Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 8
2
Introduction and Historical Review of Meat Inspection
Abstract Throughout history, meat inspection legislation, regulations, and procedures
have been altered to keep pace with changing methods of beef production, slaughter,
processing, and consumption. Today, rapidly changing technologies and increasing
public expectations dictate a major reevaluation of inspection systems and philosophies.
The Federal Meat Inspection Act of 1906 (P.L. 59-242) and the
Wholesome Meat Act of 1967 (P.L. 90-201) were designed and implemented to provide
the public with a safe, wholesome meat supply. Today's consumer relies on the Food
Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) inspectors to ensure this.
No raw food product is totally sterile. Furthermore, contamination and
recontamination may occur. Therefore, consumers must be aware of and implement
proper handling, storage, and preparation practices for meat.
Beef production and processing are highly competitive, rapidly changing
industries. Today, most finished beef cattle production is concentrated in feedlots in the
midwestern and southwestern regions of the United States, where more than 15 million
steers and heifers are slaughtered annually (FSIS, 1990b). In some plants, more than
400 cattle are processed each hour. These numbers and speeds present challenges to
those responsible for the inspection of all cattle and assurance of a safe and wholesome
edible product for the consumer.
Over the years, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has made
adjustments, changes, and modifications in an effort to keep abreast of the dynamic
livestock industry. As the FSIS moves into the twenty-first century, it must make
radical changes in its system and its ability to respond to the food safety needs of 250
million Americans.
Historic Food Safety Concerns and Early Meat Inspection Legislation
The public has always been concerned about the cleanliness, safety, and
wholesomeness of its food supply. In early agrarian societies, people personally
observed food from harvest to consumption. Today, consumers rely on unseen third
parties to scrutinize the safety and wholesomeness of perishable foods and to protect
them against natural and man-made hazards that can enter the food chain.
Since antiquity, people have associated "unclean" meat with disease and have
placed religious or government restrictions on slaughter, processing, distribution, and
consumption of meat products. Religious restrictions against eating certain meat
products originated in biblical times and still exist today. In ancient times, hogs
probably were infected with the trichinosis organism, an intramuscular parasite, and
8
OCR for page 9
people who consumed inadequately cooked pork became ill. Religious prohibition on
pork consumption probably prevented serious public health problems long before the
actual causes of trichinosis and other diseases were known. Today, rabbis and their
representatives still determine if kosher meat meets ritualistic requirements.
Laws enacted in Italy in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries to correct
unsanitary and fraudulent practices required butchers to renew their licenses annually,
prohibited misrepresentations, substitutions, and unsanitary practices, and provided for
inspections. And so the science of meat hygiene was born.
The health of slaughter animals has long been associated with meat safety. The
first meat inspection law in North America was enacted in New France (Canada) in
1706 (Brandly, et al., 1966~. It required butchers to notify authorities when animals
were to be slaughtered so that meat could be inspected. Farmers were also required
to certify that animals destined for slaughter had not been sick, down, or poisoned. At
that time, the close relationship between butchers and consumers helped prevent
grossly unsanitary butchering practices, because buyers could voice complaints directly.
In the ISSOs, the quality of dressed beef, salted pork, and bacon was important
to export markets. Rumors in foreign countries suggested that diseases in U.S.
livestock rendered meat unfit for food. A bill passed on August 30, IS90 (stat. 2594,
5Ist Congress) as a result of these pressures provided for final product inspection
before export upon request of a buyer, seller, or exporter.
A meat inspection act passed on March 3, IS91 (26 stat. 1089) and a meat
inspection amendment of March 2, IS95 (28 stat. 727, 731) strengthened meat
inspection laws but did not provide for a national meat inspection system. In the early
19OOs, when Theodore Roosevelt was president, there was public outcry over unsanitary
conditions and inadequate inspection. This public indignation was increased by Upton
Sinclair's novel The Jungle (Sinclair, 1906), in which he described the horrendous
working conditions and poor sanitation in Chicago slaughterhouses. This led to the
enactment on June 30, 1906 of the comprehensive Meat Inspection Act of 1906 (P.~.
59-242), which strengthened requirements for sanitary conditions in packing houses and
required inspection of meat for interstate commerce.
Developments After the Meat Inspection Act of 1906
Since the Meat Inspection Act of 1906, there have been periodic changes in
meat inspection regulations. The early legislation included, as it does now, inspection
before (antemortem), during, and after (postmortem) slaughter; inspection during all
processing steps; approval of labels for processed meat products; and strong controls
over the sanitation, facilities, and equipment used in meat packing plants operating
under federal inspection.
Following enactment of the 1906 Meat Inspection Act, USDA provided
9
OCR for page 10
inspection that helped control some zoonotic diseases, such as tuberculosis and
cysticercosis, the lesions of which can be detected visually. Traditional meat inspection
is based on organoleptic examinations in which inspectors make professional judgments
based on what they see, feel, and smell. These procedures have provided reasonably
acceptable products to consumers since 1906, even though the vast majority of
foodborne diseases occurring today are caused by microorganisms that cannot be
detected visually.
Dr. Robert K. Somers, a former Deputy Administrator of USDA's Meat
Inspection program, reviewed the changes that occurred from 1906 to 1966 (Somers,
1966~. Other historic accounts of meat inspection appeared in a previous Food and
Nutrition Board report (NRC, 19SSc) and other sources (Brandly et al., 1966~.
Implementation of the National Humane Slaughter Act of August 27, 1958 (P.~. 85-
765, SSth Congress) improved the way animals were rendered insensible at slaughter.
Frequent changes have been made in the "regulations governing the meat inspection of
the USDA" (Somers, 1966), which cover the entire gamut of facilities, sanitation,
antemortem inspection, postmortem inspection, labeling, reinspection and preparation,
transportation, imported products, standards of identity, and relevant details. Some of
these changes were the result of legislation in such Acts as the Horse Meat Act of
June 24, 1919 (41 Stat. 241, 66th Congress); Imported Meat Act of June 17, 1930 (em.
361, 7Ist Congress); Agricultural Marketing Act of August 14, 1955 (P.L`. 272, 84th
Congress); and Wholesome Meat Act of December 15, 1967 (P.~. 90-201, 90th
Congress). Other changes were instituted by directives from the Secretary of
Agriculture, or the Administrator responsible for meat inspection, as new knowledge
and research dictated greater protection of the consumer.
Meat inspection was first administered by the Bureau of Animal Industry, which
later became part of the USDA's Agricultural Research Service (ARS). Later, it was
administered by three divisions in USDA's Consumer and Marketing Service (CMS),
Livestock Slaughter Inspection Division, and Processed Meat Inspection and Technical
Services Division. These changes were made to keep pace with the rapidly changing
industry and to strengthen protection to consumers.
With continued industrial development and improved transportation, the meat
industry became national, the personal touch was lost, and consumers could no longer
influence the butcher/packer regarding sanitation, product wholesomeness, and freedom
from adulteration. Up to World War Il. the meat packing industry was centralized in
cities, and livestock were shipped for long distances. When feedIots developed,
slaughter plants left cities and moved to areas where finished cattle were concentrated.
By the 1960s, it was apparent that the 1906 act did not provide adequate
consumer protection because some conditions were not covered in the law and because
all animals slaughtered for intrastate commerce were not adequately inspected.
Inspection was a state responsibility, but because state funds for inspection were
limited, extensive abuses occurred. The 1906 law also permitted interstate shipment of
10
OCR for page 11
products from whole carcasses slaughtered for intrastate commerce and the import of
uninspected meat products, and did not control rendering plants. The Wholesome
Meat Act of 1967 (P.~. 90-201) gave the USDA authority to regulate transporters,
renderers, cold storage warehouses, and anima1-food manufacturers. Requirements on
imported meat became more stringent, and inspection of all animals prior to slaughter
(antemortem inspection) became mandatory.
The meat industry has grown, and the jurisdiction of federal meat inspection has
increased. This growth has presented challenges requiring greater sophistication and
efficiency of USDA monitoring of this vast industry. Reorganization of this arm of the
USDA under the title of the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSTS) evolved to
better address the safety and wholesomeness of all food products, especially those of
animal origin, which are highly perishable. In accomplishing its mission, FSTS today
employs a field force of approximately 8,000 people (1,500 veterinarians and 6,500 food
inspectors) and spends about $400 million annually.
Modern beef production involves the finishing of steers and heifers in feedIots,
which supply more than 15 million cattle per year to large U.S. slaughter plants.
Today, large meat plants slaughter from 200 to 400 cattle per hour (3,000 to 5,000 per
plant per day). Approximately 10% of U.S. cattle slaughtering plants handle 90% of
commercial cattle (FSTS, 199Ob), and 58.1% of U.S. cattle slaughtering occurs in four
states: Kansas (18.0%), Texas (17.0%), Nebraska (16.7%), and Colorado (6.4%~. The
concentrated industry and speed of processing present major challenges to the nation's
meat inspection system.
The high concentration of cattle in feedlots provides opportunity for spread of
microorganisms such as Salmonella and Campylobacter that cause diseases. On the
other hand, feedIot cattle are more uniform in size and age and less likely to be
diseased, down, dying, or loaded with drugs than are cull daily cattle, mixed groups of
slaughter cattle, or veal calves. This uniformity, large numbers, high speeds of
slaughter (exceeding 400 carcasses per hour in some modern facilities), and low levels
of organoleptically detectable defects in large fed-cattIe slaughter operations make them
candidates for innovative inspection techniques. USDA has attempted to alter
traditional meat inspection methods to make use of modern technology to better
monitor levels of microorganisms and residues of therapeutic drugs, agricultural
chemicals, and environmental pollutants that cannot be detected or~anolentical~v.
However, today's inspection is still essentially organoleptic. The sheer volume of
carcasses needing inspection requires ever-increasing numbers of trained and physically
able inspectors; however, resource limitations have prevented the expansion of the
inspection workforce. A current strategy is to give more quality control responsibility
to management of slaughter facilities, as was recommended in previous Food and
Nutrition Board reports (NRC 1985b7 1987a). This strategy was based on the premise
that the wholesomeness of the final product is the joint responsibility of industry
(management) and the FSIS. This concept as applied to beef is called Streamlined
Inspection System for Cattle (SIS-C).
~. ,
11
OCR for page 12
Throughout the twentieth century, advances in microbiology and toxicology led to
the identification and description of specific causes of many foodborne diseases.
Scientists developed new tests and epidemiologic
techniques for investigating foo`dborne
disease outbreaks. Toxicological tests have become increasingly sensitive, permitting
detection of infinitesimal amounts of natural or man-made substances. However, these
technologies are usually applied to disease investigations only when a potential agent is
suspected. It is not economically or logistically possible to monitor all food products
for every possible harmful agent, but random testing revealing traces of potentially
harmful materials has caused public alarm. The hype of the biotechnologic revolution
and the advent of convenience packaging, preparation, and serving methods have
helped the public forget age-old precautions. Thorough cooking is still necessary to
reduce microbial loads, and strict hygiene is necessary to prevent recontamination.
Current generations need to know that care is needed in the kitchen as well as the
slaughterhouse.
Laboratories have been established across the nation to provide supplemental
scientific analysis of meat and meat products and for approval of additives incorporated
into meat products.
In 1955, 29,000 samples were tested by USDA laboratories; in 1965, more than
174,000 samples were tested; and in 1989, 564,000 analyses were conducted in the
various species of animals slaughtered under U.S. federal inspections as shown in Table
2-~.
Table 2-l Analyses Performed by FSTS in 1989
Type of
Analysis
Number of Analyses Performed on:
All Speciesa Steers and Heifersb
Food chemistry62,435
Food microbiology36,908
Chemical residuesIS5,1633,022
Antibiotic residues255,851844
Pathology11,017
Serology1,630
Food additives10,907
Radiation139
TOTAL564,0503,866
aSource: FSIS, 1990b.
bUnpublished data from FSIS.
12
OCR for page 13
These data demonstrate the contemporary challenges faced by FSIS. FSIS has
also had to address the European Economic Community (EEC) hormone ban and the
[zstena and Salmonella scares (FSIS, 1990b). It has also responded to residue episodes
by intensifying its surveillance of heptachIor, aflatoxin, and sulfamethazine since 1989
(FSIS, l990b). These activities testify to the changing face of FSIS as it progresses
from an inspection agency to a public health agency. In a brochure entitled Inspection
Honzons, Food Safer and ·'zspection Service Strategy for the 199Os (FSIS, 1990a), FSIS
addresses its future plans to provide the U.S. consumer with a safe meat supply.
Emergence of HACCP as a Mode! Inspection System
As advancing microbiologic, toxicologic, and epidemiologic technology indicated
the enormity and complexity of the food safety issue, segments of the food industry and
of the regulatory and scientific communities embraced an apparently exemplary mode]
for controlling microbiologic contamination of foods. The hazard analysis critical
control point (HACCP) concept had been evolving through the 1970s and l980s. It
provided new vocabulary and complicated standards to which existing and proposed
inspection systems could be compared.
The HACCP system consists of (~) an assessment of hazards associated with
growing, harvesting, processing/manufacturing, distribution/marketing, preparation and/or
use of a given raw material or food product; (2) determination of critical control points
required to control any identified hazardous); and (3) establishment of procedures to
monitor critical control points. Basically, the HACCP system provides a more specific
and central approach to the control of microbiological hazards than that achievable by
traditional inspection and quality control procedures (WHO, 1980~.
"The HACCP system for meat consists of an assessment of hazards associated
with such operations, the determination of critical control points necessary to prevent
or control the identified hazards, and the establishment of procedures to monitor
(check or verify) the critical control points" (NRC, l985b). In order to minimize
microbial contamination of beef using HACCP concepts, HACCP systems must be
designed uniquely for the various types of cattle production systems and slaughter
operations and customized for every individual processing plant and product.
This complex approach has broad applications to all points in the food chain
from production through consumption. It has been expanded beyond microbial
contamination to include potential chemical hazards (FSIS, 1989a). Critics fear FSTS
will extend it beyond contamination considerations into regulation of labeling, economic
adulteration, and other nonsafety issues. FSIS has been urged to identify critical
control points solely on the basis of public health considerations (FCN, 1990~.
The HACCP concept was first applied in the 1960s to ensure risk-free foods for
U.S. astronauts. In the 19SOs, it was recommended by a committee of the Food and
Nutrition Board (NRC, 1985b) and the National Advisory Committee on Micro
13
OCR for page 14
biological Criteria for Foods. In 1989, FSIS made a commitment to this highly
specialized and scientific system without any clear evidence that all of its personnel
fully understand it.
HACCP has been specifically recommended as a basis for meat and poultry
inspection (NRC, 1985a, 1987a), and it has been modified through many years of
operation and fine-tuning. It is designed to prevent problems from occurring rather
than to identify contaminated products at the end of the production line. According to
FSIS, "it should benefit consumers, the industry and the agency by focusing inspection
activities on critical areas of product safety, wholesomeness, and preventing
adulteration; focusing industry responsibilities and actions to produce safe and
wholesome food; and increasing the scientific basis for inspection operations" (FSTS
1989a).
Contemporary Public Concerns About Meat Inspection
The safety of foods of animal origin, particularly meat, is a contemporary public
concern involving science, politics, regulatory programs, and the economics of meat
production and processing. It has worldwide implications as the United States struggles
to remain competitive in a dynamic global economy.
In the United States, foodborne diseases appear to be steadily increasing: an
estimated 5 million cases of foodborne disease and approximately 5,000 related deaths
occur annually. This apparent increase is variously attributed to automated food
processing, increased reliance on fast foods, greater use of prepackaged foods and
microwave ovens, urbanization, public naivete about food production and slaughter
methods, and lack of knowledge about the hygienic precautions required at all stages of
food handling, including preparation and serving. Other contributing factors may
include better surveillance, improved reporting, more sensitive diagnostic tests, and
improved methods of detecting contaminating microorganisms and chemical residues.
The current revival of interest in food safety has been fueled by reports of
massive foodborne disease outbreaks. The hype of the biotechnologic revolution has
convinced the public that government can assure them of zero risk of foodborne
diseases. Unwillingness to accept any level of any unwanted materials (no matter how
trivial) in meat has given rise to the concept of zero tolerance. However, both zero
risk and zero tolerance are unachievable. Nevertheless, they are worthy targets.
It is not economically and logistically feasible to achieve total freedom from all
microbial and chemical contamination in meat through slaughter inspection. However,
the public deserves effective national policies that provide:
0 a degree of assurance of minimal food-related exposure to microbial
pathogens that cause illness in humans;
14
OCR for page 15
a degree of assurance that production, slaughter, processing,
packaging, distribution, preparation, and serving of meat will be
conducted so as to limit contamination and growth of pathogenic
· -
microorganisms;
c7
r ~o
o a degree of assurance of minimal exposure to levels of chemicals,
antibiotics, or other residues that may be allogenic, acutely toxic,
cumulatively toxic, or carcinogenic;
o
o
recognition
that varying susceptibilities exist
populations have unique food safety needs; and
and that different
believable scientific information to underpin regulatory guidelines for
production and processing of meat products.
Mounting pressures for these assurances are coming from the scientific
community, consumer groups, public interest groups, and public officials. Previous
Food and Nutrition Board reports (NRC, 1985a, 1985b) have outlined legitimate
reasons for public concern about foodborne diseases transmitted by beef or beef
products.
Conclusions
The USDA has made many changes as it has strived to fulfill its mandate during
84 years of meat inspection. However, advancing technology, new methods of food
processing and serving, and increasing public expectations dictate frequent reassessment
of meat inspection programs and new approaches. The future will require new ways of
preventing public exposure to contaminants, scientifically valid and believable methods
of evaluating inspection technology, and implementation of appropriate portions of
HACCP programs.
15
Representative terms from entire chapter:
meat products
