Cattle Inspection (1990) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
3 The Proposed SIS Rule
3 The Proposed SIS Rule
Pages 16-33
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 16... ...
By assuming the full costs and responsibility for quality, industry will have an economic incentive to enforce quality controls and correct manufacturing processes causing defects. The proposed rule describes new and streamlined postmortem procedures; uniform presentation standards for viscera and body parts; specific equipment, facilities, and inspection space requirements; and carcass and edible by-product finished product standards.
|
From page 17... ...
Traditionally, FSIS inspectors, who must ensure that only wholesome products enter commerce, spend 70 to 90% of their time identifying and dealing with dressing nonconformances and designated trimmable conditions2 that are obvious and easily identified. Some have little or no implication for public health.
|
From page 18... ...
carcass Uniform presentation standards: head, tongue, viscera, carcass (scored under PQC in SIS-C/PQC plants) Specific equipment, facilities, and inspection space Dressing nonconformances and designated trimmable conditions removed by establishment employees Carcass produced to specific 'finished product standards' Edible by-products produced to specific 'edible byproduct standards' Reinspection of carcasses at random by FSIS inspector, who also monitors establishment QC tests of compliance with product standards Process in control: plant producing product that meets standards over time Process out of control: plant producing product that does not meet standards.
|
From page 19... ...
. STS-C differs from traditional inspection in the following details (see also Table Ce~vical/head inspection Under SIS-C, the lateral retropharyngeal lymph nodes are not incised; the inspector observes but does not cut the masticatory muscles, which have been incised by a plant employee; and a plant employee, not the inspector, palpates the tongue.
|
From page 20... ...
Interactions Between Plant Process Control Operations and Plant Quality Control and Federal Meat Inspection Staff FSIS presented data to the committee to support its view that these changes in cervical/head inspection do not permit lesions of diseases to pass undetected or alter carcass disposition (Wesson, 1983)
|
From page 21... ...
Viscera/Carcass Inspection Head Inspection Incise lymph nodes attached to the tongue-medial retropharyngeal (suprapharyngeal) , lateral retropharyngeal (atlantal)
|
From page 22... ...
Under traditional inspection, FSTS inspectors viewed the interior and exterior of both sides of the eviscerated and split carcass and had an unobstructed view of the kidneys and diaphragm. Under STS-C, the last FSIS inspectors in the line are posted at the carcassviscera station, where they examine viscera presented on a moving belt on one side, observe the inside of the corresponding whole (i.e., unsplit)
|
From page 23... ...
The important aspects of presentation standards are: 0 palpating the tongue o incising masticatory muscles o opening heart chambers and incising the interventricular septum 0 positioning organs for ease and consistency of inspection Some inspectors claim their ability to detect eosinophilic myositis and cysts (the larval stage of the beef tapeworm) is compromised when cutting of heart and cheek muscles is delegated to plant employees.
|
From page 24... ...
FSTS inspectors evaluate the ability of the company's production personnel to control the process by: o checking timeliness and accuracy of records o performing sample tests to correlate with plant QC's findings o checking presentation standards 0 applying product standards to the carcass, head, and edible by-products o performing CUSUM calculations Under both STS-C and SIS-C/PQC, FSIS veterinarians and inspectors are responsible for determining if the carcass and parts are wholesome before entering commerce. However, concern was expressed that FSIS can lose control of the final product once it has passed the final inspection (carcass-viscera)
|
From page 25... ...
Products that do not meet the acceptable standard indicate that there is a deficiency somewhere in the slaughter or dressing process. CUSUM calculations and finished product standards should alert the plant 3Rework is reprocessing the product to correct the condition or conditions causing the nonconformances.
|
From page 26... ...
FSIS data comparing AQL scores under traditional inspection with SIS-C CUSUM scores in the same plant over time show that improvement in product cleanliness correlated with introduction of SIS-C (FSIS, 1989b; see also Appends B)
|
From page 27... ...
. Carcass cleanliness was compared in a plant that switched from traditional inspection with AQL to STS-CattIe with finished product standards.
|
From page 28... ...
The committee asked FSIS if it had any evidence that the major chains used their own quality control data to choose suppliers; however, FSIS did not have this information. Inspectors FSTS inspectors and veterinarians have the frontline positions in safeguarding the acceptability of the nation's meat supply.
|
From page 29... ...
Conclusions and Recommendations o Traditional meat inspection, relying on organoleptic detection methods, can ensure satisfactory meat product quality but is not fully effective in protecting the public against contemporary foodborne health hazards, such as microorganisms, hormones, and residues of toxic chemicals and heavy metals. Therefore, traditional meat inspection should not be used as the gold standard against which inspection systems or new technologies are judged.
|
From page 30... ...
The best that can be done is to assess how closely inspection systems approach the ideal, if unattainable, goal of total freedom from microbial pathogens. Both traditional meat inspection and STS-C focus largely on visible lesions.
|
From page 31... ...
The major difference between the systems is that FSIS inspectors enforce efforts to control visible contamination under traditional systems, whereas in SIS-C, much of this responsibility is delegated to plant employees. In STS-C/PQC, both aesthetic appearance and freedom from visible lesions are addressed.
|
From page 32... ...
Objective, easily understandable, and statistically analyzable data on finished product standards in the plant must be presented to inspectors to assure them that the system works and that plant employees are capable of implementing it. o SIS-C alone, i.e., without PQC, should not be used beyond the transition period because it includes less government oversight.
|
From page 33... ...
Traditional inspection will continue to be used for cull dairy cows and veal calves, which present the greatest risks from microbial and chemical contamination, even though this system is not able to protect consumers from these factors. FSIS should enhance its inspection procedures and microbial/chemical analyses in the traditional system and establish compulsory finished product standards to ensure that animals other than steers and heifers will yield products with characteristics as close as possible to those described above.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.