Meat + Poultry - February 2009 - 18

WASHINGTON

Looking for positive changes
By Bernard Shire
meatpoultry@sosland.com

s it does every two years, the
U.S. Dept. of Agriculture's Food
Safety and Inspection Service
has asked its stakeholders - industry, consumer groups, universities and
state inspection agencies - to nominate
people to serve a two-year term on its
National Advisory Committee on Meat
and Poultry Inspection. This advisory
group is one of 59 committees serving
USDA. While they're not all structured
the same way, the general idea is to
provide input to USDA so the agencies
can do a better job in getting feedback
from their stakeholders.
The advisory committee for meat
and poultry inspection, managed by
the Food Safety and Inspection Service,
operates differently from other advisory
groups. Its members consist of all the
constituent groups FSIS deals with and
include representatives from large trade
associations and large processors, small
processors, consumer groups, university professors, the "equal to" state meat
and poultry inspection agencies and
the union representing federal meat
and poultry inspectors.

All's not well
But all is not well on the advisory committee. Some members told
MEAT&POULTRY that FSIS doesn't let
the committee consider and debate issues important to meat and poultry
processors, consumers and federal and
state inspectors. Unlike years ago, members work together quite well now, but
USDA isn't listening.
Committee members complain FSIS
doesn't send materials to members in
enough time for them to prepare for
the two-day gathering in Washington.
They also criticized the agency for
meeting just once last year.
Dr. Craig Henry, who heads scientific and regulatory affairs for the Grocery Manufacturers Association, notes
18

MEAT&POULTRY

February 2009

FSIS has changed the focus of a major
plan to redesign meat inspection. The
advisory committee has been playing
a major role in this redesign. It was formerly known as "risk-based inspection,"
but is now called "public health-based
inspection." The agency's change in
direction means the project will take
more time, he says.
"I represent industry and our members want a good science-based recommendation, as well as third-party certification," Henry says.

"I represent industry
and our members want
a good science-based
recommendation, as
well as third-party
certification."
Mike Finnegan, assistant director of
Montana's state meat-inspection program, is "a voice" for very-small plants.
He is disappointed FSIS is taking so long
to revise the meat and poultry inspection program.
"The entire committee has worked
very hard on this risk-based inspection issue. Everyone on the committee
thought it was a good idea; we spent
many hours on it," he says.
By changing the focus, Finnegan says
FSIS "yanked the rug out from under us."
He's concerned how inspection changes
will affect very-small plants.
Carol Tucker Foreman, who represents the Consumer Federation of
America's Food Policy Institute in
Washington, says the advisory committee only met three times during the
past two-year term, while it used to
meet three times a year. "They request
us to come up with answers and that's
what we do. But a lot of the meeting
www.MEATPOULTRY.com

time at FSIS' Committee on Meat and
Poultry Inspection is used up because
we have to listen to reports from FSIS
staff members. I don't think our time
is spent as well at NACMPI meetings,"
she charges.
Foreman adds while industry and consumer groups frequently sparred years
ago, they have worked together better
in recent years. But does the committee
have any effect on FSIS' inspection decision-making and policies, she asks?
Jim Dickson, professor of animal
science at Iowa State Univ., thinks one
function of the USDA Advisory Committee on Meat and Poultry Inspection
is to be a sounding board FSIS uses for
feedback on what the agency is doing.
"We're one of many groups having input to USDA," he reasons.
Dickson's main priority for USDA
is consideration of inspection issues
and any possible changes from a scientific basis. The committee's greatest
contribution is possibly perspectives
on inspection that haven't reached
USDA, he says.
Michael Kowalcyk of Cincinnati, Ohio,
belongs to the Center for Foodborne Illness, a consumer group. He first represented Safe Tables Our Priority on the
committee, and his wife, Barbara, at one
time led S.T.O.P. He worries about what
he sees as less consumer representation
on the committee compared to years ago.
And he thinks reducing the number of
subcommittees discussing inspection issues from three to two reduces committee discussion and makes it less effective.
He's hoping for some positive changes
on the committee.
Bernard Shire is M&P's Washington correspondent
based in Lancaster, Pa. With a background in editing and writing for daily news publications, he also
works as a food safety consultant and writer for
Shire & Associates.
We would like to hear from you - to comment on
this story or to request reprints, contact us by
e-mail at: meatpoultry@sosland.com.

http://www.MEATPOULTRY.com

Meat + Poultry - February 2009

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Meat + Poultry - February 2009