Reviewing meat controls

Posted by Andrew Wadge on March 22nd 2007 in Science, safety and health

My job as Chief Scientist dovetails neatly with the enforcement policy work carried out by colleagues at the Agency. As a regulator we need to make sure that our policies and decisions are informed by the latest science, that they’re proportionate, common sense and put consumer safety first. We’re currently reviewing how we deliver meat hygiene controls in approved meat plants such as abattoirs. I followed the review update at last month’s open Board Meeting. Check out the webcast.

My interest from a scientific point of view is to consider the role that science can play in minimising the levels of salmonella, campylobacter and E coli O157 in meat before it reaches the consumer.

These organisms can be carried by healthy animals and are the three main causes of meat-related food poisoning.

Controlling these will require more joined-up action throughout the food chain, including on farms and in kitchens, if we are to improve the present situation, where meat is estimated to be responsible for over 40% of foodborne disease.

You can have your say on how you think the current system for meat inspection should be improved, either by emailing my colleague Geoff Tierney, or by responding to this blog posting.

The review makes some bold proposals, but they’re all about making the current controls more risk-based, targeted, efficient and effective. It will make its recommendations in July. So if you want to comment, go ahead.

add new comment

JohnI quite agree with you

Posted by Alvaro Pastoriza (not verified) on 19/04/2007 - 11:43

John
I quite agree with you that it is a shame that no more people have the time or the inclination to say anything because it is not quite often that we get the chance to express our point of view to people from the FSA and after all though they certainly call the shots it is also the case that they do not always have the answers.
In any case is really good to see that some people like you though you left the organization you do care and that is really good.

meat inspection

Posted by John (not verified) on 13/04/2007 - 17:05

Andrew & Alvaro,
Thank you for your replies, it's a pity there are no more comments from others.
As I recall I did not cast blackness on all OV's, only the apathetic few I had the great misfortune of 'working' with.
I reported directly to my OV many times of what where serious breaches of hygiene & animal welfare, all were ignored to such an extent that I was left with the feeling of 'why are we here???'
Anyway we need to move on, change is going to happen.
I agree we definately need to work more closely together, the MHI & OV.There must be a close team effort with respect from all to all. The team I worked with for most of my time really tried to get the OV's to work with us but they just weren't interested at all, which I find sad and totaly unacceptable.
Why can't we give more responsibility to the MHI? They are in the plant all the time.
The new regulations gave the MHI verification duties, when I enquired to MHS management about the paperwork so we could begin the verification duties to assist the OV with audit, the reply was it's not our remit at the moment.
Why not train some willing MHI's to audit?
Why not give suitably qualified MHI's more ante mortem responsibility?
All the MHI's I have worked with feel demoralised, most feel they are just glorified feacal contamination spotters.

Private versus Public

Posted by Alvaro Pastoriza (not verified) on 09/04/2007 - 19:17

Dear Andrew

On the issue on how we better serve the public , is as a public service or as a private company.... I will like to make a few comments as I have been on both sides of the fence as I have been working for private contractors and the MHS.

I think that we can both agree with no doubt that the main driver of private companies is not just to deliver a good service but to maximize their profits for their shareholders. If we accept that the money into the system is not going to increase and I believe that we all know that the only possibility left will be just to reduce costs, how that can be achieved? how enforcement action can be robust when there is a clear conflict of interest? how we can be open when mistakes are made when it can mean losing our contract?

You may believe that auditing the systems will be enough to monitor compliance but we all know that audits do not pick up everything and I have experience of premises where a change of just one person in management can change dramatically their attitude towards food safety.... but probably nobody will be there to pick that one up when it happen and if he is a private contractor, shall he be prepared to put his job in jeopardy to do what is right? I certainly do not believe that you get the same kind of commitment on delivering this type of service and private companies will expect to get a good return for their services and do not content themselves with just job satisfaction.

In any case Andrew , for the little bit of the MHS that I know about I can tell you that certainly we see clearly the way changes are coming and we just try to overcome the uncertainty about our future with hard work and commitment, it may not get us far but that is the way it has been for many years and that is our duty as civil servants that we are because our commitment is always with the public but with the utmost respect to the industry because that is the environment where we have to work.

Talking about meat inspection

Posted by Andrew Wadge on 04/04/2007 - 10:15

Thanks very much for the comments so far. They raise some interesting issues. Firstly, I would Iike to reassure Alvaro Pastoriza that the FSA's veterinary experts working on the review will certainly ensure that risk based controls for the less common foodborne zoonoses will be part of whichever delivery model is recommended, as will animal health surveillance and animal welfare controls.

It's interesting that the three examples he gives - hydatidosis, BSE and trichinella - demonstrate that we need to extend our risk-based controls across the whole food chain and not just in the slaughterhouse.

Hydatidosis is not transmitted to humans by meat, but giving better feedback of post-mortem inspection findings to the farm would help control of the disease by facilitating the treatment of infected dogs, that are a risk to public health.

For BSE issues, we want to ensure that the removal of Specific Risk Material (SRM) and the testing of Over Thirty Month (OTM) cattle remain priority areas for control, along with the proper disposal of SRM.

Trichinella is an interesting problem as we have not found it in pigs in the UK for over 25 years and extensive testing of foxes has not revealed infection in GB wildlife. On this basis, testing every pig at slaughter would not make good use of industry or taxpayers' money, so, with the help of the European Commission and other Member States, we are developing more appropriate risk based controls to fit the unique epidemiological situation in GB.

I agree with the retired meat inspector that we need controls to be effective across the entire food chain, including on farm. While standards are improving, operating a clean livestock policy, together with better training, would certainly help ensure the hygiene and safety of meat. It is for this reason that new European Regulations make it clear that Food Business Operators must take responsibility for producing safe food and for the health and welfare of the animals. Official Vets and meat inspectors are there to make sure, on behalf of the consumer, that FBOs carry out their responsibilities properly. There are obviously different views about whether Official Vets and Meat Inspectors might do that important job better as public sector or as private sector employees and I should be interested to hear other views on this.

In the meantime, I support Alvaro's point that vets and inspectors are most likely to do a good job when they work together in co-operation. How can this be made to work better?

To the Anonymous meat inspector

Posted by Alvaro Pastoriza (not verified) on 01/04/2007 - 12:17

Dear meat inspector;
When I read your comments about the veterinary profession I can't help to feel again dissapointed to be as usual on the dialectic of 'us' and 'them' when we keep considering our work situation, and why we must move forward to improve the standards of the service that we deliver to the country because I believe that meat inspection is a service to the comunity and not the industry because we are trying to ensure that the standards of production of meat are safe for people that eat that food.

I do not know how much have you read and I certainly do not expect much of what you have been told but I certainly will like to start by stating that when you are wondering why vets are demanding change you realise that the vets that are pushing hard for that change are from countries like New Zealand, Australia, etc... which are countries with very healthy flocks and a very strong meat industry and a very different type of inspection service than what we have got over here and also in my opnion very different problems.

They have been lobying for many years in an international organization, which is the Codex Alimentarious, that is responsible for setting the standards on the production and trade of food comodities to implement all over the world the same philosophy of inspection service to the meat industry.

These are the vets that are responsible for those change as a starter, then the FSA vets decided that this was clearly the way forward and have tried hard to move forward in Europe in the same direction. I do not think that many vets within the MHS have any say in the matter just because so far the FSA set up the policies and we just must go along with what they want us to do and the vet profession is not extensively represented in the FSA.

Hopefully, that is about to change in the future as we will have more chance to have an imput on how the polcies are developed as we have more experience on the ground and on the practicalities of implementing things within the meat industry than them because wether you do believe it or not it was the case in the past, that new policies were developed by career civil servants that very few times in their lives have set foot on any food premises or have any qualification related with the policies that they were developing deciding what type of policy was in the best interest in the country.

I think that we both have seen the results many times as we are in the frontline to see the results and problems. I want to believe that the FSA have recognized that as an area of improvement and hopefully they will give us a chance to help to develop things better and people in Aviation House will be more prepared to take more views before developing new policies.

I have been working as an OV for the MHS more than 6 years now and in several different parts of England and Wales and I have seen this organization change a lot almost on a continous basis and I have the utmost respect for the people that I work with because it is not a nice and easy environment, there is a lot of hard work involved and not a pleasant atmosphere many times.

I have been many times on the line myself when someone decided in the last time that they will not turn up and I have experienced the full load of what working as a meat inspector is like and I will never cast judgement on meat inspectors or technicians that do not feel the right motivation or simply have enough of the way their jobs are.

Please give us vets the same credit because some are very young and they do not have much working experience and sometimes getting to some of the places that they have to go to work is not what they dream of when they finished university. I guess that it does not apply to you anymore since you decided to leave the MHS but if the FSA want us to change there are no other possiblity of future and we better get it right.... and please to all MHI and Technicians that may be reading this remember always that we are in this together as an organization. If we fail we all do not just some....

meat inspection

Posted by Anonymous (not verified) on 29/03/2007 - 11:01

Andrew, change, we can't work without it these days. I have just left the MHS as an Inspector, a number of reasons influenced this change of career. One reason was that I did not like or agree with what I perceived the Inspection service was to be in the future, from what I have read and been told.

Do you really believe that an FBO employed inspector will do as good a job as an independant one? (who's paying the mortgage?).
The same goes for an agency employed inspector, the FBO will pay the agency for the services of their inspector. If that inspector attempts to enforce any of their powers, do you really believe that inspector would be in that plant the next day? I think you know where I'm going with this?
Why are the vets demanding change???

I know some do a good job and are not afraid to do what they are supposed to, regarding enforcement action, but a number of OV's I've 'worked' with are a disgrace to their profession and they weren't all from abroad. I've witnessed gross apathy and an unwillingness to get involved with the inspection teams.

Ignoring advice from experienced inspectors who do give a damn about doing their job properly. There are OV's out there who hardly ever venture into the plant, I even caught two asleep in their office!!!

OK we don't see the amount of diseases and conditions of the past. Husbandry and welfare have improved and the new regs re FCI are a good thing as long as it's adhered to.

Clean livestock is paramount and more work needs to be focused on sheep, 100% belly clipping, no slaughter straight off the field. Better training and supervision in the abatttoir. It's not just the MHS that needs looking into!

Please lets keep the inspection service independant, it doesn't have many teeth left!!!

people

Posted by naremann (not verified) on 26/03/2007 - 11:11

We no need an education to save the planet.

Talking about meat inspection

Posted by Alvaro Pastoriza (not verified) on 23/03/2007 - 10:01

Andrew
Though I understand as an MHS employee the need for change within our organization there are some points that I will like to make;
- First of all , it is not only Campylobacter, Salmonella and E. Coli the foodborne pathogens that can affect humans but also hidatidosis , BSE ,trichinella... I can understand that because most of the FSA staff do not come from a Veterinary background they tend to forget these other zoonotic agents whose incidence is not high at the moment but with very nasty effect for the people that get them and certainly a relaxation of the controls may lead to a surge on some of them because mathematical models can not predict everything...
-There are also diseases that are not zoonotic but of importance for the farming community like Avian Influenza , Foot and Mouth , Newcastle ..just to mention some of them and a good surveillance network will ensure that any outbreaks get early detected as it was the case with foot and mouth which was detected by a vet at an abattoir.That is not of much use for your agency but it is for the food producing community of this country and that shall be strategically important for the government.
-The proposal of the FSA of going ahead for full cost recovery from the industry is to say the very least unfortunate. There is a view on some people like myself that someone in the FSA will like that the industry will antagonize us even further than what they do already because quite clearly see us like a threat to their own survival..if that is good for cooperation and improving standards I don't know but it does not seem that way to me.
-The agency champion the Codex view that HACCP is the answer to all the problems in food safety we try to follow the example of countries like New Zealand and Australia which are exporting countries when we shall follow suit with countries like the US and the Canada where ensuring the consumer safety is more of a priority as they have a larger population to look after. The fact is that the last two countries have a longer experience on implementing HACCP procedures and trying to get decontamination of carcase meat and still need a large inspection system to ensure the proper implementation of the standards required by the country. That should be our mirror and not New Zealand where the priority is to export as much and as easily as possible and the local consumption of most of the food is not important.
-On the issue of private versus public sector service , it is no surprise that the industry prefer the private as they believe that it will be easier to influence them and also they will save cost. The Agency in my opinion shall ponder carefully their options as it is quite simply their obligation to ensure the protection of the public health of the consumers of meat in this country and if they decided to hand over the responsibility to a private company it will be good to consider who is in control of the situation? there is potential to get it wrong big time... that with civil servants do not happen do easily and at the end we need to think that the meat industry is of strategic value for this country and have gone through enough with the BSE crisis...there is need to be sensible about it