# Presentation: 685170

##   Public Health Lessons from HACCP-Based Inspection Models ProjectPresentation by Loren D. LangeAugust 7, 2007

**United States Department of Agriculture****Food Safety and Inspection Service**

## Three Topics

- Overview of Current Young Chicken HIMP Establishments
- Data from Before and After HIMP Implementation
- Comparing Data From HIMP Establishments with Data From Traditional Establishments

**United States Department of Agriculture****Food Safety and Inspection Service**

## Overview of Current Young Chicken HIMP Establishments

**United States Department of Agriculture****Food Safety and Inspection Service**

## Young Chicken HIMP Establishments

- Currently 20 HIMP establishments (18 Large, 2 Small)
- _CY 2006_:  224 establishments slaughtered young chickens under Federal inspection
- 177 establishments account for >99.9%
- HIMP establishments 11.3% of the 177
- 20 HIMP establishments account for over 16.5% production (CY 2006)
- One out of every 6 birds now produced under HIMP

**United States Department of Agriculture****Food Safety and Inspection Service**

## United States Department of AgricultureFood Safety and Inspection Service

| Implementation Schedule
(Currently 20 Young Chicken HIMP Establishments) |  |
| --- | --- |
| Time Period | Number |
| 
1999 | 
2 |
| Jan - June
2000 | 
8 |
| July – Dec
2000 | 
0 |
| Jan – June
2001 | 
5 |
| July – Dec
2001 | 
4 |
| 
2003 | 
1 |

**United States Department of Agriculture****Food Safety and Inspection Service**

## HIMP was designed to free up inspection resources for additional higher priority public health tasks or inspection procedures.  It was not designed to meet a goal of reducing incidence of Salmonella, but more recent data indicate that HIMP, in conjunction with the types of inspection procedures performed, is having a positive affect on public health.

**United States Department of Agriculture****Food Safety and Inspection Service**

## Data from Before and After HIMP Implementation(Same Establishments – Different Time Periods)

**United States Department of Agriculture****Food Safety and Inspection Service**

## History of HIMP Salmonella Data

- As establishments were joining HIMP, a contract lab analyzed samples from 300 carcasses before and after HIMP implementation.
- 10 samples per day for 30 days (6 weeks).
- Sets of 300 referred to as Baseline versus Models.

**United States Department of Agriculture****Food Safety and Inspection Service**

##       History of Salmonella Data  (Cont’d.)

- Results for 8 establishments published in *Journal of Food Protection, Vol. 64, No. 6, 2001, Pages 826-832 Copyright International Association for Food Protection.*

|  | Number 
Samples | Percent Positive |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Baseline | 2,438 | 5.7 |
| Models | 2,587 | 5.9 |

_*Conclusion*_*:*  “Although the *Salmonella* prevalence rates for the two phases were not significantly different (*P* = 0.7003), there was a minor increase numerically in the models phase.  This may be a reflection of the more sensitive *Salmonella* detection method used in the models phase for two of the plants.”

**United States Department of Agriculture****Food Safety and Inspection Service**

##   History of Salmonella Data  (Cont’d.)

- 30-day windows before and after implementation raised questions about effect of seasonality on the results
- Following is a slide from the February 2006 public meeting in Atlanta on the *Salmonella* initiative
- Baseline versus Models Data was not adjusted for seasonality.  We know that in recent years other variables have “masked” any affect of seasonality.

**United States Department of Agriculture****Food Safety and Inspection Service**

## Slide 11

## FSIS Analysis(December 2002)

**   **

| 1998 through HIMP Implementation | 
8.0
 |
| --- | --- |
| HIMP Implementation
Date through December 1, 2002 | 
7.9 |
| 
Note:  20 establishments that included 19 of the current (1 has since been replaced) |  |

**United States Department of Agriculture****Food Safety and Inspection Service**

## Conclusion

- The Implementation of HIMP in young chicken establishments from 1999 to 2001 did not appear to have any short-term affect on *Salmonella* rates in the HIMP establishments.

**United States Department of Agriculture****Food Safety and Inspection Service**

## Comparing Data Between HIMP and Traditional Establishments(Different Establishments – Same Time Period)

**United States Department of Agriculture****Food Safety and Inspection Service**

## Review by National Alliance for Food Safety Technical Team(September – October 2002)

- Looked at verification data from 21 establishments operating under traditional system and 21 establishments under HIMP
- Data prior to September 30, 2002 (exact timeframe not found)
- Found 8.0% from traditional establishments not significantly different from 8.2% under the HIMP system

**United States Department of Agriculture****Food Safety and Inspection Service**

## Review by National Alliance for Food Safety Technical Team                   (September – October 2002)    (Cont’d.) 

- Review team stated that sets from 51 days (over approximately 3 months) should reduce potential effect of seasonable bias
_*Review conclusion*_:  “These data suggest that implementation of the HIMP system does not affect *Salmonella *recovery frequency.”

**United States Department of Agriculture****Food Safety and Inspection Service**

## Slides that will follow compare the Salmonella results from the HACCP verification sampling for HIMP versus Traditional for 2001 – 2007.

- Slides that will follow compare the *Salmonella* results from the HACCP verification sampling for HIMP versus Traditional for 2001 – 2007.
- Earlier presentations of similar data raised the following question:
- 	-	Do HIMP establishments have lower levels of 	*Salmonella* today because (as a group of 	volunteer establishments) they have always 	had the best control?

## Answer:  Hard to answer

**United States Department of Agriculture****Food Safety and Inspection Service**

| 
Year | Number of  Current HIMP/Plants Tested (Samples) | %
Positive for Future HIMP | %
All  Establishments |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1998
(“A”  Samples) | 
17  (804) | 
10.7 | 
10.8 |
| 1999
(All Samples) | 
19  (739) | 
5.1 | 
    9.8* |

- High Level of Variation by Plant

******* ****Large establishments (including all sizes  -  11.7%)**

## Percentage of Positive Regulatory Samples in Broilers for Salmonella in HIMP vs. Non-HIMP Plants

**Percentage of Positive Regulatory Samples in Broilers for *****Salmonella***** in HIMP vs. Non-HIMP Plants**

**Calendar Year**

**United States Department of Agriculture****Food Safety and Inspection Service**

## Percentage of Positive Regulatory Samples in Broilers for Salmonella in HIMP vs. Large Non-HIMP Plants

**Percentage of Positive Regulatory Samples in Broilers for *****Salmonella***** in HIMP vs. Large Non-HIMP Plants**

**Calendar Year**

**United States Department of Agriculture****Food Safety and Inspection Service**

## Percentage of Positive Regulatory Samples in Broilers for Salmonella in Large HIMP vs. Large Non-HIMP Plants

**Percentage of Positive Regulatory Samples in Broilers for *****Salmonella***** in Large HIMP vs. Large Non-HIMP Plants**

**Calendar Year**

**United States Department of Agriculture****Food Safety and Inspection Service **

## Conclusion 

- Over the years, the HIMP plants have continued to control *Salmonella* below the industry average.
- When overall industry rates were increasing during 2003-2005, the 20 HIMP plants actually showed a slight decrease.

**United States Department of Agriculture****Food Safety and Inspection Service**

## What Variables ExistTraditional Versus HIMP

- HIMP establishments have a far larger number of off-line inspection tasks.
- Establishments are assuming different responsibility for sorting carcasses in HIMP plants.
- Risk Assessment Division has integrated details from number and types of inspection tasks, results (NRs), and *Salmonella* results into the risk assessment covering _**ALL**_ young chicken establishments that will be published shortly.

**United States Department of Agriculture****Food Safety and Inspection Service**

## What Variables Exist		Traditional Versus HIMP     (Cont’d.)

- This Risk Assessment will incorporate specific NR findings, such as:
- 	 -	HIMP young chicken plants are receiving ~3 times as 	many HACCP (03J) procedures as their non-HIMP 	counterparts and achieving a higher level of compliance 	(with a statistically significant difference of at the 95% 	confidence level)
- 	-	HIMP young chicken plants are receiving nearly the same 	level of sanitation inspection as their non-HIMP 	counterparts and are achieving a slightly lower level of 	compliance (but no statistically significant difference at 	either the 90% or 95% confidence level)

**United States Department of Agriculture****Food Safety and Inspection Service**

## Summary of Conclusions

- The Implementation of HIMP in young chicken establishments from 1999 to 2001 did not appear to have an effect on *Salmonella* rates.
- Over the years, the HIMP plants have continued to control *Salmonella* below the industry average.
- When overall industry rates were increasing during 2003-2005, the 20 HIMP plants actually showed a slight decrease.
- Risk Assessment will add to our understanding of relationship between inspection procedures and pathogen levels across all young chicken slaughter establishments.

**United States Department of Agriculture****Food Safety and Inspection Service**