Product Certification and Transparency

~Dr. Patrick Webb, Director Swine Health

~Jarrod Sutton, AVP Channel Marketing

A new video

• C:\Users\suttonj\Desktop\zen_mp4.mp4

Product Certification and Transparency

• Healthy pigs = Safe Pork

• Confidence in Consistency

• Consistent messaging is Essential

Pre-Harvest Traceability

Where we have been & where we are going.

Pork Industry Commitment • U.S. pork producers are committed to the

principle that premises identification, animal identification and recordkeeping is the cornerstone for animal health, disease surveillance and rapid and accurate pre-harvest traceability for animal health purposes.

5

Been there, done that • Past pre-harvest ID systems for

livesotck were linked to:

– Specific disease programs, and/or

• Cattle brucellosis

• Scrapie

• Pseudorabies

– requirements for interstate commerce of

live animals

6

Mandatory Identification of Swine • 9 CFR 71.19 – Identification of Swine in

Interstate Commerce

– Codified since the late 80’s

– Integral to PRV eradication

– Industry recognized importance of

enhancing pre-harvest traceability

7

Interstate movement example

8

Movement to harvest example

• Market Sow’s and Boars •Market Hogs

The continuing saga of ID • Glossary

– NIAA – National Institutes of Animal Agriculture

– USAHA – United States Animal Health

Association

– USAIP – United States Animal Identification Plan

– NAIS – National Animal Identification System

– ADT – Animal Disease Traceability

– SAHO – State Animal Health Official

10

Pork Industry Position on ID • Industry supports a mandatory ID system that is

publicly funded and species specific .

• Industry supports a state held system as the primary interface for producers

• Industry supports movement data to be captured and maintained by producers, production systems, and markets and then reported as required.

USAIP to NAIS to ADT • 2002 NIAA Taskforce

– Developed a national ID proposal

• 2002 USAHA – Directed USDA to develop a plan

• 2003 USDA submitted USAIP to USAHA – Established framework & standards

12

USAIP to NAIS to ADT • 2004 USAIP morphed into NAIS

– Species groups were to develop program standards

– Pork Industry Identification Working Group

• Developed program standards for swine that were

consistent with Code of Federal Regulations

• Completed mid 2005

– Swine ID Implementation Taskforce

• Started implementing the Swine ID Plan’s program

standards in 2005

13

USAIP to NAIS to ADT • 2010 NAIS discontinued and ADT

announced

• 2011 USDA Proposes ADT Rule in the Federal Register

14

Animal Disease Traceability (ADT) • USDA’s ADT Rule ( published Jan 9th 2013)

– Purpose is to improve the ability to trace livestock in the event that disease is found.

– Minimum national identification and documentation requirements for livestock moving interstate.

– Specifies approved forms of official identification for each species

– No changes to how swine are identified for interstate commerce

15

Swine ID Plan

• Key components to the Swine ID Plan:

– Premises Registration

– Animal Identification

– Animal Tracing

• Only applies to the identification and traceback of swine up to when the carcass passes USDA – FSIS inspection

• Enhances current mandatory identification and traceback capabilities

Swine ID Plan Goal

• To standardize, streamline and strengthen the animal health infrastructure that currently exists today

– A strong animal health infrastructure allows the

industry to maintain commerce and expand pork export markets due to the high health status of the U.S. swine herd

Premises Identification

19

Premises identification number (PIN) • A nationally unique number assigned by

a State, Tribal, and/or Federal animal health authority to a premises that is, in the judgment of the State, Tribal, and/or Federal animal health authority, a geographically distinct location from other premises. (9 CFR 71.1)

20

U.S. Pork Industry and PINs • PIN’s are the preferred site identifier for U.S. Pork

– A seven-character alphanumeric code, with the

right-most character being a check digit. The check

digit number is based upon the ISO 7064 Mod

36/37 check digit algorithm. (9 CFR 71.1)

• Industry transitioned to PIN’s (USDA allocated)

– 99% of USDA estimated swine premises registered

21

Animal Identification

22

23

Program Standards • Uses the definition of a “Swine Production System”

to help determine what ID is required. – A swine production enterprise that consists of multiple

sites of production; i.e., sow herds, nursery herds, and growing or finishing herds, but not including slaughter plants or livestock markets, that are connected by ownership or contractual relationships, between which swine move while remaining under the control of a single owner or a group of contractually connected owners. (9 CFR § 71.1)

24

Types of ID for Swine • Definitions

– Group Identification Number (GIN)

• Producer assigns the GIN

• PIN + date the group is formed

• Example: 1234567010106

– Official unique individual ID

• AIN Tag

• National Uniform Ear Tagging System (NUES) tags

• Official USDA PIN Tags

USDA Official Premises Identification Number Tags (PIN Tags) for Breeding Stock

25

Official PIN Tags • Are official identification for sows and

boars in harvest channels that can double as a management tag.

• Market sows & boars must be tagged with an Official PIN Tag by the producer before they are shipped to harvest.

26

Official PIN Tags • According to the Swine ID

Program Standards the PIN on the Tag should be the PIN of the breeding farm she was on prior to entering harvest channels

27

Records for Movements of Breeding Stock

• For producers using official PIN Tags, the following events, along with the date of the event, must be recorded (hold records for 3 years)

– Number of Official Identifier applied (recorded by

original owner)

– Moved into a premises and source PIN

– Moved out of a premises and destination PIN

– Number of New Official Identifier number (if an

official identifier has been lost) 28

PIN Tags • Challenges to adoption

– Voluntary

– Color

• Agreement with approved manufacturers to

distribute only pink tags

– Cost

• 5 to 15 cents higher

29

Efforts that help address challenges

• Color

– NPB Board supported allowing multiple

colors

• Multiple Colors of Official PIN Tags available

• Cost

– Producers using the PIN tag as a

management tag to offset costs

30

Efforts that help address challenges

• Voluntary

– NPPC & NPB Boards passed resolutions

“urging producers to adopt”

– 2013 Forum Resolutions/Advisements

– A request to Packers to require Official PIN

Tags as a condition of sale

31

Official PIN Tags • Sow Packer Requirement

– Condition of sale by January 1st 2015

• Johnsonville, Hillshire Brands, Calihan Pork

Processors, Bob Evans Farms, Wampler's Farm

Sausage, Pine Ridge Farms, Pioneer Packing Co.,

Pork King Packing and Abbyland Pork Pack.

– Must be a USDA Approved Official PIN Tag

– Industry support for this @ 2013 Pork Forum

32

Animal Disease Traceability • The pork industry will continue to work

cooperatively with federal & state animal health authorities on implementing the Swine ID plan, so the industry has an improved nationally standardized animal identification and pre-harvest traceability system for animal health that is consistent across all states.

33

PQA Plus Survey Review

• Quantitative online survey fielded in mid-January 2014

‒ margin of error +/- 2.5%

‒ Opinion Elite, n=1,000

‒ Millennials, n=500

35

Methodology

36

The potential of PQA+

Q. How likely would you be to actively seek out and buy pork products that come

from farms utilizing the Pork Quality Assurance Plus program vs. those that don’t?

pre-ballot post-ballot

• The mere fact of PQA+ can influence opinions and

purchase decisions when it comes to pork products

Across all consumers • The potential benefits apply across the retail and grocery space

The Big Picture

Why PQA Plus matters

Q. Thinking about the pork products available in grocery stores, markets and

restaurants, please indicate the extent to which you agree with the following statements. (% Agree)

• Consumers recognize improvements in food safety

• But that doesn’t translate into comfort with how pigs are

raised

The missing links

Q. When it comes to the specific information you might want regarding how the farms

that supply your pork raise animals for food, how would you describe the amount of information available to you on the following topics? How the farms…

• Transparency isn’t the only issue here, but consumers do feel

there’s a lack of information on the issues they care about

Moving the needle

Imagine that three grocery stores made the following statements regarding standards on the pig farms they get pork from. Which one would you be most likely to buy pork products from?

Total

Chipotle: There are ranchers whose pigs are raised outside or in deeply bedded pens, are never given antibiotics and are fed a vegetarian diet. It's the way animals were raised 50 years ago before huge factory farms changed the industry. We believe pigs that are cared for in this way enjoy happier, healthier lives and produce the best pork we've ever tasted. We call this style of ranching naturally raised, and for over ten years, we have sourced 100% of our pork from producers who follow these guidelines.

39%

m+p: We are working with all of our suppliers to sell only products that have met an industry-wide standard. Pork Quality Assurance Plus isn’t designed to be yet another blue check mark in your meat case. It’s designed to be a transparent, comprehensive set of standards that integrates the best thinking from farmers, veterinarians, academics and others. You deserve to know that your pork is safe, and that it comes from animals raised in a humane way. This program allows us to show you how we’re working with everyone involved to meet that responsibility.

38%

Whole Foods: We work with the Global Animal Partnership to certify our producers' animal welfare practices. Global Animal Partnership is a non-profit organization dedicated to continually improving the lives of farm animals. They have developed the 5-Step Animal Welfare Rating Standards that rate how pigs are raised for meat. The Step ratings are assigned by independent third-party certifiers using auditors trained by Global Animal Partnership. Look for this rating system when you choose our pork. It's your way of knowing how the animals were raised for the meat you are buying.

23%

• You don’t have to provide every detail

• Simply the perception of transparency makes a difference

The confidence of consistency

Q. When it comes to how the grocery stores and restaurants you

shop at set their animal welfare standards, which of the following is closest to your opinion?

• Consumers want to know that the pork they buy meets

their standards no matter what store they’re shopping at

Collaborative standards for consumers • PQA Plus can be that standard

• It doesn’t have to be consumer-facing

• But if retailers use it as a strong backbone for their own

policies, that industry-wide engagement can make a difference

We will only accept pork products from suppliers who have met and maintained Pork Quality Assurance Plus guidelines. We are also working with suppliers to set additional guidelines for our premium products, but it’s important to have a common understanding of

animal care for all of our pork products. [ ]

Defining Transparency

What it is

Q. Which description of the Pork Quality

Assurance Plus program would give you more confidence that the program sets and maintains high standards of animal care? That it is:

• Independently monitored standards resonate over farmer-led

• And an industry-wide approach best sells the breadth of PQA Plus

Q. And what is most important to

you when it comes to how the Pork Quality Assurance Plus program is applied? Should it be a (BLANK) effort?

What it is

Q. When it comes to how this program

is run and farms are assessed, is it more important to you that:

Q. And should the results of those on-

site assessments be based on:

• Consumers want random checks, not predictable assessments

• And specifying the number of criteria involved shows how

extensive the program is

Who’s involved

Q. Who would you prefer to see

developing and enforcing the Pork Quality assurance Plus program?

Q. Now thinking about the people who

conduct the Pork Quality Assurance Plus training and assess whether farmers are following the guidelines, who would you have more confidence in?

• Be specific about the experts and outside stakeholders

involved in setting and maintaining PQA Plus standards

How it works

Q. Is it more important to you that the Pork Quality Assurance Plus program be a

set of:

• PQA Plus needs to be up-to-date, with constantly evolving

standards.

Building a story

For each of the following pieces of information about the Pork Quality Assurance Plus program, please indicate whether that specific element makes you feel more or less favorable toward the program.

Favorable

The Pork Quality Assurance Plus program is taught to farmers and their employees by independent, third party trainers, including veterinarians and academics

73%

Today a large majority of U.S. pig farmers are certified through Pork Quality Assurance Plus, and more are joining every year

73%

Pork Quality Assurance Plus guidelines are updated with the latest veterinary and scientific findings every three years

67%

Pork Quality Assurance Plus is designed to build on existing government regulations, not replace them

61%

Pork Quality Assurance Plus is a voluntary program developed by and for pig farmers 47%

• Consumers want to know that multiple stakeholders –

including vets, academics, and farmers – have a voice in

setting and updating standards

Optimized PQA Plus Statement

Pork Quality Assurance Plus is an industry-wide, constantly evolving program that is designed to implement best practices

on pig farms. It is independently monitored and includes training for farmers and their employees taught by

independent, third party trainers, including veterinarians and academics. And it includes random, on-site assessments every year where farms are assessed on a list of 10 separate criteria

based on common farm practices. The vast majority of pig farmers in the United States are certified through this program,

and more are joining every year.

[ ]

A Unified Approach

Pork Industry Audit Task Force

Industry Audit Task Force

53

2013 Pork Forum Resolution

• NPB shall work with the various packers and other industry stakeholders to develop a common foundation for on-farm animal welfare audits, facilitate equivalency among packers, and minimize the need for multiple audits on a farm supplying multiple packers. The common foundation for the audit would be based on PQA Plus and TQA.

A New Coalition - Objectives • Purpose - Facilitate the development of a workable,

credible and affordable on-farm verification system.

• Objectives

– Provide stakeholders with a consistent, reliable and verifiable

system that assures on-farm animal well-being

– Eliminate duplication of audits and/or minimize the

administrative burden placed on producers

– Develop consensus about consistent standards between and

among various independent audit programs. PQA Plus could

be the foundation with possible company-specific addendums

– Create a standard process that results in inter- and intra-

observer consistency and protection of herd health

IATF Progress • First Meeting – Exploration (Feb 2013)

– Learning from others

– Can we proceed

• Second Meeting – Data Review (Aug 2013)

– Audit Gap analysis • 10 entities submitted on-farm AW audits to AASV

• 3 Main categories

– Retail and Foodservice Survey • qualitative interviews (n-5) and quantitative online survey (n-15)

• Not statistically valid however the respondents include opinion leaders in both retail and restaurant sectors

Task Force Conclusions • The group determined that PQA Plus could serve as

the baseline for future audit development

– Current platform is designed to be adaptable

– Importance of learning, understanding and engagement of

producers and caretakers prior to an audit

– Alignment between packer audits and education so

producers are able to meet expectations

• There should be broad-based involvement from pig farmers, pork packers, restaurants, retailers and others in the industry to build broad based support for the final program.

57

IATF Progress • Working group meetings

– Development of a draft framework • Auditor qualifications and training

• Frequency and selecting sites to audit

• Common database

• Data reporting

– Development of a draft audit standard

• Third Meeting – Development (Dec 2013)

• Fourth Meeting – Customer Engagement (Jan 2014)

– 17 partners from 11 food service/retail companies

– Review of industry structure, biosecurity, and audit purpose

– Gather input on draft framework and audit standard

Audit Standard Criteria already in PQA Plus New Criteria

Wilful Acts of Abuse Written Euthanasia Plan

Animal Handling Piglet Processing Procedures

Humane Euthanasia Caretaker Training Lameness Manuals/SOPs

Space Allowance Facilities Lesions – Scratches Mortality Records

Body Condition Score VCPR Lesions – Tail Biting Mortality Management

Lesions – Abscesses Site Assessments Lesions – Hernias Biosecurity

Lesions – Deep Wounds

Daily Observation Records

Lesions – Rectal prolapses

Needle and Sharps Usage

Lesions – Shoulder Sores

Emergency Action Plan

Treatment Management

Thermal Comfort Med & Treatment Records

Transport/Load-out

Air Quality Feed/Water Access

Emergency Backup Equipment

Animal Care/Abuse Policy

IATF Progress • Working Group Meeting (March 2014)

– Development of audit tool

– Development of scoring system

– Identify objectives for beta testing

• Fifth Meeting – Producer/Packer Review (Apr 2014)

– Discuss common database

– Review edits to Audit Standard

– Review Audit Tool and scoring system

– Review and finalize Beta Testing plan

– Discussion on next steps and roll-out

IATF Next Steps • Full IATF meeting – May 19th

• Development of common audit database

• Beta testing

– Phase 1 – desk review

– Phase 2 – field testing

– Phase 3 – external review (PACCO)

• July IATF meeting

• Availability of audit tool

IATF Next Steps

• Communications plan

• Resource guides for producers

• Incorporate updated information into PQA Plus

• IATF ongoing efforts

– Regular review of aggregated data

– Updates to audit standards and tool as

needed

– Auditor trainings

Questions & Discussion