WORKPLACE 

SAFETY AND 

HEALTH

Better Outreach,

Collaboration, and 

Information Needed to 

Help Protect Workers 

at Meat and Poultry 

Plants

Report to Congressional Requesters

November 2017

GAO-18-12

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-18-12, a report to 

congressional requesters

November 2017

WORKPLACE SAFETY AND HEALTH

Better Outreach, Collaboration, and Information 

Needed to Help Protect Workers at Meat and Poultry 

Plants

Why GAO Did This Study

Meat and poultry slaughter and 

processing is one of the most 

hazardous industries in the United 

States. GAO was asked to review 

federal efforts to help ensure meat and 

poultry worker safety and health.

This report (1) describes the efforts 

OSHA has made to help ensure worker

safety and assesses any challenges to

these efforts, (2) examines how OSHA 

and FSIS have collaborated to ensure 

worker safety, and (3) assesses factors 

that may affect OSHA and FSIS efforts

to protect workers from chemical 

hazards. GAO analyzed OSHA 

inspection data from 2005—when GAO 

last reported on this issue—through 

2016. GAO also interviewed OSHA 

staff in headquarters and six field

offices; officials at four other federal 

agencies; worker advocates; and 

industry representatives. GAO visited

four plants and interviewed workers at 

six sites in five states selected based 

on factors such as meat or poultry 

production. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO is making seven 

recommendations, including that

OSHA encourage workers to disclose 

sensitive concerns and gather 

bathroom access information; OSHA 

and FSIS strengthen their MOU; and 

FSIS share worker safety information. 

OSHA had concerns about two of 

these recommendations and did not 

address one. FSIS expressed 

concerns but described planned 

actions to address the 

recommendations. GAO believes the 

recommendations should be fully 

implemented.

What GAO Found

The Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration 

(OSHA) increased its annual inspections of the meat and poultry industry from 

177 in 2005 to 244 in 2016. OSHA officials told GAO that this increase was 

related to several new enforcement programs focusing on the poultry industry, as 

well as new reporting requirements that prompt additional inspections. However, 

OSHA faces challenges identifying and addressing worker safety concerns 

because workers may be reluctant to contact OSHA for fear of employer 

retaliation, although employers are prohibited from doing so by federal law. If 

workers are afraid to share concerns, OSHA may not be able to identify or 

address conditions that endanger them. In particular, OSHA may not be aware of 

the scope of problems workers could face gaining timely access to bathrooms. 

When asked by GAO, workers in five selected states cited bathroom access as a 

concern and said they fear speaking up at work, where OSHA inspectors 

typically interview them. Taking additional steps to encourage workers to disclose 

sensitive concerns and gathering additional information to determine the scope of 

bathroom access issues could enable OSHA to better identify worker safety and 

health concerns.

OSHA’s and the Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection 

Service’s (FSIS) main vehicle for collaboration on worker safety is their 1994 

memorandum of understanding (MOU), but efforts to implement and evaluate the 

MOU have been limited. The MOU outlines plans for collaboration, such as 

referrals of plant hazards to OSHA by FSIS inspectors, training of FSIS staff, and 

information sharing. OSHA and FSIS have taken some steps to implement the 

policies and procedures outlined in the MOU. However, GAO found issues with 

the MOU’s implementation in these three areas, hampering achievement of the 

MOU’s goals. For example, according to FSIS officials, FSIS inspectors may be 

reluctant to make referrals to OSHA about hazards in plants because they fear it 

could trigger an OSHA inspection of FSIS. Further, the agencies have not 

evaluated the implementation of the MOU. Evaluating the implementation of the 

MOU and making any needed changes would help ensure the goals of the MOU

are met and further protect the safety and health of both plant workers and FSIS 

inspectors.

Gaps in federal efforts create challenges to protecting workers from certain 

chemical hazards. For example, depending on a chemical’s intended use, it may 

not undergo a federal review of the risks it poses to worker safety and health 

before it is used in a plant. FSIS collects information on how to protect its 

inspectors from new chemicals, but it does not have a process to share this 

information with OSHA or plants, among others, so that plant workers can be 

similarly protected. By FSIS establishing a process to regularly share the worker 

safety information it collects, the federal government will be better positioned to 

use existing resources to support the safety and health of plant workers and 

FSIS inspectors.

View GAO-18-12. View a video of GAO’s 

review of meat and poultry worker safety. For 

more information, contact Cindy Brown Barnes

at (202) 512-7215 or brownbarnesc@gao.gov.
Page i GAO-18-12 Workplace Safety and Health

Letter 1

Background 4

OSHA Increased Meat and Poultry Industry Inspections Since 

2005, but Faces Challenges Identifying Worker Concerns 13

OSHA and FSIS Have Not Fully Implemented MOU That Outlines 

Collaboration on Worker Safety and Health 34

Gaps in Federal Review, Safety Information, Measurement, and 

Research May Put Meat and Poultry Workers at Risk of Harm 

from Certain Chemicals 40

Conclusions 49

Recommendations for Executive Action 50

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 51

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 55

Appendix II Comments from the Department of Labor 61

Appendix III Comments from the Department of Agriculture 62

Appendix IV Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services 66

Appendix V GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 68

Related GAO Products 69

Figures

Figure 1: Meat and Poultry Plants in the United States, as of 

February 2017 5

Figure 2: Example of Activities along a Slaughter and Processing 

Line at a Poultry Plant 6

Figure 3: Steps in and Potential Outcomes of an Occupational 

Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Inspection 8

Contents
Page ii GAO-18-12 Workplace Safety and Health

Figure 4: OSHA Meat and Poultry Plant Inspections, 2005-2016 14

Figure 5: State Occupational Safety and Health Agency Meat and 

Poultry Plant Inspections, 2005-2016 15

Figure 6: Top Five Types of National and Regional Emphasis 

Programs Used by OSHA in Meat and Poultry Plant 

Inspections, 2016 16

Figure 7: OSHA Meat and Poultry Plant Inspections, by Inspection 

Type, 2005-2016 17

Figure 8: Top 10 Standards Cited by OSHA in Meat and Poultry 

Plant Inspections, 2005-2016 18

Figure 9: Initial and Final Median Penalties for Closed OSHA Meat 

and Poultry Plant Inspections with Violations, 2005-2016 21

Figure 10: Assessment of Worker Safety during the EPA, FDA, 

and FSIS Reviews of Certain Chemicals Before They Are 

Used in Meat and Poultry Plants 41
Page iii GAO-18-12 Workplace Safety and Health

Abbreviations

BLS Bureau of Labor Statistics

CPS Current Population Survey

DOL U.S. Department of Labor

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

FDA Food and Drug Administration

FFDCA Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act

FIFRA Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act

FSIS Food Safety and Inspection Service

IDLH Immediately dangerous to life or health

MOU Memorandum of understanding

MSD Musculoskeletal disorders

NAICS North American Industry Classification System

NIOSH National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

OMB Office of Management and Budget

OSH Occupational safety and health

OSH Act Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970

OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration

PEL Permissible exposure limit

SOII Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture

VPP Voluntary Protection Programs

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-18-12 Workplace Safety and Health

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

November 9, 2017

The Honorable Patty Murray

Ranking Member

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

United States Senate

The Honorable Robert C. Scott

Ranking Member

Committee on Education and the Workforce

House of Representatives

The Honorable Robert P. Casey, Jr.

United States Senate

Although injury and illness rates among workers at meat and poultry 

slaughter and processing plants declined from 2004 through 2015, 

according to U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) data, in 2015 the meat and 

poultry industry had the 8th-highest number of severe injury reports of all 

industries.1 In 2016, we reported that workers in meat and poultry 

slaughter and processing plants continue to face hazardous conditions, 

including sharp knives used in close quarters, slippery floors, and 

chemical exposures.2 In the 2016 report, we found that additional data 

are needed to address these hazardous conditions and recommended 

that DOL improve its data on musculoskeletal disorders and sanitation 

workers in the meat and poultry industry.

DOL’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is the 

federal agency charged with assuring safe and healthful working 

 1 The severe injury report data do not include states that operate their own occupational 

safety and health programs. For the purposes of this engagement, “meat” generally refers 

to hog and cattle, and “poultry” generally refers to chicken and turkey. We use the term 

“meat and poultry industry” to refer to companies in the animal slaughtering and 

processing industry, North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 31161. 

The animal slaughtering and processing industry code includes animal (except poultry) 

slaughtering (NAICS code 311611); meat processed from carcasses (NAICS code 

311612); rendering and meat byproduct processing (NAICS code 311613); and poultry 

processing (NAICS code 311615), which covers poultry slaughter and processing.

2 GAO, Workplace Safety and Health: Additional Data Needed to Address Continued 

Hazards in the Meat and Poultry Industry, GAO-16-337, (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 25, 

2016).

Letter
Page 2 GAO-18-12 Workplace Safety and Health

conditions for the nation’s workers.3 Some worker advocacy groups have 

expressed concern that OSHA has not effectively addressed hazards in 

the meat and poultry industry. Meat and poultry industry representatives 

have noted that OSHA could do more to support the industry’s worker 

safety efforts. Food safety inspection personnel from the U.S. Department 

of Agriculture’s (USDA) Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), which 

is responsible for ensuring the food safety of meat and poultry products, 

are present in most plants and are also potentially vulnerable to 

workplace hazards. Some FSIS officials and worker safety advocates 

have expressed concern about the increasing use of antimicrobials such 

as peracetic acid, which are used to kill microorganisms or stop their 

growth.

You asked us to review issues related to worker safety in meat and 

poultry slaughter and processing plants. This report (1) describes the 

efforts OSHA has made to help ensure meat and poultry workers’ safety 

and health, and assesses what, if any, challenges OSHA faces in carrying 

out these efforts; (2) examines how OSHA and FSIS have collaborated to 

help ensure meat and poultry worker safety and health; and (3) assesses 

any factors that may affect OSHA and FSIS efforts to protect meat and 

poultry workers from chemical hazards.

To address all three objectives, we reviewed relevant federal laws, 

regulations, and documentation, and we interviewed officials from OSHA 

and FSIS. We also interviewed and reviewed information from additional 

stakeholders, including experts in issues related to worker safety, as well 

as representatives of worker advocacy groups. We visited four states—

Arkansas, Georgia, Minnesota, and Texas—selected based on factors 

such as high production of meat or poultry and presence of an OSHA 

regional or area office.4 As appropriate for each state visit, we met with 

either local OSHA or state occupational safety and health (OSH) agency 

officials, as well as FSIS officials (including inspectors), industry 

representatives, experts in issues related to worker safety, and 

representatives of worker advocacy groups. We also visited four meat 

 3 In this report, we focus on two categories of workers: private sector meat and poultry 

plant workers, and federal Food Safety and Inspection Service inspectors who are present 

in the plants. 

4 In Minnesota, the state is responsible for oversight of safety and health for private sector 

workers under a state plan approved by OSHA. In Arkansas, Georgia, and Texas, OSHA 

is responsible for overseeing occupational safety and health for these workers.
Page 3 GAO-18-12 Workplace Safety and Health

and poultry plants.5 We also conducted group and individual interviews 

with meat and poultry workers in six locations in five states: Arkansas, 

Delaware, Nebraska, North Carolina, and Virginia.6 We selected sites 

based on a variety of factors, such as states with a relatively high level of 

meat or poultry slaughter, and type of plant (meat or poultry). The 

information gathered from these interviews is not generalizable to all 

plants or all meat or poultry workers.

To examine the efforts OSHA has made to help ensure meat and poultry 

workers’ safety and health, we also analyzed enforcement data from two 

OSHA databases: the OSHA Information System and OSHA Legacy 

Data. To assess the reliability of the data, we reviewed relevant agency 

documentation, conducted electronic data testing, and interviewed 

agency officials knowledgeable about these data. Based on these 

reviews, we determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for our 

purposes. We also interviewed representatives of the meat and poultry 

industry.

To examine how OSHA and FSIS have collaborated to help ensure meat 

and poultry worker safety and health, we also analyzed information on 

OSHA inspections of FSIS in meat and poultry plants, using the OSHA 

Information System and OSHA Legacy Data. In assessing agency efforts, 

we reviewed the 1994 memorandum of understanding (MOU) agreed to 

by OSHA and FSIS, and prior GAO reports that highlight interagency 

collaboration.7

To assess any factors that may affect OSHA and FSIS efforts to protect 

meat and poultry workers from chemical hazards, we reviewed 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Food and Drug Administration 

(FDA), and FSIS processes for reviewing new chemicals, including any 

efforts to coordinate or share information; and reports dealing with 

chemical hazards. We also reviewed documentation and interviewed 

 5 We visited two plants in Minnesota, and one plant each in Arkansas and Georgia.

6 In North Carolina and Virginia, the state is responsible for oversight of safety and health 

for private sector workers under a state plan approved by OSHA. In Arkansas, Delaware, 

and Nebraska, OSHA is responsible for overseeing safety and health for these workers.

7 Memorandum of Understanding between DOL’s OSHA and USDA’s FSIS, February 4, 

1994; GAO, Managing for Results: Key Considerations for Implementing Interagency 

Collaborative Mechanisms, GAO-12-1022 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 27, 2012); and GAO,

Results-Oriented Government: Practices That Can Help Enhance and Sustain 

Collaboration among Federal Agencies, GAO-06-15 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 21, 2005).
Page 4 GAO-18-12 Workplace Safety and Health

officials from OSHA’s Salt Lake Technical Center regarding validated 

sampling and analytical methods for measuring chemicals used in plants. 

Further, we reviewed the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health’s (NIOSH) health 

hazard evaluations to understand the extent of concerns related to 

chemicals and we reviewed NIOSH’s research agenda and goals for 

studying chemicals and their potential impact on the safety and health of 

workers. We also interviewed representatives of the meat and poultry 

industry. See appendix I for more information on our objectives, scope, 

and methodology.

We conducted this performance audit from May 2016 to November 2017 

in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives.

An estimated 481,000 workers were employed in the animal slaughtering 

and processing industry in 2016, according to the Current Population 

Survey, which is jointly sponsored by DOL’s Bureau of Labor Statistics 

and the U.S. Census Bureau.8 There were 5,282 meat and poultry plants 

in the United States, of which 4,133 conducted processing only, 14 

conducted slaughter only, and 1,135 conducted both slaughter and 

processing, as of February 2017, according to FSIS (see fig. 1). More 

than 30 million beef cattle, 117 million hogs, 243 million turkeys, and 8 

billion chickens were slaughtered in the United States in 2016, according 

to USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics Service data. As of June 2017, 

almost 7,500 FSIS inspectors worked in meat and poultry plants, 

according to FSIS. These inspectors are generally exposed to the same 

types of hazards as plant employees.

 8 This estimate is an annual average and has a 95 percent confidence interval which 

ranges from 432,000 to 530,000. 

Background
Page 5 GAO-18-12 Workplace Safety and Health

Figure 1: Meat and Poultry Plants in the United States, as of February 2017

Note: USDA defines large plants as those that have 500 or more employees.

Meat and poultry plants are generally designed for an orderly flow from 

point of entry of the living animal to the finished food product (see fig. 2). 

Typically, the animal is brought to the meat or poultry plant and taken to 

the kill floor area, where the animal is rendered unconscious and 

slaughter occurs. Workers and machines behead and eviscerate the 

animal, among other things, after which it is chilled for several hours. 

FSIS inspectors ensure that the carcass meets federal food safety 

standards. Workers and machines then process the carcass and may 

break it into small portions that can be transported directly to 

supermarkets. Slaughter and processing of meat and poultry require 

workers to perform a high number of repetitive motions. Although plants 
Page 6 GAO-18-12 Workplace Safety and Health

have increased automation, much of the work is still done by hand using 

saws, knives, and other tools.

Figure 2: Example of Activities along a Slaughter and Processing Line at a Poultry Plant

OSHA helps ensure safe and healthful working conditions for workers in 

the meat and poultry industry and other industries, in part by setting and 

enforcing workplace safety and health standards. To carry out its 

responsibilities under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, as 

amended (OSH Act), OSHA establishes workplace safety and health 

standards; conducts inspections; investigates complaints from workers 

and reports of fatalities and severe injuries at worksites; and offers 

cooperative programs, training, and outreach, among other efforts.9

OSHA is responsible for enforcing private sector employers’ compliance 

with these standards in about half the states, while the remaining states 

have assumed that responsibility under a state plan approved by OSHA.10

These “state-plan states” adopt and enforce their own standards (which 

must be “at least as effective” in providing safe and healthful employment 

 9 See generally 29 U.S.C. § 651 et seq.

10 The states where OSHA is responsible for enforcing private sector compliance include: 

Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, 

Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, 

New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, 

Rhode Island, South Dakota, Texas, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. OSHA is also 

responsible for private sector enforcement in the District of Columbia and the following 

territories: American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the U.S. Virgin 

Islands.

Federal Roles Related to 

Meat and Poultry Worker 

Safety and Health
Page 7 GAO-18-12 Workplace Safety and Health

conditions as the federal standards).11 With respect to federal employers, 

federal agencies are generally required to establish and maintain a 

comprehensive and effective occupational safety and health program that 

is consistent with OSHA’s standards.12 OSHA is generally responsible for 

inspecting federal employers in all states, including state-plan states.

As part of its enforcement, OSHA conducts on-site inspections of federal 

and non-federal employers, collecting evidence through methods such as 

observation, document review, and interviews.13 Steps in an inspection 

may include an opening conference, a walkaround by inspectors, worker 

interviews, and a closing conference. Based on evidence developed 

during the inspection, OSHA evaluates whether the employer has violated 

any safety or health standards. The inspection may result in issuance of a 

citation if appropriate, and possible appeals by the employer (see fig. 3).

 11 29 U.S.C. § 667, 29 C.F.R. pt. 1952. These states include Alaska, Arizona, California, 

Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, 

North Carolina, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, 

Washington, and Wyoming. One territory, Puerto Rico, is responsible for private sector 

enforcement. In 2016, state-plan states accounted for about 26 percent of chicken 

production, 59 percent of turkey production, 15 percent of cattle production, and 57 

percent of hog production, according to USDA slaughter summary data. (Some state 

totals were withheld to avoid disclosing data on individual operations.) 

12 29 U.S.C. § 668. Executive Order 12196, issued on February 26, 1980, 45 Fed. Reg. 

12,769 (Feb. 27, 1980), prescribes executive branch agencies’ and OSHA’s 

responsibilities. 29 C.F.R. Part 1960 contains OSHA’s regulations for federal agency 

programs.

13 See generally 29 U.S.C. §§ 657-659 and 29 C.F.R. pt. 1903.
Page 8 GAO-18-12 Workplace Safety and Health

Figure 3: Steps in and Potential Outcomes of an Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Inspection

Note: OSH Act = Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970

a

Employee representatives may accompany inspectors.

Although OSHA does not fine federal agencies, it does monitor these 

agencies and conducts federal workplace inspections in response to 

workers’ reports of hazards.14 Since workers at meat and poultry plants 

include both plant employees and FSIS employees, OSHA officials may 

inspect FSIS, the plant employer, or both when it receives a complaint or 

referral about hazards at the plant.15

OSHA conducts both programmed and unprogrammed inspections. 

Programmed inspections are planned based on injury incidence rates, 

 14 If OSHA determines, as a result of an inspection, that a federal employer has 

committed a violation, OSHA issues a Notice of Unsafe or Unhealthful Working Conditions 

and does not assess a penalty.

15 For plants located in a state-plan state, OSHA has jurisdiction over the federal 

employees (FSIS inspectors), while the state agency is responsible for the private sector 

employees (plant workers). According to OSHA officials, if the agency receives a 

complaint related to a plant located in a state-plan state, OSHA will make a referral to the 

state OSH agency.
Page 9 GAO-18-12 Workplace Safety and Health

previous citation history, or random selection. For example, OSHA’s 

emphasis programs focus inspections on a particular safety or health 

hazard or a specific industry. Unprogrammed inspections are conducted 

in response to imminent danger, fatalities, worker complaints, referrals, 

and catastrophic events (such as hospitalizations).

FSIS inspects each meat and poultry carcass at the majority of meat and 

poultry plants throughout the United States. The Federal Meat Inspection 

Act and the Poultry Products Inspection Act give FSIS responsibility for 

ensuring the safety and wholesomeness of meat and poultry that enter 

interstate commerce.16 As a federal employer, FSIS is also required to 

establish and maintain a comprehensive and effective occupational safety 

and health program for its employees that is consistent with OSHA’s 

standards. However, OSHA (or a state agency in a state-plan state) is 

responsible for overseeing the safety and health of non-federal plant 

workers. FSIS’s Environmental, Safety, and Health Group administers 

FSIS’s occupational safety and health program and investigates safety 

concerns of FSIS inspectors.17

Within the Department of Health and Human Services, NIOSH conducts 

occupational safety and health research and workplace evaluations, and 

makes recommendations to prevent worker injuries and illnesses.18 In 

2016, we reviewed NIOSH evaluations on hazards in the meat and 

poultry industry such as those associated with musculoskeletal disorders 

(MSD), chemical exposure, and pathogens and animals, and 

recommended in our report that NIOSH conduct a study of the injuries 

and illnesses experienced by meat and poultry sanitation workers.19

In 1994, after a workplace fire in 1991 that killed 25 poultry workers in 

North Carolina, OSHA and FSIS signed an MOU on how the two 

agencies could work together on worker safety and health at meat and 

 16 See 21 U.S.C. § 601 et seq. and 21 U.S.C. § 451 et seq.

17 According to FSIS officials, the agency organizes circuit safety committees, made up of 

FSIS inspectors and supervisors, in each of its 200 circuits. Each circuit safety committee 

meets twice a year to provide feedback to two plants per year on potential hazards at the 

plant and ways to address them. The findings are referred to local FSIS management,

who work with plant managers to correct the problems.

18 See generally 29 U.S.C. §§ 669-671.

19 GAO-16-337. NIOSH concurred with our recommendation.
Page 10 GAO-18-12 Workplace Safety and Health

poultry plants.20 The MOU outlines the policies and procedures the 

agencies agreed to use, including a process for FSIS to refer serious 

hazards to OSHA, plans for OSHA and FSIS to develop and implement 

training on hazard recognition for FSIS staff, an agreement to coordinate 

on the development of standards and share information on common 

concerns, and plans for evaluating implementation of the MOU.

Meat and poultry plants use chemicals such as antimicrobials to reduce 

potential contamination on food and machinery during processing. 

Antimicrobials may be sprayed directly on meat or poultry, or may be 

used to clean machinery. FSIS officials and worker advocates have 

raised worker safety concerns about peracetic acid, an antimicrobial 

chemical that is being used by the meat and poultry industry for both of 

these purposes. Peracetic acid has recently become the antimicrobial of 

choice, according to an FSIS official and a representative from an 

advocacy group. An FSIS official told us that this was because it is cheap 

and effective at reducing potential contamination on food. In addition, it is 

safe to use on food because it generally degrades before consumption, 

according to FDA officials.

FDA, FSIS, EPA, and OSHA all play a role in regulating the use of 

chemicals at meat and poultry plants. Under the Federal Food, Drug, and 

Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), as amended, FDA approves food additives, 

which include antimicrobial food additives, to ensure the food to which 

they are applied is safe for human consumption.21 Antimicrobial food 

additives such as peracetic acid are applied to meat or poultry to reduce 

the incidence of human illness from food-borne pathogens, such as 

Salmonella and Campylobacter.

FSIS reviews new ingredients and new technology, including new 

substances or new applications of substances, to determine whether they 

 20 1994 Memorandum of Understanding between DOL’s Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration and the Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service.

21 See 21 U.S.C. § 301 et seq. In general, FDA’s approval process seeks to determine the 

safety of substances used in food, including food additives, and may prescribe safe 

conditions of use. A food additive is generally defined to include any substance the 

intended use of which results or may reasonably be expected to result, directly or 

indirectly, in its becoming a component or otherwise affecting the characteristics of any 

food (including any substance intended for use in producing, manufacturing, packing, 

processing, preparing, treating, packaging, transporting, or holding food).

Federal Role in Chemical 

Safety at Meat and Poultry 

Plants
Page 11 GAO-18-12 Workplace Safety and Health

are safe and suitable for use in meat and poultry products.22 FSIS’s 

review includes an assessment of whether the substance could affect 

food safety, FSIS regulations, inspection procedures, or the safety or 

health of FSIS inspection personnel.23 FSIS coordinates its reviews of 

new ingredients with FDA’s reviews, in accordance with an MOU between 

FSIS and FDA, most recently amended in January 2000.

24

EPA is responsible for regulating chemicals that meet the definition of a 

pesticide under the FFDCA and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and 

Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), as amended.25 Peracetic acid meets the 

definition of an “antimicrobial pesticide” regulated by EPA when it is used 

to disinfect, sanitize, or inhibit the growth of microorganisms on surfaces 

and machinery used in meat and poultry plants.

OSHA may regulate the use of chemicals as part of its responsibility for 

overseeing workplace safety and health. For example, the hazard 

communication standard requires chemical manufacturers and importers 

to develop Safety Data Sheets that describe the chemicals’ hazards and 

include information on safe handling, among other things. The standard 

also requires employers to ensure their employees have access to these 

 22 FSIS defines “new technology” to mean new, or new applications of, equipment, 

substances, methods, processes, or procedures affecting the slaughter of livestock and 

poultry or processing of meat, poultry, or egg products.

23 FSIS Procedures for Notification of New Technology, 68 Fed. Reg. 6873 (Feb. 11, 

2003). In reviewing new ingredients and technologies (including new or new applications 

of equipment, substances, methods, processes, or procedures affecting slaughter or 

processing), FSIS assesses their effectiveness in performing their intended purpose of 

use, and further reviews to ensure that the conditions of use do not result in an 

adulterated product, or one that misleads the consumer. FSIS maintains FSIS Directive 

7120.1, an up-to-date list of substances that may be used in the production of meat, 

poultry, and egg products.

24 A copy of the MOU is available at 

https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/regulations/directives/7000-series/mou-fsi

s-fda/

25 See 7 U.S.C. § 136 et seq. Before they may be sold, pesticides are generally required 

to be registered by EPA, which includes a review of risks to human health and the 

environment. Pesticides generally include any substance or mixture of substances 

intended for preventing, destroying, repelling, or mitigating any pest.
Page 12 GAO-18-12 Workplace Safety and Health

sheets and to provide training on handling these chemicals 

appropriately.26

Each agency has a different review or oversight responsibility. The same 

chemical may undergo different types of review, depending on its 

intended use in meat or poultry plants.27 For example, as part of EPA’s 

pesticide registration process, EPA conducts risk assessments to 

estimate the nature and probability of harmful effects on the environment 

and human health, which may include people who may be exposed to the 

pesticides through their work. FDA’s review of antimicrobial food 

additives, as mentioned above, focuses on safety to consumers, and 

does not include a worker safety component.

 26 29 C.F.R. § 1910.1200. OSHA also has a process safety management standard, which 

establishes requirements for the management of hazards associated with processes 

involving highly hazardous chemicals. 29 C.F.R § 1910.119. In addition, for some 

chemicals, OSHA has set a permissible exposure limit (PEL), which establishes the 

maximum level of the chemical that workers may be exposed to in a workplace. In 2014, 

OSHA issued a Request for Information, seeking stakeholder input about more effective 

and efficient approaches that address challenges found with the current regulatory 

approach, including considering issues related to updating PELs, as well as examining 

other strategies that could be implemented to address workplace conditions where 

workers are exposed to chemicals. Chemical Management and Permissible Exposure 

Limits (PEL), 79 Fed. Reg. 61,384 (Oct. 10, 2014). In the Unified Regulatory Agenda 

published in July 2017, OSHA stated that it was withdrawing this entry from the agenda 

while it considers appropriate strategies to address management of chemical hazards in 

the workplace.

27 In 2014, we found that a number of federal agencies undertake toxicity assessments of 

chemicals used in the workplace and elsewhere, and that the activities of the five 

agencies we examined were fragmented and overlapping, but not duplicative. We 

identified cross-cutting coordination challenges and recommended that the National 

Science and Technology Council support agencies’ efforts to address these challenges. 

This recommendation was implemented in 2015. GAO, Chemical Assessments: Agencies 

Coordinate Activities, but Additional Action Could Enhance Efforts, GAO-14-763 

(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 29, 2014).
Page 13 GAO-18-12 Workplace Safety and Health

OSHA’s inspections of the meat and poultry slaughter and processing 

industry increased from 177 in 2005 to 244 in 2016, due primarily to an 

increase in poultry inspections (see fig. 4). Officials explained that the 

increase in meat inspections from 2009 to 2010 and poultry inspections 

from 2008 to 2012 were associated with increases in complaints during 

those time periods. OSHA officials said that all inspections decreased in 

2013 partly due to the federal government shutdown that year. They 

added that poultry inspections increased from 2013 to 2016, which 

officials attributed to the introduction of new severe injury reporting 

requirements, as well as several emphasis programs focusing inspections 

on the poultry industry.28 OSHA consistently conducted more meat than 

 28 As of January 2015, employers covered by federal OSHA are required to report all 

work-related in-patient hospitalizations, amputations, and losses of an eye directly to 

OSHA within 24 hours. Occupational Injury and Illness Recording and Reporting 

Requirements—NAICS Update and Reporting Revisions, 79 Fed. Reg. 56,130 (Sept. 18, 

2014) (revising 29 C.F.R. § 1904.39). The previous rule required employers to report 

hospitalizations of three or more employees directly to OSHA within 8 hours. Under the 

previous rule, amputations and losses of an eye were required to be recorded, but were 

not required to be reported to OSHA directly. The revised rule left in place the existing 

requirement that employers report all work-related fatalities to OSHA within 8 hours. 

OSHA conducts emphasis programs to focus outreach efforts and inspections on specific 

industries, hazards, or other workplace characteristics.

OSHA Increased 

Meat and Poultry 

Industry Inspections 

Since 2005, but 

Faces Challenges 

Identifying Worker 

Concerns

OSHA Increased Its 

Annual Inspections Since 

2005 and Provided 

Compliance Assistance

Inspections
Page 14 GAO-18-12 Workplace Safety and Health

poultry inspections, due to the greater number of meat plants than 

poultry, according to OSHA officials.29

Figure 4: OSHA Meat and Poultry Plant Inspections, 2005-2016

In states with state OSH plans, inspection numbers increased from 183 

inspections in 2005 to 212 in 2016, due primarily to an increase in meat 

inspections (see fig. 5). State-plan states conducted almost three times 

as many total meat inspections as poultry from 2005 through 2016. The 

number of state poultry inspections has remained steady over the time 

period, in contrast with the increase seen in federal OSHA poultry 

inspections. OSHA officials said they did not believe there is an 

overarching explanation for the trend in state-plan state inspections, 

because each state plan is independently run, and added that publicly 

available data show the increase in meat inspections from 2008 to 2010 

could have been driven by a large increase in programmed inspections 

conducted by state-plan states during that time, along with increases in 

several types of unprogrammed inspections in 2010.

 29 In 2016, we reported that the meat slaughter and processing industry reports 

consistently higher rates of injury and illness than the poultry industry. GAO-16-337.
Page 15 GAO-18-12 Workplace Safety and Health

Figure 5: State Occupational Safety and Health Agency Meat and Poultry Plant 

Inspections, 2005-2016

Note: We use the term “State Occupational Safety and Health Agency” to describe the state agencies 

that oversee private sector worker safety and health in state-plan states, which have assumed this 

responsibility under a state plan approved by OSHA.

From 2005-2016, OSHA applied 76 emphasis programs—which focus on 

specific industries, hazards, or other workplace characteristics—in meat 

and poultry plant inspections, including emphasis programs focused on 

hazards related to amputations, industrial trucks and other vehicles, 

sanitation workers at food and beverage manufacturing plants, and highly 

hazardous chemicals.30 In 2015 and 2016, OSHA initiated four regional 

and local emphasis programs specifically targeting worker safety 

 30 OSHA may incorporate multiple emphasis programs into a single inspection, when 

applicable.
Page 16 GAO-18-12 Workplace Safety and Health

in the meat and poultry industry.31 These programs instruct inspectors to 

investigate potential hazards such as chemical exposure, noise, and 

ergonomic hazards. Two of the four programs also focus on issues such 

as bathroom access, temperature of the plant, and employer recording of 

injuries and illnesses, to check for recordkeeping violations.32 OSHA 

inspections incorporated three of these emphasis programs in 2016; the 

remaining program did not have inspections that year.33 OSHA’s most 

frequently used national and regional emphasis programs in meat and 

poultry plants in 2016 are shown below (see fig. 6).

Figure 6: Top Five Types of National and Regional Emphasis Programs Used by 

OSHA in Meat and Poultry Plant Inspections, 2016

Note: OSHA’s emphasis programs focus inspections on specific industries, hazards, or other 

workplace characteristics. More than one emphasis program can apply to a single inspection.

 31 These consist of three regional and local emphasis programs focused on the poultry 

processing industry in Regions IV (Atlanta, GA), VI (Dallas, TX), VII (Kansas City, MO), 

and a local emphasis program focused on the meat processing industry in Omaha, NE. In 

addition, three state-plan states (Indiana, Iowa, and Minnesota) and Puerto Rico have 

state emphasis programs in the meat and poultry industry.

32 OSHA regulations require covered employers to prepare and maintain records of 

certain work-related fatalities, injuries, and illnesses sustained by their workers. See 29 

C.F.R. pt. 1904.

33 According to OSHA officials, the poultry emphasis program in Region VII (Kansas City) 

did not have any inspections in 2016 because OSHA determined that more outreach was 

required prior to conducting inspections. 

Example of a Programmed Inspection

The Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration (OSHA) inspected a meat plant 

as part of its Process Safety Management 

(PSM) Covered Chemical Facilities National 

Emphasis Program in 2013. The PSM 

standard establishes procedures employers 

must follow to address hazards associated 

with using large amounts of hazardous 

chemicals. As part of the emphasis program, 

OSHA randomly selected workplaces from a 

list of establishments likely to have highly 

hazardous chemicals in quantities covered by 

the standard. OSHA cited the plant for 25 

violations, including

• failing to inspect and test equipment

• failing to investigate an ammonia leak, 

and to investigate ammonia vapor 

releases from pipes and valves within 48 

hours

• developing a process hazard analysis 

without input from at least one employee 

having experience and knowledge 

specific to the process being evaluated, 

and failing to ensure the findings of the 

process hazard analysis were resolved in 

a timely manner and actions documented

• failing to provide workers with an 

appropriate respirator for chlorine and 

sodium hydroxide releases

• failing to provide workers adequate 

training and information regarding the 

hazards of ammonia

• lack of control procedures to protect 

workers from electrical hazards and being 

struck or caught by machine parts

• exposing employees to trip hazards and 

potential electrical hazards by obstructing 

passageways

• failing to conduct fire, chemical release, 

and extreme weather evacuation drills.

Source: OSHA. | GAO-18-12
Page 17 GAO-18-12 Workplace Safety and Health

OSHA initiates unprogrammed inspections in response to required 

employer reporting of fatalities or severe injuries and complaints or 

referrals from sources such as employees, union representatives, media 

reports, or others. Unprogrammed inspections may include issues 

covered by a relevant emphasis program as well. OSHA’s unprogrammed 

inspections of the meat and poultry industry recently increased sharply—

from 95 in 2014 to 210 in 2015—mainly due to the new severe injury 

reporting requirements (see fig. 7).34 According to agency officials, OSHA 

decreased the number of planned programmed inspections in order to 

reallocate resources as the number of unprogrammed inspections 

increased.

Figure 7: OSHA Meat and Poultry Plant Inspections, by Inspection Type, 2005-2016

Note: Programmed inspections are planned based on factors such as injury incidence rates or 

previous citation history. Unprogrammed inspections are conducted in response to imminent danger, 

fatalities, and catastrophic events such as hospitalizations, worker complaints, and referrals. Changes 

to OSHA’s regulations, effective January 2015, require employers to report additional types of severe 

injuries to OSHA within 24 hours.

 34 79 Fed. Reg. 56,130 (Sept. 18, 2014). 

35 29 C.F.R. § 1910.147.

Example of Unprogrammed Inspections

Following the amputation of a worker’s finger 

at a poultry plant in 2016, the Occupational 

Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) 

conducted inspections and cited the company 

for multiple violations, including 

• failing to ensure proper safety guards on 

moving machine parts, exposing workers 

to risk of getting caught in the machine

• failing to separate oxygen and fuel-gas 

cylinders, exposing workers to a fire 

hazard

• failing to provide personal protective 

equipment and not training employees on 

hazards associated with peracetic acid, 

which can cause burns and respiratory 

illness if not handled safely

• lack of proper drainage, putting workers at 

risk to slip and fall

• recessed drains, putting workers at risk to 

trip and fall.

OSHA also issued a hazard alert letter 

describing workers experiencing respiratory 

problems and recommending the plant 

voluntarily take steps to reduce their exposure 

to peracetic acid.

Note: As of September 15, 2017, one of these 

cases was still open pending abatement of the 

violations, according to OSHA officials. After an 

inspection, OSHA may send an employer a hazard 

alert letter if the criteria for issuing a citation are not 

met, yet OSHA determines that the hazard warrants 

some type of notification.

Source: OSHA. | GAO-18-12
Page 18 GAO-18-12 Workplace Safety and Health

If OSHA determines that a meat or poultry plant has violated a workplace 

safety or health standard, it may cite the plant, specifying which standard 

or standards were violated (see fig. 8). The most frequently cited standard 

for employers in the meat and poultry industry, the control of hazardous 

energy (lockout/tagout), relates to safely shutting down a machine, and 

ensuring it remains shut off, while the machine is being serviced.35 OSHA 

inspects safety controls related to this standard as part of its emphasis 

program for amputations.36

Figure 8: Top 10 Standards Cited by OSHA in Meat and Poultry Plant Inspections, 2005-2016

Note: This figure may include citations that have been contested by the employer and are still 

pending. The control of hazardous energy (lockout/tagout) standard generally includes requirements 

related to safely shutting down a machine, and ensuring it remains shut off, while the machine is 

being serviced. The process safety management of highly hazardous chemicals standard generally 

includes requirements for preventing or minimizing the consequences of catastrophic releases of 

toxic, reactive, flammable, or explosive chemicals. The hazard communication standard generally 

requires employers with hazardous chemicals in their workplaces to provide certain safety information 

about the chemicals and train employees to use the chemicals safely. Each standard may contain 

multiple requirements, and this figure does not reflect which specific requirements were violated for 

each standard.

 35 29 C.F.R. § 1910.147.

36 We reported previously on meat and poultry workers’ risk of experiencing amputations 

or other traumatic injuries while working with moving machine parts. GAO-16-337.
Page 19 GAO-18-12 Workplace Safety and Health

In cases where an applicable standard does not exist, OSHA may use the 

general duty clause of the OSH Act to cite a plant for exposing its 

employees to a hazard.37 For example, OSHA does not have a specific 

standard related to ergonomic hazards, which may cause MSDs.38

Workers we interviewed in all five states said they frequently experience 

pain related to postures or movements, and medical experts we 

interviewed said that meat and poultry workers experience high rates of 

MSDs.39 Citing the general duty clause can be challenging and resource 

intensive due to the high burden of proof necessary to establish each 

element of the violation, such as the difficulty in showing that work 

hazards caused an injury, according to OSHA officials.

In 2016, OSHA proposed initial meat and poultry plant penalties with a 

median of $7,000 and assessed final penalties with a median of $4,900 

 37 The general duty clause requires employers to provide a workplace free from 

recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm 

to their employees. See 29 U.S.C. § 654(a)(1). OSHA cited meat and poultry plants for 

violating the general duty clause 144 times from 2005-2016.

38 OSHA issued a final rule establishing an ergonomics standard in November 2000. 

Ergonomics Program, 65 Fed. Reg. 68,262 (Nov. 14, 2000). However, a joint resolution of 

disapproval was enacted on March 20, 2001, which invalidated the rule. Pub. L. No. 107-

5, 115 Stat. 7 (2001). Under the Congressional Review Act, if a joint resolution of 

disapproval of a rule is enacted in accordance with certain procedures set forth in the Act, 

the rule shall not take effect (or shall not continue in effect). Further, the rule may not be 

reissued in substantially the same form, and a new rule that is substantially the same as 

such a rule may not be issued, unless specifically authorized by subsequent law. See 5 

U.S.C. §§ 801-802.

39 We previously reported on the difficulty of collecting accurate data on the prevalence of 

MSDs among workers in the meat and poultry industry and recommended that OSHA 

gather more complete data on MSDs. GAO-16-337. In addition, a 2014 NIOSH health 

hazard evaluation of workers at one poultry plant found that over two-thirds of workers 

interviewed reported experiencing pain, burning, numbness, or tingling in their hands over 

the preceding 12 months. Kristin Musolin, et. al., Evaluation of Musculoskeletal Disorders 

and Traumatic Injuries Among Employees at a Poultry Processing Plant (NIOSH, CDC; 

March 2014).
Page 20 GAO-18-12 Workplace Safety and Health

for inspections where violations were found (see fig. 9).40 Proposed 

penalties may be reduced after employers contest them before an 

administrative law judge, or as a result of negotiating penalty amounts 

with OSHA through an informal settlement process.41 A representative of 

one worker advocacy group we interviewed said lowering penalties 

weakens OSHA’s deterrence capabilities. OSHA officials and one worker 

advocate said that allowing companies to negotiate lower penalties can 

benefit workers because it may result in companies agreeing to create 

safety programs or finding other solutions that improve worker safety.42

One OSHA official said that citations may affect a company’s workers’

compensation insurance rate, magnifying the financial impact of the 

 40 Among other penalty provisions, the OSH Act provides that employers cited for willful or 

repeated violations may be assessed a penalty of not more than $70,000 for each 

violation, but not less than $5,000 for each willful violation. Employers cited for a serious 

violation shall be assessed a penalty of up to $7,000 for each violation, and employers 

cited for any violation not determined to be serious may be assessed a penalty of up to 

$7,000 for each violation. See 29 U.S.C. § 666. The Federal Civil Penalties Inflation 

Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 required agencies to annually adjust their civil 

penalties for inflation. Pub. L. No. 114-74, § 701, 129 Stat. 584, 599-601. OSHA’s 

adjusted maximum penalties as of January 13, 2017 are $126,749 per violation for willful 

or repeated violations, and $12,675 per violation for serious and other-than-serious 

violations. See 29 C.F.R. § 1903.15. OSHA does not assign financial penalties to 

violations incurred by federal agencies.

41 The OSH Act requires OSHA to provide the employer notice of the proposed penalty to 

be assessed within a reasonable time, and permits the employer 15 working days to notify 

OSHA of its intent to contest the citation, the proposed penalty, or the abatement period. 

Contested citations are heard before the Occupational Safety and Health Review 

Commission, which is an independent federal agency separate from OSHA. See 29 

U.S.C. § 659. Under OSHA’s regulations, employers or employees may request an 

informal conference to discuss any issues raised by an inspection, citation, notice of 

proposed penalty, or notice of intention to contest. See 29 C.F.R. § 1903.20. OSHA’s 

Field Operations Manual sets forth OSHA’s process for entering into informal settlement 

agreements before a citation is contested before the Review Commission. See OSHA, 

Field Operations Manual, Directive number CPL 02-00-160, effective date: August 2, 

2016.

42 In 2010 the OSHA Inspector General found that OSHA had not effectively evaluated the 

impact of granting penalty reductions as an incentive for employers to improve workplace 

safety and health, and it recommended OSHA make a variety of improvements, including 

conducting such an evaluation. OSHA responded that undertaking this study would be too 

resource-intensive, given the complexity of the issue and the difficulty in establishing a 

causal relationship between penalty amounts and illness and injury rates. U.S. 

Department of Labor Office of Inspector General – Office of Audit, OSHA Needs to 

Evaluate the Impact and Use of Hundreds of Millions of Dollars in Penalty Reductions as 

Incentives for Employers to Improve Workplace Safety and Health, 02-10-201-10-105 

(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 30, 2010). 
Page 21 GAO-18-12 Workplace Safety and Health

violation.43 According to OSHA officials, initial and final penalties 

increased in 2010 due to administrative adjustments that had the effect of 

raising penalties on average. We previously reported that, according to an 

OSHA official, OSHA increased penalties in 2010 after it determined that 

penalties were too low to deter employer violations.44 In addition, officials 

said that a few large penalties raised average penalties in 2010-2013.

Figure 9: Initial and Final Median Penalties for Closed OSHA Meat and Poultry Plant 

Inspections with Violations, 2005-2016

Note: This figure does not include inspections where OSHA found no violations. The median inflationadjusted penalties provided in this figure vary over time, likely due to a number of factors. First, 

inspections can take some time to close, and these data include only closed inspections. It is possible 

that inspections that take longer to close can result in penalties that are systematically different from 

 43 Workers' compensation programs for private sector workers, as well as state and local 

government workers, are run by workers’ compensation boards at the state level, 

according to OSHA documentation.

44 In addition, we reported that an OSHA official said that the agency recommended stateplan states match these penalty increases; however only two states had increased their 

penalties in response. Officials with the Occupational Safety and Health State Plan 

Association stated that OSHA had failed to provide empirical studies to show increased 

penalties were effective in deterring employer violations. They also said that state-run 

programs could achieve greater compliance with safety and health standards by 

increasing the likelihood of an inspection. GAO, Workplace Safety and Health: Further 

Steps by OSHA Would Enhance Monitoring of Enforcement and Effectiveness, 

GAO-13-61 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 24, 2013).
Page 22 GAO-18-12 Workplace Safety and Health

penalties in other cases. Recent cases are more likely to still be open, which could affect the median 

penalty per inspection in those years. Second, in 2010, OSHA made administrative adjustments to 

their penalty adjustment factors, which raised penalties on average. Finally, other factors, such as the 

number of violations per inspection or the severity of violations, may also vary over time and affect 

trends in penalties per inspection. The Department of Labor adjusted OSHA penalties for inflation, 

effective after August 1, 2016, in response to the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act 

Improvements Act of 2015.

OSHA compliance assistance efforts during the years 2005-2016 

included worker outreach through local foreign consulates, support for 

training meat and poultry workers, administering employer recognition 

programs, and supporting state consultation programs that provide 

technical assistance to small and medium-sized businesses. OSHA has 

not comprehensively tracked its compliance assistance activities in the 

past, but officials told us the agency launched a database module that 

started tracking these activities in fiscal year 2017.45 Recent examples of 

OSHA’s compliance assistance efforts related to meat and poultry plants 

include the following:

• OSHA officials stated that in fiscal years 2011-2015, states provided 

558 on-site consultation visits, largely funded by OSHA, to small and 

medium-sized meat and poultry plants. The visits provide confidential 

safety and occupational health advice to small and medium-sized 

businesses in all states across the country, according to OSHA, with 

priority given to high-hazard worksites. These on-site consultation 

programs, at no cost to employers, work with employers to develop or 

maintain injury and illness prevention programs, which included 

assisting employers on identifying potential hazards to prevent 

injuries, according to OSHA officials.

46

 45 We previously reported that OSHA's voluntary compliance programs appear to have 

yielded positive outcomes, but the agency did not have adequate data to assess 

programs’ effectiveness. We recommended that OSHA improve data collection and 

search for cost-effective approaches to assess the effectiveness of some of its voluntary 

compliance programs. Although OSHA reported that the agency took steps to do so, such 

as developing tools to monitor consultation programs’ effectiveness, and completing an 

external evaluation of the Voluntary Protection Program, we determined that the 

evaluation report was not useful and OSHA had not yet fully implemented our 

recommendation. GAO, Workplace Safety and Health: OSHA’s Voluntary Compliance 

Strategies Show Promising Results, but Should Be Fully Evaluated before They Are 

Expanded, GAO-04-378 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 19, 2004).

46 The OSH Act provides for OSHA to enter into cooperative agreements with states, 

under which the states provide on-site consultations to employers upon request, among 

other things. Under OSHA’s regulations, priority in such visits is to be given to requests

from small businesses in higher hazard industries. 29 U.S.C. § 670(c) and (d); 29 C.F.R. 

§§ 1908.1-1908.11.

Compliance Assistance
Page 23 GAO-18-12 Workplace Safety and Health

• OSHA officials stated that, as of July 2016, six meat and poultry 

plants were participating in the Safety and Health Achievement 

Recognition Program, which recognizes small and medium-sized

businesses that have used OSHA's on-site consultation program 

services and operate an exemplary injury and illness prevention 

program, according to OSHA officials.

• OSHA officials stated that, as of July 2016, eleven meat and poultry 

plants participated in OSHA’s Voluntary Protection Programs (VPP), 

which aim to recognize employers that implement effective safety and 

health management systems and maintain worker injury and illness 

rates below average for their industry.47

• OSHA has published guidance and other resources related to safety 

and health in the meat and poultry industry, such as a 2013 

publication on preventing musculoskeletal injuries in poultry 

processing, and a poultry processing safety and health topics web 

page.48

• OSHA provided grants for worker safety and health education to 

nonprofit organizations through the Susan Harwood Training Grant 

Program. These grants target underserved or low-literacy workers and 

workers in high-hazard industries. For example, in fiscal year 2016, 

OSHA awarded a grant to the Western North Carolina Workers 

Center to train poultry workers on topics including personal protective 

equipment, hazard mapping, ergonomics, and sanitation worker 

safety.

• OSHA officials stated that the agency conducted outreach with poultry 

industry representatives to discuss common hazards, such as MSDs 

and infectious pathogens, among others. For example, according to 

 47 We reported in 2009 that OSHA's internal controls were not sufficient to ensure that 

only qualified worksites participate in the VPP. OSHA made improvements in response to 

the recommendations in our report. However, in 2013 the Department of Labor Office of 

the Inspector General found that OSHA lacked sufficient controls to ensure VPP worksites 

maintained exemplary occupational health and safety systems. Specifically, the Inspector 

General found that OSHA retained participants with above average worker illness and 

injury rates in the program, did not reliably track the universe of participants, and used 

unreliable illness and injury data to evaluate participants. GAO, OSHA’s Voluntary 

Protection Programs: Improved Oversight and Controls Would Better Ensure Program 

Quality, GAO-09-395 (Washington, D.C.: May 20, 2009) and U.S. Department of Labor 

Office of Inspector General – Office of Audit, Voluntary Protection Program: Controls Are 

Not Sufficient to Ensure Only Worksites with Exemplary Safety and Health Systems 

Remain in the Program, 02-14-201-10-105 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 16, 2013).

48 OSHA, Prevention of Musculoskeletal Injuries in Poultry Processing, OSHA 3213-12R 

2013 (Washington, D.C.: updated 2013).
Page 24 GAO-18-12 Workplace Safety and Health

OSHA officials, in support of a Regional Emphasis Program on poultry 

processing, OSHA’s Dallas Regional Office conducted workshops in 

the southwestern United States in December 2015 to share safety 

and health information with employers in the poultry processing 

industry.

• OSHA worked with groups such as unions, trade or professional 

organizations, and educational institutions through its Alliance 

program to develop compliance assistance tools and share 

information with employers and workers to help prevent injuries, 

illnesses, and fatalities in the workplace. For example, OSHA officials 

said that the agency has formed alliances with foreign consulates to 

reach workers with limited English proficiency. Also, OSHA’s Omaha 

Area Office has an alliance with local organizations to help protect 

workers in the meat packing industry.

OSHA faces challenges identifying and addressing meat and poultry 

worker safety and health concerns because workers may be reluctant to 

speak with inspectors, according to workers we interviewed in four states, 

as well as worker advocates.49 Workers we interviewed in four states said 

they fear dismissal or other punishment if they complain to OSHA or their 

state OSH agency about their workplace concerns, such as sustaining 

injuries or being discouraged from using the bathroom. We reported in 

2016 that meat and poultry worker vulnerability may hinder reporting of 

work-related illnesses and injuries, according to federal officials and 

worker advocacy groups. In particular, these officials and advocates said 

that some meat and poultry workers may be less likely to report or seek 

treatment for injuries and illnesses because of their vulnerable status as 

 49 Section 11(c) of the OSH Act prohibits employers from discriminating against their 

employees for exercising their rights under the Act, which include filing an OSHA 

complaint, participating in an inspection, reporting an injury or illness, and raising a safety 

or health complaint with the employer. 29 U.S.C. § 660(c) and 29 C.F.R. pt. 1977. 

OSHA Faces Challenges 

Identifying Worker 

Concerns, Responding to 

Medical Mismanagement, 

and Gaining Entry to 

Some Plants

Identifying Worker Concerns
Page 25 GAO-18-12 Workplace Safety and Health

undocumented or foreign-born workers and because of their economic 

vulnerability.50

Meat and poultry workers may also be reluctant to share information with 

OSHA at their workplace, as on-site interviews often do not allow workers 

to remain anonymous, even when conducted in private, according to 

workers in one state, as well as worker advocates we interviewed. 

According to OSHA officials, OSHA generally conducts worker interviews 

on-site during inspections. Officials added that, when OSHA conducts onsite interviews, inspectors tell plant supervisors which workers they wish 

to speak with, so the supervisors can find replacements for these workers 

on the production line. Therefore, the supervisor knows the identities of 

interviewed workers, even if the interview itself is private. Officials added 

that if workers cannot be pulled from the line, they are sometimes 

interviewed in front of other workers as they continue working. The OSH 

Act prohibits employers from retaliating against employees for filing 

complaints with OSHA.51 However, OSHA officials, workers from two 

states, and worker advocates we spoke with noted that workers may feel 

more comfortable sharing concerns about hazards if they are interviewed 

off-site.

The OSHA Field Operations Manual, which sets forth OSHA’s 

enforcement policies and procedures, allows inspectors to interview 

workers in locations other than the workplace, and states that, “a free and 

open exchange of information between OSHA inspectors and employees 

is essential to effective inspections.”52 OSHA’s performance goals in 

DOL’s Strategic Plan include preventing discrimination against workers 

who report hazards.53 According to OSHA officials, they will try to 

 50 We noted in the report that about 28.7 percent of meat and poultry workers were 

foreign-born noncitizens in 2015 compared to about 9.5 percent of all manufacturing 

workers, according to CPS data. GAO-16-337. In addition, we reported in 2005 that the 

workforce in the meat and poultry industry tended to be more often younger, foreign born, 

belonging to racial minorities, and earned substantially less than workers in manufacturing 

overall. GAO, Workplace Safety and Health: Safety in the Meat and Poultry Industry, 

While Improving, Could Be Further Strengthened, GAO-05-96 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 12, 

2005).

51 See 29 U.S.C. § 660(c) and 29 C.F.R. pt. 1977. In particular, OSHA regulations specify 

that employees interviewed by OSHA during the course of an inspection may not be 

subsequently discriminated against because of their cooperation. 29 C.F.R. § 1977.12(a).

52 OSHA, Field Operations Manual. Directive number CPL 02-00-160,effective date: 

August 2, 2016. 

53 DOL, Strategic Plan: Fiscal Years 2014-2018. 
Page 26 GAO-18-12 Workplace Safety and Health

schedule an interview off-site if an employee expresses discomfort or if a

union arranges it. Officials stated that they do not automatically offer offsite interviews to each employee; rather, inspectors should consult with 

their Area Directors before offering to conduct an interview off-site. 

However, OSHA officials told us that inspectors interview meat and 

poultry workers off-site infrequently, since off-site interviews can be 

challenging and take additional time, as workers may be difficult to 

contact or may have ceased working with the company. OSHA also may 

be challenged to find an acceptable venue when the employee is 

available. They added that conducting interviews off-site is more feasible 

in cases when unions or worker advocacy groups have facilitated these 

meetings, and that interviewing workers on the production line may be 

advantageous in some cases, as it allows workers to clarify some 

uncertainties by showing the inspector how their work is done. According 

to federal internal control standards, agencies should use quality 

information to achieve their objectives.54 Although OSHA officials stated 

that OSHA has taken steps to enable the collection of quality information 

from workers, such as conducting a representative number of interviews 

and refraining from reporting information from specific interviews to 

employers, officials acknowledged that some workers may feel more 

comfortable sharing concerns about hazards if they are interviewed offsite. Taking additional steps to encourage workers to disclose sensitive 

concerns, such as by considering off-site interviews or exploring other 

options to obtain the information anonymously, would help OSHA learn 

details about hazards, injuries, and illnesses during an inspection and 

provide additional information to help improve the agency’s efforts to 

identify or address conditions that endanger worker safety and health.

In particular, OSHA may not be aware of the scope of bathroom access 

issues, which meat and poultry workers we interviewed in all five states 

said was a concern, because the agency’s reliance on interviewing 

workers on-site may cause it to miss concerns of workers who are afraid 

to speak up. In addition, OSHA inspectors do not always ask specifically 

about bathroom access, and workers who experience bathroom access 

problems may not volunteer this information. OSHA’s sanitation standard 

provides that “toilet facilities, in toilet rooms separate for each sex, shall 

be provided in all places of employment,” based on the number of 

employees of each sex.55 According to OSHA guidance, this standard 

 54 GAO-14-704G.

55 29 C.F.R. § 1910.141(c)(1)(i). The standard further provides that “lavatories shall be 

made available in all places of employment.” 29 C.F.R. § 1910.141(d)(2)(i). 
Page 27 GAO-18-12 Workplace Safety and Health

requires employers to make toilet facilities available so that employees 

can use them when they need to, and may not impose unreasonable 

restrictions on employee use of the facilities.56 OSHA guidance also 

states that denial or delay of bathroom access can result in various 

serious health effects, such as urinary tract infections, constipation, 

abdominal pain, and hemorrhoids.57

Meat and poultry workers may be denied timely bathroom breaks 

because they work in an assembly line environment, which generally 

requires workers to be replaced if they leave their station. Workers we 

interviewed in all five states said their requests to use the bathroom are 

often delayed or denied, and workers in two states said they fear 

punishment if they ask to use the bathroom too frequently or complain 

about lack of bathroom access to their supervisors or to OSHA. Worker 

advocates we spoke with reported hearing similar concerns on a frequent 

basis and four worker advocacy groups in different regions of the country 

reported concerns related to the timeliness of workers’ access to 

bathrooms based on non-generalizable interviews of poultry workers.58

For example, workers we interviewed in three states said they had 

suffered negative health effects, such as kidney problems, from delayed 

or denied bathroom breaks. One worker said she refrained from eating or 

drinking until she had completed her shift, to avoid needing a bathroom 

break. Also, workers we interviewed in all five states said that long lines 

at the bathroom further limited bathroom access.

Meat and poultry industry representatives we interviewed said that 

bathroom access is not a problem because companies provide bathroom 

access when needed. They said companies take different approaches to 

ensuring bathroom access, such as having a supervisor fill in for a worker 

who leaves the line, establishing scheduled breaks, or allowing workers to 

 56 See OSHA, Memorandum for Regional Administrators and State Designees on the 

Interpretation of 29 CFR 1910.141(c)(1)(i): Toilet Facilities. (April 6, 1998). 

57 Ibid.

58 Greater Minnesota Worker Center Organizing Committee, Greater Minnesota Worker 

Center, Striving for a Just and Safer Workplace: Central Minnesota’s Poultry Industry and 

its Disposable Workers (St. Cloud, MN: April 1, 2016); Northwest Arkansas Workers’ 

Justice Center, Wages and Working Conditions in Arkansas Poultry Plants (Springdale, 

AR: February 1, 2016); Public Justice Center, The Disposable Workforce: A Worker’s 

Perspective, accessed September 5, 2017, www.upc-online.org/workers/Poultrystudy.pdf; 

and OXFAM America, No Relief: Denial of Bathroom Breaks in the Poultry Industry 

(Boston, MA: 2016).
Page 28 GAO-18-12 Workplace Safety and Health

leave the line as needed, even without a replacement. However, 

according to worker advocates, supervisors may vary in implementing 

plant policy and may feel pressure to fulfill production quotas. One 

industry representative told us they believe some supervisors in meat and 

poultry plants deny bathroom access in order to maximize production 

output.

OSHA officials said they did not believe lack of bathroom access was a 

widespread problem in the meat and poultry industry. However, OSHA 

officials said they have not compared bathroom access practices in the 

meat and poultry industry with other industries involving moving 

production lines because they vary by establishment even within a single 

industry. OSHA issued a citation in March 2016 to a meat plant related to 

bathroom access, although that citation is currently being contested by 

the employer, and is pending as of September 15, 2017, according to 

officials. From 2005 through 2016, OSHA issued three additional citations 

to meat and poultry plants related to bathroom access; however, these 

citations were withdrawn after the employers reached formal or informal 

settlements with OSHA. OSHA guidance for inspecting poultry plants

allows inspectors to ask specifically about bathroom access when there 

are complaints about it or prior problems, or in the context of specific 

regional emphasis programs, such as the poultry emphasis program in 

the southeast United States.59 In addition, OSHA’s poultry processing 

regional emphasis programs in regions IV and VI require the inspector to 

assess the adequacy of toilet and sanitary facilities, and of worker access 

to them.60 If there are no prior complaints or relevant emphasis programs, 

OSHA officials said inspectors ask workers about any other concerns, but 

do not always specifically ask about bathroom access. Officials said that 

requiring inspectors to investigate bathroom access would divert 

inspectors’ limited resources from higher-priority hazards and could result 

in companies’ claiming that the line of questioning is unsubstantiated. 

OSHA requires inspectors at poultry plants to consistently investigate 

other specific hazards, such as ergonomics hazards. According to OSHA 

officials, the agency selected these hazards based on prior inspection 

and illness and injury data showing the hazards to be widespread in the 

 59 OSHA, Memorandum for Regional Administrators and State Designees on Inspection 

Guidance for Poultry Slaughtering and Poultry Processing Establishments. (Oct. 28, 

2015). 

60 OSHA, Regional Emphasis Programs for Poultry Processing Facilities, Directive 

numbers CPL 17/09 and CPL 02-02-030.
Page 29 GAO-18-12 Workplace Safety and Health

industry. Officials contrasted these with the small number of citations 

issued related to bathroom access.

However, given that workers whom we asked about bathroom access 

during off-site interviews in all five states said that bathroom access is a 

problem, and worker advocates we interviewed stated it was as well, it is 

possible that OSHA is missing instances of this hazard, resulting in 

incomplete data to guide its inspections. According to federal internal 

control standards, managers should use quality information to achieve the 

agency’s objectives.61 While officials stated they believe that inspectors’

open-ended questions will prompt workers to share any concerns they 

have with bathroom access, workers may not volunteer this information 

unless specifically asked. For example, workers may not be aware that 

they have the right to access bathrooms and so may not realize that such 

information would be of interest to OSHA, according to one worker 

advocate we interviewed. Gathering additional information about whether 

meat and poultry workers experience delayed or denied access to 

bathrooms could help OSHA determine the extent of the problem and be 

better positioned to protect worker safety and health.

OSHA officials told us that addressing medical mismanagement at meat 

and poultry plants is challenging because of the complex issues involved 

and OSHA’s limited oversight of plants’ health unit staff. Specifically, they 

said that ensuring proper certification for medical providers is the 

responsibility of state authorities. In hazard alert letters to four meat and 

poultry plants, OSHA noted its concern that plant health unit staff were or 

may have been inappropriately supervised and working beyond the scope 

of their medical license. Officials said OSHA contacted state authorities 

who oversee health unit staff in one state about licensing concerns, and 

they planned to contact additional states.

OSHA officials we interviewed expressed concern about meat and poultry 

workers’ access to plant first aid stations or health units and the quality of 

medical treatment workers receive.62 OSHA issued one general duty 

clause citation and four hazard alert letters to five meat and poultry plants 

in 2015-2016 related to medical mismanagement issues, which describe 

 61 GAO-14-704G.

62 OSHA’s Medical Services and First Aid Standard requires that, in the absence of an 

infirmary, clinic, or hospital in near proximity to the workplace that is used for the treatment 

of all injured employees, a person or persons shall be adequately trained to render first aid 

and adequate first aid supplies shall be readily available. 29 C.F.R. § 1910.151(b). 

Addressing Medical 

Mismanagement at Plant 

Health Units
Page 30 GAO-18-12 Workplace Safety and Health

OSHA’s findings or concerns about inappropriate medical treatment, lack 

of worker access to health care, underqualified practitioners, and 

challenges to reporting (see sidebar).63

• In the citation, OSHA found that the plant delayed care for injured 

workers, stating these actions could result in risk of further injury or 

exacerbated pain, among other conditions.64

• In a 2015 hazard alert letter to a poultry plant, OSHA noted that it 

appeared the plant used its first aid station to prevent injuries from 

appearing on the plant’s OSHA log, such as by failing to refer workers 

to a physician for evaluation or treatment when appropriate.65 In 

addition, OSHA noted that a number of workers were fired after 

suffering MSDs, sometimes on the same day of the MSD occurrence, 

and further noted workers’ fears of being fired for visiting the first aid 

station.66 OSHA recommended voluntary improvements to the plant’s 

medical management practices.

 63 After an inspection, OSHA may send an employer a hazard alert letter if the criteria for 

issuing a citation are not met, yet OSHA determines that the hazard warrants some type 

of notification. 

64 This citation has been contested by the employer and as of September 15, 2017 is still 

pending, according to OSHA officials.

65 OSHA’s regulations generally require covered employers to record information about 

each new work-related injury or illness that results in death, loss of consciousness, days 

away from work, restricted work or transfer to another job, or medical treatment beyond 

first aid. First aid consists of specified types of treatment, including cleaning, flushing, or 

soaking wounds on the surface of the skin; using wound coverings, such as bandages; 

using non-prescription medications; draining fluids from blisters; using irrigation or a cotton 

swab to remove foreign bodies from the eyes; massage; and drinking fluids to relieve heat 

stress. 29 C.F.R. § 1904.7.

66 We reported in 2016 that some employers may underreport workplace injuries to avoid 

triggering OSHA inspections or promote the image of a safe workplace, according to 

stakeholders we interviewed. At one meat plant we visited, workers recalled incidents in 

which supervisors told injured workers they were not hurt and to go back to work rather 

than report their injury. We also reported that in an effort to maintain a clean safety record 

and avoid recording injuries in their OSHA logs, some plant health units may repeatedly 

offer first aid treatments—for example, compresses and over-the-counter painkillers and 

ointments—rather than refer workers to a doctor. OSHA officials relayed concerns that 

employer-sponsored safety programs with incentives—such as those that offer rewards 

for no injuries over time—may pressure meat and poultry workers to not report workrelated injuries and illnesses. GAO-16-337. We reported in 2005 that safety programs that 

reward low illness and injury rates may incentivize underreporting by workers or managers 

in the meat and poultry industry. GAO-05-96. 
Page 31 GAO-18-12 Workplace Safety and Health

• In a 2014 hazard alert letter to another poultry plant, OSHA identified 

practices that it determined were contrary to good medical practice for 

managing work-related MSDs, including prolonged treatment by 

nursing station staff without referral to a physician. The letter included 

one example in which a worker made over 90 visits to the nursing 

station before referral to a physician.

Meat and poultry workers we interviewed in all five states reported 

problems with on-site medical care; for example, workers said their 

supervisor or plant nurse may not take appropriate steps when a worker 

is injured or ill, such as not referring the worker to a doctor or failing to 

move the worker to a different work station on the line. Worker advocates 

we spoke with reported hearing similar concerns. One worker we 

interviewed said that she experienced severe pain in her wrist and visited 

the on-site medical unit over the course of 3 months before they referred 

her to a doctor affiliated with the plant, during which time she continued to 

work. When the doctor did not find any problems on her X-ray, she went 

to a doctor unaffiliated with the plant, who found a bone fracture. Meat 

and poultry workers in three states also said that fear of being 

reprimanded or losing their jobs sometimes compels them to refrain from 

accessing care at a plant health unit, or from complaining about 

inadequate medical care. Workers in one state said they are penalized 

every time they visit their plant health unit.67

 67 We also reported in 2016 that meat and poultry workers may be punished for visiting 

the health unit too often, according to two OSHA hazard alert letters, a representative of a 

worker advocacy group, and a worker we interviewed. GAO-16-337.
Page 32 GAO-18-12 Workplace Safety and Health

According to one industry representative, plants do not have enough 

guidance on how to ensure their health units are properly staffed and 

operated. OSHA issued guidance in 1999 about occupational health 

professionals’ qualifications and scope of practice, as well as a 2006 best 

practices guide on the fundamentals of a workplace first aid program.68

However, OSHA officials told us these guidance documents do not 

address many of the medical management issues they are currently 

observing in plant health units, which include lack of supervision of 

medical personnel, personnel working outside their scope of practice, outof-date health unit protocols, inappropriate response to injuries and 

illness, lack of quality assurance, poor worker access to health units, and 

inadequate recordkeeping. OSHA officials told us that the agency has 

recently begun updating its guidance related to health units to help clarify 

employers’ responsibilities with regard to the personnel in these units and 

the services they provide. However, these updates have not been 

completed, according to officials. Federal internal control standards call 

for agencies to externally communicate the information needed to achieve 

their objectives.69 By updating and issuing its guidance, OSHA could help 

plant health units be better positioned to provide appropriate care to 

injured and ill workers.

 68 U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, The 

Occupational Health Professional’s Services and Qualifications: Questions and Answers,

OSHA 3160, (1999) (revised). See also U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety 

and Health Administration, Best Practices Guide: Fundamentals of a Workplace First-Aid 

Program, OSHA 3317-06N (2006).

69 GAO-14-704G.

Amputation Leads to OSHA Detection of 

Medical Mismanagement and Other 

Hazards

Following the amputation of a worker’s finger 

at a poultry plant in 2016, the Occupational 

Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) 

conducted inspections and cited the plant for 

violations related to: 

• deficiencies with the procedures meant to 

prevent accidental machine start-up or 

movement, which contributed to the 

amputation 

• exposing workers to musculoskeletal 

stressors as they performed tasks 

requiring repetitive, forceful motion for 

extended periods of time, often in 

awkward positions

• failure to comply with generally accepted 

good engineering practices with respect 

to exhaust systems, ammonia sensors, 

and alarms, exposing workers to the 

hazards posed by a potential ammonia 

release

• failure to provide free personal protective 

equipment to workers

• failure to repair or replace damaged 

electrical equipment, exposing workers to 

the risk of electrical shock.

OSHA also issued hazard alert letters 

recommending the plant take steps to address 

the following hazards:

• medical management practices that 

prevent appropriate standards of care, 

increase the likelihood of workers 

developing serious musculoskeletal 

disorders, restrict referrals to physicians, 

and discourage employees from reporting 

symptoms and injuries. 

• exposing workers to the risk of violent 

chemical reactions by storing peracetic 

acid alongside a strong base, sodium 

hydroxide, without protections to ensure 

the chemicals didn't spill and mix.

Note: These citations have been contested by the 

employer and as of September 15, 2017, are still 

pending, according to OSHA officials. After an 

inspection, OSHA may send an employer a hazard 

alert letter if the criteria for issuing a citation are not 

met, yet OSHA determines that the hazard warrants 

some type of notification.

Source: OSHA | GAO-18-12
Page 33 GAO-18-12 Workplace Safety and Health

In some cases, plant management may deny entry to OSHA inspectors 

attempting to conduct an inspection, and resolving these issues can 

create delays.70 Although the OSH Act authorizes OSHA inspectors to 

enter plants “without delay” at reasonable times to conduct inspections, 

employers have the right to refuse entry, in which case OSHA may seek 

an inspection warrant.71 If the employer denies entry after OSHA obtains 

a warrant, OSHA determines its response on a case-by-case basis. 

Denials of OSHA inspector entry to meat and poultry plants increased in 

2016. All 15 denials in that year occurred in region IV, which includes the 

Southeast United States. In contrast, from 2005-2015, there were 16 

denials of entry in the meat and poultry industry. The denials in 2016 took 

place in Georgia (6), Alabama (5), Florida (2) and Mississippi (2). 

According to OSHA officials, the agency experienced denials in all 15 

cases when it inspected a plant in response to a complaint or referral and 

moved to expand the inspection to incorporate its regional emphasis 

program for the poultry industry. OSHA has not been able to expand its 

inspections in any of these cases, according to OSHA officials. These 

denials of entry have the potential to limit OSHA’s understanding of 

worker safety and health in plants during the days or months prior to 

gaining entry, and addressing denials is resource-intensive, according to 

OSHA officials. There is currently ongoing litigation in a case in which 

OSHA was inspecting a plant after an employee was burned by an 

electrical fire. OSHA attempted to expand the inspection under a relevant 

emphasis program, and the plant contested the expansion in court. OSHA 

officials said that the case is pending as of September 15, 2017, and they 

will consider the outcome of the case when determining their response to 

any similar denials of entry in the future.

 70For ease of reference, we refer to situations where a plant initially denies entry to OSHA 

inspectors as “denials of entry,” regardless of how these cases are ultimately resolved.

7129 U.S.C. § 657(a); 29 C.F.R. § 1903.4.

Gaining Entry to Some Plants
Page 34 GAO-18-12 Workplace Safety and Health

OSHA and FSIS’s main vehicle for collaboration on worker safety and 

health is their 1994 MOU, but efforts to implement and evaluate this 

agreement have been limited. The MOU outlines the policies and 

procedures the agencies agreed to use, including (1) a process for FSIS 

to refer serious hazards facing plant workers or FSIS inspectors to OSHA, 

(2) plans for OSHA and FSIS to develop and implement training for FSIS 

staff in hazard recognition, and (3) an agreement to coordinate standards 

development and exchange information on matters of common concern.72

In 2005, we found that agency efforts to implement this MOU had lapsed, 

and we recommended that OSHA and FSIS revisit and update certain 

aspects of their MOU, as discussed below.73 OSHA and FSIS have taken 

some steps to implement the policies and procedures outlined in the 

MOU. However, we found issues with the MOU’s implementation in these

three areas, hampering achievement of the MOU’s goals. Further, OSHA 

and FSIS have not evaluated the implementation of the MOU.

The 1994 MOU calls for FSIS inspectors—who may observe hazards to 

both plant workers and inspectors—to refer serious workplace hazards to 

OSHA, via FSIS headquarters.74 Serious hazards are defined in the MOU 

as those for which there is a substantial probability that death or serious 

physical harm could result. The two agencies have established a process 

for these referrals, but according to FSIS officials its inspectors are 

reluctant to make them, as discussed below. Until 2014, FSIS inspectors 

were to refer these hazards to OSHA by sending a referral to OSHA via 

FSIS headquarters, but, according to FSIS officials, inspectors rarely 

made referrals under the former system. In 2014, FSIS established a 

procedure for its inspectors to notify OSHA directly of serious workplace 

hazards that may affect both FSIS inspectors and plant workers and 

issued a notice that provides instructions for inspectors to use OSHA’s 

nationwide public toll-free number to report such hazards.75 Because the 

agencies are not able to track all of these referrals, as callers can remain 

 72 A copy of the MOU is available at 

https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=MOU&p_id=262.

73 GAO-05-96.

74 FSIS inspectors are present at slaughter facilities on a daily basis and at processingonly facilities on a regular basis.

75 FSIS Notice 37-14 (Aug. 2014). OSHA officials told us their agency had suggested the 

change to FSIS because using the toll-free number fit in better with OSHA’s process for 

receiving complaints.

OSHA and FSIS 

Have Not Fully 

Implemented MOU 

That Outlines 

Collaboration on 

Worker Safety and 

Health

Making Referrals to OSHA
Page 35 GAO-18-12 Workplace Safety and Health

anonymous, it is not possible to assess the extent to which FSIS 

inspectors are making them, according to OSHA officials. OSHA data 

show that since 2012, OSHA had received 14 complaints and 2 referrals 

about FSIS, of which 5 phone calls were from FSIS current or former 

employees, but these data are likely incomplete.76

According to FSIS officials, its inspectors may be reluctant to make these 

referrals because they fear it could trigger an OSHA inspection of FSIS.77

As a federal employer, FSIS is responsible for ensuring its own 

employees are protected from plant hazards, and is subject to OSHA 

inspection and notification of safety and health hazards faced by its 

employees. OSHA data show that from 2005 to 2016, OSHA inspected 

FSIS in meat and poultry plants 105 times, of which 14 were in response 

to complaints and referrals. FSIS occupational safety and health 

specialists said these inspections can be a drain on their resources 

because they are time-consuming and there are very few FSIS safety and 

health specialists to respond to them. FSIS employs three occupational 

safety and health specialists, along with one team lead, resulting in a ratio 

of one specialist for every 3,100 employees, according to FSIS officials.78

FSIS inspectors we contacted did not report communicating with OSHA, 

and stated that they share any worker safety concerns they might have 

with their management or with plant contacts. FSIS occupational safety 

and health specialists told us that FSIS requests technical assistance 

from OSHA to address hazards that may affect both plant workers and 

FSIS inspectors. However, they said that OSHA may inspect FSIS 

instead of providing assistance, even though OSHA has other ways of 

 76 OSHA provided us with these data retrieved from the OSHA Information System on 

May 25, 2017.

77 FSIS occupational safety and health specialists further told us that in some cases 

referrals made to OSHA by FSIS inspectors working in state-plan states─in which the 

state OSH agencies are not responsible for federal employees─resulted in inspections of 

FSIS by OSHA but not of the plant. As previously discussed, for plants located in a stateplan state, OSHA has jurisdiction over the safety and health of federal employees (FSIS 

inspectors), while the state OSH agency is responsible for the private sector employees 

(plant workers). According to OSHA officials, if the agency receives a complaint about 

hazards faced by plant workers in a plant located in a state-plan state, OSHA will make a 

referral to the state agency.

78 An audit conducted in 2014 recommended an increase in FSIS safety and health staff. 

PRIZIM Inc., a subsidiary of Hitachi Consulting Corporation, Food Safety and Inspection 

Service Safety and Health Program Evaluation, prepared under the direction of the FSIS 

Environmental, Safety, and Health Group, January 2014. 
Page 36 GAO-18-12 Workplace Safety and Health

offering technical assistance to federal agencies.79 For example, FSIS 

occupational safety and health specialists told us that when they reached 

out to OSHA for assistance with hazards posed by peracetic acid, OSHA 

instead inspected FSIS for what FSIS considered to be unrelated 

hazards.

According to OSHA officials, their enforcement team is obligated to 

respond to complaints and referrals, including calls to their toll-free 

number, and may inspect FSIS if there is a report of a hazard at a meat or 

poultry plant to which FSIS employees are exposed. OSHA officials noted 

that FSIS employees should not be reluctant to report hazards because 

OSHA inspections can protect FSIS workers. OSHA officials told us that 

they are able to provide assistance with hazards if FSIS contacts OSHA’s 

area offices, but if in the process, OSHA learns about a potential hazard 

that is FSIS’s responsibility, then OSHA may investigate the agency. 

FSIS officials told us they did not believe this process would ensure a 

quick enough response by OSHA to provide FSIS assistance with urgent 

hazards that could be harming FSIS inspectors and plant workers.

OSHA and FSIS agreed under the 1994 MOU to provide training to FSIS 

inspectors so that they could recognize serious workplace hazards faced 

by plant workers and FSIS inspectors. OSHA officials told us they 

developed such training for FSIS in the mid to late 1990s, but according 

to FSIS officials the course was too excessive and burdensome for FSIS 

inspectors, whose main responsibility is food safety. In 2005, we 

recommended that OSHA and FSIS revisit and update their MOU to 

ensure that FSIS inspectors receive training in recognizing and referring 

workplace hazards to OSHA. The two agencies did not update their MOU, 

but FSIS officials told us the agency strengthened its training of FSIS 

inspectors and OSHA officials told us that the agency planned to 

cooperate with FSIS to encourage revitalization of FSIS’s inspector 

training. According to FSIS officials, in 2013, FSIS began requiring its 

inspectors whose duties were not limited to being on the line to take 

AgLearn 8500, an FSIS course on identifying and reporting hazards that 

was reviewed by OSHA. This course—which is now available only on 

 79 OSHA offers technical assistance to federal agencies in the form of Agency Technical 

Assistance Requests. In responding to such a request, OSHA may offer abatement 

assistance, training, an assistance inspection, or program assistance. According to 

OSHA’s Field Operations Manual, an Agency Technical Assistance Request is not an 

enforcement inspection.

Training FSIS Staff
Page 37 GAO-18-12 Workplace Safety and Health

CD—is required for inspectors who do not work on the line and is optional 

for those who do. In 2014, OSHA provided three training sessions on 

identifying workplace hazards to FSIS managers, according to OSHA 

officials. However, FSIS was not able to provide information on whether 

or how the managers who received the training had shared what they 

learned with FSIS inspectors because it did not track this information. 

The MOU calls for OSHA and FSIS to coordinate the development of 

standards and consult on matters of common concern related to worker 

safety, but officials at both agencies told us this has not occurred. For 

example, FSIS did not specifically reach out to OSHA as it developed a 

proposed rule that would have, among other things, permitted plants to 

operate at a faster maximum line speed than the maximum line speeds 

authorized under the agency’s other poultry inspection systems.80

According to OSHA officials, there was no collaboration with FSIS on this 

proposed rule prior to the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) 

review of the proposed rule, and OSHA found out about the proposed 

new maximum line speed for the new poultry inspection system during 

the OMB review.81 OSHA officials told us that worker safety should be a 

design consideration in this type of rulemaking. As we noted in 2016, line

 80 Modernization of Poultry Slaughter Inspection, 77 Fed. Reg. 4408 (Jan. 27, 2012). 

81 Under Executive Order 12866, as reaffirmed and amended by Executive Order 13563,

the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs within the Office of Management and 

Budget reviews hundreds of significant proposed and final rules from federal agencies 

before they are published in the Federal Register. See Regulatory Planning and Review, 

Exec. Order No. 12866, 58 Fed. Reg. 51,735 (Oct. 4, 1993) and Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review, Exec. Order No. 13563, 76 Fed. Reg. 3821 (Jan. 21, 2011).

Coordinating Standards 

Development
Page 38 GAO-18-12 Workplace Safety and Health

speed may affect worker safety (see sidebar).82 FSIS officials told us that 

OSHA provided comments after the proposed poultry modernization rule 

was published in the Federal Register.

83 According to the fall 2016 unified 

regulatory agenda, FSIS is working on a proposed rule to amend the 

federal meat inspection regulations to establish a new inspection system 

for hog slaughter establishments.84 FSIS officials told us they consulted 

with OSHA officials about the possible worker safety implications of the 

proposed rule on hog slaughter prior to the rule being sent to OMB. 

However, they also stated that—contrary to the OSHA officials cited 

above—they believed the OMB review process was sufficient for 

addressing any worker safety implications in rules proposed by FSIS.

 82 GAO-16-337. Workers we interviewed in all five states said increased line speed is an 

issue of concern to them, for reasons such as increased pain or injuries, not having time 

to sharpen knives, and not being able to keep up with the pace of work.

83 According to FSIS officials, in April 2012, FSIS published a Federal Register notice, 

after consultation with OSHA and NIOSH, to extend the comment period on the proposed 

poultry slaughter modernization rule and to request specific comments on the availability 

of data that NIOSH could use to analyze the potential effects of line speed on worker 

safety and health. Modernization of Poultry Slaughter Inspection, 77 Fed. Reg. 24,873 

(April 26, 2012). In the final rule, published on August 21, 2014, FSIS described its 

discussions with OSHA on how best to address potential issues related to line speeds and 

worker safety. For example, under the final rule, each plant participating in the new poultry 

inspection system is required to submit to the local circuit safety committee, on an annual 

basis, an attestation stating that it maintains a program to monitor and document any 

work-related conditions of establishment workers. According to FSIS officials, the agency 

has shared a number of these attestations with OSHA. In the final rule, FSIS decided not 

to increase the maximum line speeds for chicken plants, and slightly increased maximum 

line speeds for turkey plants. Further, poultry slaughter plants may choose to operate 

under the new poultry inspection system in the final rule, or may continue to operate under 

the pre-existing inspection system. For those poultry slaughter plants that choose to 

operate under the new poultry inspection system, plant employees assume more 

responsibility for conducting the types of activities currently performed by USDA 

inspectors on the slaughter line. Modernization of Poultry Slaughter Inspection, 79 Fed. 

Reg. 49,566 (Aug. 21, 2014). In September 2017, the National Chicken Council, a nonprofit trade association whose primary purpose is to advocate for the chicken industry, 

submitted a petition to FSIS that the agency implement a waiver system to permit chicken 

plants participating in both the new poultry inspection system and the Salmonella Initiative 

Program, and meeting certain other criteria, to operate without line speed limitations. FSIS 

regulations allow the Administrator of FSIS to waive provisions of the regulations to, 

among other things, test new procedures to facilitate definite improvements. 9 C.F.R. § 

381.3(b).

84 Introduction to the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions—

Fall 2016, 81 Fed. Reg. 94,496, 94,520 (Dec. 23, 2016).

Line Speed

Meat and poultry slaughter and processing 

generally occurs along a “disassembly line,” 

on which workers and machines produce 

various cuts of meat. These lines can include 

live hang in poultry plants, evisceration lines,

and “cone” lines where deboning occurs. The 

Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) 

sets maximum evisceration line speed in 

order to ensure its inspectors can effectively 

perform their inspection procedures. 

According to FSIS officials, FSIS does not 

regulate the speed of other lines, which may 

run slower than evisceration lines due to 

complex worker tasks. The Occupational 

Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)—

which is responsible for overseeing worker 

safety and health—does not play a role in 

regulating line speed, according to FSIS and 

OSHA officials.

GAO reported in 2016 on concerns that high 

line speeds may exacerbate existing hazards 

that can cause musculoskeletal disorders 

(MSD). OSHA and National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) 

officials told us that line speed—in conjunction 

with forceful exertions, awkward postures, and 

other factors—affects the risk of MSDs. When 

plants increase line speed, they may address 

worker safety by increasing staffing or 

creating new lines.

Source: GAO-16-337, GAO-05-96, FSIS, and OSHA. | 

GAO-18-12
Page 39 GAO-18-12 Workplace Safety and Health

FSIS and OSHA agreed to jointly evaluate the effectiveness and impact 

of the actions taken under the MOU—in part by tracking the number of 

FSIS referrals to OSHA, inspections made in response to these referrals, 

and the number and types of hazards cited in these inspections—and to 

make adjustments to the MOU as appropriate. According to FSIS and 

OSHA officials we spoke with, this has not been done. Neither OSHA nor 

FSIS was able to tell us why these evaluations did not take place. For 

example, the MOU states that when training has been completed, OSHA 

and FSIS will analyze field-level evaluations to assess whether the 

training has raised FSIS inspectors’ awareness and reporting of serious 

workplace hazards. OSHA officials said they do not know if FSIS used the 

training materials they provided to FSIS to train FSIS field inspectors.

FSIS officials said the training OSHA provided was too time-consuming, 

so they did not use it. Further, FSIS officials told us the agency does not 

formally survey staff who complete AgLearn 8500 because it is available 

only on CD. Our prior work has noted that developing mechanisms to 

monitor, evaluate, and report results can help enhance and sustain 

collaboration.85 Evaluating the implementation of the MOU and making 

any needed changes, including setting specific timeframes for periodic 

evaluations of actions taken under the MOU, would help ensure the goals 

of collaboration are fully met.

 85 GAO, Results Oriented Government: Practices that Can Help Enhance and Sustain 

Collaboration among Federal Agencies, GAO-06-15 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 21, 2005).

Evaluating the 

Implementation of the 

MOU
Page 40 GAO-18-12 Workplace Safety and Health

Federal reviews of certain antimicrobial chemicals before they are used in 

meat and poultry plants leave gaps with respect to worker safety and 

health. FSIS inspectors and workers in meat and poultry plants are 

exposed to antimicrobial chemicals every day, as they are commonly 

used during all work shifts, both on animal and bird carcasses and on 

work surfaces and machinery. In general, the potential for chemical 

exposure is greater for plant workers than for FSIS inspectors. According 

to officials we spoke with at various plants, plant workers handle these 

chemicals by receiving shipments, opening containers, and filling 

machines with the chemical, among other ways, while FSIS inspectors 

are generally not present at various times that workers are using the 

chemical, most notably, when the plant is being cleaned between shifts.

Depending on a chemical’s intended use, it may or may not undergo a 

federal review of the risks it poses to worker safety and health before it is 

used in the plant. The regulation of chemicals used in meat and poultry 

plants is complex, as several federal agencies have their own specific 

areas of jurisdiction with regard to their oversight. OSHA does not 

conduct reviews of chemicals before they are used in the workplace, 

according to OSHA officials. OSHA officials stated that the agency is 

limited from taking such an approach, because doing so would 

overwhelm the agency’s resources. In addition, OSHA is charged with 

oversight of workers in multiple industries—not just the meat and poultry 

Gaps in Federal 

Review, Safety 

Information, 

Measurement, and 

Research May Put 

Meat and Poultry 

Workers at Risk of 

Harm from Certain 

Chemicals

Federal Reviews of 

Certain Chemicals Leave 

Gaps Related to Plant 

Worker Safety
Page 41 GAO-18-12 Workplace Safety and Health

industry—which would make it difficult for them to utilize a review process 

that examines all chemicals before they are used in the workplace.86

Antimicrobial chemicals intended for use as sanitizers in plants to clean 

machines and surfaces are generally subject to EPA’s pesticide 

registration process, which considers user or worker safety (see fig. 10).87

This review does not generally include antimicrobial chemicals applied 

directly to meat and poultry in plants.

Figure 10: Assessment of Worker Safety during the EPA, FDA, and FSIS Reviews of Certain Chemicals Before They Are Used 

in Meat and Poultry Plants

Note: This figure excludes any oversight of chemical use conducted by the Occupational Safety and 

Health Administration (OSHA), the federal agency responsible for assuring safe and healthful working 

conditions for workers in this and other industries, because, according to OSHA officials, the agency 

does not review chemicals before they are used in the workplace. This figure is intended to present a 

summary of how chemicals may be reviewed; the actual review a particular chemical undergoes may 

differ depending on the circumstances.

 86 OSHA uses the term "general industry" to refer to all industries not included in 

agriculture, construction, or maritime. Each of these categories of industry is subject to 

separate OSHA standards. As previously discussed, OSHA has issued several standards 

that regulate chemicals in the workplace, including the process safety management 

standard, the hazard communication standard, and permissible exposure limits (PEL) for 

certain chemicals. 

87 EPA regulates chemicals that meet the definition of a pesticide under FFDCA and 

FIFRA, as amended. Peracetic acid meets the definition of an “antimicrobial pesticide” 

regulated by EPA when it is used to disinfect, sanitize, or inhibit the growth of 

microorganisms, such as on surfaces and machinery used in meat and poultry plants. 
Page 42 GAO-18-12 Workplace Safety and Health

When antimicrobials are proposed for use directly on meat or poultry to 

combat foodborne pathogens, FDA and FSIS both conduct reviews 

before they are used in the plant, but neither review specifically focuses 

on plant worker safety or health.88 FDA’s review of antimicrobial food 

additives is focused on ensuring they are safe for consumers to eat. 

FSIS’s review is focused on ensuring that the antimicrobials do not affect 

the safety of meat and poultry products or interfere with inspections and 

that they comply with other FSIS regulations; it also includes an 

assessment of any adverse effects on FSIS inspector safety and health 

as they perform their duties. Since these federal reviews do not generally 

take into consideration the occupational risk of chemicals to plant 

workers, who make up the majority of personnel in a plant, these 

chemicals could be used in plants directly on meat or poultry to combat 

foodborne pathogens without a federal assessment of their potential 

effects on plant worker safety and health or how these effects may be 

prevented or addressed.89 As a result, plant workers may be put at risk of 

chemical hazards.

During its review of antimicrobial chemicals proposed for use directly on 

meat or poultry, FSIS receives information from chemical manufacturers 

that could be relevant to chemical safety for both FSIS plant-level officials 

and meat and poultry workers. FSIS occupational safety and health 

officials told us that the information they request goes beyond what is 

included in the chemicals’ Safety Data Sheets, and may include directions 

for use or safety information that is specific for dilution levels and 

 88 Depending on the circumstances, FDA may also have oversight responsibility for 

antimicrobials used in chiller water, according to FDA officials.

89 The gap in oversight extends beyond the meat and poultry industry and even beyond 

antimicrobials. For example, diacetyl, which had been used to flavor microwave popcorn, 

was tentatively linked with bronchiolitis obliterans (or “popcorn lung”)─an inflammatory 

obstruction of the lung's tiniest airways that can lead to extensive scarring─in industrial 

workers. While FDA had found the chemical to be safe for consumers, there had been no 

specific assessment of its potential dangers to workers who produced the microwave 

popcorn. In response to reports of serious respiratory illness in popcorn factory workers, in 

2007, four microwave popcorn producers announced they were working to remove 

diacetyl from their microwave popcorn recipes. In 2016, NIOSH published a document that 

provides information about protecting workers from diacetyl (McKernan, Niemeier, et al., 

Criteria for a Recommended Standard: Occupational Exposure to Diacetyl and 2,3-

Pentanedione, HHS ( NIOSH) Publication No. 2016-111 (Cincinnati, Ohio: October 

2016)).
Page 43 GAO-18-12 Workplace Safety and Health

conditions of use at plants.90 However, this information is not shared with 

OSHA, NIOSH, at the local level with FSIS in-plant inspectors, or with 

plant management because FSIS does not have a process for doing so. 

OSHA and FSIS occupational safety and health officials and an industry 

representative we interviewed told us that this information would be useful 

to them when it is available. OSHA officials told us that information on 

chemical hazards, employee exposure, and safety controls and practices 

would enable it to strengthen its response to protecting all workers from 

these chemical hazards and develop outreach and technical assistance 

for the meat and poultry industry. 

An FSIS safety and health official told us that this information would have 

been useful at one plant, because neither plant management nor FSIS 

inspectors at the plant had received information to adequately protect 

FSIS employees from the effects of peracetic acid, and there had been 

complaints from inspectors about the chemical.

91 In addition, NIOSH 

conducts occupational safety and health research, among other things, 

and could benefit from such information. Federal internal control 

standards call for agencies to internally and externally communicate the 

necessary quality information to achieve the entity’s objectives.92 By FSIS 

establishing a process to regularly share the worker safety information it 

collects during reviews of new chemicals—internally with FSIS inspectors 

and externally with plant management, OSHA, and NIOSH—the federal 

government will be better positioned to use existing resources to support 

the safety and health of plant workers and FSIS inspectors.

As discussed above, FSIS conducts reviews of new ingredients and 

technologies, including antimicrobial chemicals, proposed for use on meat 

and poultry products8. However, there may be information gaps in FSIS’s 

 90 OSHA’s hazard communication standard requires that chemical manufacturers develop 

Safety Data Sheets that describe the hazards of their chemicals. Employers are required 

to maintain these Safety Data Sheets and make the information available to workers. 29 

C.F.R. § 1910.1200. OSHA does not review Safety Data Sheets before a chemical is used 

in the workplace, because, according to OSHA officials, the agency lacks the resources 

that would be needed to conduct Safety Data Sheet reviews for all chemicals in all 

industries.

91 To address this problem, the FSIS occupational safety and health official told us he 

contacted the manufacturer directly and worked with plant management to implement 

changes.

92 GAO-14-704G.

Gaps in Inspector Safety 

Information
Page 44 GAO-18-12 Workplace Safety and Health

examination of the potential risks these new chemicals may pose to 

inspector safety and health. As part of this review, FSIS requests 

information from chemical manufacturers or plants describing how the 

new chemicals will not adversely affect the safety and health of FSIS 

inspectors. As FSIS’s Environmental, Safety, and Health Group reviews 

this information, other program areas within FSIS also review the 

submission to determine whether the chemical is otherwise safe and 

suitable under the conditions of its intended use—i.e., that it will not 

adversely affect product safety, violate FSIS regulations, or interfere with 

inspection procedures. If FSIS determines that the chemical will not have 

these effects, the agency will issue a letter of “no objection” for the use of 

the new chemical.93

It is unclear whether FSIS consistently reviews these chemicals to ensure 

they will not adversely affect inspector safety and health because the 

agency does not have a robust process for tracking and sharing 

information needed to make this determination among the various 

program areas within the agency participating in the review. Officials in 

FSIS’s Environmental, Safety, and Health Group told us that they often 

initially receive inadequate information to make this determination, 

despite new guidance developed in 2015 on the type of information that 

chemical manufacturers and plants may submit to enable FSIS to 

evaluate potential adverse effects to inspector safety.94 In cases where 

they do not receive sufficient information, the Environmental, Safety, and 

Health Group will ask the FSIS program area that is leading the review to 

request additional information from the manufacturer or plant.95 However, 

 93 According to the Federal Register notice published by FSIS explaining this review 

process, FSIS will make every effort to review the information and notify the manufacturer 

or plant within 60 calendar days as to whether the agency needs to review the new 

substance, or whether the plant or manufacturer may proceed to use or sell it. If the plant 

proceeds with the use of the new substance before the 60-day period has expired or 

without receiving a “no objection letter” from FSIS, then the agency will take appropriate 

action, as the product processed using the new substance could be deemed to be 

adulterated. FSIS Procedures for Notification of New Technology, 68 Fed. Reg. 6873 

(Feb. 11, 2003). Substances determined to be safe and suitable are added to FSIS 

Directive 7120.1.

94 FSIS, Compliance Guideline Procedures for New Technology Notifications and 

Protocols, Appendix A: Workplace Safety and Health Criteria (April 2015).

95 If the agency determines that the proposed use of the new chemical could jeopardize 

the safety of FSIS inspectors, the agency will similarly notify the plant or manufacturer and 

may ask for additional information to conduct a more detailed review. FSIS Procedures for 

Notification of New Technology, 68 Fed. Reg. 6873 (Feb. 11, 2003).
Page 45 GAO-18-12 Workplace Safety and Health

FSIS does not have a process that seamlessly tracks the worker safety 

information it receives as part of its review process, and FSIS 

occupational safety and health officials told us it is not clear whether 

submissions contain complete inspector safety information before a “no 

objection” letter is issued. In response, other FSIS officials told us that 

they would not approve a new chemical until they have adequate 

information that shows it will not adversely affect the safety and health of 

FSIS inspectors, among other things.

Improving communication within FSIS about this review process is one 

goal of FSIS’s 2017 Annual Plan. To help implement this goal, FSIS 

formed a working group in April 2017 that is developing a draft directive to 

facilitate improved coordination among the program areas involved in the 

review process, including the Environmental, Safety, and Health Group. 

More specifically, the draft directive provides procedures and protocols 

and describes an electronic system for tracking information submitted. 

According to FSIS officials coordinating reviews, the electronic system will 

replace the current manual system and will be accessible to all program 

areas involved in the review process. Further, the draft of a “no objection”

letter will be distributed to the program areas involved in the review to 

ensure that all remaining outstanding questions or issues related to the 

notification have been addressed prior to issuing the letter to the 

submitter. According to an FSIS official, the agency plans to finalize and 

issue the draft directive by the end of calendar year 2017 and anticipates 

converting to the electronic tracking system in fiscal year 2018.

OSHA and FSIS officials told us that they have faced challenges 

responding to complaints about air quality in meat and poultry plants, 

because it is hard to measure airborne peracetic acid. According to 

OSHA, FSIS, and NIOSH officials, there is no sufficiently reliable method 

to measure peracetic acid in plants, in part because peracetic acid is not 

stable and breaks down quickly.96 As a result, it is harder to assess the 

extent of worker exposure to this chemical and plan for an appropriate 

response. Some plants currently use monitors to sample for the 

components of commercial peracetic acid (acetic acid and hydrogen 

 96 According to NIOSH officials, there is a method for airborne sampling of peracetic acid 

as published in G. Hecht, M. Hery, G. Hubert, and I. Subra, “Simultaneous Sampling of 

Peroxyacetic Acid and Hydrogen Peroxide in Workplace Atmospheres,” Annals of 

Occupational Hygiene 48(8): 715-21 (2004). NIOSH officials told us that the method can 

be difficult to implement. 

Gaps in Measurement
Page 46 GAO-18-12 Workplace Safety and Health

peroxide); however, the effects of peracetic acid exposure on workers can 

be different than those caused by either of these individual chemicals or 

by mixtures of peracetic acid with other chemicals.

In 2013, OSHA’s Salt Lake Technical Center began working to develop a 

validated sampling and analytical method that would permit measurement 

of airborne peracetic acid with a high degree of confidence.97 Work on the 

method continues, according to OSHA officials. NIOSH has begun 

evaluating a range of commercially available peracetic acid monitors and 

is planning to evaluate an air sampling method for peracetic acid.98 The 

lack of a reliable way to measure peracetic acid could also affect any 

efforts by OSHA to develop a permissible exposure limit (PEL), a type of 

workplace safety and health standard that officials said would enable the 

agency to more easily cite employers for exposing their workers to 

peracetic acid hazards, compared to using the general duty clause.99

According to OSHA officials, the process for developing PELs is arduous, 

and peracetic acid is one of many chemicals without such a limit or with 

 97 OSHA’s Salt Lake Technical Center is one of two technical centers operated by 

OSHA’s Directorate of Technical Support and Emergency Management, which provides 

expertise in a number of areas to help ensure that OSHA's occupational safety and health 

capabilities are state-of-the-art, according to OSHA.

98 Hecht et al., 2004.

99 As previously mentioned, a PEL is a workplace safety or health standard that 

establishes the maximum level of the chemical that workers may be exposed to in a 

workplace. Although there is no PEL for peracetic acid, OSHA’s process safety 

management standard applies to processes involving peracetic acid in quantities of 1,000 

pounds or more. See 29 C.F.R. § 1910.119, app. A. Other entities have developed 

voluntary occupational exposure limits for peracetic acid. For example, the American 

Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists developed the Threshold Limit Value─a

level, determined by an expert panel review of peer-reviewed literature, to which it is 

believed a worker can be exposed on a regular basis without adverse effects. NIOSH 

develops immediately dangerous to life or health (IDLH) values that are intended to 

protect workers from escape-impairing effects, irreversible effects, or death associated 

with acute (less than 30-minute) exposures. IDLH values are not occupational exposure 

limits, but are exposure recommendations that represent the maximum airborne 

concentration above which a highly reliable breathing apparatus is necessary. NIOSH, 

Current Intelligence Bulletin 66: Derivation of Immediately Dangerous to Life or Health 

(IDLH) Values, Publication 2014–100 (Cincinnati, OH: 2013).
Page 47 GAO-18-12 Workplace Safety and Health

one that is outdated.100 In response to our 2012 report, which found 

OSHA’s standard-setting process to be challenging and lengthy, OSHA 

and NIOSH developed an MOU to support their research on developing 

potential standards.101

In March 2017, NIOSH announced its intent to initiate a study of 

workplace uses of and occupational exposure to peracetic acid, but this 

study will not examine the safety and health hazards this chemical may 

pose if it is combined with other chemicals, as can happen in slaughter 

plants. The NIOSH study aims to develop an immediately dangerous to 

life or health (IDLH) value and an effective workplace measurement 

method, among other things.

102 While the focus of this research is the 

characterization of workplace exposure to peracetic acid, the study is not 

intended to address the extent and consequences of mixing peracetic 

acid with other substances, which can occur in several ways in meat and 

poultry plants. As carcasses move from one stage of processing to 

another, peracetic acid can come into contact with other substances, 

such as when there are spills or in drainage systems.103 FSIS officials, a 

 100 According to OSHA, many existing PELs for chemicals are outdated and inadequate 

for ensuring protection of worker health, and most of OSHA’s PELs were issued shortly 

after adoption of the OSH Act in 1970 and have not been updated since that time. In 1989, 

OSHA attempted to update or set new PELs for almost 400 chemicals in a single 

rulemaking; however, the rulemaking was subsequently vacated by a court in 1992. AFLCIO v. OSHA, 965 F.2d 962 (11th Cir. 1992). OSHA has posted on its website a list of 

occupational exposure limits developed by other entities and recommends that employers 

consider using them. 

101 GAO, Workplace Safety and Health: Multiple Challenges Lengthen OSHA’s Standard 

Setting, GAO-12-330 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 2, 2012).

102 According to a 2017 Request for Information published by NIOSH in the Federal 

Register, the study will collect information on: 1) workplace exposure data for peracetic 

acid; 2) possible health effects observed in workers exposed to peracetic acid; 3) 

workplaces and products in which peracetic acid may be found; 4) descriptions of work 

tasks and scenarios with a potential for exposure to peracetic acid; 5) reports and findings 

from in vitro and in vivo toxicity studies with peracetic acid; 6) data applicable to the 

quantitative risk assessment of health effects associated with acute, subchronic, and 

chronic workplace exposures to peracetic acid; 7) sampling and analytical methods for 

peracetic acid; and 8) control measures, including engineering controls, work practices, 

and personal protective equipment that are being used in workplaces where there is 

potential for exposure to peracetic acid. Health Risks to Workers Associated With 

Occupational Exposures to Peracetic Acid; Request for Information, 82 Fed. Reg. 12,819 

(Mar. 7, 2017).

103 Peracetic acid, ammonia, carbon dioxide, chlorine, sodium hydrochlorite (bleach), 

sodium hydroxide (lye), acidified sodium chloride, and citric acid are some commonly used 

chemicals that could come into contact with each other in meat and poultry plants. 

Gaps in Peracetic Acid 

Research
Page 48 GAO-18-12 Workplace Safety and Health

worker advocate, and plant workers we interviewed expressed concern 

that the mixing of chemicals can create new safety and health risks for 

workers. For example, an FSIS official said that an inspector at a poultry 

plant complained about effects from airborne chemicals that appeared to 

be related to the location of her work station, directly over a drain in which 

multiple substances were pooling. In 2011, 152 workers at an Arkansas 

poultry plant reported being hospitalized from effects of chlorine gas 

created after a supervisor added sodium hypochlorite (bleach) into a 

container holding a residual acidic antimicrobial solution, creating a 

chemical reaction.104

NIOSH officials told us they are aware that chemicals can be used in 

plants alongside peracetic acid and result in a mixed exposure, and that 

this may be a serious problem. Although the focus of the current peracetic 

acid study is primarily on the health effects of and exposures to peracetic 

acid alone, NIOSH officials said that NIOSH has the capability to assist in 

characterizing worker exposures of concern, and could consider such 

research in a follow-on study, depending on available resources. In 

addition, NIOSH officials told us that the agency will consider whether 

potential health hazards exist from other chemicals in the environment, 

particularly if they interfere with measuring peracetic acid exposures and 

assessing health effects in workers. Moreover, officials told us that their 

current study could provide the basis of follow-on research into other 

workplace chemical hazards, including mixtures.

In 2004, NIOSH recognized mixed exposures as a priority area for the 

occupational safety and health research community and identified 

significant gaps and research needs.105 According to the report, workers

from agriculture, construction, mining, and other industries are commonly 

exposed to combinations of chemical substances, biological or physical 

agents, and other stressors, and knowledge is limited regarding the 

potential health effects of mixed exposures. Identifying these effects can 

help characterize worker exposure and develop hazard controls that take 

into account the components of the mixtures. According to NIOSH 

officials, mixed exposures continue to be important to study because they 

may represent a health hazard to workers, and employers should prevent 

 104 Francisco Meza, Charles Mueller, and Bradley King, Evaluation of Health Effects of a 

Chlorine Gas Release in a Poultry Processing Plant—Arkansas, NIOSH, CDC, HETA No. 

2011-0128-3166 (Cincinnati, OH: September 2012/revised February 2013).

105 HHS (NIOSH) Mixed Exposures Research Agenda: A Report by the NORA Mixed 

Exposures Team, Publication No. 2005-106 (Cincinnati, OH: Dec. 2004).
Page 49 GAO-18-12 Workplace Safety and Health

or control workplace exposures to such mixtures. By considering the 

addition to the agency’s research agenda of a proposal to examine 

peracetic acid’s use in combination with other chemicals, NIOSH will be 

better able to characterize worker exposure to such scenarios and 

develop controls to reduce this hazard for workers.

While OSHA’s enforcement efforts in the meat and poultry industry have 

increased since we reported in 2005, worker safety and health problems 

persist and improvements are needed in identifying worker concerns, 

strengthening federal collaboration, and protecting workers from certain 

chemicals. Workers we spoke with reported they are reluctant to report 

injuries, illnesses, and hazards because they fear losing their jobs. There 

is a mismatch between concerns we heard from workers and the 

problems reported by OSHA, particularly in the area of bathroom access. 

Taking additional steps to encourage workers to disclose sensitive 

concerns and gathering additional information to determine the scope of 

bathroom access issues could enable OSHA to better identify worker 

safety and health concerns. OSHA’s efforts to address medical 

mismanagement at plants—which has resulted in poor medical care for 

workers—could be improved by issuing updated guidance for employers 

on how to manage their health units. Collaboration between OSHA and 

FSIS is limited and has improved little since we recommended in 2005 

that the two agencies strengthen their 1994 MOU on worker safety. Since 

FSIS is already present in many plants, the federal government is missing 

out on a cost-effective opportunity to further protect the safety and health 

of both plant workers and FSIS inspectors by leveraging resources in this 

fiscally constrained environment. Evaluating the implementation of the 

MOU and making any needed changes would help ensure the agencies 

improve their collaboration. With regard to chemicals, there are gaps in 

information sharing and research that have heightened the risk of 

chemical hazards for plant workers and FSIS inspectors. In particular, 

FSIS collects information on how to protect its inspectors from new 

chemicals, but it does not have a process to share this information with its 

own inspectors, plant management, OSHA, or NIOSH. By FSIS 

establishing a process to regularly share the worker safety information it 

collects during reviews of new chemicals, the federal government will be 

better positioned to use existing resources to support the safety and 

health of plant workers and FSIS inspectors. Finally, NIOSH’s plan to 

conduct a study on peracetic acid will likely yield useful information for 

meat and poultry worker safety, but it is not intended to address the 

potential consequences of mixing peracetic acid with other substances, 

which can occur in several ways in meat and poultry plants. By 

Conclusions
Page 50 GAO-18-12 Workplace Safety and Health

considering the addition to the agency’s research agenda of a proposal to 

examine peracetic acid’s use in combination with other chemicals in meat 

and poultry plants, NIOSH will be better able to characterize worker 

exposure to such scenarios and develop controls to reduce this hazard 

for workers.

We are making seven recommendations, including four to OSHA, two to 

FSIS, and one to NIOSH. Specifically:

The Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health 

should take additional steps to encourage workers to disclose sensitive 

concerns during OSHA inspections of meat and poultry plants; for 

example, by considering additional off-site interviews or exploring other 

options to obtain information anonymously. (Recommendation 1)

The Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health 

should gather more information, such as by asking workers during meat 

and poultry plant inspections, to determine the extent to which bathroom 

access is a problem and how to address any identified issues. 

(Recommendation 2)

The Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health 

should update its guidance for employers on how to manage their health 

units to address the challenges of managing these units.

(Recommendation 3)

The Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health 

should work with FSIS to assess the implementation of the MOU and 

make any needed changes to ensure improved collaboration; and set 

specific timeframes for periodic evaluations of the MOU. 

(Recommendation 4)

The FSIS Administrator should work with OSHA to assess the 

implementation of the MOU and make any needed changes to ensure 

improved collaboration; and set specific timeframes for periodic 

evaluations of the MOU. (Recommendation 5)

The FSIS Administrator should develop a process to regularly share the 

worker safety information it collects during its review of new chemicals 

with FSIS inspectors, plant management, OSHA, and NIOSH. 

(Recommendation 6)

Recommendations for 

Executive Action
Page 51 GAO-18-12 Workplace Safety and Health

The Director of NIOSH should consider including in the agency’s research 

agenda a proposal for examining the extent of peracetic acid’s use in 

combination with other chemicals in meat and poultry plants, and any 

safety and health hazards these combinations may pose to workers. 

(Recommendation 7)

We provided a draft of this report to the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), 

the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the U.S. Department of 

Health and Human Services (HHS), and the Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) for their review. DOL’s Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration (OSHA), USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service 

(FSIS), and HHS provided written comments that are reprinted in 

appendixes II, III, and IV, respectively. In an e-mail dated October 5, 

2017, an EPA audit liaison indicated that EPA had no comments. OSHA 

did not state whether it concurred or not with the four recommendations 

made to it. USDA expressed concern with the draft report’s 

characterization of FSIS’s collaborative efforts and also described 

planned actions to address the two recommendations we made to it. HHS 

agreed with the one recommendation we made to it. DOL and HHS 

provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate.

With respect to our first recommendation that OSHA take additional steps 

to encourage workers to share information during meat and poultry 

inspections, OSHA stated that it fully supports the idea of continuous 

improvement of its processes that would expand its ability to identify and 

address hazards before an injury, illness, or fatality occurs. However,

OSHA noted that it would be challenging to conduct offsite interviews in 

terms of witness cooperation, resources, and inspector safety. We 

continue to believe that OSHA should take steps to enhance reporting by 

meat and poultry workers. Our report describes meat and poultry workers’ 

reluctance to report injuries, illnesses, and hazards to OSHA because of 

their fear of employer retaliation. OSHA’s Field Operations Manual 

highlights the importance of a free and open exchange of information 

between OSHA inspectors and employees for conducting effective 

inspections. Conducting additional offsite interviews is one way to 

encourage employee reporting. However, there may be alternative 

additional steps OSHA could take to better position it to encourage 

workers to disclose sensitive concerns, consistent with our 

recommendation. 

With respect to our second recommendation that OSHA gather additional 

information to determine the extent to which bathroom access is a 

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation
Page 52 GAO-18-12 Workplace Safety and Health

problem in meat and poultry plants, OSHA stated it could not commit to 

routinely asking about bathroom access at each meat and poultry 

inspection. OSHA stated that each inspection requires a flexible approach 

to address unique worksite hazards. It further stated that OSHA does not 

routinely ask questions about any potential hazards that go beyond the 

scope of a complaint inspection, unless those hazards are in plain sight. 

However, as noted in the report, OSHA does require inspectors at poultry 

plants to consistently investigate other specific hazards, such as 

ergonomics hazards. Our report highlights the challenges meat and 

poultry workers may face gaining timely access to bathrooms. However, 

workers might not volunteer access information to OSHA. Our work 

identified a mismatch between the concerns we heard from workers and 

the problems reported by OSHA. Better understanding the scope of 

bathroom access problems would better position OSHA to respond 

appropriately. Further, OSHA may choose to address this issue without 

routinely asking workers about bathroom access, such as by selectively 

querying workers based on criteria determined by the agency.

With respect to our third recommendation to update its guidance for 

employers on management of plant health units, OSHA stated that it 

intends to revisit its guidance. 

With respect to our fourth and fifth recommendations for OSHA and FSIS 

to work together to assess the MOU’s implementation, make changes to 

improve collaboration, and set timeframes for periodic evaluations of the 

MOU, neither agency stated whether it agreed or not. OSHA stated that 

meat and poultry plants provide an opportunity for the two agencies to 

work collaboratively to identify employee hazards and promote safety and 

health, but OSHA did not comment specifically on the recommendation. 

FSIS stated that it already has directives in place to recognize and report 

hazards affecting FSIS employees, and acknowledged that the MOU was 

designed to additionally have FSIS employees report hazards affecting 

plant employees due to the regular presence of its inspectors in plants. 

FSIS noted that in collaborating with OSHA, FSIS will need to ensure its 

primary mission is not compromised by undertaking activities that take 

time and resources away from its food safety inspection responsibilities.

We continue to believe that strengthening the MOU and developing a 

mechanism to regularly evaluate it would help ensure that the goals of the 

MOU are met, and that leveraging FSIS’s presence in plants provides the 

federal government with a cost-effective opportunity to protect worker 

safety and health. 
Page 53 GAO-18-12 Workplace Safety and Health

With respect to our sixth recommendation that FSIS regularly share the 

worker safety information it collects during its review of new chemicals 

with FSIS inspectors, plant managers, OSHA, and National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), FSIS stated that the agency 

already has a process for sharing chemical safety information with its 

inspectors. However, FSIS has not provided us with evidence that it has 

shared the worker safety information it collects related to new chemicals, 

such as safety information that is specific for dilution levels and conditions 

of use at plants, as noted in the report. FSIS also stated that it would take 

certain steps to share information about approval of chemicals with other 

agencies such as OSHA and NIOSH, but the steps identified did not 

include sharing worker safety information. Incorporating worker safety 

information would further help enhance this information sharing. FSIS 

further stated that some of the information collected during its review of 

new chemicals may be proprietary. 

In addition, FSIS also expressed concern with how we characterized its

collaboration with OSHA and NIOSH on worker safety. Specifically, in 

reference to the report’s discussion of the development of the poultry 

inspection modernization rule, FSIS stated that it consulted with and 

included OSHA and NIOSH during the appropriate step of the rulemaking 

process, and that the agency followed the Administrative Procedure Act in 

proposing the rule. We do not intend to suggest any deficiencies with 

FSIS’s rulemaking procedures. Rather, our report points out possible 

opportunities for earlier and enhanced collaboration with OSHA on 

standards development. FSIS also requested that GAO include 

information in the report about the directive FSIS issued to implement the 

annual attestation on work-related conditions required by the poultry 

modernization final rule, and that the agency is sharing the information it 

receives as part of this process with OSHA. We have incorporated this 

information into the report.

In its written comments, HHS agreed with our seventh recommendation 

that it consider including in NIOSH’s research agenda a proposal for 

examining the extent of peracetic acid’s use in combination with other 

chemicals in meat and poultry plants, and any safety and health hazards 

these combinations may pose to workers. 

As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the comments 

of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the 

report date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the 

appropriate congressional committees; the secretaries of Labor, 
Page 54 GAO-18-12 Workplace Safety and Health

Agriculture, and Health and Human Services; and the Administrator of 

EPA. In addition, the report is available at no charge on the GAO website 

at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact 

me at (202) 512-7215 or brownbarnesc@gao.gov. Contact points for our 

Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on 

the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this 

report are listed in appendix V.

Cindy Brown Barnes, Director

Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 55 GAO-18-12 Workplace Safety and Health

This report (1) describes the efforts the Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration (OSHA) in the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) has made 

to help ensure meat and poultry workers’ safety and health, and assesses 

what, if any, challenges OSHA faces in carrying out these efforts; (2) 

examines how OSHA and the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA)

Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) have collaborated to help 

ensure meat and poultry worker safety and health; and (3) assesses any 

factors that may affect OSHA and FSIS efforts to protect meat and poultry 

workers from chemical hazards.

The estimated total employment for the animal slaughtering and 

processing industry in this report is an annual average calculated from 

household data collected by the Current Population Survey (CPS) in 

2016. The CPS is a probability sample and estimates derived from its 

data have sampling errors associated with them. We followed the DOL 

Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) technical guidance for estimating the 

standard error of annual average totals from CPS data. We express our 

confidence in the precision of our estimate as a 95 percent confidence 

interval. This is the interval that would contain the actual population value 

for 95 percent of the CPS samples that the U.S. Census Bureau could 

have drawn.

To describe injury and illness rates in the meat and poultry industry, we 

analyzed and reported survey data from the BLS Survey of Occupational 

Injuries and Illnesses (SOII) for calendar years 2004 through 2015 (the 

most recent year for which data were available).1 The SOII provides 

estimates of the number and frequency (incidence rates) of workplace 

injuries and illnesses by industry and also by detailed case 

circumstances, such as injury type and event, and worker characteristics 

for cases that result in days away from work, based on data from logs 

kept by employers (survey respondents)—private industry and state and 

local governments. Survey respondents provide counts for all recordable 

injuries and illnesses under OSHA recordkeeping regulations.

To report SOII data from the meat and poultry industry (using North 

American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 31161 for the 

animal slaughtering and processing industry), BLS provided estimates of 

 1 We reported the estimated incidence rates of total recordable cases of injuries and 

illnesses per 100 workers from calendar years 2004 through 2015. For illnesses, we 

reported the estimated incidence rates per 10,000 workers. For injuries and illnesses with

days away from work, we also reported the estimated incidence rates per 10,000 workers.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 56 GAO-18-12 Workplace Safety and Health

each industry’s injury and illness incidence rates and their associated 

relative standard errors. All estimates produced from the analysis of the 

SOII data are subject to sampling errors. We express our confidence in 

the precision of the results as a 95 percent confidence interval. This is the 

interval that would contain the actual population value for 95 percent of 

the samples the respective agency could have drawn. For estimates 

derived from BLS’s SOII data, we used the agency-provided relative 

standard errors to estimate the associated confidence intervals. All 

estimates we report have the associated 95 percent confidence interval 

provided.

To assess the reliability of BLS SOII data, we reviewed documents 

related to the data sources, such as BLS’s Handbook of Methods, and we 

interviewed agency officials knowledgeable about these data. We found 

that SOII data were sufficiently reliable for our purposes in generally 

reporting estimated incidence rates of injuries and illnesses in the meat 

and poultry industry.

To address all three objectives, we reviewed relevant federal laws and 

regulations and interviewed officials from OSHA and FSIS. We also 

visited four states—Arkansas, Georgia, Minnesota, and Texas—selected 

based on factors such as high production of meat or poultry; regional 

emphasis programs focusing on meat or poultry; presence of an OSHA 

regional or area office; presence of industry and worker advocate 

contacts; and access to meat or poultry plants participating in the 

Voluntary Protection Program or the Safety and Health Achievement 

Recognition Program.2 We used USDA statistics on the numbers of 

cattle, hogs, chicken, and turkeys slaughtered annually in the United 

States as a proxy for meat and poultry production for each state.3 As 

appropriate for each site visit, we met with either local OSHA or state 

Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) agency officials, as well as FSIS 

officials (including inspectors, supervisors, and an occupational safety 

and health official), industry representatives, experts in issues related to 

worker safety, and representatives of worker advocacy groups; and we 

 2 In Minnesota, the state is responsible for oversight of safety and health for private sector 

workers under a state plan approved by OSHA. In Georgia, Texas, and Arkansas, OSHA 

is responsible for overseeing safety and health for these workers.

3 USDA, National Agriculture Statistics Service, Poultry Slaughter: 2015 Summary

(February 2016). See also USDA, National Agriculture Statistics Service. Livestock 

Slaughter: 2015 Summary (April 2016).
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 57 GAO-18-12 Workplace Safety and Health

visited four meat and poultry plants.4 At each plant, we met with plant 

management, FSIS management and inspectors, and plant safety and 

health staff, as available. The information gathered from these interviews 

is not generalizable to all plants or meat or poultry workers.

We also interviewed and reviewed information from additional 

stakeholders, including experts in issues related to worker safety, as well 

as representatives of worker advocacy groups. We identified and 

interviewed these stakeholders based on previous work and on referrals 

from other stakeholders. We also attended worker safety conferences 

hosted by the meat industry, the poultry industry, and worker advocates.

We also conducted group and individual interviews with meat and poultry 

workers in six locations in five states: Arkansas, Delaware, Nebraska, 

North Carolina, and Virginia.5 We interviewed between six and 

approximately 30 workers per state, totaling approximately 72 workers 

across all 5 interviews.6 We selected sites based on a variety of factors, 

such as states with a relatively high level of meat or poultry slaughter, 

according to USDA data; type of plant (meat or poultry); and geographic 

diversity. We also considered resource availability and the ability of 

supporting organizations to coordinate worker interviews. We coordinated 

with worker advocacy groups or worker centers to identify meat and 

poultry workers who were available and willing to meet with us. Interviews 

were conducted in English or Spanish. The information gathered from 

these interviews is not generalizable to all meat or poultry workers.

To describe the efforts OSHA has made to help ensure meat and poultry 

workers’ safety and health and assess any challenges, we reviewed 

relevant documentation, such as agency guidance and information about 

enforcement and compliance assistance activities. We interviewed 

 4 In Minnesota, we visited two plants, and in Arkansas and Georgia, we visited one plant 

each.

5 In North Carolina and Virginia, the state is responsible for oversight of safety and health 

for private sector workers under state plans approved by OSHA. In Arkansas, Delaware, 

and Nebraska, OSHA is responsible for overseeing safety and health for these workers.

6 In Nebraska we interviewed one group of workers and conducted two interviews with 

individual workers; in the other states we interviewed one group each. We interviewed 

workers in Arkansas prior to developing the selection process and questions list that we 

utilized for the other worker interviews. The questions we asked workers in Arkansas were 

similar to questions we asked workers in other states. In Arkansas, we did not obtain an 

exact count of worker participants, but estimated attendance to be 30.
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 58 GAO-18-12 Workplace Safety and Health

officials from OSHA and FSIS, as well as representatives of the meat and 

poultry industry. We also analyzed enforcement data from calendar years 

2005-2016 from two OSHA databases: the OSHA Information System 

and OSHA Legacy Data. We examined data starting in 2005 because our 

previous report on OSHA inspections in the meat and poultry industry 

examined inspections data through 2004.7 We analyzed enforcement 

data on federal and state inspections of meat and poultry plants, including 

data on the type of inspection, violations found, standards cited, penalties 

assessed, and whether inspectors were denied entry into the plant. To 

analyze the number of inspections and the results of OSHA inspections of 

meat and poultry plants, we analyzed inspections of plants with NAICS 

codes 311611, 311612, and 311613 for meat plants, and NAICS code 

311615 for poultry plants. To assess the reliability of the data, we 

reviewed relevant agency documentation, conducted electronic data 

testing, and interviewed agency officials knowledgeable about these data. 

Based on these reviews, we determined that the data were sufficiently 

reliable for our purposes. To assess OSHA’s efforts, we compared 

information we learned to internal controls from Standards for Internal 

Control in the Federal Government that call for agencies to use quality 

information and to internally and externally communicate the necessary 

quality information to achieve the entity’s objectives.8

To examine how OSHA and FSIS have collaborated to help ensure meat 

and poultry worker safety and health, we reviewed relevant 

documentation, such as information about OSHA’s and FSIS’s 

collaborative activities, and we interviewed officials from OSHA and FSIS. 

To analyze information on OSHA inspections of FSIS in meat and poultry 

plants, we used the most recent data available for calendar years 2005-

2016 from the OSHA Information System and OSHA Legacy Data. We 

also requested FSIS confirm which establishments pertained to the meat 

and poultry industry. In assessing agency efforts, we reviewed the 1994 

memorandum of understanding (MOU) agreed to by OSHA and FSIS, 

 7 GAO, Workplace Safety and Health: Safety in the Meat and Poultry Industry, While 

Improving, Could Be Further Strengthened, GAO-05-96 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 12, 

2005).

8 GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO-14-704G 

(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 2014).
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 59 GAO-18-12 Workplace Safety and Health

and prior GAO reports that highlight interagency collaboration.9 We also 

compared information we learned from officials to internal controls from 

Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government that call for 

agencies to internally and externally communicate the necessary quality 

information to achieve the entity’s objectives.10

To assess any factors that may affect OSHA and FSIS efforts to protect 

meat and poultry workers from chemical hazards, we reviewed relevant 

documentation, such as Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Food 

and Drug Administration (FDA), and FSIS processes for reviewing new 

workplace chemicals, including FSIS’s Compliance Guideline Procedures 

for New Technology Notifications and Protocols. We interviewed officials 

from OSHA, EPA, FDA, and FSIS to understand how these reviews are 

carried out and the extent to which agencies coordinate and share 

information. We also interviewed representatives of the meat and poultry 

industry. We compared information we learned from our review of 

documents and interviews with officials to internal controls from 

Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government that call for 

agencies to internally and externally communicate the necessary quality 

information to achieve the entity’s objectives.11 To understand efforts 

underway to develop tools to measure the presence of chemicals used in 

plants, we reviewed scientific information on chemicals, such as peracetic 

acid, and interviewed officials from OSHA’s Salt Lake Technical Center 

regarding validated sampling and analytical methods. 

Focus shifted to peracetic acid during the course of our review because it 

was identified by FSIS officials and worker advocates as a chemical 

commonly used in plants for which OSHA had no permissible exposure 

limit, and FSIS officials told us there were complaints the new chemical 

was causing illnesses. We reviewed National Institute for Occupational 

Safety and Health (NIOSH) health hazard evaluations to understand the 

extent of concerns related to chemicals, including peracetic acid. To 

identify any gaps in peracetic acid research, we reviewed documents, 

 9 Memorandum of Understanding between DOL’s OSHA and USDA’s FSIS, February 4, 

1994; GAO: Managing for Results: Key Considerations for Implementing Interagency 

Collaborative Mechanisms; GAO-12-1022 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 27, 2012); and GAO: 

Results-Oriented Government: Practices That Can Help Enhance and Sustain 

Collaboration among Federal Agencies, GAO-06-15 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 21, 2005).

10 GAO-14-704G.

11 GAO-14-704G.
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 60 GAO-18-12 Workplace Safety and Health

including NIOSH’s 2017 Request for Information on peracetic acid, as 

well as NIOSH’s research agenda and goals for studying the mixture of 

chemicals, including its 2004 Mixed Exposures Research Agenda.

12 We 

also interviewed officials from NIOSH’s Education and Information 

Division.

We conducted this performance audit from May 2016 to November 2017 

in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives.

 12 Health Risks to Workers Associated With Occupational Exposures to Peracetic Acid; 

Request for Information, 82 Fed. Reg. 12,819 (Mar. 7, 2017), and HHS (NIOSH) Mixed 

Exposures Research Agenda: A Report by the NORA Mixed Exposures Team, Publication 

No. 2005-106 (Cincinnati, OH: Dec. 2004).
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Labor

Page 61 GAO-18-12 Workplace Safety and Health

Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Labor
Appendix III: Comments from the Department 

of Agriculture

Page 62 GAO-18-12 Workplace Safety and Health

Appendix III: Comments from the 

Department of Agriculture
Appendix III: Comments from the Department 

of Agriculture

Page 63 GAO-18-12 Workplace Safety and Health
Appendix III: Comments from the Department 

of Agriculture

Page 64 GAO-18-12 Workplace Safety and Health
Appendix III: Comments from the Department 

of Agriculture

Page 65 GAO-18-12 Workplace Safety and Health
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department 

of Health and Human Services

Page 66 GAO-18-12 Workplace Safety and Health

Appendix IV: Comments from the 

Department of Health and Human Services
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department 

of Health and Human Services 

Page 67 GAO-18-12 Workplace Safety and Health 
Page 68 GAO-18-12 Workplace Safety and Health

Cindy Brown Barnes, (202) 512-7215 or brownbarnesc@gao.gov

In addition to the contact named above, Blake Ainsworth, (Assistant 

Director), Mary Denigan-Macauley, Eve Weisberg (Analyst-in-Charge), 

Rosemary Torres Lerma, Monika Gomez, Linda Collins, Erik Kjeldgaard, 

Cathy Roark, Susan Aschoff, James Bennett, Almeta Spencer, Sarah 

Cornetto, Monica Savoy, and Hiwotte Amare made significant 

contributions to this report.

Also contributing to this report were Ivelisse Aviles, Carl Barden, Tim 

Bober, Kevin Bray, Marcia Crosse, John Mingus, Steve Morris, Ardith 

Spence, and Mark Ward.

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments
Page 69 GAO-18-12 Workplace Safety and Health

Workplace Safety and Health: Additional Data Needed to Address 

Continued Hazards in the Meat and Poultry Industry. GAO-16-337. 

Washington, D.C.: April 25, 2016.

Regulatory Guidance Processes: Selected Departments Could 

Strengthen Internal Control and Dissemination Practices. GAO-15-368. 

Washington, D.C.: April 16, 2015.

Chemical Assessments: Agencies Coordinate Activities, But Additional 

Action Could Enhance Efforts. GAO-14-763. Washington, D.C.: 

September 29, 2014.

Food Safety: USDA Needs to Strengthen Its Approach to Protecting 

Human Health from Pathogens in Poultry Products. GAO-14-744. 

Washington, D.C.: September 30, 2014.

Food Safety: More Disclosure and Data Needed to Clarify Impact of 

Changes to Poultry and Hog Inspections. GAO-13-775. Washington, 

D.C.: August 22, 2013.

Workplace Safety and Health: OSHA Can Better Respond to State-Run 

Programs Facing Challenges. GAO-13-320. Washington, D.C.: April 16, 

2013.

Workplace Safety and Health: Further Steps by OSHA Would Enhance 

Monitoring of Enforcement and Effectiveness. GAO-13-61. Washington, 

D.C.: January 24, 2013.

Managing for Results: Key Considerations for Implementing Interagency 

Collaborative Mechanisms. GAO-12-1022. Washington, D.C.: September

27, 2012.

Workplace Safety and Health: Multiple Challenges Lengthen OSHA’s 

Standard Setting. GAO-12-330. Washington, D.C.: April 2, 2012.

Workplace Safety and Health: Better OSHA Guidance Needed on Safety 

Incentive Programs. GAO-12-329. Washington, D.C.: April 9, 2012.

Workplace Safety and Health: Enhancing OSHA’s Records Audit Process 

Could Improve the Accuracy of Worker Injury and Illness Data. 

GAO-10-10. Washington, D.C.: October 15, 2009.

Related GAO Products
Page 70 GAO-18-12 Workplace Safety and Health

OSHA’s Voluntary Protection Programs: Improved Oversight and Controls 

Would Better Ensure Program Quality. GAO-09-395. Washington, D.C.: 

May 20, 2009.

Whistleblower Protection Program: Better Data and Improved Oversight 

Would Help Ensure Program Quality and Consistency. GAO-09-106. 

Washington, D.C.: January 27, 2009.

Workplace Safety and Health: OSHA Could Improve Federal Agencies’ 

Safety Programs with a More Strategic Approach to Its Oversight. 

GAO-06-379. Washington, D.C.: April 21, 2006.

Results-Oriented Government: Practices That Can Help Enhance and 

Sustain Collaboration among Federal Agencies. GAO-06-15. Washington, 

D.C.: October 21, 2005.

Workplace Safety and Health: Safety in the Meat and Poultry Industry, 

While Improving, Could Be Further Strengthened. GAO-05-96. 

Washington, D.C.: January 12, 2005.

Workplace Safety and Health: OSHA’s Voluntary Compliance Strategies 

Show Promising Results, But Should Be Fully Evaluated before They Are 

Expanded, GAO-04-378. Washington, D.C.: March 19, 2004.

Workplace Safety and Health: OSHA Can Strengthen Enforcement 

through Improved Program Management. GAO-03-45. Washington, D.C.: 

November 22, 2002.

Workplace Safety and Health: OSHA Should Strengthen the Management 

of Its Consultation Program. GAO-02-60. Washington, D.C.: October 12, 

2001.

Food Safety: Weaknesses in Meat and Poultry Inspection Pilot Should Be 

Addressed Before Implementation. GAO-02-59. Washington, D.C.: 

December 17, 2001.

Worker Protection: Better Coordination Can Improve Safety at Hazardous 

Material Facilities. GAO-01-62. Washington, D.C.: October 26, 2000.

Community Development: Changes in Nebraska’s and Iowa’s Counties 

with Large Meatpacking Plant Workforces. GAO/RCED-98-62. 

Washington, D.C.: February 27, 1998.

(100828)
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and investigative 

arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional 

responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability of the 

federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public 

funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, 

recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed 

oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government 

is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is 

through GAO’s website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, GAO 

posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence. To 

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, go to http://www.gao.gov

and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of production and 

distribution and depends on the number of pages in the publication and whether 

the publication is printed in color or black and white. Pricing and ordering 

information is posted on GAO’s website, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537.

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, MasterCard, 

Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube.

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov.

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Orice Williams Brown, Managing Director, WilliamsO@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400, 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125, 

Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

James-Christian Blockwood, Managing Director, spel@gao.gov, (202) 512-4707

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7814, 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Strategic Planning and 

External Liaison

Please Print on Recycled Paper.