December 18, 2012

Critics: New poultry-processing proposal jeopardizes food safety

Federal regulators say the new rules dramatically speed up production and will save millions of dollars.

By LINDSAY WISE/McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Department of Agriculture is poised to finalize major changes to the poultry slaughter-inspection process that critics warn could threaten food safety and harm workers.

New USDA rule would speed poultry-processing lines, worrying inspectors
click image to enlarge

Stan Painter, a federal poultry inspector and chairman of the National Joint Council of Food Inspection Locals, takes medication for arthritis that could be the result of food-borne bacteria he ingested this summer in Texas.

Mary F. Calvert/McClatchy Newspapers

Bacteria rates in chicken
click image to enlarge

The proposed rule would allow companies to speed up production lines from 35 birds per minute to 175 per minute, a five-fold increase. It also would cut hundreds of federal inspector jobs and turn over much of the responsibility for spotting defective or diseased birds to plant employees.

The agency says that the proposal, which has been in the works for more than a decade, reduces the risk of foodborne illness by relying on scientific testing to screen carcasses, rather than the naked eye.

Under the rule, one inspector would be stationed at the end of every production line to eyeball chicken carcasses as they whiz by on hooks. Plant employees, rather than federal inspectors, would cull defective birds farther up the line. USDA officials say that frees up the agency's remaining workforce to perform more important tasks elsewhere in plants, such as random testing for pathogens and monitoring of sanitation.

Inspectors shouldn't be doing quality-control tasks that have little to do with protecting public health, said Elisabeth Hagen, the undersecretary for food safety at the USDA.

"There's a role for visual inspection, but in this day and age it can't be the only way that we define inspection for food safety," Hagen said. "We're not doing the right thing by the consumer if we do that."

The USDA estimates that the changes will save taxpayers $90 million over three years and $256 million in production costs annually. Industry proponents say the new rule will modernize the poultry inspection system, which hasn't been updated much since the 1950s.

"Look at the data. This is not something that USDA cooked up overnight," said Tom Super, a spokesman for the National Chicken Council. "This has been in a pilot program for 13 years."

Twenty broiler-chicken plants have volunteered as "trial plants" to test the proposal since 1999. The food-safety and worker-safety records in the plants are on par or better than those plants participating in traditional inspection, Super said.

"Chicken companies and their employees on this line have every incentive to not let a product with a quality defect into the marketplace," he said.

Super points out that plants in other countries already run much faster. In Germany and Belgium, for example, line speeds typically reach 225 birds per minute, Super said. In Canada, the maximum speed is 250, he said.

Federal poultry inspectors protest that they can't see bruises, blisters, tumors, pus, broken bones and other signs of tainted birds when carcasses fly by them at a rate of a third of a second. They can't look inside the birds for bile, partially digested feed or fecal matter, or examine entrails for diseases such as avian leukosis -- contaminants that inspectors say can be disgusting at best and dangerous at worst.

"The rule continuously talks about how much money per pound the plants are going to save by going into this process," said Stan Painter, the chairman of the National Joint Council of Food Inspection Locals, a union that represents about 6,500 federal inspectors. "Why the hell is an agency concerned about the money that the plant's going to save? I realize that's a stakeholder, but our focus should be food safety."

For Painter, who works as a USDA poultry inspector at a pilot plant in Crossville, Ala., opposition to the rule is personal as well as professional. He suffers from reactive arthritis after eating what he thinks was food tainted with salmonella or campylobacter bacteria at a sports event this summer in Texas.

(Continued on page 2)

Were you interviewed for this story? If so, please fill out our accuracy form

Send question/comment to the editors




Further Discussion

Here at PressHerald.com we value our readers and are committed to growing our community by encouraging you to add to the discussion. To ensure conscientious dialogue we have implemented a strict no-bullying policy. To participate, you must follow our Terms of Use.

Questions about the article? Add them below and we’ll try to answer them or do a follow-up post as soon as we can. Technical problems? Email them to us with an exact description of the problem. Make sure to include:
  • Type of computer or mobile device your are using
  • Exact operating system and browser you are viewing the site on (TIP: You can easily determine your operating system here.)