Thursday, November 19, 2009
HACCP
We hear a lot about Hazard Analysis & Critical Control Points (HACCP) and the failure of these plans to always protect us from food born diseases such as E. Coli. HACCP is not only a meat industry issue but it seems that way by the number of ground beef recalls that bring light to how HAACP operates. USDA and FDA both are players in letting companies design their own HACCP plans and the criticism is that they are too lax and the law too lenient in oversight. My question would be: are those valid criticisms? As cow calf producers do we feel the consumer backlash from poor HACCP plans or poor oversight? Beef magazine had an article not too long ago where Bill Hemling (sic) prognosticated that for beef to stay on the average table we as an industry might have to grind more to keep up with lower priced proteins. Ground beef seems to be the target product in lot of recalls. I also read an article today that pointed to E Coli on the hide was more prevalent than in the intestines and we should hone in on that more to prevent contamination. Whatever the reason, failures in HACCP does affect all segments of the industry if we continually get a black eye in the media from large beef recalls. Consumers, and Food Service workers (the 17 year old manning the grill at some fast food restaurant) still don't get it through their head that ground beef needs an internal cooking temperature of 160 degrees. So, who needs to improve? Do we need to keep animals cleaner? Do we find a vaccine so they don't shed the worst bacteria? Does HACCP need more scrutiny? Our Check off dollars continue to hammer at the consumer and food service, do we need more?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Irradiation of the product is the logical answer to this dilemna. Despite the public's concerns about radiation in general and irradiation of meat in particular, it remains the best technology to deal with this deadly bacteria. We accept x-rays, MRI's, CAT scans, and many other forms of radiation in our lives, and using irradiation of food products is a common and accepted practice for other products and in other countries. I don't think the argument that irradiation just allows the industry to be less viligent in its quality control will persist. Particularly if it is demonstrated quickly that it is effective. We can tell folks all day long that is needs to be cooked properly but whether it is heat or radiation, the bacteria needs to be killed.
ReplyDeleteMy first thought on this was irradiation as well. Maybe not on all meat products but if we started with the ground beef where the majority of the problems arise it would eliminate the large percentage of recalls related to beef. I agree that the argument that the law is too lax and the regulatory agencies too lenient is prevalent with much of the public but I feel that is not a valid criticism. Nobody wins when a person, especially children are adversely affected by things like E coli.However how much is enough without going overboard. I would really like to see an inspector look at any part of a processing plant and point out the E Coli.
ReplyDeleteSadly I too feel that ground beef because of its price will become more of a needed commodity in American households food budgets and higher value cuts will be a smaller percentage just because of the dynamics of the economy and lifestyles. Development of vaccines or other biologicals as well as better cleanliness from all chains certainly should be a goal. Yes, I do feel that each recall of any product causes a certain number of people to quit buying that particular product, some short term, some forever. I guess the whole chain needs to do better but I agree with Dick that the issue is an easy one to solve with better consumer education as to irradiation. Many of the general public out there will tell you that e coli is something that only happens in grain fed cattle which is patently untrue. This alone shows me that you can never stop trying to educate the consumer.
What's holding irradiation back? Is the ok still pending for meat? Cost? I've read some articles where consumer acceptance is high when they are educated that it does no harm to the nutritional values of meat and has no residue. It can be a slow process, so the speed of moving product can be hampered. It certainly seems that the process should be revisited but there must be resistance out there I don't understand.
ReplyDeleteI'm attaching a link to an article from the October 4, 2009 New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/10/04/us/20090917-meat.html?scp=5&sq=October%204,%202009&st=cse It is sad that people don't know where their food comes from and can't really trust that it is what the box/label says that it is.
ReplyDeleteThere no mention in the article about irradiation as a possible solution and it only makes a small comment at the very end about the fact that maybe the meat wasn't completely cooked (160 degrees).
When I was at WSU (late 80's early 90's), the Ag Econ Club went on a tour of IBP and Hanford on the same day. At the briefing before the Hanford tour they talked about the early stages of testing the use of irradiation of beef to kill pathogens.
I believe that the only thing stopping the use of irradiation is perception. When you talk about irradiation people think of Three Mile Island, Cherenobol and the bombings that ended WWII.
If cost is weak link in providing irradiation, how many $1+ million lawsuits and ruined lives will it take to break the link?
I read the article that Allan Nation wrote about the article you mentioned, Mark, in the Stockman Grass Farmer. I also went to the link you provided. We have a real problem here and when the quality control is marginal at any one of the steps, you have a disaster waiting to happen. A quick search under "irradiation of ground beef" shows that while legalized in 1997 and widely available, there are still many people that don't accept the practice. Some examples:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.beefnutrition.org/uDocs/irradiation_final_final.pdf
http://www.omahasteaks.com/servlet/OnlineShopping?Dsp=767
http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/release.cfm?ID=1596
Here are a couple of other sources for more info on irradiation of ground beef:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.beefnutrition.org/uDocs/irradiation_information_resource.pdf
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/Fact_Sheets/Irradiation_and_Food_Safety/index.asp
There is also a good article on the subject in the last Drovers Journal. Here is the link:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.drovers.com/news_editorial.asp?pgID=730&ed_id=6469
USDA refuses AMI petition on irradiation
ReplyDeleteRod Smith
Feedstuffs
February 3, 2010
The U.S. Department of Agriculture has refused to approve carcass
irradiation, a processing technology that could make meat, especially
ground beef, safer, according to the North American Meat Purveyors
Assn. (NAMP).
NAMP reported that its executive committee met recently with
representatives of USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service and Food
Safety & Inspection Service and were told that the department was
denying a request by the American Meat Institute (AMI) that carcass
irradiation be approved.
AMI made the request last year, but agency representatives told the
executive committee that AMI asked that carcass irradiation be
approved as a processing aid but that processing aids are being
too closely scrutinized at this time for USDA to move forward on the
matter.
Source: http://tinyurl.com/yezgwow
From Mark C