National Campaign for Sustainable Agriculture

What the Media Missed in the Big Beef Recall

Big Beef Recall Proves Small is Safer
by Billie Best

It has been widely reported that on February 17, 2008, Westland/Hallmark Meat Company, of Chino, California, issued the largest beef recall in history. 143 million pounds of beef, most of it already eaten, was recalled because the USDA Food Safety Inspection Service was embarrassed by an undercover video, which surfaced on Youtube at the end of January, showing extreme animal abuse, and proving that sick animals were being put into the food supply. Even as they were demanding the recall, according to the New York Times, "Agriculture officials said there was little health risk from the recalled meat because the animals had already passed pre-slaughter inspection and much of the meat had already been eaten. In addition, the officials noted that while Mad Cow disease was extremely rare, the brains and spinal cords from the animals—the area most likely to harbor the disease—would not have entered the human food chain."

This story raises two important issues about USDA food safety policies: 1.) The difference between food safety inspection processes in very large plants versus very small plants, and 2.) The efficacy of the National Animal Identification System as a food safety program.

The difference between food safety inspection processes in very large plants versus very small plants

In a very small USDA-inspected meat processing plant, one that slaughters a cow an hour, or about 8 to 10 cows a day, the USDA inspector sees every animal individually for a visual health inspection before the animal is killed. If the inspector deems the animal healthy looking, the processor may then kill the animal. Once a cow is killed, it is eviscerated into a stainless steel tray and the heart, lungs, and liver are separated and visually inspected to ensure the tissue is healthy looking. The head is removed and placed in a separate tray where it is also inspected. After evisceration, if the inspector discovers anything indicating the animal was not in good health, the inspector may demand the carcass be quarantined until further inspection, or that the carcass be destroyed and removed from the premises.

In a very small USDA-inspected meat processing plant—whether the animals being processed are cows, pigs, sheep, goats, lambs, turkeys, or chickens—slaughter work does not begin until the inspector is present and gives permission to proceed, the inspection is one continuous process from live animal to carcass, and the inspector has absolute authority over the process. One small-scale meat processor I spoke with said having a USDA inspector in his plant was like driving your car with a state trooper in the back seat. Yes, the state trooper's presence is going to ensure you comply with the rules of the road to the letter of the law, but it's also very intimidating, and creates a situation where absolute authority may be corrupted without the presence of checks and balances to ensure fairness. Yet, if we all drove our cars with a state trooper in the back seat, there would probably be many fewer traffic accidents.

Where is the USDA inspector in a plant that processes 100 cows an hour? How much time does he spend looking at each animal? Where is the inspector in the fabled plants that process one thousand cows an hour? How many USDA inspectors are there per animal per hour in large meat processing plants? How much time lapses between the visual inspection of the live animal and the time the animal is killed? Are each animal's vital organs examined before the carcass is processed? Is each animal given the same rigorous, individual inspection it would receive in a very small meat processing plant? How did it happen that sick animals made it onto the kill floor at Westland/Hallmark? Where was the USDA inspector? Do the owners of multi-million dollar processing facilities, with hundreds of employees, producing thousands of pounds of meat a day, have the same experience with their USDA inspectors as the owners of very small meat processing plants? Did the owners of Westland/Hallmark Meat Company feel like they were driving their business with a state trooper in the back seat? Evidently not.

If the presence of USDA food safety inspectors is what ensures the safety of our meat supply, then the meat processed in very small USDA-inspected facilities, where each individual animal receives inspection at multiple points in the process, must be significantly safer than meat processed in very large USDA-inspected facilities where each animal is inspected at fewer points in the process, and inspections are more rapid, making them more superficial. Conversely, if the inspection processes in very large USDA-inspected facilities are adequate to ensure food safety; then the enormous cost-burden of current USDA inspection regimens for small-scale processors seems unjustified.

The efficacy of the National Animal Identification System as a food safety program

The National Animal Identification System (NAIS) is one of the largest government programs ever proposed, and undoubtedly one of the most invasive and expensive, creating a massive new bureaucracy on the scale of the IRS for animals. According to the USDA, it is a food safety program intended to protect animal health and human health. In NAIS, the USDA proposes every livestock animal in the nation be tagged, from birth to death, with an identification number that includes a premises ID number for the location where the animal is kept. All animal movements would be reported via websites so a database search could locate the animal and/or the animal's premises within 48 hours. This feature is known as 48-hour trace-back.

Would NAIS have prevented the largest beef recall in history? No. The Westland/Hallmark beef recall, which occurred weeks after the meat was distributed in the marketplace, was not for tainted meat or food found to be unsafe; it was a punishment for breaking food safety rules, spotlighting lax inspection processes, and embarrassing the USDA.

Would NAIS have prevented any of the beef recalls of the past few years? No. Those beef recalls were made after meat was distributed in the marketplace and eaten by people who became ill. Industrial meat processors, wholesalers, and retailers do not maintain individual animal identification from kill to packaged table cuts. The cows were separated from their identification in the course of processing the meat. Without DNA testing, the best trace-back system could lead only to the date of consumption, dates of production, and batch numbers, but not to an individual animal. And consider this, one bite of tainted hamburger could contain meat from two cows from two different farms. Which one would we blame? In an industrial system where the meat in a hamburger comes from more than one cow, how does NAIS ensure food safety? It doesn't.

Why small is safer

The technology, machines, and money in large scale industrial meat processing plants give the appearance of being safe compared to the low-tech, age-old systems of smaller facilities, but the fact is personal attention and care for quality ensure food safety, not technology. USDA inspectors are better able to ensure safety in smaller facilities that operate at a slower pace. Likewise, NAIS gives the appearance of creating a food safety system until you look at how industrial meat is processed, packaged, and sold, and see all the disconnects in the information chain between the animal's identification and what ends up in your mouth. And NAIS doesn't protect animal health either. It gives the appearance of protecting animal health until you see the cost of NAIS is lower per animal for the largest operators—one ID each for the 20 birds in your back yard versus one ID for the entire 20,000 bird flock in a chicken factory—providing a direct incentive to lower NAIS implementation costs by concentrating animals in the numbers and places that nurture pathogens of both animal and human disease.

Proponents of large-scale industrial meat processing facilities and NAIS are getting away with "playing the food safety card." But if we look at the facts, we see small-scale processing is safer for human and animal health because people working in small places are more accountable. There is less time/distance between the components of a smaller system enabling faster trace-back when problems do arise. In small facilities, carcass profitability and source verification are built into processing, sales, and marketing activities. And producing smaller batches of product presents less risk. When is comes to raising livestock and processing meat, small isn't just safer, small is smart.