Order Code RL32922
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Meat and Poultry Inspection:
Background and Selected Issues
Updated July 6, 2006
Geoffrey S. Becker
Specialist in Agricultural Policy
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

Meat and Poultry Inspection:
Background and Selected Issues
Summary
The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) Food Safety and Inspection
Service (FSIS) must inspect most meat, poultry, and processed egg products for
safety, wholesomeness, and labeling. Federal inspectors or their state counterparts
are present at all times in virtually all slaughter plants and for at least part of each day
in establishments that further process meat and poultry products. Debate has ensued
for decades over whether this system, first designed in the early 1900s, has kept pace
with changes in the food production and marketing industries. Among the issues that
the 109th Congress has been asked to examine are:
Is enough being done to address longstanding concerns about naturally
occurring microbiological contamination? In 1996, FSIS added a sweeping new
system known as Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) — essentially
plant-specific contamination prevention plans — on top of the traditional “sight-,
smell-, and touch-based” inspection system. Bills proposing to clarify USDA’s use
of pathogen performance standards include S. 1357 and H.R. 3160.
Does FSIS have adequate funding and resources, and/or should industry pay
more for inspection? FSIS inspection is mainly funded through USDA’s annual
appropriation. The pending FY2007 appropriation (H.R. 5384) again rejects the
President’s proposal for new user fees.
Should state-inspected meat and poultry products be allowed in interstate
commerce? S. 3519 would lift the longstanding ban on such shipments.
Should USDA be given more authority to recall suspect meat and poultry
products? Bills to broaden recall authority include S. 1534, S. 3615, and H.R. 5729.
Is legislation needed to improve the ability to trace animals, meat, and poultry
products? S. 3601 and H.R. 5727 would require a system for tracing all federally
inspected meat and poultry from the live animal through processing to the ultimate
consumer. H.R. 1254 and H.R. 3170 would establish differing nationwide livestock
identification systems for animal disease purposes only.
Do current safeguards protect consumers from BSE (bovine spongiform
encephalopathy) contaminated beef? S. 294 would tighten controls on imports from
BSE-affected countries; S. 2002 and S. 73 would strengthen cattle feeding rules.
Should Congress further address animal welfare? S. 1779 and H.R. 3931
would ban the slaughter of nonambulatory livestock; H.R. 503 and S. 1915 would
ban horse slaughter for human consumption.
Should U.S. food safety responsibilities be consolidated under a single agency?
Companion bills (H.R. 1507, S. 729) to do so are pending. This report, which
supersedes CRS Issue Brief IB10082, Meat and Poultry Inspection Issues, will be
updated if significant developments ensue.

---

Contents
Background on the Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Statutory Authorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Federal Meat Inspection Act of 1906 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Poultry Products Inspection Act of 1957 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Egg Products Inspection Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
System Basics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Coverage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Plant Sanitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
HACCP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Slaughter Inspection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Processing Inspection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Pathogen Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Enforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Staffing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
State Inspection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Import Inspection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Selected Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Microbiological Contamination and HACCP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Development of HACCP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Pathogen Performance Standards; Salmonella . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
E. coli O157:H7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Listeria monocytogenes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Funding and Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Risk-Based Inspection System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
User Fee Proposals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
State Inspected Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Recall and Enforcement Proposals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Meat Traceability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
BSE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
North American Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
BSE Safeguards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Critical Views . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Humane Slaughter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Horse Slaughter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Single Food Agency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Food Security and Emergency Preparedness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

---

Meat and Poultry Inspection:
Background and Selected Issues
Background on the Programs
The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) Food Safety and Inspection
Service (FSIS) is responsible for inspecting most meat, poultry, and processed egg
products for safety, wholesomeness, and proper labeling. Federal inspectors or their
state counterparts are present at all times in virtually all slaughter plants and for at
least part of each day in establishments that further process meat and poultry
products. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), within the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services (HHS), is responsible for ensuring the safety of virtually
all other human foods, including seafood, and for animal drugs and feed ingredients.1
Statutory Authorities
Federal Meat Inspection Act of 1906. This law as amended (21 U.S.C.
601 et seq.) has long required USDA to inspect all cattle, sheep, swine, goats, horses,
mules, and other equines brought into any plant to be slaughtered and processed into
products for human consumption.2
Poultry Products Inspection Act of 1957. This law as amended (21
U.S.C. 451 et seq.) makes poultry inspection mandatory for any domesticated birds
intended for use as human food. The current list of included species is chickens,
turkeys, ducks, geese, guineas, ratites (ostrich, emu, and rhea), and squabs (pigeons
up to one month old).
Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946. Under this law as amended (7 U.S.C.
1621), FSIS also provides voluntary inspection for buffalo, antelope, reindeer, elk,
1 This report does not compare and contrast FSIS responsibilities with those of FDA, which
operates under a considerably different regulatory framework. These differences could have
significance in the longstanding debate over the need, if any, for reorganizing U.S. food
safety authorities and programs. See “Single Food Agency” later in this report, and CRS
Report RL31853, Food Safety Issues in the 109th Congress, by Donna U. Vogt.
2 The FY2006 USDA appropriation (P.L. 109-97, Section 798) amends the Meat Inspection
Act to alter the statutory designation of livestock which are required to undergo mandatory
inspection if destined for human food — from “cattle, sheep, swine, goats, horses, mules,
and other equines” to “amenable species.” Section 798 then defines “amenable species” to
mean: (1) “those species subject to the provisions of the [Meat Inspection] Act on the day
before the date of enactment” of the 2006 appropriation (i.e., the same species previously
delineated in the inspection act); (2) “any additional species of livestock that the Secretary
considers appropriate.” These changes were made during the House-Senate conference on
the appropriation measure.

---

CRS-2
migratory waterfowl, game birds, and rabbits, which the industry can request on a
fee-for-service basis.3
Egg Products Inspection Act. This law 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 disposition of damaged and dirty
eggs. FDA holds regulatory authority over shell eggs used in restaurants and sold in
stores.
USDA Meat Grading
USDA meat and poultry grading is distinct and separate from the FSIS safety
inspection program. Upon request, firms may request that inspectors from a
separate USDA agency, the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), grade their
products for quality attributes, but only after it has been cleared by FSIS for safety
and wholesomeness. Unlike safety inspection, which is mandatory and largely
covered by appropriated funds, grading services are voluntary and funded by
industry user fees.
Nationally uniform quality grades are used to convey, to buyers and sellers,
such traits as tenderness, flavor, and juiciness, and so forth. For example, AMS
now grades beef carcasses as prime, choice, select, standard and commercial,
utility, cutter, and canner; these grades are not usually visible on individual retail
cuts but can appear on the packages. Grades are also available for veal, lamb, and
poultry. Legislative authority for quality (and yield) grades comes through the
Agricultural Marketing Act (7 U.S.C. 1621).
System Basics
Coverage. FSIS’s legal inspection responsibilities begin when animals arrive
at slaughterhouses, and they generally end once products leave processing plants.
Certain custom slaughter and most retail store and restaurant activities are exempt
from federal inspection; however, they may be under state inspection.
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.
3 These meat and poultry species (which are not specifically covered by the mandatory
inspection statutes) are regulated by FDA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act,
FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.) if they are not inspected under the voluntary FSIS program.
FDA has jurisdiction over meat products from such species in interstate commerce, even if
they bear the USDA inspection mark.

---

CRS-3
HACCP. Plants are required to have a Hazard Analysis and Critical Control
Point (HACCP) plan for their slaughter and/or processing operations. Essentially,
a plant must identify each point in the process where contamination could occur,
called a “critical control point,” have a plan to control it, and document and maintain
records. Under HACCP regulations, all operations must have site-specific standard
operating procedures (SOPs) for sanitation. USDA inspectors check records to verify
a plant’s compliance (see “Selected Issues” for more on HACCP).
Slaughter Inspection. FSIS inspects all meat and poultry animals to look
for signs of disease, contamination, and other abnormal conditions, both before and
after slaughter (“antemortem” and “postmortem,” respectively), on a continuous basis
— meaning that no animal may be slaughtered and dressed unless an inspector has
examined it. One or more federal inspectors are on the line during all hours the plant
is operating.
Processing Inspection. The inspection statutes give the Secretary discretion
to determine how often a USDA inspector must visit facilities that produce processed
products like hot dogs, lunch meat, prepared dinners, and soups. Under current
regulations, processing plants visited once every day by an FSIS inspector are
considered to be under continuous inspection in keeping with the laws. Inspectors
monitor operations, check sanitary conditions, examine ingredient levels and
packaging, review records, verify HACCP processes, and conduct statistical sampling
and testing of products during their on-site visits.
Pathogen Testing. The HACCP rule also mandates two types of microbial
testing: for generic E. coli and for Salmonella. Levels of these two organisms are
indicators of conditions that either suppress or encourage the spread of such
potentially dangerous bacteria as Campylobacter and E. coli O157:H7, as well as
Salmonella itself. Test results (plants test for E. coli and FSIS for Salmonella) help
FSIS inspectors verify that plant sanitation procedures are working, and to identify
and assist plants whose process controls may be underperforming.
In the initial years of HACCP implementation, plants that failed three
consecutive Salmonella tests could have their USDA inspectors withdrawn. This
would effectively shut down the plant until the problem could be remedied. A
federal court ruling in 2000, upheld on appeal in 2001, made such enforcement
illegal. Nonetheless, FSIS inspectors still test samples for Salmonella and use the
results as one of a number of indicators of plant performance.4
Enforcement. 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. FSIS can condemn contaminated, adulterated, and misbranded
products, or parts of them, and detain them so they cannot progress down the
marketing chain.
4 FSIS also samples meat tissues for drug and pesticide residues, but FDA and the FFDCA,
along with the Environmental Protection Agency and its statutes are the guiding authorities
for such residues.

---

CRS-4
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, which results in plant closure.
Funding. Federal appropriations pay for most, but not all, mandatory
inspection. In FY2006, FSIS received an annual appropriation of approximately
$838 million. In addition, FSIS uses revenue from fees paid by the meat and poultry
industries for FSIS inspection that occurs beyond regularly scheduled shifts and on
holidays, and by private laboratories that apply for FSIS certification to perform
official meat testing and sampling. In FY2006, revenue from the fees will amount
to an estimated $123 million in additional program support.
Staffing. FSIS carries out its duties with total staff of nearly 10,000.
Approximately 7,600 of FSIS’s employees, roughly 1,000 of them veterinarians, are
in nearly 5,900 plants (1,700 of them slaughter establishments) nationwide.
State Inspection. Twenty-eight states have their own meat and/or poultry
inspection programs covering approximately 2,000 small or very small
establishments. The states run the programs cooperatively with FSIS, which provides
up to 50% of the funds for operating them, comprising about $50 million of the total
FSIS budget annually. A state program operating under a cooperative agreement
with FSIS must demonstrate that its system is equivalent to federal inspection.
However, meat and poultry products produced under state inspection are limited to
intrastate commerce only. In states that have discontinued their inspection systems
for meat or poultry (or both), FSIS has assumed responsibility for inspection at the
formerly state-inspected plants. However, actual inspection is performed by state
personnel.
Import Inspection. FSIS conducts overseas evaluations to determine that
imports from foreign countries are processed under equivalent inspection systems;
agency officials also verify equivalency by visiting various foreign slaughtering and
processing operations. A plant seeking to export meat or poultry to the United States
must first receive FSIS certification. At U.S. ports of entry, meat and poultry import
shipments must first clear Department of Homeland Security (DHS) inspection to
assure that only shipments from countries free of certain animal and human disease
hazards are allowed entry. This function was transferred to DHS from USDA’s
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) when DHS was established by
the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-296). After DHS inspection, imported
meat and poultry shipments go to nearby FSIS inspection facilities for final clearance
into interstate commerce.
Selected Issues
Microbiological Contamination and HACCP
Development of HACCP. In the early 1990s, following years of debate over
how to respond to mounting evidence that invisible, microbiological contamination

---

CRS-5
on meat and poultry posed greater public health risks than visible defects (the focus
of traditional inspection methods), FSIS 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 program called the Hazard Analysis and
Critical Control Point (HACCP) system. In this system, firms must analyze risks in
each phase of production, identifying and then monitoring “critical control points”
for preventing such hazards, with corrective actions taken when necessary. Record
keeping and verification are used to ensure that the system is working. FSIS
published the final rule on July 25, 1996, and since January 2000 all slaughter and
processing operations are required to have HACCP plans in place. HACCP is
intended to operate as an adjunct to the traditional methods of inspection, which still
are mandatory under the original statutes.5
Pathogen Performance Standards; Salmonella. The meat and poultry
inspection statutes do not give USDA the authority to use Salmonella standards as
the basis for withdrawing inspection from a plant that has not met them, a federal
court ruled in 2000, and an appeals court upheld in 2001. Subsequently, USDA has
adopted the position that the court decision did not affect the agency’s ability to use
the standards as part of the verification of plants’ sanitation and HACCP plans.
Nonetheless, the appeals court ruling supports arguments of those who say that
pathogen testing results should not be a basis for enforcement actions until scientists
can determine what constitutes an unsafe level of Salmonella in ground meat and a
number of other meat and poultry products. 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 amending the
meat and poultry inspection statutes to specify microbiological standards.
FSIS has reported its concern about “increases in Salmonella rates observed
over the past three years (2003 — 2005) among the three poultry product categories,
broiler carcasses, ground chicken, and ground turkey. Increases were observed for
all three classes in 2003 and 2005 and in each year for broiler carcasses.”6
To address the problem, in early 2006 the agency launched an initiative to
reduce the pathogen in raw meat and poultry products, including the concentration
of more inspection resources at establishments with higher levels, and quarterly
rather than annual reporting of Salmonella test results. Sampling frequency will be
based on a combination of factors such as a plant’s regulatory history and its
5 The final rule appeared in 61 Federal Register 38805-38855.
6 Report on FSIS testing results for Salmonella, posted with those for E. coli O157:H7 on
the Internet at [http://www.fsis.usda.gov/Science/Microbiology/index.asp]. On July 5, 2006,
the advocacy group Food & Water Watch released the names of 106 broiler chicken plants
in 27 states and Puerto Rico that failed to reach federal Salmonella standards between 1998
and 2005. The report is at [http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/food/foodsafety].

---

CRS-6
incidence of the pathogen.7 A notice and request for comments on this initiative was
published in the February 27, 2006, Federal Register. A portion of the
Administration’s request for a $2.6 million increase for FSIS development of risk-
based inspection would be devoted to risk-based Salmonella control (see “Funding
and Resources,” in this report).
Scientific Advice on Performance Standards
National Advisory Committee on Microbiological Criteria for Foods:
The committee, established in 1988 to provide scientific advice to the Secretaries
of Agriculture and of Health and Human Services on public health issues,
concluded in a report issued in October 2002 that “performance standards that
meet the principles as outlined in this document [i.e., standards that are based on
quantitative rather than qualitative data] are valuable and useful tools to define an
expected level of [pathogen] control in one or more steps in the process.” (The
report is at [http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPHS/nacmcf/rep_stand.htm].)
Institute of Medicine-NRC: A second review of microbiological
performance standards, Scientific Criteria to Ensure Safe Food, was released in
2003 by the Institute in collaboration with the National Research Council (NRC).
Among many recommendations, this report calls on Congress to “grant the
regulatory agencies clear authority to establish, implement, and enforce food
safety criteria, including performance standards, and the flexibility needed within
the administrative process to update these criteria.”
The Institute report also makes specific recommendations for FSIS to
improve meat and poultry safety including: (1) to conduct surveys to evaluate
changes over time in the microbiological status of certain components of
processed meats and poultry; (2) to expand E. coli O157:H7 testing, identify
control points for E. coli O157:H7 back to the farm level, and inform consumers
that even irradiated ground beef must be cooked to a temperature that kills the
pathogen; and (3) to greatly expand generic E. coli criteria, and Salmonella
performance standards, for beef trim intended for grinding. (This report may be
accessed at [http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10690.html].)
E. coli O157:H7. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC) noted that “E. coli O157:H7 is one of hundreds of strains of the bacterium
Escherichia coli. Although most strains are harmless and live in the intestines of
healthy humans and animals, this strain produces a powerful toxin and can cause
severe illness. E. coli O157:H7 was first recognized as a cause of illness in 1982
during an outbreak of severe bloody diarrhea; the outbreak was traced to
7 Food Chemical News, July 3, 2006.

---

CRS-7
contaminated hamburgers. Since then, most infections have come from eating
undercooked ground beef.”8
In October 1994, FSIS began testing samples of raw ground beef for E. coli
O157:H7 and declared that any such product found with this pathogen would be
considered adulterated — the first time a foodborne pathogen on raw product was
declared an adulterant under the meat inspection law. Industry groups immediately
asked a Texas federal court for a preliminary injunction to halt this effort, on the
grounds that it was not promulgated through appropriate rulemaking procedures, was
arbitrary and capricious, and exceeded USDA’s regulatory authority under law. In
December 1994, the court denied the groups’ request, and no appeal was filed,
leaving the program in place. FSIS has taken tens of thousands of samples since the
program began; to date, several hundred samples have tested positive.
In September 2002, FSIS issued a press release stating that “[t]he scientific data
show that E. coli O157:H7 is more prevalent than previously estimated,” and in
October 2002 the agency published a notice requiring manufacturers of all raw beef
products (not just ground beef) to reassess their HACCP plans and add control points
for E. coli O157:H7 if the reassessment showed that the pathogen was a likely hazard
in the facility’s operations. FSIS inspectors are to verify that corrective steps have
been taken and conduct random testing of all beef processing plants, including all
grinders (some previously had been exempted). In addition, the agency announced
guidelines for grinding plants advising them to increase the level of pathogen testing
by plant employees, and to avoid mixing products from different suppliers.9
FSIS reported that of 10,976 ground beef samples tested in 2005, and 8,010
samples tested in 2004, approximately 0.17% tested positive each year for E. coli
O157:H7, part of a significant decline in the percentage of positive samples since
2000, when it was 0.86%. FSIS asserted that the reduction reflected the success of
its HACCP-based and related regulatory policies. A CDC report issued on April 14,
2005, indicated that the incidence of infections caused by E. coli O157:H7 had
declined significantly from the 1996-98 baseline through 2004.10
Listeria monocytogenes. In February 2001, FSIS published a proposed rule
to set performance standards that meat and poultry processing firms would have to
meet to reduce the presence of Listeria monocytogenes (Lm), a pathogen in ready-to-
eat foods (e.g., cold cuts and hot dogs). The proposal covered over 100 different
types of dried, salt-cured, fermented, and cooked or processed meat and poultry
products. Lm causes an estimated 2,500 illnesses and 499 deaths each year (from
listeriosis), and has been a major reason for meat and poultry product recalls.
8 Background information on this pathogen may be viewed at the following CDC website:
[http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dbmd/diseaseinfo/escherichiacoli_g.htm#What%20is%20Es
cherichia%20coli%20O157:H7].
9 Federal Register 67 FR 62325.
10 Data are from the preliminary CDC FoodNet report, which can be viewed at [http://www.
cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5414a2.htm].

---

CRS-8
The proposed regulations raised a controversy among affected constituencies.
The meat industry argued that the benefits to consumers would not outweigh the cost
to packers of additional testing. Representatives of food manufacturers criticized the
proposed regulations for covering some categories of foods too broadly and heavily,
while not covering some other high-risk foods at all (such as milk, which is under
FDA jurisdiction). Consumer groups said the proposed rule would not require
enough testing in small processing plants and that products not tested for Lm should
not be labeled “ready-to-eat” because they would still require cooking to be 100%
safe.
Interest in the Listeria issue had grown in 1998 and 1999, following reports of
foodborne illnesses and deaths linked to ready-to-eat meats produced by a Sara Lee
subsidiary.11 Interest increased significantly after October 2002, when Pilgrim’s
Pride Corporation recalled a record-breaking 27.5 million pounds of poultry lunch
meats for possible Lm contamination after a July 2002 outbreak of listeriosis in New
England. CDC confirmed 46 cases of the disease, with 7 deaths and 3 stillbirths or
miscarriages. The recall covered products made as early as May 2002, and officials
stated that very little of the meat was still available to be recovered.
In December 2002, FSIS issued a directive to inspection program personnel
giving new and specific instructions for monitoring processing plants that produce
hot dogs and deli meats.12 In June 2003, FSIS announced the publication of an
interim final rule to reduce Listeria in ready-to-eat meats. Rather than set
performance standards, as the February 2001 proposed rule would have, the new
regulation requires plants that process RTE foods to add control measures specific
to Listeria to their HACCP and sanitation plans, and to verify their effectiveness by
testing and disclosing the results to FSIS. The rule directs FSIS inspectors to conduct
random tests to verify establishments’ programs. Plants are subject to different
degrees of FSIS verification testing depending upon what type of control steps they
adopt in their HACCP and sanitation plans.13
On January 4, 2005, the Consumer Federation of America (CFA) issued a report
sharply criticizing USDA’s Listeria rulemaking. CFA asserted that the Department
essentially adopted meat industry positions in weakening the final rule, such as by
deleting proposed plant testing requirements and by not explicitly requiring that
HACCP plans include Listeria controls. In 2003, Listeria illnesses increased by
22%, CFA contended, citing CDC data.14
USDA and meat industry officials countered that the number of product recalls
related to Listeria had declined from 40 in 2002 to 14 in 2003, that the rise in
Listeriosis cases was quite small in 2003 after four years of declines, and that the
interim rule provides more incentives for plants to improve safety. The CDC’s 2004
FoodNet reported that the incidence of foodborne illness caused by Listeria
11 Source: Food Chemical News, various issues.
12 The guidelines can be found on the FSIS website at [http://www.fsis.usda.gov].
13 See the FSIS website for more details on the rule.
14 CFA website: [http://www.consumerfed.org/].

---

CRS-9
experienced a decline in 2004 after an increase in 2003, with an overall 40% decline
from a 1996-1998 baseline.
Large recalls continue, however. For example, on December 10, 2005, FSIS
announced that ConAgra Foods was voluntarily expanding — to 2.8 million pounds
— a December 1, 2005, recall of approximately 9,550 pounds of various bologna,
ham, and turkey lunch meal products, due to possible contamination after cheese
provided by a supplier tested positive for Lm. Another 28 Listeria-related recalls
were announced during 2005, involving approximately 649,000 pounds of processed
meat and poultry products, according to the agency’s website. The website had
posted just three relatively small Listeria recalls in 2006 through June.15
In Congress. In recent years, bills have been offered to add language to the
inspection laws clarifying the Secretary’s authority to set enforceable performance
standards. These have included S. 1357 and H.R. 3160 in the 109th Congress. Also
in the 109th Congress, a requirement that performance standards be set for food
contaminants is in legislation (H.R. 1507; S. 729) to establish a single federal food
safety agency.
Funding and Resources
From time to time in the past, FSIS has had difficulty in sufficiently staffing its
service obligations to the meat and poultry industries. Usually a combination of
factors causes these shortages, including new technologies that increase plant
production speeds and volume, insufficient appropriated funds to hire additional
inspectors at times of unexpected increases in demand for inspections, and problems
in finding qualified people to work in dangerous or unpleasant environments or at
remote locations. These staffing problems were complicated somewhat by the
addition of HACCP requirements on top of the traditional meat and poultry
inspection duties.
Risk-Based Inspection System. More recently, FSIS has been working
toward what it calls “a more robust risk-based inspection system” (RBIS), which
would enable the agency to rebalance its existing inspection resources,
Administration officials contend. The objective of this initiative is “to improve
public health by placing greater inspection and verification emphasis on federally
inspected meat and poultry establishments that pose greater risks. In a more robust
RBIS, each establishment’s risk could be categorized, and the type and intensity of
inspection could be based primarily on that risk.”16 FSIS plans to begin risk-based
inspections in processing (not slaughter) establishments in FY2007; its FY2007
budget requests a $2.6 billion increase for this effort.
15 Updates are at the FSIS website: [http://www.fsis.usda.gov/FSIS_Recalls/index.asp]; a
list of both FSIS and FDA recalls is at [http://www.recalls.gov/food.html].
16 “Measuring Establishment Risk Control for Risk-based Inspection,” paper for May 23-34,
2006 meeting of the National Advisory Committee on Meat and Poultry Inspection, at
[http://www.fsis.usda.gov/regulations_&_policies/National_Advisory_Committee_on_M
eat_&_Poultry/index.asp].

---

CRS-10
User Fee Proposals. To ease funding pressures, most administrations over
the past 20 years have proposed to charge the meat-packing industry new user fees
sufficient to cover the entire cost or a portion of federal inspection services. (FSIS
has been authorized since 1919 to charge user fees for holiday and overtime
inspections, and does so). The primary rationale for more extensive user fees has
been that resources would then be adequate to hire new inspectors as necessary.
USDA economists estimate that the cost passed on to consumers from such a fee
would be no more than one cent per pound. Meat industry and consumer groups
have consistently opposed increased fees, arguing that food safety is a public health
concern that merits taxpayer support.
In his FY2007 budget, the President proposed a $987 million program level for
FSIS; however, he proposed the collection of new user fees to offset $105 million of
this appropriation. (These would be in addition to an estimated $124 million in
current, previously authorized user fees.) Like last year’s user fee proposal, the new
fees would cover inspection costs beyond a plant’s single primary approved shift.
In Congress. FSIS inspection costs are mainly funded through USDA’s
annual appropriation. The FY2007 appropriation (H.R. 5384) has cleared the House,
has been reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee, and is awaiting Senate
floor action. Both the House-passed and Senate-reported versions again reject the
President’s new user fee proposal.
The Senate-reported bill provides a total of $865.9 million for FSIS in FY2007,
or $36.5 million above FY2006. The House-passed bill provides $853.2 million for
FSIS. The congressional appropriation would be supplemented in FY2007 by an
estimated $124 million in existing (previously authorized) user fees.
The Senate and House committee reports on H.R. 5384 both note that the
appropriation includes the full request of $16.6 million, to cover pay costs; a $2.6
million increase for development of risk-based inspection and risk-based Salmonella
control; $2 million for microbiological baseline studies; $3 million to support
international food safety work with Codex Alimentarius; and an increase of $1.9
million for information technology (IT) to support inspection (although in the House
report there is an explicit cut of $4 million in other IT, as requested).

The Senate committee report also designates approximately $16 million for food
defense activities in FY2007; the House figure is about $4 million. The House report
specifies $5 million to continue enforcement of the Humane Methods of Slaughter
Act; the Senate report recommends funding to maintain the 63 full time positions for
enforcing the act. Both versions recommend $3 million for maintenance of the
Humane Animal Tracking System. The House report directs the transfer of $500,000
from FSIS to the Foreign Agricultural Service to support the Miami-based Food
Safety Institute of the Americas.

The President signed the FY2006 Agriculture Appropriations Act (P.L. 109-97,
H.R. 2744) into law on November 10, 2005. This measure provides $837.8 million
for FSIS in FY2006, below the President’s request for $849.7 million for FSIS but
$20.1 million above the FY2005 enacted level of $817.2 million.

---

CRS-11
State Inspected Products
As noted, current federal law prohibits state-inspected meat and poultry plants
from shipping their products across state lines, a ban that many states and small
plants want to overturn. Limiting state-inspected products to intrastate commerce is
unfair, these states and plants argue, because their programs must be, and are, “at
least equal” to the federal system. While state-inspected plants cannot ship interstate,
foreign plants operating under USDA-approved foreign programs, which must be
“equivalent” to the U.S. program, can export meat and poultry products into and sell
them anywhere in the United States.
Those who oppose making state-inspected products eligible for interstate
commerce argue that the state programs are not required to have the same level of
safety requirements and oversight as the federal, or even the foreign, plants. For
example, foreign-processed products are subject to U.S. import reinspection at ports
of entry. These opponents of interstate shipment note that a recent FSIS review,
which found all 28 state programs to be at least equal to the U.S. program, was based
largely on self-assessments.
In Congress. Members of Congress periodically have offered legislation that
would authorize the shipment of state-inspected products across state lines. In the
109th Congress, S. 3519 would achieve this objective.
“At Least Equal to” vs. “Equivalence”
According to FSIS, “at least equal to” means “that the food safety and other
consumer protection measures effected by a State program address the same
issues addressed by the Federal (FSIS) program, and the results of the State’s
approach are to be at least as effective as those of the Federal program. The State
program need not take exactly the same action as the Federal program.”
(FSIS Directive 5720.2, Revision 3, November 16, 2004)
“Equivalence” is a somewhat different concept. “Meat and poultry products
exported from another nation must meet all safety standards applied to foods
produced in the United States. However, under international law, food regulatory
systems in exporting countries may employ sanitary measures that differ from
those applied domestically by the importing country. The United States makes
determinations of equivalence by evaluating whether foreign food regulatory
systems attain the appropriate level of protection provided by our domestic
system. Thus, while foreign food regulatory systems need not be identical to the
U.S. system, they must employ equivalent sanitary measures that provide the same
level of protection against food hazards as is achieved domestically.”
(FSIS, “Equivalence Process,”accessed on the internet at
[http://www.fsis.usda.gov/regulations_&_policies/equivalence_process/index.
asp].)

---

CRS-12
Recall and Enforcement Proposals
Currently, the Agriculture Secretary must go to the courts to obtain an order to
seize and detain suspected contaminated products if a firm refuses to issue a recall
voluntarily. The GAO has criticized agencies’ efforts to ensure that companies carry
out recalls quickly and efficiently, particularly of products that may carry severe risk
of illness. For example, an October 2004 GAO report concluded that the agencies
do not know how well companies are carrying out recalls and are ineffectively
tracking them. As a result, most recalled items are not recovered and thus may be
consumed, GAO reported.17
At past hearings, consumer 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. These
groups have asserted 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 voluntary recalls
moved too slowly or were 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 only once has a plant refused to comply
with USDA’s recommendation to recall a suspected contaminated product. Industry
representatives have testified 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 that could ultimately be proven false. Some
observers argue that much still needs to be done to educate consumers and
restaurateurs about safe meat and poultry handling and cooking practices.
In August 2004, the consumer group Center for Science in the Public Interest
(CSPI) began a national campaign to urge USDA to publicize the names of retail
outlets where recalled meat has been distributed, so that consumers can learn more
quickly whether they have purchased potentially contaminated products. USDA and
industry leaders have contended that distribution records are proprietary, and exempt
from provisions of the Federal Freedom of Information Act; such information, they
argue, should be limited mainly to public officials so that they can monitor recalls.
However, in the March 7, 2006, Federal Register, FSIS proposed posting on its
website the names of retailers who have products subject to a voluntary recall. The
public comment period closed May 8, 2006; a final rule is pending.
In Congress. Bills to enhance the effectiveness of meat and poultry recalls
have been introduced in successive Congresses. In the 109th Congress, for example,
S. 1534 would provide USDA with mandatory recall authority. S. 3615 and H.R.
17 Food Safety: USDA and FDA Need to Better Ensure Prompt and Complete Recalls of
Potentially Unsafe Food, GAO-05-51.

---

CRS-13
5729 also would give USDA (and FDA) the authority to require recalls; the bills also
would require food companies to notify USDA or FDA if they know a product is
adulterated or misbranded, and specify civil penalties for violations.
Meat Traceability
Recalls imply the ability to quickly trace the movement of products. On
September 30, 2003, USDA’s OIG released an audit report on a 2002 meat recall by
Con Agra (see “E. coli O157:H7,” below). The report recommends “that FSIS
reassess its management control process over ... recall operations ... by ensuring that
ground beef is traceable from manufacturing to point-of-sale and that adequate
production records are maintained to facilitate traceback.”
Some argue that improved traceability capabilities would have enabled USDA
to determine the whereabouts of all related cattle of potential interest in the three U.S.
case of BSE (bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or “mad cow disease”). The
traceability issue has also been debated in connection with protecting against
agroterrorism; verifying the U.S. origin of live cattle and meat products for export;
and facilitating recalls to prevent or contain foodborne illness outbreaks, among other
things.
Supporters of animal ID and meat traceability point out that most major meat-
exporting countries already have domestic animal ID systems. The U.S. meat
industry argued in the past that such a system would not be based on sound science,
and would be technically unworkable. However, since the domestic BSE case, the
industry, USDA, and some Members of Congress have been actively pursuing
adoption of a national animal ID (but not meat traceability) system, focused on
animal disease control rather than food safety per se. Among other issues are cost,
need for a mandatory rather than voluntary system, potential producer liability, and
privacy of records.
In Congress. In the 109th Congress, S. 3601 and H.R. 5727 would amend the
meat and poultry acts by requiring a system for tracing all federally inspected meat
and poultry from the live animal through processing to the ultimate consumer. H.R.
1254 would require the establishment of an electronic nationwide livestock
identification system. H.R. 1256 deals with protecting the information provided by
producers from unauthorized scrutiny and use. H.R. 3170 would create a “Livestock
Identification Board” with voting members from industry to oversee a national
program. The House-passed version of pending FY2007 appropriation (H.R. 5384)
would require USDA to publish, for public comment, more details on its animal ID
plan, now in development.18
BSE
North American Cases. Through early July 2006, nine native cases of BSE
have been reported in North America. Canada reported its first case in May 2003.
The United States reported its first case in December 2003 (although found in
18 See CRS Report RL32012, Animal Identification and Meat Traceability, by Geoffrey S.
Becker.

---

CRS-14
Washington state, it too was Canadian-born). Canada has since reported five more
cases, most recently in July 2006 in an at least 15-year-old cross-bred beef cow in
Manitoba. The United States has found two more cases, the most recent in late
February 2006 in a 10-year-old Alabama beef cow.19
In epidemiological investigations of the three U.S. cases, the U.S. Department
of Agriculture (USDA) was unable to track down all related animals of interest, but
those that were located tested negative for the disease. Despite a beef recall, some
meat from the first U.S. BSE cow may have been consumed, USDA said, adding,
however, that the highest-risk tissues never entered the food supply. No materials
from the other two U.S. cows entered the food supply, USDA also said. In the recent
Alabama case, authorities were unable to determine the cow’s herd of origin.
Animal health officials initially indicated that all of the North American cases
were caused by the consumption of BSE-contaminated feed. However, USDA
reportedly now believes that the two native-born U.S. cattle had “atypical” BSE,
which differs from other cases. If these cases are determined to be “spontaneous,”
that may affect future control strategies.
BSE Safeguards.20 FSIS is one of the three federal agencies primarily
responsible for keeping BSE out of the food supply. The other two agencies involved
in BSE are USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), which
handles primarily the animal disease aspects, and FDA, which regulates feed
ingredients. Cattle consumption of feed contaminated with the BSE agent is
considered the primary means of transmission.
After the first U.S. BSE case, FSIS published, as interim final rules in the
January 12, 2004, Federal Register, several actions to bolster U.S. BSE protection
systems, effective immediately:
! Downer (nonambulatory) cattle are no longer allowed into
inspected slaughter and processing facilities.
! Cattle selected for testing cannot be marked as “inspected and
passed” until confirmation is received that they have tested
negative for BSE.
! Specified risk materials (SRM), which include the skull, brain,
trigeminal ganglia, eyes, vertebral column, spinal column, and
dorsal root ganglia of cattle over 30 months of age, and the
small intestine of cattle of all ages, are now prohibited from
the human food supply.
19 For more detailed discussion of these and other BSE issues, and links to other CRS
reports, see CRS Report RS22345, BSE (“Mad Cow Disease”): A Brief Overview, by
Geoffrey S. Becker.
20 For additional details on the following discussion see CRS Report RL32199, Bovine
Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE, or ‘Mad Cow Disease’): Current and Proposed
Safeguards, by Geoffrey S. Becker and Sarah A. Lister.

---

CRS-15
! Slaughter facilities are required to develop and implement
procedures to remove, segregate, and dispose of SRM and
make information readily available for review by FSIS
inspection personnel.
! SRM from cattle 30 months or older cannot be in a product
labeled as “meat” if derived from advanced meat recovery
(AMR) technology, which USDA said would help ensure it
does not contain spinal tissue.
! Mechanically separated meat may not be used for human food.
! Air injection stunning is banned, to ensure that portions of the
animal brain are not dislocated into the carcass.
The FSIS actions, which remain in effect, were in addition to other BSE
regulatory safeguards that have been in place for several years. These include import
controls and ongoing BSE surveillance through carcass testing by APHIS, and
restrictions on the feeding of certain mammalian proteins to cattle by FDA (see box).
The FDA “Feed Ban”
The FDA Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM), responsible for the
safety of animal feeds, began prohibiting the use of most mammalian protein in
feeds for ruminants in August 1997, a restriction commonly called the “feed
ban.” This ban did not prohibit the inclusion of potential bovine risk materials
such as brain and spinal cord in all animal feeds, but only those feeds intended
for ruminants. FDA required that feeds containing ruminant material be labeled
with a prohibition against feeding to ruminants, and that firms and farms
effectively separate prohibited and non-prohibited feeds in production, shipping
and feeding. The ban exempted certain bovine by-products, such as blood, milk,
gelatin and restaurant plate waste, on the premise that the exempted materials
posed a minimal risk of transmission.
On October 6, 2005, FDA published a proposed rule banning some SRM
(mainly brains and spinal cords from cattle 30 months of age and older, and from
all cattle not passed for human food) from all animal feeds, including pet food.
The agency said its rule would remove those cattle parts responsible for 90% of
potential BSE infectivity. The public comment period on this rule ended on
December 20, 2005; a final rule was pending in early July 2006.
Meanwhile, Canada finalized a similar but somewhat more extensive
amendment to its own feed rules in June 2006.
Additional USDA actions in the wake of the December 2003 BSE discovery
have included more attention to implementing a nationwide animal identification
(ID) program that would enable all cattle and other animal movements to be traced

---

CRS-16
within 48 hours in cases of animal disease; and an intensive, one-time BSE testing
program for higher-risk cattle.
After 13 months of testing through early July 2006, more than 750,000 had been
tested, all but two negative for BSE (20,000 had been tested in 2003). The
Department is expected to adjust, and likely scale back, this intensive testing program
after consulting a May 2006 peer review of its results. Officials stress that this
program has been to assess the likely incidence of BSE in the U.S. cattle herd, not to
test for meat safety.
Critical Views. USDA and FDA preparation for, and response to, BSE have
come under harsh criticism from several fronts. For example, USDA used an import
permit system (rather than promulgating rules) to begin admitting some low-risk beef
products from Canada in 2003. When in April 2004 USDA expanded the types of
allowable Canadian beef imports using this permit system, a federal judge halted the
expansion, declaring that the Department had failed to follow proper rulemaking
procedures.
When USDA did publish a final rule that would allow more Canadian imports
(including imports of younger cattle), the same federal judge in early March 2005
temporarily blocked implementation. The judge’s decisions came in response to
lawsuits by a national cattle group, Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund (R-
CALF)-USA. A federal appeals court reversed that ruling, however, and Canadian
cattle imports began in July 2005. Others, including the main U.S. cattle producers’
group, the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, and meat companies, have
generally been supportive of USDA’s Canadian import policy.
Also, FDA has been criticized by the Government Accountability Office (GAO)
for gaps in its enforcement of the feed rules, and USDA by its Office of Inspector
General (OIG) and others over perceived problems in its BSE testing procedures.
In Congress. BSE remains a high priority for many Members of the 109th
Congress, although much of the recent interest has focused on trade rather than food
safety concerns. As of early July 2006, Japan and Korea, once among the four
leading markets for U.S. beef, were still not accepting products. Many Members of
Congress have expressed increasing frustration over the situation.
The Senate-reported version of the FY2007 USDA appropriation (H.R. 5384)
contains a “sense of the Senate” amendment (Sec. 757) that the United States should
impose retaliatory tariffs on Japanese imports if Japan does not permit U.S. beef
imports by the date of enactment of the appropriation. The provision is non-binding,
but stronger language could be offered by the time the full Senate considers the
spending measure.
Also pending is S. 3548, which would require the imposition of $3.14 billion
in retaliatory tariffs on Japanese imports if that country does not open its border to
U.S. beef by August 31, 2006. Similar legislation (H.R. 5675) is pending in the
House. Another House bill, H.R. 5696 calls on the Administration to take steps
necessary to ban all Japanese beef imports into the United States until the Japanese
open their market.

---

CRS-17
Other BSE-related bills have included S. 294, to prohibit imports (from a
minimal risk region like Canada) of meat, meat byproducts, and meat food products
from bovines over 30 months old unless the Secretary reports to Congress that the
region “is in full compliance with a ruminant feed ban and other [BSE] safeguards”;
S. 2002, aimed at strengthening the FDA “feed ban”; and S. 73, to ban specified risk
material from all animal feeds.
Humane Slaughter
Under the Federal Meat Inspection Act, FSIS inspectors are responsible for
enforcing the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act (HMSA; 7 U.S.C. 1901-1906).
This act requires that all livestock (but not poultry) be rendered unconscious before
slaughter. FSIS inspectors have the authority to stop slaughter lines and order plant
employees to take corrective actions to ensure compliance with the act.
Concerns have persisted about FSIS enforcement of compliance with the
HMSA regarding healthy, ambulatory animals. These concerns arose in early 2002
when media reports alleged widespread violations of the act, which prompted a
number of administrative and congressional actions. In February 2002, FSIS placed
17 veterinarians in its district offices, specifically to monitor humane slaughter and
handling procedures and to report to headquarters on compliance.
On January 31, 2004, GAO released a report to Congress stating that it had
found it difficult to assess FSIS’s performance on enforcing the act because of
incomplete and inconsistent inspection records (GAO-04-247, Humane Methods of
Slaughter Act: USDA Has Addressed Some Problems but Still Faces Enforcement
Challenges). GAO also reported that inspectors’ knowledge of regulatory
requirements varied, documentation did not consistently reflect the scope and
severity of incidents, and enforcement action varied depending upon whether it was
one animal or several that had not been rendered completely unconscious by
stunning.
FSIS issued new guidelines to its field personnel in November 2003, and
indicated it would follow up on GAO’s recommendations for improvement. On
September 9, 2004, the agency published a Federal Register notice outlining a
“systematic approach” to meeting humane slaughter requirements.
In Congress. Section 10305 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act
of 2002 ((P.L. 107-19; the farm bill) expresses the sense of Congress that FSIS
should fully enforce the HMSA and report the number of violations to Congress
annually. In the FY2003 omnibus appropriation act (P.L. 108-7), Congress
designated $5 million of FSIS funding specifically for hiring 50 additional inspectors
to oversee the agency’s compliance. Language in the FY2004 consolidated
appropriations act (P.L. 108-199) directed FSIS to continue this process.
The FY2005 consolidated appropriations act (P.L. 108-447) directed that no less
than 63 full-time equivalent positions (above the FY2002 level) be devoted to
enforcement of the HMSA, and that $3 million be provided to incorporate the
agency’s Humane Animal Tracking System into its field computer systems. Also in
the act, as part of the FSIS total, are $17.3 million combined for frontline inspectors
and humane slaughter enforcement. The FY2006 appropriation (P.L. 109-97)

---

CRS-18
provides $4 million for FSIS to complete incorporation of the tracking system into
all U.S. slaughter plants. The Senate committee report states that its appropriation
provides the requested amount to maintain the 63 positions related to humane
slaughter enforcement. The pending FY2007 USDA appropriation (H.R. 5384; see
“Funding and Resources,” above) also contains funding to continue these activities.
The January 2004 USDA regulatory ban on slaughtering downers for human
food was adopted in response to BSE concerns. However, some Members of
Congress believe that a ban is needed to ensure humane treatment of all downer
animals at federally inspected slaughtering facilities and other locations. These
Members remain interested in writing a ban into law. Measures in the 109th Congress
to codify a downer ban are S. 1779 and H.R. 3931.
During action on the FY2004 agriculture appropriations bill in the 108th
Congress, lawmakers debated amendments that would have amended the 2002 farm
bill to require that downed animals at stockyards, market agencies, livestock dealer
facilities, and slaughter facilities be euthanized immediately and barred from federal
inspection. The Senate adopted the downed animal provision in its funding bill, but
it was dropped in conference.
During floor debate on the FY2006 appropriation, the Senate again approved an
amendment, by Senator Akaka, to prohibit nonambulatory livestock from being used
for human food. The House bill lacked such a ban, and it was again dropped by
conferees. The Akaka amendment would have applied not only to cattle, but also to
any sheep, swine, goats, horses, mules, or other equines unable to stand or walk
unassisted at inspection.
On another matter, legislative proposals to include poultry under the humane
slaughter act were introduced in the 102nd through 104th Congresses, but no action
was taken.
Horse Slaughter

Approximately 90,000 U.S. horses were slaughtered for human food in 2005,
mainly for European and Asian consumers. Such slaughter is conducted under
federal inspection at two foreign-owned plants in Texas and another foreign-owned
plant in Illinois. Debate has focused on the acceptability of using horses for human
food, and the costs of long-term care for such horses (or, disposing of their carcasses)
if they no longer went for human food.
In Congress. The 109th Congress has debated whether to ban horse slaughter
and (in the FY2006 appropriation) banned the use of federal funds for ante-mortem
inspection of horses at meat processing plants. Although supporters of the ban had
hoped that the lack of federal funds for such inspection would force an end to horse
slaughter, the practice continues, with the three plants now paying user fees for the
federal service. Also the federal funding ban expires at the end of FY2006.

---

CRS-19
Pending bills on this issue include H.R. 503/S. 1915, which would amend the
Horse Protection Act to prohibit any movement of or commerce in horses and other
equines to be slaughtered for human consumption.21
Single Food Agency
U.S. food safety oversight, while concentrated in FSIS and FDA, is spread
among 15 agencies operating under a variety of statutes. This complex system is
supplemented by many state food safety programs. GAO, which has looked at the
matter several times, noted in a recent report that the federal food safety system
“emerged piecemeal, over many decades, typically in response to particular health
threats or economic crises. The result is a fragmented legal and organizational
structure that gives responsibility for specific food commodities to different agencies
and provides them with significantly different authorities to enforce food safety
laws.”22 Besides GAO, the National Academy of Sciences and the National
Commission on the Public Service have studied the issue and recommended options
for change.23
Legislative proposals have been offered to reorganize and/or consolidate this
food safety structure, and the laws underpinning it. In examining such proposals,
Congress could be asked to address a range of policy questions including whether the
current disparate regulatory approaches and their authorizing statutes remain
appropriate, particularly given the diversity of food types, their different health risks,
their methods of production, and their sources of supply; the continuously evolving
science on foodborne illness and how to prevent it; and funding constraints, among
other things.
In Congress. In the 109th Congress, companion bills (H.R. 1507, S. 729) have
been introduced which would combine federal food safety programs, including meat
and poultry inspection, under a new Food Safety Administration. The bill’s chief
sponsors had introduced legislation (H.R. 5259, S. 2910) with a similar purpose in
the 108th Congress.
Food Security and Emergency Preparedness
Since September 11, 2001, concern has been voiced about the potential for
terrorist attacks on U.S. agriculture and the food supply through intentional
contamination by organisms or chemicals injurious to crop, animal, or human health.
FSIS’s Food Biosecurity Action Team (F-BAT) has conducted mock exercises to
improve response time and communication in emergency situations. FSIS made
security guidelines available to food processors in August 2002; it unveiled its new
21 See CRS Report RS21842, Horse Slaughter Prevention Bills and Issues, by Geoffrey S.
Becker.
22 Food Safety: Experiences of Seven Countries in Consolidating Their Food Safety Systems,
GAO-05-212, February 2005.
23 See National Research Council, Institute of Medicine, Ensuring Safe Food From
Production to Consumption, Washington, D.C., National Academy Press, 1998; and
National Commission on the Public Service, Urgent Business For America: Revitalizing the
Federal Government For the 21st Century, Washington, D.C., 2003.

---

CRS-20
Food Emergency Response Network (FERN) Division on February 15, 2005
(accessible on the FSIS website). Also, USDA on April 14, 2005, announced the
availability of model food security plans and training for meat and poultry plants to
help strengthen security measures and prevent potential acts of intentional
contamination. The Food Threat Preparedness Network (PrepNet) is a joint
FSIS/FDA group that works on threat prevention and emergency response.
In Congress. Protecting the U.S. food supply from acts of terrorism or other
intentional contamination has been among the many facets of the ongoing
congressional debate on homeland security since September 2001. For example,
Congress, through various appropriations measures, has provided FSIS new monies
to conduct increased oversight of meat and poultry safety, some of which is described
above.
In the 109th Congress, S. 572 and S. 573 are intended to improve federal
responsiveness to agroterrorism and to give added agricultural biosecurity
responsibilities to the Department of Homeland Security. Pending S. 1532 amends
federal law to criminalize acts of agroterrorism, and to better prepare for them,
among other things. S. 1534 would require USDA regulations for stronger measures
to prevent both unintentional and intentional contamination of meat and meat
products, poultry and poultry products, and eggs and egg products in USDA-
regulated establishments.24

24 For more information and updates on FSIS and other federal funding for these activities,
see CRS Report RL32521, Agroterrorism: Threats and Preparedness, by Jim Monke. The
FSIS Food Security and Emergency Preparedness Website is at [http://www.fsis.usda.gov/
food_security_&_emergency_preparedness/index.asp].

---