Order Code IB10082
Issue Brief for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Meat and Poultry Inspection Issues
Updated July 1, 2002
Jean M. Rawson
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

CONTENTS
SUMMARY
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
Overview
Standard and HACCP Inspection Authority and Requirements
Coverage
Plant Sanitation
Slaughter Inspection
Processing Inspection
Enforcement Authority
Challenges to the HACCP Rule
Petition for Changes to the Rule
Recent HACCP-related Legal Actions
Funding Issues
Current Legislative and Regulatory Actions
FSIS Bioterrorism Preparedness
Consolidated Federal Food Safety Agency
Enforcement
Irradiation
Other Selected Issues
“Mad Cow” Disease
State Inspection
Package Dating
LEGISLATION

---

IB10082
07-01-02
Meat and Poultry Inspection Issues
SUMMARY
The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s
under existing statutes.
(USDA’s) Food Safety and Inspection Service
(FSIS) is responsible for inspecting most
Although most consumer advocates, the
meat, poultry, and processed egg products for
meat and poultry industries, scientists, and
safety, wholesomeness, and proper labeling.
USDA officials state that recent program and
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is
policy reforms have improved meat and poul-
responsible for ensuring the safety of all other
try safety, implementation of HACCP has not
foods, including seafood.
quelled congressional debate on how to main-
tain progress and whether further improve-
Since September 11, much of the Con-
ments in meat and poultry safety — through
gress’s and food inspection agencies’ attention
regulatory and/or legislative changes — are
has focused on assuring that food and the U.S.
needed.
agricultural production system are adequately
protected from bioterrorism. On May 22 and
Both before and since September 11,
23, the House and Senate, respectively, passed
lawmakers have introduced measures intended
the conference agreement on H.R. 3448, the
to consolidate and modernize the inspection of
Bioterrorism Preparedness Act. The Senate
all foods, including meat and poultry (S. 1501,
bill authorizes $15 million for enhanced FSIS
Durbin), and to give FSIS stronger
inspection activities, along with additional
enforcement powers (H.R. 1276, H.R. 3127).
funds for USDA and state-level research on
In addition, two bills have been introduced to
bioterrorism detection and response.
establish the Secretary’s authority to prescribe
performance standards for pathogen reduction
Prior to the concern with bioterrorism,
(S. 2013, S. 2532). These proposals relate to
Congress paid close attention to the efforts of
a federal court ruling in 2000 (which was
FSIS and the meat and poultry industry to
reaffirmed on December 11, 2001) that held
address the ongoing problem of naturally
that FSIS does not have the statutory authority
occurring microbiological contamination,
to use Salmonella bacteria test results as a
which has been responsible for outbreaks of
basis for enforcement decisions under
severe and sometimes fatal foodborne illness.
HACCP.
Since January 2000, all federally in-
The Bush Administration’s homeland
spected slaughtering and processing plants are
security department proposal currently does
operating under a system of inspection called
not address protection of the food supply other
HACCP (for Hazard Analysis and Critical
than by transferring to the new agency
Control Point). The system is intended to
USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection
prevent meat contamination by microbial
Service (APHIS), which, among other things,
pathogens at points along the manufacturing
provides border inspection for agricultural and
chain where it is most likely to occur. The
food imports. The Administration has stated
HACCP system complements, but does not
that it might propose consolidation of food
replace, the traditional system of inspection
safety agencies under one entity shortly.

---

IB10082
07-01-02
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
On June 24, 2002, Representative Dick Armey introduced the Administration’s bill to
create a Department of Homeland Security (H.R. 5005). Although the measure does not
specifically address protecting the Nation’s food supply as part of homeland security,
Director Tom Ridge testified on June 20 that the Administration is considering an eventual
merger of the federal food safety agencies into the proposed department or a separate entity.
H.R. 5005 proposes transferring USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service(APHIS) into the security department along with several other federal agencies with
border security responsibilities. FSIS-regulated meat and poultry imports are first inspected
by APHIS at U.S. borders and ports of entry to ensure that they do not harbor foreign pests
and diseases.
On June 12, 2002, President Bush signed into law the Public Health Security and
Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act (P.L. 107-188). Title 3, Subtitle C of the Act
contains provisions to enhance the biosecurity of U.S. agricultural production and the food
supply, including $15 million to expand FSIS’s inspection activities.
On May 17, 2002, legislation was introduced in the Senate to give the USDA Secretary
authority to set and enforce microbiological performance standards, and for a variety of
other purposes, including establishing a traceback mechanism for livestock and poultry and
studying how to improve recruitment of meat inspectors (S. 2532).
On May 2, 2002, legislation was introduced in the House and Senate to create a
Department of Homeland Security (S. 2452/H.R. 4660). These proposals would transfer
APHIS’s border inspection function, which provides initial inspection of FSIS-regulated
meat and poultry imports, but not its domestic agricultural protection programs.
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
Overview
FSIS inspects most meat, poultry, and processed egg products sold for human
consumption for safety, wholesomeness, and proper labeling. FSIS carries out its inspection
duties with a total staff of about 10,000, funded in FY2002 by an annual appropriation of
$715.6 million (P.L. 107-76). In addition, the agency can use for program support the user
fees paid by the packing industry for overtime and holiday inspection services – estimated
at $101 million in FY2002. P.L. 107-76 also makes an additional $1 million available from
user fees collected for laboratory accreditation services. P.L. 107-117, the Defense
supplemental law containing funds for anti-terrorism activities, provides an additional $15
million for increased FSIS inspection to protect meat and poultry products from bioterrorism.
About 7,600 of FSIS’s employees, roughly 1,000 of them veterinarians, are located at some
6,200 plants and import stations nationwide. Traditional inspection under the original
statutes comprises constant organoleptic inspection (for appearance, odor, and feel) at
CRS-1

---

IB10082
07-01-02
slaughter operations and daily inspection of sample products and operations at processing
plants.
Following years of debate over how to respond to mounting evidence that invisible,
microbiological contamination on meat and poultry posed greater public health risks than
visible defects (the focus of traditional inspection methods), FSIS in the early 1990s began
to add testing for pathogenic bacteria on various species and products to its inspection
system. In 1995, under existing statutes, FSIS published a proposed rule to systematize these
program changes in a mandatory new inspection system called the Hazard Analysis and
Critical Control Point system – HACCP. In this system, hazards are identified and risks are
analyzed in each phase of production; “critical control points” for preventing such hazards
are identified and monitored; and corrective actions are taken when necessary. Record
keeping and verification are used to ensure the system is working. The final rule was
published in 1996, and since January 2000 all slaughter and processing operations are
required to have HACCP plans in place. HACCP operates as an adjunct to the traditional
methods of inspection, which still are mandatory under the original statutes.
The packing industry was generally receptive to HACCP at the outset. Numerous
plants, particularly the ones with 500 or more employees (which account for 75% of all U.S.
slaughter production and 45% of all processed product output), already were using HACCP-
type processes in their operations. However, since full implementation, the mandatory
HACCP system has proved to be controversial. Although records show that packing plants
for the most part have been abiding by the mandatory standards for pathogen levels, major
players in the industry argue that the regulations exceed the HACCP concept by establishing
what they view as impractical, expensive testing regimes and unrealistic standards.
In December 1999, a coalition of eight major meat industry trade associations petitioned
FSIS asking the agency to tighten and clarify certain sections of the 1996 HACCP final rule.
Two lawsuits, one in 1999 and another in 2000, also have challenged FSIS’s authority to
carry out HACCP reforms under existing statutes. These events raise the question of whether
the original laws sufficiently undergird FSIS’s stated intention to move to a science-based
system.
Performance data on HACCP gradually are becoming available and generally indicate
that HACCP is having a measurable beneficial impact on levels of microbiological
contamination in processing plants. Combined FSIS data for the 1998-2001 period show that
despite minor fluctuations, Salmonella prevalences in all classes of products have decreased
to levels below the baseline prevalence estimates determined prior to HACCP
implementation. The latest data indicate that young chickens average 10.7% under HACCP
compared to 20% prior to HACCP; market hogs average 5.4% compared to 8.7%; cows and
bulls average 2.2% compared to 2.7%; steers and heifers average 0.4% compared to 1%;
ground beef averages 3.4% compared to 7.5%; ground chicken averages 15.7% compared
to 44.6%; and ground turkey averages 29.2% compared to 49.9%.
Reductions in Salmonella levels mean reductions in the presence of other foodborne
pathogens as well, according to FSIS. Data that the Centers for Disease Control(CDC)
released in April 2002, showing a 23% overall drop in bacterial foodborne illnesses since
1996, would appear to substantiate this. According to the new CDC data, the four major
bacterial foodborne illnesses – Campylobacter, Salmonella, Listeria, and E. coli O157:H7
CRS-2

---

IB10082
07-01-02
– posted a 21% decline in the past 6 years. Nonetheless, CDC officials emphasize that
several food safety improvements (in addition to HACCP in meat and poultry plants) have
been implemented over the same period (e.g., HACCP regulation of fruit and vegetable
juices and seafood, and industry adoption of FDA guidelines on Salmonella prevention in
egg production), and that the data collected have limitations and do not reflect the entire U.S.
population. FDA officials state that there is probably some connection between HACCP
implementation in meat and poultry plants and the decline in foodborne illness, but it likely
never will be possible to say how exactly how much.
Standard and HACCP Inspection Authority and
Requirements
The Federal Meat Inspection Act of 1906, as amended [21 U.S.C. 601 et seq.], requires
USDA to inspect all cattle, sheep, swine, goats, and horses brought into any plant to be
slaughtered and processed into products for human consumption. The original Meat
Inspection Act did not cover the poultry industry, which at the time was mainly small-scale
production by independent farmers. The 1957 Poultry Products Inspection Act, as amended
[21 U.S.C. 451 et seq.], made poultry inspection mandatory. In May 1995, the authority for
processed egg inspection was transferred from USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service to
FSIS. The Egg Products Inspection Act, as amended [21 U.S.C. 1031 et seq.], is the
authority under which FSIS assures the safety of liquid, frozen, and dried egg products,
domestic and imported, and the safe use or disposition of damaged and dirty eggs.
The primary goals of the FSIS inspection program are to prevent adulterated or
misbranded animals and products from being sold as food, and to ensure that meat and
poultry are slaughtered and processed under sanitary conditions. Uninspected and
condemned products cannot be sold for human consumption in domestic or foreign
commerce. Requirements also apply to intrastate commerce (for which either USDA
programs or federally approved state programs must be in place). Imports from foreign
countries must be processed under equivalent inspection systems and be certified prior to
entry into the United States.
The following are the basic requirements of FSIS standard and HACCP inspection
systems:
Coverage. FSIS’s legal inspection responsibilities do not begin until animals arrive
at slaughterhouses, and they generally end once products leave processing plants. The
agency has no regulatory jurisdiction at the farm level. Also, certain custom slaughter and
most retail store and restaurant activities are exempt from federal inspection; however, they
may be under state inspection. Most exotic meats – including venison, rabbit, and buffalo
– are under the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) regulatory oversight and not subject
to mandatory inspection under the meat and poultry acts, although producers of these meats
may request USDA inspection on a fee-for-service basis. FDA also is responsible for
seafood (even those fish and shellfish raised through aquaculture), milk, and for the safety
of shell eggs in retail stores and restaurants. Beginning April 26, 2001, FSIS inspection is
mandatory for meat from ratites (ostrich, emu, rhea) and quail. A provision in the USDA
appropriations act for FY2001 (P.L. 106-387) amended the Poultry Products Inspection Act
CRS-3

---

IB10082
07-01-02
to include these animals, and the interim final rule was published in the Federal Register
May 1, 2001 (66 FR 21631).
Plant Sanitation. No meat or poultry establishment can slaughter or process products
for human consumption until FSIS approves in advance its plans and specifications for the
premises, equipment, and operating procedures. Once this approval is granted and operations
begin, the plant must continue to follow a detailed set of rules that cover such things as
proper lighting, ventilation, and water supply; cleanliness of equipment and structural
features; and employee sanitation procedures. In addition, under HACCP regulations, all
operations must have site-specific standard operating procedures (SOPs) for sanitation. For
each “critical control point” along the production line, plants must document and maintain
records on all cleaning procedures being used to prevent contamination before, during and
after production. USDA inspectors check the records to verify the plant’s compliance.
Slaughter Inspection. FSIS inspects all meat and poultry animals at slaughter on
a continuous basis; that is, no animal may be slaughtered and dressed unless an inspector has
examined each carcass. One or more federal inspectors are on the line during all hours the
plant is operating. Plants pay user fees to have an inspector on duty on overtime and holiday
shifts. Slaughter inspection under the original statutes consists primarily of organoleptic
detection procedures – sight, touch, and smell – to look for signs of disease, contamination,
and/or other abnormal conditions, both before and after slaughter.
In addition to standard inspection, plants are required under the HACCP rule to have
a HACCP plan for their slaughter and/or processing operations. Simply put, this means that
at each point in the process where contamination could occur, the plant must have a plan to
control it. FSIS’s role is to verify that the plant’s plan effectively maintains sanitation
standards at all the control points.
The HACCP rule also mandates two types of microbial testing to verify that plant safety
procedures are working and to measure plant performance in reducing pathogens:
! All meat and poultry slaughter plants must regularly test carcasses for generic
E. coli in order to verify that their systems are effectively controlling fecal
contamination. The testing is intended as a process verification tool for plants
and inspectors and is not to be used as a standard for enforcement purposes.
However, plants are required to follow approved testing procedures and
methods, and failure to meet specified performance criteria will result in
USDA’s working with the plant to improve sanitation and process controls.
Testing frequency varies, from many tests daily in high volume plants to once
a week in the smallest ones.
USDA states that generic E. coli was chosen because it is the best microbial indicator
of fecal contamination, the primary vehicle for such potentially dangerous bacteria as
Salmonella, Campylobactor, and E. coli O157:H7.
! Both slaughter plants and those that produce raw ground product must meet
or stay below a national standard incidence rate for Salmonella
contamination. USDA states that it chose Salmonella for testing over other
bacteria because: (1) it is the leading cause of foodborne illness; (2) it is one
CRS-4

---

IB10082
07-01-02
of the most common foodborne bacteria; (3) it is easy to test for; and (4) its
reduction also will cause reductions in other foodborne pathogens. The
national standard varies by product. For example, it is set initially at 1% of
samples testing positive for steers and heifers, 7.5% for ground beef, 20%
for broilers, and 49.9% for ground turkey. Plants with higher levels than the
standard are required to take remedial actions in order to meet the targets;
failure to meet USDA standards by a third testing series can lead to
suspension of inspection, which effectively closes the plant. USDA
inspectors conduct the Salmonella testing.
Processing Inspection. Inspection of processed products like hot dogs, lunch
meat, prepared dinners, and soups does not require an FSIS inspector to remain constantly
on the production line or to inspect each and every processed item. Instead, inspectors are
on site daily to monitor operations, check sanitary conditions, examine ingredient levels and
packaging, review records, and conduct statistical sampling and testing of products. Such
plants also are required to have HACCP plans, which are verified daily by USDA inspectors.
Processing inspectors often have responsibility for two or more plants that must be visited
each day; consequently, these plants are processing meat or poultry without on-site federal
oversight for a large portion of their workday. Nonetheless, because each plant is visited
daily, processing inspection is considered to be continuous.
Enforcement Authority. FSIS has a range of enforcement tools to prevent
adulterated or mislabeled meat and poultry from reaching consumers. On a day-to-day basis,
if plant conditions or procedures are found to be unsanitary, an FSIS inspector can, by
refusing to perform inspection, temporarily halt the plant’s operation until the problem is
corrected. Contaminated, adulterated, and misbranded products, or parts of them, can be
condemned and removed from the marketing chain. Other tools include warning letters for
minor violations; requests that companies voluntarily recall a potentially unsafe product; a
court-ordered product seizure if such a request is denied; and referral to federal attorneys for
criminal prosecution. Prosecutions under certain conditions may lead to the withdrawal of
federal inspection from offending firms or individuals. Without inspection, plants are
prohibited from operating.
Challenges to the HACCP Rule
Reaction to the mandatory HACCP regulations has been mixed. As mentioned above,
a significant portion of the packing industry already was using HACCP-type processes before
they became mandatory. Most of these plants already conduct their own pathogen testing, but
events since the start of HACCP implementation indicate that although plants for the most
part have been staying within the new national Salmonella standard, the industry finds the
standards problematic. Consumer advocacy organizations such as the Center for Science in
the Public Interest and Safe Tables Our Priority have remained supportive of the HACCP rule,
contending, among other things, that the testing program is effective at reducing pathogens
because it forces companies to emphasize prevention in their operating plans.
However, other members of the meat and poultry industry argue that the regulation
goes too far beyond HACCP, by establishing what they view as impractical, expensive
microbiological testing and unrealistic microbiological standards. They also maintain that
CRS-5

---

IB10082
07-01-02
adding HACCP onto existing requirements increases the regulatory burden for meat and
poultry processors, with no tangible improvement in public health.
Petition for Changes to the Rule. In December 1999, the American Meat Institute
submitted a petition on behalf of eight major meat industry trade associations asking FSIS to
tighten and clarify sections of the 1996 HACCP final rule pertaining to: (1) what constitutes
a food safety hazard under HACCP; (2) the extent of a plant’s responsibility after the product
is shipped; and (3) events that signal that a plant’s HACCP plan is inadequate. FSIS
published the petition in the May 15, 2000 Federal Register (65 FR 30952) and asked for
responses to six specific questions concerning the scientific and regulatory aspects of the
petition; the comment period was re-opened twice and finally closed in late December 2000.
At a June 2001 public meeting of the Advisory Committee, FSIS announced it might issue a
proposed rule reflecting agreement with certain parts of the petition concerning sanitation, but
that further changes in definitions might prove confusing rather than helpful to inspectors.
Recent HACCP-related Legal Actions.
Supreme Beef. In December 1999, FSIS attempted to withdraw inspectors from a
processing firm in Texas (Supreme Beef) whose ground beef products had repeatedly violated
Salmonella levels (withdrawing inspectors effectively closes down a plant). However, the
firm obtained a federal court injunction to prevent FSIS’s action. The firm argued that (1) high
Salmonella levels did not indicate the presence of other dangerous pathogens, (2) that the
Salmonella came in with the product from the slaughterhouse and thus could not be removed,
and (3) that the plant had never failed to meet standards for sanitation. In May 2000, the
federal judge ruled that the meat and poultry inspection statutes did not give FSIS authority
to use the Salmonella standard as the basis for withdrawing inspection.
The original ruling in May 2000 applied only to meat processors in the judge’s district
in Texas. In part because Supreme Beef subsequently went out of business, USDA asked an
appeals court in 2001 to overturn the ruling. However, on December 11, 2001 the court
upheld the district court’s decision. On December 18, 2001, Secretary Veneman issued a
statement saying that although the decision limited FSIS’s ability to enforce performance
standards, it did not affect the agency’s ability to use the standards as a way to measure the
effectiveness of plants’ food safety programs.

As evidence in support of its action against Supreme Beef, USDA has stated that only
three of 6,400 federally inspected plants have ever failed to meet the standard. Opponents
maintained that until scientists could determine what constitutes an unsafe level of Salmonella
in ground meat, pathogen testing results should not be a basis for enforcement actions.
Consumer groups and other supporters of mandatory testing and microbiological standards,
as well as of increased enforcement powers, have used the case to bolster their argument for
moving ahead quickly with adding microbiological standards to the meat and poultry
inspection statutes.
Senator Harkin has made several attempts to amend the meat and poultry inspection
statutes to clarify the Secretary’s authority to set enforceable performance standards for the
reduction of pathogens in meat and poultry. In June 2000, he introduced the Microbiological
Performance Standards Clarification Act of 2000 (S. 2760). Subsequently he offered the bill
for adoption as floor amendment to the FY2001 agricultural appropriations bill, but it failed
adoption by one vote. Senator Harkin offered the proposal as an amendment to the Senate’s
CRS-6

---

IB10082
07-01-02
FY2002 USDA appropriations measure (S. 1191/S.Amdt 1984), but withdrew it when the
lawmakers agreed to take up a competing amendment (S.Amdt. 1987) that would have
postponed enforcement of microbial standards until two research organizations complete
scientific reviews of the issue in 2002. In March, companion measures containing stronger
and more detailed versions of the earlier amendments were introduced as separate legislation.
The Meat and Poultry Pathogen Reduction and Enforcement Act (S. 2013, Harkin; H.R. 3956,
Eshoo) would require the Secretary to set performance standards for the top illness-causing
pathogens in raw meat, after a 3-year survey and evaluation period. The bill would enforce
the standards by not permitting violative products to be labeled “USDA Inspected and
Passed,” which would prevent the product from being sold for human consumption in any
form.
On May 17, 2002, Senator Schumer introduced related but more comprehensive
legislation that would: (1) establish microbiological performance standards; (2) establish
livestock and poultry traceback systems; (3) require states to report illnesses from meat and
poultry products to the CDC; (4) protect employees at federally inspected meat and poultry
plants who report food safety problems from intimidation by their employers; (5) list
biological threats to the food supply and enhance preparedness and response plans; and (6)
conduct studies on how to improve the recruitment of federal meat and poultry inspectors and
on whether meat and poultry plants should be required to use rapid detection tests for major
pathogens.
HACCP-based inspection models project. In 1998, the meat inspectors union charged
that a pilot project that FSIS planned to begin in October 1999 would violate language in the
meat and poultry inspection statutes that mandates carcass-by-carcass inspection at slaughter
operations. The pilot project, called the HACCP-based inspection models project (HIMP),
permits FSIS inspectors at approximately 25 chicken, turkey, and swine slaughtering
operations to leave the inspection line periodically to conduct increased sampling for
microbiological contaminants and to verify the compliance records of plant employees who
are now carrying out some of the hands-on inspection and corrective actions that inspectors
used to do. Underlying the inspector union’s charge is the concern that such a move would
threaten inspectors’ jobs. In June 2000, a federal appeals court upheld the union’s position
concerning the statutory language, but did not prohibit FSIS from proceeding with the pilot
project. In August 2000 the union asked the court to stop the project; in the meantime, FSIS
in September implemented a change in the project to require an inspector to be permanently
stationed at the end of the slaughter line. In January 2001 the court ruled that the HIMP
project could continue because the changes that FSIS made in September 2000 brought it into
compliance with the law. The inspector’s union subsequently filed another appeal.
In January 2002, GAO released a new report critical of the HIMP project. The GAO
states that (1) the pilot program has design and methodology limitations that compromise the
overall validity and reliability of its results; (2) FSIS did not train meat and poultry plant
personnel prior to program implementation; (3) the data do not conclusively show that
modified inspections are at least equal to traditional inspections; and (4) GAO stands by its
long-standing recommendation that legislative changes be made to provide FSIS with clear
authority to modify its inspection system [http://www.gao.gov/]. The same month, FSIS
issued a statement saying it intended to extend the program to additional plants on a voluntary
basis, and that it would publish proposed regulations to address certain of the GAO’s
criticisms. On March 29, 2002, the federal appeals court ruled that FSIS could continue
CRS-7

---

IB10082
07-01-02
HIMP, but stated that any future rulemaking to make permanent changes would likely prompt
further judicial review.
In the initial stages of the controversy, officials and industry observers noted that the
court’s original decision was based on a strict interpretation of the language in the inspection
laws and not on the efficiency of a change in division of labor or the effectiveness of the
HIMP project from a food safety standpoint. FSIS released preliminary data in July 2000
showing that chicken slaughtering plants operating under the HIMP system experienced a
100% decrease in the incidence of diseased carcasses and a 92% decrease in fecal
contamination on carcasses, a leading source of potentially illness-causing bacteria. The
January 2002 GAO report disputes the validity of these results, but FSIS officials maintain
that the data collected accurately demonstrate the project’s performance. Nonetheless, the
GAO report elicited a strong, negative public reaction to HIMP from at least one major
consumer watchdog organization. Prior to this, consumer and food safety groups generally
were withholding judgement on HIMP until more performance data could be evaluated.

Funding Issues
USDA for several years has experienced difficulties in meeting its inspection
obligations with the annual appropriation it receives from Congress. Among the reasons
given are that: (1) technological innovations have increased the amount of product needing
inspection; (2) natural attrition in FSIS’s sizeable workforce creates steady hiring pressure and
it can be difficult to find and retain qualified employees, especially in certain geographical
locations; and (3) the addition of HACCP requirements on top of the traditional carcass-by-
carcass inspection duties puts additional pressure on adequate inspector staffing.
For almost two decades prior to the current Administration, the President’s annual
budget request has included a proposal to charge the meat packing industry user fees sufficient
to cover the entire cost of federal inspection services – one rationale being that resources
would then be adequate to hire new inspectors as necessary. Congressional appropriators
have rejected the user fee proposal every year, arguing that the safety of the food supply is a
legitimate responsibility of the government.
Separate from a user fee to cover all inspection costs, FSIS has charged user fees for
overtime and holiday inspection services since 1919. The agency currently collects
approximately $100 million annually from such fees. These funds are available to the agency
for supporting its inspection activities.
For FY2003, the Bush Administration is requesting $763 million in FSIS
appropriations (+ $47.4 million) and assumes the availability of an additional $101 million
in standard user fees collected for overtime and holiday inspection. Although the Bush
Administration’s FY2002 budget request did not contain the user fee proposal found in
previous administrations’ budgets, the FY2003 request does propose user fee reform. The
Administration proposes to require processing firms to pay a fee to obtain an FSIS license;
the collected fees would support FSIS investments in inspection technology. A second
proposal would reduce current overtime fee rates and instead charge establishments for
inspection services on second and third shifts; such service now is provided without
reimbursement.
CRS-8

---

IB10082
07-01-02
The FY2002 appropriations act for USDA (P.L. 107-76) provides $715.6 million for
FSIS for FY2002, plus an additional $15 million from P.L. 107-117 (the $20 billion Defense
supplemental funding measure) for increased inspection and preparedness activities.
Current Legislative and Regulatory Actions
FSIS Bioterrorism Preparedness
Since September 11, widespread concern has been voiced about the potential for
terrorist attacks on the U.S. agricultural base and food supply through intentional
contamination by organisms or chemicals injurious to crop, animal, or human health. FSIS
received $15 million in funds for increased oversight of meat and poultry safety in the
Defense emergency supplemental act (P.L. 107-117, enacted January 10, 2002) which
allocated the remaining $20 billion from the September 11 disaster relief act (P.L. 107-38).
Several bills introduced in the Senate in fall 2001 contained provisions affecting the
anti-terrorism activities of FSIS and/or its two primary cooperating USDA agencies, the
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) (which inspects cargo and passengers
at U.S. ports of entry for animal and plant pests, and responds to animal disease outbreaks,
among other duties) and the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) (which conducts research
on animal diseases and food safety to support FSIS’s regulatory activities, among other
subjects). The USDA-related provisions in these bills were incorporated into S. 1765, the
Bioterrorism Preparedness Act of 2001, which the Senate adopted in toto as an amendment
in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 3448 on December 20, 2001. The House-passed version
(passed on December 12, 2001) did not contain any USDA-related authorities. Conferees were
named in February 2002, and the conference report was filed on May 21 and passed by the
House on May 22 and the Senate on May 23 (H. Rept. 107-481). The President signed the
bill into law on June 12, 2002 (P.L. 107-188, the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism
Preparedness and Response Act).
The Act authorizes an additional $15 million in FY2002 and such sums as necessary
in subsequent years to strengthen FSIS’s inspection force. The measure also authorizes $30
million to increase APHIS’s border inspection activities, create closer working relationships
with state and private veterinarians, and to establish an integrated FSIS/APHIS computer
tracking and record-keeping system for livestock and meat imports. The Act also authorizes
an additional $180 million for upgrading security and biocontainment at ARS labs, and $190
million for increased state and ARS research on bioterrorism detection and response. Finally,
the Act contains a provision that originally was in the House-passed 2002 farm bill (H.R.
2646). Title 3, Subtitle C, Section 336 of P.L. 107-188 makes it a federal criminal offense
intentionally to damage the property or employees of public or private animal enterprises (e.g.,
an animal research laboratory or livestock or poultry slaughtering operation) and authorizes
restitution for economic loss resulting from the damage.
On March 14, 2002, Under Secretary for Food Safety Elsa Murano testified before the
House Agriculture Appropriations subcommittee on the steps FSIS and the Department
currently are taking administratively to address food biosecurity issues. At the Department
level, the USDA Homeland Security Council coordinates anti-terrorism activities across
CRS-9

---

IB10082
07-01-02
USDA and with other federal agencies. The Protection of the Food Supply and Agriculture
Production subcouncil coordinates FSIS/APHIS preparedness and response activities. In the
event of a food-related biosecurity event, the Food Emergency Rapid Response and
Evaluation Team (FERRET) authorized by the Agricultural Research, Extension and
Education Reform Act of 1998 (P.L. 105-185) would join forces with the subcouncil. Within
FSIS, the Food Biosecurity Action Team (F-BAT) has placed the agency’s 7,600 inspectors
on high alert to look for ante-mortem and post-mortem irregularities in meat animals and
poultry, has conducted mock exercises to improve response time and communication in
emergency situations, and is working with slaughtering and processing operations to improve
the security of both the physical plant and the workforce. The Food Threat Preparedness
Network (PrepNet) is a joint FSIS/FDA group that works on threat prevention and emergency
response.
Consolidated Federal Food Safety Agency
The question of bioterrorism preparedness has brought renewed attention to a decades-
long debate over whether the 12 federal agencies and roughly 35 laws governing food safety
should be consolidated into a single food safety entity. Senator Durbin, a long-standing
proponent of the single agency concept, reintroduced consolidation legislation shortly after
the September 11 attacks, stating that such reform was necessary to protecting the food supply
from terrorist threats (S. 1501, the Safe Food Act of 2001/H.R. 1671 (DeLauro)). A Senate
Government Affairs Subcommittee hearing on October 10, 2001, on food safety preparedness
included testimony on the single entity concept proposed in S. 1501. In a speech at a major
food industry conference in March 2002, Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge stated that
the Bush Administration is considering reorganizing or consolidating federal food safety
agencies.
Consumer groups are in favor of provisions that make federal regulatory oversight of
food safety more consistent across all types of food products, however that might be achieved.
Food processors argue that: (1) increased regulation will not result in increased food safety
until scientifically valid microbiological standards can be determined; (2) reorganization by
itself will not necessarily improve public health; and (3) reorganization or physical
restructuring of agencies would create huge logistical problems.
The GAO restated its long-standing criticism of the current fragmented food inspection
system at the October 10 hearing on S. 1501, and reemphasized the National Academy of
Sciences’s (NAS) report calling for greater coordination and statutory reform, Ensuring Safe
Food from Production to Consumption, which Director Ridge also mentioned in his speech.
At a June 20,2002, hearing on the President’s proposal for a Department of Homeland
Security, Director Ridge testified that the Administration is considering consolidating federal
agencies with food safety responsibilities into the new department or into a separate entity
some time in the future. In the recently enacted 2002 farm act (P.L. 107-171, the Farm
Security and Rural Investment Act), Congress created a 15-member Food Safety Commission
and charged it with making specific recommendations to enhance the U.S. food safety system,
including a description of how each recommendation would improve food safety. The report
is due one year from the Commissions’s first meeting. (The NAS report is available at
[http://books.nap.edu/books/0309065593/html/index.html]; also see the GAO website
[http://www.gao.gov/] for links to the October 10 testimony).
CRS-10

---

IB10082
07-01-02
Enforcement
Two bills have been introduced that address FSIS’s enforcement powers separately
from the anti-bioterrorism initiatives. Representative Lowey introduced a bill early in the
107th Congress that would give FSIS authority to levy civil penalties for packers that violate
inspection laws (H.R. 1276). Shortly after September 11, Representative Udall introduced
legislation that would amend the meat and poultry inspection acts to authorize FSIS to recall
suspected contaminated products directly (H.R. 3127). Currently, the Secretary must go to the
courts in order to recall potentially unsafe products if a firm refuses to issue a recall
voluntarily. An August 2000 GAO study on FSIS and FDA recalls (Food Safety – Actions
Needed by USDA and FDA to Ensure that Companies Promptly Carry Out Recalls) criticized
the agencies’ efforts in making sure that companies carry out recalls quickly and efficiently,
particularly of products that may carry severe risk of illness. GAO also stated that neither
FDA nor FSIS compile sufficient information on companies’ recall schedules or methods, and
that determining the need for mandatory recall authority could not be done until such data
were available.
At past hearings, consumer groups and food safety advocacy groups have testified in
favor of obtaining these new enforcement tools to improve food safety in general, and to
strengthen USDA’s enforcement of the new HACCP system in particular. Proponents have
stated that civil fines would serve as an effective deterrent and could be imposed more quickly
than criminal penalties or the withdrawal of inspection. They also have argued that the
authority to assess civil penalties would permit USDA to take stronger action against “bad
actors” — processors who persistently violate food safety standards. Food safety advocates
argue that FSIS should have the authority to mandate product recalls as a backup guarantee
in case the voluntary recall system moved too slowly or was not comprehensive enough.
Meat and poultry industry trade associations have testified in opposition to granting
USDA new enforcement powers. Both producers and processors argue that current authorities
are sufficient and that cases where a plant has refused to comply with USDA’s
recommendation to recall a suspected contaminated product have been extremely rare.
Industry representatives have testified also that USDA’s current authority to withdraw
inspection, thereby shutting down a plant, is a strong enough economic penalty to deter
potential violators and punish so-called bad actors. Furthermore, they say, new enforcement
powers would increase the potential for plants to suffer drastic financial losses from suspected
contamination incidents which could ultimately be proven false. Some observers argue that
much still needs to be done in educating consumers and restaurateurs about safe meat and
poultry handling and cooking practices.
Irradiation
Food irradiation is the process of exposing food to ionizing radiation (e.g., from cobalt-
60, cesium-137, x-ray machines, or electron accelerators) that penetrates food and kills insect
pests and microorganisms without raising the temperature of the food significantly. In
December 1997, FDA approved irradiation for the control of pathogenic microorganisms in
red meats (FDA approval was necessary because irradiation is considered a food additive).
In December1999, USDA published a final rule in the Federal Register (64 FR 72167) that
guides the meat industry in the use of the technology and in labeling irradiated red meat
products. The rule also permits poultry processors to irradiate unpackaged as well as
CRS-11

---

IB10082
07-01-02
packaged poultry (irradiation of packaged poultry has been permitted since 1992). According
to FSIS officials, this change gives processors greater flexibility to use irradiation in the
context of their overall HACCP plans. Only about 1% of poultry is irradiated currently,
according to FSIS.
Supporters of irradiation as a food safety technology claim that it will significantly
reduce the public health threat, particularly from ground beef that may be contaminated with
E. coli O157:H7 (the process also can reduce the levels of Salmonella and other major
foodborne pathogens). Some consumer groups support irradiation for food safety purposes,
but state that it is not a panacea — good sanitary conditions through final preparation still will
be necessary — and that it raises other issues concerning worker and environmental safety.
Other interest groups remain concerned that it may alter the nutrient content of meat. An
August 2000 GAO report to Congress concluded that the cumulative evidence from more than
40 years of research in U.S., European and other laboratories indicates that irradiated food is
safe to eat. Red meat processors are interested in the technology, but state that they would
like to be assured of consumer acceptance before committing themselves to the high cost of
installing the equipment. The technology might be adopted first in institutions that serve high
populations of immune-compromised people, such as nursing homes and hospitals. Although
some research studies show potential consumer acceptance of irradiated ground beef could
be as high as 50%, observers still expect the technology to be adopted slowly.
In the 2002 farm act (P.L. 107-171, Sections 10808-09), Congress passed a provision
that requires the FDA to permit the use of the term “pasteurized” on food labels to indicate
that products (including meat products) have undergone a treatment process, including
irradiation, that reduces pathogen levels and remains effective even if the products are stored
improperly. The provision also requires the USDA to conduct a public and industry education
program on the availability and effectiveness of processes and treatments that eliminate or
significantly reduce the level of pathogens on meat and poultry products.
Other Selected Issues
“Mad Cow” Disease
“Mad cow” disease, or bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), is a slowly
progressive, incurable disease affecting the central nervous system of cattle. It was first
diagnosed in Britain in 1986. In 1997, European scientists determined that there was a likely
link between BSE in cattle and an outbreak in humans of a new type of fatal brain disease
called Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (nvCJD) that had begun in Europe in the late 1980s. Most
experts now agree that nvCJD is a human form of BSE that is transmitted to humans who
consume meat from BSE-infected cattle.
U.S. federal and state agencies have found no BSE in U.S. cattle since they began
surveillance in 1989. That year, APHIS began banning the import of all live ruminants from
countries where BSE is known to exist, and in 1991, the agency banned the importation of
rendered by-products from ruminants. As of December 2000, the importation of all rendered
animal protein products (whether from ruminants or not) is prohibited. The Food and Drug
Administration, which regulates animal feed ingredients domestically, banned the feeding of
CRS-12

---

IB10082
07-01-02
virtually all mammalian proteins to ruminants in August 1997. Periodic surveys show,
however, that full compliance has been difficult to achieve. A June 2001 FDA survey showed
that 22% of renderers, feed mills, and other facilities that handle ruminant material were out
of compliance with FDA’s labeling, recordkeeping, and commingling requirements. A
February 2002 GAO study reports that 364 out of 10,576 firms inspected by FDA (out of at
least 11,741 total firms potentially handling ruminant material) are still out of compliance.
Furthermore, according to GAO, FDA’s database for ensuring compliance is so flawed as to
be useless [http://www.gao.gov].
Wide differences of opinion on the adequacy of U.S. safeguards against BSE persist.
A study issued November 30, 2001, by the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis states that the
steps that USDA and HHS have taken to date to prevent and prepare for possible BSE
introduction are effective, although some improvements could still be made. The February
2002 GAO study states, “Federal actions do not sufficiently ensure that all BSE-infected
animals or products are kept out or that if BSE were found, it would be detected promptly and
not spread to other cattle through animal feed or enter the human food supply.”
FSIS’s responsibility regarding BSE requires the agency’s inspectors to divert from
processing any cattle showing suspicious clinical symptoms and send their brains to an APHIS
laboratory in Ames, Iowa, for testing. More than 11,000 cattle brains have been tested since
1990, and no BSE has been found. Under FSIS’s foreign meat inspection program, no
establishments in countries where BSE has been found are approved to ship beef to the United
States. However, the February 2002 GAO report criticizes USDA for not testing the brains
of cattle that die on farms, since they may be at higher risk of carrying BSE, and questions the
adequacy of the inspection procedures for imported meats. Senator Durbin has stated his
intent to introduce legislation to require greater restrictions on the use of animal tissues
carrying a high risk of BSE, and to enhance detection and response plans. (For additional
information on BSE, see CRS Report RS20839, Mad Cow Disease: Agriculture Issues).
State Inspection
For more than a decade, Members of Congress have introduced bills that would permit
state-inspected meat and poultry plants to ship their products across state lines. Currently,
plants under state inspection, which must be at least “equal to” (but not necessarily identical
to) the federal program, can only market their products intrastate. Because most of these
plants are small, most cannot afford the capital improvements needed to convert to federal
inspection, which, they have contended, are not needed for food safety reasons.
Senators Daschle and Hatch introduced USDA-drafted legislation to lift the interstate
shipping ban late in 1999. S. 1988 (the New Markets for State-Inspected Meat Act) would
have amended the Federal Meat Inspection Act and the Poultry Products Inspection Act to
allow state-inspected products to bear the official USDA inspection mark if the state program
had entered into a cooperative agreement with USDA to enforce the same federal
requirements enforced by FSIS. State programs that chose not to make the transition would
be taken over by USDA. At an April 2000 hearing on the proposal, representatives of state
departments of agriculture, state meat processing associations, the American Farm Bureau
Federation, the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, and several major consumer and food
safety organizations testified in support of S. 1988. Testifying in opposition to the bill was
the American Meat Institute (AMI), which represents the manufacturers of about 70% of U.S.
CRS-13

---

IB10082
07-01-02
meat products. AMI stated that for economic equity and other reasons, state-inspected plants
that want to ship interstate should be required to meet the same standards that federally
inspected plants must meet. Congress took no further action on the bill after the hearing.
The 2002 farm act (P.L. 107-171) contains a provision that requires FSIS to conduct
a survey of state inspection programs to determine how they currently compare to the federal
program, and to offer guidance on the changes state inspections systems might expect if the
statutory prohibition against interstate shipment were removed (Title X, Subtitle B(65)). The
survey and guidelines are to be included in FSIS’s next annual report to Congress.
Package Dating
A television news show recently brought attention to the issue of “sell by,” “use by,”
and “best if used by” dates on packages of meat and poultry in supermarkets. The report
alleged that some retailers were misleading consumers and possibly endangering public health
by re-labeling packages with a longer sell-by date.
Since 1972, FSIS has required poultry products to include a date of packing, either as
a calendar date or a code (9 CFR 381.126). FSIS also has permitted poultry processors to use
a sell-by or use-by date instead of a date-of-packing date. There is no regulation requiring red
meat products to bear any date label. However, federally inspected meat packing plants may
place a packing, sell-by, or use-by date on their products voluntarily. As long as the meat or
poultry product remains in the packaging that bears the USDA “inspected and passed” seal,
the product is under FSIS jurisdiction, and the retailer may not change the date that was
affixed at the plant. If the retailer re-packages the product, then state and local regulations
pertain. Some jurisdictions permit retailers to re-label products to move the sell-by or use-by
date forward. FSIS documents indicate that more than 20 states may have product-dating
requirements.
FSIS officials state that sell-by or use-by dates relate to product quality, not to safety.
A date label affixed at the packing plant helps retailers determine how long to display the
product for sale, and helps consumers to know the time limit to purchase or use the product
at its best quality. If a product has been handled properly and stored at 40 degrees or below,
the product could still be safe even after the use-by date, if the consumer determines that the
product’s feel and odor appear normal. On the other hand, a product that has been mishandled
could be unsafe, even though the use-by date has not passed.
LEGISLATION
P.L. 107-171, H.R. 2646/S. 1731
Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002. Provides for the continuation of
agricultural programs through FY2007. Contains provisions on bioterrorism preparedness,
country-of-origin labeling of meats, irradiation labeling, and humane treatment of livestock,
among other things. Conference agreement passed by the House on May 2 and by the Senate
on May 8, 2002. Signed into law May 13, 2002.
CRS-14

---

IB10082
07-01-02
P.L. 107-188, H.R. 3448/S. 1765
Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act. Improves
the ability of the United States to prevent, prepare for, and respond to bioterrorism and other
public health emergencies. Introduced December 11, 2001; passed the House on December
12, 2001, under a suspension of the rules. Senate substituted text of S. 1765 as an amendment
to H.R. 3448 on December 20, 2001. Conference agreement filed May 21; passed by House
on May 22 and by the Senate on May 23, 2002 (H. Rept. 107-481). Signed into law June 12,
2002.
H.R. 1276 (Lowey)
Expands enforcement options under the Federal Meat Inspection Act and Poultry
Products Inspection Act to include the imposition of civil money penalties against violators.
Introduced March 28, 2001, and referred to the Committee on Agriculture.
H.R. 3127 (Udall)
Unsafe Meat and Poultry Recall Act of 2001. Amends the Federal Meat Inspection Act
and the Poultry Products Inspection Act to authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to order the
recall of meat and poultry that is adulterated, misbranded, or otherwise unsafe. Introduced
October 12, 2001, and referred to the Committee on Agriculture.
H.R. 1671 (DeLauro)/ S. 1501 (Durbin)
Safe Food Act of 2001. To consolidate into a single independent agency within the
executive branch responsibilities regarding food safety, labeling, and inspection currently
divided among several federal agencies. H.R. 1671 was introduced May 1, 2001; referred to
Committee on Agriculture, Subcommittee on Department Operations, Oversight, Nutrition,
and Forestry, and Subcommittee on Livestock and Horticulture, May 14, 2001. Referred to
Committee on Energy and Commerce, May 1, 2001, and referred to Subcommittee on Health,
May 15, 2001. S. 1501 was introduced October 4, 2001; referred to the Committee on
Governmental Affairs. Testimony was given on the measure at a hearing held on bioterrorism
preparedness on October 10, 2001, before the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government
Management, Restructuring, and the District of Columbia.
S. 2013 (Harkin)/H.R. 3956 (Eshoo)
The Meat and Poultry Pathogen Reduction and Enforcement Act of 2002. To clarify
the authority of the Secretary to prescribe performance standards for the reduction of
pathogens in meat and poultry produced under federal inspection. Introduced March 14,
2002, and referred to the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Forestry and Human Nutrition.
S. 2532 (Schumer)
The Meat and Poultry Products Safety Improvement Act of 2002. To amend the
Federal Meat Inspection Act and the Poultry Products Inspection Act to improve the safety
of meat and poultry products by establishing microbiological standards and traceback systems,
among other things. Introduced May 17, 2002, and referred to the Senate Committee on
Agriculture, Forestry, and Human Nutrition.
CRS-15

---