Thursday, April 19, 2012

Is the public at risk? $85 million in savings forces the USDA to revamp its chicken inspection requirements


With the spread of Salmonella poisoning on the rise, it’s hard to imagine what the USDA was thinking when they came up with the not so brilliant idea of allowing the chicken industry to self-monitor their food production process.  It’s projected that the USDA will save $85 million over three years through massive layoffs (1000 jobs are at stake which equals about $85,000 per job loss….talk about government waste) while reducing the watchful eyes of the USDA from three inspectors along the line down to one inspector at the end of the line. 

As a result of this proposal, not only will the USDA cut their losses but the poultry industry will increase their own bottom line by saving more than $250 million a year, through increasing production from 90 chickens per minute, to the rapid pace of 175 chickens per minute.  Even though we’re talking chickens it sounds a little fishy. 

According to USDA inspectors, the current process is pretty ridiculous to begin with thus requiring the long overdue need for change.  Basically, three inspectors stand along the production line while visually inspecting the chickens as they literally “fly by” at rapid speed (90 chickens per minute can’t possibly receive more than a “wing and a prayer” nod as they hustle themselves down the line.)  The objective of the inspection is to “spot” any suspicious looking problems with the chickens, but it doesn’t cover the unseen problems.   According to a response given by USDA’s Food Safety Inspection Service administrator, Alfred Almanza, during an ABC News interview, “You can’t see pathogens. You can’t see campylobacter.”  Thus, the current three inspector process isn’t any more effective than having just one.   However, think again. 

The year 2011 produced some of the highest reports of salmonella in the past ten years.  If the current inspection process is still “hitting and missing”, during the inspection process, how can “increasing” the speed with which the process is followed produce any better results?  How can allowing an already troubled industry self-monitor itself increase food safety and quality?  Albeit the $85,000 per job loss would be a nice burden lifted off the taxpayer’s shoulders, it sounds more like an ineffective system acquiescing to a questionable one. 

Watchdog groups question the process:  Are the tests rigged?

The brilliance behind this idea can be best summed up in one word:  Money.  According to watchdog groups who monitor the chicken industry a combination of increased testing and accountability would be a welcomed change.  It seems that many in the chicken industry know how to “cheat the system by rigging the tests”, manipulating the outcome.  According to the USDA, that’s a myth:  “We do not have evidence of that,” Almanza said. “But when we’re told of anything of that nature we take those allegations seriously.” 

The “National Chicken Council” has taken the process very seriously and made this statement underscoring their response to the purpose and plan regarding the changes in the approach by the USDA’s food safety inspection process:

“The proposed inspection system will better protect the public from food borne illnesses by reducing reliance on old-fashioned visual and sensory inspection and moving to prevention-oriented inspection systems based on actual risk to consumers,” Ashley Peterson, vice president of science and technology at the National Chicken Council, said in a statement. “It is the goal and primary focus of the chicken industry and USDA alike to provide consumers with safe, high quality and wholesome chicken. This proposed rule does not change that goal.”

Evidentially, the topic of food inspection and safety isn’t a new one; the process has been being debated, examined and reviewed for over 20 years.  Since 1999, 20 plants were part of a pilot program by the USDA to determine the most effective and efficient methods of food safety inspection.  The outcome netted great debate between the unions and inspector’s department, with the conclusion of the following:  Less is more. 

Future inspections will provide the following:

*Visual inspections by the USDA Food Safety Inspectors will focus on the following, “looking at each carcass to ensure the safety of chicken products and providing them with the USDA seal of approval for wholesomeness.”

*Microbiological inspections will be increased during the inspection process by “shifting some, but not all inspectors” versus just visual inspections.

*The shift in the inspection process will (presumably) underscore some of the already in place process and “ensure that the vigorous testing and other protocols that companies have in place are working properly to prevent bacterial contamination.”

What’s really alarming about what we now know is this: 

*If the USDA can save $85 million over three years by just “tweaking” their own process, why has it took 20 years to get this ball rolling?  Who’s to say it won’t take another 20 years to see if the new system is just as effective or ineffective?

*According to those inside the chicken industry (evidentially) rigging testing to pass the USDA requirements isn’t a forgone idea.  If this is true (I’m not saying it is, I’m just posing the question) then what’s to say the new system won’t be subjected to the same problems in the future?

Organic chicken

If the chicken industry can add an extra $250 million a year to their bottom line by pumping out more chickens while the government downsizes the process (saving $85 million = downsizing), how can these new changes ensure “prevention”?  There’s likely only one way to ensure higher quality food standards across the board:  Organic food quality standards.  If the government would offer funding, for higher quality food products they’d be investing their money wisely.  The bottom line is this:  The public wants better quality food products at an affordable price, but that quality costs money to produce it.  If, the real problem is the chicken industry isn’t meeting the food quality standard then the industry requirements overall must change.  That’s a just a thought, but I think I’m onto something.




Quick Tips for Wellness:  Anytime a government change grossly increases private industry’s profitability…..that’s a red flag.

Quick Tips for Wellness ™ Copyright © 2012, All Rights Reserved

Follow me on Facebook Quick Tips for Wellness and Twitter @wellnesstips4u

No comments:

Post a Comment