Meat + Poultry - June 2006 - 17

Washington
Recalls and retailers:
An F.S.I.S. dilemma
By Bernard Shire
meat&poultry@sosland.com

No doubt, you've seen Food Safety
and Inspection Service meat or poultry product recall notices many times.
They include the company name, the
establishment product number, label samples, product description and
dates, and most importantly, product
code numbers.
There's been unanimous agreement
these notices have been effective, especially because the product is so
carefully identified using the product
codes. But F.S.I.S. is in the midst of a
controversy because it is considering
publicizing the names and locations
of retail outlets selling the recalled
product. The idea to have retail stores
listed as part of a recall comes from
consumer activist groups and has been
simmering on the edge of U.S.D.A.
rulemaking for years. Many in the industry are surprised it has taken so
long for the agency to come out with
such a proposal.
The goal is to more effectively fi nd
recalled product by either identifying the product itself or naming the
stores where the product is for sale,
or both. That is the guts of this debate
gripping the meat and poultry industry, U.S.D.A. and consumer activist
groups. Many of these concerns were
voiced at a recent public meeting in
Washington, D.C.
U.S.D.A. is now poring through
many comments from the processing industry, retailers and consumer
groups in reaction to the idea. To be
fair to F.S.I.S., the agency believed
its idea would generate a great deal of
controversy. Most officials think that
various interests may not oppose the
general idea of making more information about recalls available to consumers, but just the way the agency's

gone about it. For example: Should
restaurants be included as "consignees?" They're not at this point. What
if the list of retailers posted by F.S.I.S.
is not complete? Would people assume
the product is OK, if their grocer is not
on the list?
Thus, F.S.I.S. held a public meeting
to solicit preliminary comments in
the midst of its rulemaking process,
something it almost never does. And

F.S.I.S. is considering
publicizing the names
and locations of retail
outlets that are selling
the recalled products.
the agency extended its rulemaking
comment period to give more people
the opportunity to read a transcript of
the public meeting before they submit
their written comments.
During the meeting, Montana meat
processor and industry/government
watchdog John Munsell said he supported the idea, because it will put more
pressure on large slaughterers, who he
believes are responsible for E. coli and
Salmonella problems, especially if large
retailers are publicly named in recalls.
The National Meat Association,

Oakland, Calif., was honest enough to
say its main concern with the proposal
deals with competition and business.
If the names of retail consignees of
meat and poultry processing companies are publicized for having recalled
products, competitors of the processors could possibly jump in and "steal
them away." Although other trade
groups didn't mention this concern,
it is probably part of their thinking.
Instead, other associations have mentioned different possible problems, including consumers relying on the list
of retail stores to decide whether they
might have recalled products in their
homes, refrigerators or freezers.
Industry trade groups and retailers
believe it is more important for consumers to fi nd recalled products. And
they say the best way for consumers
to do this is to check product code
numbers on the items themselves and
to call the grocery store where they
shop to fi nd out if any meat and poultry products in their possession have
been recalled.
But consumer activist organizations
think the more information available,
the better. And that would include the
names and locations of retail and grocery stores that are customers of meat
and poultry slaughtering and processing companies - even if the list isn't
complete.
F.S.I.S. will have to decide whether
to pursue publicizing the names of the
retailers to include more "users" that
consumers patronize, or to scrap the
plan and start over.

Bernard Shire is a food safety consultant and writer for Shire & Associates
in Lancaster, Pa., and previously was
director of regulatory and legislative
affairs for the American Association of
Meat Processors.
We would like to hear from you- your comments
and questions about this article are welcome.
E-mail the author at: meat&poultry@sosland.com

www.MEATPOULTRY.com

June 2006

MEAT&POULTRY

http://www.MEATPOULTRY.com

Meat + Poultry - June 2006

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Meat + Poultry - June 2006