(The views and opinions expressed in this blog are strictly those of the author.)
I should start by saying that I do not work for Walmart as a consultant, advisor or in any other way. It is not my place to defend the company or its policies. However, I believe that last week Walmart took a courageous position to improve food safety for its customers – one that will eventually improve food safety for all consumers.
What they are requiring
The action taken by Walmart was to require that its beef suppliers meet performance standards designed to reduce the risk of pathogen contamination. Specifically, Walmart will require its beef slaughter suppliers to implement an approved intervention or a combination of interventions between post-hide removal and final trim production that will consistently produce, at a minimum, an initial cumulative 3-log reduction of enteric pathogens by June 2011. Thereafter, they are requesting a further reduction goal to achieve a total cumulative 5-log reduction between post-hide removal and final trim production by June 2012. All intervention steps must be scientifically validated. In addition, interventions must not require a label declaration or have a negative effect on product quality and shelf life and must be accepted by consumers.
For ground beef suppliers that are not vertically integrated and do not have slaughter house control, Walmart will require an approved intervention or a combination of interventions that will consistently produce, at a minimum, a 2-log reduction of enteric pathogens on raw trim used for grinding. Again, the intervention process or intervention steps must be scientifically validated. Processing suppliers must be in compliance with this new process control standard by June 2011.
Why I agree
The move was supported by at least one major meatpacker – Tyson Fresh Meat Co., as well as consumer groups and academicians, including myself. News reports about the Beef Safety initiative, including those posted on Meatingplace elicited comments that expressed skepticism and doubt about Walmart’s motives and the need for new requirements. Here are my thoughts on the subject:
1. The performance standards are designed to assure that all beef slaughter plants and processing plants utilize effective, validated interventions. Most of Walmart’s suppliers and most plants in the U.S. already have these interventions in place. I agree with Jim Dickson at Iowa State University who believes that the initiative is more about proving efficacy than it is about implementing new interventions. (See: Meatingplace story on this.)
2. Before making the decision to implement the new performance standards, Walmart determined that suppliers that already have the required interventions in place are price competitive.
3. Unfortunately, there are still beef slaughter plants and processors that either have not implemented effective interventions, or do not have supporting documentation to show that they are effective. Walmart is allowing more than a year for these companies to implement effective, validated interventions.
4. In the manufacture of ground beef, product from multiple processors is often co-mingled. As a result, there may be an increased risk of contamination when beef from plants with inadequate interventions is utilized.
5. Retailers like Walmart have no way of knowing if the beef they purchase for their customers was processed using effective interventions or not. When foodborne illness cases and recalls occur, they are still held accountable. In order to reduce the risk of these occurrences, retailers have the right to insist that their suppliers use the most effective interventions available and scientifically document their effectiveness in controlling pathogens like E. coli O157:H7 and Salmonella.
6. It is worth noting that Walmart’s requirement for scientific validation of interventions is consistent with the in-plant validation requirements that were recently proposed by USDA-FSIS.
The bottom line is that it is time for all beef slaughter and processing plants to implement food safety systems for controlling E. coli O157:H7 and Salmonella.
Most have already done so and as a result, beef products are safer now than at any time in history. If effective systems were universally applied, the incidence of pathogen contamination and foodborne disease cases and outbreaks associated with beef products could be further reduced.
These are the real objectives of the Walmart Beef Safety initiative. Walmart deserves a lot of credit for taking a position that is long overdue.
***************
Food (Safety) Fight
By: Richard Raymond
Consumers have the final say, so let’s hear from them
(The views and opinions expressed in this blog are strictly those of the author.)
What do fruit juice, milk, egg products and ground beef have in common? They are all produced by comingling product from hundreds of sources. Hundreds of eggs from many laying operations, broken into one large vat to eventually become a liquid or dried, shelf-stable product. One bad egg loaded with pathogens, and the whole lot could be contaminated. Hundreds of gallons of milk from many dairy farms dumped into one large vat. One bad gallon of milk and the whole vat could turn deadly. Hundreds of apples squeezed into juice. But first one falls to the ground and lands in a pile of you know what and the product may sicken many children getting their daily juice fix. And, of course, trim from hundreds of cattle, many farms and even a few countries being blended to get the perfect percent lean that the consumer wants. One contaminated carcass and we have another outbreak and subsequent recall.
Fruit juice, milk, egg products and ground beef. What do they not have in common? The final kill step to guarantee (almost) the safety of the product.
For 100 years milk has been pasteurized, a step that was instituted when dairy farms already had very high sanitation levels, but the product was still making people fall ill. It was fought then, and today people still have a choice of pasteurized versus raw milk. And those drinking raw milk because they feel pasteurization decreases nutritional value or changes the composition of the milk often suffer food-borne illnesses.
In 1970, the Egg Products Inspection Act was passed and the industry changed for the better, including routine pasteurization of egg products. Not because the eggs going into the product were necessarily bad, (in fact the Act mandated that they be safe and wholesome) but because the comingling increased the chance of one bad egg turning a whole batch bad.
And talk about one bad apple changing an industry! It is just in recent years that fruit juices also benefit from almost routine pasteurization because of a serious outbreak caused in part by commingling product. But does the average consumer even understand that they should read the juice label to be certain they are buying the safest product, or do they go for the least expensive?
Some shell eggs are pasteurized, and some ground beef products are pasteurized, but those that are make up a minority. When will the consumers demand that the vast majority of these two products that still carry a relatively high risk of contamination be pasteurized and labeled so we can make an intelligent (or not so intelligent) selection of foods for our tables?
meatingplace.com
