foul fowl march 08

7/31/2019 Foul Fowl March 08

1/24

More Foul Fowl

An Updated Analysis ofSalmonellaContamination in Broiler Chickens


2/24

About Food & Water WatchFood & Water Watch is a nonprot consumer organization that works to ensure clean water and safe food. We challengethe corporate control and abuse of our food and water resources by empowering people to take action and by transformingthe public consciousness about what we eat and drink. Food & Water Watch works with grassroots organizations aroundthe world to create an economically and environmentally viable future. Through research, public and policymaker educa-tion, media, and lobbying, we advocate policies that guarantee safe, wholesome food produced in a humane and sustain-

able manner, and public, rather than private, control of water resources including oceans, rivers, and groundwater.

Food & Water Watch1616 P St. NW, Suite 300

Washington, DC 20036tel: (202) 683-2500fax: (202) [email protected]

www.foodandwaterwatch.org

Copyright March 2008 by Food & Water Watch. All rights reserved. This report can be viewed or downloaded atwww.foodandwaterwatch.org.


3/24

More Foul Fowl

An Updated Analysis ofSalmonellaContamination in Broiler Chickens

Table of Contents

1 Introduction

1 Background

2 Salmonella Testing in Broiler Chickens

3 Methods

3 Findings

4 Recommendations

5 Endnotes

6 Salmonella Failures at USDA-Inspected Broiler Chicken Establishments, 2006-2007

8 Testing History at Plants withSalmonella Failures


4/24


5/24

With this update to our 2006 report,Foul Fowl: An Analy-sis ofSalmonella Contamination in Broiler Chickens, weshow the continuing failure of the U.S. Department of Agri-culture to protect consumers fromSalmonella contamina-tion of broiler chickens.

For both the original report and this update, Food & WaterWatch used the Freedom of Information Act to obtain US-DAsSalmonella testing results. The original report used

data from 1998 through 2005 and this update uses data for2006 through January 2008.

We are releasing this information for several reasons. First,citizens have a right to information that indicates how ef-fectively their government is ensuring the safety of productsthat carry USDAs seal of inspection. Second, consumershave a right to public information concerning the relativeperformance of poultry-producing plants under govern-ment inspection. Third, publication of the names of plantsthat have failed to meet the regulatory standard may createadditional incentive for plants to improve the safety of theirprocesses.

Background

USDAs Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), thegovernment agency responsible for inspecting meat andpoultry, has established acceptable levels ofSalmonellacontamination for different types of meat and poultry.

In 1998, FSIS began enforcing a newSalmonella standardby testing raw and ground products for the presence of the

pathogen. The purpose of the program was to use microbialsampling to determine when plants were not controllingfood safety hazards in their production processes. Testingalso was supposed to objectively indicate when industryand government were not fullling their food safety respon-sibilities.

The acceptable level of contamination established for eachproduct was based on the average level ofSalmonella pres-ent for each class of product during initial baseline tests.Consequently, FSIS acceptable percentage ofSalmonellacontamination varies greatly by product.

The bacteriaSalmonella is the leading cause of food-borne illness in the UnitedStates1 with nearly a million cases of salmonellosis attributed annually to meat andpoultry consumption.2 Of these, more than 14,000 of the victims are hospitalized andmore than 400 die.3 The estimated total annual cost of all cases, foodborne and oth-erwise, of salmonellosis is about $2.46 billion (in 2006 dollars).4 Concern about thepotential for pathogens, includingSalmonella, to become resistant to antibiotics also is

increasing. Infections caused by antibiotic-resistant bacteria are more frequently asso-ciated with illness and death than those caused by bacteria that are not resistant.5


6/24

More Foul Fowl: An Updated Analysis ofSalmonella Contamination in Broiler Chickens

2

To determine the contamination level for a particular plant,FSIS tests a sample of the nished product each day theplant is operating until the requisite number of samplesis taken. The number of required daily samples differs byspecies. So, for example, the testing period for a plant thatslaughters steers and heifers would be as long as is neces-sary to collect 82 daily samples, whereas the testing periodfor a broiler chicken plant would be long enough to collect51 daily samples. The length of the testing period is alsoaffected by the frequency with which a plant produces theproduct. Some small plants do not produce every day, andtherefore the testing period is longer at these plants to col-lect the same number of samples. The contamination rateof a plant is the percentage of the daily samples that arecontaminated withSalmonella during the testing period.

As a matter of practice, if the plants contamination ratedoes not exceed the regulatory standard, it will not typi-cally undergo another testing period for approximately one

year. However, on January 28, 2008, FSIS announced thatplants with half or fewer of the allowable number of posi-tive samples in their last two testing periods would not bescheduled for more tests for 12 to 24 months.6 We believethis reliance on previous performance is misguided becausecircumstances in a plant can change very quickly. If theagency implements this proposal, consumers could be atgreater risk because past data indicates that a plant withfewer than the allowable number of positiveSalmonellatest results in one period can fail to meet the performance

standard in a subsequent testing period. In other words,the data shows that good performance does not always last

for the length of time that this new policy would allow be-tween testing periods. See plants marked with an asteriskin Chart 2 for examples of when this new policy could havedelayed testing during periods of poor performance.

Initially, FSIS established an enforcement program for itsSalmonella program with actions getting progressivelymore serious with each additional failed testing period andculminating in withdrawal of inspection if the plant failedto comply with theSalmonella regulation for three consec-utive testing periods. In 2001, however, a federal DistrictCourt ruled that the agency could not withdraw inspectionsolely based on a plants failure to meet the requirements oftheSalmonella regulation. Since then, the agency report-edly increases the level of scrutiny at a plant with each suc-cessiveSalmonella failure and may take enforcement actionafter considering the results of those investigations.

Overall, the results of the FSIS program have been disap-pointing. While the agency claims that the 1998 imple-mentation of new [inspection] and pathogen reductionprograms represents one of the most signicant changesin the regulation of the meat and poultry industry sincethe inspection program began in the early 1900s,7 thepercentage of broiler chickens found by the agencys test-

ing program to be contaminated withSalmonella actuallyincreased from 10.83 percent in 1998 to 11.41 percent in2006. 8

Salmonella Testing in Broiler ChickensTo determine the contamination level for a particular

broiler chicken plant, the agency collects daily samples un-til it has 51. For high volume plants that are producing veto seven days each week, this testing period usually takes

between two and three months.

Type of ProductAcceptable LevelofSalmonellaContamination

Steers and Heifers 1.2%

Cows and Bulls 3.5%

Ground Beef 9.5%

Hogs 10.9%

Broiler Chickens 23.5%

Fresh Pork Sausage 34.0%

Ground Chicken 49.1%

Ground Turkey 54.7%


7/24

Food & Water Watch

3

To collect a single sample, an FSIS inspector takes a carcassfrom the end of the plants production line, puts it in a ster-ile plastic bag with a chemical solution and agitates it forone minute. This solution is then sent to an FSIS lab to de-termine if the carcass was contaminated withSalmonella.

Since 1998, the agency has publishedonly generalized data from the pro-gram, usually on an annual basis.In 2006, the agency announced it

would begin publishing quarterlydata and it issued the rst quar-terly report on June 23, 2006.9The agency also announced that,to increase incentives for plantsto produce safe food, it would

begin categorizing plants based ontheir success in meeting the regula-tory standard and would begin publish-

ing the status of individual plants on its website. While FSIS repeated the same intentionin a January 2008 Federal Register notice,10 it hasthus far failed to report individual plant status.

Under the agencys categorization scheme, Cat-egory 3 plants are those that fail, meaning thatfor broilers more than 12 of the 51 sam-ples (24 percent) test positive; Category2 plants pass with seven to 12 of the 51samples (13 to 24 percent) registering apositive result; and Category 1 plants are those that pass,

with zero to six of the samples testing positive forSalmo-nella (a zero to 12 percent contamination rate) in both thecurrent and the previous testing set.

Methods

TheSalmonella testing results for 2006 and 2007 wereacquired using the Freedom of Information Act. We haveanalyzed numerous FSIS testing databases over the past 10

years and routinely discovered errors or gaps in the data.All of our calculations are based on the data in the recordswe received.

We received the agencys testing records from January 1,2006 through January 31, 2008. Some of these recordsincluded the establishment name as well as the establish-ment number, while others included just the establishmentnumber. For those records with just the number, we foundthe names of the companies operating these plants in the

Meat, Poultry and Egg Product Inspection Directory onthe agencys website.11 The directory does not provide in-formation for a few of the plants we found in the test resultdatabase. We requested the names of these plants from the

agency, but had not received them as ofpublishing this report.

Findings

Chart 1 shows that 27 poultryslaughter plants (out of a total of 189

facilities) of all sizes failed FSISSalmo-nella test sets in 2006 or 2007. Thismeans that more than 12 of the 51 sam-

ples 24 percent collected in a testingperiod at each slaughterhouse registeredpositive for the pathogen. The chart alsoidenties the number of positive samples

during the testing period at each plant.

Chart 2 reveals the compliance history of any broilerslaughter plant that failed in 2006 or 2007. It showsgaps of more than a year between FSIS testing forSalmonella in some plants. The chart also il-lustrates the fact that passing in one test period

does not mean that contamination levels wont increasebeyond the performance standard in the next period. Forexample, a Perdue Farms facility (#19112P) in KentuckyfailedSalmonella testing in February 2007 with 32 posi-tive results forSalmonella, up from 9 positives (a passingscore) in December 2005. Mountaire Farms of Delaware,Inc. (establishment #3P), passed a testing set in October2002. However, FSIS did not complete another testingperiod there until June 2006, at which time the plant failed

with 19 of the 51 samples testing positive forSalmonella.Because FSIS was not testing during the three and a half

year interim period, there is no way to determine when theplant began marketing chickens that posed a greater risk toconsumers than government standards ostensibly allow.

Other large plants that were not tested yearly before afailing set include establishments 325P (Texas), 4653AP(Iowa), 13456P (Arkansas), and 13485P (Louisiana).

Such results undercut the position of FSIS that passingfacilities should not be retested for 12 to 24 months. Withno government oversight and enforcement, previously goodplants may allow themselves to produce unsafe food overextended periods of time, which obviously threatens con-sumer health and safety.


8/24


4

Recommendations

In light of these ndings, Food & Water Watch recom-mends that USDA:

Seek legislation that makes performance standards

enforceable under the meat and poultry inspectionstatutes.

Publish on its website Salmonella testing results foreach plant on a quarterly basis, including the number ofsamples taken at the plant and the number that testedpositive forSalmonella.

Abandon the proposal that plants with less than halfthe acceptable rate ofSalmonella in their last two test-ing periods not be scheduled for another testing periodfor 12 to 24 months.


9/24

Food & Water Watch

5

Endnotes

1 Pathogens and Contaminants: A Focus onSalmonella. National Agri-cultural Library, U.S. Department of Agriculture.http://fsrio.nal.usda.gov/document_fsheet.php?product_id=58

2 Foodborne Illness Cost Calculator: Assumption Details and Citations forSalmonella. Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.FSIS estimates that 63 percent of foodborne Salmonella cases (995,496)are due to the consumption of meat or poultry (USDA, 1996). Available at:www.ers.usda.gov/data/FoodBorneIllness/salmAssumptionDescriptions.asp#cases

3 Foodborne Illness Cost Calculator: Salmonella. Economic ResearchService, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Available at: www.ers.usda.gov/Data/FoodBorneIllness/salm_Intro.asp?Pathogen=Salmonella&p=1&s=15302&y=2005&n=1397187. Accessed on March 21, 2008, and websiteupdate on May 3, 2007.

4 Foodborne Illness Cost Calculator. Economic Research Service, U.S.Department of Agriculture. Available at:www.ers.usda.gov/data/foodborneillness/. The cost of salmonellosis fromall sources is estimated to be $2,387,251,191.

5 The National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System. NMC An-nual Meeting Proceedings (2006) Available at:

www.nmconline.org/articles/NARMS.pdf

6 73 Fed. Reg. 4767-4774, (Jan. 28, 2008)

7 FSIS Employees: Pathogen Reduction & HAACP. Food Safety andInspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Available at: www.fsisusda.gov/FSIS_Employees/Pathogen_Reduction_HACCP/index.asp

8 Serotypes Prole of Salmonella Isolates from Meat and Poultry Products

January 1998 through December 2006. Food Safety and InspectionService, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Available at: www.fsis.usda.gov/PDF/Serotypes_Prole_Salmonella_Tables_&_Figures.pdf

9 Science: Microbiology: Quarterly Progress Report onSalmonella Testingof Selected Raw Meat and Poultry Products: Preliminary Results, January- March, 2006. Food Safety and Inspection Service, U.S. Department ofAgriculture. Available at:www.fsis.usda.gov/Science/Q1_2006_Salmonella_Testing/index.asp

10 73 Fed. Reg. 4767-4774, (Jan. 28, 2008)

11 Federal Inspection Programs: Meat, Poultry and Egg Product Inspec-tion Directory. Food Safety and Inspection Service, U.S. Department ofAgriculture. Available at: www.fsis.usda.gov/Regulations_&_Policies/Meat_Poultry_Egg_Inspection_Directory/index.asp, accessed in March2008.


10/24


6

Establishment # Name StateEstablishmentSize

Date**# ofPositives

3 PMountaire Farms OfDelaware Inc.

Delaware Large Jun-06 19

192 PPilgrim's PrideCorporation

Alabama Large Jan-06 23

325 P Tyson Foods, Inc. Texas Large Dec-07 16

419 P Case Farms of NC, Inc.NorthCarolina

Large Oct-06 16

476 P Pilgrim's Pride Georgia Large Mar-06 13


Texas Large Sep-06 17

930 P Fulton Processors, Inc. California Small May-06 15

935 P Allen Family Foods, Inc. Delaware Large May-07 13

1538 P Wapsie Produce Inc. Iowa Small Oct-06 19

2178 P Perdue Farms, Inc. Delaware Large Jan-06 16

4653A P Agriprocessors Inc. Iowa Large Aug-06 14

6529 P Koch Foods of Alabama Alabama Small Jan-06 18

9965 P Eberly Poultry Inc. Pennsylvania Small Sep-06 16

10830 P * Maryland Very Small Sep-06 14

13413 P Buddy's Natural Chickens Texas Small Sep-06 16

13456 P Tyson Foods, Inc. Arkansas Large Jan-06 20


Louisiana Large Jan-06 13

18688 P * Minnesota Very Small Dec-06 30

SalmonellaFailures at USDA-Inspected BroilerChicken Establishments, 2006 2007


11/24

Food & Water Watch

7

Establishment # Name StateEstablishmentSize

Date**# ofPositives

18739 P Cal Fresh California Small Feb-07 22

19112 P Perdue Farms, Inc. Kentucky Large Feb-07 32

20251 P Tecumseh Poultry, LLC Nebraska Small Jan-06 15

20251 P Tecumseh Poultry, LLC Nebraska Small Jun-06 13

20538 P *NorthCarolina

Very Small Sep-06 17

27389 P Pitman Farms Inc. California Small Mar-06 25

31727 PKiryas Joel PoultryProcessing New York Small Oct-06 13

31803 P * Michigan Very Small Jan-07 14

33826 P Elite Foods, LLCNorthCarolina

Small Jun-07 27

How to Use This Chart:

This chart lists those establishments that failed to meet the Salmonella performance standard from January 2006 through Janu-ary 2008. The USDA typically conducts at least one testing period per year at each slaughter facility, but it may conduct morethan one. Passing test periods are NOT listed on this chart.

Each package of raw poultry must display the establishment number in either the inspection legend or alone on the package ma-terial. The establishment number is the most useful piece of information for consumers because many companies have plants inmultiple states, sell products under different brand names, and sell their products nationwide. The establishment number will tellconsumers if a product came from one of the plants on this list.

Note: More than 12 positive samples means that the establishment failed to meet the USDAs standard for Sal-monella.

* Food & Water Watch requested the names of theslaughter plants from USDA, but did not receive them

by the time of publication.

** Month when testing period ended.

Each package of raw poultry must dis-play the establishment number in eitherthe inspection legend oval or, by itself,

on other labeling material.


12/24


8

Establish-ment #

Name StateEstablishmentSize

SampleSet #

Date SetCompleted

# ofPositives

3 P Mountaire Farmsof Delaware Inc.

Delaware Large 1 Jun-98 24

2 Nov-98 14

3 May-99 9

4 May-00 1

5 Feb-01 9

6 Jan-02 3

7 Oct-02 5

8 Jun-06** 19

9 Jan-07 4

10 May-07 4

192 P Pilgrim's PrideCorporation

Alabama Large 1 May-98 7

2 May-99 2

3 Jan-00 4

4 Sep-01 9

5 Oct-02 10

6 Apr-04 6

7 Mar-05 6

8 Jan-06** 23

9 Aug-06 5

10 Jan-07 1

11 Apr-07 4

Testing History at Plants with SalmonellaFailures


13/24

Food & Water Watch

9

Establish-ment #


SampleSet #

Date SetCompleted

# ofPositives

325 P Tyson Foods, Inc. Texas Large 1 May-99 2

2 May-00 2

3 May-01 0

4 Apr-02 0

5 Aug-03 0

6 Jul-04 0

7 Apr-05 6

8 Jul-06 5

? Dec-07** 16

419 P Case Farms of NC, Inc.

NorthCarolina

Large1 Nov-99 3

2 Jun-00 2

3 Jun-01 11

4 Jun-02 8

5 May-04 12

6 Jul-05 29

7 Jan-06 8

8 Oct-06 16

9 May-07 3

? Dec-07 0


14/24


10

Establish-ment #


SampleSet #

Date SetCompleted

# ofPositives

476 P Pilgrim's Pride Georgia Large 1 Jun-98 2

2 Jun-99 5

3 May-00 0

4 Sep-01 11

5 Jun-02 0

6 Aug-03 3

7 Jul-04 10

8 May-05 9

9 Mar-06 13

10 Oct-06 4

11 Feb-07 9

12 Jul-07 5


Texas Large 1 Jun-98 1

2 May-99 3

3 May-00 1

4 Mar-01 3

5 Oct-02 3

6 Nov-01 3

7 Jan-04 7

8 Oct-05 6

9 Sep-06 17

10 Apr-07 2


15/24

Food & Water Watch

11

Establish-ment #


SampleSet #

Date SetCompleted

# ofPositives

930 P FultonProcessors, Inc.

California Small 1 Mar-99 11

2 May-00 4

3 Jun-01 4

4 Jun-02 8

5 Jun-03 5

6 Jun-04 5

7 Nov-05** 19

8 May-06 15

9 Mar-07 3

10 Sep-07 5

935 P Allen Family Foods, Inc.

Delaware Large 1 Jun-98 6

2 May-99 6

3 May-00 1

4 Mar-01 1

5 Mar-02 0

6 Aug-03 4

7 Jul-04 8

8 Aug-05 5

9 Sep-06 8

10 Jan-07 6

11 May-07 13

? Nov-07 4


16/24


12

Establish-ment #


SampleSet #

Date SetCompleted

# ofPositives

1538 P Wapsie ProduceInc.

Iowa Small ? ? ?

2 Dec-05 20

3 Oct-06 19

4 Aug-07 12

2178 P Perdue Farms,Inc.

Delaware Large 1 Sep-98 9

2 May-99 19

3 Oct-99 3

4 Jul-00 5

5 May-01 7

6 Mar-02 7

7 Aug-03 3

8 Aug-04 13

9 Feb-05 6

10 Jan-06 16

11 Aug-06 1

12 Jan-07 2

4653A P AgriprocessorsInc.

Iowa Large 1 Nov-00 13

2 Jun-01 0

3 Aug-04 9

4 Dec-05 15

5 Aug-06 14

6 Apr-07 12


17/24

Food & Water Watch

13

Establish-ment #


SampleSet #

Date SetCompleted

# ofPositives

6529 P Koch Foods of Alabama

Alabama Small 1 Jun-98 3

2 May-99 7

3 May-00 3

4 Mar-01 5

5 Jan-02 3

6 Oct-02** 15

7 Mar-03 4

8 Apr-04 4

9 Mar-05 11

10 Jan-06 18

? Mar-07 2

? Aug-07 5

9965 P Eberly Poultry Inc.

Pennsylvania Small 1 Nov-00 10

2 Nov-04 29

3 Jul-05 11

4 Sep-06 16

5 Jan-07 7

6 Jun-07 3

? Dec-07 5

10830 P * Maryland Very Small 1 May-02 0

2 May-04 12

3 Sep-06 14


18/24


14

Establish-ment #


SampleSet #

Date SetCompleted

# ofPositives

13413 P Buddy's NaturalChickens

Texas Small 1 May-00 0

2 May-01 3

3 Apr-02 9

4 Jun-03 9

5 May-04 12

6 Apr-05 3

7 Sep-06 16

8 Apr-07 2

13456 P Tyson Foods, Inc. Arkansas Large 1 May-00 0

2 Jul-01 2

3 Aug-02 1

4 Jul-03 0

5 Jul-04 4

6 Jan-06** 20

7 Sep-06 1

8 Feb-07 5


19/24

Food & Water Watch

15

Establish-ment #


SampleSet #

Date SetCompleted

# ofPositives


Louisiana Large 1 Jan-00 22

2 Aug-00 8

3 Feb-02 16

4 Sep-02 9

5 Aug-03 7

6 Sep-04 19

7 Mar-05 11

8 Jan-06 13

9 Jun-06 8

10 Nov-06 7

11 Mar-07 0

18688 P * Minnesota Very Small 1 Jul-02 11

2 ? ?

3 Dec-06 30

18739 P Cal Fresh California Small 1 Feb-00 22

2 Dec-00 20

3 ? ?

4 Apr-05 17

5 Feb-07 22


20/24


16

Establish-ment #


SampleSet #

Date SetCompleted

# ofPositives

19112 P Perdue Farms,Inc.

Kentucky Large 1 May-99 10

2 Mar-00 7

3 Aug-00 6

4 Jun-01 5

5 Mar-02 6

6 Feb-04 5

7 Dec-05 9

8 Feb-07 32

9 Aug-07 2

20251 P TecumsehPoultry, LLC

Nebraska Small 1 Mar-01 16

2 Aug-01 8

3 Jun-02 8

4 Jul-03 13

5 ? ?

6 Sep-04 10

7 Jul-05 18

8 Jan-06 15

9 Jun-06 13

? Oct-07 3

20538 P * NorthCarolina

Very Small 1 May-02 16

? ? ?

3 Jun-05 38

4 Sep-06 17


21/24

Food & Water Watch

17

Establish-ment #


SampleSet #

Date SetCompleted

# ofPositives

27389 P Pitman FarmsInc.

California Small 1 Mar-06 25

2 May-07 2

31727 P Kiryas JoelPoultryProcessing

New York Small 1 Dec-05 11

2 Oct-06 13

3 Mar-07 11

31803 P * Michigan Very Small 1 Sep-05 4

2 Jan-07 14

33826 P Elite Foods, LLC NorthCarolina

Small1 Jun-07 27

* Food & Water Watch requested the names of the slaughter plants from USDA, but did not receive them by the timeof publication.

** A new USDA policy could have delayed this testing period that resulted in a failure. See page 3 for more details.

Entries marked ? indicate incomplete data received from USDA.

Categories Explanation

FAILEstablishment exceeded the USDA performance standard for Salmonellain poultry -- more than 12 of the 51 samples collected by the agency testedpositive for the pathogen.

PASS with more than 1/2 of theallowable positives

Establishment met USDA's performance standard for Salmonella inpoultry -- 7 to 12 of the 51 samples collected by the agency tested positivefor the pathogen.

PASS with 1/2 or less of theallowable positives

Establishment met USDA's performance standard for Salmonella inpoultry and performed well -- 0 to 6 of the 51 samples collected by theagency tested positive for the pathogen.


22/24


23/24


24/24

Food & Water Watch1616 P St. NW, Suite 300

Washington, DC 20036tel: (202) 683-2500fax: (202) 683-2501

foul fowl march 08

Documents