June 7, 2010

New rule might affect US meat processors

Meat processors may soon see a rise in the cost of doing business as a result of a new validation process proposed by the Food Safety and Inspection Service.

The Food Safety and Inspection Service is a division under the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), responsible for ensuring the health of the nation's food supply.

South Dakota's meat processors produce 17 million pounds of meat per year under the South Dakota Meat Inspection Programme, mostly through facilities classified as small or very small. Some critics said it could put some small producers out of business entirely.

The rule is not new. About 13 years ago, the food safety service put into effect a requirement for every meat processor except those who market direct retail sales to have in place a Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points Plan. Each processor was required to formulate a plan for food safety based on scientific research; then test the plan extensively for 90 days to make sure it maintained the necessary safety levels. If the hazard plan met the requirements, it was incorporated into the meat plant's operating procedures.

But the federal safety and inspection agency recently issued a guidance document that outlines how small, low-volume plants can comply with the rules that have already been in place for 13 years. While this guidance document does not introduce new regulations, the proposed new guidelines could require more testing at each phase of the meat processing system to ensure compliance with the Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points Plan plans and make sure the plans are effective. Some small producers said the cost would be high enough to drive them out of business.

John Frohling, owner of Frohling Meats and president of the South Dakota Meat Processors Association, said his business requires eight HAACP plans, with several processes included in each of those. According to his calculations, the additional testing proposed by this new verification process could cost his business as much as another US$385,000 per year. His business, in Hecla, a town with a population of 318, employs 13 people year-round and up to 25 during the fall, which is their busy season. Frohling estimates that his plant processes 650 cattle, 300 hogs, 200 buffalo and 3,000 deer every year.

Frohling said his biggest problem with the proposed changes is that there seems to be no reason for them. "I will do anything necessary to make the product better. But there's nothing to say that this will make it better. There's nothing saying that what we've been doing for the last 13 years hasn't worked," he said.

State Veterinarian Dustin Oedekoven said the South Dakota Animal Industry Board, which operates the South Dakota State Meat Inspection Programme, understands the small processors' concerns and is addressing those concerns with Food Safety and Inspection Service.

"The rules in place don't allow for a differentiation between the large plants and the very small plants, like most of those in South Dakota. I think there may be reason for very large plants to put into effect increased validation of their HAACP plans because of the scale of their distribution. Overall, the small plants have a better safety record than the large plants. We need to look at the original rule and see if it has reasonable expectations of small plants," Oedekoven said.

Oedekoven said small plants are subject to the same inspections and standards as large plants, but small-scale production makes it easier to control quality and safety.

Bruce Anderson, who owns Western Buffalo Co. in Rapid City, one of the top 10 buffalo processing plants in the nation, said he is aware of the new requirements and is keeping an eye on the new developments, but he is not overly concerned right now. "We're state-inspected, so the state oversees our processing facility, but the federal programme oversees the state. We work as a team with the state to put a healthy product in front of our customers."

Anderson said he can see, though, how the new requirements could scare processors. "If you look at the way the rules are written and assume they're going to be enforced in the worst possible way, they can scare you. I have come to trust that the state will do whatever they can to make the federal requirements workable for us."

Anderson also noted that the USDA is helping drive a movement that encourages consumers to buy locally produced and processed meats. He said that it does not make sense for the USDA to encourage these small processors and then regulate them out of business.

"If it gets too rugged, we'll set up and try to do something about it. For now, it's business as usual," Anderson said.