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall offer to enter into a contract with a land-‐grant college or
university or a non-‐land-‐grant college of agriculture (as those terms are defined in section 1404
of the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C.
3101)) to review the effectiveness of existing Food Safety and Inspection Service guidance
materials and other tools used by small and very small establishments, as defined by
regulations issued by the Food Safety and Inspection Service, operating under Federal
inspection, as in effect on the date of enactment of this Act, including—
1. The effectiveness of the outreach conducted by the Food Safety and Inspection Service to
small and very small establishments;
2. The effectiveness of the guidance materials and other tools used by the Food Safety and
Inspection Service to assist small and very small establishments; and
3. The responsiveness of Food Safety and Inspection Service personnel to inquiries and issues
from small and very small establishments.
The Niche Meat Processor Assistance Network (NMPAN), a project housed within the College of
Agricultural Sciences, Department of Crop and Soil Sciences at Oregon State University, is an
Extension-‐based community of practice focused on the long-‐term viability of small and mid-‐
sized processors who are essential to the local and regional meat and poultry sectors. They
provide education, technical assistance and original research for the niche meat sector across
the country.
NMPAN was awarded a cooperative agreement with USDA Food Safety Inspection Service
(referred to as FSIS in the rest of the report) on August 1, 2019, to carry out the study as
authorized in the 2018 Farm Bill described above. Subcontractor, the National Sustainable
Agriculture Coalition based out of Washington, D.C., provided research support, organized
stakeholder meetings, and developed the Humane Handling Case Study at the conclusion of the
report.
Methodology:
Data collected for this study is primarily from 2016 to the present. The bulk of the data is from
the beginning of the Trump administration and appointment of USDA Secretary Sonny Perdue
in early 2017. The Principal Investigator decided that looking at the current administration of
USDA-‐FSIS made the most sense for the purposes of this study since there has been significant
change over the last few years.
3
Both primary and secondary data was collected for this report. Primary data sources included
interviews, phone calls, meetings, and materials directly generated by USDA FSIS staff. It also
includes in-‐depth interviews, survey data, focus groups, and roundtable meetings with small
meat processors and other meat supply chain stakeholders. Secondary data sources included
internet research, NGO reports, newspaper articles, relevant academic reports, and the NMPAN
listserv archive from the past four years. A full list of references can be found in the Appendix B.
All feedback and data from individuals is anonymized to protect the identity of the person.
There was an attempt to highlight the most common responses from processors and pull out
the key themes, rather than discuss extreme or outlying opinions (for example, “let’s just get rid
of federal inspection”). While it is true that meat processors rarely gave positive reports of
USDA FSIS oversight and activities, there were certainly many processors who had little to no
criticisms of the agency. The Principal Investigator made every attempt to capture constructive
criticism and realistic ideas to mutually work together and solve problems. None of the forums,
surveys, etc. were oriented to just be a sharing of grievances. Rather, questions were oriented
around solutions.
The Principal Investigator made every effort to gather all known relevant information to paint
an accurate and objective picture of the way that the USDA Food Safety Inspection Service is
regulating and serving the needs of small and very small inspected meat establishments. Not
every single inspected facility was surveyed for this report, that was outside of both the
timeline and the budget of this study. The study also did not look at inspected egg
establishments nor catfish, which are two other foods that FSIS regulates. There was a stronger
emphasis placed on surveying animal slaughter facilities, cut and wrap, and meat processing
establishments; and less emphasis on facilities that mostly manufacture processed foods more
but may use some USDA inspected meat ingredients, such as a pizza manufacturer that puts
cooked sausage on their frozen pizzas or similar such facilities. This is in line with what the Farm
Bill language outlined as “small meat processors”.
The steps used in this research project included:
Step 1: Gather and analyze what NMPAN and USDA FSIS know already about these issues,
including existing recommendations from different stakeholders. FSIS will provide information
and analysis to Oregon State University, as described below.
4
● Understand all of the USDA FSIS outreach methods and practices of the last few
years.
● FSIS will explain the process FSIS uses to develop guidance, including how FSIS
received and evaluates comments, and make guidance available to the public. FSIS
show Oregon State University how it posts guidance on its web site and where all
guidance is posted.
● FSIS will explain how FSIS answers questions from small businesses through askFSIS
(a web-‐based questions and answer service) and will share available demographic
data and trends concerning askFSIS questions from small and very small
establishments.
● FSIS will share information and details concerning publicly posted askFSIS questions
and answers (Qs and As), the process FSIS uses to develop these Qs and As, and the
responses FSIS has received from users concerning these Qs and As.
● FSIS has conducted numerous webinars, meetings and roundtables to provide
guidance. FSIS will share a history of these activities and transcripts and other
available information concerning webinars with Oregon State.
● The Office of Field Operations currently has the lead in providing direct outreach to
small inspected establishments. OFO will identify the correct person to meet with
OSU and provide information about FSIS’s current direct outreach efforts.
● Review FSIS’s own survey data (most recent and past) at national & regional levels.
Although this information, is not yet published, FSIS will share the data and will
share FSIS’s preliminary analysis concerning this data.
● Review related academic literature and public reports
● Review NMPAN internal archives (documents, discussion notes) from our small
processor working groups and regional meetings. Also NMPAN listserve archives.
● Analyze all of these to create a draft evaluation of FSIS effectiveness in the three
areas named above, with recommendations.
Step 2: Test/verify the draft with key stakeholders:
● Have the following audiences review our draft, using a combination of phone/in-‐
person interviews and email/online surveys:
● NMPAN network members and board;
5
● AAMP staff and board;
● Focus groups at processor conventions or regional stakeholder meetings;
● NACMPI members;
● Other relevant stakeholders as needed.
NMPAN staff will aim to test (and adjust, change, expand as needed) our draft evaluation with a
variety of processors that vary across geography, type of operation, and size. NMPAN will ask
them not only about FSIS effectiveness across those three areas but also their own
recommendations for future improvements (topics, delivery methods, staff training, timeliness,
etc).
This draft serves as this step.
Step 3: Analyze stakeholder input and revise draft findings accordingly. Prepare these
deliverables:
● Report for USDA-‐FSIS
● Public-‐facing report if requested
Below are the draft findings and recommendations, broken out by the three topic areas
outlined in the Farm Bill SEC. 12107. There is some overlap and redundancy, which is to be
expected. Outreach, guidance materials, and responsiveness to inquiries and issues sometimes
have similar challenges and similar solutions. The report also includes a special Humane
Handling Case Study, which is the most common reason why small and very small
slaughterhouses receive an inspection violation/enforcement action from USDA FSIS and where
there is great opportunity for improvement and “leveling the playing field”. It was also the top
concern brought up in small plant roundtables over the last four years as well as in survey and
focus group data. The Humane Handling Case Study was researched and written by project
partner and subcontractor, the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.
Findings and Recommendations:
Outreach-‐ The effectiveness of the outreach conducted by the Food Safety and Inspection
Service to small and very small establishments.
Background: The definition of outreach is the activity of providing services to any population
that might not otherwise have access to those services. In addition to delivering services,
outreach has an educational role, raising the awareness of existing services. It includes
identification of under-‐served populations and service referral. In the case of FSIS, they focus
their outreach efforts on small and very small establishments, as well as new and beginning
establishments. FSIS employs a variety of methods to conduct outreach, including direct
outreach from the in-‐plant inspection staff, circuit staff, and their 10 District offices. In 2018,
6
FSIS also began a renewed emphasis on outreach by the EIAO staff, who work across circuits
and regions. EIAOs now are supposed to dedicate 25% of their time to the provision of
outreach. In addition, FSIS uses their website tools, as well as a Small Plant Help Desk phone
number and Ask FSIS web portal to improve accessibility to information and help provide
answers for those who have questions. Likewise, FSIS is hosting more constituent meetings and
roundtables both in Washington D.C. and around the country so that they can talk with more
stakeholders directly and meet them where they are.
There is some overlap between outreach and information tools, as many of them are being
used for similar purposes of providing clarity, answering questions, and disseminating key
information to stakeholders. Therefore, findings and recommendations may be similar.
What the Agency Affirms it is Doing:
● Developed and delivered their first small plant survey to all small and very small
inspected establishments in 2018. The purpose of the voluntary survey was to (1)
provide FSIS with feedback to inform communication, outreach, and technical support
and (2) assess current outreach efforts related to food safety, humane handling, and
food defense. The voluntary survey was completed by 1,371 plants for a return rate of
34%. Although the information generated by the survey is not available to the public,
FSIS is using the data to make internal changes.
● Enhanced coordination of small plant technical assistance by combining the Small Plant
Help Desk (SPHD) with Ask FSIS in 2019, in response to the Small Plant Survey. These
two entities are all housed within the Office of Policy and Program Development (OPPD)
now. In the last year, these entities have received over 12,532 inquiries, the vast
majority from small and very small establishments.
● Around four OPPD staff answer all domestic questions, but sometimes questions are
sent further up to issuance staff or OPPD administrators. Most questions are answered
promptly within 24 hours. They have created standard operating procedures for
answering questions so they are answered in a timely and consistent fashion.
● Ask FSIS publishes an archive of thousands of previously submitted questions and
answers. They do not publish every single Q & A, but those that generally don’t contain
any sensitive business information. The searchable database can be utilized by
establishments to gain clarity and circumvent the need for them to submit a new
question.
● OPPD is creating a customer service dashboard and an annual customer service plan, as
part of Secretary Perdue’s enhanced emphasis on customer service.
● FSIS publishes and emails a weekly Constituent Update that goes to all inspected
establishments and others who sign up for it. The Update goes to around ______ people
and is also archived on the website.
● Top FSIS leadership have attended eight small plant stakeholder meetings organized by
NMPAN and NSAC since 2016. In addition, they have organized another ____ meetings
in various states. These meetings have provided a space to listen to feedback from small
plants, answer questions, and provide updates on key policy changes, guidance
documents, labeling backlog, testing requirements, etc.
7
● EIAO staff are reaching out to establishments to offer them non-‐regulatory outreach
visits to answer questions, review plans, and provide advice prior to audits. The top
topics that EIAO staff have been contacted about for outreach in the last year includes:
HACCP, processing, sanitation, dual jurisdiction plants (FDA & FSIS), new establishments
seeking grant of inspection, labeling, religious exemptions, and pathogen modeling for
cooling or heating deviations.
What Small Processors are Saying:
● Ask FSIS is a useful tool, as both an archive of questions already submitted and a place
to ask new questions. However, the answers provided are considered “agency
interpretation” but not a definitive final answer. This can cause confusion for both
inspection personnel and plant operators.
● The majority of small plants receive information directly from FSIS inspection program
personnel (81%). A smaller number sought information from other sources including
FSIS e-‐mail communications (44%) and through askFSIS (42%). Remaining categories of
information outlets were approximately equal in response and usage (FSIS Small Plant
Survey 2018).
● The majority of small plants stated that they receive information from various outlets
but most commonly (in order of use): FSIS inspection program personnel, word of
mouth (e.g., other establishment owners or personnel), and media outlets (e.g.
Meatingplace), and not from webinars, compliance guides, or the FSIS website (FSIS
Small Plant Survey 2018).
● In various sections of the Small Plant survey, respondents routinely commented that the
FSIS website is difficult to navigate, is not user friendly, and query results of a targeted
search using key words did not return relevant information. As such, respondents stated
that utilization of Google and other search engines provided quicker, more targeted
results to inquiries (FSIS Small Plant Survey 2018). It is important to note that major
revisions have been made to the website since the survey was administered in 2018.
● Attendees of several of the small plant roundtables have been pleased with the
opportunity to speak directly with top FSIS officials. They appreciate their efforts to
travel and get to different parts of the country. Participants in these meetings have
remarked that they believe communication lines have been opened and overall
responsiveness has been improved. (Roundtable Notes)
● Some of the roundtables that FSIS has organized have been poorly attended with little
notice/outreach to small processors nearby the meeting locations. Some of the
meetings have included large plants that don’t fall into the definition of small or very
small. Additionally, FSIS has led the agenda at these meetings and allowed for less
processor-‐led discussions. They have been more of a “talking-‐at” type meeting rather
than a “listening-‐to” format. (Comments from attendees of the FSIS roundtables)
● Small plants are still generally unaware of the EIAO outreach program, how to contact
them, and how outreach differs from enforcement. Small plants continue to be wary of
requesting EIAO services.
Recommendations and Potential Solutions:
8
● Ask FSIS/SPHD staff, IPP, and plant operators can convene a conference call to clarify
Ask FSIS answers and aim to get a more definitive response. The burden to convene this
conference call should not be on the plant operator and should be the responsibility of
the IPP. It should also be communicated that this is always an option.
● It is somewhat unclear what the different roles and uses are of the Small Plant Help
Desk and Ask FSIS. Is there a need for two entities, even though they utilize the same
staff? It may be more clear to establishments to have one entity in which they can
submit questions electronically or place a phone call, more of a “one-‐stop-‐shop”.
● There seems to be little knowledge of FSIS outreach resources, such as webinars,
compliance guides, website resources, etc. Perhaps when new plants are applying for a
grant of inspection, they can be made aware of all the resources. And currently
inspected plants could receive an update in each Constituent Update of current/new
resources, upcoming events, newly published guidance documents, etc. Likewise, IPP
could download relevant compliance guides and highlight key points that they think
plant operators should be aware of or may prove to be helpful.
● The FSIS website is still complex and hard to navigate. It is sometimes easier to use an
internet search to find things on it rather then the search engine built into it. A plain
language review and outside website design assistance could prove useful. It also has
very limited resources on it in Spanish, and they are mostly geared towards consumer
audiences. There is an increasing number of plant operators and plant personnel that
speak and read Spanish.
● If FSIS is going to organize small plant roundtable meetings, they need to do a better job
of inviting small and very small plants and gearing the agenda around their needs. They
also need to give more space in the agenda for small plants to bring up their questions
and discussion items. Small plants could even submit their proposed agenda items
ahead of time so that FSIS can build the agenda around their needs. FSIS leadership
should go on a plant tour or visit a small/very small plant when at these regional
roundtables so they can better witness and understand the physical and operational
constraints that small/very small plants face.
● FSIS should advertise the EIAO outreach program more thoroughly and make it clear to
constituents that it is not an assessment/enforcement tool but rather information
seeking and technical assistance oriented. EIAO staff could attend and set up a booth at
more state and regional meat processor association conventions and get the word out
to plant operators more extensively.
● EIAOs should develop a Sharepoint folder to disseminate tools, tips, best practices that
they have learned in doing small plant outreach over the last couple years. More
communication between staff and across districts could improve their results.
● More opportunities for FSIS staff, especially EIAOs, to attend relevant meat processor
conventions, conferences, and gatherings. They could set up booths in trade shows and
disseminate more information and outreach directly to processors. This could also build
rapport and trust with face-‐to-‐face contact.
9
Information Tools-‐ The effectiveness of the guidance materials and other tools used by the
Food Safety and Inspection Service to assist small and very small establishments.
Background: Guidance documents are non-‐regulatory in nature, but seek to provide the current
understanding of best practices to comply with FSIS regulations and maintain a safe meat
supply. They are especially geared towards small and very small inspected establishments. The
agency updated the guidance document template in 2014. As soon as a new guidance revision
is published, they are disseminated via the FSIS Constituent Update, in monthly stakeholder
meetings, and IPP often pass them along to establishments as applicable.
One guidance document that received quite a bit of attention and pushback from small plants
was the 2017 revised Appendix A & B, which are guidelines for validating HACCP plans for
further processed meats, such as jerky, sausage, bacon, ground meats, etc. The revised
guidance document was posted on the Federal Register and open to public comment. FSIS
received 52 public comments, with the vast majority in favor of utilizing the 1999 version and
with many claiming that the new version was both inoperable and not science-‐based. In plant
personnel also heard a lot of negative pushback from plant owners/operators when they
shared the guidance with them. FSIS responded by allowing processors to continue to use the
1999 version or the 2017 version, and deciding to take some more time to look at the science.
Most guidance documents do not receive this level of public comment nor pushback. However,
the willingness of the agency to “go back to the drawing board” as it were on this guidance,
indicates an openness to listening and not wanting to overburden plants.
Other information tools that FSIS employs includes their website, offering webinars, publishing
newsletters, reports and documents, and answering questions via their Small Plant Help Desk
and their online Ask FSIS portal.
What the Agency Affirms it is Doing:
● Made guidelines/guidance documents shorter and easier to read. They also include a
plain language review to make sure the narrative is understandable and does not
include too much jargon.
● Updating guidance documents more frequently and with stakeholder inclusion. They
seek public comment on all new guidance documents or major revisions.
● Updated website to be more user friendly and accessible, with picture tiles for key topic
areas, enhanced search engine, a new retail section, and other improvements.
Significant website revisions were made in 2019.
● Streamlined operations at Small Plant Help Desk and AskFSIS by combining them in the
same office with the same staff. This has resulted in more consistency of response and a
faster response time.
What Small Processors are Saying:
● Poultry exemptions guidance document is woefully out of date. Has not been updated
since 2006, despite the agency saying they are working on it at several roundtable
meetings over the last few years.
10
● What happened to the generic HACCP plans online? They are no longer available. There
are very few tools to help processors develop a HACCP plan that will be FSIS compliant.
They have to reach out to trade associations or pay consultants instead of getting advice
and information from FSIS. That should not be the case.
● If FSIS requires validation studies in HACCP plans, why do they not have a searchable
database of all the peer-‐reviewed, publically-‐available validation studies? Why do small
processors have to do all the research themselves? Plus, many peer-‐reviewed articles
are not available to the public and are behind a paywall.
Recommendations and Potential Solutions:
● More visual aids, infographics, flow charts/decision trees
● Spanish publications and resources
● Model HACCP plans
● Create a searchable archive of all peer-‐reviewed validation studies for different meat
products. Also include an archive of appropriate support documents for Robust
Systematic Humane Handling Plans.
● How-‐to guides: how to get a grant of inspection, how to get your HACCP plan approved,
how to pass a FSA, how to write a robust humane handling plan, how to determine
animal consciousness/stunning effectiveness, etc.
● More communication with state inspection programs. Provide them all of the same
outreach and information tools. Make sure those tools are getting to the state inspected
“at least equal to” plants.
Responsiveness and Inclusion-‐ The responsiveness of Food Safety and Inspection Service
personnel to inquiries and issues from small and very small establishments.
Background: How does FSIS respond to inquiries, issues, petitions, phone calls, meeting
recommendations, etc. Also labeling. Also enforcement actions-‐ regulatory control,
withholding, and suspensions.
What the Agency Affirms it is Doing:
● FSIS has a system for responding to petitions, but there is no required timeline. They
have to post to the Federal Register, receive comments, review all the submitted
comments, evaluate them, respond to them, and then eventually make a ruling on the
petition. Some petitions take less than a year, while others take up to four years for
resolution.
● FSIS Labeling Division has been expanding the options of which labels can be approved
generically. This has reduced the backlog in the last couple years, with approval
shrinking from what often would take 30-‐45 days down to 12-‐14 days.
● FSIS renewed their dedication to outreach by expanding the EIAO outreach program to
be 25% of their time. This will improve communication and overall responsiveness to
small plant needs.
11
● FSIS leadership is meeting with small plant stakeholders around the country to hear
directly from them. They are also making their phone numbers and emails available to a
wider audience and inviting small plants to contact them directly should they encounter
problems and need clarity on an issue.
What Small Processors are Saying:
● Seems like the labeling backlog has subsided. Generic labeling generator in LSAS is also
very helpful.
● Some district managers have been very helpful and committed to addressing small plant
concerns, while others have not. Small plants do not want to have to go to district
managers every time there is an issue with the IPP or circuit staff, but they often feel it
is their only recourse.
● Lack of congruence in information presented: In the 149 conversations on the NMPAN
listserv (that is comprised of 1,400 individuals, the majority of who are small or very
small meat processors) that related to FSIS concerns and questions, the vast majority
were centered around these topic areas: 1) Regulatory Information, 2) Technical
information, 3) Inspector Issues/FSIS personnel, 4) Food Safety questions. Many of the
conversations could have been solved by submitting questions to Ask FSIS or calling the
Small Plant Help Desk. But people chose not to utilize those resources for some reason.
Quite a few of the issues boiled down to having been given conflicting information from
their IPP and things they found in the CFR, the FSIS website, or guidance
documents/directives.
● Inconsistent inspection and regulatory discretion is too variable. Large plants are
afforded more leeway than small and very small plants. Large plants also receive less
scrutiny during slaughter due to much lower inspector/animal ratio than small plants.
● High turnover, poorly trained inspectors, and inconsistent training across districts.
● Not being able to ask for advice, particularly when applying for a grant of inspection,
getting your HACCP plans approved, or developing a Robust Systematic Humane
Handling Plan.
● Lack of opportunities to provide a voice and sit at the table in the development of new
policy, directives, guidance documents, and programming. Other than submitting public
comment on Federal Register items, which takes an inordinate amount of time for small
operators who are also busy running their businesses or attending a regional roundtable
meeting at their own expense, there are few opportunities to influence FSIS.
● NACMPI (National Advisory Committee on Meat & Poultry Inspection) has not met in
four years and has usually only featured 1-‐2 small plant operators or industry
stakeholders out of a dozen or so seats. The purpose of this federal advisory committee
is to provide advice to the Secretary concerning State and Federal programs with
respect to meat, poultry, and processed egg products inspection; food safety; and other
matters that fall within the scope of the FMIA, PPIA and the Egg Products Inspection Act
(EPIA). If small plants make up 90% of FSIS inspected establishments, shouldn’t they
make up 90% of the seats on this committee?
● Pathogen testing, requirements, and research. Performance standards are made with
little small plant input. They are non-‐regulatory but are being used in a regulatory
12
●
●
●
●
manner because when plants are not are not consistently meeting standards, FSAs are
often ordered for them. Another issue is that the pathogen liability falls completely on
the plants, even though many of the pathogens are coming in on the animals. There is
no upstream responsibility. This can be very hard on small plants, particularly if a recall
is ordered.
Salmonella Performance Standards in poultry are non-‐regulatory, yet being used to
justify requiring a Food Safety Assessment (FSA).
Humane handling regulations and violations (see case study below). Small and very
small plants receive a disproportionate number of HH violations.
There is much confusion regarding non-‐amenable species. Who inspects what species,
how much does it cost for voluntary inspection, and why does voluntary inspection rates
vary by plant and by state? For example, bison slaughter inspection can vary from $15 to
$150 per head, which adds significant costs for the processor. For many small plants,
processing non-‐amenable species is key to their business.
Lack of enforcement of label claims, such as grassfed, humanely-‐raised, or natural. This
puts farmers and processors at a competitive disadvantage that are actually complying
with those claims or taking the time to verify them. FSIS should verify claims, not put the
onus on processors.
Recommendations and Potential Solutions:
● If a mis-‐stun is not egregious and simply human error (and if the plant has a Robust Plan
in effect), allow the plant to be able to finish up animals slotted for the day and address
any problems after inspection hours.
● More standardized and ongoing education/training for all inspection personnel. Include
training in plants of all sizes and all species.
● Little research being done on how small and very small poultry plants can meet the
salmonella performance standards. FSIS could allocate funds towards research in this
arena and convene research teams, as they have done with other studies (such as
modernization of poultry and swine inspection systems).
● Allocate funds and staff to create an FSIS Ombudsman office to help resolve and
adjudicate small plant issues and concerns, such as inspector retaliation, humane
handling violations, product recalls, overtime charges, etc. Provide a binding means for
expert interpretation of the regulations.
● More accountability and oversight for rogue inspectors that are communicating
inaccuracies or making up their own policies and interpretations of policies. FSIS OFO
should study inspection decisions and enforcement actions across circuits and districts
to correlate and calibrate inconsistencies and flag potential biases or staff problems.
Take seriously the most notable personnel problems.
● Partner with USDA AMS to verify label claims. Remove all label claims that cannot be
verified, such as “healthy” and “natural”.
● Create a monthly conference call specifically for small and very small plants to talk with
FSIS leadership, hear about the latest policies and guidance documents that may affect
them, and other Q & A as needed. Provide a system for plants to submit questions or
13
agenda ideas beforehand. Market and promote this conference call to all small and very
small inspected establishments.
Humane Handling Case Study
USDA-‐inspected small and very small slaughter establishments in the United States suffer from
a disproportionately higher rate of humane handling violations, from warnings through
complete suspensions, than larger plants. In analyzing data from 2007 through the end of 2019
from the Animal Welfare Institute (see document here) who obtained their data from USDA
FSIS Quarterly Enforcement Reports, 98.2% of all humane handling suspensions were received
by small and very small plants. In 2019 alone, not a single large plant received a humane
handling suspension-‐ 100% of the suspensions were incurred by small/very small plants. One
year in particular, 2015, saw a near doubling of violations over previous years, for some
unknown reason.
The other concern this data points out is the number of days in suspension. Large plants are
more likely to be suspended for one day or less, meaning they are back up and running under
inspection swiftly. The graph below shows the range and median number of days by plant size
over time. Small and very small plants are more likely to be suspended for longer than large
plants, with 3 days being the median for a very small plant while 1 day is the median for large
plants. Over this time period of 2007 to 2019, the longest a very small plant was shut down was
292 days, while only 9 days for a large plant. That could be a significant financial hit for a small
14
slaughter plant and if they are a co-‐packer for multiple farmers, that affects many more
businesses too. While this data does not provide any backstory, such as how quickly the plant
management responded to the violation or implemented corrective actions. We don’t know
how many previous violations the facilities have had, which could impact how quickly their
corrective action plan is accepted. We don’t know if the small and very small plants have a
Robust Humane Handling Plan in place, proper head restraints, backup stunning device, etc. All
of this is unknown. However, this data is concerning and calls for a deeper investigation by
USDA FSIS staff to understand if their regulations or inspection staff have any implicit bias
against small and very small plants. Or if much more outreach is needed to those plants than is
currently afforded. This data below should be a call to action. All enforcement action data
should be tracked over time, by district, by circuit, and by plant size to see if their systems or
staff have any deficiencies or bias.
Background: FSIS’s authority under the Humane Methods of Livestock Slaughter Act (HMSA)
allows, but does not require, inspectors to suspend the slaughtering line when they observe a
violation of the Act.1 The law states “[t]he Secretary . . . may cause inspection to be temporarily
suspended” if there is a violation of the HMSA until the inspector is certain the plant will not
violate the HMSA again.2 The law does not describe what type of action FSIS must take when
determining the appropriate enforcement measure.3
What the Agency Affirms it is Doing: FSIS rules, directives, and guidelines all seem to reflect a
preference that FSIS inspectors first ask slaughterhouses to voluntarily correct any mistakes. 4
Then, if the slaughterhouse fails to act or confirm they will act, FSIS suspends inspection.5
However, FSIS rules allow inspectors to suspend inspection without providing any notice: “FSIS
also may impose a suspension without providing the establishment prior notification because
the establishment is handling or slaughtering animals inhumanely.”6
If inspection is suspended, FSIS has broad authority to decide next steps. FSIS rules state,
“Stunning procedures shall not be resumed until the inspector receives satisfactory assurances
1
9 C.F.R. § 313.50.
21 U.S.C. § 603(b).
3
21 U.S.C. § 603(b).
4
9 C.F.R. § 313.50; “When an inspector observes an incident of inhumane slaughter or handling in connection with
slaughter, he/she shall inform the establishment operator of the incident and request that the operator take the
necessary steps to prevent a recurrence.”
5
9 C.F.R. § 313.50.
6
9 C.F.R. § 500.3.
2
15
from the establishment operator that there will not be a recurrence.”7 There is no prescribed
timeframe for suspensions, which can cause a disproportionate impact on smaller facilities that
operate on thinner margins.
FSIS Notices, Guidelines, and Directives provide some guidance for small plant owners to ensure
suspension is not the ultimate result of a HMSA violation. For example, in 2004 FSIS published a
Notice encouraging plants to take a systematic approach to humane slaughter.8 The systematic
approach is a set recommendations from FSIS to assure compliance with HMSA.9
In 2011, FSIS Directive 6900.2: Humane Handling and Slaughter of Livestock, was revised by FSIS
to inform inspection personnel at FSIS about enforcement actions that should be taken to
ensure compliance with the HMSA.10 FSIS Directive 6900.2 states that if an inspector observes
non-‐compliance that does cause injury to an animal of an “egregious nature” then an
immediate suspension is warranted.11 The directive defines “egregious nature” to include
actions that severely injure animals, including “stunning of animals and then allowing them to
regain consciousness; [and] multiple attempts, especially in the absence of immediate
corrective measures, to stun an animal versus a single blow or shot that renders an animal
immediately unconscious.”12
FSIS Directive 6900.2 also instructs how plants can continue to operate should there be an
“egregious violation of humane handing.”13 Plants can continue to operate in the event of an
egregious violation if the operations has a “systematic approach” to humane handling.14
The directive provides, “an establishment may choose to develop and implement in a robust
way a written animal handling program that effectively addresses four aspects of a systematic
7
21 U.S.C. § 603(b) and 9 C.F.R. § 313.50.
69 Fed. Reg. 54625.
9
FSIS Directive 6900.2 -‐ Humane Handling and Slaughter of Livestock,
https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/wcm/connect/2375f4d5-‐0e24-‐4213-‐902d-‐
d94ee4ed9394/6900.2.pdf?MOD=AJPERES (last accessed January 23, 2020).
10
FSIS Directive 6900.2 -‐ Humane Handling and Slaughter of Livestock,
https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/wcm/connect/2375f4d5-‐0e24-‐4213-‐902d-‐
d94ee4ed9394/6900.2.pdf?MOD=AJPERES.
11
9 C.F.R. § 500.3 (b); FSIS Directive 6900.2 -‐ Humane Handling and Slaughter of Livestock,
https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/wcm/connect/2375f4d5-‐0e24-‐4213-‐902d-‐
d94ee4ed9394/6900.2.pdf?MOD=AJPERES.
12
FSIS Directive 6900.2 -‐ Humane Handling and Slaughter of Livestock,
https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/wcm/connect/2375f4d5-‐0e24-‐4213-‐902d-‐
d94ee4ed9394/6900.2.pdf?MOD=AJPERES
13
FSIS Directive 6900.2 -‐ Humane Handling and Slaughter of Livestock,
https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/wcm/connect/2375f4d5-‐0e24-‐4213-‐902d-‐
d94ee4ed9394/6900.2.pdf?MOD=AJPERES
14
FSIS Directive 6900.2 -‐ Humane Handling and Slaughter of Livestock,
https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/wcm/connect/2375f4d5-‐0e24-‐4213-‐902d-‐
d94ee4ed9394/6900.2.pdf?MOD=AJPERES
8
16
approach[.]”15 These steps include: identifying problems through initial assessment; creating
appropriate facilities to comply; evaluating handling methods occasionally; and responding to
problems as they arise.16
If an establishment has an incident of egregious inhumane handling, FSIS consider whether an
establishment has implemented a robust systematic approach, along with other factors, in
determining the appropriate sanction to impose, including suspension. In fact, the presence of
a robust systematic approach is one factor inspection personnel consider when deciding
whether to issue a Notice of Intended Enforcement (NOIE) or a Notice of Suspension. (See
Directive 6900.2, Chapter VII, section IV).” 17 An NOIE means an establishment will not be
suspended, and instead, must provide adequate written corrective and preventative measures
to ensure that livestock will be handled humanely.18 A notice of suspension, by contrast, results
in the interruption of the assignment of inspectors to all or part of an establishment, and
inspectors will not provide an establishment under suspension with marks of inspection, which
is required for establishments to sell their product.19
In 2013, FSIS released the FSIS Compliance Guide for a Systematic Approach to
the Humane Handling of Livestock ("Compliance Guide") to promote a systematic approach.
FSIS received a petition in 2013 to make the systematic approach mandatory.20 In its response
in 2017, FSIS stated that as part of its current strategic plan, it intends to “develop and
implement an education and outreach campaign, targeting small and very small establishments,
to ensure more consistent application of humane handling best practices and compliance with
humane handling requirements.”21 In its FY 17-‐21 Strategic Plan FSIS also stated that District
Veterinary Medical Specialists will promote humane handling best practices by delivering
educational material and guidance to establishments when conducting their routine humane
handling verification visits, focusing on the most recent information and recommendations on
effective animal restraint and stunning. 22
15
FSIS Directive 6900.2 -‐ Humane Handling and Slaughter of Livestock,
https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/wcm/connect/2375f4d5-‐0e24-‐4213-‐902d-‐
d94ee4ed9394/6900.2.pdf?MOD=AJPERES
16
FSIS Directive 6900.2 -‐ Humane Handling and Slaughter of Livestock,
https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/wcm/connect/2375f4d5-‐0e24-‐4213-‐902d-‐
d94ee4ed9394/6900.2.pdf?MOD=AJPERES
17
https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/wcm/connect/37c6b39e-‐fd62-‐47a3-‐94e6-‐8baee9fcade2/13-‐06-‐FSIS-‐Final-‐
Response.pdf?MOD=AJPERES
18
9 C.F.R. 500.5.
19
9 C.F.R. 500. l(c).
20
https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/wcm/connect/37c6b39e-‐fd62-‐47a3-‐94e6-‐8baee9fcade2/13-‐06-‐FSIS-‐Final-‐
Response.pdf?MOD=AJPERES
(last accessed January 23, 2020).
21
https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/wcm/connect/37c6b39e-‐fd62-‐47a3-‐94e6-‐8baee9fcade2/13-‐06-‐FSIS-‐Final-‐
Response.pdf?MOD=AJPERES
22
https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/wcm/connect/37c6b39e-‐fd62-‐47a3-‐94e6-‐8baee9fcade2/13-‐06-‐FSIS-‐Final-‐
Response.pdf?MOD=AJPERES
17
In 2017, FSIS also issued a Notice on the “Assessment and Verification Reviews of an Official
Livestock Establishment’s Robust Systematic Approach Plan for Humane Handling and
Slaughter” to instruct FSIS inspection-‐related personnel on assisting plants with their written
systematic approach for humane handling and the requirements necessary for it to be deemed
robust.
FSIS’s Systematic Approach has become the dominant practice in slaughterhouses. FSIS stated
that 35 percent of slaughterhouses had Systematic Approaches in 2013, but that number had
risen to 75 percent by the end of 2016.23
What Small Processors Are Saying:
• Not all inspectors are following the above mentioned approach for flexibility when it
comes to humane handling violations related to plants with a robust systematic
approach and the issuance of a NOIE instead of a Notice of Suspension.
• There needs to be clearer guidance on what a “robust” systematic approach must
include.
• There could be additional outreach on developing a robust systematic approach. The
majority of plants with existing Systemic Approaches are large plants. In 2014, FSIS
stated that “64% (486 of 755) of livestock slaughter plants have implemented a
systematic approach to Humane Handling and Slaughter. Fifty-‐nine out of 59 large
plants have adopted a systematic approach to humane handling. One hundred and
sixteen out of 144 small plants have developed a systematic approach to humane
handling (81%) and 311 out of 552 (56%) very small plants have adopted a systematic
approach.” In 2017, FSIS reported that “[a]pproximately 62 percent of all livestock
establishments who received a monthly task had a written program and approximately
82 percent of those have a robust systematic approach. Fifty-‐one percent of all the
livestock establishments assessed monthly for a robust systematic approach had one. In
2018, “approximately 86 percent of all livestock establishments who received a monthly
humane handling inspection task had a written program.” Of those with a written
systematic approach, 87 percent had a robust systematic approach. Also, “eighty-‐seven
percent of slaughter establishments were compliant with restraint and stunning
requirements.”24
Recommendations and Potential Solutions
• FSIS should use its flexibility for what types of enforcement action it can take when
addressing HMSA violations to provide a webinar, guidance document, and update FSIS
Directive 6900.2 to include clear options for how decisions are made in regard to
humane handling violations and whether or not a plant has a robust systematic
approach. This clear, documented information, should include clear instructions that
23
https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/wcm/connect/37c6b39e-‐fd62-‐47a3-‐94e6-‐8baee9fcade2/13-‐06-‐FSIS-‐Final-‐
Response.pdf?MOD=AJPERES (last accessed January 23, 2020).
24
https://www.obpa.usda.gov/22fsis2020notes.pdf; https://www.obpa.usda.gov/23fsis2016notes.pdf
18
inspectors should issue an NOIE instead of a Notice of Suspension when a mis-‐stun with
an immediate corrective action occurs at a plant with robust systematic plan in place.
• There is a clear need for FSIS to continue outreach, education, and technical assistance
to assure small plants are able to adopt a robust Systematic approach because the data
shows smaller facilities face a disproportionate level of enforcement.
• FSIS should include in guidance examples of successful written portions of small, multi-‐
species plants’ robust systemic approach.
Conclusions & Next Steps
To be developed after Step 2 feedback & survey process
19
Glossary
Appendix A & B-‐
CFR-‐ Code of Federal Regulations
Constituent Update-‐
EIAO-‐ Enforcement Investigations and Analysis Officer
Federal Register-‐
FSA-‐ Food Safety Assessment
FSIS-‐ Food Safety Inspection System
Guidance/Guideline Document-‐
HACCP Plan-‐ Hazard Analysis & Critical Control Points Plan
Humane Handling-‐
IPP-‐ In plant personnel
NACMPI-‐
NOIE-‐ Notice of Intended Enforcement Action. NOIE is issued to a plant for noncompliances that
do not pose an imminent threat to public health but may warrant withholding the marks of
inspection or suspending the assignment of inspectors if not corrected.
Non-‐amenable species-‐
NOS-‐ Notice of Suspension
NR-‐ Noncompliance Record
OPPD-‐ Office of Policy and Program Development
PHIS-‐ Public Health Information System
PHV-‐ Public Health Veterinarian
SPHD-‐ Small Plant Help Desk
20
References
21
| File Type | application/pdf |
| File Title | Microsoft Word - USDA FSIS Small Plant Study Draft Report 3.20.2020.docx |
| File Modified | 2020-03-20 |
| File Created | 2020-03-20 |