United States

Department of

Agriculture

Economic

Research

Service

Economic

Information

Bulletin

Number 82

October 2011 

Food Safety Audits, 

Plant Characteristics, 

and Food Safety 

Technology Use in Meat 

and Poultry Plants

Michael Ollinger, Mary K. Muth, Shawn A. Karns,

and Zanethia Choice
www.ers.usda.gov

Visit Our Website To Learn More 

About Production Technology!

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its 

programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, 

disability, and, where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental 

status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, 

or because all or a part of an individual’s income is derived from any public 

assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons 

with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program 

information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s 

TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). 

To file a complaint of discrimination write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil 

Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or 

call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal 

opportunity provider and employer.

 

http://www.ers.usda.gov/briefing/FoodSafety/private.htm

Recommended citation format for this publication:

Ollinger, Michael, Mary K. Muth. Shawn A. Karns, and Zanethia Choice. 

Food Safety Audits, Plant Characteristics, and Food Safety Technology Use 

in Meat and Poultry Plants, EIB-82, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Economic 

Research Service. October 2011.

Cover photo: USDA, Agricultural Research Service.

Use of commercial and trade names does not imply approval or

constitute endorsement by USDA.
United States 

Department 

of Agriculture 

www.ers.usda.gov 

A Report from the Economic Research Service

Economic

Information

Bulletin

Number 82

October 2011

Food Safety Audits, Plant 

Characteristics, and Food Safety 

Technology Use in Meat and 

Poultry Plants

Abstract

Food safety technology can increase a company’s capacity to prevent a foodborne 

contamination. A food safety audit—a quality control tool in which an auditor observes 

whether a plant’s processing practices and technologies are compatible with good food 

safety practices—can indicate how effectively food safety technology is being used. 

Fast food restaurants, grocery stores, and other major customers of meat and poultry 

processing plants conduct their own audits or hire auditors to assess the soundness of a 

plant’s processing operation. Meat and poultry plants can also audit themselves as a way 

to help maintain process control. In this report, we document the extent of food safety 

audits in meat and poultry processing plants. We also examine the associations between 

the use of audits and plant size, firm structure, and food safety technology use. Results 

show that larger plants, plants subject to food safety audits, and plants that are part of a 

multiplant firm use more food safety technology than other plants. Plants subject to both 

plant-hired and customer-hired audits had greater technology use than single (plant- or 

customer-hired) audit plants. 

Keywords: Meat and poultry processing, safety standards, product recalls, food safety 

technology, food safety audits

Michael Ollinger, ollinger@ers.usda.gov

Mary K. Muth

Shawn A. Karns

Zanethia Choice
ii

Food Safety Audits, Plant Characteristics, and Food Safety Technology Use in Meat and Poultry Plants / EIB-82

Economic Research Service / USDA

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Jessica Todd, Ephraim Liebtag, Laurian 

Unnevehr, Elise Golan, and Jay Variyam, USDA, Economic Research 

Service, and William K. Shaw, USDA, Food Safety and Inspection Service 

(FSIS), as well as three anonymous reviewers for their helpful reviews. We 

also thank our editor, Priscilla Smith, and our designer, Susan DeGeorge.

Michael Ollinger is an economist with USDA’s Economic Research Service. 

Zanethia Choice was an intern with ERS when this research was conducted; 

she is now in graduate school at the University of Florida. Mary K. Muth 

and Shawn A. Karns are with RTI International, a nonprofit research institute 

based in Research Triangle Park, NC.
iii

Food Safety Audits, Plant Characteristics, and Food Safety Technology Use in Meat and Poultry Plants / EIB-82

Economic Research Service / USDA

Contents

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Types of Audits and Reasons for Using Them . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Auditor Services and the Incentives To Use Them . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Types of Audits and Their Incentives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Audit Compliance and Audit Certification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Number of Audits and the Incentives for Food Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Economic Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Why Plants Make Food Safety Investments and Use Auditor Services . . . 7

Plant Size and Firm Type, Food Safety Investment, and the Use of 

Auditor Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Survey Techniques and the Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Variable Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Construction of a Food Safety Technology Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Discussion of the Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Concluding Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Appendix A: Survey Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Appendix B: Index Construction and Descriptive Statistics . . . . . . . . . 33
iv

Food Safety Audits, Plant Characteristics, and Food Safety Technology Use in Meat and Poultry Plants / EIB-82

Economic Research Service / USDA

Summary

What Is the Issue?

Food contamination poses serious threats to human health as well as to the 

economic viability of meat and poultry plants. Food safety technology can 

increase a company’s capacity to prevent a foodborne contamination. A food 

safety audit—a quality control tool in which an auditor observes whether a 

plant’s processing practices and technologies are compatible with good food 

safety practices—can indicate how effectively food safety technology is 

being used. Fast food restaurants, grocery stores, and other major customers 

of meat and poultry processing plants conduct their own audits or hire auditors to assess the soundness of a plant’s processing operation. Meat and 

poultry plants also can audit themselves as a way to help maintain process 

control and as a marketing tool. In this report, we document the extent of 

food safety audits in U.S. meat and poultry processing plants and examine 

the association between the use of audits and plant size, firm structure, and 

food safety technology use. 

What Were the Study Findings?

•	In the poultry slaughter, cattle slaughter, and ready-to-eat products (e.g., 

luncheon meats) industries, at least 90 percent of output is from audited 

plants. 

•	In the hog slaughter, ground beef, and not-ready-to-eat products (e.g., 

meat cuts) industries, at least 70 percent of output is from audited plants. 

•	More than one-half of all plants were audited in the poultry slaughter 

industry. About one out of three cattle slaughter and hog slaughter plants 

were audited.

•	Plants with customer-hired or plant-hired auditors use significantly higher 

levels of food safety technology than plants without auditors. The most 

notable differences between plants using auditors and those not using 

auditors were in the use of testing and equipment technologies, and the 

smallest differences were observed in sanitation practices. These results 

hold within plant size categories.

•	The use of double audits may indicate firms with the strongest incentives 

to maintain food safety. Double-audit plants—those using both plant-hired 

and customer-hired auditors—use greater food safety technology than 

plants using only one audit type (either plant-hired or customer-hired). 

These results hold after controlling for plant size. 

•	Larger plants and plants owned by multiplant firms are associated with a 

significantly higher level of food safety technology use across all industries that were examined. 

How Was the Study Conducted?

Food safety technology use in six categories of meat and poultry plants—

cattle, hog, and poultry slaughter; ready-to-eat (e.g., luncheon meats); 

not-ready-to-eat (e.g., meat cuts); and ground beef—is examined using a 

technology index developed by Ollinger, Moore, and Chandran (2004) and 
v

Food Safety Audits, Plant Characteristics, and Food Safety Technology Use in Meat and Poultry Plants / EIB-82

Economic Research Service / USDA

using Tukey-Kramer comparison tests and other statistical tools. Six technologies were examined: hide removal (dehiding), sanitation, operations, equipment, testing, and an overall measure. The data on the use of food safety 

technologies are nationally representative and include information on 600 

slaughter plants and 700 processing-only meat and poultry plants collected 

by RTI International for USDA’s Food Safety Inspection Service in 2004 and 

2005. They are the most recent data available. 

1

Food Safety Audits, Plant Characteristics, and Food Safety Technology Use in Meat and Poultry Plants / EIB-82

Economic Research Service / USDA

Introduction

Food safety audits provide information about the efficacy of a plant’s food 

safety process control system at some point in time and are becoming 

increasingly important to the meat and poultry industry.1 Fast food restaurants, grocery stores, and other major customers of meat and poultry plants 

use audits to assess the soundness of a plant’s processing operation and often 

require audits as conditions for granting a plant their business. Meat and 

poultry plants use audits as a way to help maintain process control and also 

as a marketing tool that could be useful for winning more business (Richard, 

2003). By 2005, the use of auditors had become widespread. Some recent 

food safety incidents, however, have called into the question the usefulness 

of audits. Moss and Martin (2009) and Harris (2010) reported that several 

recently audited plants had recalled millions of dollars worth of peanut, meat, 

egg, and other products.

The 1993 outbreak of E. coli O157:H7 in hamburgers served at Jack-inthe-Box restaurants led to a loss in net income for the restaurant company of 

around $160 million over the 18 months following the outbreak (Roberts et 

al., 1997). In response, Jack-in-the-Box imposed strict food safety standards 

on its suppliers and became a leader in the provision of food safety (Golan 

et al., 2004). Other restaurant chains, grocery stores, food manufacturers, 

and other buyers also recognized the threat that an adverse food safety event 

could pose to their business. Thus, they developed their own food safety 

process control programs and hired food safety auditors to evaluate their 

effectiveness.

Audits may complement food safety technology. While the amount of investment in food safety technology indicates a company’s commitment to food 

safety and also its capacity to prevent foodborne contamination, food safety 

audits can indicate how effectively food safety technology is being used.

To date, there has been little research on the use of audits and their relationship with food safety technology in meat and poultry plants. Although the 

use of auditors does not necessarily cause plants to use more food safety 

technology or vice versa, an association may exist between the use of auditors and food safety technology, particularly if plants using auditors are the 

types of plants that make more extensive use of food safety investments or 

if the forces encouraging the use of food safety auditors encourage the use 

of food safety technologies. Our purpose in this paper is to (1) examine the 

extent of food safety audit use, (2) see whether the use of audits varies with 

plant size and across industries, and (3) evaluate whether the use of audits, 

plant size, and firm type are associated with food safety technology use. 

Our analysis relies on data from a 2004-05 national survey of meat and 

poultry plants by RTI International for USDA’s Food Safety Inspection 

Service (FSIS) on the use of food safety technologies. Altogether, nearly 400 

meat slaughter, more than 200 poultry slaughter, and almost 700 processingonly plants responded to a survey that was sent to a nationally representative sample of plants. The survey covered an extensive array of food safety 

technologies. Some of these are more labor-intensive food safety tasks, such 

as sanitation practices, and others are fixed assets, such as steam vacuum 

1The terminology surrounding food 

safety audits can be confusing. In the 

certification literature, a first-party 

audit is an audit performed within 

the meat or poultry plant by the plant 

itself; a second-party audit is an audit 

conducted by or on behalf of a purchasing organization, such as a grocery 

store chain or another meat or poultry 

plant; a third-party audit is undertaken 

by an independent certification body 

that certifies a process and has no ties 

to either the customer or the supplier. In 

the trade literature, a third-party auditor 

is often referred to as an auditor who 

is not an employee of the plant or customer. To avoid confusion, we do not 

use the first-, second-, and third-party 

audit terminology.
2

Food Safety Audits, Plant Characteristics, and Food Safety Technology Use in Meat and Poultry Plants / EIB-82

Economic Research Service / USDA

units. The survey also gathered information on plant characteristics, such as 

product inputs and outputs, plant size, and firm type. 

We measure plant food safety technology using an index that is constructed 

from the food safety technology questions included in the RTI International 

survey. There is one comprehensive measure of all technologies and separate 

indexes for five technology types—hide removal (dehiding), sanitation, operating practices such as disposal of scrap products (operations), equipment, 

and testing. By using five specialized technology indexes that separate laborintensive food safety activities, such as sanitation, from capital-intensive food 

safety measures, such as equipment, we can better understand how types of 

technologies vary with plant characteristics. Indexes were based on a more 

comprehensive assortment of food safety technologies than was available for 

Ollinger, Moore, and Chandran (2004). 

We next discuss food safety audits and then provide an economic framework 

of how incentives provided by the private market (e.g., major customers) 

encourage food safety. After that, we discuss the survey methodology, 

describe the data in more detail, and present results of food safety expenditures and technological choices in the context of our model.
3

Food Safety Audits, Plant Characteristics, and Food Safety Technology Use in Meat and Poultry Plants / EIB-82

Economic Research Service / USDA

Types of Audits and Reasons for Using Them

Audits of manufacturing plants are a systematic documentation of the 

extent to which a plant meets specific standards established by the plant or a 

customer. There are many types of audits, but most fall into these categories: 

food safety and good manufacturing practices (GMPs), hazard analysis and 

critical control points (HACCP) verification (including benchmarking and 

confirming a program), animal welfare, good laboratory practices (GLPs), 

and quality systems. Auditors may also evaluate document management 

systems, pest control practices, water and hygiene controls, corrective and 

preventive procedures, purchasing and vendor practices, system calibrations, 

allergen controls, shipping and receiving procedures, education and training 

systems, and sanitation practices (Stier, 2009).

Audits indicate whether a plant is performing specified functions on a particular day. There is no guarantee that the plant will be performing the same 

way on other days, so it is important that audits be scheduled on a frequent 

but random basis. If the auditor comes at a predictable time, there is an incentive for plant management to prepare for an audit.

Audits cover a prescribed set of activities or processes. Plants receive a 

favorable rating if they meet those standards. A favorable rating does not 

mean that a plant produces safe food. A plant could be producing contaminated products, yet it could receive a good rating from its auditor. For 

example, if the auditor was only obligated to evaluate employee sanitation 

and the auditor determined that employees properly washed their hands, then 

the plant would earn a good rating even if the plant was producing contaminated products. Cases like this have occurred. Michael Moss and Andrew 

Martin (2009) indicated that Peanut Corporation of America produced 

Salmonella-contaminated peanuts for many months even though the plant 

received superior auditing scores from AIB International, an auditing 

company. Lena Sun (2010) reported that Wright County Farms received a 

superior rating from AIB shortly before its eggs sickened more than 1,800 

people. Since the AIB auditors of these establishments did no product testing, 

the auditors could not evaluate product food safety, and, since the establishments satisfactorily performed activities needed to pass their audits, they 

received superior grades.

Audit standards vary. Robert Brackett, former senior vice president of the 

Grocery Manufacturers Association, asserted that some inspections can be 

rigorous, particularly if they use internationally recognized private benchmarks (Sun, 2010). However, those audits are expensive and therefore not 

commonly done in the majority of U.S. meat and poultry plants.

The effectiveness in improving food safety after an audit depends on 

the seriousness with which a plant takes the auditor’s recommendations. 

Plant managers likely will implement an auditor’s recommendations if not 

following the recommendations poses a risk to their business, such as losing 

a potential contract. However, if a customer does not evaluate audit outcomes 

carefully and does not require a plant to make changes, then recommendations may or may not be followed. The Peanut Corporation of America 

apparently did not implement several important recommendations made by 
4

Food Safety Audits, Plant Characteristics, and Food Safety Technology Use in Meat and Poultry Plants / EIB-82

Economic Research Service / USDA

auditors because the peanut processing plant’s customers failed to follow up 

on those recommendations by their own auditors (Moss and Martin, 2009).

Auditor Services and the Incentives To Use Them

Large fast food restaurants, grocery store chains, and other large customers 

of meat and poultry plants have recognized that they face considerable 

market risks if they serve contaminated meat and poultry products. These 

threats have led some large customers to demand strong food safety measures 

from their meat and poultry suppliers. A meat or poultry plant, on the other 

hand, wants to reduce its costs as much as possible, so it has an incentive 

to conduct only the minimum level of sanitation and process control. Since 

these two interests are at odds, the plant and its large customer may enter 

into a long-term contract in which the plant agrees to perform specified food 

safety tasks in exchange for an exclusive production agreement or a price 

premium for its products. (Ollinger and Mueller, 2003; Golan et al., 2004). 

A long-term contract does not completely resolve the conflict because the 

activities of plants are not observed by their customers. Customers cannot 

distinguish between contaminated meat and poultry and wholesome meat 

or poultry when there is no outward sign of contamination such as an “off” 

smell or discoloration. As a result, major customers must either risk receiving 

contaminated meat or evaluate the food safety performance of their suppliers. 

If they choose to evaluate food safety performance, large customers can use 

their own inhouse experts or hire meat and poultry food safety auditors. The 

frequency of the evaluations depends on the interests of the large customer.

Auditor services may be used in other situations as well. For example, a plant 

manager may use an auditor to assess the food safety integrity of the plant’s 

operations. Below, we discuss four types of auditing arrangements.

Types of Audits and Their Incentives

There are four types of auditing arrangements that a plant may have:2

1. First, a plant may be subject to no audits. These plants likely serve 

customers who do not demand audits and have managers who see 

no need for audits. A manager may not use auditor services because 

audits are costly and (1) a plant may be small enough that the manager 

can closely monitor operations or (2) the plant may never have had an 

adverse food safety event and the manager may see no need to change, or 

(3) the manager may not view food safety as a top priority. 

2. The second auditing arrangement is when plants are subject to audits by 

customers. These customers want to be sure that the meat or poultry they 

buy is safe and that their meat or poultry suppliers are meeting the food 

safety standards that they agreed to as part of a purchase contract. In this 

case, the auditor acts as an agent of the meat or poultry customer. Since 

the customer hires and pays the auditor, the incentives between the meat 

or poultry customer and auditor are aligned and the auditor has a strong 

incentive to report any deviations by a plant that are below the standards 

of the customer.

2One might consider a different type 

of audit in which auditors hired by 

a plant evaluate the performance of 

cleaning crews hired as contractors by 

that plant. Presumably, respondents 

to the survey would indicate whether 

the auditor was hired by the customer 

or the plant and report accordingly. It 

should also be noted that USDA-FSIS 

and USDA’s Agricultural Marketing 

Service (AMS) periodically conduct 

audits as part of their regulatory 

authority. Since these are not initiated 

by the private sector, they are neither 

reported nor discussed here.
5

Food Safety Audits, Plant Characteristics, and Food Safety Technology Use in Meat and Poultry Plants / EIB-82

Economic Research Service / USDA

3. A third type of audit relationship is when a large meat or poultry 

customer wants an audit but leaves it up to the plant to select the auditor. 

Here plant management is an agent of the customer and the auditor is an 

agent of the plant management. This type of relationship is complicated 

because plant management hires the auditor. The plant could hire an 

experienced auditor that gives a fair assessment or it could hire a lowskilled or less experienced auditor who is less able to identify deviations 

from expected performance and is more likely to give a good report. 

Regardless of which type of auditor is hired, an auditor should report 

all observed deviations from generally accepted food safety practices. 

However, this could create a conflict for the auditor because a negative 

report would look bad for the plant that hired the auditor and could cause 

the plant to deny the auditor any future business. Thus, the decision for 

the auditor is to weigh any benefits that may be achieved from giving 

a report that is more favorable to the plant against the costs of losing a 

good reputation for auditing services.

4. A fourth type of auditing arrangement is when plants hire their own auditors. The plant could use the audit results to verify the effectiveness of 

components of its manufacturing process or its entire processing system. 

In this case, a plant would ask an auditor to review all or some of its food 

safety activities and could adjust all, some, or none of the processes that 

an auditor cites as being deficient. Thus, a plant could have an audit and 

the audit could indicate that food safety activities that the auditor examined met specified standards. Yet, a plant could have poor food safety 

performance because activities not evaluated by the auditor caused a 

system failure.

Plant managers have the option to comply with audit findings and do so only 

if it is profitable. Given similar findings, managers would be more likely to 

comply with audits as the costs of compliance drop, the value of the customer’s purchase order rises, and the threat of a detectable food safety failure 

rises.3 For example, a plant would likely comply with the auditor’s findings if 

the customer has a large order and the cost of complying with the audit report 

is low. It would also likely comply if an audit reveals a serious food safety 

breach that could undermine the viability of a plant’s business. However, 

if a customer has a small order and the costs of complying with the audit 

are high, then a plant manager might not strictly comply with the auditor’s 

findings. 

Audit Compliance and Audit Certification

Customers and plants recognize the incentives existing in auditor-client relationships. Yet, no government or third party guarantees that a plant adhered 

to the recommendations put forward by the auditor. Rather, it is up to the 

buyer to verify that auditor recommendations were followed. For buyers 

purchasing large quantities of few inputs from a limited number of plants, 

using auditor services and verifying their effectiveness may be relatively low 

cost. But, some buyers may purchase thousands of inputs or buy a few inputs 

from a large number of plants, making it very costly to verify that auditor 

recommendations were followed.

There is also no government or third-party agent that attests to the quality 

of the auditor. Thus, certifications have become a particularly important 

3Compliance costs are afffected by the 

strictness with which a customer may 

hold plants to the audit findings. If 

plants must strictly adhere to findings, 

then costs rise. If plants do not have to 

strictly meet audit requirements, then 

costs drop.
6

Food Safety Audits, Plant Characteristics, and Food Safety Technology Use in Meat and Poultry Plants / EIB-82

Economic Research Service / USDA

device for attesting to auditor skill. But, there are many certifications available, and their quality may depend on the quality and reputation of the certifiers (Sun, 2010). Certifiers that are well-recognized professionals in their 

field or organizations, such as the Professional Animal Auditor Certification 

Organization, Inc., may offer greater assurance of auditor quality than less 

well-known certifiers. 

Large auditing firms and those with years of experience also can provide 

some reassurance about auditor quality because their reputations can be 

evaluated. According to Kyle Yudis, an executive with Silliker, Inc., a large 

international audit company, there are only about six large, international food 

auditing companies and hundreds of small food auditing companies (Yudis, 

2010). The larger companies may serve a range of customer needs, while 

the smaller companies tend to specialize in just one industry or one type of 

audit.4 The larger auditing companies may employ their own auditors or use 

contractors.

Number of Audits and the Incentives for Food Safety

It may be difficult to distinguish the food safety performance of plants 

audited by customer-hired auditors from the performance of plants audited 

by plant-hired auditors. Both have a single-type of audit arrangement, and, 

under these single-audit arrangements, there is one party to the exchange 

that may not put a strong emphasis on food safety. Plants subject to audits 

by customer-hired auditors but not by their own plant-hired auditor have 

customers who place some value on food safety. If the plant chooses not 

to have its own auditors, that suggests it sees no need for additional audit 

recommendations and verifications. Plants using only a plant-hired auditor 

appear to be concerned about food safety or they wouldn’t have hired auditors. But their customers do not demand these audits and, thus, would not 

likely encourage a plant to select a high-quality auditor and follow all audit 

recommendations.

Double-audit plants (customer- and plant-hired auditors) likely have the 

strongest incentives to maintain food safety. These plants could have 

particularly cautious managers who hire auditors to inspect their operations 

in order to ensure that their plants comply with their customers’ standards. 

Or, double-audit plants could have buyers who require them to be audited 

by particular auditors. Managers of double-audit plants may hire auditors 

to evaluate aspects of their operations not adequately addressed by their 

customers’ audits. Or, an audit may be used to determine whether a plant’s 

procedures meet acceptable standards. Regardless of the explanation, it 

appears that double-audit plants may place a stronger emphasis on food 

safety than single-audit plants because both parties (customer and plant) 

invest in auditor services.

4According to Stier (2009), there are 

many types of food safety audits. These 

audits may cover all or only part of a 

plant’s entire food safety quality control system. Some common food safety 

audits are: Food Safety and Good 

Management Practices (GMPs) for 

Food Processing Facilities; Food Safety 

and GMPs for Distribution Centers; 

HACCP Verification Audit (benchmarking and confirming a program); Animal 

Welfare Audit; Good Laboratory Practices Audit; Quality Systems Audit; and 

Safe Quality Food (SQF) Audit. All of 

these programs as well as auditors have 

to have special types of certifications, 

depending on the type of food audited 

and the type of audit performed.
7

Food Safety Audits, Plant Characteristics, and Food Safety Technology Use in Meat and Poultry Plants / EIB-82

Economic Research Service / USDA

Economic Framework

Plants pay for auditor services, perform cleaning and sanitation tasks, monitor 

plant operations, conduct product testing, and make capital investments in 

food safety equipment in order to enhance food safety. These investments have 

cost the meat and poultry industry millions of dollars (Ollinger, Moore, and 

Chandran, 2004). Yet, there is no evidence that consumers are willing to pay 

a higher price for food safety (i.e., for guarantees that meat or poultry has less 

risk of harmful pathogens). Li and Hooker (2009) found that firms have rarely 

advertised that a product was free of pathogens and that there was no significant difference in price for firms that did advertise. Below, we examine why it 

may still be profitable for firms to invest in food safety. 

Why Plants Make Food Safety Investments and 

Use Auditor Services

There are several factors motivating food safety investment. First, fear of 

lost profitability and revenues due to product recalls may encourage firms to 

use food safety technologies. Thomsen and McKenzie (2001) found that that 

firms that recalled contaminated meat or poultry products suffered a decline 

in long-run profitability. Piggott and Marsh (2004) and Marsh, Schroeder, 

and Mintert (2004) determined that adverse food safety events led to temporary declines in meat and poultry consumption. Thomsen, Shiptsova, and 

Hamm (2006) established that sales of branded frankfurter products declined 

more than 20 percent after a product recall. Finally, McKenzie and Thomsen 

(2001) found that recalls for E. coli O157:H7 resulted in a decline in prices 

for boneless beef. 

Plants may also invest in food safety technology and audit services to support 

an important brand. Shapiro (1983) showed that plants selling branded 

products must support their brands with investments because their products 

are readily identified by consumers and they want to convey an image of 

high quality. Food safety investment is necessary to avoid brand destruction 

through a product recall. Sara Lee, for example, suffered a large recall of 

branded hot dogs and was able to regain profitability in its branded hot dog 

business only after more than $70 million of investment in food safety and 

marketing (Auerswald, 1999).

Plants selling generic products, in contrast to those selling branded products, 

sell products to buyers that resell or reprocess that product with identical 

products from other suppliers, such that the producer of any single product 

cannot be identified. Thus, the plant producing generic products may invest 

less in food safety technology than plants selling branded products. All plants 

must invest in food safety technology up to a point that will enable them to 

meet USDA/FSIS or State regulatory standards.5

Other factors encouraging food safety technology use by meat and poultry 

slaughter and processing plants are purchase specifications and the fear 

of lost business from fast food restaurants and other large customers. 

Compliance with purchase specifications often requires the use of an array 

of food safety technologies (Golan et al., 2004). Meat and poultry plants 

with contracts with large customers are always under a threat of a contract 

5All meat or poultry plants must be 

inspected by either the Federal or 

State Government. Under the Code 

of Federal Regulations (9 CFR Parts 

321, 332, and 381 [Docket No. FSIS2008-0039] RIN 0583-AD37), select 

State-inspected establishments have 

the option to ship meat and poultry 

products, bearing an official USDA 

mark of inspection, across State lines if 

they comply with all Federal standards 

under the Federal Meat Inspection 

Act (FMIA) and the Poultry Products 

Inspection Act (PPIA). These establishments will receive inspection services 

from State inspection personnel that 

have been trained in FMIA and PPIA 

requirements. State-inspected plants 

not among this select group of plants 

are permitted to ship only within their 

States. All State inspection agencies 

must meet the same safety standards as 

these of federally inspected plants.
8

Food Safety Audits, Plant Characteristics, and Food Safety Technology Use in Meat and Poultry Plants / EIB-82

Economic Research Service / USDA

cancellation if a serious product recall occurs. Hudson Meat left the groundmeat business after Burger King, a major customer, cancelled its contract 

following a major recall of Hudson products (Winter, 2002). Likewise, 

Topps Meat and Westland-Hallmark Meat companies also exited the beef 

industry after their products were subjected to recalls. 

Plant Size and Firm Type, Food Safety Investment, and 

the Use of Auditors

The threat of business losses due to product recalls, the need to support 

branded products, and compliance with customer specifications encourage 

plants to make food safety investments and use auditor services. However, 

plants must still reach maximum profitability. Thus, they minimize their 

costs under the constraints of making the food safety investments and using 

the auditor services that their markets demand.

Food Safety Technology and Auditor Use and Plant Size

Cost minimizing behavior, different types of plant production technologies, and the food safety investments that plants must make to meet market 

demands suggests that plant-level food safety technology use may vary 

across plants. One determining factor in food safety technology use is the 

compatibility of a plant with different food safety technologies. Large plants 

using high-speed production lines must use high-speed food safety techniques to ensure that production lines operate continuously and produce meat 

and poultry that is free of harmful pathogens. Small cattle slaughter plants 

that butcher only a few animals per day may obtain the same level of food 

safety by closely monitoring operations and thoroughly cleaning plant facilities. Thus, small and large plants likely make different types and amounts of 

food safety investments.

Technological compatibility is important, but there are other reasons why 

larger plants may have a greater incentive to make food safety investments 

and use auditor services than smaller plants. First, large plants may have 

much greater cash flow and access to credit than small plants, and this greater 

access may enable them to purchase equipment more easily. Second, large 

plants have much more to lose in the event of a serious food safety failure. 

For example, assume that a plant can be sold for the value of its fixed investments, contracts, and goodwill and 50 percent of the value of firm is due 

to fixed investment and 50 percent is due to contracts and goodwill. Now 

suppose that there are two plants—one valued at $1 million and one valued 

at $1 billion—and that each loses its reputation for food safety. If the loss of 

a reputation for food safety causes all goodwill to vanish, then the smaller 

plant loses $500,000 and the larger plant loses $500 million. Thus, a large 

plant would be willing to invest more in food safety technology and auditor 

services than would a smaller plant. 

Third, large plants may also have lower costs of using auditor services and 

some food safety technologies. Auditor services and carcass pasteurizing 

and other modern food safety equipment are expensive fixed costs, but large 

plants can spread theses fixed costs over more units of output than a small 

plant can, resulting in a lower cost per pound of output. For example, assume 

a large cattle slaughter plant processes 1 million pounds of meat per day 
9

Food Safety Audits, Plant Characteristics, and Food Safety Technology Use in Meat and Poultry Plants / EIB-82

Economic Research Service / USDA

while a small plant processes 1 million pounds in a year, and that each plant 

chooses to pasteurize cattle carcasses with a steam pasteurizer costing $1 

million in capital expenditures. If each plant must pay for equipment within 

1 year, then the cost per pound for the large plant is less than one-half cent 

per pound while that for the small plant is about $1 per pound.6 In addition, 

specialization of labor may enable large plants to gain more expertise about 

food safety technologies. This expertise may make them more prone to use 

food safety technologies than would a smaller plant.

Greater use of some food safety technologies and auditor services at large 

plants than at small plants does not mean that output from large plants therefore is safer. Small plants have an incentive to provide robust food safety if 

the markets they serve require it. Some small plants serve niche markets that 

link plants with products. By contrast, large plants with no pressure from 

customers and selling generic products on the spot market may feel little 

need to invest in food safety because their products may not be easily identified, especially once they have been reprocessed or labeled further down the 

supply chain.

Small plants realize their own advantages in maintaining food safety. Most 

importantly, they have more operational flexibility than do large plants. If a 

small plant has food safety problems, managers can slow production lines 

and address those problems with little lost production time. Moreover, sanitation and operations—two fundamental food safety technologies that all plants 

must maintain—tend to be scale-neutral (i.e., a plant with twice as much 

output as another plant may have to devote twice as much effort to sanitation 

and operations). Thus, smaller plants emphasizing sanitation in all their operations and maintaining constant vigilance over food safety process control 

may reach the same level of food safety as a large plant using complex food 

safety equipment. 

A small plant may have less need for an auditor. Small plants are often 

managed directly by owners, who have a strong incentive to maintain food 

safety in order to avoid a loss of business as well as a blow to their personal 

reputations. Moreover, these plants have less complex operations, making 

them easier to monitor. 

Single- and Multi-Plant Firms and Food Safety Investment

Firms that own more than one plant (multiplant firms) may be more likely to 

have audits and make food safety investments than single-plant firms. First, 

the expected losses at a multiplant firm may be higher than at a single-plant 

firm. Suppose, similar to a previous hypothetical example, 50 percent of the 

value of firm is due to fixed investment and 50 percent is due to contracts 

and goodwill. Now suppose that there are three plants producing the same 

product and each plant is valued at $100 million and that one firm owns two 

plants and the other firm owns one plant. If both firms lose their reputations 

for food safety, then the single-plant firm loses $50 million and the two-plant 

firm loses $100 million. Thus, multiplant firms would be willing to invest 

more in auditor services and food safety technology than single-plant firms.

Firms that own more than one plant may have lower costs of implementing 

food safety technologies. Firms experience a learning curve when adopting 

6 This is a simple hypothetical example, 

not intended to be factually correct. Actual costs to these two types of plants 

would be very different than those expressed here. However, the example is 

valid since there still would be a large 

difference in costs.
10

Food Safety Audits, Plant Characteristics, and Food Safety Technology Use in Meat and Poultry Plants / EIB-82

Economic Research Service / USDA

more advanced technology, enabling multiplant firms to install and implement new technologies in other plants at a lower cost after they have already 

used it in one plant. This may be why Dunne (1994) found that multiplant 

firms were more likely to invest in manufacturing technologies than singleplant firms. 

Summary

Due to their size, large plants find it necessary to invest more in high-speed 

food safety technologies to provide the food safety they need to meet their 

customers’ demands. They also may suffer a greater financial loss than 

small plants if they have a food safety failure, have lower per-unit cost of 

food safety fixed-cost investments, and may have lower financing costs. 

Thus, it is no surprise that Dunne (1994) found that larger plants were more 

likely to adopt new manufacturing technologies and Ollinger, Moore, and 

Chandran (2004) and Muth (2002) found that large meat and poultry plants 

make greater use of food safety technology than small plants do. For similar 

reasons, firms that own more than one plant may make greater use of food 

safety technology and auditor services than single-plant firms.

Our discussion of audit arrangements and food safety performance suggests 

that single-audit plants (customer- or plant-hired auditors) may emphasize food 

safety less than double-audit type plants (customer- and plant-hired auditors). 

Similarly, a single-audit plant may emphasize food safety more than a no-audit 

plant of a similar size. Economic theory suggests that if a plant values food 

safety higher, then it will invest more in food safety, suggesting an association 

between auditor use and food safety technology use.7 Thus, we expect food 

safety technology levels to be higher for double-audit plants than for singleaudit plants and for audit plants than for no-audit plants.

7Ollinger and Moore (2009) showed 

that food safety technology negatively 

affects Salmonella levels in meat and 

poultry products, suggesting that 

processors who place a higher value on 

food safety invest more in food safety 

technology.
11

Food Safety Audits, Plant Characteristics, and Food Safety Technology Use in Meat and Poultry Plants / EIB-82

Economic Research Service / USDA

Survey Techniques and the Data

Plant data on self-reported food safety technologies and practices were 

obtained from a national survey of Federal and State-inspected meat 

slaughter, poultry slaughter, and processing-only plants. The survey was 

sponsored by FSIS and conducted by RTI International in 2004 for meat and 

poultry slaughter plants and in 2005 for processing-only plants. The analysis 

described in this report focuses on federally inspected plants.8

A detailed description of the multimodal survey approach used for administering the surveys is given in Cates et al. (2005, 2006). The survey instrument 

and study design were approved under the U.S. Office of Management and 

Budget’s information collection clearance process. A brief overview of the 

sampling methods, questionnaire development, survey administration, and 

analysis procedures is given in appendix A. 

The analyses compare large and small plants. We defined large plants as 

those plants falling in the top quintile of volume of production (80-99 percentile) and the small plants as those falling in the bottom quintile (0-19 percentile). The distributions of plants by quintile and total numbers of plants for 

each of the six analysis categories are provided in table 1. 

Variable Measurement

There are four types of variables used in the analysis: an indicator for each of 

the four types of audits, whether the plant was owned by a single- or multiplant firm, plant size, and food safety technology. Our measures of plant 

audit type were taken directly from the survey and include one no-audit, 

two single-audit, and one double-audit types. Single-audit plants have either 

audits sponsored by customers or audits sponsored by the plant or the parent 

(owner) of the plant. Double-audit plants have audits by both customers and 

the plant.

8Virtually all State-inspected plants are 

in the very small size category, with 

nine or fewer employees.

Table 1 

Plants in each size quintile by type

Size percentiles (ranked by pounds of output) Total

Plant type 0–19 20–39 40–59 60–79 80–99 number 

------------------------Number of plants------------------------

Slaughter1

 Cattle slaughter 52 53 53 53 53 264

 Hog slaughter 51 52 51 52 51 257

 Poultry slaughter 40 41 41 41 41 204

Processing only

 RTE products 32 33 32 33 32 162

 NRTE products 42 42 44 42 41 211

 Ground beef 15 16 17 13 18 79 1Slaughter industries includes plants that only slaughter animals (i.e., slaughter-only plants) and 

plants that both slaughter animals and process raw meat.

RTE=Ready To Eat.

NRTE=Not Ready To Eat.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service and RTI calculations.
12

Food Safety Audits, Plant Characteristics, and Food Safety Technology Use in Meat and Poultry Plants / EIB-82

Economic Research Service / USDA

The measure of whether the plant was owned by a single- or multiplant 

firm was taken from a survey question asking whether a plant has a parent 

company that owns other plants. Plant size is based on pounds of production per year and was calculated by summing responses to the volume questions in the surveys.9 There were 74 meat slaughter and 16 poultry slaughter 

plants that did not give production volumes. For these plants, we calculated 

estimated values based on 2004 slaughter volumes obtained from FSIS’s 

Animal Disposition Reporting System. Since output is reported in animals 

slaughtered in this dataset, we converted animals slaughtered to their weight 

equivalent. We did this by multiplying the number of animals slaughtered 

times the average dressed weight of that animal. Output volumes for poultry 

species were defined as the number of birds slaughtered times the average 

live weight times the average dressing percentage. Average dressed (carcass) 

weights, live weights, and dressing percentages for meat species in 2004 

were obtained from USDA/ERS Red Meat Yearbook; average live weights 

for poultry species in 2004 were obtained from USDA/National Agricultural 

Statistical Service Poultry Yearbook; and, average dressing percentages for 

poultry were obtained from USDA/Agricultural Marketing Service Market 

News for the week ending November 1, 2008. Dressing percentages for 2008 

were used because estimates were not available for 2004.10 Note that for 

two meat slaughter plants, slaughter volumes for 2004 were not available, so 

we used their 2003 volumes. Furthermore, for five poultry slaughter plants, 

slaughter volumes for 2004 were not available, so we used 2003 volumes 

(four plants) or 2002 volumes (one plant).

Construction of a Food Safety Technology Index

We constructed a food safety technology index based on a methodology 

discussed in an earlier ERS report (Ollinger, Moore, and Chandran, 2004). 

This technology index is grounded on the idea that food safety process 

control is a system in which plants marshal several different types of equipment and practices to maintain process control— produce meat or poultry 

that is free of harmful contaminants.

It is more precise to compare similar technologies and production practices 

across plants (e.g., equipment of one plant to equipment of another) rather 

than an overall system of food safety that includes a mixture of technologies and practices. Thus, we created five food safety technology indexes that 

correspond with questions in the survey. These five technologies are:

•	Dehiding/slaughter (cattle and hog slaughter only)—method of removing 

the hide from (dehiding) carcasses, sanitizing practices and frequencies 

in the slaughter areas, and whether a plant requires its animal suppliers to 

meet pathogen-control standards.

•	Sanitation—sanitizing practices and frequencies in the further processing 

areas and removal of biomatter.11

•	Operations—use of written policies and procedures for recalls, tracking 

products backward and forward, whether a plant requires its meat 

suppliers to meet pathogen-control standards, employee food safety 

training, use of dedicated manager and staff for food safety activities, etc.

9For meat slaughter, the volume questions were 1.5 and 2.12. For poultry 

slaughter, the volume questions were 

1.5 and 2.11; see: http://www.fsis.usda.

gov/PDF/SRM_Survey_Slaughter_&_

Processing_Plants.pdf/. For processingonly plants, the volume questions were 

1.12 through 1.15; see: http://www.fsis.

usda.gov/PDF/SRM_Survey_Meat_&_

Poultry_Processing_Only_Plants.pdf /.

10The meat species and carcass weight 

are: steers–806 pounds, heifers–740 

pounds, cows–614 pounds, bulls–893 

pounds, veal calves–201 pounds, barrows and gilts–196 pounds, sows–313 

pounds, boars–220 pounds, sheep–66 

pounds, lambs–69 pounds, goats–25 

pounds, and other meat species–684 

pounds (assumed bison). The poultry 

species, carcass weight, and dressing percentage for poultry are: Young 

chickens–5.27 pounds and 74.5 percent, 

mature chickens–5.66 pounds and 74.5 

percent, light fowl–3.35 pounds and 

51.5 percent, heavy fowl–8.03 pounds 

and 66.5 percent, young turkeys–27.12 

pounds and 80.0 percent, old turkeys–26.84 pounds and 76.0 percent, 

ducks–6.71 pounds and 72.0 percent, 

and other poultry–1.0 pounds (assumed 

squab).

11Further processing areas include 

meat and poultry preparation areas. It 

includes cutting, deboning, trimming, 

grinding, cooking, and other processing areas. This step precedes packaging 

products for the consumer.
13

Food Safety Audits, Plant Characteristics, and Food Safety Technology Use in Meat and Poultry Plants / EIB-82

Economic Research Service / USDA

•	Equipment—use of food safety equipment and other technologies in 

the slaughter area (e.g., steam vacuum units or organic acid rinses) 

and processing area (e.g., high pressure processing or application of 

antimicrobials). 

•	Testing—pathogen testing practices, organisms tested, and testing 

frequencies.

Three principles were followed in creating the food safety technology index. 

First, the rating system should be monotonic because more intensive operations should yield greater food safety protection than less intensive ones. For 

example, plants with more intensive cleaning or that use a specific piece of 

food safety equipment should have higher scores than plants with less intensive cleaning or without the same piece of equipment. Second, comparisons 

should be made for technology types (see earlier discussion). Third, since 

food safety quality control requires a systematic approach, a variety of technology components within each technology type should be considered. For 

example, steam vacuum units, carcass pasteurizers, and various sanitizing 

sprays are important technologies, included in the overall and equipment 

indexes, and considered by meat experts as components of an effective 

process control system.

Construction of the index followed several general procedures that are 

described in appendix B and lead to an index that ranges from 0 to 1. That 

discussion can be summarized as follows. If plants do not use a type of food 

safety equipment or procedure, they were assigned 0 points for that technology, and, if the procedure or equipment is used, then they were assigned 

1 point. If plants used an intermediate level of a procedure or task, then point 

values falling between 0 and 1 were assigned. For example, if the options 

for cleaning were once per week, once per day, once per shift, or once per 

hour and the plant chose once per shift, then it would be assigned a number 

between 0 and 1e. After assigning values, all assigned values were added 

together and the resulting sum was divided by the total number of questions 

used to create that particular index (e.g., sanitation). Appendix table B1 gives 

the survey questions supporting each technology index for each technology 

type for the cattle, hog, and poultry slaughter and processing industries and 

all processing-only plants. 
14

Food Safety Audits, Plant Characteristics, and Food Safety Technology Use in Meat and Poultry Plants / EIB-82

Economic Research Service / USDA

Data Discussion 

Tables 2, 3, and 4 present pounds of output by plant size and type of industry 

and type of outside auditor.12 Table 2 shows that the largest plants are very 

much larger than the smallest plants when measured in terms of pounds of 

output. Cattle and hog slaughter plants in the top quintile produced more 

than 10,000 times more pounds of output than competitors in the bottom 

quintile. Plants in the top quintile in other industries were between 100 and 

1,000 times larger in terms of pounds of output than their competitors in the 

bottom quintile. Notice also that slaughter plants in the top quintile were 

15-45 times larger in terms of output than the largest processing-only plants, 

but cattle and hog plants in bottom quintiles were about the same size as the 

processing-only plants. Finally, poultry plants in all quintiles are larger than 

their counterparts in other industries.

Tables 3 and 4 show auditing practices by quintile. More than 80 percent 

of plants in the top quintile of each industry were subject to audits of any 

type, while from 55 to 90 percent of plants in the bottom quintile of each 

industry had no audits. The majority of plants in the top quintile of all but the 

not-ready-to-eat (NRTE) industry were double-audit plants (i.e., used both 

customer-hired and plant-hired auditors). Most plants in the bottom quintile 

of each industry had no audits, and a majority of plants in the bottom three 

quintiles in all industries except poultry slaughter were no-audit plants.

Appendix table B1 shows that cattle and hog slaughter plants in the top quintiles were mainly single-species plants (i.e., either cattle-only or hog-only); 

12Appendix tables B2-B4 show the 

number of animals slaughtered by industry and plant size and output shares 

by industry and size.

Table 2 

Slaughter and processing industries: Output per plant per industry quintile1

Plant size quintile (ranked by pounds of output)

Plant type 0–19 20–39 40–59 60–79 80–99

----------------------------Mean pounds per plant----------------------------

Slaughter1

 Cattle slaughter 28, 042 157,808 508,319 3,328,599 317,592,240

 Hog slaughter 23,999 137,691 445,834 2,717, 570 293,875,382

 Poultry slaughter 4,405,970 66,701,669 151,698,487 228,093,237 450,675,247

Processing only 

 RTE products 13,125 132,273 651,563 7,966,818 22,262,813

 NRTE products 22,024 126,310 550,114 3,680,952 13,292,927

 Ground beef 30,667 196,875 752,059 5,038,462 11,358,056

Notes: Mean pounds for slaughter were calculated by multiplying number of head slaughtered by average carcass 

weight pounds (lbs) per head as reported in USDA’s Red Meat Yearbook and Poultry Yearbook for 2004. The meat 

species and carcass weight are: steers–806 lbs, heifers–740 lbs, cows–614 lbs, bulls–893 lbs, veal–201 lbs, barrows 

and gilts–196 lbs, sows–313 lbs, boars–220 lbs, sheep–66 lbs, lambs–69 lbs, goats–25 lbs, and other meat species–684 lbs (assumed bison). The poultry species, carcass weight, and dressing percentage for poultry are: young 

chickens–5.27 lbs and 74.5 percent, mature chickens–5.66 lbs and 74.5 percent, light fowl–3.35 lbs and 51.5 percent, 

heavy fowl–8.03 lbs and 66.5 percent, young turkeys–27.12 lbs and 80.0 percent, old turkeys–26.84 lbs and 76.0 

percent, ducks–6.71 lbs and 72.0 percent, and other poultry–1.0 pound (assumed squab).

1 Slaughter industries includes plants that only slaughter plants (i.e., slaughter-only plants) and plants that both 

slaughter animals and process raw meat.

RTE=Ready To Eat.

NRTE=Not Ready To Eat. 

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service and RTI calculations.
15

Food Safety Audits, Plant Characteristics, and Food Safety Technology Use in Meat and Poultry Plants / EIB-82

Economic Research Service / USDA

Table 3 

Slaughter industries: Types of outside auditors per plant size quintile1

Size percentiles (ranked by pounds of output)

Plant type 0–19 20–39 40–59 60–79 80–99

--------------------------------Percent--------------------------------

Cattle slaughter

 Single audit I 12.0 11.5 16.0 11.8 15.7

 Single audit II 2.0 5.8 0.0 5.9 9.8

 Double audit 0.0 1.9 2.0 7.8 62.8

 No audit 86.0 80.8 82.0 74.5 11.8

Hog slaughter

 Single audit I 8.2 8.0 16.7 8.0 17.7

 Single audit II 2.0 6.0 0.0 8.0 13.7

 Double audit 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 47.1

 No audit 89.8 84.0 83.3 82.0 21.5

Poultry slaughter

 Single audit I 26.3 22.0 15.4 17.5 22.0

 Single audit II 7.9 24.4 20.5 7.5 17.1

 Double audit 10.5 46.3 56.4 75.0 61.0

 No audit 55.3 7.3 7.7 0.0 0.0 1 Slaughter industries includes plants that only slaughter plants (i.e., slaughter-only plants) and 

plants that both slaughter animals and process raw meat.

Single audit I= Customer or customer-hired auditor.

Single audit II=Plant- or parent company-hired auditor.

Double audit=Customer or customer-hired auditor AND plant- or parent company-hired auditor.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service and RTI calculations. 

Table 4 

Processing-only industries: Types of outside auditors per 

plant size quintile

Size percentiles (ranked by pounds of output)

Plant type 0–19 20–39 40–59 60–79 80–99

--------------------------------Percent--------------------------------

RTE products

 Single audit I 21.9 18.8 12.5 28.1 21.9

 Single audit II 9.4 15.6 15.6 9.4 18.8

 Double audit 6.3 6.3 12.5 43.8 53.1

 No audit 62.5 59.4 59.4 18.8 6.3

NRTE products

 Single audit I 2.5 10.0 9.3 17.1 24.4

 Single audit II 17.5 10.0 16.3 9.8 29.3

 Double audit 5.0 0.0 4.7 17.1 26.8

 No audit 75.0 80.0 69.8 56.1 19.5

Ground beef

 Single audit I 0.0 12.5 5.9 33.3 33.3

 Single audit II 26.7 6.2 29.4 25.0 16.7

 Double audit 0.0 6.3 0.0 0.0 44.4

 No audit 73.3 75.0 64.7 41.7 5.6 1RTE=Ready To Eat.

NRTE=Not Ready To Eat. 

Single audit I= Customer or customer-hired auditor.

Single audit II=Plant- or parent company-hired auditor.

Double audit=Customer or customer-hired auditor AND plant- or parent company-hired auditor.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service and RTI calculations.
16

Food Safety Audits, Plant Characteristics, and Food Safety Technology Use in Meat and Poultry Plants / EIB-82

Economic Research Service / USDA

plants in the other quintiles slaughtered a wider mix of animals. Inputs for 

poultry slaughter were about the same for all quintiles.

Appendix tables B2 and B3 show output shares for the slaughter and 

processing-only industries. Primal cuts accounted for more than 80 percent 

of the output of cattle and hog slaughter plants in the top quintile. In contrast, 

three-fourths of the output of plants in the bottom quintile consisted of raw 

ground meat and processed products. Plants in the top and bottom quintiles 

of the other industries had similar output mixes. Poultry plants in all quintiles produced mainly raw, not ground products; half the output of plants of 

all quintiles in the ready-to-eat (RTE) industry was fully cooked, not shelf 

stable products; plants of all quintiles in the NRTE industry produced a mix 

of output; plants of all quintiles in the ground beef industry produced mainly 

raw ground meat.

Results 

We examine differences in statistical means of the technology index across 

five size categories of plants, two firm types (whether the plant is a part of 

a single-plant or multiplant firm), four audit types, and five plant sizes and 

two audit types. We do pair-wise means tests for comparisons of two groups 

(e.g., single-plant versus multiplant firms). However, a different statistical 

test is required when there are more than two groups (e.g., comparisons of 

technology use across the five groups (quintiles) in table 5). It can be shown 

that a positive (significant) outcome is more likely if there are more comparisons. A Tukey-Kramer multiple comparison test is used in this study to 

adjust for the tendency to have false positives in series of pair-wise statistical 

tests. This multiple comparison test requires a stronger level of evidence for 

an individual comparison to be deemed “significant” than would a series of 

pair-wise means tests. Although there are other multiple comparison tests, 

the Tukey-Kramer method is most appropriate for our case because the data 

are unbalanced (SAS manual, p. 2,514, 2009).13

Food Safety Technology Indexes and Plant Characteristics

Plant size 

Table 5 shows that the food safety technology indexes increase with size 

and that there are sharp differences between plants in the top and bottom 

percentiles in the cattle and hog slaughter industries. In both industries, the 

technology index values were about one-third larger for plants in the top 

quintile relative to those in the bottom quintile. Based on the Tukey multiple 

comparison test, the index values for plants in the top cattle slaughter quintile 

were significantly larger than the index values for plants in the other four 

quintiles for all but the sanitation index (p<0.01). For sanitation, the index 

value for plants in the top quintile was significantly larger (p<0.05) compared 

to only plants in the bottom two quintiles. For hog slaughter, index values 

for plants in the top quintile were significantly larger for all but sanitation 

and dehiding. None of the dehiding index comparisons were significantly 

different.14 For sanitation, the technology index for plants in the top quintile 

was significantly larger (p<0.05) when compared to only plants in the bottom 

two quintiles.

13See http://support.sas.com/documentation/cdl/en/statug/63033/html/default/

viewer.htm#statug_glm_a0000000862.

htm/ for more discussion.

14Hog slaughter operations do not 

typically dehide hogs. Most dehiding 

operations in the hog industry are by 

multi-species plants that butcher both 

hogs and cattle.
17

Food Safety Audits, Plant Characteristics, and Food Safety Technology Use in Meat and Poultry Plants / EIB-82

Economic Research Service / USDA

Results for poultry slaughter differ from those for cattle and hogs. Plants in 

the top quintile have an average technology index value that is similar to 

plants in all but the bottom quintile. Based on the Tukey multiple comparison 

test, the technology index values for plants in the top four poultry slaughter 

quintiles were significantly larger than the bottom quintile for all but the sanitation and testing index (p<0.01). The testing index values for plants in the 

top three quintiles are significantly larger than the bottom quintile (p<0.01); 

none of the sanitation indexes were significantly different.

Table 6 shows that the technology indexes increase with size in the 

processing-only industries but the change is not nearly as sharp as in the 

slaughter industries. The overall, equipment, and testing indexes increase 

with size, but the sanitation index is flat or declining and the operations index 

rises modestly. For RTE plants, the top two quintiles are significantly larger 

than the bottom quintiles for the overall technology index (p<0.10) and for 

the equipment index (p<0.01). For the operations index, the top three quintiles are significantly larger than the bottom quintile (p<0.10). For the testing 

Table 5 

Slaughter industries: Technology indexes per plant size quintile1

Size percentiles (ranked by pounds of output) All

Index type 0–19 20–39 40–59 60–79 80–99 plants

------------------Mean index value2------------------

Cattle slaughter

Overall index 0.32 0.32 0.35 0.37 0.54*** 0.38

Dehiding 0.43 0.42 0.44 0.46 0.61*** 0.47

Sanitation 0.56bb 0.55bb 0.65 0.65 0.71aa 0.62

Operations 0.46 0.44 0.46 0.45 0.57*** 0.48

Equipment 0.11 0.13 0.15 0.18 0.51*** 0.22

Testing 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.08 0.30*** 0.11

Number of plants 50 52 50 51 51 254

Hog slaughter

Overall index 0.31 0.32 0.36 0.34 0.46*** 0.36

Dehiding 0.43 0.44 0.45 0.45 0.50 0.46

Sanitation 0.55 bb 0.55bb 0.65 0.62 0.71aa 0.62

Operations 0.44 0.46 0.46 0.42 0.57*** 0.47

Equipment 0.10 0.12 0.15 0.15 0.36*** 0.18

Testing 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.17*** 0.08

Number of plants 49 50 48 50 51 248

Poultry slaughter

Overall index 0.29 bb 0.41 aa 0.43 aa 0.45 aa 0.45aa 0.40

Sanitation 0.42 0.43 0.40 0.45 0.43 0.43

Operations 0.43 bb 0.59 aa 0.63 aa 0.61 aa 0.62 aa 0.58

Equipment 0.19 bb 0.43 aa 0.48 aa 0.50 aa 0.53 aa 0.43

Testing 0.11bb 0.18 0.21 aa 0.22 aa 0.23 aa 0.19

Number of plants 38 41 39 40 41 199 1Slaughter industries includes plants that only slaughter plants (i.e., slaughter-only plants) and 

plants that both slaughter animals and process raw meat.

2 Index value varies from 0 to 1. *** significant relative to other 4 groups at the 1-percent level; 

aasignificant at the 5-percent level relative to groups marked by bb .

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service and RTI calculations. 
18

Food Safety Audits, Plant Characteristics, and Food Safety Technology Use in Meat and Poultry Plants / EIB-82

Economic Research Service / USDA

index, the top quintile is significantly larger compared to the 20–39 percent 

and 40–59 percent quintiles (p<.05). Finally, none of the size quintiles for the 

sanitation index are significantly different.

The pattern for NRTE products is similar to that for RTE products. The index 

value for plants in the top quintile is significantly different and larger than 

plants in the bottom three quintiles for the overall technology index (p<0.10), 

values for plants in the top two quintiles are statistically significant and larger 

than values for plants in the bottom three quintiles for the equipment index 

(p<0.01), and the value for plants in the top quintile is statistically significant and larger compared to all other size categories for the testing index 

(p<0.01). Results for operations and sanitation are, in general, not significantly different.

For ground beef only, Tukey multiple comparison tests show that the index 

value of plants in the top quintile is significantly larger than values for plants 

in the four smaller size quintiles for the overall index (p<0.01), equipment 

Table 6 

Processing-only industries: Technology indexes per plant size quintile

Size percentiles (ranked by pounds of output) All

Index type 0–19 20–39 40–59 60–79 80–99 plants

------------------Mean index value2------------------

RTE products

Overall index 0.32 b 0.34 b 0.38b 0.39 a 0.43 a 0.37

Sanitation 0.61 0.63 0.66 0.52 0.60 0.60

Operations 0.46 0.52 0.54 0.57 0.59 0.54

Equipment 0.14bbb 0.12 bbb 0.23 bbb 0.34 aaa 0.40 aaa 0.25

Testing 0.08 0.07 bb 0.08 bb 0.13 0.12aa 0.10

Number of plants 32 33 32 33 32 162

NRTE products

Overall index 0.33 b 0.31 b 0.34 b 0.35 0.40 a 0.35

Sanitation 0.68 0.66 0.69 0.61 0.59 0.65

Operations 0.49 0.48 0.50 0.51 0.57 0.51

Equipment 0.10 bbb 0.06 bbb 0.10 bbb 0.21 aaa 0.29 aaa 0.15

Testing 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.09 0.15 *** 0.07

Number of plants 42 42 44 42 41 211

Ground beef

Overall index 0.33 0.31 0.36 0.34 0.47*** 0.37

Sanitation 0.64 0.58 0.71 0.57 0.66 0.64

Operations 0.56 0.50 0.56 0.53 0.61 0.55

Equipment 0.06 0.12 0.10 0.19 0.40*** 0.18

Testing 0.04 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.21*** 0.10

Number of plants 15 16 17 13 18 79

1Index value varies from 0 to 1. *** significant relative to other 4 groups at the 1-percent level; 

aaasignificant at the 1-percent level relative to groups marked by bbb; aasignificant at the 5- percent level relative to groups marked by bb; a significant at the 10- percent level relative to groups 

marked by b.

RTE=Ready To Eat.

NRTE=Not Ready To Eat. 

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service and RTI International calculations.
19

Food Safety Audits, Plant Characteristics, and Food Safety Technology Use in Meat and Poultry Plants / EIB-82

Economic Research Service / USDA

index (p<0.01), and testing index (p<0.01). Results for operations and sanitation are, in general, not significantly different.

Plant Ownership (Firm) Type

Tables 7 and 8 compare the technology index values for plants owned by 

single-plant firms to those owned by multiplant firms. Table 7 shows that 

the technology index values for slaughter plants owned by multiplant firms 

are significantly higher than for single-plant firms in 13 of 17 cases. Only 

dehiding in the hog industry and sanitation in all industries were not significantly different. Table 8 provides results for processing-only plants. The 

overall technology index value and the values for operations, equipment, 

and testing were significantly larger for multiplant firms than for single-plant 

firms in all three industries. Plants owned by single-plant firms had larger or 

equal index values for sanitation. 

Table 7 

Slaughter industries: Technology indexes by firm type1

Firm type

Index type Single plant Multiplant

------------------Mean index value2------------------

Cattle slaughter

Overall index 0.36 0.52***

Dehiding 0.45 0.60***

Sanitation 0.62 0.65

Operations 0.46 0.58***

Equipment 0.17 0.49***

Testing 0.08 0.29***

Number of plants 221 40

Hog slaughter

Overall index 0.34 0.46***

Dehiding 0.45 0.50

Sanitation 0.61 0.68

Operations 0.46 0.56***

Equipment 0.14 0.38***

Testing 0.06 0.16***

Number of plants 217 36

Poultry slaughter

Overall index 0.30 0.44***

Sanitation 0.42 0.42

Operations 0.46 0.62***

Equipment 0.22 0.50***

Testing 0.10 0.21***

Number of plants 50 151 1Slaughter industries includes plants that only slaughter plants (i.e., slaughter-only plants) and 

plants that both slaughter animals and process raw meat.

2 Index value varies from 0 to 1; *** Differences are statistically significant at the 1-percent level.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service and RTI calculations. 
20

Food Safety Audits, Plant Characteristics, and Food Safety Technology Use in Meat and Poultry Plants / EIB-82

Economic Research Service / USDA

Food Safety Technology by Audit Type

Single-audit plants (customer- or plant-hired auditors) may emphasize 

food safety less than double-audit type plants because only one side of 

an exchange (customer or plant) wants an audit while both parties of an 

exchange (customer and plant) want an audit in double-audit plants. A 

similar rationale can be applied for single-audit plants relative to no-audit 

plants. Thus, we expect the technology index to be greatest for double-audit 

plants, least for no-audit plants, and intermediate between these two for 

single-audit plants (either customer- or plant-hired).

Tables 9 and 10 show the overall and individual technology index values 

for plants using four types of auditing arrangements—no-audit, single-audit/

customer-hired, single-audit/plant-hired, and double-audit. The technology 

value of double-audit slaughter plants is generally higher than the singleaudit plants and is always higher than no audit (see table 9). Based on the 

Tukey multiple comparison tests for cattle and hog slaughter, equipment and 

Table 8 

Processing-only, RTE processing plants: Technology indexes 

by firm type

Firm type

Index type Single plant Multiplant

------------------Mean index value2------------------

RTE products

Overall index 0.35 0.41***

Sanitation 0.63*** 0.56

Operations 0.50 0.58***

Equipment 0.17 0.37***

Testing 0.08 0.13***

Number of plants 97 62

NRTE products

Overall index 0.32 0.42***

Sanitation 0.65 0.65

Operations 0.49 0.58***

Equipment 0.11 0.31***

Testing 0.05 0.16***

Number of plants 160 48

Ground beef

Overall technology index 0.35 0.44***

Sanitation 0.64 0.62

Operations 0.54 0.61**

Equipment 0.14 0.34***

Testing 0.08 0.17***

Number of plants 63 16

RTE=Ready To Eat.

NRTE=Not Ready To Eat. 

1 Index value varies from 0 to 1; **, *** Differences are statistically significant at the 5-percent 

and 1-percent levels.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service and RTI calculations. 
21

Food Safety Audits, Plant Characteristics, and Food Safety Technology Use in Meat and Poultry Plants / EIB-82

Economic Research Service / USDA

testing indexes are significantly larger for the double-audit type compared 

to the single-audit types (p<0.10). For poultry slaughter, only the operations 

comparison of the double-audit and the customer-hired audit is significantly 

different.

Table 10 shows that audited processing plants have higher technology index 

values than unaudited processing plants in all categories except sanitation. 

For RTE products, Tukey multiple comparison tests indicate that the overall 

index and all other indexes except the sanitation index are significantly 

larger for the double-audit arrangements than for either type of single-audit 

plants (<0.10). For NRTE products, Tukey multiple comparison tests indicate that the equipment and testing indexes are significantly larger for plants 

with double-audit arrangements than for single-audit plants (p<.05) but the 

Table 9 

Slaughter industries: Technology indexes by audit type1

Audit type

Index type Single audit I Single audit II Double audit No audit

------------------Mean index value2------------------

Cattle slaughter 

Overall index 0.41 0.46 0.55* 0.33

Dehiding 0.51 0.60 0.61 0.43

Sanitation 0.70 0.64 0.70 0.58

Operations 0.50 0.57 0.60 0.44

Equipment 0.26 0.34 0.52* 0.13

Testing 0.11 0.16 0.32* 0.06

Number of plants 34 12 38 170

Hog slaughter

Overall index 0.38 0.42 0.49 0.33

Dehiding 0.47 0.52 0.51 0.44

Sanitation 0.66 0.69 0.68 0.59

Operations 0.50 0.53 0.61 0.44

Equipment 0.19 0.28 0.45* 0.13

Testing 0.08 0.11 0.21* 0.06

Number of plants 29 15 26 178

Poultry slaughter

Overall index 0.40 0.42 0.44 0.27

Sanitation 0.44 0.39 0.44 0.39

Operations 0.55 0.60 0.62** 0.43

Equipment 0.42 0.47 0.48 0.18

Testing 0.20 0.21 0.21 0.07

Number of plants 41 31 100 27

1Slaughter industries includes plants that only slaughter plants (i.e., slaughter-only plants) and plants that both 

slaughter animals and process raw meat.

2 Index value varies from 0 to 1; * , ** Differences are statistically significant at the 10-percent and 5-percent levels.

Single audit I=Customer or customer-hired auditor. Single audit II=Plant- or parent company-hired auditor.

Double audit=Customer or customer-hired auditor AND plant- or parent company-hired auditor.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service and RTI calculations.
22

Food Safety Audits, Plant Characteristics, and Food Safety Technology Use in Meat and Poultry Plants / EIB-82

Economic Research Service / USDA

overall, sanitation, and operations indexes are not significantly different 

across audit types. For ground beef, double-audit arrangements are significantly larger than single-audit relationships only for testing and equipment. 

The other comparisons are not significantly different.

Food Safety Technology Differences by Audit Status and Plant Size

These results generally show that double-audit plants have higher technology 

indexes than single-audit plants, and both double- and single-audit plants 

have higher technology indexes than no audit plants. These results are important but incomplete. If all double-audit plants are also very large and smaller 

plants are all single- or no-audit plants, then it could be that size explains the 

higher technology index value for double-audit plants. In tables 11 and 12, 

we control for size and examine technology index values by audit status.

Table 10 

Processing-only industries: Technology indexes by audit type

Audit type

Index type Single audit I Single audit II Double audit No audit

------------------Mean index value2------------------

RTE products

Overall index 0.39 0.36 0.43* 0.34

Sanitation 0.60 0.59 0.57 0.63

Operations 0.56 0.49 0.59* 0.51

Equipment 0.28 0.26 0.41* 0.13

Testing 0.12 0.09 0.13* 0.08

Number of plants 33 22 39 66

NRTE products

Overall index 0.39 0.39 0.43 0.31

Sanitation 0.64 0.68 0.61 0.64

Operations 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.48

Equipment 0.23 0.21 0.36** 0.08

Testing 0.12 0.10 0.20** 0.04

Number of plants 26 34 22 123

Ground beef

Overall index 0.42 0.38 0.44 0.32

Sanitation 0.66 0.66 0.57 0.63

Operations 0.60 0.60 0.57 0.52

Equipment 0.28 0.15 0.43* 0.11

Testing 0.13 0.13 0.21* 0.05

Number of plants 13 16 9 40

 1Index value varies from 0 to 1; *, ** Differences are statistically significant at the 10-percent and 5-percent levels.

Single audit I=Customer or customer-hired auditor.

Single audit II=Plant- or parent company-hired auditor.

Double audit=Customer or customer-hired auditor AND plant- or parent company-hired auditor.

RTE=Ready To Eat.

NRTE=Not Ready To Eat. 

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service and RTI calculations.
23

Food Safety Audits, Plant Characteristics, and Food Safety Technology Use in Meat and Poultry Plants / EIB-82

Economic Research Service / USDA

Tables 11 and 12 compare the technology index values for all meat and 

poultry plants by audit status for only those plants in the top and bottom 

quintiles. By audit status, we mean the extent to which a plant is subject to 

any audit-type (either single-, no-, or double-audit). Table 11 shows that 14 

of the 15 technology indexes for the slaughter industries are significantly 

different for the all-plant comparison. The table also shows that the testing 

and equipment indexes, but not other indexes, are significantly different in 

the top quintile for both hog and cattle slaughter. There were no unaudited 

poultry slaughter plants in the top quintile, suggesting that audit service had 

become universally accepted as a food safety tool for that industry.

Results of the comparison of audited and unaudited plants are weaker for 

the bottom quintile. There were no significantly different differences in the 

technology index between audited and unaudited hog slaughter plants in the 

Table 11 

Slaughter industries: Technology indexes by audit status and plant 

size quintile1

Size percentiles (ranked by pounds of output)

Index type 0–19 80-99 All plants 

Audited Unaudited Audited Unaudited Audited Unaudited

------------------Mean index value2------------------

Cattle slaughter

Overall index 0.39* 0.31 0.55** 0.46 0.48*** 0.33

Dehiding 0.49 0.43 0.62 0.55 0.57*** 0.43

Sanitation 0.70 0.52 0.69 0.78 0.69*** 0.58

Operations 0.53 0.45 0.59 0.52 0.56*** 0.44

Equipment 0.18** 0.10 0.53** 0.32 0.39*** 0.13

Testing 0.05 0.05 0.33*** 0.15 0.21*** 0.06

Number of plants 7 43 45 6 84 170

Hog slaughter

Overall index 0.37 0.30 0.47 0.44 0.43*** 0.33

Dehiding 0.48 0.42 0.49 0.55 0.50** 0.44

Sanitation 0.66 0.53 0.70 0.77 0.67** 0.59

Operations 0.52 0.42 0.59*** 0.50 0.55*** 0.44

Equipment 0.14 0.09 0.39** 0.26 0.30*** 0.13

Testing 0.05 0.04 0.18*** 0.10 0.13*** 0.06

Number of plants 5 44 40 11 70 178

Poultry slaughter

Overall index 0.36*** 0.23 0.45 — 0.43*** 0.27

Sanitation 0.47 0.39 0.43 — 0.43 0.39

Operations 0.51** 0.38 0.62 — 0.60*** 0.43

Equipment 0.26*** 0.12 0.53 — 0.47*** 0.18

Testing 0.18** 0.04 0.23 — 0.21*** 0.07

Number of plants 17 21 41 0 172 27 1Slaughter industries includes plants that only slaughter plants (i.e., slaughter-only plants) and plants 

that both slaughter animals and process raw meat.

2 Index value varies from 0 to 1; *, **, *** Differences are statistically significant at the 10-percent, 5-percent, and 1-percent levels.

RTE=Ready To Eat.

NRTE=Not Ready To Eat. 

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service and RTI calculations.
24

Food Safety Audits, Plant Characteristics, and Food Safety Technology Use in Meat and Poultry Plants / EIB-82

Economic Research Service / USDA

bottom quintile and only the overall and equipment indexes were significantly higher for cattle slaughter plants in the bottom quintile. By contrast, 

all technology indexes, except sanitation, were significantly larger for audited 

relative to unaudited poultry slaughter plants. These weaker results for the 

bottom quintile may be due to the distribution of audited and unaudited 

plants. Only 20 percent of the slaughter plants in the bottom quintile had 

audits, and most of those were poultry slaughter plants. By contrast, about 90 

percent of plants in the top quintile had audits.

Table 12 shows that audited processing plants have significantly larger technology index values than unaudited processing plants in all technologies 

except sanitation in the all-plant comparison. Differences are not significantly 

different between audited and unaudited plants in the top quintile for RTE 

and ground beef products. This may be because only one or two plants were 

not audited in those quintiles. For the second-highest quintile (60 percent-79 

percent–not shown), the technology index values for the overall, operations, 

and equipment technology indexes were significantly larger for audited RTE 

Table 12 

Processing only: Technology indexes by audit status and plant size quintile

Size percentiles (ranked by pounds of output)

Index type 0–19 80-99 All plants 

Audited Unaudited Audited Unaudited Audited Unaudited

------------------Mean index value1------------------

RTE products

Overall index 0.35 0.31 0.43 0.46 0.40*** 0.34

Sanitation 0.64 0.59 0.59 0.71 0.59 0.63

Operations 0.44 0.47 0.59 0.55 0.56*** 0.51

Equipment 0.23** 0.09 0.39 0.44 0.33*** 0.13

Testing 0.09 0.07 0.12 0.12 0.12*** 0.08

Number of plants 12 20 30 2 94 66

NRTE products

Overall index 0.42*** 0.30 0.42*** 0.31 0.40*** 0.31

Sanitation 0.80* 0.65 0.61 0.51 0.65 0.64

Operations 0.58** 0.47 0.58 0.53 0.56*** 0.48

Equipment 0.22*** 0.06 0.32** 0.15 0.25*** 0.08

Testing 0.09** 0.02 0.17*** 0.05 0.13*** 0.04

Number of plants 10 30 33 8 82 123

Ground beef

Overall index 0.39* 0.30 0.47 0.39 0.41*** 0.32

Sanitation 0.77 0.60 0.66 0.57 0.64 0.63

Operations 0.62 0.54 0.61 0.58 0.59*** 0.52

Equipment 0.11 0.04 0.41 0.33 0.26*** 0.11

Testing 0.08** 0.03 0.21 0.07 0.15*** 0.05

Number of plants 4 11 17 1 38 40

RTE=Ready To Eat.

NRTE=Not Ready To Eat. 

1 Index value varies from 0 to 1; **, *** Differences are statistically significant at the 5-percent and 1-percent levels.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service and RTI calculations. 
25

Food Safety Audits, Plant Characteristics, and Food Safety Technology Use in Meat and Poultry Plants / EIB-82

Economic Research Service / USDA

plants than for unaudited ones. For the second-highest quintile for ground 

beef, only the testing and equipment indexes were significantly larger. 

Results for the NRTE plants are stronger. Audited plants in the all-plant 

comparison have significantly higher technology index values for the overall, 

operations, equipment, and testing indexes. Audited NRTE plants in the top 

quintile have significantly larger index values than unaudited plants in all 

technologies except sanitation and operations, and audited NRTE plants in 

the bottom quintile have significantly larger index values than unaudited 

plants in all technologies.

Similar to the slaughter industries, relatively few processing plants in the 

bottom quintile have audits. Only about 30 percent of the NRTE plants in the 

bottom quintile had audits. By contrast, nearly 90 percent of NRTE plants in 

the top quintile had audits.
26

Food Safety Audits, Plant Characteristics, and Food Safety Technology Use in Meat and Poultry Plants / EIB-82

Economic Research Service / USDA

Concluding Discussion

Providing an economic framework and then testing several implications of 

that framework with simple means tests, Tukey multiple comparison tests, 

and other univariate methods allowed us to examine the incentives of meat 

and poultry plant managers to use food safety auditors and food safety 

technologies. 

We find that meat and poultry plants that are subject to audits have higher 

food safety technology indexes than plants not subject to audits. We also 

find (1) that double-audit plants (at least one auditor hired by customer and 

one hired by plant) had higher index values than both no- and single-audit 

plants for all technologies except sanitation and operations, (2) single-audit 

plants (at least one auditor hired by either customer or plant) generally had 

higher index values than no-audit plants for all technologies except sanitation and operations, and (3) large plants and plants owned by multiplant firms 

have higher food safety technology indexes than their small and single-plant 

competitors.

This work both updates and extends earlier work by Ollinger, Moore, and 

Chandran (2004) by showing that plant size is correlated with a food safety 

technology index at a different point in time (2004 versus 2001) and by 

showing that the technology indexes are correlated with food safety audits. 

It is interesting to observe that the sanitation index is higher only for audited 

versus unaudited plants in the cattle and hog slaughter industries and not 

other industries. We attribute this outcome to FSIS’s regulatory focus. FSIS 

stresses cleaning and sanitation, but mandates very little fixed investment 

and testing. This regulatory focus on sanitation may reduce the marginal 

improvements achievable through even more sanitation but may not affect 

the gains from other food safety technologies and practices. Thus, managers 

may be making discretionary food safety investments in non-sanitation technologies—operations, equipment, testing, and dehiding—since those technologies (1) may provide greater marginal improvement in food safety process 

control and (2) may offer a wider range of practices and technologies that can 

be used.

It is very important to remember that, since univariate methods were used 

in the analysis, we did not control for other factors affecting the use of food 

safety technologies. Thus, the results provide some, but not complete confidence of an association between a technology index and a group of plants 

classified by their size, firm type, and audit arrangements.15

15 Survey responses were self-reported 

by the plant, which increases the likelihood of receiving biased information, 

particularly since the survey was conducted for FSIS, a regulatory agency. 

However, we believe most of the data 

are accurate because (a) the questionnaire stated that the responses would be 

kept confidential, (b) the questionnaire 

said that only aggregated information 

would be provided to FSIS, and (c) 

most of the questions dealt with the use 

of technologies and not more sensitive 

information. It was not within the scope 

of the study to verify the responses 

through onsite visits or other methods.
27

Food Safety Audits, Plant Characteristics, and Food Safety Technology Use in Meat and Poultry Plants / EIB-82

Economic Research Service / USDA

References

Auerswald, Beth A. 1999. “Restocking the Shelves: Recovering from a 

Recall,” Food Quality. June/July.

Cates, S.C., C.L. Viator, S.A. Karns, and P.H. Siegel. June 2005. Survey of 

Meat and Poultry Slaughter and Processing Plants. Research Triangle 

Park, NC: RTI International.

Cates, S.C., S.A. Karns, J.L. Taylor, C.L. Viator, and P.H. Siegel. April 

2006. Survey of Meat and Poultry Processing-Only Plants. Research 

Triangle Park, NC: RTI International.

Cates, S.C., C.L. Viator, S.A. Karns, and M.K. Muth. 2007. “Food Safety 

Practices of Poultry Slaughter Plants: Findings from a National Survey,” 

Food Protection Trends 27(12):957-966. 

Cates, S.C., C.L. Viator, S.A. Karns, and M.K. Muth. 2008. “Food Safety 

Practices of Meat Slaughter Plants: Findings from a National Survey,” 

Food Protection Trends 28(1):26-36. 

Dillman, D.A. 2000. Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design 

Method. 2nd Ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Dunne, Timothy. 1994. “Plant age and technology use in U.S. manufacturing 

industries,” The Rand Journal of Economics 25(Autumn):488-499.

Golan, Elise, Tanya Roberts, Elisabete Salay, Julie Caswell, Michael 

Ollinger, and Danna Moore. 2004. Food Safety Innovation in the United 

States: Evidence from the Meat Industry, AER-831, USDA, Economic 

Research Service. Available at: http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/

AER831/.

Harris, Gardiner. 2010. “Egg Producer Says His Business Grew Too 

Quickly,” The New York Times, September 22. 

Li, Ji, and Neal H. Hooker, “Documenting Food Safety Claims and Their 

Influence on Product Prices,” Agricultural and Resource Economics 

Review 38(3):311-323.

Marsh, T. L., T. C. Schroeder, and J. Mintert. 2004. “Impacts of Meat Recalls 

on Consumer Demand in the USA,” Applied Economics 36(9):897-909.

McKenzie, A. M. and M. R. Thomsen. 2001. “The Effect of E. coli O157:H7 

on Beef Prices.” Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics

26(2):431-444.

Moss, Michael, and Andrew Martin. 2009. “Food Problems Elude Private 

Inspectors,” The New York Times, March 5.

Muth, M. K. 2002. “The Price of Food Safety: The Real Economic Effects 

of a Major Food Safety Regulation on Meat and Poultry,” Choices 

17(Summer):31-35.
28

Food Safety Audits, Plant Characteristics, and Food Safety Technology Use in Meat and Poultry Plants / EIB-82

Economic Research Service / USDA

Muth, Mary M., and Shawn A. Karns. 2009. Analysis of RTI/FSIS Survey 

Data on Food Safety Technologies and Practice, Co-operative Agreement 

59-5000-8-0085, prepared for USDA/ERS by RTI International, Research 

Triangle Park, NC.

Ollinger, M., D. Moore, and R. Chandran. 2004. Meat and Poultry Plants’ 

Food Safety Investments: Survey Findings, TB-1911, USDA, Economic 

Research Service. Available at: http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/

tb1911/tb1911.pdf/.

Ollinger, M. and D. Moore. 2009. The Interplay of Regulation and Marketing 

Incentives in Providing Food Safety, ERR-75, USDA, Economic Research 

Service. Available at: http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/ERR75/.

Ollinger, Michael and Valerie Mueller. 2003. Managing for Safer Food: 

The Economics of Sanitation and Process Controls in Meat and Poultry 

Plants, AER-817, USDA, Economic Research Service. Available at: 

http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/AER817/.

Piggot, N.E. and T. L. Marsh. “Does Food Safety Information Impact 

U.S. Meat Demand?” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 

86(2004):154-174.

Richard, Mitchell. 2003. “Auditing for added safety: Third-party audits 

provide insurance for meat and poultry processors,” The National 

Provisioner, October 1. Available at: http://www.allbusiness.com/

accounting-reporting/auditing/698334-1.html/.

Roberts, Tanya, Alwynelle Ahl, and Robert McDowell. 1995. “Risk 

Assessment for Foodborne Microbial Hazards” in Tracking Foodborne 

Pathogens from Farm to Table: Data Needs to Evaluate Control Options, 

Eds.: T. Roberts, H. Jensen, and L. Unnevehr, USDA, Economic Research 

Service, pp. 95-115. 

SAS Institute Inc. 2009. SAS/STAT 9.2 User’s Guide, Second Edition. Cary, 

NC: SAS Institute Inc., p. 2,514.

Shapiro, Carl. “Premiums for High Quality Products as Returns to 

Reputation,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 98, No. 4 

(November):659-680.

Simpson, Mike. “Third-Party Auditing: PAACO,” telephone interview, 

February 19, 2010.

Stier, Richard F. 2009. “Third-Party Audits: What the Food Industry Really 

Needs,” Food Safety Magazine, (Oct. & Nov). Available at: http://www.

foodsafetymagazine.com/article.asp?id=3383&sub=sub1/.

Sun, Lena H. 2010. “Conflicts of interest mar food producers’ independent inspections,” The Washington Post, October 22. Available at: 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/21/

AR2010102106900.html/.
29

Food Safety Audits, Plant Characteristics, and Food Safety Technology Use in Meat and Poultry Plants / EIB-82

Economic Research Service / USDA

Thomsen M. R. and A. M. McKenzie. 2001. “Market Incentives for Safe 

Foods: An Examination of Shareholder Losses from Meat and Poultry 

Recalls.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 83(3):526-538.

Thomsen, M. R., R. Shiptsova, S. J. Hamm. 2006. “Sales Responses to 

Recalls for Listeria monocytogenes: Evidence from Branded Readyto-Eat Meats.” Review of Agricultural Economics 28(4):482-493.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service. 2010. 

USDA Market News. Available at: http://www.ams.usda.gov/mnreports/

nw_py017.txt/. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. 2010. Red 

Meat Yearbook. Available at: http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/MannUsda/

viewDocumentInfo.do?documentID=1354/. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food Safety Inspection Service. 2010. 

Survey of Slaughter and Processing Plants. Available at: http://www.fsis.

usda.gov/PDF/SRM_Survey_Slaughter_&_Processing_Plants.pdf/. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food Safety Inspection Service. 2010. 

Survey of Meat and Poultry Processing Only Plants. Available at: http://

www.fsis.usda.gov/PDF/SRM_Survey_Meat_&_Poultry_Processing_

Only_Plants.pdf/. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service. 

2010. Poultry Slaughter Yearbook. Available at: http://usda.mannlib.

cornell.edu/MannUsda/viewDocumentInfo.do?documentID=1131/. 

Viator, C.L., S.C. Cates, S.A. Karns, and M.K. Muth. 2008. “Adoption of 

Interventions to Improve Food Safety at Meat and Poultry Processing 

Plants in the United States,” Food Protection Trends 28(12):917-927. 

Available at: http://www.foodprotection.org/publications/fpt.asp/. 

Winter, Greg. 2002. “Beef Processor’s Parent No Stranger to Trouble,” The 

New York Times, July 20.

Yudis, Kyle. 2010. ERS interview with Silliker, Inc., executive on March 1, 

2010.
30

Food Safety Audits, Plant Characteristics, and Food Safety Technology Use in Meat and Poultry Plants / EIB-82

Economic Research Service / USDA

Appendix A: Survey Procedures

Sampling Methods. The sampling frame was a Food Safety and Inspection 

Service, USDA, database of Federal and State-inspected plants that 

contains plant-level information on production volume, annual revenue, 

number of employees, inspection activities, and contact information from 

various USDA sources. All commercial plants that currently slaughter meat 

species (cattle, swine, lamb, goat, and other meat species) or poultry species 

(chicken, turkey, and other poultry species) were included in the sampling 

frame for the slaughter surveys. All commercial plants that do not slaughter 

but conduct further processing of meat and poultry were included in the 

sampling frame for the processing-only survey. Custom-exempt plants were 

excluded.16 The sample was stratified by inspection status (Federal versus 

State) and hazard analysis and critical control points (HACCP) size (very 

small, small, and large) as follows:

•	large plants have 500 or more employees, 

•	small plants have 10 or more employees but fewer than 500, and 

•	very small plants have fewer than 10 employees or less than $2.5 million 

in annual sales.

The sample design specified a sample size that was expected to yield precision of +/–5 percent or better for estimates of all proportions. For federally 

inspected plants, a systematic sample of very small plants and a census of 

small and large plants were included.17

Questionnaire Development. The questionnaire was designed to collect 

information on the use and frequency of sanitation practices, use of specific 

food safety technologies and practices, use and types of microbiological 

testing, food safety training procedures, response to the bovine spongiform 

encephalopathy (BSE) interim final rules by beef packing plants, and plant 

characteristics (e.g., age, size, and number of shifts). Plants were asked to 

provide information on their activities during the past year. The slaughter 

surveys were administered in 2004, and the processing-only survey was 

administered in 2005. Before administering the survey, the questionnaires 

were reviewed by trade associations and pretested with a small number of 

plants.

Survey Administration. A variety of procedures aimed at maximizing the 

survey response rate were used, including many of the procedures recommended by Dillman (2000). Before the start of data collection, several 

industry trade organizations sent an e-mail message to their membership or 

posted information in their newsletter and on their website that described the 

survey and encouraged their participation. Sampled plants were contacted 

by telephone to identify the plant manager and then mailed a letter on 

FSIS letterhead that described the upcoming survey. Plant managers were 

contacted by telephone to screen for eligibility and to identify the target 

respondent for the survey (if not the plant manager). The self-administered 

questionnaire was delivered via Federal Express followed by a thank you/

reminder postcard. Respondents completed the mail questionnaire and 

sent it back to RTI for keying. Those who did not respond were reminded 

16Custom-exempt plants can only 

slaughter and process livestock for the 

exclusive use of the owner.

17Systematic sampling ensures that the 

selected sample represents the population by forcing the sample to include 

plants with varying characteristics, 

such as geographic location and type of 

species.
31

Food Safety Audits, Plant Characteristics, and Food Safety Technology Use in Meat and Poultry Plants / EIB-82

Economic Research Service / USDA

through a series of telephone calls, and the questionnaire was remailed to 

nonrespondents. 

The numbers of respondents and response rates for each of the surveys are 

provided in appendix table A1.

From each of the survey datasets, we created analysis datasets to focus on 

categories of interest as follows:

•	For cattle slaughter plants, the original dataset included 384 federally 

inspected plants that slaughtered hooved animals. Plants that slaughtered 

only veal calves (4 plants), only cows and bulls (12 plants), or only other 

meat species were excluded, resulting in a final dataset of 264 plants that 

slaughtered steers and heifers. Plants that also slaughtered hogs in addition 

to steers and heifers were retained in the dataset.

•	For hog slaughter plants, the original dataset included 384 federally 

inspected plants that slaughtered hooved animals. Plants that slaughtered 

only sows and boars (19 plants) or only other meat species were excluded, 

resulting in a final dataset of 257 plants that slaughtered market hogs. 

Plants that also slaughtered cattle in addition to barrows and gilts were 

retained in the dataset.

•	For poultry slaughter plants, the original dataset included 218 federally 

inspected plants that slaughtered young chickens or young turkeys. Of 

these, 14 plants that slaughtered only poultry species other than young 

chickens or young turkeys were deleted, resulting in a final dataset of 204 

plants. 

•	For processing-only plants that produce processed products, the 

original dataset included 667 federally inspected plants. Of these, 294 

were deleted (281 that produced only products for further processing 

or produced both RTE and NRTE products and also 13 plants with no 

Appendix table A1

Survey response rates for federally inspected plants

Meat slaughter 

and processing

Poultry slaughter 

and processing

Processing 

only

----------------------Number----------------------

Respondents 384 212 672

Nonrespondents 132 45 260

Unknown eligibility 24 11 56

Ineligiblesa 50 21 98

Total sample 590 289 1,086

----------------------Percent----------------------

Weighted response rateb 70 80 68 

a Ineligibles include plants that were classified as slaughter plants but were determined not to 

have a slaughter operation, to conduct custom slaughter only, or to be out of business.

b The weighted response rate was calculated using the survey weights adjusted for unknown 

eligibility.

Sources: Cates, S.C., C.L. Viator, S.A. Karns, and P.H. Siegel. 2005. Survey of Meat and Poultry 

Slaughter and Processing Plants, Research Triangle Park, NC: RTI.

Cates, S.C., S.A. Karns J.L. Taylor, C.L. Viator, and P.H. Siegel. 2006. Survey of Meat and 

Poultry Processing-Only Plants, Research Triangle Park, NC: RTI.
32

Food Safety Audits, Plant Characteristics, and Food Safety Technology Use in Meat and Poultry Plants / EIB-82

Economic Research Service / USDA

production volumes). The resulting dataset includes 162 RTE-only plants 

and 211 NRTE-only plants.

•	For processing-only plants that produce ground beef, we included a 

plant in the dataset if at least 25 percent of its production volume was 

ground beef. From the original 166 plants with a nonzero ground beef 

production volume, the resulting dataset includes 79 plants.
33

Food Safety Audits, Plant Characteristics, and Food Safety Technology Use in Meat and Poultry Plants / EIB-82

Economic Research Service / USDA

Appendix B: Index Construction and 

Descriptive Statistics

Survey questions supporting each food safety technology index for each 

food safety technology category for cattle, hog, and poultry slaughter and 

processing plants and meat and poultry processing-only plants, as well as the 

technology or practice can be found at: 

•	Slaughter survey questions: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/PDF/SRM_Survey_

Slaughter_&_Processing_Plants.pdf/. 

•	Processing-only plant questions: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/PDF/SRM_

Survey_Meat_&_Poultry_Processing_Only_Plants.pdf /. 

The indexes were constructed as follows. First, we grouped similar technologies and practices into one of the five types of food safety practices and 

technologies described above. Second, we valued all questions equally with a 

maximum value of 1 and a minimum value of 0. Third, we assigned the most 

intensive operation within each question a value of 1 and the least intensive 

a value of 0. For example, equipment usage questions and similar questions 

had just two possible responses: 1 or 0. Many sanitation and plant operations 

questions, however, had multiple choices. For these questions, we assigned 

a 1 to operations that generate the most food safety, a 0 to operations generating the least food safety, and an intermediate value between 0 and 1 for 

operations providing intermediate food safety performance. Intermediate 

values could have been chosen on a linear, logarithmic, or some other monotonic scale. We assumed a linear relationship. Thus, if five response choices 

were provided, then values would be in fourths (0.0, 0.25, 0.50, 0.75, and 

1.0) and, if four response choices were given, then values would be thirds 

(0.0, 0.33, 0.67, 1.0).

Finally, we created a technology index for each technology category by 

summing the values of the responses for each of the questions within that 

category—plant equipment, testing procedures, plant operations, sanitation, 

and dehiding—and dividing by the number of questions, yielding an index 

value between 0 and 1. For the overall technology category, we divided the 

total of all technology questions by the total number of food safety technology questions. Examples of the index are given in Ollinger, Moore, and 

Chandran (2004)

Although we tried to create as precise an index as possible, it is important to 

recognize that the index is not exact. First, we chose a linear scale to weigh 

intermediate survey questions. Second, all pathogen-control activities within 

a category were assumed to be of equal importance. For example, sanitizing 

knives is of equal importance to washing hands and each of those is equal 

to the use of a steam vacuum unit. But, it may be that sanitizing knives is 

more important than washing hands and the steam vacuum units, in which 

case knife sanitation should have a heavier weight. Third, the five technology categories may not be of equal importance. For example, it may be 

that sanitation and cleaning is more important than equipment. To partially 

accommodate this concern, we emphasize the categorical (e.g., index of 
34

Food Safety Audits, Plant Characteristics, and Food Safety Technology Use in Meat and Poultry Plants / EIB-82

Economic Research Service / USDA

pathogen-control equipment) rather than the overall pathogen-control plant 

rating in our discussion. 

Fourth, several procedures employed in order to make a survey response 

usable may have influenced the final index values:

•	A value of 0 for binary responses and the midpoint value for frequency 

responses (responses with more than a 0/1 choice, such as a scale) were 

assigned if the question had a missing response that was not attributed to 

a skipped question. This might have had the tendency to reduce the technology index value for some plants.

•	For questions with multiple responses (e.g., circle all that apply), we used 

the response with the highest index value.

Appendix table B1 

Survey questions supporting technology indexes for meat and poultry slaughter industries1 

Type of plant Technology Question number

Cattle slaughter Dehiding 1.2, 1.6, 1.7, 1.9, 1.9a, 1.9c-e, and 3.2;

Sanitation 2.9, 2.10, 2.11, 2.13, 2.13c-g, and 5.6

Operations 1.9f, 1.9j, 1.9k, 2.13a, 2.13h, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 5.8, 5.9, and 5.11

Equipment 1.8a-k and 2.14a-g

Testing 3.1, 3.3, 3.4a-j, 3.5, 3.6a-j, 3.7, 3.8a-k, 3.9, 3.10a-h, 3.11, 3.12a-e, 

3.13a-e, and 3.14

Hog slaughter Dehiding 1.2, 1.6, 1.7, 1.9, 1.9a, 1.9c-e, and 3.2;

Sanitation 2.9, 2.10, 2.11, 2.13, 2.13c-g, and 5.6

Operations 1.9f, 1.9j, 1.9k, 2.13a, 2.13h, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 5.8, 5.9, and 5.11

Equipment 1.8a-k and 2.14a-g

Testing 3.1, 3.3, 3.4a-j, 3.5, 3.6a-j, 3.7, 3.8a-k, 3.9, 3.10a-h, 3.11, 3.12a-e, 

3.13a-e, and 3.14

Chicken slaughter Sanitation 1.2, 1.3, 1.7c-e, 2.12, 2.13, 2.14, 2.9c-g, and 5.7

Operations 1.7a, 1.7f, 1.7j, 1.7k, 2.9a, 2.9h, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 5.9, 5.1d, 5.12

Equipment 1.6a-g and 2.10a-g

Testing 3.1, 3.2, 3.3a-k, 3.4, 3.5a-k, 3.6, 3.7a-i, 3.8, 3.9a-i, 3.10, 3.11a-e, 

3.12a-e, and 3.13

Meat and poultry 

processing only 

(all categories)

Sanitation 1.9, 1.10, 1.11, 1.16c-g, and 4.6

Operations 1.16a, 1.16h, 1.16k, 1.16l, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 4.10, 4.11, and 4.13

Equipment 1.17a-i

Testing 1.18, 2.1, 2.2a-k, 2.3, 2.4a-l, 2.5, 2.6a-o, 2.7, 2.8a-k, 2.9, 2.10, 2.11a-c, 

and 2.12a-c

1 Slaughter industries include plants that only slaughter plants (i.e. slaughter-only plants) and plants that both slaughter animals 

and process raw meat.

Slaughter survey questions: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/PDF/SRM_Survey_Slaughter_&_Processing_Plants.pdf/. 

Processing-only plant questions: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/PDF/SRM_Survey_Meat_&_Poultry_Processing_Only_Plants.pdf/.
35

Food Safety Audits, Plant Characteristics, and Food Safety Technology Use in Meat and Poultry Plants / EIB-82

Economic Research Service / USDA

•	If establishments indicated more cleaning shifts than production shifts 

(suggesting they may have misunderstood the question), we set the 

number of cleaning shifts equal to the number of production shifts.

•	For cattle and hog slaughter plants, nine questions were used to construct 

the sanitation index, but eight of these questions were for further 

processing operations and one was for slaughter operations. A total of 

94 cattle slaughter or hog slaughter plants did not further process, and 

thus only 1 question comprised their sanitation indexes.18 This may have 

contributed to the lack of statistical significance for the sanitation index 

when compared across different categories of plants. 

18For poultry slaughter, 83 plants did 

not further process. However, the sanitation index for these plants is based on 

six questions.

Appendix table B2 

Slaughter industries: Mean number of types of animals slaughtered 

per industry quintile1

Size percentiles (ranked by pounds of output)

Plant type 0–19 20–39 40–59 60–79 80–99

------------Mean number of animals slaughtered------------

Cattle slaughter

 Cattle 701 563 927 4,034 498,258

 Hogs 1,773 1,652 754 5,574 1,087

 Other animals 1,370 831 524 2,805 5,991

Hog slaughter

 Hogs 4,429 5,676 2,343 15,195 1,475,331

 Cattle 587 607 388 988 421

 Other animals 1,129 620 307 8,168 164

Poultry slaughter

 Chickens 7,630,198 42,639,686 77,669,091 96,938,496 124,738,780

 Turkeys 331,055 2,233,924 4,682,837 776,822 812,496

 Other poultry 104,892 63 0 0 0

Note: Other poultry includes ducks, rabbits, geese, ratites, squab, and pigeons.

1Slaughter industries includes plants that only slaughter plants (i.e. slaughter-only plants) and 

plants that both slaughter animals and process raw meat.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service and RTI calculations. 
36

Food Safety Audits, Plant Characteristics, and Food Safety Technology Use in Meat and Poultry Plants / EIB-82

Economic Research Service / USDA

Appendix table B3 

Slaughter industries: Mean product output shares per industry quintile1

Size percentiles (ranked by pounds of output)

Plant type 0–19 20–39 40–59 60–79 80–99

----------------Mean percent of output----------------

Cattle slaughter

Raw product, not ground, 

primal cuts 28.5 45.9 59.5 74.7 84.6

Raw ground meat 41.0 37.7 24.9 10.4 13.9

Total processed product 30.5 16.4 15.6 14.9 1.5

Hog slaughter

Raw product, not ground, 

primal cuts 29.9 41.5 52.4 72.3 79.1

Raw ground meat 36.3 40.9 29.9 12.2 10.4

Total processed product 33.8 17.6 17.7 15.5 10.5

Poultry slaughter

Raw product, not ground 83.0 93.8 92.7 94.4 85.1

Raw ground poultry 11.5 4.9 1.4 2.2 8.8

Total processed 

product 5.4 1.4 5.9 3.4 6.1

1 Slaughter industries includes plants that only slaughter plants (i.e., slaughter-only plants) and 

plants that both slaughter animals and process raw meat.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service and RTI International calculations.

Appendix table B4 

Processing-only industries: Mean product output shares 

per industry quintile

Size percentiles (ranked by pounds of output)

Plant type 0–19 20–39 40–59 60–79 80–99

----------------Mean percent of output----------------

RTE products

Total raw product 8.3 13.7 8.8 4.8 1.1

Fully cooked, not shelf 

stable, such as bologna 53.1 60.7 61.6 57.5 84.5

Other processed product 38.6 25.6 29.6 37.7 14.4

NRTE products

Raw product, not ground, 

primal cuts 22.8 55.1 58.8 33.4 27.6

Raw ground meat 32.4 24.0 28.2 39.5 31.9

Processed products 44.8 20.8 12.9 27.1 40.5

Ground beef

Raw product, not ground, 

primal cuts 29.9 35.2 41.2 22.9 10.7

Raw ground meat 66.0 58.0 54.9 73.0 81.2

Processed products 4.1 6.8 3.9 4.1 8.1

Ground beef only 59.7 50.1 48.4 70.5 72.6

RTE=Ready To Eat.

NRTE=Not Ready To Eat. 

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service and RTI calculations.