P1080934 by jessicareeder, on Flickr
Food safety is much in the news, and rightly so. As the nation has moved from small farms producing meat for their local community to larger and larger processors, food safety has suffered. According to Food, Inc., in 1970 the top 5 beef packers controlled about 25% of the market. Now, the top 4 packers control more than 80% of the market. Every time there has been a massive recall of tainted meat, the meat has come from huge producers and processors, not small, local facilities.
A pending regulation threatens to push even more meat in to the industrial food system by forcing smaller, local processors out of business. FSIS (Food Safety and Inspection Service, part of the USDA) has revised their guidelines to require “micro testing,” a new and expensive method that attempts to prove that the safety measures of a meat processing facility are effective. Unfortunately, this micro testing has not been shown to improve food safety.
The system in place since 1996 requires that the HACCP plan (Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points) actually works in each specific establishment. Old, tried and true methods of providing a safe environment for processing have not required these micro tests. Only new processes not established and proven have required them. This process has worked well for the last decade, especially for small processors who rely on the safe processing methods that have been in use for a long time.
Requiring micro testing data of every step of every process within every establishment, even those using proven methods of safety validation, places too heavy a burden on smaller processors providing local, safe food. How much of a burden? One small processor did the math. The initial costs for the micro tests will cost $455,592, followed by an annual ongoing series of tests tallying $140,182.
Another small plant owner says, “The thing that’s going to affect us is the cost of the testing.” The revised rules for a small plant like his would require 13 samples of every product to be sent for testing before processing, and another 13 samples after processing. “When you add all those products and tests, it racks up a super amount of money. Right now we’re sitting at about $500,000 for the initial validation tests, just for the first year. We wouldn’t be able to do it. It would just really devastate our business.”
There is no evidence that micro validation will result in any improvement to the system of food safety protocols already in place. Because of the tremendous expense involved, these new guidelines will drive smaller processors out of business, putting more meat in the hands of fewer processors—something we already know has a negative effect on food safety. Dustin VandeHoer of the Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship agrees. “We haven’t had problems with food safety, especially with the smaller plants,” he says. “We should never become complacent, but I think we can reach a point where [small meat processors] can still be allowed to operate and food can be safe. I don’t know that we need to be taking this path that’s going to put small plants out of business.”
These new guidelines could spell the end of locally produced, small-batch processed meats. To those of us seeking the freshest, safest food, these new guidelines could mean we no longer can choose to opt out of the industrial food system. To your local farmers, they could represent the loss of livelihood.
If safe, local meats available from farmers you know and trust is important to you, please take a moment and write a note to the FSIS right away voicing your opposition to this new regulation. Let’s support our farmers by adding our voice to theirs. The original comment period for these recommendations has passed, but there are requests to extend the comment period, and late comments are read and considered. Please do not let this opportunity to stand up for what you believe in pass you by. Take just a moment right now and be heard!
Please submit your comments to:
Docket Clerk, USDA, FSIS
Room 2-2127
5601 Sunnyside Avenue
Beltsville MD 20705
Or email your comments to:
DraftValidationGuideComments@fsis.usda.gov
The Dark Side of Fat Loss
7 comments
Comments feed for this article
April 27, 2010 at 6:50 pm
Rivka
This is what I emailed:
I’m writing to express my frustration at your ideas for helping make meat safer. I don’t think that punishing the small local meat packers is the way to ensure that the large companies are being compliant. Here, where we get our meat, we haven’t had any problems whatsoever… but in my family we’ve had numerous recalls on meat bought from stores affect us. And we even had food poisoning/sickness that seems to be as a result of store-bought meat, but could never prove it for sure.
I think that instead of making rules across the board without any regard to the financial turmoil this would create for small packers, you should either allow business making less than a certain threshhold per year to be exempt or drop these rules altogether and work solely with companies with repeat recalls and failing tests to increase their testing alone.
I am very concerned about safe meat but right now, the safest meat we can find is local and is in jeopardy of being eliminated with your proposal. Please reconsider this before subjecting everyone to rules that should only apply to those failing the current standards.
April 27, 2010 at 7:23 pm
localnourishment
Thank you SO much, Rivka, for writing FSIS and telling us about it! We have had foodborne illness in our family as well, but never once from the small-scale, local artisans who produce the meat I purchase now.
April 27, 2010 at 7:18 pm
Kimberlie Cole
This new regulation is a very big deal to small livestock farms like ours (West Wind Farms, http://www.westwindfarms.com). Our business is dependent on access to small USDA-inspected meat processors. Very few exist now, in large part due to their heavy regulation and small profit margin. Small livestock farms cannot afford to lose these artisans. Without them, there will be NO sources of local meat for your family. And we all lose the heritage of craftsmanship that remains only in our small butcheries today. We must ensure they survive; they need our support now more than ever!
We are strong proponents of food safety on our farm. I am a HACCP-trained, former microbiologist. My husband and I and our farm employees have a great deal of food safety training. We understand the importance of ensuring the customer receives not only a high quality product, but a safe one too. But is our meat from small processors going to be safer as a result of this new ‘interpretation’ of required sampling protocols? There’s very little evidence that it’s needed on their scale. Our small processors have a great track record.
Our farm’s butchers and cutters are concerned about their futures, as well we all should be, if these testing requirements are promulgated. Our butchers will lose their livelihoods. And, trickle down, our small farms will lose their livelihoods. And, trickle down, our communities will lose their sources of local meats. We need to demand an exemption for our small processors, an exemption based on scale. There’s no time to wait. Please write today!
April 27, 2010 at 7:27 pm
localnourishment
Thank you, Kimberlie! Small scale producers and packers have so much more at stake than the megacorp, and so much more to lose from this ill-conceived interpretation. I find it frustrating that one of the USDA’s big talking points is supporting local food economies in press conferences, then things like this new interpretation threaten to slip by almost unnoticed.
April 27, 2010 at 10:15 pm
Daniela Kunz
I have taken action about this and sent an e-mail to DraftValidationGuideComments@fsis.usda.gov, but I am also writing the same message to our Senators here in Tennessee. I am a customer who relies exclusively on meat that is from a small family farm and I would not want to miss their products. I have never experienced any food born illnesses ever since I switched to products coming from small family farms in our area. Dinner looks and tastes really different to all of us in my family and we have noticed right away the difference and exquisite quality we found in the products of our chosen family farm. We will not support nor buy meat coming from the regular grocery stores anymore.
April 28, 2010 at 6:16 am
localnourishment
Excellent, Daniela! Thanks so much. I also rely on my farmer. Since starting to eat locally grown, pastured meat I think I’ve only bought one package of meat (ground bison to supplement for surprise guests) at the grocery store. I treasure the relationship I have with my food providers. Kroger just isn’t the same!
April 27, 2010 at 11:03 pm
Steak Salad keeps cost of grassfed meat low « Local Nourishment
[...] that you’ve seen one beautiful dish made with local grassfed beef from a small-scale farm, won’t you drop by this post and read about how local beef is in danger of being regulated out … It’s a very important post, and will only take a minute of your time. [...]