GAO-13-332R New Meat Inspection Program

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

May 30, 2013

The Honorable Debbie Stabenow

Chairwoman

The Honorable Thad Cochran

Ranking Member

Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry 

United States Senate

The Honorable Frank D. Lucas

Chairman

The Honorable Collin C. Peterson

Ranking Member

Committee on Agriculture

House of Representatives

USDA’s Implementation of New State-Delegated Meat Inspection Program Addresses 

Most Key Farm Bill Requirements, but Additional Action Needed

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), contaminated foods cause 

an estimated 48 million illnesses in the United States each year, including 128,000 

hospitalizations and 3,000 deaths. Contaminated meat and poultry are responsible for 22 

percent of these illnesses and 29 percent of these deaths, according to CDC data.1 The Federal 

Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) and the Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA) give the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS) responsibility for 

protecting the public by ensuring that meat and poultry products that enter interstate commerce 

are safe, wholesome, and accurately labeled, among other things.2 Under its federal inspection 

program, FSIS inspects establishments that slaughter and/or process meat and poultry products 

in all 50 states. Federally inspected products are given federal marks of inspection—a mark, 

stamp, tag, or label—and may be shipped anywhere in the United States (interstate shipment).

3

 

1

John A. Painter, Robert M. Hoekstra, Tracy Ayers, Robert V. Tauxe, Christopher R. Braden, Frederick J. Angulo, 

and Patricia M. Griffin, “Attribution of Foodborne Illnesses, Hospitalizations, and Deaths to Food Commodities by 

Using Outbreak Data, United States, 1998–2008,” Emerging Infectious Diseases, 19, no. 3 (March 2013).

Under FMIA and PPIA, FSIS has the authority to cooperate with states in developing and 

administering state meat and poultry inspection programs to inspect and provide a state’s mark 

of inspection to meat and poultry products solely for distribution within their borders, and 27 

states have such programs. Of the 27 states, FSIS has entered into cooperative agreements 

2

See Federal Meat Inspection Act, 21 U.S.C. §§ 601-683 and Poultry Products Inspection Act, 21 U.S.C. §§ 451-472.

3

Meat and poultry products with federal marks of inspection can also be shipped to foreign countries.
Page 2 GAO-13-332R New Meat Inspection Program

with 15 states to allow them to also conduct federal inspections and convey the federal marks of 

inspection in establishments covered by the agreements.4

 

The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (the 2008 Farm Bill) authorized a new 

inspection program to support interstate shipment of meat and poultry products from selected 

establishments—with 25 or fewer employees—inspected by state agencies.5 FSIS is 

responsible for inspecting establishments that slaughter or process meat or poultry in the United 

States and for implementing the new inspection program, called the Cooperative Interstate 

Shipment (CIS) program. The new CIS program allows selected small establishments,6

The 2008 Farm Bill also directs the Comptroller General of the United States to conduct an 

audit to determine the effectiveness of the implementation of the CIS program, not less than 3 

years and not more than 5 years after enactment of the bill. On March 4, 2013, we provided a 

briefing to your staff members. This report transmits and updates the information in that briefing

(enc. I), which responded to the reporting requirement in the 2008 Farm Bill. Our objectives 

were to examine (1) FSIS’s implementation of the new inspection program and the number of 

establishments participating and (2) the inspection oversight and standards of existing 

inspection programs in which states conduct inspections for interstate shipment compared with 

those of CIS. 

which 

formerly sold only within the state in which they are located, to reach markets in other states 

and even foreign countries. The 2008 Farm Bill required FSIS to take certain actions to 

implement and oversee the CIS program and authorized it to select establishments to 

participate in the program.

Scope and Methodology

To conduct this work, we reviewed FSIS's progress, as of January 31, 2013, in four key program 

activities outlined in the 2008 Farm Bill to implement the CIS program, including (1) issuing 

regulations, (2) selecting meat and poultry establishments for participation in the program, (3) 

designating federal coordinators to ensure selected establishments are operating consistent 

with laws and regulations, and (4) establishing a technical assistance division to coordinate 

initiatives directed to very small and certain small establishments (small establishments).7

 

4

Under 7 U.S.C. § 450, commonly referred to as the Talmadge-Aiken Act, the Secretary of Agriculture is authorized 

to enter into cooperative agreements with states to assist in the administration and enforcement of federal laws and 

regulations when feasible and in the public interest. Citing this authority, FSIS has entered into Talmadge-Aiken and 

cross-utilization cooperative agreements. According to FSIS officials, cross-utilization agreements were typically used 

for smaller states. Since 2004, FSIS has recognized no substantive difference in inspection oversight and standards 

between the two types of agreements.

We 

reviewed FSIS’s implementation directives, guidance, and time frames; analyzed an FSIS report 

on establishment visits for its selection process; reviewed agreements with the four states that 

received funding from FSIS in fiscal year 2011 to pay for states’ assessment of changes they 

would need to make to comply with CIS; and discussed FSIS’s process for approving states and 

selecting establishments with FSIS officials. We also determined the number of participating 

establishments by reviewing FSIS documents on the establishments proposed for participation 

5

Also, establishments that employ more than 25 employees but fewer than 35 employees are eligible, but they must 

have 25 or fewer employees by 3 years after the effective date of the final regulation.

6

The 2008 Farm Bill provisions generally address establishments with 25 or fewer employees.

7

Very small establishments have 10 or fewer employees; certain small establishments have 25 or fewer employees, 

according to FSIS officials.
Page 3 GAO-13-332R New Meat Inspection Program

by states and approved by FSIS. In addition, we obtained views on FSIS’s implementation 

efforts from officials from USDA and certain states (i.e., the states participating in the CIS 

program, a state seeking to participate in the program, and a state that initially expressed 

interest and later decided not to participate) and from owners or operators of a nonprobability 

sample of eight establishments we visited in Ohio, Wisconsin, and Virginia. We selected 

establishments in those states based on geographic location and the establishments’ varied 

levels of interest or ability to participate in the new program. Because this is a nonprobability 

sample, the information collected cannot be generalized to all establishments but can be 

illustrative. To compare the inspection oversight and standards of existing inspection programs 

in which states conduct inspections for interstate shipment with those of the new inspection 

program, we reviewed documents, such as authorizing legislation, directives (e.g., FSIS 

Directive 5720.2, revision 3, November 16, 2004), and cooperative agreements. We also 

interviewed officials from FSIS and selected states that inspect meat and poultry products for 

interstate shipment. 

We conducted this performance audit from June 2012 to May 2013 in accordance with generally 

accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the 

audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings 

and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides 

a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

FSIS Has Met Most Key Implementation Requirements for CIS but Is Not Coordinating 

with Other USDA Agencies and Informing States

FSIS has completed most of the key activities outlined in the 2008 Farm Bill to implement the 

CIS program, including issuing program regulations, approving states and selecting 

establishments to participate in the program, designating federal coordinators for states with 

participating establishments and submitting a draft first quarterly compliance report, and 

establishing a technical assistance division. Specifically, FSIS issued the program regulations in 

May 2011, and it provided additional guidance in October 2011 instructing states on what they 

needed to demonstrate to be approved for the CIS program. After the regulations and guidance 

were finalized, FSIS approved three states (Ohio, North Dakota, and Wisconsin) and selected 

eight establishments to participate in the program, as of January 31, 2013. In addition, FSIS 

established a technical assistance division to coordinate with other USDA agencies on initiatives 

to provide outreach, education, and training to establishments and grants to states to provide 

outreach, education, training and technical assistance to establishments, as required by the 

2008 Farm Bill. 

However, the technical assistance division has not coordinated with other USDA agencies on 

initiatives to provide the assistance described in the 2008 Farm Bill, according to FSIS officials, 

although they said that such coordination could be helpful to small establishments. The officials 

said that FSIS relies on the states to convey information about CIS to their establishments, but 

that the agency does not monitor whether or how states convey such information. Coordinating 

with other USDA agencies on initiatives to provide outreach, education, and training to 

establishments and grants to states for these purposes, as well as technical assistance, would 

better position FSIS to leverage the other USDA agencies’ efforts to provide information and 

training about the CIS program to potentially interested establishments. Also, FSIS gave about 

$200,000 to four states for fiscal years 2011 and 2012 to assess the changes they would have 

to make to their inspection procedures to meet the 2008 Farm Bill requirements for CIS. 

Moreover, according to the funding agreements with these states, the results of the 

assessments by these states were intended to serve as models for other states that might be 
Page 4 GAO-13-332R New Meat Inspection Program

interested in the new program. However, FSIS officials said that they have not collected 

information from the four states—three states that have been approved for participation in CIS 

and one state that decided not to participate in the program—and FSIS does not plan to provide 

funds to other states for similar assessments. The officials could not provide an explanation as 

to why they did not collect this information, but they acknowledged that the information could be 

useful to other states that may be considering CIS. Collecting information from these four states 

could better position FSIS to share information with other states to inform their decisions about 

CIS for their small establishments.

Inspection Oversight and Standards of the Existing Inspection Programs for Interstate 

Shipment Differ from Those of the CIS Program

The inspection oversight and standards for establishments in the existing programs in which 

states conduct inspections for interstate shipment differ from those for establishments in the CIS 

program. Specifically, for the CIS program, the 2008 Farm Bill requires the federal coordinator 

for each state to (1) visit CIS establishments with a frequency that is appropriate to ensure that 

those establishments are operating in a manner that is consistent with FMIA and PPIA and (2) 

submit a quarterly food safety compliance report on each establishment to the Secretary of 

Agriculture. According to CIS program regulations, the frequency of these visits will be based 

on factors that include the complexity of the operations conducted, an establishment's schedule 

of operations, and the establishment's performance under the program. FSIS officials said the 

agency intends these visits to be conducted at least once every 3 months and to submit 

quarterly food safety compliance reports on each establishment. In contrast, under the existing 

inspection programs in which states conduct inspections for interstate shipment, FSIS inspects 

establishments and issues a compliance report about once every 4 years. FSIS officials told us 

that oversight for establishments inspected by state inspectors in the existing inspection 

programs for interstate shipment is also based on the type of operation and the establishments’ 

past performance. The officials were not able to explain why FSIS has such different 

requirements for frequency of oversight visits and compliance reporting for establishments in 

programs that all use state inspectors to convey federal marks of inspection. FSIS generally has 

discretion to change the frequency of visits under the existing programs and, in March 2013, 

officials told us the agency is considering the need to have some consistency with CIS in 

administering these programs. Reexamining the frequency of oversight visits and compliance 

reporting for the existing programs, in light of the 2008 Farm Bill requirements for the new CIS 

program and its decision to visit CIS establishments quarterly, would allow FSIS to consider 

whether more similar oversight requirements for establishments that convey federal marks of 

inspection would be beneficial. 

Under the CIS program and the existing inspection programs in which states conduct 

inspections and convey federal marks for interstate shipment, inspections must be the “same 

as” or identical to federal inspections, including legal authorities, inspector training, computer

systems, and laboratory protocols, among others. However, the fiscal year 2013 cooperative 

agreements for the existing inspection programs stipulate that inspections must be “at least 

equal to” the federal inspection standard, not the “same as.” The “at least equal to” standard 

does not require states to conduct inspections in a manner that is the “same as” the FSIS 

inspection program and does not prohibit states from establishing safeguards in their inspection 

programs that the states believe are more effective than FSIS’s safeguards. When we pointed 

out to FSIS officials that the 2013 agreements we reviewed cited the wrong standard, they 

attributed this to a mistake. The use of the “at least equal to” standard is not consistent with the 
Page 5 GAO-13-332R New Meat Inspection Program

requirements for federal marks of inspection and could also create confusion for the state 

inspectors who conduct both inspections that convey federal marks and inspections that convey 

state marks.

Conclusions 

FSIS has met most of the key 2008 Farm Bill requirements to implement the CIS program and 

has approved establishments to participate in the program. However, although FSIS designated 

a technical assistance division, the division has not coordinated with other USDA agencies on 

initiatives to provide outreach, education, and training to establishments and grants to states for 

the purposes described in the 2008 Farm Bill. Such coordination could better position FSIS to 

leverage the other USDA agencies’ efforts to provide information and training about the CIS 

program to potentially interested establishments. Additionally, although the funding agreements 

between FSIS and the four states that received a total of about $200,000 noted that the states 

would serve as models for other states that might become interested in the program, FSIS did 

not collect information from the states regarding these assessments. Collecting and sharing 

information from these four states could better position FSIS to provide other states with 

information to help inform their decisions about CIS for their small establishments. 

In addition, the CIS program and existing inspection programs for interstate shipment in which 

states conduct inspections and state inspectors convey federal marks of inspection have 

different levels of oversight and inspection standards. FSIS officials were not able to explain 

why programs that all use state inspectors to convey federal marks of inspection have such 

different requirements for frequency of oversight visits and compliance reporting for 

establishments. Now that FSIS officials have acknowledged that they are considering the need 

for some consistency in administering these programs, reexamining the frequency of oversight 

visits and compliance reporting for the existing programs, would allow FSIS to consider whether 

more similar oversight requirements for establishments that convey federal marks of inspection 

would be beneficial, especially in light of the 2008 Farm Bill requirements for CIS and the 

agency’s decision to visit CIS establishments quarterly. Additionally, although FSIS intends that 

states meet the “same as” inspection standard for the CIS and existing inspection programs, the 

fiscal year 2013 cooperative agreements with states for the existing inspection programs for 

interstate shipment specify the “at least equal to” inspection standard, which is not consistent 

with the requirements for federal marks of inspection. This could create confusion for state 

inspectors who conduct both inspections that convey federal marks and inspections that convey 

state marks. 
Page 6 GAO-13-332R New Meat Inspection Program

Recommendations for Executive Action 

We recommend that the Secretary of Agriculture direct the Administrator of FSIS to take the 

following two actions: 

• To ensure that small establishments have information about the CIS program, require 

the technical assistance division to coordinate with other USDA agencies on initiatives to 

provide outreach, education, and training to small establishments and grants to states 

for outreach, education, training, and technical assistance to such establishments, as 

described in the 2008 Farm Bill. 

• To inform and assist states that may be interested in the CIS program for small 

establishments in their states, work with the four states that received funding under 

agreements with FSIS in fiscal years 2011 and 2012 to collect information that could be 

shared with other states.

To promote more consistency between the CIS and existing inspection programs in which state 

inspectors convey federal marks of inspection, we also recommend that the Secretary of 

Agriculture direct the Administrator of FSIS to take the following two actions: 

• Reexamine the federal oversight requirements for these programs and consider 

whether more similar requirements, such as frequency of visits to establishments 

and compliance reporting by inspectors, would be beneficial and, if so, modify the 

requirements accordingly.

• Require that future cooperative agreements with states for the existing inspection 

programs stipulate the “same as” standard.

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

We provided a copy of a draft of this report to USDA for review and comment. In its written 

comments, which are reprinted in enclosure II, USDA agreed with our four recommendations 

and provided a short overview of its plans for their implementation. USDA’s letter noted that the 

CIS program builds on existing state inspection programs and that Ohio, North Dakota, and 

Wisconsin have successfully met the requirements of CIS; selected establishments in these 

states may produce products bearing the official FSIS mark of inspection and reach markets 

beyond their state border. The letter also clarified a statement in the report regarding our use of 

the term “existing state inspection programs” in several places to describe inspections by states 

under Talmadge-Aiken and cross utilization cooperative agreements. As USDA and our report 

correctly noted, Talmadge-Aiken is a federal inspection program in which state inspectors 

conduct federal inspections and convey federal marks of inspection. We revised the term to 

clarify that these are existing inspection programs in which states conduct the inspections and 

convey federal marks. 

_ _ _ _

We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Agriculture, the appropriate 

congressional committees, and other interested parties. In addition, the report is available at 

no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov. 
Page 7 GAO-13-332R New Meat Inspection Program

If you or your staff members have any questions concerning this report, please contact me at 

(202) 512-3841 or garciadiazd@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional 

Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. Key contributors to this 

report were Erin Lansburgh, Assistant Director; Daniel Semick; Kevin Bray; Bernice Dawson; 

Cynthia Norris; Luann Moy; Carol Herrnstadt Shulman; and Walter Vance.

Daniel Garcia-Diaz

Director, Natural Resources and Environment

Enclosures — 2 
Page 8 GAO-13-332R New Meat Inspection Program

Enclosure I 

Briefing Slides
Page 9 GAO-13-332R New Meat Inspection Program
Page 10 GAO-13-332R New Meat Inspection Program
Page 11 GAO-13-332R New Meat Inspection Program
Page 12 GAO-13-332R New Meat Inspection Program
Page 13 GAO-13-332R New Meat Inspection Program
Page 14 GAO-13-332R New Meat Inspection Program
Page 15 GAO-13-332R New Meat Inspection Program
Page 16 GAO-13-332R New Meat Inspection Program
Page 17 GAO-13-332R New Meat Inspection Program
Page 18 GAO-13-332R New Meat Inspection Program
Page 19 GAO-13-332R New Meat Inspection Program
Page 20 GAO-13-332R New Meat Inspection Program
Page 21 GAO-13-332R New Meat Inspection Program
Page 22 GAO-13-332R New Meat Inspection Program
Page 23 GAO-13-332R New Meat Inspection Program
Page 24 GAO-13-332R New Meat Inspection Program
Page 25 GAO-13-332R New Meat Inspection Program
Page 26 GAO-13-332R New Meat Inspection Program
Page 27 GAO-13-332R New Meat Inspection Program
Page 28 GAO-13-332R New Meat Inspection Program
Page 29 GAO-13-332R New Meat Inspection Program
Page 30 GAO-13-332R New Meat Inspection Program

 
Page 31 GAO-13-332R New Meat Inspection Program

 

 
Page 32 GAO-13-332R New Meat Inspection Program

Enclosure II: 

Comments from the Department of Agriculture
Page 33 GAO-13-332R New Meat Inspection Program
Page 34 GAO-13-332R New Meat Inspection Program

(361419)
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

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

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

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

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. 

GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through GAO’s website (www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, 

GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, 

go to www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube. 

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts. 

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov. 

Contact:

Website: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.