Thinking about what you saw at the plant today, comment on the plant's processes that were consistent with meeting surveillance goals as well as what may have required improvement or modification. Again, please utilize the 3 comment/statement plus 1 question format.
Evaluating slaughter surveillance systems
No TrackBacks
TrackBack URL: http://blog.lib.umn.edu/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/150419
Hello!
-This plant met the sampling/testing requirements of USDA/FSIS and did its own testing to add an extra barrier of protection
-Leslie brought up a good point about the mental stability of the slaughtering staff, maybe they should be evaluated frequently to make sure they are doing okay.
-It was interesting to see that a USDA rep is always there and monitors the quality of meat.
Question: What are the qualifications to be considered "organic" slaughtering house? If it is easy, why wouldn't all plants want to be organic since it seems to make more money.
Three comments:
-The FSIS and the slaughterplant work together to monitor diseases and surveillance of foodborne pathogens
-An acidic spray is used before entering the chill locker and right when they exit it to control the growth of foodborne pathogens
-At this plant, all ground meat is tested for coliform bacteria before leaving the premises
One question: because they slaughter animals daily, shouldn't the people on the kill floor receive counseling to make sure they don't get PTSD or other mental illness?
Three Comments:
*The FSIS and APHIS are both branches of the USDA that work to monitor different aspects of the beef and dairy industry, with FSIS concerned with the cattle while they are at the slaughter facility and APHIS concerned with the animals on the farms.
*The slaughter facility works to implement their own pathogen monitoring above and beyond the requirements of the USDA, because they desire to protect their business and their customer.
*An acidic spray that can be used on organic products is utilized at a few points as part of the plant's HACPP, which I did not realize was a common practice, but really makes sense for food protection.
Question: How does the plant ensure that the "organic" product does not become adulterated in the plant? Are there cleaning steps between "organic" and non-organic product?
* The meat from the plant is tested in a variety of ways by both the plant operators and the government regulators. The testing incorporates random sampling elements as well as routine and risk based sampling. This combination seems to be quite complete and thorough.
* It was interesting to hear about the hassles that the plant had to go through to meet the sometimes arbitrary demands of third party inspectors. This could be more important in the future as there continues to be a push to deregulate and privatize government functions.
* Surveillance at smaller plants like this one provides an important function since many small farms send animals there as opposed to larger plants which might only see animals from a few very large producers.
? If there was a confirmed BSE case discovered in a slaughter plant, are there special decontamination protocols given that it’s a prion disease?
Three key points:
1)Not only does the USDA do various testing, but the plant is also required to do testing (and may or may not go above and beyond the requirements).
2)At multiple stages of processing an acid/hydrogen peroxide wash is used as well as temperature control to minimize microbial growth on the meat/products.
3)Not all plants hold product while waiting for certain test results, which contributes to the amount of recalled products.
Question - Considering the regulation of various food products:
USDA-FSIS: meat, poultry, processed eggs
FDA: domestic & imported food (except meat, poultry, and processed eggs), shelled eggs, egg production facilities
USDA-AMS: shell egg surveillance inspections at certain establishments (egg grading facilities)
Regarding surveillance systems, what are the pros and cons of such a piecemeal regulatory system versus regulation by a single regulatory agency?
1) The USDA does some mandatory testing and sampling at the plant every year, but also requires that the plant does some of their own testing.
2) They take extra precautions to try to prevent contamination of RTE foods. For example, people that process RTE foods don't take break at the same time as people that work on the kill floor.
3) Some parts of food regulation are under the jurisdiction of the USDA and some are under the jurisdiction of the FDA. Because of this some things fall through the cracks.
Question: How often does the USDA come out to the plant to do sampling, and how will the Food Safety Modernization Act impact the amount or type of sampling that the USDA does?
1. It was interesting to learn that the USDA does specific required testing, but the facility is also required to do certain testing
2. They wash the carcass with an acid/hydrogen peroxide solution to clean in combination with cooling the meat quickly after killing to prevent microbial growth
3. I did not realize that other parties involved (the buyers) may require further testing than that req. by the USDA. It seems like it can get quite confusing understanding what the third party requirements are, as they change frequently.
Question: I know many people have mentioned this, but I think it's an important question given the type of work performed at a slaughter house - I wonder if there are any human mental health prevention and control measures in place for workers in this type of job? Do companies typically provide
Three points
-In the US FSIS performs antemortem and postmortem exams and FDA assumes regulation of residues in meat. In many other countries (Finland, Uruguay) one government branch provides regulations for both scenarios.
-There are may critical control points in a beef slaughter house including trimming meat that is visually contaminated and various points where meat is washed with organic acids and hydrogen peroxide.
-Showers and new clothes (PPE) are provided by slaughter facility managers for those on the kill-floor, however, there is no enforcement on employee decontamination prior to departure.
Question:
-Is sensitivity of tail fold similar to that of cervical skin test? If not, is the convenience of the tail fold test worth the false negatives? Should we adopt the cervical test for primary screening as in other countries?
1) I was impressed how enthusiastic and motivated the manager of the plant was. He was very eager to answer questions and explain all of our inquires.
2) For a small scale slaughter plant I thought they did a great job in trying to do the best they could with the resources they had. I was a little concerned about the emotional stress of some of the workers whom are constantly slaughtering animals without rotating into another service. In some of the other slaughter plants that I visited they were mindful of this detail and made sure to rotate their workers constantly throughout the year.
3) I was surprised that with all of the BSE uproar in this country, all slaughter plants are not required to suction/vacuum out the nervous tissue of the cattle. One would think that the least risk of contamination would be ideal.
Question:
We spoke a lot about TB and the effects of cross contamination amongst the white tailed deer and the cattle in Michigan. I was wondering if there is a concern with the Yellowstone park buffalo and their risk of having, receiving, and distributing TB to nearby cattle?
1. I hadn't realized that the carcasses were sprayed with a disinfectant (acetic acid/H2O2), I was wondering if the cleaner affected the meat in anyway. I asked the plant manager and he said that the cleaner is diluted enough that it doesn't affect the meat.
2. It was interesting that a veterinarian (USDA inspector) was on staff at all times. I previously had thought that they traveled around just doing random inspections.
3. I didn't realize various testing methods are used for bovine TB in different countries (tail fold vs. cervical).
4. Question: I wonder if the anti-mortem examinations are long enough observations to catch any subtle clinical signs.
1. E. coli O157:H7 and Listeria both cause significant disease in humans; however, E. coli has more "potency" than Listeria, requiring a significantly smaller dose to become infectious in humans.
2. There are a variety of types of customers that process meats at this plant - e.g. free-range, organic, traditional grain-fed, etc. - which may affect processing protocols.
3. Ante-mortem inspection is brief, and the emphasis is to look for neurologic/CNS clinical signs which will condemn the carcass - removing it from the food chain and for further analysis.
Question: Does the new food safety bill (passed recently) have any significant impact on this smaller slaughter/processing plant in the foreseeable future?
Some improvements:
1) There was no ramp-up into the facility. When watching for neurological signs or ataxia/paresis, it is important to make the animal demonstrate its abilities in a situation that is at least nominally challenging.
2) The nervous tissue was removed by hand or with the same tools that are used on the rest of the carcass. This creates cross-contamination issues.
3) The ready-to-eat products were being produced in the same room that primal cuts were being prepared. They shared washing equipment and air vents, and were only separated by a half-wall. This provides a high risk of unwanted traffic.
?) I'm curious how they manage the organization of "organic" vs. "non-organic" products. On the cutting floor, I could not tell the difference between the brisket of one animal from another (no stamps or tags), or any section for that matter... so how do they keep different products from being mixed together?
1. They seemed to have really consistent surveillance systems with salmonella and E. coli O157 the plant and FSIS working together.
Problems:
2. Carcass contamination: Carcasses touching surfaces like doors. Although the hydrogen peroxide might solve that problem? Removing the skin while the carcass is lying in a cradle might contaminate the carcass. It would be more efficient and easy if the carcass was hanging rather than lying at that point.
3. The slaughter room didn’t have a dirty side and a clean side but instead everything happened in the same space but that can be common in small slaughter plants.
Question: What kind of contingency plans do the slaughter plants have for disease outbreaks?
1 - The plant seemed to exceed the disease testing methods recommended by the USDA (more than minimum required samples, a few positives to show system works, etc.)
2 - Simplicity is not a strong point to the current surveillance method - there is quite a mis-mash of different groups all testing different things (e.g. USDA, APHIS, FSIS, FDA, plant inspectors, multiple third party contractors, etc.)
3 - It seems like the plant's commitment to "organic" processing, while honest to consumers, might cause some public health concerns (e.g. use of inferior pathogen controlling agents, unmedicated cattle might harbor more disease, etc.)
How are the RTE meats produced at the plant, and how do they ensure separation from potentially contaminated meat on the processing floor?
1. The divison of food borne pathogen surveillance roles seems to provide opportunity for greater efficiency; it may also lead to confusion if commnication and co-ordination is not at its best.
2.The element of retail standards being nebulous and yet increasingly popular as the default standard for this industry will be something to watch out for.
3. I was pleastantly suprised to see the effort made by such a small outfit to maintain high hygiene, welfare and safety standards; their HACCP system was quite specific for their needs. It would be nice to hear abit more about worker safety and motivation. This affects their output and hence quality of work.
Question:
a. With the German E.coli outbreak I cannot but help to wonder if we have an international coordination of FB pathogen surveillance within the meat industry. What would such a plant need to do to be able to export their products. Is FSIS inspection enough?
1. The divison of food borne pathogen surveillance roles seems to provide opportunity for greater efficiency; it may also lead to confusion if commnication and co-ordination is not at its best.
2.The element of retail standards being nebulous and yet increasingly popular as the default standard for this industry will be something to watch out for.
3. I was pleastantly suprised to see the effort made by such a small outfit to maintain high hygiene, welfare and safety standards; their HACCP system was quite specific for their needs. It would be nice to hear abit more about worker safety and motivation. This affects their output and hence quality of work.
Question:
a. With the German E.coli outbreak I cannot but help to wonder if we have an international coordination of FB pathogen surveillance within the meat industry. What would such a plant need to do to be able to export their products. Is FSIS inspection enough?
Having been to Lorentz Meats twice before with the 4th year CVM VPH rotation, it was interesting to get a new perspective from the Quality Assurance VP. I thought he and the FSIS DVM did a good job of explaining the role of the inspectors in a plant and the role of the plant in the inspection process.
I think this plant is wise to have the capacity to hold suspect carcasses until testing determines if they are to be condemned or not.
A new thing I learned today is that the plant is cleaned, top to bottom, during the overnight hours and the cleaning crew doesn't get to leave until the QA inspector finds the place spotless.
I wonder if they have any plans to incorporate more automation or technology into their plant in the near future?