USDA policies drag down processors who ‘test and find’
Today, many companies are testing for Listeria, Salmonella, E. coli O157:H7, generic E. coli, various other indicator organisms and, now, six additional STECs. Many companies perform raw-material sampling, environmental sampling, equipment sampling and finished-product sampling.
Even so, some argue, it is still not enough.
Unfortunately, not even companies on the cutting edge of food safety, who have implemented state-of-the-art testing programs which far exceed FSIS requirements, are immune from outbreaks, recalls and criticism. This is because testing can never provide a 100 percent guarantee that a product is sterile. Contamination in foods is, by nature, quite sporadic and thus difficult to detect.
Although finished ground beef product testing is not mandated by federal law, many companies nevertheless embrace finished-product testing as a means to better monitor their processes and further enhance the safety of their products. These companies not only deserve our commendation, but they also deserve to be treated better by USDA.
This is because current USDA policy discourages companies from finding pathogens in their products. When E. coli O157:H7 is found, the results must be reported to USDA, and determinations made regarding which products are potentially affected and how they will be disposed. Unfortunately, in many instances, USDA will use a company’s positive findings as a catalyst to aggressively second-guess its actions and response.
Indeed, rather than allowing processors who test and find to quickly address those findings and divert affected product, the agency too often responds with additional regulatory intrusion and unwarranted criticism. Moreover, the more companies test, and the more they find, the more onerous and oppressive agency intervention can and potentially will become. Similarly, in the unfortunate event that a company (despite its best efforts) finds itself associated with an outbreak or recall, USDA is virtually certain to conclude in a Notice of Intended Enforcement issued following the recall that the companies’ testing program was somehow deficient — no matter how good the program actually was.
This reality, unfortunately, demonstrates the glaring disconnect between the science of food safety and the expectations of regulatory inspectors.
Thus, although companies that perform more testing stand a far better chance of finding contamination and reducing their risk of being associated with an outbreak or recall, they cannot reduce the risk entirely. Thus, to encourage more (not less) sampling, USDA should begin adjusting its policies to create more (not less) incentive for companies to test to find.
If we are to make further strides in food safety, we must develop science-based solutions which examine the root causes of contamination. And, USDA needs to take a closer look at how it responds to processors who aggressively test their finished products. In the end, it needs be pathogens — not companies doing the right thing — who feel they are being tested.